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


Last visit was: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:28 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:28 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - July 17, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 10 [ 2441 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:19 am   Post subject: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - July 17, 09   

]X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - July 17, 2009






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - June 19, 09

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I'm just copying over MrsDarcy's post from the previous thread so members can respond to it here if they wish:

MrsDarcy wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.



I don't think anyone expects AK to remember exactly when certain things happened. Most people don't check the clock routinely. Lying is not the same thing as "not remembering." But some things people don't forget. They don't forget if they were present during a murder. They don't forget what they did "the night before" when they are being questioned by police in a murder case. I can see if the police had questioned Amanda weeks after the murder about what happened the night of the murder and what she did; but even then I would believe the events of the night would have been seared into her brain. Look, if you asked just about everyone what they did the night before, they could tell you...not necessarily what they did at what exact moment, but generally what they did. When something traumatic or frightening is occurring, one's memory is enhanced, not diminished. The details around a traumatic experience are usually fixed in the brain and very difficult to forget.

There's nothing wrong with AK's memory. If she wanted to, she could tell the court everything that happened the night of MK's murder, right down to some very horrifying details.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:03 am   Post subject: Summer in Italy   

From NICK PISA, SKY NEWS

Edda Mellas is quoted:

Quote:
''Her friends have been to see her and they will spend the summer here and so will I - we just want to be here for her and let her know that she has our support.''


From INSIDE EDITION, a tabloid gossip television show:

Quote:
"This is, without a doubt, the absolute last person out of our friends who could even come close to being like this," said Madison Paxton, a friend of Amanda's from the University of Washington. She says it would be impossible for Amanda to commit such a vicious crime.

"She hated violence. She didn't even let people joke about violence. If there was a confrontation, if someone was yelling, she just kind of froze up," Paxton said.

She told INSIDE EDITION that Amanda's friends are outraged that she's being portrayed as drug-crazed and sex-obsessed by Italian prosecutors

Another friend, Greg Lucas, says Amanda has been railroaded by the authorities.

"They're just quick to cast Amanda as the villain [...] they want her to be guilty," he said. "I know this is not her. I just know this is not in the realm of possibilities."


It's a bit surprising that Amanda Knox's good friend, Madison Paxton decides to resurface on a Hollywood tabloid gossip tv program.

Perhaps she needed some funds for her summer in Italy?

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


Last edited by Tara on Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:07 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
I'm just copying over MrsDarcy's post from the previous thread so members can respond to it here if they wish:

MrsDarcy wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.



I don't think anyone expects AK to remember exactly when certain things happened. Most people don't check the clock routinely. Lying is not the same thing as "not remembering." But some things people don't forget. They don't forget if they were present during a murder. They don't forget what they did "the night before" when they are being questioned by police in a murder case. I can see if the police had questioned Amanda weeks after the murder about what happened the night of the murder and what she did; but even then I would believe the events of the night would have been seared into her brain. Look, if you asked just about everyone what they did the night before, they could tell you...not necessarily what they did at what exact moment, but generally what they did. When something traumatic or frightening is occurring, one's memory is enhanced, not diminished. The details around a traumatic experience are usually fixed in the brain and very difficult to forget.

There's nothing wrong with AK's memory. If she wanted to, she could tell the court everything that happened the night of MK's murder, right down to some very horrifying details.


but has she ever said she has forgotten what she did?

1) her first testimony was RS apartment,

2)then the interrogation (we can throw out imo)....

1) then it was back to the same testimony "RS apartment all night" right? I think? So only two alibi's from AK, I think.

I forget what order RS said his story, she left at 9 to 1am, then he said she was with him all night, then he said maybe she was with him all night. excuse me I don't remember his exact order either.

Interesting insight you add.
curious.......What is the most convincing evidence to you? You seem 100% convinced AK was there at the 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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
2)then the interrogation (we can throw out imo)....

1) then it was back to the same testimony "RS apartment all night" right? I think? So only two alibi's from AK, I think.


You may think we can 'throw out' the interrogation testimony but I'm afraid the court and and the majority of the public following the case disagree, at least for the slander charge. And I also think most of the public also take them into consideration in developing their own opinions in regard to the mudrer charge (and other charges), the public not being bound by the court's ruling of what should be considered and what not, especially as the rulling was on technicalities.

As for the alibis being only 'two', whilst the 'being in Raffaele's all night' may strictly only count as one alibi, in actuality it has been many alibis, since the the actual detail of 'what' they were doing all evening Raffaele's apartment all evening has 'connstantly' changed...like the tide in fact. So, when that is taken into account, it actually amounts to 'multiple' alibis.

For example, Amanda maintained that one of their activities was having a long lovey shower together culminating in Raffaele cleaning her ears. Raffael maintained that shower did not happen, so no surprise, that long shower with ear cleaning was absent from Knox's account on the stand. Knox Maintained she and Raffaele had a long deep conversation about his suicided mother and her being bullied at scholl because she was thought to be a lesbian. Raffaele did not recall this at all...so again, no surprise, that was also omitted from her account on the stand. It should also be noted at this juncture, that not one single part of her alibi matches with anything Raffaele has said.

_________________
"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 Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:14 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'm just copying over MrsDarcy's post from the previous thread so members can respond to it here if they wish:

MrsDarcy wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.



I don't think anyone expects AK to remember exactly when certain things happened. Most people don't check the clock routinely. Lying is not the same thing as "not remembering." But some things people don't forget. They don't forget if they were present during a murder. They don't forget what they did "the night before" when they are being questioned by police in a murder case. I can see if the police had questioned Amanda weeks after the murder about what happened the night of the murder and what she did; but even then I would believe the events of the night would have been seared into her brain. Look, if you asked just about everyone what they did the night before, they could tell you...not necessarily what they did at what exact moment, but generally what they did. When something traumatic or frightening is occurring, one's memory is enhanced, not diminished. The details around a traumatic experience are usually fixed in the brain and very difficult to forget.

There's nothing wrong with AK's memory. If she wanted to, she could tell the court everything that happened the night of MK's murder, right down to some very horrifying details.


but has she ever said she has forgotten what she did?

1) her first testimony was RS apartment,

2)then the interrogation (we can throw out imo)....

1) then it was back to the same testimony "RS apartment all night" right? I think? So only two alibi's from AK, I think.

I forget what order RS said his story, she left at 9 to 1am, then he said she was with him all night, then he said maybe she was with him all night. excuse me I don't remember his exact order either.

Interesting insight you add.
curious.......What is the most convincing evidence to you? You seem 100% convinced AK was there at the murder.


JFK, listen, please --
First they (RS and AK) said they were partying with friends -- this is where it started, as far as I know -- but the friends couldn't be found. This was the first cheap one. The weak attempt to conceal something. What could have been the reason for that?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

JFK wrote:

Quote:
the broken window, would lend one to call the police immediately,imo. maybe finally escalating that there was a break in and Meredith still wasn't answering her phone and not answering the bedroom door knock. Postal Police are there, cellphone calls are being done by everyone in parralell...chaos. Like AK's mom will testify using that very word, per her earlier statements.


How would they know Meredith was "still" not answering her phone when no further attempts were made to reach her? This is especially odd once they were "back" at the cottage and faced with a locked door. If Knox thought Meredith might be in there, why not try her cell phones again from up close, to see if they could be heard behind the door. JFK, I suggest you read Finn MacCool's analysis of this, using the actual phone records. And the calls are not exactly "in parallel", as the cell phone records show. (What I mean is that AK and RS were not on the phone at the same times - AK to mom is 12:47; RS to sister is 12:50; RS to 112 is 12:51 and 12:54.) Edda Mellas has not spoken of chaos with regard to the first phone call, at least not in front of a camera or to a press reporter. She says that AK told her she was home and there were strange things. She says she told AK to hang up and call the police. But the police were already there. Something doesn't add up. Well, many things in fact.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure how the Italian police would rank amongst other countries in terms of police violence. But regardless of whether *this* incident was accurately reported or not, they have been involved in incidents even much worse than what is being described here. So it can't be dismissed on the basis that that would *never* happen in Italy.


Michael wrote:
Quote:
We don't dismiss it on the basis that that would never happen in Italy. We dismiss it on the basis that Patrick has gone on public record, on numerous occassions and stated it NEVER happened and that he NEVER said it. That is good enough for me and if it isn't good enough for you, I can't envision what would be. Since he has never been found to have lied on any occassion, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, don't you?


Well, to be fair to Lane99, I can see what he/she was saying here, because he/she was specifically responding to this assertion by Nicki:

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


I think Lane's point was simply this: Merely because a particular group does not have a *reputation* for violence does not mean that violence could not happen in *one particular situation*. In other words, Lane was simply correcting what he/she perceived as faulty logic, which I think is an acceptable practice.

That is not to say that Lane, or anyone else, necessarily believes that Patrick was abused by the police --- I think he/she was simply expanding on the reasoning and the discussion.

EDIT: And I would add that I don't particularly see the connection between the lack of a death penalty and the lack of police violence. Typically, death-penalty statutes would be enacted or repealed by a legislative body that would be wholly separate from local police-governing units. Again, I'm not saying that I believe Patrick was abused --- I'm just wanting to make sure I'm using what I, personally, consider to be "good reasoning" in reaching my conclusions.

_________________
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 andy1956


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:24 am

Posts: 2

Location: Suffolk

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:51 am   Post subject: Re: Summer in Italy   

Tara wrote:
From NICK PISA, SKY NEWS

Edda Mellas is quoted:

Quote:
''Her friends have been to see her and they will spend the summer here and so will I - we just want to be here for her and let her know that she has our support.''


From INSIDE EDITION, a tabloid gossip television show:

Quote:
"This is, without a doubt, the absolute last person out of our friends who could even come close to being like this," said Madison Paxton, a friend of Amanda's from the University of Washington. She says it would be impossible for Amanda to commit such a vicious crime.

"She hated violence. She didn't even let people joke about violence. If there was a confrontation, if someone was yelling, she just kind of froze up," Paxton said.

She told INSIDE EDITION that Amanda's friends are outraged that she's being portrayed as drug-crazed and sex-obsessed by Italian prosecutors

Another friend, Greg Lucas, says Amanda has been railroaded by the authorities.

"They're just quick to cast Amanda as the villain [...] they want her to be guilty," he said. "I know this is not her. I just know this is not in the realm of possibilities."


It's a bit surprising that Amanda Knox's good friend, Madison Paxton decides to resurface on a Hollywood tabloid gossip tv program.

Perhaps she needed some funds for her summer in Italy?


The point is I think that a friend is not by definition an independant judge of character, she is a friend and is hardly likely to condemn AK. The only thing of importance is the eivdence against AK produced in court, not what her friends and family think she is like.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:00 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:10 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.


No problem. :) Yeah, I certainly don't think it would be unreasonable to want to investigate the origin of that story, if for no other reason than to figure out why the author perpetrated lies.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
Nicki wrote:
...Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press...
...the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent...



Because you're so well informed, I'm sure it's correct that he's denying it now. But has it been established that he never said it in the first place? What say the person who wrote the original article that attributed the quotes to him?

...I'm not sure how the Italian police would rank amongst other countries in terms of police violence. But regardless of whether *this* incident was accurately reported or not, they have been involved in incidents even much worse than what is being described here. So it can't be dismissed on the basis that that would *never* happen in Italy.


I've just had a thought.

Patrick's lawyer asked Amanda if she or her family had ever offered Patrick any money.

The inference is that SOMEONE offered Patrick money.

At the time I couldn't think of any reason why Patrick should be offered money.

Now I think I can. Did SOMEONE offer Patrick money to say that the police were violent when they interrogated him???

Was a fake story planted in the press when he refused????
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:06 am   Post subject: washing machine/cleanup   

Machine, I now officially submit to the evidence: the washing machine was warm.
While not necessarily convinced by one journalist, I am definitely convinced by two.

Quote:
John Hooper: The Observer, Feb 8 2009

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


So this begs the question: what was Amanda Knox doing running that washing
machine? I read that luminol will still detect blood after a machine wash, so she
wasn't washing her bloody clothing or floor-cleaning rags (unless she removed
them from the machine and threw them away in some distant place?)
Part of the reason I was hesitant about accepting that the washing machine
was warm is because I couldn't see any point to running it, given the information
we had about the contents. Do you?

Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?

Well, here's one modest idea -- they did it with bits of toilet paper that they
flushed down the non-poo-filled toilet...

Does anyone have a better? Machine?



PS. Jetlagged, your post summarizing the two possibilities was excellent. I feel
just like you the need for to put together a credible scenario. I think it's the
difficulty of doing this that gives this case its mysterious fascination.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:16 am   Post subject: Political correctness   

Truth Seeker, Mrs. Darcy

Quote:
However, I'll have to disagree with your assessment of "political correctness." I view this concept as noble - in my opinion, it leads to a respectful manner of speaking and discussion that in turns helps to foster an atmosphere of respect for all groups, whether based on race, religion, gender, creed, etc. etc. etc. I'm proud to consider myself a person who employs the concept of "political correctness."


I think you are both right. Only what people often use the words "political
correctness" for now is NOT the original concept that Truth Seeker describes.

"Political correctness" originally meant was a notion introduced in order to
encourage Americans to associate the widespread contempt for racial and other minorities
(such as handicapped people) with a feeling of shame, in the hopes of eventually replacing it
with spontaneous openness to other ways of being. Part of the notion -- only part -- consisted
in discouraging the use of certain contemptuous, insulting and very commonly words such as
"nigger". (it hasn't always worked -- anyone else notice the "dirty Jew" insult tossed out by one
of Amanda's pals on her drinking video?!) To my mind, this effort at educating the American public
towards giving value to tolerance, towards, in fact, actually becoming a better people according to
the values of tolerance, was one of those noble efforts that humanity has put forth only rarely
over the centuries, comparable to the struggle by certain Europeans at the end of the 19th century
to convince their countrymen thatcolonisation (of India, Algeria, Indochina etc.) was a catastrophe and
not a generous benefit for the local populations.

Quote:
I think you are speaking of politeness rather than political correctness. You are very polite and considerate, I agree; but you are not "politically correct." People who are "politically correct" treat anyone who does not agree with them very rudely; they attempt to silence the expression of opinion through the use of certain "sacred cow" ideas and falsely identify people as racist, etc., for expressions which are not really racist. For example, I can criticize Obama without being a racist; but for the "politically correct" the two become one, and people therefore will hesitate to criticize a political leader when he has black skin for fear of being labeled a racist. It stifles public debate.


What Mrs. Darcy is calling "political correctness" definitely exists! But it should rightly
be called "the sad, disgusting and embarrassing abuse of the notion of political correctness".
It consists in taking political correctness to such a ridiculous extreme that the notion backfires,
destroying the sense of tolerance
, by forbidding the expression of sincere and honest opinion, and
by concentrating in an obsessional manner on the demonization of innocent vocabulary words. Typically,
the last few decades in American have seen the progression through the terms of "negro", "colored" and "black"
as each one successively became taboo and wasreplaced by the following one. Today, it seems that
the only acceptable version is "African American", leading to the absurd result that Americans (as we heard on
Nancy Grace) unthinkingly term even Patrick and Rudy in this way.

This discussion makes me suspect that Truth Seeker was a kid when Martin Luther King was one of America's
greatest heros and inspired all Americans to open their arms to tolerance and feel shame at expressions of
contempt for minorities, and Mrs. Darcy was probably born around or after his death. (Answer not necessary
obviously -- I'm not trying to pry into anyone's private details!)
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Nicki wrote:
...Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press...
...the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent...



Because you're so well informed, I'm sure it's correct that he's denying it now. But has it been established that he never said it in the first place? What say the person who wrote the original article that attributed the quotes to him?

...I'm not sure how the Italian police would rank amongst other countries in terms of police violence. But regardless of whether *this* incident was accurately reported or not, they have been involved in incidents even much worse than what is being described here. So it can't be dismissed on the basis that that would *never* happen in Italy.


I've just had a thought.

Patrick's lawyer asked Amanda if she or her family had ever offered Patrick any money.

The inference is that SOMEONE offered Patrick money.

At the time I couldn't think of any reason why Patrick should be offered money.

Now I think I can. Did SOMEONE offer Patrick money to say that the police were violent when they interrogated him???

Was a fake story planted in the press when he refused????


It's certainly plausible that someone attempted to pervert the cause of justice. Raffaele's family are under investigation for similar activities. I recall there was one incident recorded of his lawyer 'finding' a knife in the garden of the cottage - the suspicion being that he had planted it there. Not sure how apocryphal these stories are though.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: Political correctness   

thoughtful wrote:

"Political correctness" originally meant was a notion introduced in order to
encourage Americans to associate the widespread contempt for racial and other minorities
(such as handicapped people) with a feeling of shame, in the hopes of eventually replacing it
with spontaneous openness to other ways of being. Part of the notion -- only part -- consisted
in discouraging the use of certain contemptuous, insulting and very commonly words such as
"nigger". (it hasn't always worked -- anyone else notice the "dirty Jew" insult tossed out by one
of Amanda's pals on her drinking video?!) To my mind, this effort at educating the American public
towards giving value to tolerance, towards, in fact, actually becoming a better people according to
the values of tolerance, was one of those noble efforts that humanity has put forth only rarely
over the centuries, comparable to the struggle by certain Europeans at the end of the 19th century
to convince their countrymen thatcolonisation (of India, Algeria, Indochina etc.) was a catastrophe and
not a generous benefit for the local populations.

Quote:
I think you are speaking of politeness rather than political correctness. You are very polite and considerate, I agree; but you are not "politically correct." People who are "politically correct" treat anyone who does not agree with them very rudely; they attempt to silence the expression of opinion through the use of certain "sacred cow" ideas and falsely identify people as racist, etc., for expressions which are not really racist. For example, I can criticize Obama without being a racist; but for the "politically correct" the two become one, and people therefore will hesitate to criticize a political leader when he has black skin for fear of being labeled a racist. It stifles public debate.


What Mrs. Darcy is calling "political correctness" definitely exists! But it should rightly
be called "the sad, disgusting and embarrassing abuse of the notion of political correctness".
It consists in taking political correctness to such a ridiculous extreme that the notion backfires,
destroying the sense of tolerance
, by forbidding the expression of sincere and honest opinion, and
by concentrating in an obsessional manner on the demonization of innocent vocabulary words. Typically,
the last few decades in American have seen the progression through the terms of "negro", "colored" and "black"
as each one successively became taboo and wasreplaced by the following one. Today, it seems that
the only acceptable version is "African American", leading to the absurd result that Americans (as we heard on
Nancy Grace) unthinkingly term even Patrick and Rudy in this way.

This discussion makes me suspect that Truth Seeker was a kid when Martin Luther King was one of America's
greatest heros and inspired all Americans to open their arms to tolerance and feel shame at expressions of
contempt for minorities, and Mrs. Darcy was probably born around or after his death. (Answer not necessary
obviously -- I'm not trying to pry into anyone's private details!)


Agreed Thoughtful. There is no problem with "political correctness" as a modern form of manners where transgression is punished by social disapproval. That is fine; it's when the law steps in to enforce it that it becomes an unnacceptable impingement on individual liberty. In the US you're fortunate to have constitutional protection for free sppech; in the UK we have a McCarthyite hysteria where a bishop can be investigated by the police just for re-stating orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:45 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

nick wrote:

Quote:
You seem to forget that Rudy has been found guilty of sexual violence and to write that "he admitted having sex with the victim" is completely misleading as it implies that the sex was consensual. Therefore the author is not correct.


i don't agree very much.
The context of the sentence in the article is the following:

"ONE VICTIM; HOW MANY KILLERS? 1 Meredith Kercher, 21, was killed Nov. 1, 2007 2 Raffaele Sollecito began dating Knox two weeks before the murder 3 Rudy Guede admitted to having sex with Kercher and was convicted of murder 4 Patrick Lumumba, named in Knox's confession, had an airtight alibi"

Which I interpret it, as close to a list of "point of views" in relation to each charachter.
The author omits to mention - or to "point out" as spomebody would hav prefered - that Rudy was sentenced also for the aggravating circumstance of sexual violence.
But the sexual motive is already assumed, known and implicit in the narrative of this murder, therfore this appears to me as a minor missing point.

While the reason for this criticism,, appears to me as that they want to point out that Meredith "did not consent" to anything.
But saying that the victim did not consent, and mention that there was a sexual violence, are two different things.
The assumption "Guede was convicted for sexual violence" is correct, a neutral assumption.
Instead, the sentence "Meredith did not consent to any of the horrors" , is not a neutral assumption.
The victim's party is not a neutral party (despite I know many here on these boards see it differently and they consider Maresca's position as neutral). But the only neutral party in the Italian process is the court. An external observer, or a judge is a neutral side, while the victim is the victim. Defending the victim's memory or their family and friends point of view is not a neutral job nor necessarily a journalists' task. There are people who don't like this basic difference but that's a difference between my view and the one bu a site like TJMK. In this case the journalist rendered - at least I perceived so - a correct information, or at least it is not troue what has been said that "Rudy's claim is unfounded". Besides, I don't ask to an author who has to write a 300 words article to be informed about all details, forensic claims and law articles, neither I am interested in having details on whether the victim made consensual things or not: I think the author made a good job, sticking to known facts with no spin.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
PERUGIA, Italy (AP) — The father of an Italian man accused of killing a British student in Italy says his son was never violent and would not "hurt a fly."

Raffaele Sollecito is on trial on charges of murder and sexual violence in the 2007 slaying of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. Sollecito's former girlfriend, U.S. student Amanda Knox, is a co-defendant on the same charges. Both deny wrongdoing.

Francesco Sollecito told the court Friday that his son is not violent. He said his son liked to carry "small knives" in his pockets, a habit he picked up when he was younger.

Kercher was stabbed in the neck. Police have testified that Sollecito carried a knife to the police station after the killing. The knife is not believed to be the murder weapon.

Trial: Father of Italian suspect testifies

Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:58 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Reading the discussion between Nick and Yummi, I think the problem is with the word "admitted" as used in the article - where a more neutral and more accurate term would be "claimed".

So, if the article said, "Rudy claimed to have had consensual relations with the victim", there would be no argument.

But to say that "Rudy admitted having sex with the victim" is misleading, as it implies that Rudy was somehow reluctant to agree that this happened.

In reality, once he had understood that he could not deny being at the scene, having a consensual liaison with the victim was the first thing that he claimed. So it's not an admission, but a claim - which other evidence may or may not support, it doesn't matter, because to say "he claimed this" is neutral, whereas "he admitted this" is not.

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

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:
Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?


The entire Swiss army.

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

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:05 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:

Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?



Fishermen, butcher, maybe a hunter, but students nnn-))
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?


The entire Swiss army.

You never know when you may be in desperate need of a corkscrew or a fish-scaler!



But I don't think this was the kind of knife that Raff was carrying...
Top Profile 

Offline JRS128


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:56 am

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:10 am   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

thoughtful wrote:

Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?



I have been thinking excatly the same question today a lot. They would have had sufficent time to get rid of the rags and such, in my opinion.
I have couple of related questions:
What parts of the house excatly where cleaned and how well?
What sort of evidence was found, that points to the cleaning of the scene?
Was the washing machine, that was warm, inspected by the police and what where their findings?

Sorry if I interrupt the conversation too much with the questions, but im a newbie here and I want to make sure I dont start spreding any false data in my future posts :|
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:14 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Reading the discussion between Nick and Yummi, I think the problem is with the word "admitted" as used in the article - where a more neutral and more accurate term would be "claimed".

So, if the article said, "Rudy claimed to have had consensual relations with the victim", there would be no argument.

But to say that "Rudy admitted having sex with the victim" is misleading, as it implies that Rudy was somehow reluctant to agree that this happened.

In reality, once he had understood that he could not deny being at the scene, having a consensual liaison with the victim was the first thing that he claimed. So it's not an admission, but a claim - which other evidence may or may not support, it doesn't matter, because to say "he claimed this" is neutral, whereas "he admitted this" is not.


I was just about to reply on this topic when you basically stole my whole post :). You're right, it was the word 'admitted' that I found hard to accept in that article. Maybe there's a subtlety there that Yummi didn't pick up, but if you were to read that piece (particularly if you were not familiar with the case) then you would assume as a documented fact that Meredith and Rudi had (consensual) sex before she was murdered. It's important to choose your words carefully when writing articles in a widely read publication. These misleading things often get regurgitated ad nauseam as we've seen many times already in this case.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

thoughtful wrote:
Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?

The clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder would also have been covered with blood. Hence Raff and Amanda walking around barefoot and showering. So they must have successfully disposed of these items, as well as the second knife, at some time during the night or early morning. They presumably would have disposed of any blood-stained cleaning materials at the same time.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Mellas also testified about three phone calls she received from Knox on Nov. 2, 2007, the morning Kercher's body was found in her bedroom.
"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.
Last week, Knox recalled going home that morning to find the front door open. She said she took a shower and saw blood in one of the apartment's bathrooms.
The second and third calls were made after Kercher's body was discovered, Mellas said.
"She was very upset, it was disturbing," Mellas said"
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.


Yes, two policemen.

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

Offline Bluetit


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:01 am

Posts: 39

Location: France

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:24 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
bolint wrote:
"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.


Yes, two policemen.



Bravo, Finn. You surpass yourself (not an easy thing to do!) yr-)
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

GreenWyvern wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?

The clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder would also have been covered with blood. Hence Raff and Amanda walking around barefoot and showering. So they must have successfully disposed of these items, as well as the second knife, at some time during the night or early morning. They presumably would have disposed of any blood-stained cleaning materials at the same time.


I see some things that don't fit, imo.

1) why would they throw one knife away and not the other? doesn't work for me.
2) there was nothing at RS apartment found or they surely would have made a huge evidence item of it.
Of course the Double-DNA knife is still to be debated by the defense. Some people are closed minded on this because they want to be. the fact is it will be debated and argued and wasn't a "blood DNA" as I understand it. and yes, Raffaele's story if pricking Meredith with it sounds like horrifically poor lying...but I digress.
3) the washing machine being ran, being warm.....why was this not brought up to AK if it was such a smoking gun?
I have always thought this was a major piece of evidence because it would insinuate a clean-up, and probably hours at the cottage not minutes. to me anyway.

looking from the perspective AK,RS, RG did this crime, they could have literally been at the cottage all night and all Nov 2 to clean up.
thats a long long time for three people to clean up. They knew no one was home, RG could have come back after intentionally dancing and making himself known for an alibi, then gone back to the cottage to cleanup the crime scene.
RS and AK could have never left the crime scene and kept cleaning?

a lot of "ifs and maybes"....

We have to give Mignini the benefit of the evidence, and he didn't make a big case around the washing machine.
I'm curious why?

interesting I had never heard about the contents in the washing machine, so they did look into? But AK never mentions doing the laundry while she showered?

Or did they wash clothes while the Police were inspecting the crime scene (sarcasm/humor)...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:48 pm   Post subject: Edda Mellas on Good Morning America   

Edda Mellas on Good Morning America this morning after testifying: She seems much more reserved than in past interviews, almost walking off before it was over.

GOOD MORNING AMERICA

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

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Short report on Dr. Sollecito's claims in court:

Sky News

They have a picture of a particuarly aggressive-looking Raffaele at the top of the page!
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

As well as a slightly longer report here:

This is London
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

La Stampa:
Quote:
"(Francesco Sollecito) Ha quindi ricordato la telefonata fatta al figlio il 2 novembre 2007, intorno alle 12.45. «Mi disse che era andato a casa di Amanda e che avevano visto dei segni di effrazione e un vetro rotto in una stanza della casa e che pensavano fosse entrato un ladro». "


That call was earlier, at 12:40.


Quote:
La madre di Amanda
Edda Mellas ha raccontato le tre telefonate che Amanda gli ha fatto la mattina del 2 novembre, giorno in cui è stato scoperto il corpo senza vita di Meredith nell'appartamento di via della Pergola. «La prima telefona - spiega la donna - mi è arrivata alle 4 della mattina, non so che ora potessero essere in Italia. Amanda mi diceva che aveva il sospetto che qualcuno potesse essere entrato in casa dato che la porta era aperta. Era solo un sospetto visto che la porta principale aveva una serratura anomala e qualche volta non si chiudeva». Ricorda poi la perplessità di Amanda, che, mentre si dirigeva verso la doccia, aveva ritrovato delle tracce di sangue nel bagno e sulla tazza, circostanza anomala che, comunque, non l'aveva spinta ad un ricerca più accurata delle cause. Successivamente la signora Knox ha confermato la versione della figlia, sostendo che avrebbe passato tutta la notte seguente a casa del fidanzato Raffaele.

«La seconda telefonata - spiega la signora Mellas - è arrivata credo un’ora dopo la prima. Amanda era completamente disperata perche nella stanza di Meredith gli ispettori avevano individuato un cadavere. Si sentivano urli e pianti». Una telefonata breve ma dopo poco Amanda richiama la madre a Seattle. «Piangendo mi disse che avevano trovato il corpo di una ragazza in camera di Amanda. Era completamente disperata».

«Amanda ha insistito molto per restare a Perugia dopo l’omicidio di Meredith Kercher, città che aveva scelto per vivere e imparare la lingua e la cultura italiana» ha continuato la madre, riportando agli inquirenti i racconti della figlia, la quale sosteneva di intrattenere un buon rapporto con Mez e le altre coinquiline del casolare di via della Pergola e di essere molto felice di aver trovato quella casa. Edda Mellas ha, infine, ricordato di aver incontrato la figlia in carcere il 10 novembre del 2007 e che, in quella circostanza la giovane «stava malissimo per il fatto che Patrick Lumumba, il musicista congolese arrestato in seguito alle dichiarazioni di Amanda e poi tornato in libertà e scagionato da ogni accusa, fosse stato trascinato in questa bruttissima situazione. Lei si sentiva malissimo per avere dato il nome di Patrick» ha detto la donna.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:57 pm   Post subject: Edda Mellas on The Today Show   

Edda Mellas on The Today Show:

THE TODAY SHOW

Interesting to note Amanda Knox's facial expression while watching her mother testify if you pause the video at the 1:04 mark.

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

GreenWyvern wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?

The clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder would also have been covered with blood. Hence Raff and Amanda walking around barefoot and showering. So they must have successfully disposed of these items, as well as the second knife, at some time during the night or early morning. They presumably would have disposed of any blood-stained cleaning materials at the same time.


I read somewhere Rudy actually stated about his bloody clothes, but it was from him coming out of the bathroom to save Meredith. That's why his clothes were all bloody. He came home and cleaned up and went out again, I believe he said.
Did Rudy ever say anything about his knife? Was it confiscated?

So if we listen to partial truths in Rudys story, he left the house at approx 11? never to return (supposedly).....

So does shit sit in a toilet for 12hrs with out falling down? I guess a forensic expert would help solve that question.
If it was "on top" as AK stated, Rudy had just left it the morning of Nov 2.

Rudy had recently befriended the guys downstairs, he was infatuated with Meredith, per the interviews.
He might have known the guys were going to be gone, being a new friend. That would leave him free to breaking in and sleeping, hanging out and stealing.

I guess, what I'm wondering is "do we know for sure, Rudy never came back to the crime scene?"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

From today's reporting of Francesco Sollecito's testimony:



Mr Sollecito is himself under investigation for leaking material relevant to the investigation to journalists in Bari and defended his actions in court.

He said: "To me and my family it is obvious that some very big mistakes have been made and my son is innocent. He has spent nearly two years in jail for something he did not do.

"Everything I did was in complete respect of the law. Once I saw the film of the scene from the first search after the murder and the subsequent one in December it was clear that mistakes had been made."

Mr Sollecito also said he knew his son had taken drugs in the past, adding that he had received a letter from police in Giovinazzo advising him about his son's drug habit.

source



I'd not heard about the police letter warning of Raffaele's drug habit. I presume we're just talking about dope here rather than anything stronger and more habit forming.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

jfk1191 wrote:
1) why would they throw one knife away and not the other? doesn't work for me.

Perhaps Rudy had the other knife and disposed of it?
Perhaps Raffaele decided to keep it as a souvenir? He's arrogant enough, and since it was an ordinary kitchen knife, he thought he was safe. Someone cleaned that knife pretty thoroughly before casually putting it back in the drawer.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:18 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
bolint wrote:
"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.


Yes, two policemen.


Her first calls were to the roomate or roomates, I think Filomena was the first person she spoke with, and this was before the Postal Police arrived.

good joke though...

The economy is so bad in the US, the Mafia is laying off Judges.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

jfk1191 wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?

The clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder would also have been covered with blood. Hence Raff and Amanda walking around barefoot and showering. So they must have successfully disposed of these items, as well as the second knife, at some time during the night or early morning. They presumably would have disposed of any blood-stained cleaning materials at the same time.


I read somewhere Rudy actually stated about his bloody clothes, but it was from him coming out of the bathroom to save Meredith. That's why his clothes were all bloody. He came home and cleaned up and went out again, I believe he said.
Did Rudy ever say anything about his knife? Was it confiscated?

So if we listen to partial truths in Rudys story, he left the house at approx 11? never to return (supposedly).....

So does shit sit in a toilet for 12hrs with out falling down? I guess a forensic expert would help solve that question.
If it was "on top" as AK stated, Rudy had just left it the morning of Nov 2.

Rudy had recently befriended the guys downstairs, he was infatuated with Meredith, per the interviews.
He might have known the guys were going to be gone, being a new friend. That would leave him free to breaking in and sleeping, hanging out and stealing.

I guess, what I'm wondering is "do we know for sure, Rudy never came back to the crime scene?"



I guess we'll never know 'for sure' jfk. You do raise a scenario that that I guess is plausible, though seems lot less less likely to me than the current prosecution theory that it was AK and RS who were at the scene and involved in any kind of clean-up or staging of a burglary.

It seems odd that RG would hang around after murdering someone, or return later (for what? To clean up?). None of the forensic evidence places him in areas such as the bathroom, but does place AK and RS MK there.

Assuming the break in was faked, it's odd that someone who did not live there would do that. If it wasn't faked then it seems just as odd that he would make such a noisy entrance to a cottage when he didn't know if anyone was currently residing there. A knock on the door would have been easier. He also didn't seem to take much interest in the more valuable items available to steal despite the extended time that he was there (based on the floating stool theory).

Regarding knowing the boys downstairs were away. Would he have also known that Amanda was staying over at RS's? Even if he was, it would seem to be a very risky strategy knowing a housemate may return at any moment. Of course we should also remember that Amanda was aware of the boys being away (as well as her other housemates) that night (though she has contradicted herself on that fact a number of times), so from a prosecution perspective that gives her and RS as much of an opportunity as it does for RG - in fact arguably more so as she lived there and would know the whereabouts of everybody, and have an interest in staging a break-in.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

so you arrive at your house, the door is open and blood on the floor.....and then you take a shower?? uh, no.... qt-)

AP from the SeattlePI

Trial: Parents of US and Italian suspects testify

.....Her mother, Edda Mellas, took the stand for two hours on Friday, testifying that there were no problems between her daughter and Kercher.

"They got along great," Mellas told the eight-member jury, speaking in a soft, unemotional voice. "She told me about the fun things she and Meredith did," she said, without elaborating.


.....Mellas also testified about three phone calls she received from Knox on Nov. 2, 2007, the morning Kercher's body was found in her bedroom.

"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.

Last week, Knox recalled going home that morning to find the front door open. She said she took a shower and saw blood in one of the apartment's bathrooms.

The second and third calls were made after Kercher's body was discovered, Mellas said.

.....Also on Friday, Sollecito's father testified his son was never violent and would not "hurt a fly."

Francesco Sollecito also told the court that his son liked to carry "small knives" in his pockets, a habit he picked up when he was younger.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

GreenWyvern wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
1) why would they throw one knife away and not the other? doesn't work for me.

Perhaps Rudy had the other knife and disposed of it?
Perhaps Raffaele decided to keep it as a souvenir? He's arrogant enough, and since it was an ordinary kitchen knife, he thought he was safe. Someone cleaned that knife pretty thoroughly before casually putting it back in the drawer.


but I thought another article said it was AK grandmothers knife from a set, and not Raffaele's?
we'll see the defense discuss the dna. this will be gone over a lot I would imagine.

yes, I wonder if RG tossed it with the cellphones on the way back to his apartment to clean up after the murder, or the following morning after the clean-up as Rudy took the path back to his apartment after returning to the crime scene and maybe stealing the money?

It seems possible another knife could still be somewhere along that path where the cellphones were found.
I'm speaking of the path Kermit plotted out showing that the location of the discovered cellphones appear to be north of the cottage and south to the both RS & RG apartments. (Kermit did a great powerpoint showing all the locations).

just a thought. I mean it is interesting Merediths cellphones were found at a location in between the cottage and RS and RG apartments..... not south, east, or west.....but found in the direction of RS and RG's place and the cottage.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: Political correctness   

thoughtful wrote:
I think you are both right. Only what people often use the words "political
correctness" for now is NOT the original concept that Truth Seeker describes.

"Political correctness" originally meant was a notion introduced in order to
encourage Americans to associate the widespread contempt for racial and other minorities
(such as handicapped people) with a feeling of shame, in the hopes of eventually replacing it
with spontaneous openness to other ways of being. Part of the notion -- only part -- consisted
in discouraging the use of certain contemptuous, insulting and very commonly words such as
"nigger". (it hasn't always worked -- anyone else notice the "dirty Jew" insult tossed out by one
of Amanda's pals on her drinking video?!) To my mind, this effort at educating the American public
towards giving value to tolerance, towards, in fact, actually becoming a better people according to
the values of tolerance, was one of those noble efforts that humanity has put forth only rarely
over the centuries, comparable to the struggle by certain Europeans at the end of the 19th century
to convince their countrymen thatcolonisation (of India, Algeria, Indochina etc.) was a catastrophe and
not a generous benefit for the local populations.


What Mrs. Darcy is calling "political correctness" definitely exists! But it should rightly
be called "the sad, disgusting and embarrassing abuse of the notion of political correctness".
It consists in taking political correctness to such a ridiculous extreme that the notion backfires,
destroying the sense of tolerance
, by forbidding the expression of sincere and honest opinion, and
by concentrating in an obsessional manner on the demonization of innocent vocabulary words. Typically,
the last few decades in American have seen the progression through the terms of "negro", "colored" and "black"
as each one successively became taboo and wasreplaced by the following one. Today, it seems that
the only acceptable version is "African American", leading to the absurd result that Americans (as we heard on
Nancy Grace) unthinkingly term even Patrick and Rudy in this way.

This discussion makes me suspect that Truth Seeker was a kid when Martin Luther King was one of America's
greatest heros and inspired all Americans to open their arms to tolerance and feel shame at expressions of
contempt for minorities, and Mrs. Darcy was probably born around or after his death. (Answer not necessary
obviously -- I'm not trying to pry into anyone's private details!)



Those are good points, Thoughtful. (Although I'll point out that I've talked with various black acquaintances who've told me that they find the term "black" completely acceptable.) Oh - I was born in 1970. :)

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
bolint wrote:
"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.


Yes, two policemen.


Now that gave me a belly laugh :)

But....on a serious note oop-)

The problem with that for Amanda, is that she can't now simply say that's what she 'thought' she said to her mother but must have been wrong due to bad memory...she can't retract that. Her mother has confirmed it and the time of the call is on record.

This explains the defence strategy they have been engaged in up to now....as in discussion earlier with jfk, the defence have never tried to fall back on the excuse that the content of the calls is unreliable due to Knox's bad memory of what she said in them...people like Edda Mellas have all along 'confirmed' exactly what she said in them...Amanda could never deny saying those things. The defence also had the phone records, so they knew the time. So how to 'explain' Amanda's telling her mother that she thought someone was in the house with her (present tense) at 12:47? The defence were always forced to try and claim that the Postal Police never arrived until 13:00/05....because only that would excuse/explain what Amanda said in her calls (although, even then, there would be problems...eg, why no mention in the earlier calls to Filomena of the feared intruder?).

Unfortunately, claiming the postal police arrived post 13:00 won't fly either. This is a MAJOR problem for the defence.

Then of course, Amanda claims no knowledge/memory of having made the call in the first place. This suggests two things to me. Firstly, that that call was 'calculated'. Secondly, that the content of the call was always with the intention of giving the impression that it was made earlier then it was and that it was meant to obtain some form of an alibi.

_________________
"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 Bluetit


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:01 am

Posts: 39

Location: France

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
La Stampa:
<...>
Quote:
La madre di Amanda
<...>
«La seconda telefonata - spiega la signora Mellas - è arrivata credo un’ora dopo la prima. Amanda era completamente disperata perche nella stanza di Meredith gli ispettori avevano individuato un cadavere. Si sentivano urli e pianti». Una telefonata breve ma dopo poco Amanda richiama la madre a Seattle. «Piangendo mi disse che avevano trovato il corpo di una ragazza in camera di Amanda. Era completamente disperata».



Strange (Freudian ?) slip -- probably from the reporter, though ...
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

jfk1191 wrote:
It seems possible another knife could still be somewhere along that path where the cellphones were found.

I'm speaking of the path Kermit plotted out showing that the location of the discovered cellphones appear to be north of the cottage and south to the both RS & RG apartments. (Kermit did a great powerpoint showing all the locations).


The directions are wrong here. The cellphones were about a kilometer west of the cottage and a few meters north of the apartments of RS and RG.

Kermit showed that even if the adjacent city gate was closed for the night there was another one (two in fact) just to the west.

The other knife could have been disposed of anywhere along the route. There are environmental dumpsters very close to the house. And there was a major excavation of Via Garibaldi for about 100 meters at one of those two western gates.

You can find shots of all these locations on past posts on TJMK.

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

mojo wrote:
[...]

"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.[...]



Why didn´t she think that somebody was in the house 2 hours earlier before the call?

I mean, the situation at arround 10-11 a.m. (shower) was exactly the same as the situation when she called her mother the first time.

- Before showering: she is alone, the frontdoor is left open, but she didn´t to worry about anything, otherwise she wouldn´t have showered

- 2 Hours later: same situation inside and outside the cottage (but she is not alone) and now she is worried and thinks that someone was in the house??? sh-)))

No way!!! Who is going to believe that?
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?


The entire Swiss army.



:lol: I have to say that my brothers (who live in the country and have horses and are always cutting straw bales, digging out slivers, etc. etc. etc.) pretty much always carry knives with them, and they are some of the most pacifist people I know. But it's when you combine the knife-carrying with the meat-cleaver photo, the bestiality porn, the violent Manga comics, etc., that things start to seem a tad . . . off . . . shall we say.

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

mojo wrote:
so you arrive at your house, the door is open and blood on the floor.....and then you take a shower?? uh, no.... qt-) .


I'm going to revisit Kermits powerpoints.

yeah,mojo... thats a bizarre one to think of from your point of view.

but as I read later the bathroom wasn't anything like the bedroom.
check out the videos and some early forensic clips its hard to even see blood in the bathroom.

IDK,taking a fast shopwer, in a multiple dwelling with several college roomates coming and going and partying and cooking..etc..etc..laundry, and shared things...
its not so surprising, to ignore things, maybe note them mentally, and zoom thru the place, for a fast shower, and hurry to go to lunch with your boyfriend. I've lived in places like that. Its multiple people living in there, even food gets shared, towels, toilet paper, everything is shared.

the case is starting to appear to hinge more on the footprints. the dna. and autopsy.

I think the police know, they get to interview people, look at real evidence, not filtered and allowable evidence for the courts. Their pay doesn't go up if their innocent or guilty.
They get to see peoples faces and they know.
I would almost always agree with the policemans story, the detectives. I ahven't read their testimony yet.

Like in the OJ case, the two LAPD detectives, Tom Lange and Phillip VanAtter, knew and had all they needed to convince them self OJ committed the sloppy crime of passion. per their book.
The case was lost in the court with lawyers and inadmissible evidence etc.. imo.

Probably why a lot of us who witnessed that case, don't feel so confident in any outcome yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

JL wrote:
Assuming the break in was faked, it's odd that someone who did not live there would do that. If it wasn't faked then it seems just as odd that he would make such a noisy entrance to a cottage when he didn't know if anyone was currently residing there. A knock on the door would have been easier. He also didn't seem to take much interest in the more valuable items available to steal despite the extended time that he was there (based on the floating stool theory).


In fact, a knock on the door would have been the only thing that would have made sense. Rudy always had a pretext to knock on that door...he knew the occupants of both the upstairs and downstairs apartments, so had he knocked and someone had answered, he need only have said he was looking for one of occupants of the other apartment and enquired if they'd seen them. Ready made excuse to knock on the door. If on knocking and nobody answered, he then could have broken in at his leisure, if that was the goal, and in a way far easier, safer and quieter then throwing a giant rock at high velocity through an upstairs window (an uncontrolled window breaking), especially when he didn't even know if anyone was in or not. This is without figuring out how he was able to get the rock through two sets of shutters, climb up a high vertical wall with no means of purchase, make entry through a tiny hole in the glass and mangae to get hold of the catch on the inside to open the window and gain entry and all without injuring himself or leaving the slightest bit of forensic evidence on or around the window or in Filomena's room. And this too, right under the glare of the street lights right on the main road in full view of passing traffic, any passing neighbour or any neighbour that happened to look out of their window.

_________________
"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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
This explains the defence strategy they have been engaged in up to now....as in discussion earlier with jfk, the defence have never tried to fall back on the excuse that the content of the calls is unreliable due to Knox's bad memory of what she said in them...people like Edda Mellas have all along 'confirmed' exactly what she said in them...Amanda could never deny saying those things. The defence also had the phone records, so they knew the time. So how to 'explain' Amanda's telling her mother that she thought someone was in the house with her (present tense) at 12:47? The defence were always forced to try and claim that the Postal Police never arrived until 13:00/05....because only that would excuse/explain what Amanda said in her calls (although, even then, there would be problems...eg, why no mention in the earlier calls to Filomena of the feared intruder?).


According to her mother, Amanda said:

"Mom, I'm OK, I'm home, but I think somebody might have been in my house."

That was at 12.47, AFTER they saw the broken window and the ransacked room.

Don't you think it's rather obvious that by "somebody" she was referring to the 'intruder'?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

mistercrunch wrote:
mojo wrote:
[...]

"In her first call, she said she thought somebody was in the house," Mellas said.[...]



Why didn´t she think that somebody was in the house 2 hours earlier before the call?

I mean, the situation at arround 10-11 a.m. (shower) was exactly the same as the situation when she called her mother the first time.

- Before showering: she is alone, the frontdoor is left open, but she didn´t to worry about anything, otherwise she wouldn´t have showered

- 2 Hours later: same situation inside and outside the cottage (but she is not alone) and now she is worried and thinks that someone was in the house??? sh-)))

No way!!! Who is going to believe that?


Actually, if you read back on the old Haloscan, you'll See Chris Mellas' account of that phone call. He made it very clear that Amanda gave Edda and he the impression that she had only more or less at that moment just got out of the shower. That she had then gone into the larger bathroom and seen that the mess in the toilet had vanished, causing her to fear that 'someone' had flushed the toilet while she was in the shower...ergo, someone was in the house with her. Amanda was in a panic, terrified, in tears! They told her to call the police. She told them she was going back to get Raffaele.

But of course, we now know that that call was made well over an hour after her shower and Raffaele was already with her. We also know the postal police were there.

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


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

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Her first calls were to the roomate or roomates, I think Filomena was the first person she spoke with, and this was before the Postal Police arrived.


Actually, Edda means the first of the three phone calls to herself. This "first" call is the one that there's been such a lot of discussion about - it was at 1247. This is the call that Amanda claims she can't recall making.

Even at the time, it seemed strange to Edda herself that Amanda had forgotten this call. Here's the conversation from prison, dated Saturday November 10 2007, quoted by Maresca during the present trial. (NB, this is my translation back into English from Italian, so it might not be the exact words, but more or less it goes like this.)

Edda (surprised):But you called me three times.

Amanda: Oh, I don't remember that.

Edda: Okay, you called me once to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.

Amanda: I know I was making calls, I remember calling Filomena, but I really don't remember calling anyone else. I just don't remember having called you.

Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?

Amanda: Yes, right.

So Maresca and Comodi drew the court's attention to that conversation last weekend. That's the call that Edda was testifying about there - and yes, it's a bit ironic that she says Amanda claimed she thought someone was in the house (does she mean "was" or "had been", I wonder? - it will be worth checking the transcript or better still, the audio, as and when we get it) when of course the prosecution allege that the police had already been there for fifteen minutes or so. In fact, it's possible even that Luca and Marco were in the house by 1247.

Ninety seconds after that call, Raffaele called Vanessa, and then directly called 112 twice. Amanda is certainly in the background for the second 112 call, even though she claims not to have been present for the call to Vanessa that directly preceded the 112 calls (and directly followed that call to her mother).

That call ended at 12:55:36. And Filomena's friend Paola testified that she saw Raffaele and Amanda come out of Amanda's bedroom shortly before one o'clock.

So that's the problem of that phone call.

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

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:06 pm   Post subject: Great friends?   

From mojo's Seattle PI AP article:

""They got along great," Mellas told the eight-member jury, speaking in a soft, unemotional voice. "She told me about the fun things she and Meredith did," she said, without elaborating."

What happened to Edda's animated description on The View of Meredith and Amanda going dress shopping, going to bookstores and attending the chocolate festival together? What about the story of Meredith texting Amanda "over and over" on Halloween night asking what was going on?

After hearing about the special lunch Meredith arranged to have Amanda meet her English girlfriends, and Amanda's subsequent shunning in order to hang out with italians, I doubt the two did very much together after that insensitive comment.

Meredith isn't here to verify, so we'll never know for sure.

And, Edda Mellas is under oath now.

r-((
rip-)

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


Last edited by Tara on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
This explains the defence strategy they have been engaged in up to now....as in discussion earlier with jfk, the defence have never tried to fall back on the excuse that the content of the calls is unreliable due to Knox's bad memory of what she said in them...people like Edda Mellas have all along 'confirmed' exactly what she said in them...Amanda could never deny saying those things. The defence also had the phone records, so they knew the time. So how to 'explain' Amanda's telling her mother that she thought someone was in the house with her (present tense) at 12:47? The defence were always forced to try and claim that the Postal Police never arrived until 13:00/05....because only that would excuse/explain what Amanda said in her calls (although, even then, there would be problems...eg, why no mention in the earlier calls to Filomena of the feared intruder?).


According to her mother, Amanda said:

"Mom, I'm OK, I'm home, but I think somebody might have been in my house."

That was at 12.47, AFTER they saw the broken window and the ransacked room.

Don't you think it's rather obvious that by "somebody" she was referring to the 'intruder'?


The problem is Lancelotti, those aren't the versions of the accounts we've heard. Why was the window not mentioned? And it certainly doesn't escape the problem of the lack of mention in regard to the presence of the postal police.

And I just need to correct you on something here...Amanda wasn't telling Edda someone might 'have' been in the house (past tense), but that someone possibly 'was' in the house with her (in the present tense).

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


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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

Fast Pete wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It seems possible another knife could still be somewhere along that path where the cellphones were found.

I'm speaking of the path Kermit plotted out showing that the location of the discovered cellphones appear to be north of the cottage and south to the both RS & RG apartments. (Kermit did a great powerpoint showing all the locations).


The directions are wrong here. The cellphones were about a kilometer west of the cottage and a few meters north of the apartments of RS and RG.

Kermit showed that even if the adjacent city gate was closed for the night there was another one (two in fact) just to the west.

The other knife could have been disposed of anywhere along the route. There are environmental dumpsters very close to the house. And there was a major excavation of Via Garibaldi for about 100 meters at one of those two western gates.

You can find shots of all these locations on past posts on TJMK.

Peter Quennell


Your right, my compass was wrong...and I was assuming only one of the two options Kermit mentioned, I was assuming the person who ditched the cellphones took the Via del Bulagio route.

the power point is even more powerful now than my first review. a lot of great visuals.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
The problem is Lancelotti, those aren't the versions of the accounts we've heard.

That was a quote by Mrs.Mellas. There are several versions?

Quote:
And it certainly doesn't escape the problem of the lack of mention in regard to the presence of the postal police.


Well, according to Amanda they weren't there yet...

Quote:
And I just need to correct you on something here...Amanda wasn't telling Edda someone might 'have' been in the house (past tense), but that someone possibly 'was' in the house with her (in the present tense).

she thought that somebody was in the house with her while she was taking a shower, because of the loo thing..
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
The problem is Lancelotti, those aren't the versions of the accounts we've heard.
Quote:
That was a quote by Mrs.Mellas. There are several versions?

Quote:
And it certainly doesn't escape the problem of the lack of mention in regard to the presence of the postal police.

Well, according to Amanda they weren't there yet...

Quote:
And I just need to correct you on something here...Amanda wasn't telling Edda someone might 'have' been in the house (past tense), but that someone possibly 'was' in the house with her (in the present tense).

she thought that somebody was in the house with her while she was taking a shower, because of the loo thing..


She was giving Edda the impression that she thought someone was in the house with her right there and then Lancelotti, right at the same moment she was talking to Edda on the phone. It's clear also from that conversation, in that what Edda has said about it on record many times and what Chris Mellas made clear on Haloscan, that Amanda was giving them the impression the she had only just that moment gotten out of the shower...a shower which 'actually' took place (if it had at all) well over an hour earlier.

_________________
"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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Just watching the abc interview of Amanda's Mother.. it is obv how they are painting the Italian legal system as a joke.. and that they hope given the mess of a court system that the "good old innocent" american girl will be served justice.. and if not.. then it is a corrupt and joke of a system over there in Italy.

Why this has gotten political I think.. for some people. Is that in the States under Bush.. they were so isolated further from the rest of the world. They knew what the rest of the world.. Europe etc thought of them.. their president and what was going on. They kind of got defensive.. E.g. Freedom fries and pouring french wine down drains.. One of the Fox guys was even saying recently that they should do the same to Spain bc they are trying to get some of the Rep's into court for the stuff in Iraq. To me it seems if someone does not agree with the states (sorry not all of the people in the states the people to the right.. the people who are blindly patriotic) they get thier back up, pull away and say how stupid of inferior the other people or country are.. and in Europes case... say where would they be if we didnt help them in WW2.

That to me is what is happening in the media there. The one women who has spoken some sense is actually a conservative republican (which bemuses me, but it was also a chance for her to take a stab at the liberals at the NY Times)

I really think she is guilty. And hope justice is served. I just dont really want to see the media's reaction in the States when this happens. And wonder what would or could happen?

Yes I feel sorry for the family of AK. Really sorry for them. And can understand them throwing everything at this.. It would be good to get some objective reporting from people in the media in the States (then again people there or supporters of AK would prob say the same about the media in Italy).. and that is how it is with rep's and dem's in the USA as well.

Bit of a ramble sorry. But that news story and interview was a shocker.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?


The entire Swiss army.

:lol: I have to say that my brothers (who live in the country and have horses and are always cutting straw bales, digging out slivers, etc. etc. etc.) pretty much always carry knives with them, and they are some of the most pacifist people I know. But it's when you combine the knife-carrying with the meat-cleaver photo, the bestiality porn, the violent Manga comics, etc., that things start to seem a tad . . . off . . . shall we say.



Don't forget Padre Pio and his ambiguous reputation:

His accusers brought several accusations against him, including insanity, immoral attitude towards women - claims that he had intercourse with women in the confessional; misuse of funds, and deception...

About the swiss army knife: Despite it's true that everybody who served in the swiss army has one (though i served in a hospital i have one too) and you can find them often in our bags, it is considered a tool more than a weapon. It's not more dangerous than, say, a rock (We'd use rocks to defend our Rütli-schwur rt-)) ). If somebody would carry locking knives around (and not a multitool), it would be pretty odd even in Switzerland!
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

justlooking wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Which in turn leads me to another question I've been asking myself
for a long time: with what was the apartment cleaned up and the floor wiped
down? Especially if, as some have suggested, the cleanup was interrupted
by the arrival of the postal police? We used to have the possibility that
they cleaned up with the mop and then cleaned the mop thoroughly at Raffaele's
place, but I believe that forensic evidence of the mop has not supported that
hypothesis. There were no rags, bloodstained paper towels, nothing in the
washing machine, nothing at all apparently found that could be part of a clean-up.
Isn't that strange?

The clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder would also have been covered with blood. Hence Raff and Amanda walking around barefoot and showering. So they must have successfully disposed of these items, as well as the second knife, at some time during the night or early morning. They presumably would have disposed of any blood-stained cleaning materials at the same time.


I read somewhere Rudy actually stated about his bloody clothes, but it was from him coming out of the bathroom to save Meredith. That's why his clothes were all bloody. He came home and cleaned up and went out again, I believe he said.
Did Rudy ever say anything about his knife? Was it confiscated?

So if we listen to partial truths in Rudys story, he left the house at approx 11? never to return (supposedly).....

So does shit sit in a toilet for 12hrs with out falling down? I guess a forensic expert would help solve that question.
If it was "on top" as AK stated, Rudy had just left it the morning of Nov 2.

Rudy had recently befriended the guys downstairs, he was infatuated with Meredith, per the interviews.
He might have known the guys were going to be gone, being a new friend. That would leave him free to breaking in and sleeping, hanging out and stealing.

I guess, what I'm wondering is "do we know for sure, Rudy never came back to the crime scene?"



I guess we'll never know 'for sure' jfk. You do raise a scenario that that I guess is plausible, though seems lot less less likely to me than the current prosecution theory that it was AK and RS who were at the scene and involved in any kind of clean-up or staging of a burglary.

It seems odd that RG would hang around after murdering someone, or return later (for what? To clean up?). None of the forensic evidence places him in areas such as the bathroom, but does place AK and RS MK there.

Assuming the break in was faked, it's odd that someone who did not live there would do that. If it wasn't faked then it seems just as odd that he would make such a noisy entrance to a cottage when he didn't know if anyone was currently residing there. A knock on the door would have been easier. He also didn't seem to take much interest in the more valuable items available to steal despite the extended time that he was there (based on the floating stool theory).

Regarding knowing the boys downstairs were away. Would he have also known that Amanda was staying over at RS's? Even if he was, it would seem to be a very risky strategy knowing a housemate may return at any moment. Of course we should also remember that Amanda was aware of the boys being away (as well as her other housemates) that night (though she has contradicted herself on that fact a number of times), so from a prosecution perspective that gives her and RS as much of an opportunity as it does for RG - in fact arguably more so as she lived there and would know the whereabouts of everybody, and have an interest in staging a break-in.


or a third scenario...all three of them did the clean-up into the wee-hours morning of Nov 2 before sunrise, from when Rudys "dancing around town" alibi disappears. a lamp was needed for extra light as the victims body was moved and rolled over. clean-up in progress.

If its so obvious a cleanup was done, and even more so a mop and bleach possibly used....why in the world did I read the mop and bucket sat outside the cottage for months? someone said you can see it in the pictures!

if they got miniscule dna off the Knife, wouldn't the mop be totally investigated and tested?


Last edited by jfk1191 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

petafly wrote:
It's not more dangerous than, say, a rock (We'd use rocks to defend our Rütli-schwur rt-)) ).


Aw man, where was that rock-throwing emoticon when we needed it the other day? :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 Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

jfk1191 wrote:
Your right, my compass was wrong...and I was assuming only one of the two options Kermit mentioned, I was assuming the person who ditched the cellphones took the Via del Bulagio route.

the power point is even more powerful now than my first review. a lot of great visuals.


Yes via Garibaldi is the one obvious walking route. RS and RG must have passed one another countless times.

Via del Bulagio and then vis Speranio are absolutely the route to take by car, if the phones were tossed from a car as some think.

This is an astonishing dip down and up again though, and there are no footpaths. Exciting drive for sure but I never saw any pedestrians!

All of the ring-road around the old walled city including via Pergola right by the house is something of a death trap. All of the cars really race along.

I havent ever seen it stated here ever, but those who lived in Meredith's house sure had to be nimble crossing or walking along via Pergola.

The safest route is up through the parking facility right opposite, and then up the steel stairs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

jfk1191 wrote:
If its so obvious a cleanup was done, and even more so a mop and bleach possibly used....why in the world did I read the mop and bucket sat outside the cottage for months? someone said you can see it in the pictures!


Yeah there is a shot of that mop and bucket on TJMK but it was not the one in question which was collected in the first sweep for evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

gungadin wrote:
Just watching the abc interview of Amanda's Mother.. it is obv how they are painting the Italian legal system as a joke.. and that they hope given the mess of a court system that the "good old innocent" american girl will be served justice.. and if not.. then it is a corrupt and joke of a system over there in Italy.

Why this has gotten political I think.. for some people. Is that in the States under Bush.. they were so isolated further from the rest of the world. They knew what the rest of the world.. Europe etc thought of them.. their president and what was going on. They kind of got defensive.. E.g. Freedom fries and pouring french wine down drains.. One of the Fox guys was even saying recently that they should do the same to Spain bc they are trying to get some of the Rep's into court for the stuff in Iraq. To me it seems if someone does not agree with the states (sorry not all of the people in the states the people to the right.. the people who are blindly patriotic) they get thier back up, pull away and say how stupid of inferior the other people or country are.. and in Europes case... say where would they be if we didnt help them in WW2.

That to me is what is happening in the media there. The one women who has spoken some sense is actually a conservative republican (which bemuses me, but it was also a chance for her to take a stab at the liberals at the NY Times)

I really think she is guilty. And hope justice is served. I just dont really want to see the media's reaction in the States when this happens. And wonder what would or could happen?

Yes I feel sorry for the family of AK. Really sorry for them. And can understand them throwing everything at this.. It would be good to get some objective reporting from people in the media in the States (then again people there or supporters of AK would prob say the same about the media in Italy).. and that is how it is with rep's and dem's in the USA as well.

Bit of a ramble sorry. But that news story and interview was a shocker.


I think because the jurors and judges aren't sequestered in this case, they can see the media articles.
So the defense is probably answering to this with media/pr, as is the prosecution. I'm guessing.

Lets be honest, most have internet connections and at least read newspapers & magazines.
If you were a juror or judge, you wouldn't be tempted to peak a look?
In over a year or so...and your family discussing it. It would be humanly impossible! imo. :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lane wrote:

Quote:
You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.


If I may just put Nicki's weariness within a context: This UK tabloid article has been discussed on this board (or previous iterations) ad nauseum. Was it AK or someone else who testified just last week that Patrick Lumumba doesn't really speak English? He appeared on television and on record in the Italian press, saying that the quotes attributed to him were wrong. He rectified all that and has recently reiterated his position, testifying under oath about how he was treated by police.

Lane, if you want to know how the tabloid writer "feels", then you should write to him or her and ask! For me, Patrick's testimony under oath trumps tabloid attributions.

Incidentally, I cringe whenever anyone on this board posts stuff from the tabloids as if it were information. My position on tabloid gossip is pretty well known here. It should not be taken as the truth where reliable information refuting it can be found. This goes for tabloid garbage about anyone - in particular Amanda Knox. The early tabloid stuff is mostly crap (which is not to say it all is).

There is enough reliable information out there, provided by good reporters working for reputable media. Forget the tabloids!

I have heard that reports in English about Edda's testimony will be sparse as she is not expected to add anything new. Maybe the Italian press will come to the rescue.

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

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:

Q: How many non-violent people do you know who regularly carry knives around?


Sikhs carry around knives. There have been a couple cases in the Canadian Courts if Sikh boys carry knives or not, which I believe is important identity as a Sikh male, the knife is ornamental, but there has been back and forth in the courts. Mainly public safety versus religious tolerance.

A group known to be semi normal unless they indulge their drug induced meal of sheep entrails, oats and malted beverages. Scots have their ornamental dagger as part of their traditional Scottish kilt wearing ways. I don't know if other Celts have knives as part of the kilt kit, or traditional dress.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Apparently, the influential Poppa Sollecito managed to avoid being questioned today about the phone tap where he tells his son not to be too worried about the murder trial because "money can make water run uphill".

He also was not asked about the ABC interview where in direct contrast to Momma Edda's loving testimony, he said about Amanda :"She has ruined my son's life," "I damn the day he met her."

Although his son was in trouble with local police for drugs, collected and enjoyed knives, posessed violent porn books...Poppa Sollecito just gets respectful powder puff questions allowing him to blabber on about how his non violent Son "would not hurt a fly".

Maybe water does run uphill.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
The problem is Lancelotti, those aren't the versions of the accounts we've heard.

That was a quote by Mrs.Mellas. There are several versions?

Quote:
And it certainly doesn't escape the problem of the lack of mention in regard to the presence of the postal police.


Well, according to Amanda they weren't there yet...

Quote:
And I just need to correct you on something here...Amanda wasn't telling Edda someone might 'have' been in the house (past tense), but that someone possibly 'was' in the house with her (in the present tense).

she thought that somebody was in the house with her while she was taking a shower, because of the loo thing..



The prosecution obviously has a tape of the concversation Amanda and Edda had in prison regarding that first 12:47 phone call.

The one that Amanda can't remember.

I'm in the process of digging up what was said about this phone call in the early days. It's always been obvious that the contents of that phone call as described by Edda to Amanda on the 10th November do not fit with the fact that the police were on the scene.

This the first comment by Chris Mells on the subject on Haloscan 2.

Quote:
The time thing is something I have not asked about with regards to it being case related but I feel that I can atleast say a bit on it.
There WAS some question, as you have one here, with regards to the timeline of events. It has been resolved to our satisfaction. The timeline is as it has been stated.
Our call was made well before the postal police were on the scene.
I will not go further into it. Sorry.


More to follow as I dig it up, but you can surely appreciate the problem this phone call and it's contents as described by Edda creates for the defense since it can be proven that the police were already on the scene well before that call was made.
Top Profile 

Offline kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:26 pm   Post subject: when they are found guilty   

When the defendants are found guilty, it will be intersting to see what type of analysis there will be concerning putting AK on the stand. My opinion is the defense should not have put her on the stand. Statements like," In the end, I only knew Meredith for a month and I need to get on with my life.", can only do harm to her. It shows a window to her soul. Also, Everyone knows about the testimony she gave about Patrick. Supposedly that testimony was thrown out. I am just some guy in the states and I know pretty much all the ins amd outs of this case. Believe me, the jury knows more than I do. This supposed thrown out testimony will be on all the jurors minds and it will be one of the biggest pieces of evidence that will help the jury arrive at guilty. After all, people are only human and will want to arrive at justice. I have said a million times innocent people do not implicate innocent people. Only guilty people implicate innocent people. If I am innocent, I say so. That's it. No reason to blame someone else. If I'm guilty,...On a lighter note, does anyone know what kind of olives the cab driver threw at Knox? Also, has Amanda denied going to the store early in the A.M. following the murder? If that is the case, a lot of people are lying except for her: cab driver, store owner, police, dna experts, cab drivers friends at the bar, Sollecito who has claimed ak did not spend whole night with him. There is so much evidence against them, it will be very easy for the jury to convict. What will be interesting to see is to what degree are they convicted? premeditated or not?
Top Profile 

Offline Hubie


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:25 pm

Posts: 5

Location: Haw River

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
Apparently, the influential Poppa Sollecito managed to avoid being questioned today about the phone tap where he tells his son not to be too worried about the murder trial because "money can make water run uphill".

He also was not asked about the ABC interview where in direct contrast to Momma Edda's loving testimony, he said about Amanda :"She has ruined my son's life," "I damn the day he met her."

Although his son was in trouble with local police for drugs, collected and enjoyed knives, posessed violent porn books...Poppa Sollecito just gets respectful powder puff questions allowing him to blabber on about how his non violent Son "would not hurt a fly".

Maybe water does run uphill.



How often do we hear both the DA and defense questions and answers to questions. Seems sometimes we may be getting a distorted view of proceedings
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:


I'm in the process of digging up what was said about this phone call in the early days. It's always been obvious that the contents of that phone call as described by Edda to Amanda on the 10th November do not fit with the fact that the police were on the scene.

This the first comment by Chris Mells on the subject on Haloscan 2.

Quote:
The time thing is something I have not asked about with regards to it being case related but I feel that I can atleast say a bit on it.
There WAS some question, as you have one here, with regards to the timeline of events. It has been resolved to our satisfaction. The timeline is as it has been stated.
Our call was made well before the postal police were on the scene.
I will not go further into it. Sorry.


More to follow as I dig it up, but you can surely appreciate the problem this phone call and it's contents as described by Edda creates for the defense since it can be proven that the police were already on the scene well before that call was made.





Thanks Brian. I always felt that Edda's earliest statements about the phone call were very important because they were her spontaneous and free thoughts. I remember when CMellas appeared that night on Haloscan and I thought hmmmmm he had to be sleeping right next to Edda when she received the call so he knew much more than he wanted to post in answer to our questions. After Edda began to piece her daughter's story together her discussion of the phone call became more vague.

Here are some possible contributions for your quest:


Quote:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/142848.asp?page=5
Posted by cmellas at 7/24/08 3:16 p.m.

Hello Everyone,
Someone incessantly posts these questions to a number of blogs out there. I felt that it was time to answer them.
So, here are your answers, according to the evidence. (the poor spelling is from the original poster of the questions):

"Amanda supports please explain why: "

"1. She was seen with a black mail at 5:30am washing clothes including sneakers in a local laundromat?"

ANSWER: Media nonsense, not true. Just a rumor and there is no proof and never was any proof of this BS claim. Nor is it entered into evidence.

"2. Explain why at 8:20am on the morning after the murder receipts for two bottles of bleach and the empty bottles were found in Sollecito's apartment."

ANSWER: More media nonsense. The crime scene footage verifies the bottle dates, upc, and purchase dates on receipts as, one bottle being unused, the other being only a little used. The receipts were found and matched to both bottles. One was purchased almost a year previous to the murder and the other was purchased a few months previous to the murder. Again, one was unopened. The other was opened but only a little was used from it. There were no empty bleach bottles found at any time at any house that was searched.

"3. Explain why her bedroom was white-washed in bleach so that only one of her fingerprints was found in her own bedroom."

ANSWER: There is ZERO forensic evidence of this and nobody from the Policia Scientifica is saying this. It is only another media story, not evidence in the case.

"4. Explain why she said she went home that morning to simply take a shower and went back to Rafaelle's apartment to explain something was wrong, but the police found trace blood on bare foot prints going t/from the bathroom and to/from her amanda's bedrooms and merediths bedroom...cleaned with bleach?"

ANSWER: There are only 4 footprints of Amanda noted in evidence and they are located in the hall. One has trace blood from stepping on blood in the bathroom. Nowhere in the entire house is there any evidence of "cleaning" and the court forensics experts are not putting that theory to test either. There is no cleanup. She does not hover so there are bound to be footprints. But that is ok since it was her house too…. It is also in line with her statements to police both before and after her arrest.

"5. Explain why she said she was atRafaelle's apartment all night reading Harry Potter..but the book was found in Merdiths room when the cadaver was found?"

ANSWER: There was a harry potter book at both locations (Amanda's and Raffs) and both were found on the kitchen table areas. Just another example of poor media reporting.

"6. Explain why she denies knowing Rudy or ever meeting him , when witnesses have seen them together, she has previously purchased drugs from him, and her cell phone has repeated calls to his before but incrasingly after the murder?"

ANSWER: The cellphone records for both Amanda and Raffaelle verify that there are no calls to or from Rudy. Even the police have reluctantly and quietly admitted that they were wrong. She did not know Rudy. She had seen him around and knew of him, that's it. She had not ever associated with him. Not ever. As for the drugs comment. She has not, ever, participated in the activity of purchasing drugs. Not from Rudy or anyone else for that matter.

[red]"7. Explain why when the police fist showed up at the crime scene, amanda a rafaelle were there... when asked what they were doing there they explained they saw blood and called the police/carabinieri.... the call was placed an hour after the police arrived."

ANSWER: Because the postal police recorded the times incorrectly on their report. It has been verified and cleared by police dispatch and phone records. This is a nonissue/clerical error on behalf of the police.
[/red]
"8. there is CCTV footage shoing amanda going to her home ay 9:35pm that night."

ANSWER: That was thrown out by the initial panel of judges in late November. There is no CCTV footage that shows Amanda and raff, or just raff, or just Amanda. A broader spectrum of time is now being reviewed to see if Rudy shows up, or if it can further verify Amanda and Raffaelle's statements.

"9. Rafaelles sneaker print was found in blood at the scene... His sneakers where washed and the bottoms cleaned with bleach."

ANSWER: No, Raffs shoes showed no signs of cleaning when they were examined. Rudy has made a spontaneous statement to the prosecutor stating that the SHOEPRINTS ARE HIS. He also said that he threw away his shoes in a dumpster in Germany.

"10. The clothes amanada was wearing that evening are missing..."

ANSWER: No they are not. Amanda's clothes were on her bed the entire time they were looking for them. This is old news and has been out for a while now. Get with the times.

All information used in these answers are public record and can be purchased at the local procura office in Perugia.


Quote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004159477_webknoxtranscript01.html
NARRATION:

THAT AMBIGUITY WOULD LATER COME BACK TO HAUNT THEM. AS FOR MEREDITH...AROUND 8:30 THAT NIGHT SHE LEFT A FRIEND'S HOUSE, AND WALKED BACKED TO THE COTTAGE ALONE. THE NEXT MORNING...AMANDA CAME HOME FROM RAFFAELE'S. SHE SAYS SHE TOOK A SHOWER, BUT NOTICES THE APARTMENT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT...THE FRONT DOOR IS OPEN, MEREDITH'S DOOR IS LOCKED...AND THERE ARE BLOOD SPOTS ON THE BATHROOM SINK AND RUG. SHE GETS RAFFAELE... AND THEY RETURN TO THE HOUSE. IT'S FOUR A.M. IN SEATTLE AND AMANDA WAKES HER MOTHER WITH A PHONE CALL.

[red]EDDA MELLAS

She goes, "I'm back at my house, and I want you ... first I know I'm okay." And I said, "Okay, you know, what's goin' on?" And she said, "Well, I was at Rafael's last night...and I've come home now and I think somebody's been in my house." ...And she told me, "We can't find Meredith. We can't get a hold of Meredith. And her room is locked."

And I said, "Hang up and call the police."

NARRATION:

PHONE RECORDS OBTAINED BY 20/20 CONFIRM AMANDA CALLED MEREDITH'S CELL PHONE THREE TIMES ...AND THEN HER MOTHER.

ELIZABETH VARGAS

When did you hear again from her?

EDDA MELLAS

She called me back. The police had come, they had broke down the door, um, so there was just ... chaos.[/red]

NARRATION:

WHEN POLICE BREAK DOWN MEREDITH'S DOOR THEY FIND BLOOD EVERYWHERE, MEREDITH'S BODY UNDER A BLANKET...NAKED EXCEPT FOR HER SWEATER...HER BRA ON THE FLOOR. MEREDITH WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND HER THROAT, FIRST PUNCTURED WITH A KNIFE, WAS VICIOUSLY SLASHED.

THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WOULD ESTIMATE IT TOOK TEN MINUTES FOR HER TO DIE...CHOKING ON HER OWN BLOOD. IT WAS AN EXCRUCIATING END TO A PROMISING YOUNG LIFE.

Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Transcript Of Testimony Of Edda Mellas
Partial testimony from Edda Mellas, Amanda Knox's mother:

First questioned by lawyer of Lumumba Arrived on the 6 November

I was in shock. I arrived late in the evening. I went to see Luciano Ghirga.
In Seattle, Amanda lived with me. She occasionally drank alcohol with her friends. I only know that she had only tried marijuana.
Only one little fine with police.
We spoke regularly by e-mail, almost every day.
She had not said that she used drugs. She did not talk about this.
She talked about her friends. She told me she met Raffaele Sollecito toward the end of October, as far as I remember. She did not tell me about Rudy Guede.
She spoke about her work at Pub Le Chic.
She said she was working a part time job sometimes handing out flyers.
Yes it was ok (her job)?
Did she talk about Patrick? Yes.
What did she say? She said he was a very nice man and dedicated to his family.
In prison – 10 Nov
If that’s the date of the first visit.
Did you speak about Patrick then?
Yes.
Did she tell you she accused him? No.
She said she was very upset that Patrick was dragged into this horrible situation. She felt terrible. Who dragged him into it? She said that when she was interrogated all night long and told that she was going to jail for the rest of her life, she said she was lying, and they screamed at her and hit her. They told her that unless she came up with a possibility of someone she would go to jail for the rest of her life. They were also always putting a phone in her face saying we know you were meeting Patrick, we know. They told her she had to come up with some possibilities.

Well, she said, maybe I imagine that Patrick was there. She said, I know that’s not true but maybe it could have happened. And they said its OK, we’ll write it down.
She was pressured to come up with possibilities.
Do you remember she said something ugly about Patrick.
She said that she said something under extreme pressure from the police and she felt terrible that she did not have the courage to stand up to them.

Amanda felt terrible that Patrick was in prison and she had not managed to stand up to police.
Do you know she wrote some pages about what happened in prison on Nov 6.
I have not read any memorandum that she wrote.
Do you know whether she wrote it?
Did you ask your daughter to say Patrick had nothing to do that after your Nov 10 conversation?
No, I know she was speaking to her lawyers and listening to their counsel and those were the people she was speaking to.
Did you go to the police to say that Amanda said Patrick was innocent.
No, I do not speak Italian.
Did you go to the prosecutor? No.
Did you tell anyone? No.
Not even her lawyers? I did not speak too often at that time, in the very beginning, to Amanda’s lawyers.
And after did you tell them?
Well they knew, they knew from Amanda.
In prison was your daughter hit? No.
Did she tell you how she was treated in prison?
She said some were very nice and some were cold.
Did you receive calls from your daughter night of 1 November.
Early morning on the 2.
How many? 3.
What time in Seattle.
The first around 4 am, maybe some minutes before. The second call within an hour and the third call shortly after the second.

(discussion about time difference)
content of phone calls – the first, 2nd and 3rd

The first phone call she said I know it's early but she called because she felt someone had been in her house. She had spent the night at Raf’s. She came back to have a shower and the main door was open. She thought it was odd but it has a funny lock and it did not close well.
She went to have a shower and when she came out she noticed some blood but she thought maybe someone had her menstrual cycle and did not clean when. She then went to her room and then went to the other bathroom to dry her hair and saw there was feces in the bathroom. Thought that was strange because normally girls flushed the bathroom. She went back to Raf’s and told him about the things she found strange. Sometime later she got hold of one of the other roommates.

She tried to call Meredith several times but there was no answer.

They came back to the house and she showed Raf what she found and then they also noticed the broken window.

And now they were pounding on Meredith’s room trying to wake her. All this in the first call? Yes very quickly. I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police. This was the first call.

The second phone call was that people were yelling and they found a foot in the room. She was very upset. It was disturbing.

I said Oh my God. She couldn’t understand, only the foot.

Then we hung up. That was the second phone call. I don’t know the exact time.

And the third one. The third call was she called me to say it was not just a foot but in Meredith’s room they found a person. And all she could understand is that it was a person and there was a closet. She was very upset.

She had to hang up the phone because I could hear shouting and the police was calling her. Did she ever say she was worried about Mez? Yes, when they could not get hold of her on the phone and also when she heard there was someone in the room.

KIROTV.com.
Top Profile 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/48hours/main4005725.shtm

"I got a phone call early in the morning and it was Amanda. And the first thing she said was, 'I'm at home and I'm all right. But, I think somebody's been in my house," Edda remembers.

Amanda told her mother she had spent the night with Raffaele. That morning, when she came home to take a shower and change clothes, she found the front door was open. No one was home.

"When she got out of the shower she noticed some blood. She thought maybe somebody had gotten injured and left quickly and that's why the door was open," Edda explains.

Amanda started phoning her roommates; she found the Italian girls, but according to Edda couldn't track down Meredith, even after calling her several times.

Asked how she learned that something terrible had happened in that house, Edda says, "She called me back and told me that the police had come. Because one of the things she said was 'We can’t find Meredith and her door is locked.'"



IMO this first phone call to her mother was a way of preparing her mother for the news that was about to come and evidence of consciousness of guilt, especially since the officers were right there in the cottage at the time of this call.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Has anyone noticed that using logic and deduction, based on Poppa Sollecito's testimony today, our own President Obama would not qualify as a "non violent" person?

Having viewed last week's often shown TV clip of his White House 'snaring and crushing' expertise, he definitely would "hurt a fly" ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzgOS8dbF64
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Maybe the mop had a removable head that had been changed. possibly after the cleanup but before being used to mop up the alleged water at Raffaele's place. Therefore, used mop, but of no forensic value if they didn't get blood on the handle.

Beans
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

justlooking wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Reading the discussion between Nick and Yummi, I think the problem is with the word "admitted" as used in the article - where a more neutral and more accurate term would be "claimed".

So, if the article said, "Rudy claimed to have had consensual relations with the victim", there would be no argument.

But to say that "Rudy admitted having sex with the victim" is misleading, as it implies that Rudy was somehow reluctant to agree that this happened.

In reality, once he had understood that he could not deny being at the scene, having a consensual liaison with the victim was the first thing that he claimed. So it's not an admission, but a claim - which other evidence may or may not support, it doesn't matter, because to say "he claimed this" is neutral, whereas "he admitted this" is not.


I was just about to reply on this topic when you basically stole my whole post :). You're right, it was the word 'admitted' that I found hard to accept in that article. Maybe there's a subtlety there that Yummi didn't pick up, but if you were to read that piece (particularly if you were not familiar with the case) then you would assume as a documented fact that Meredith and Rudi had (consensual) sex before she was murdered. It's important to choose your words carefully when writing articles in a widely read publication. These misleading things often get regurgitated ad nauseam as we've seen many times already in this case.

Hi JL,
this is right what I meant. You're right, it may be a language subtlety that Yummi didn't pick up

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

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Transcript Of Testimony Of Edda Mellas

The first phone call she said I know it's early but she called because she felt someone had been in her house. She had spent the night at Raf’s. She came back to have a shower and the main door was open. She thought it was odd but it has a funny lock and it did not close well.
She went to have a shower and when she came out she noticed some blood but she thought maybe someone had her menstrual cycle and did not clean when. She then went to her room and then went to the other bathroom to dry her hair and saw there was feces in the bathroom. Thought that was strange because normally girls flushed the bathroom. She went back to Raf’s and told him about the things she found strange. Sometime later she got hold of one of the other roommates.

She tried to call Meredith several times but there was no answer.

They came back to the house and she showed Raf what she found and then they also noticed the broken window.

And now they were pounding on Meredith’s room trying to wake her. All this in the first call? Yes very quickly. I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police. This was the first call.


Thanks, Lancelotti, that's what I've been waiting for.

That phone call started at 12:47:23 and ended at 12:48:51
Raffaele called Vanessa at 12:50:34 and that call ended at 12:51:03

Notice especially that Edda says: I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police.

But Raffaele wasn't making any such call to his sister. In fact, Raffaele would not start the call to Vanessa until 1 minute and 43 seconds after that call has finished.

In other words, the cellphone records back up what Edda is saying (especially about hang up and call the police) but they contradict what Amanda is saying.

Here's how it looks. Amanda and Raffaele go to her bedroom - probably after Luca and Marco arrive. Amanda decides to call Edda, because she wants some more witnesses that she's innocently stumbled on the crime scene. But her mother gives her the good and obvious advice - "hang up and call the police". But this was advice that Amanda wasn't expecting. She makes up the story about Raffaele being on the phone. Thinking fast, and panicking, she tells Raffaele to call his sister, which will back up what she's just said to her mother.

But actually it doesn't support what she said, because it doesn't tie up with the phone records. It's a disastrous decision, and it leads them into having to defend an impossible timeframe.

Lancelotti, you're usually good at thinking up explanations for Amanda in the face of the evidence. So how does she get out of this one?

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

beans wrote:
Maybe the mop had a removable head that had been changed. possibly after the cleanup but before being used to mop up the alleged water at Raffaele's place. Therefore, used mop, but of no forensic value if they didn't get blood on the handle.

Beans


There were two mops at the cottage :)

_________________
"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 Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: when they are found guilty   

kredsox wrote:
When the defendants are found guilty, it will be intersting to see what type of analysis there will be concerning putting AK on the stand.


It is always very risky to put a defendant on the stand, especially when there is so much evidence both direct and circumstantial against him or her. Did it help Knox? I would probably say, No. Did it damage her even more? yes it did. The biggest damage was the jury's reaction of Knox describing how Meredith died, with accompanied sound effects. Amanda compounded it with stating she only knew Meredith for a month. I think for a juror, this just shows callousness, because they are for months, listening to this case and much detail about Meredith's life. It is difficult for a juror not to show or feel a bond to the victim.. Amanda's mannerisms and dramatics just make it easier for the six jurors to get to make up their minds quicker, without much anguish. If Amanda came across as likeable to the jurors, or came across as believable, I think reaching a verdict would take longer.


I think what made an impact for the judges, is Knox's conflicting testimony (ie lying) on the stand compare to the facts known in the case. They know she is lying, and lying in a big way, so if there were bits of truth in her testimony, those tiny bits will be thrown out, because Knox didn't do anything to help her credibility.

The main reason to put her on the stand was to repair her credibility. She failed. Yes, it was impressive that she can speak Italian well that she could defend herself under cross examination. However I still feel it is more of a ploy to switch languages at will to throw monkey wrenches in her testimony, when to slow down the questioning or impede certain questions.

There is part of me who at least give Amanda credit for trying. However, no matter how nerve wracking it is for her not to testify, it would had been better off for her and her defense team to keep her off the stand.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Indie wrote:

Quote:
IMO this first phone call to her mother was a way of preparing her mother for the news that was about to come and evidence of consciousness of guilt, especially since the officers were right there in the cottage at the time of this call.


I think it was also a desperate attempt to get her version of the story out there, quickly. She wanted a "witness" for that.

Also, notice Edda Mellas states that several calls were made to try and locate Meredith. We know that 3 calls were made (1 at 12:07 and 2 at 12:11); that they were very short calls; that no message was left. Knox claims she was at Sollecito's when these calls were made. According to Knox's version and based on phone records, no further attempts were made to reach Meredith even though the two supposedly became worried when her door was locked and Knox felt she might be behind it, injured. Why not try those cell phones again, to at least ascertain whether or not they (and possibly Meredith - Filomena has testified that Meredith kept the English phone with her at all times, since it linked her to her ailing mother) were locked behind the door?

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It isn't for nothing that after Amanda's testimony on the stand last week in regard to that phone call, Sollecito's lawyers felt compelled to rush to the media and publicly support her testimony about that phone call, hailing it as 'supporting their story'. They saw the danger right away!!!

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: washing machine/cleanup   

jfk1191 wrote:
If its so obvious a cleanup was done


In case you've never noticed, there was a complete absence of visible bloody footprint leading from outside Meredith's room to Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom. It's blatantly obvious that somebody had cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that must have been left in the hallway. The scientific police applied luminol to the hallway and the bare bloody footprints of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito magically reappeared.

Somebody had also cleaned up Meredith's blood from Filomena's floor. It was only revealed by luminol. Meredith's blood was mixed with Amanda Knox's DNA. Barbie Nadeau thinks this evidence is possibly even more damning that the double DNA knife.

jfk1191 wrote:
if they got miniscule dna off the Knife, wouldn't the mop be totally investigated and tested?


The reason why Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the double DNA knife is that it had got caught in a microscopic groove. Knox and/or Sollecito must have cleaned the knife vigorously because there were peculiar diagonal scrapings on the blade. One of the police officers testified that Sollecito's kitchen smelt strongly of bleach.

I believe the mop at the cottage had a disposable pad.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:59 pm   Post subject: Mop   

TM wrote:
I believe the mop at the cottage had a disposable pad.


Well, do you remember Stewart Home explaining that the type of mop most commonly used in Italy is simply a type of special rag you buy and that then is 'pushed' around the floor using a stick? Those sorts of rags would be easy to get rid of.

But anyway, I don't see a mop as being essential in any case...some rags pushed around using ones hands or feet would have sufficed. I also think Meredith's towels may have been used for the purpose of cleaning as well.

_________________
"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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: Mop   

Michael wrote:
TM wrote:
I believe the mop at the cottage had a disposable pad.


Well, do you remember Stewart Home explaining that the type of mop most commonly used in Italy is simply a type of special rag you buy and that then is 'pushed' around the floor using a stick? Those sorts of rags would be easy to get rid of.

But anyway, I don't see a mop as being essential in any case...some rags pushed around using ones hands or feet would have sufficed. I also think Meredith's towels may have been used for the purpose of cleaning as well.

Hi Michael,
If it is true they had a "Mocio Vileda" as I remember reading on the press back then, it is kind of what you have described above: the rag top can be unscrewed and replaced with a new one when it wears out-or it is too dirty for effective cleaning. But I agree they could have just dragged around some towels, perhaps those that Guede used "to try to stop the blood flow". That would partially explain the partial clean up, since the Mocio rag-end is coarse and actually a very good tool to scrub the floor, I have one! About using bleach to scrub the floor, the housekeeper nor Filomena/Laura used it which makes perfect sense, since cleaning tiles with bleach result in an ugly opaque film. There's plenty of commercial detergents for tiles that require no rinse nor polishing and leave the floor sparkling clean, shining and nicely scented-instead of the unpleasant smell of bleach. br-))
PS Sorry if I sound like a Procter&Gamble commercial... b-((((

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

Offline Angolmois


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:05 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hello. I Know this is off topic but doesn't "Candace Dempsey" come across as pathological to you? I've read much of her comments on her blog. They're illogical and biased.

Why am I posting this here?

Well. After hours of seeking a way to respond to her closed censored abuses, I've ended up having to look elsewhere to voice my opinion.

Please forgive me for cutting in like this, but why (even here) are all threads locked?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Amanda decides to call Edda, because she wants some more witnesses that she's innocently stumbled on the crime scene. But her mother gives her the good and obvious advice - "hang up and call the police". But this was advice that Amanda wasn't expecting.

I don't think I understand this. Amanda calls her mother and tells her that somebody must have been in her house, that there is a broken window and blood, a locked door and a missing flatmate, but she doesn't expect her mother to give her the advice to call the police?

Also, Raffaele told the postal police that he had already called the carabinieri. If you believe that the postal policemen were already there at the time and that Raffaele had lied to them, then he must have been in a hurry to make that phone call to the police.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Angolmois wrote:

Quote:
Hello. I Know this is off topic but doesn't "Candace Dempsey" come across as pathological to you? I've read much of her comments on her blog. They're illogical and biased.

Why am I posting this here?

Well. After hours of seeking a way to respond to her closed censored abuses, I've ended up having to look elsewhere to voice my opinion.

Please forgive me for cutting in like this, but why (even here) are all threads locked?


Welcome to our board, Angolmois. You can go in and read all the comments in all the locked threads for a good idea of how we feel about Candace's "pathological ways". Mua-)

The reason those threads are locked for comments is that they have become too long and unwieldy. We discuss in one main thread at a time and switch to a new one when it starts to take too long for a page to load. But you can always read locked threads and also copy and paste posts from them to here if you want to address a specific point.

If you have experienced the closed censored abuses of Signora Dempsey, then you've found the right place. Her Highness has banned many of our fine posters and she called me a Human Mud Bath because I corrected one of her many errors in a comment she made to a poster. She doesn't appreciate corrections apparently.
oop-)

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

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: when they are found guilty   

kredsox wrote:
...I have said a million times innocent people do not implicate innocent people...


Well, the next time you say it will be the 1,000,001st time that you've been wrong. Innocent people have been known to implicate innocent people. Not too much doubt about that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Angolmois


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:05 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Angolmois wrote:

Quote:
Hello. I Know this is off topic but doesn't "Candace Dempsey" come across as pathological to you? I've read much of her comments on her blog. They're illogical and biased.

Why am I posting this here?

Well. After hours of seeking a way to respond to her closed censored abuses, I've ended up having to look elsewhere to voice my opinion.

Please forgive me for cutting in like this, but why (even here) are all threads locked?


Welcome to our board, Angolmois. You can go in and read all the comments in all the locked threads for a good idea of how we feel about Candace's "pathological ways". Mua-)

The reason those threads are locked for comments is that they have become too long and unwieldy. We discuss in one main thread at a time and switch to a new one when it starts to take too long for a page to load. But you can always read locked threads and also copy and paste posts from them to here if you want to address a specific point.

If you have experienced the closed censored abuses of Signora Dempsey, then you've found the right place. Her Highness has banned many of our fine posters and she called me a Human Mud Bath because I corrected one of her many errors in a comment she made to a poster. She doesn't appreciate corrections apparently.
oop-)


Thanks for the welcome. I hope my perhaps cursory examination of this issue here will be amiable.

If it turns out otherwise, you can at least say you were forewarned. :lol:

Are there any threads here discussing Masonic/Occult blood rituals, the likes of which could have had such an outcome?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

There is a website called timeanddate.com that has a time zone converter that converts times past, present and future. I posted it before, on haloscan. On November 2, 2007, the time difference between Seattle and Italy (GMT+1) was eight hours because the US had switched to winter hours but Europe had not. At the time I noted that I am sensitive to this issue because all of my clients are in Europe and I am in Seattle. The usual time difference with Paris is 9 hours (GMT+1), but there are a couple of times during the year when the difference is reduced to eight hours, for the reason indicated.

Here is the result from the website, showing the time difference on Nov 2, 2007 to be 8 hours:

Quote:
The World Clock – Time Zone Converter – results
At the specified time, local time in Rome was 8 hours ahead of Seattle

Location Local time Time zone
Seattle (U.S.A. - Washington) vendredi 2 novembre 2007, 04 h 00 m 00 UTC-7 hours PDT
Rome (Italy) vendredi 2 novembre 2007, 12 h 00 m 00 UTC+1 hour CET
Corresponding UTC (GMT) vendredi 2 novembre 2007, 11 h 00 m 00


If Edda has testified that it was just before 4 am, then in Perugia it was just before noon. However, Knox did not use her cell phone on November 2 until 12:07, when she tried Meredith's number. So if Edda really did talk to her daughter at the time indicated, then her daughter could not have mentioned having tried to reach Meredith and all the rest of it because these things had not yet happened.

As for Raffaele finishing a phone call with his sister, which Edda says Amanda told her, this too is impossible. As Finn has pointed out, Raffaele's call to his sister was made a minute and a half after Edda and Amanda had concluded their first of three calls that day.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Amanda decides to call Edda, because she wants some more witnesses that she's innocently stumbled on the crime scene. But her mother gives her the good and obvious advice - "hang up and call the police". But this was advice that Amanda wasn't expecting.

I don't think I understand this. Amanda calls her mother and tells her that somebody must have been in her house, that there is a broken window and blood, a locked door and a missing flatmate, but she doesn't expect her mother to give her the advice to call the police?

Also, Raffaele told the postal police that he had already called the carabinieri. If you believe that the postal policemen were already there at the time and that Raffaele had lied to them, then he must have been in a hurry to make that phone call to the police.


Indeed, he was in a hurry. He called his sister just a minute or so after Amanda hung up with her mother. It's just my opinion, but I am guessing that AK and RS were discussing what to do during this time (what did your mom say, etc.). RS then calls his sister; the call is very brief. On her advice, he quickly calls 112. All of this did happen in a hurry, that's for sure.

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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

An ABC article on the trial. There’s an interview with Edda following her testimony today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Story?id=7878630&page=1

Also an article by MARTA FALCONI

Something about they found a foot in Meredith’s room.

http://tinyurl.com/lorrjk
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...she called me a Human Mud Bath because I corrected one of her many errors...
oop-)


You sure that wasn't meant as a compliment? I had one of those at a spa in Japan once. VERY relaxing.


Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...Lane, if you want to know how the tabloid writer "feels", then you should write to him or her and ask!...


I don't. Since, as I said, as it stands I don't think any discrepancy between the versions is particularly relevant. I was merely answering a direct question that Michael had put to me :-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

According to the Washinton Post:

Quote:
Lawyers and prosecutors contended in court that, according to conversations secretly recorded during a visit by Mellas to her jailed daughter, Mellas indicated that Knox had already spoken during her first call home about a foot having been seen in Kercher's bedroom - before the body was discovered.

Kercher's body was found half naked, partially covered by a duvet, with a foot sticking out. Knox testified last week that she heard that "a foot" had been found in Kercher's bedroom when police broke in.

Mellas said Friday that the detail emerged during the second call and that she did not remember that part of the conversation in jail.

Just as well the conversation was recorded, since she doesn't remember it... :D
Top Profile 

Offline Angolmois


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:05 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...she called me a Human Mud Bath because I corrected one of her many errors...
oop-)


You sure that wasn't meant as a compliment? I had one of those at a spa in Japan once. VERY relaxing.



Here we go!

I can see this is going to be fun.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The evidence opposing the story of Amanda's phone call to her mother:

The car park CCTV shows the police arriving at around 12:30.

Quote:
07th February 2009

On the first day of evidence in this trial, the court was told that Knox and Sollecito looked 'embarrassed and surprised' when police arrived at the scene.

Inspector Michele Battistelli told the court that he was one of the first police officers at the house after being sent their by colleagues following the discovery of Meredith's mobile phone in a nearby garden.

'They seemed embarrassed and surprised. They were whispering to each other and told me they were waiting for the carabinieri (paramilitary police). They didn't say when they called them, just that they were waiting for them.

'They told me that they had come back to the house and found the front door open and the window of one of the flatmates, Filomena Romanelli, smashed.'

He went inside with the pair and they showed him the broken window, and the ransacked room with clothes on the floor.

But, he added, he was immediately struck by the fact that the glass lay on top of the clothes - as though the window had been broken after the clothes were scattered on the floor.

'I immediately thought that this had been an attempt to make it look like a break-in,' he said.

'I told the two accused this but they didn't answer me. I also noticed that there was a lap top on the bedroom table and a camera in the kitchen - all items that would have been taken in a break in.'...


The Daily Mail

At around 12:50 Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli arrive.

Their evidence confirms the postal police are already there, awaiting the arrival of Filomena because they want to talk to her about the phones which have been found and because of the scenes in the cottage shown them by Raffaele and Amanda.

Shortly after Luca observes Amanda and Raffaele emerge from Raffaele's room. The police didn't observe AK and RS make their rapid succession of phone calls(12:47-12:55) but Luca's evidence suggests they were made out of site while the pair were in Amanda's room.

Before 13:00 Filomena and Paola arrive.

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

Romanelli also raised an important question mark over a defence claim - that there was a break-in on the night of the killing. And she contradicted Knox on whether Kercher was in the habit of locking herself in her room.

The legal assistant, who spent the night of 1-2 November with her boyfriend, said she and a friend had decided to go to a market in the morning. They were about to arrive there when she received a call from Knox. "There's something strange at the house," she quoted the young American as saying. "I go, 'Ciao, Amanda. What's happened? In what sense?' [She said,] 'I arrived and the door was open.' "

Knox explained to Romanelli that she was going back to the flat of her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. She quoted Knox as saying: "I've taken a shower. Then at Raffaele's place I'll get him to come over. There's blood there, I think."

Romanelli replied: "But Amanda. I don't understand. Explain to me, because there's something odd. The door's open. You take a shower. There's blood. But where's Meredith?"

"Eh, I don't know," she recalled Knox as saying. Romanelli told her to check the house again and call her back. Then she rang her boyfriend, who could get to the house quickly, and he and a friend went round.

Replying to the judge later in her testimony, Romanelli said: "The door's open. I go in. There's blood. I take a shower. I don't know about you, but I really don't think that that's normal." After Romanelli reached the house, her boyfriend kicked in the door to Kercher's bedroom, where her body was found on the floor in a pool of blood. Other witnesses have testified that Knox earlier told those present that it was not unusual for Kercher to lock her room. But Romanelli said: "Meredith always left her door unlocked."

She said that, knowing by then that the window of her bedroom had been smashed, her first instinct on returning to the flat had been to go to her room. What she saw was "a disaster". Her clothes were on the floor and her cupboard was open. But none of her jewellery was missing, nor her designer sunglasses and handbags. Her laptop was among the clothes. She said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes: "I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass."

The prosecution maintains that Knox and her boyfriend faked a burglary. If the glass was on top of the clothes, it suggests the window was broken after the room was rifled...


The Guardian


And for good measure, I'll allow Frank to make the case for Amanda's defense:

Quote:
Lying about the arrival time?
And what reason would he have to lye about his arrival time? Can he have something to hide in this occasion too? Maybe the fact that he should admit that they needed one hour to get to the house? What did really happen during that trip? It wasn't an important mission, they were just going to deliver a cellphone. Did they stop somewhere? Is he trying to hide a venial sin, like they stopped to the bar for a cappuccino? Or maybe he's just ashamed to look not exactly like a hero but like a clumsy pedestrian lost for half an hour in an address dilemma? Or maybe they stopped for something else, something unmentionable, something that may be detected?

At what time did the postal police really arrive?
About he entering the room or not, we have his interested word against the word of brilliant and uninterested students like Paola and Luca. Not even the police believed the inspector since they sized his shoes to see if the footprint could be his.
And if they doubt him about the room should they doubt him even about the arrival time? Should we still believe that it was really at 12:30 now?
We have known the person. He's not just a signature on a report now, as it appeared to Micheli.
We have the word of THIS officer against the word of a girl who studies 5 languages and attends college in a cell. The word of THIS officer against the word of a boy who studies and teaches computer in jail. A boy and a girl able to do all this while being slightly stressed out for their situation. A boy and a girl who, unlike the inspector, have been aspiring door breakers in the morning of November 2 2007.
Should maybe some light be shed on this character? Could the police, or the patrol fellow, have something to disclose about the only inspector in the world who respects doors?


Perugia Shock

The problem is Frank the police have a CCTV camera on their side, not to mention the evidence of Luca, Marco, Filomena and Paola describing the scene they found when they arrived at the cottage.

Did any of them consider it possible that the police had only arrived seconds before themselves? I think not.

So WHO IS LYING?

Perhaps no-one Frank.

Amanda can't remember making the call.

Edda can describe the call but she has no idea of the situation at the cottage.

Inspector Batistolli and a CCTV camera seem to be the only things which can confirm the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline allsburg


Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - June 19, 09

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)


I don't recall having seen this before. If I had, I don't think I would have started posting on this site. I've thought that this site was the most impartial that I've found, but this sort of thing kind of ruins it. The fact that Meredith was beautiful, was young, was murdered "brutally", are all kind of irrelevant to the question of who committed the crime. And there's a sense (much more pervasive on TJMK) that it's got to be all about Meredith, and respecting her memory.

Not everyone shares this approach. An emotional appeal to a charismatic murder victim is as unhelpful to the resolution of this murder trial as an emotional appeal to a charismatic murder suspect. I thought that this website was about the evidence and testimony, and unraveling and establishing who committed the crime - as well as second-guessing the prosecution and making educated guesses about where this is all going. I find this emotional pandering kind of offensive and uncalled for. If there were innocent people accused of the crime (I don't think there are), then it would not matter in the slightest that Meredith was pretty, outgoing, and a wonderful person.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Del


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
There is a website called timeanddate.com that has a time zone converter that converts times past, present and future. I posted it before, on haloscan. On November 2, 2007, the time difference between Seattle and Italy (GMT+1) was eight hours because the US had switched to winter hours but Europe had not. At the time I noted that I am sensitive to this issue because all of my clients are in Europe and I am in Seattle. The usual time difference with Paris is 9 hours (GMT+1), but there are a couple of times during the year when the difference is reduced to eight hours, for the reason indicated.

Here is the result from the website, showing the time difference on Nov 2, 2007 to be 8 hours:

Quote:
The World Clock – Time Zone Converter – results
At the specified time, local time in Rome was 8 hours ahead of Seattle

Location Local time Time zone
Seattle (U.S.A. - Washington) vendredi 2 novembre 2007, 04 h 00 m 00 UTC-7 hours PDT
Rome (Italy) vendredi 2 novembre 2007, 12 h 00 m 00 UTC+1 hour CET
Corresponding UTC (GMT) vendredi 2 novembre 2007, 11 h 00 m 00


If Edda has testified that it was just before 4 am, then in Perugia it was just before noon. However, Knox did not use her cell phone on November 2 until 12:07, when she tried Meredith's number. So if Edda really did talk to her daughter at the time indicated, then her daughter could not have mentioned having tried to reach Meredith and all the rest of it because these things had not yet happened.

As for Raffaele finishing a phone call with his sister, which Edda says Amanda told her, this too is impossible. As Finn has pointed out, Raffaele's call to his sister was made a minute and a half after Edda and Amanda had concluded their first of three calls that day.


Hi All, great site here and posters, it makes me wish I was a faster reader!
I just want to clear up the Daylight Savings time issue. In 2007 the U.S. changed DST to start earlier and end later so in 2007 the change wasn't until Sunday, November 4th.http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/daylight_time.php
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Del wrote:

Quote:
Hi All, great site here and posters, it makes me wish I was a faster reader!
I just want to clear up the Daylight Savings time issue. In 2007 the U.S. changed DST to start earlier and end later so in 2007 the change wasn't until Sunday, November 4th.http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/daylight_time.php


Welcome Del and thanks. This means that it was indeed just before 13h local Perugia time, which is what phone records show (12:47). The rest stands - ie, it is not true that Sollecito was finishing up a call with his sister, etc.

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

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'm just copying over MrsDarcy's post from the previous thread so members can respond to it here if they wish:

MrsDarcy wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.



I don't think anyone expects AK to remember exactly when certain things happened. Most people don't check the clock routinely. Lying is not the same thing as "not remembering." But some things people don't forget. They don't forget if they were present during a murder. They don't forget what they did "the night before" when they are being questioned by police in a murder case. I can see if the police had questioned Amanda weeks after the murder about what happened the night of the murder and what she did; but even then I would believe the events of the night would have been seared into her brain. Look, if you asked just about everyone what they did the night before, they could tell you...not necessarily what they did at what exact moment, but generally what they did. When something traumatic or frightening is occurring, one's memory is enhanced, not diminished. The details around a traumatic experience are usually fixed in the brain and very difficult to forget.

There's nothing wrong with AK's memory. If she wanted to, she could tell the court everything that happened the night of MK's murder, right down to some very horrifying details.


but has she ever said she has forgotten what she did?

1) her first testimony was RS apartment,

2)then the interrogation (we can throw out imo)....

1) then it was back to the same testimony "RS apartment all night" right? I think? So only two alibi's from AK, I think.

I forget what order RS said his story, she left at 9 to 1am, then he said she was with him all night, then he said maybe she was with him all night. excuse me I don't remember his exact order either.

Interesting insight you add.
curious.......What is the most convincing evidence to you? You seem 100% convinced AK was there at the murder.



No, not 100% convinced...but very very convinced.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

AK and RS really messed up with the phone calls to the police. Am I missing something or why didn't they just say "we called Filomena, a roommate, but we haven't called the police yet" to the postal police. Leave it at that and the police would be called soon enough. Were they afraid that it looked so suspicious to have them simply hanging around?

The more I think about it, I think they may have panicked.

Swanny


Last edited by Swanny on Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
The car park CCTV shows the police arriving at around 12:30.


There is a photo showing a black car.

From what I know, the prosecution is saying that's the car of the postal police.

And the defence is saying 'it's a black car, so what? it's not that car!'

They don't have the number plate, or do they?
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Even if they don't have the plate number, they have police logs and the arrival of Luca etc...

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Swanny wrote:
AK and RS really messed up with the phone calls to the police. Am I missing something or why didn't they just say "we called Filomena, a roommate, but we haven't called the police yet" to the postal police. Leave it at that and the police would be called soon enough. Were they afraid that it looked so suspicious to have them simply hanging around?

Swanny


I don't think Amanda Knox and Sollecito Sollecito realised that the police could check the exact time a phone call had been made. Sollecito also lied when he told the police that his father had phoned him at around 11pm and that he surfed the Internet from 11pm to 1am.

I'm wondering how Amanda Knox managed to check her e-mails at Sollecito's apartment when there was no activity between 12:02pm on 1 November and 2:16pm on 3 November on Sollecito's landline.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
The car park CCTV shows the police arriving at around 12:30.


There is a photo showing a black car.

From what I know, the prosecution is saying that's the car of the postal police.

And the defence is saying 'it's a black car, so what? it's not that car!'

They don't have the number plate, or do they?


Sollecito himself admitted that he hadn't called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage:

He said he went outside "to see if I could climb up to Meredith's window" but could not. "I tried to force the door but couldn't, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived." He added: "In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda's version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies." (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

How many times do I have to post this extract of Sollecito's witness statement before his words finally sink in? I've even undelined the relevant sentences to make it easier for you. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Angolmois wrote:
Hello. I Know this is off topic but doesn't "Candace Dempsey" come across as pathological to you? I've read much of her comments on her blog. They're illogical and biased.

Why am I posting this here?

Well. After hours of seeking a way to respond to her closed censored abuses, I've ended up having to look elsewhere to voice my opinion.

Please forgive me for cutting in like this, but why (even here) are all threads locked?


I tried to resist replying to this, but Candace's antics on her blog do really annoy me m-)). It's almost impossible to have any reasonable debate on there as she is very heavy handed with the 'delete post' button. I noticed even today she was removing posts from someone and even Finn commented about how useful that person's posts were, but they're now gone for ever. As the blog owner she also has an annoying propensity to spam her own blog with either off-topic content or badly translated (i.e. googled) articles - usually because 'I doesn't have time right now'. In my opinion it's the least reliable place to go for factual information about this case (not counting the contribution of Finn and Yummi). It could have been a whole lot better with a bit less pruning by Candace, and I don't think it really helps her cause as a 'reporter', but it's her reader blog and I guess she can do with it as she likes.

Also, as an addendum. This forum has mushroomed over the last few weeks and has turned into a place full of lively debate and is by no means a one way street of opinion. Candace's blog has coincidentally gone in the opposite direction. If she wants more publicity then there is undoubtedly a lesson for her to learn from that.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
How many times do I have to post this extract of Sollecito's witness statement before his words finally sink in? I've even undelined the relevant sentences to make it easier for you. It really isn't that difficult to understand.


What makes you think this version is the correct one?

Sollecito like Knox has several versions for everything.
What you underlined is not his latest version and it's not what he said in court.
Top Profile 

Offline Del


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Transcript Of Testimony Of Edda Mellas

The first phone call she said I know it's early but she called because she felt someone had been in her house. She had spent the night at Raf’s. She came back to have a shower and the main door was open. She thought it was odd but it has a funny lock and it did not close well.
She went to have a shower and when she came out she noticed some blood but she thought maybe someone had her menstrual cycle and did not clean when. She then went to her room and then went to the other bathroom to dry her hair and saw there was feces in the bathroom. Thought that was strange because normally girls flushed the bathroom. She went back to Raf’s and told him about the things she found strange. Sometime later she got hold of one of the other roommates.

She tried to call Meredith several times but there was no answer.

They came back to the house and she showed Raf what she found and then they also noticed the broken window.

And now they were pounding on Meredith’s room trying to wake her. All this in the first call? Yes very quickly. I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police. This was the first call.


Thanks, Lancelotti, that's what I've been waiting for.

That phone call started at 12:47:23 and ended at 12:48:51
Raffaele called Vanessa at 12:50:34 and that call ended at 12:51:03

Notice especially that Edda says: I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police.

But Raffaele wasn't making any such call to his sister. In fact, Raffaele would not start the call to Vanessa until 1 minute and 43 seconds after that call has finished.

In other words, the cellphone records back up what Edda is saying (especially about hang up and call the police) but they contradict what Amanda is saying.

Here's how it looks. Amanda and Raffaele go to her bedroom - probably after Luca and Marco arrive. Amanda decides to call Edda, because she wants some more witnesses that she's innocently stumbled on the crime scene. But her mother gives her the good and obvious advice - "hang up and call the police". But this was advice that Amanda wasn't expecting. She makes up the story about Raffaele being on the phone. Thinking fast, and panicking, she tells Raffaele to call his sister, which will back up what she's just said to her mother.

But actually it doesn't support what she said, because it doesn't tie up with the phone records. It's a disastrous decision, and it leads them into having to defend an impossible timeframe.

Lancelotti, you're usually good at thinking up explanations for Amanda in the face of the evidence. So how does she get out of this one?


Hey Finn,
Nice scenario. I think AK knowing RS is about to call his sister shows that these calls were planned. I would think the idea to call Raffaele’s sister had to be Raffaele’s idea, not Amanda's. Would Amanda even know that Raffaele’s sister worked in the Carabinieri? AK and RS went into Amanda’s bedroom to call the police because they thought it would look suspicious if the Carabinieri never showed up. But with the arrival of Luca and Marco they decided to imitate Filomena and also call friends about their concerns before calling the police. This was easy and natural for RS, he could just call his sister. But AK needed to call someone that did not know the police had already arrived so she called outside of the country. To me this call is strange, what they knew at that point wasn’t a wake-your-parents-up-at-4AM emergency.
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Amanda decides to call Edda, because she wants some more witnesses that she's innocently stumbled on the crime scene. But her mother gives her the good and obvious advice - "hang up and call the police". But this was advice that Amanda wasn't expecting.

I don't think I understand this. Amanda calls her mother and tells her that somebody must have been in her house, that there is a broken window and blood, a locked door and a missing flatmate, but she doesn't expect her mother to give her the advice to call the police?


What I'm suggesting is a scenario where first-time criminals panic and make silly mistakes. In this scenario, I'm thinking Amanda is taken aback by the arrival of the police, and she wants to have more people involved in knowing that she has stumbled across the crime scene. So she calls her mother in Seattle.

But what she forgets is that her mother will tell her to call the police. (Exactly as you suggest, it's obvious when you think about it. So it's like a Homer Simpson "Doh!" moment for her.) But Luca and Marco are still talking to the cops. So let's get those phone calls made.

I agree, it's a bad decision. But we're not looking at hardened criminals. We're looking at three young people who have ended up doing something incredibly stupid, and are frantically trying to find a way out.

Lancelotti wrote:
Also, Raffaele told the postal police that he had already called the carabinieri. If you believe that the postal policemen were already there at the time and that Raffaele had lied to them, then he must have been in a hurry to make that phone call to the police.


My starting point is one of not really believing anything at all unless it's nailed down - like the cellphone records. So I try to make anything that anybody says fit to that.

But you didn't answer my question, which is about Amanda's scenario, rather than mine. In Amanda's version, she tells her mother that Raffaele is already on the phone to Vanessa. But the cellphone records show he isn't. But ninety seconds after she puts the phone down, he is.

So how do we explain that?

I can't do it. I've run out of excuses for Amanda. But maybe you can think of something I've overlooked.

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

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Richard Owen

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 536629.ece
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It seems that AK and RS may both be lying about what they did that morning. Which means, nothing they say about that morning can be believed, including sleeping in, the trips to and from RS’s apartment to the cottage, the mop, the state of the front door, the state of the door to Filomena’s room, the absence of copious amounts of blood in the bathroom, the shower, the bathmat shuffle, and trying to knock open the door to MK’s room, among others I’m sure.

Wow, a clean slate. What did they do, go for a picnic? yr-) n-((

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Del wrote:
Hey Finn,
Nice scenario. I think AK knowing RS is about to call his sister shows that these calls were planned. I would think the idea to call Raffaele’s sister had to be Raffaele’s idea, not Amanda's. Would Amanda even know that Raffaele’s sister worked in the Carabinieri? AK and RS went into Amanda’s bedroom to call the police because they thought it would look suspicious if the Carabinieri never showed up. But with the arrival of Luca and Marco they decided to imitate Filomena and also call friends about their concerns before calling the police. This was easy and natural for RS, he could just call his sister. But AK needed to call someone that did not know the police had already arrived so she called outside of the country. To me this call is strange, what they knew at that point wasn’t a wake-your-parents-up-at-4AM emergency.


Hmmmmm... Very interesting ideas, Del.

I think you're right that they must have discussed the possibility of phoning Vanessa already. And the arrival of the postal police has speeded up a plan that was already in their heads. But they didn't have a Plan B that was properly figured out.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
What makes you think this version is the correct one?

Sollecito like Knox has several versions for everything.
What you underlined is not his latest version and it's not what he said in court.


Sollecito's admission that he didn't call 112 is corroborated by the two postal police officers claim that they arrived at approximately 12.30pm. This is in turn is corroborated by the CCTV camera in the car park which records their arrival at 12.25pm. I believe the CCTV camera is only activated by something passing in front of it. If a car similar to the postal police officers' car had arrived later, the defence lawyers would have been screaming it from the rooftops.

Why would Sollecito incriminate himself by lying about something that was true? It makes no sense whatsover.

Read this extract from Finn's piece on TJMK:

6. How can the tour of the cottage and the arrivals of first Marco and Luca, and then of Filomena and Paola, all take place between 12:55 and 13:00?

Raffaele makes the successful emergency call (lasting nearly a minute) at 12:54:39.

Meredith’s UK phone is activated at Police HQ at 13:00 – as part of a conversation which the postal police at the cottage are having about that phone with staff at HQ.

This conversation mentions Filomena’s arrival, and the information she’s given them about it being a UK phone.

This means that we need to fit the following activities into those five minutes, if Amanda’s email is to be believed:

* The postal police arrive later than 12:55

* Amanda and Raffaele give them a tour of the cottage, including the suspected break-in and the bloodstains in the bathroom

* Amanda writes down Meredith’s phone numbers for them, on a post-it note which Luca Altieri notices on the kitchen table when he arrives

* Marco and Luca arrive (and they see the post-it note) and have a conversation with the police about the ownership of the phones

* A few minutes later, Filomena and Paola Grande arrive. Filomena explains to the police about Meredith’s phones (one lent by Filomena, and the other a UK phone)

* The postal police make contact with their HQ

* During this call, Meredith’s phone is activated (at 13:00)

In addition, at some point, Paola sees Raffaele and Amanda emerging from Amanda’s bedroom – but it’s not clear whether this happened before or after 13:00. It could have been after.

But even if we move this emergence from the bedroom to after 1300, there simply isn’t enough time for all those other activities to take place in a period of less than five minutes.


It's blatantly obvious that Sollecito didn't call 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage. However, I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to understand this. That's not a criticism; just an observation.


Last edited by The Machine on Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
The car park CCTV shows the police arriving at around 12:30.


There is a photo showing a black car.

From what I know, the prosecution is saying that's the car of the postal police.

And the defence is saying 'it's a black car, so what? it's not that car!'

They don't have the number plate, or do they?


Actually, it's a black Fiat Punto. And if the defense could produce a black Fiat Punto turning up at, let's say, 1255, then there might be some point to the objection that the 1225 black Fiat Punto is a different one from the one that the postal police claimed they drove into that car park at around 1225.

Two incredible strokes of luck for the police, you'd have to admit. Both to find that someone drove a similar car into the car park at the same time they'd claimed for, and also that the CCTV managed to go wrong when they did turn up, sheepishly, 30 minutes late.

And then to cover up their lateness, they decide to railroad two perfectly innocent students that they must know are innocent - even though the real killer has been caught. Such dastardly people don't deserve to be so lucky. Isn't life unfair!

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

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
The car park CCTV shows the police arriving at around 12:30.


There is a photo showing a black car.

From what I know, the prosecution is saying that's the car of the postal police.

And the defence is saying 'it's a black car, so what? it's not that car!'

They don't have the number plate, or do they?


Sollecito himself admitted that he hadn't called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage:

He said he went outside "to see if I could climb up to Meredith's window" but could not. "I tried to force the door but couldn't, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived." He added: "In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda's version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies." (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

How many times do I have to post this extract of Sollecito's witness statement before his words finally sink in? I've even undelined the relevant sentences to make it easier for you. It really isn't that difficult to understand.


Hey, Machine, I'm going to pick a fight with you over this one.

Lancelotti's quite right to say that Raffaele is no more reliable on this one than any of his other statements. Sorry to say this, because I know you love that quote, but basically it doesn't hold up.

So Raffaele says: She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived.

Fine. The trouble is that the cellphone records show that he did phone the 112 number. In fact he phoned it twice. Straight after he'd put down the phone to his sister.

So it's not an "admission" about what really happened. It's another lie, and as such cannot be seen as any more reliable than any other statement by himself or anyone else who claims to do or say things that the external evidence shows they couldn't possibly have said or done.

I think it's a good quote if you want to show Raffaele's unreliability or mendacity. But it's no kind of quote to use as a confession of "truth", because it plainly isn't the truth.

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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
But you didn't answer my question, which is about Amanda's scenario, rather than mine. In Amanda's version, she tells her mother that Raffaele is already on the phone to Vanessa. But the cellphone records show he isn't. But ninety seconds after she puts the phone down, he is.

So how do we explain that?

I can't do it. I've run out of excuses for Amanda. But maybe you can think of something I've overlooked.


Well, to be honest...my first thought was that her mother's testimony wasn't entirely truthful.

Another explanation could be that Raffaele and Amanda had already discussed calling his sister when Amanda talked to her mother.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Lane wrote:

Quote:
You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.


If I may just put Nicki's weariness within a context: This UK tabloid article has been discussed on this board (or previous iterations) ad nauseum. Was it AK or someone else who testified just last week that Patrick Lumumba doesn't really speak English? He appeared on television and on record in the Italian press, saying that the quotes attributed to him were wrong. He rectified all that and has recently reiterated his position, testifying under oath about how he was treated by police.

Lane, if you want to know how the tabloid writer "feels", then you should write to him or her and ask!


A couple of points here. First, not everyone, especially those new to the case, is able to immediately distinguish what is a tabloid report and what is not. For example, when we were discussing Ann Coulter yesterday, I felt the need to point out to some non-Americans who aren't familiar with her that she is not a "mainstream" newsperson. (I'm not classifying her work as "tabloid," but it is certainly *extreme* and not taken seriously by a lot of people.) Second, people who are newish to the board do not always know what has been discussed ad nauseum in prior iterations of it. I think it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt. Finally, obviously Lane should ask the tabloid writer questions if he/she really wants to know how the story came about. But is there something wrong with Lane's asking/theorizing about things on the board? That's what this board is for! In fact, his questions led to Brian's theory that the tabloid writer may have been paid to plant a false story.

EDIT: I myself actually found the discussion quite illuminating because I hadn't known about the report and Patrick's repudiations of it.

_________________
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 tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I am new here also. I have been keeping up with recent news from TJMK. Perhaps, as an American, i have become so jaded over the years listening to our sensationalistic news, I never heard this story about Meredith. My heart goes out to the Kercher's, not so much the Knox's or Sollecito's. Pardon me if this seems offensive. When I first started reading our slanted versions, I managed to switch to the foreign papers for more accurate testimony. Have you all heard the expression "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?". We Americans always seem to be the first ones to throw stones; "they're incompetent fools", "they contaminated evidence", "they're innocent", yet not one of those people were actually in Perugia. I would say with the amazing people that Mez has taking care of her now, justice will be served. If convicted, maybe they will consider extradition as a longshot, since we do have the death penalty here. I would rather her stay in Capanne for the next 30 years as a reminder that one who takes a life does not deserve to live one. I, too, have to agree with another poster that never have I cared so much about someone whom I have never met. Perhaps being a mother and having a son the same age.......Forgive me if i have said something wrong as I just have so much outrage at the PR machine called Amanda Knox.......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Lane wrote:

Quote:
You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.


If I may just put Nicki's weariness within a context: This UK tabloid article has been discussed on this board (or previous iterations) ad nauseum. Was it AK or someone else who testified just last week that Patrick Lumumba doesn't really speak English? He appeared on television and on record in the Italian press, saying that the quotes attributed to him were wrong. He rectified all that and has recently reiterated his position, testifying under oath about how he was treated by police.

Lane, if you want to know how the tabloid writer "feels", then you should write to him or her and ask!


A couple of points here. First, not everyone, especially those new to the case, is able to immediately distinguish what is a tabloid report and what is not. For example, when we were discussing Ann Coulter yesterday, I felt the need to point out to some non-Americans who aren't familiar with her that she is not a "mainstream" newsperson. (I'm not classifying her work as "tabloid," but it is certainly *extreme* and not taken seriously by a lot of people.) Second, people who are newish to the board do not always know what has been discussed ad nauseum in prior iterations of it. I think it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt. Finally, obviously Lane should ask the tabloid writer questions if he/she really wants to know how the story came about. But is there something wrong with Lane's asking/theorizing about things on the board? That's what this board is for! In fact, his questions led to Brian's theory that the tabloid writer may have been paid to plant a false story.

.
EDIT: I myself actually found the discussion quite illuminating because I hadn't known about the report and Patrick's repudiations of it.


Being familiar with the difference between a tabloid and other news sources has nothing to do with being new or old to the case. Then there are the differences within tabloids, and the differences within periodicals. Each has their voice, much like the buffet of voices on this forum.

As a newish person to the board, I must say, it is part of our "job", so to speak, as a member, to read the prior discussions. I have read some, but not all, so I too am guilty of repeating previous ad nauseum. But they really are an interesting and important read. And they come in handy on slower forum days.


Last edited by Shirley on Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
But you didn't answer my question, which is about Amanda's scenario, rather than mine. In Amanda's version, she tells her mother that Raffaele is already on the phone to Vanessa. But the cellphone records show he isn't. But ninety seconds after she puts the phone down, he is.

So how do we explain that?

I can't do it. I've run out of excuses for Amanda. But maybe you can think of something I've overlooked.


Well, to be honest...my first thought was that her mother's testimony wasn't entirely truthful.

Another explanation could be that Raffaele and Amanda had already discussed calling his sister when Amanda talked to her mother.


Maybe it wasn't entirely truthful. But that doesn't exactly help Amanda, does it. And I think you're right about the second one - they probably had discussed it.

Still can't think of any innocent explanation, though.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Tigger 3498 wrote:

Quote:
I am new here also. I have been keeping up with recent news from TJMK. Perhaps, as an American, i have become so jaded over the years listening to our sensationalistic news, I never heard this story about Meredith. My heart goes out to the Kercher's, not so much the Knox's or Sollecito's. Pardon me if this seems offensive. When I first started reading our slanted versions, I managed to switch to the foreign papers for more accurate testimony. Have you all heard the expression "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?". We Americans always seem to be the first ones to throw stones; "they're incompetent fools", "they contaminated evidence", "they're innocent", yet not one of those people were actually in Perugia. I would say with the amazing people that Mez has taking care of her now, justice will be served. If convicted, maybe they will consider extradition as a longshot, since we do have the death penalty here. I would rather her stay in Capanne for the next 30 years as a reminder that one who takes a life does not deserve to live one. I, too, have to agree with another poster that never have I cared so much about someone whom I have never met. Perhaps being a mother and having a son the same age.......Forgive me if i have said something wrong as I just have so much outrage at the PR machine called Amanda Knox.......


Welcome Tigger. I think you'll find lots of interesting information and discussion here, provided by posters from all over the world. I share your sense of outrage at the excesses of the PR machine. I also believe much of the campaign has been counter-productive. Let's not forget that the main target has been the US audience and the main goal has been image repair. But it is so easy in this global world to circumvent the US media, which is certainly one of the upsides to globalization for most people.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
I am new here also. I have been keeping up with recent news from TJMK. Perhaps, as an American, i have become so jaded over the years listening to our sensationalistic news, I never heard this story about Meredith. My heart goes out to the Kercher's, not so much the Knox's or Sollecito's. Pardon me if this seems offensive. When I first started reading our slanted versions, I managed to switch to the foreign papers for more accurate testimony. Have you all heard the expression "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?". We Americans always seem to be the first ones to throw stones; "they're incompetent fools", "they contaminated evidence", "they're innocent", yet not one of those people were actually in Perugia. I would say with the amazing people that Mez has taking care of her now, justice will be served. If convicted, maybe they will consider extradition as a longshot, since we do have the death penalty here. I would rather her stay in Capanne for the next 30 years as a reminder that one who takes a life does not deserve to live one. I, too, have to agree with another poster that never have I cared so much about someone whom I have never met. Perhaps being a mother and having a son the same age.......Forgive me if i have said something wrong as I just have so much outrage at the PR machine called Amanda Knox.......


God love you, Tigger, I don't think we'd be blaming all the Americans for any of the bad things that a couple of Americans might do.

There are good and bad people everywhere, as Brendan Behan said, but a Dublin feller will be bad in a Dublin way or will be good in a Dublin way, just as a London feller will be bad in a London way or good in a London way, that's how it works.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Shirley wrote:

Quote:
Being familiar with the difference between a tabloid and other news sources has nothing to do with being new or old to the case. Then there are the differences within tabloids, and the differences within periodicals. Each has their voice, much like the buffet of voices on this forum.

As a newish person to the board, I must say, it is part of our "job", so to speak, as a member, to read the prior discussions. I have read some, but not all, so I too am guilty of repeating previous ad nauseum. But they really are an interesting and important read. And they come in handy on slower forum days.


I think most people are at least familiar with the tabloids in their own country if not their native language. The French, Italians and Germans all have a thriving tabloid press; in fact, I believe Europe's largest tab in terms of circulation is Bild-Zeitung. In recent years, since the mid-90's, even China has seen the tabloid phenomenon make inroads. I honestly believe that most people who read the tabloids do so for entertainment rather than news. At least I hope so!

I don't know if reading prior discussions is part of anyone's job description, but doing so is a great way to learn the "history" of this case. I participated in that ongoing discussion, and I still find valuable nuggets I had forgotten about. And like you say, on a slow day the archives make for good reading. :)

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Lane wrote:

Quote:
You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.


If I may just put Nicki's weariness within a context: This UK tabloid article has been discussed on this board (or previous iterations) ad nauseum. Was it AK or someone else who testified just last week that Patrick Lumumba doesn't really speak English? He appeared on television and on record in the Italian press, saying that the quotes attributed to him were wrong. He rectified all that and has recently reiterated his position, testifying under oath about how he was treated by police.

Lane, if you want to know how the tabloid writer "feels", then you should write to him or her and ask!


A couple of points here. First, not everyone, especially those new to the case, is able to immediately distinguish what is a tabloid report and what is not. For example, when we were discussing Ann Coulter yesterday, I felt the need to point out to some non-Americans who aren't familiar with her that she is not a "mainstream" newsperson. (I'm not classifying her work as "tabloid," but it is certainly *extreme* and not taken seriously by a lot of people.) Second, people who are newish to the board do not always know what has been discussed ad nauseum in prior iterations of it. I think it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt. Finally, obviously Lane should ask the tabloid writer questions if he/she really wants to know how the story came about. But is there something wrong with Lane's asking/theorizing about things on the board? That's what this board is for! In fact, his questions led to Brian's theory that the tabloid writer may have been paid to plant a false story.

.
EDIT: I myself actually found the discussion quite illuminating because I hadn't known about the report and Patrick's repudiations of it.


Shirley wrote:

Being familiar with the difference between a tabloid and other news sources has nothing to do with being new or old to the case.


Oh - absolutely. I don't think I was implying that it did.* (Although I suppose it could in some circumstances, e.g., if a particular tabloid had been discussed in the past on the board.) I was speaking of two separate concepts: One, possibly not being familiar with distinguishing foreign tabloid journalism from foreign "real news," and two, possibly being unfamiliar with prior board discussions.

*EDIT: Oops, I see why you made that distinction now, because of the bolded sentence in my prior post. Yeah, what I meant by that is that often after reading this board, people will see tabloid reports being discussed as being just that --- tabloid reports. Thus, my statement that "newbies," i.e., those who've not read a lot of past posts, might miss whether something is considered a tabloid or not.

Shirley wrote:


As a newish person to the board, I must say, it is part of our "job", so to speak, as a member, to read the prior discussions. I have read some, but not all, so I too am guilty of repeating previous ad nauseum. But they really are an interesting and important read. And they come in handy on slower forum days.


Yep, I too try to read older posts when I can. But obviously we all have busy outside lives, hobbies, and obligations, and there's such a wealth of information here that it's not always realistic to expect a newish member to know the ins and outs of various important facets of the case. I guess I just try to give people the benefit of the doubt when I can, because I know there are many things that I myself don't know about the 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 Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Still can't think of any innocent explanation, though.


An innocent explanation ...

what Edda testified: “I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police.”

what Amanda could have said instead: “we are going to call the police when Raf has finished talking to his sister.”

Isn't it possible that Edda just got it slightly wrong? I thought her testimony was a bit too 'perfect' anyway.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:34 pm   Post subject: Homework   

Shirley wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Lane wrote:

Quote:
You said it better than I did, Truth Seeker. Thanks. That was essentially what I was getting at.

Certainly, to the extent that even the revised version described is anything but a walk in the park, I don't see a problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the distinction between the two versions may not be particularly relevant.

However, if it *was* relevant, and someone asked me "what more could I want?", then I'd have to say I'd want to know about the reputation of whomever originated the story, and what that person's reaction was to Patrick's renuciation of it.


If I may just put Nicki's weariness within a context: This UK tabloid article has been discussed on this board (or previous iterations) ad nauseum. Was it AK or someone else who testified just last week that Patrick Lumumba doesn't really speak English? He appeared on television and on record in the Italian press, saying that the quotes attributed to him were wrong. He rectified all that and has recently reiterated his position, testifying under oath about how he was treated by police.

Lane, if you want to know how the tabloid writer "feels", then you should write to him or her and ask!


A couple of points here. First, not everyone, especially those new to the case, is able to immediately distinguish what is a tabloid report and what is not. For example, when we were discussing Ann Coulter yesterday, I felt the need to point out to some non-Americans who aren't familiar with her that she is not a "mainstream" newsperson. (I'm not classifying her work as "tabloid," but it is certainly *extreme* and not taken seriously by a lot of people.) Second, people who are newish to the board do not always know what has been discussed ad nauseum in prior iterations of it. I think it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt. Finally, obviously Lane should ask the tabloid writer questions if he/she really wants to know how the story came about. But is there something wrong with Lane's asking/theorizing about things on the board? That's what this board is for! In fact, his questions led to Brian's theory that the tabloid writer may have been paid to plant a false story.

.
EDIT: I myself actually found the discussion quite illuminating because I hadn't known about the report and Patrick's repudiations of it.


Being familiar with the difference between a tabloid and other news sources has nothing to do with being new or old to the case.

As a newish person to the board, I must say, it is part of our "job", so to speak, as a member, to read the prior discussions. I have read some, but not all, so I too am guilty of repeating previous ad nauseum. But they really are an interesting and important read. And they come in handy on slower forum days.


Great post Shirley! th-)

I remember I had a list that I kept of the various "tabloid" media in the various countries and I referred to it often. I lost my list once, and felt a bit lost without it until I was up to speed on the case.

There is much to read about this case, and I can honestly say that I have read every post since the first Haloscan, just like many, many others on the board. It's a courtesy that is appreciated.

You go girl! b-((



WELCOME TIGGER! :D

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


Last edited by Tara on Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

gungadin wrote:
Just watching the abc interview of Amanda's Mother.. it is obv how they are painting the Italian legal system as a joke.. and that they hope given the mess of a court system that the "good old innocent" american girl will be served justice.. and if not.. then it is a corrupt and joke of a system over there in Italy.

Why this has gotten political I think.. for some people. Is that in the States under Bush.. they were so isolated further from the rest of the world. They knew what the rest of the world.. Europe etc thought of them.. their president and what was going on. They kind of got defensive.. E.g. Freedom fries and pouring french wine down drains.. One of the Fox guys was even saying recently that they should do the same to Spain bc they are trying to get some of the Rep's into court for the stuff in Iraq. To me it seems if someone does not agree with the states (sorry not all of the people in the states the people to the right.. the people who are blindly patriotic) they get thier back up, pull away and say how stupid of inferior the other people or country are.. and in Europes case... say where would they be if we didnt help them in WW2.

That to me is what is happening in the media there. The one women who has spoken some sense is actually a conservative republican (which bemuses me, but it was also a chance for her to take a stab at the liberals at the NY Times)

I really think she is guilty. And hope justice is served. I just dont really want to see the media's reaction in the States when this happens. And wonder what would or could happen?

Yes I feel sorry for the family of AK. Really sorry for them. And can understand them throwing everything at this.. It would be good to get some objective reporting from people in the media in the States (then again people there or supporters of AK would prob say the same about the media in Italy).. and that is how it is with rep's and dem's in the USA as well.

Bit of a ramble sorry. But that news story and interview was a shocker.



Sorry, but I couldn't let this one go. First of all, the mainstream media in the US is liberal and was not behind Bush and often complained about how America was perceived abroad. These are the same people who are mis-reporting this case in a lot of instances.

I am about as conservative as they come and do not disparage Mignini or the Italian justice system. In fact, in some ways, I consider it superior to our own. I am also a patriotic American; but am not blind to my country's faults, which have less to do with the foundation of our country than with ever-changing mores and a sub-par educational system. Ann Coulter is a right-wing gadfly, to be sure, and does not like the prevailing attitude of many on the Left that any coherent legal system lacks the authority to hold anyone accountable for their crimes (unless the crimes are against one of their belief systems, in which case they are quite punitive). This is the left-over Sixties mentality to which I know many (if not most) liberal Americans no longer subscribe. In fact, my liberal friends are just as anti-crime, pro-law-and-order as I am. They are not extremists. And the people on this board appear to be predominantly liberal, as well as concerned about justice for victims of crimes.

In the reporting of the Meredith Kercher, you have the misperception (by American journalists) that Italy is some kind of backward, reactionary country (Vatican City and all that) and that Amanda Knox is being persecuted for being a free-spirited and sexually liberated young American. These journalists are ignorant of history, culture and modern politics; but I assure you this is the prejudice which is the foundation of their very biased reporting in this case. The reason most of these same reporters did not question the prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case was because a female minority was the victim and the defendants were white males from well-to-do backgrounds.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Still can't think of any innocent explanation, though.


An innocent explanation ...

what Edda testified: “I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police.”

what Amanda could have said instead: “we are going to call the police when Raf has finished talking to his sister.”

Isn't it possible that Edda just got it slightly wrong? I thought her testimony was a bit too 'perfect' anyway.


Of course, Sollecito supposedly called his sister for advice, not as part of a pre-arranged plan. Why would Sollecito have to call his sister before calling the police anyway? Also, your alternative formulation implies that the call with the sister is taking place at the same time, so it really comes down to the same thing. It provides an additional ounce of ambiguity, I suppose, but probably not much more.
And, of course, the real problem is that the police had already arrived. It is surprising that Knox didn't mention this to her mother, or at least mention that two people had turned up with one of Meredith's cell phones.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:40 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think most people are at least familiar with the tabloids in their own country if not their native language.



For sure. Exhibit A: The Globe, In Touch, The Star, O.K. :mrgreen: But I have to admit that I don't follow the English language foreign press all that much (I know I should, but there are only so many hours in the day), and so, depending on the context of a particular article, I might have trouble distinguishing whether it's "tabloid fluff" or not. I mean, if it has a cover page right in front of me that says, "Aliens have taken over Elton John's mansion and will be recording his new album for him" or something, then it would be pretty obvious. ;)

Just like yesterday in discussing the Jane-Velez Mitchell show. I didn't want non-Americans to get the impression that that show would generally be viewed as "serious news." My point is just that, depending on context (e.g., depending on whether you're just seeing a single article or a snippet of an article), it can sometimes be hard to distinguish non-tabloid stuff from mainstream stuff.

_________________
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 skywatcher


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:47 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The more I think about it, if Amanda and Raffaele are indeed the perpetrators of the crime, why return to the cottage at all that morning? Why stage an elaborate discovery of the crime scene? What would be the benefit of returning? Couldn't they just hang out at Raffaele's apartment until they got word from someone else about what happened?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: Homework   

Tara wrote:

I remember I had a list that I kept of the various "tabloid" media in the various countries and I referred to it often. I lost my list once, and felt a bit lost without it until I was up to speed on the case.

There is much to read about this case, and I can honestly say that I have read every post since the first Haloscan, just like many, many others on the board. It's a courtesy that is appreciated.



I wonder if it might be helpful to have a "master list" on here of various tabloids, whether American, British, Italian, etc., so that people can refer to it. Although I suppose then there might be disputes as to whether something should really be considered a "tabloid" or not.

I agree that it would be best to read every post since the first Haloscan, but I'm not sure it's realistic, when people have full-time jobs, kids to take care of, other hobbies to pursue, etc. etc. etc.

But, as Shirley said, the "slow" days would be good days for people to catch up on older posts. :)

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Swanny wrote:
AK and RS really messed up with the phone calls to the police. Am I missing something or why didn't they just say "we called Filomena, a roommate, but we haven't called the police yet" to the postal police. Leave it at that and the police would be called soon enough. Were they afraid that it looked so suspicious to have them simply hanging around?

The more I think about it, I think they may have panicked.

Swanny


I think the panic set in for Amanda and Raffaele around 12pm, when they realized they needed a couple more hours of clean up, and they just didn't have the time before Amanda's flatmates would be back. They needed to set up their alibi before Filomena and Laura came home, and probably the worst for Amanda and Raffaele, having the flatmates come home while they were in the middle cleaning up. They needed to set the alarm first to Filomena, that there was something odd. What took Raffaele and Amanda by surprise was the arrival of the Postal Police. I have to look back at the timeline, but the first phone call after 12 was to Filomenia, then the cover calls to Meredith's phone, but I will be gladly corrected if I am wrong.

Amanda and Raffaele were probably very anxious when the Postal Police arrived, and they seemed to be evading or leaving the scene for more phone calls or pretending to be calling the Carabinieri. (We know that Raffaele spent a couple minutes paying for more minutes for his cell phone from the 12:40-12:45 timeline) It really took Filomenia to take control of the situation and get the door broken down. If anything both Amanda and Raffaele seemed to be stalling for time before the door was broken into.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:53 pm   Post subject: Postal police timeline   

Your logic escapes me here, Machine. Surely you can't be citing the following
two pieces of information as Gospel truth expecting us to believe them both!

Raffaele's words:

Quote:
I tried to force the door but couldn't, and at that point I decided to call my
sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial
112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived.


Your words:

Quote:
Sollecito's admission that he didn't call 112 is corroborated by the two
postal police officers claim that they arrived at approximately 12.30pm.


Surely you are not calling the arrival of the postal police at 12:30 pm
a CORROBORATION of Sollecito's claim above! It's a straightforward
contradiction -- the call to Vanessa was at 12:50!

Which makes one of the above two statements definitely WRONG. So

Quote:
How many times do I have to post this extract of Sollecito's witness statement
before his words finally sink in?


Maybe it would help them sink in if you would explain why we are
expected to believe them! Perhaps you are convinced that they are true, and
that the postal police arrived at 12:51? If you don't believe that yourself,
then perhaps you can understand that others don't, either.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:

Quote:
I wonder if it might be helpful to have a "master list" on here of various tabloids, whether American, British, Italian, etc., so that people can refer to it. Although I suppose then there might be disputes as to whether something should really be considered a "tabloid" or not.


I'm not sure this is a matter of major dispute; tabloids are identifiable by their format and their focus on the sensationalistic. It is true that Rupert Murdoch has had a devastating effect on many of the formerly reputable broadsheets he has acquired.

It is pretty easy to get an overview of the tabloid world by using your favorite search engine. I just found a website called knowledgerush.com that lists the major ones by country and reiterates the information I already had from a different source on Bild Zeitung and China's recent interest in tabloids.

Some of our British friends might say if it has a photo of a scantily clad young woman on page 3 (is it?), then it's a tabloid. The NY Post puts its raunchiest crap on page 6, innit?

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Swanny wrote:
AK and RS really messed up with the phone calls to the police. Am I missing something or why didn't they just say "we called Filomena, a roommate, but we haven't called the police yet" to the postal police. Leave it at that and the police would be called soon enough. Were they afraid that it looked so suspicious to have them simply hanging around?

The more I think about it, I think they may have panicked.

Swanny


Swanny, I've often theorized that a lot of their post-murder actions were the result of panic, shock, impulsivity, and coming down from drugs.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

Quote:
I wonder if it might be helpful to have a "master list" on here of various tabloids, whether American, British, Italian, etc., so that people can refer to it. Although I suppose then there might be disputes as to whether something should really be considered a "tabloid" or not.


I'm not sure this is a matter of major dispute; tabloids are identifiable by their format and their focus on the sensationalistic. It is true that Rupert Murdoch has had a devastating effect on many of the formerly reputable broadsheets he has acquired.

It is pretty easy to get an overview of the tabloid world by using your favorite search engine. I just found a website called knowledgerush.com that lists the major ones by country and reiterates the information I already had from a different source on Bild Zeitung and China's recent interest in tabloids.

Some of our British friends might say if it has a photo of a scantily clad young woman on page 3 (is it?), then it's a tabloid. The NY Post puts its raunchiest crap on page 6, innit?


Ah yes, the infamous page 6. :) Anyway, thanks for the website/link - much appreciated.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skywatcher wrote:

Quote:
The more I think about it, if Amanda and Raffaele are indeed the perpetrators of the crime, why return to the cottage at all that morning? Why stage an elaborate discovery of the crime scene? What would be the benefit of returning? Couldn't they just hang out at Raffaele's apartment until they got word from someone else about what happened?


Offenders returning to the scene of their crime is a well-documented phenomenon, but I don't know if anyone has come up with a satisfactory explanation. The literature / research tends to do statistical breakdowns based on type of crime (arson, for example) and type of criminal (disorganized killer, for example). This is interesting but not always useful. More than 50% of all arsonists return to the scene of their crime, for example.

The reasons given in the case of homicide are related to control, remorse, or simply the thrill of reliving the moment. I have read that some offenders get off on the thrill of being close to the investigation but not getting caught. The goal is to get away with something.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:11 pm   Post subject: postal police timeline   

Finn, I just noticed that you dashed off much the same argument as me to Machine earlier on. (He never answers my posts these days,
filled with interesting questions as they are. But perhaps he'll answer this one coming from you.)

Anyway, it's easy enough to figure out an innocent explanation for Edda's phone call testimony. I really don't think a time lapse of one or two minutes between events is big enough to warrant being called a lie. Amanda might have said "Raff, why don't you call your sister while I call my mom?" "Sure honey". They go into separate rooms. Amanda says what she says to Edda thinking that he is calling. Hangs up and goes off to find him. But he's stopped off briefly in the bathroom or out in the garden under a tree for a minute. Or maybe he did some relaxing cartwheels and splits. "I was just about to call, here, let me do it." I mean, he's all of two or three minutes later than expected. It's not too much of a stretch.

i know I used a similar argument to explain the call to carabinieri occurring after the arrival of the postal police when I was trying to predict what Amanda would say on the stand, but I predicted wrong -- wouldn't have guessed she'd stay with the old version! So I guess I'm free to use it again.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Ferret wrote:

Quote:
I think the panic set in for Amanda and Raffaele around 12pm, when they realized they needed a couple more hours of clean up, and they just didn't have the time before Amanda's flatmates would be back. They needed to set up their alibi before Filomena and Laura came home, and probably the worst for Amanda and Raffaele, having the flatmates come home while they were in the middle cleaning up. They needed to set the alarm first to Filomena, that there was something odd. What took Raffaele and Amanda by surprise was the arrival of the Postal Police. I have to look back at the timeline, but the first phone call after 12 was to Filomenia, then the cover calls to Meredith's phone, but I will be gladly corrected if I am wrong.

Amanda and Raffaele were probably very anxious when the Postal Police arrived, and they seemed to be evading or leaving the scene for more phone calls or pretending to be calling the Carabinieri. (We know that Raffaele spent a couple minutes paying for more minutes for his cell phone from the 12:40-12:45 timeline) It really took Filomenia to take control of the situation and get the door broken down. If anything both Amanda and Raffaele seemed to be stalling for time before the door was broken into.


I think you could be onto something here. My sense is that perhaps the call to Filomena was to get a sense of where she was and gauge the amount of time remaining before the inevitable discovery. Remember that it was Filomena who became alarmed after talking to Knox and sent her boyfriend and a friend over because they were closer than she was and could get there faster. It is also significant that, after the first call to Filomena at 12:08, Knox did not call her back. Filomena called Knox 3 times.

It is possible that Knox and Sollecito thought they had more time than they did and were surprised by the arrival of the postal police before they could make the phone calls. As you note, RS loaded up his cell phone. That took some time. Because RS had run out of minutes, they ran out of time.

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

Offline Hubie


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:25 pm

Posts: 5

Location: Haw River

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:

Quote:
The more I think about it, if Amanda and Raffaele are indeed the perpetrators of the crime, why return to the cottage at all that morning? Why stage an elaborate discovery of the crime scene? What would be the benefit of returning? Couldn't they just hang out at Raffaele's apartment until they got word from someone else about what happened?


Offenders returning to the scene of their crime is a well-documented phenomenon, but I don't know if anyone has come up with a satisfactory explanation. The literature / research tends to do statistical breakdowns based on type of crime (arson, for example) and type of criminal (disorganized killer, for example). This is interesting but not always useful. More than 50% of all arsonists return to the scene of their crime, for example.

The reasons given in the case of homicide are related to control, remorse, or simply the thrill of reliving the moment. I have read that some offenders get off on the thrill of being close to the investigation but not getting caught. The goal is to get away with something.



I think they were putting finishing touches on clean up, going over their story, and checking over place before people showed up.

Will be interesting to see what defense puts up in their case. Probably their high paid scientific experts and maybe some forensic experts.

It is such a sad case. Had to have perfect storm of other house guests gone, drugs, and the 3 acting together.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
I I would say with the amazing people that Mez has taking care of her now, justice will be served. If convicted, maybe they will consider extradition as a longshot, since we do have the death penalty here. I would rather her stay in Capanne for the next 30 years as a reminder that one who takes a life does not deserve to live one.


Welcome to the board, Tigger. :) I just want to clarify that if Amanda is convicted and is allowed to be transferred to the U.S. to serve her sentence under an international prisoner-transfer agreement, she absolutely will NOT (for quite a number of reasons) be subject to the death penalty.

_________________
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 Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Just speculating, but could it be they called Filomena to find out where she was, yes, but to also set-up breaking down the door, to get the lamp. Where, the lamp looks like a huge mistake on their part. Then, they would find the body, (contaminate the scene to their benefit) and then call the police.

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Still can't think of any innocent explanation, though.


An innocent explanation ...

what Edda testified: “I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police.”

what Amanda could have said instead: “we are going to call the police when Raf has finished talking to his sister.”

Isn't it possible that Edda just got it slightly wrong? I thought her testimony was a bit too 'perfect' anyway.


Um, so we have to guess that her perfectly rehearsed answer actually conceals a more honest answer that exonerates her daughter?

I think it's a heroic attempt by yourself, but it doesn't work, not least because Amanda's version has no such phone call, and no such conversation about calling Vanessa - rather, Amanda's version wants us to believe that they tried to break down the door and then - because they'd failed to do that - they called Vanessa/112.

And, okay, let's say that she decided as well to call her mother in Seattle at that point WAY before breakfast, then the least she could do is remember the call.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

justlooking wrote:
Also, as an addendum. This forum has mushroomed over the last few weeks and has turned into a place full of lively debate and is by no means a one way street of opinion. Candace's blog has coincidentally gone in the opposite direction. If she wants more publicity then there is undoubtedly a lesson for her to learn from that.


I agree, and I'm glad to see it. Civil, friendly, level-headed debate, in my opinion, is the best way that we, either as a group or as individuals, will reach what we consider to be our best approximation of the "truth" in this 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 Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

indie wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
I'm in the process of digging up what was said about this phone call in the early days. It's always been obvious that the contents of that phone call as described by Edda to Amanda on the 10th November do not fit with the fact that the police were on the scene.

This the first comment by Chris Mells on the subject on Haloscan 2.

Quote:
The time thing is something I have not asked about with regards to it being case related but I feel that I can atleast say a bit on it.
There WAS some question, as you have one here, with regards to the timeline of events. It has been resolved to our satisfaction. The timeline is as it has been stated.
Our call was made well before the postal police were on the scene.
I will not go further into it. Sorry.


More to follow as I dig it up, but you can surely appreciate the problem this phone call and it's contents as described by Edda creates for the defense since it can be proven that the police were already on the scene well before that call was made.





Thanks Brian. I always felt that Edda's earliest statements about the phone call were very important because they were her spontaneous and free thoughts. I remember when CMellas appeared that night on Haloscan and I thought hmmmmm he had to be sleeping right next to Edda when she received the call so he knew much more than he wanted to post in answer to our questions. After Edda began to piece her daughter's story together her discussion of the phone call became more vague.

Here are some possible contributions for your quest:


Quote:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/142848.asp?page=5
Posted by cmellas at 7/24/08 3:16 p.m.

Hello Everyone,
Someone incessantly posts these questions to a number of blogs out there. I felt that it was time to answer them.
So, here are your answers, according to the evidence. (the poor spelling is from the original poster of the questions):

"Amanda supports please explain why: "

"1. She was seen with a black mail at 5:30am washing clothes including sneakers in a local laundromat?"

ANSWER: Media nonsense, not true. Just a rumor and there is no proof and never was any proof of this BS claim. Nor is it entered into evidence.

"2. Explain why at 8:20am on the morning after the murder receipts for two bottles of bleach and the empty bottles were found in Sollecito's apartment."

ANSWER: More media nonsense. The crime scene footage verifies the bottle dates, upc, and purchase dates on receipts as, one bottle being unused, the other being only a little used. The receipts were found and matched to both bottles. One was purchased almost a year previous to the murder and the other was purchased a few months previous to the murder. Again, one was unopened. The other was opened but only a little was used from it. There were no empty bleach bottles found at any time at any house that was searched.

"3. Explain why her bedroom was white-washed in bleach so that only one of her fingerprints was found in her own bedroom."

ANSWER: There is ZERO forensic evidence of this and nobody from the Policia Scientifica is saying this. It is only another media story, not evidence in the case.

"4. Explain why she said she went home that morning to simply take a shower and went back to Rafaelle's apartment to explain something was wrong, but the police found trace blood on bare foot prints going t/from the bathroom and to/from her amanda's bedrooms and merediths bedroom...cleaned with bleach?"

ANSWER: There are only 4 footprints of Amanda noted in evidence and they are located in the hall. One has trace blood from stepping on blood in the bathroom. Nowhere in the entire house is there any evidence of "cleaning" and the court forensics experts are not putting that theory to test either. There is no cleanup. She does not hover so there are bound to be footprints. But that is ok since it was her house too…. It is also in line with her statements to police both before and after her arrest.

"5. Explain why she said she was atRafaelle's apartment all night reading Harry Potter..but the book was found in Merdiths room when the cadaver was found?"

ANSWER: There was a harry potter book at both locations (Amanda's and Raffs) and both were found on the kitchen table areas. Just another example of poor media reporting.

"6. Explain why she denies knowing Rudy or ever meeting him , when witnesses have seen them together, she has previously purchased drugs from him, and her cell phone has repeated calls to his before but incrasingly after the murder?"

ANSWER: The cellphone records for both Amanda and Raffaelle verify that there are no calls to or from Rudy. Even the police have reluctantly and quietly admitted that they were wrong. She did not know Rudy. She had seen him around and knew of him, that's it. She had not ever associated with him. Not ever. As for the drugs comment. She has not, ever, participated in the activity of purchasing drugs. Not from Rudy or anyone else for that matter.

[red]"7. Explain why when the police fist showed up at the crime scene, amanda a rafaelle were there... when asked what they were doing there they explained they saw blood and called the police/carabinieri.... the call was placed an hour after the police arrived."

ANSWER: Because the postal police recorded the times incorrectly on their report. It has been verified and cleared by police dispatch and phone records. This is a nonissue/clerical error on behalf of the police.
[/red]
"8. there is CCTV footage shoing amanda going to her home ay 9:35pm that night."

ANSWER: That was thrown out by the initial panel of judges in late November. There is no CCTV footage that shows Amanda and raff, or just raff, or just Amanda. A broader spectrum of time is now being reviewed to see if Rudy shows up, or if it can further verify Amanda and Raffaelle's statements.

"9. Rafaelles sneaker print was found in blood at the scene... His sneakers where washed and the bottoms cleaned with bleach."

ANSWER: No, Raffs shoes showed no signs of cleaning when they were examined. Rudy has made a spontaneous statement to the prosecutor stating that the SHOEPRINTS ARE HIS. He also said that he threw away his shoes in a dumpster in Germany.

"10. The clothes amanada was wearing that evening are missing..."

ANSWER: No they are not. Amanda's clothes were on her bed the entire time they were looking for them. This is old news and has been out for a while now. Get with the times.

All information used in these answers are public record and can be purchased at the local procura office in Perugia.


Quote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004159477_webknoxtranscript01.html
NARRATION:

THAT AMBIGUITY WOULD LATER COME BACK TO HAUNT THEM. AS FOR MEREDITH...AROUND 8:30 THAT NIGHT SHE LEFT A FRIEND'S HOUSE, AND WALKED BACKED TO THE COTTAGE ALONE. THE NEXT MORNING...AMANDA CAME HOME FROM RAFFAELE'S. SHE SAYS SHE TOOK A SHOWER, BUT NOTICES THE APARTMENT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT...THE FRONT DOOR IS OPEN, MEREDITH'S DOOR IS LOCKED...AND THERE ARE BLOOD SPOTS ON THE BATHROOM SINK AND RUG. SHE GETS RAFFAELE... AND THEY RETURN TO THE HOUSE. IT'S FOUR A.M. IN SEATTLE AND AMANDA WAKES HER MOTHER WITH A PHONE CALL.

[red]EDDA MELLAS

She goes, "I'm back at my house, and I want you ... first I know I'm okay." And I said, "Okay, you know, what's goin' on?" And she said, "Well, I was at Rafael's last night...and I've come home now and I think somebody's been in my house." ...And she told me, "We can't find Meredith. We can't get a hold of Meredith. And her room is locked."

And I said, "Hang up and call the police."

NARRATION:

PHONE RECORDS OBTAINED BY 20/20 CONFIRM AMANDA CALLED MEREDITH'S CELL PHONE THREE TIMES ...AND THEN HER MOTHER.

ELIZABETH VARGAS

When did you hear again from her?

EDDA MELLAS

She called me back. The police had come, they had broke down the door, um, so there was just ... chaos.[/red]

NARRATION:

WHEN POLICE BREAK DOWN MEREDITH'S DOOR THEY FIND BLOOD EVERYWHERE, MEREDITH'S BODY UNDER A BLANKET...NAKED EXCEPT FOR HER SWEATER...HER BRA ON THE FLOOR. MEREDITH WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND HER THROAT, FIRST PUNCTURED WITH A KNIFE, WAS VICIOUSLY SLASHED.

THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WOULD ESTIMATE IT TOOK TEN MINUTES FOR HER TO DIE...CHOKING ON HER OWN BLOOD. IT WAS AN EXCRUCIATING END TO A PROMISING YOUNG LIFE.




Thanks for that Indie,

I got otherwise detained shortly after I made my post.

:D
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: postal police timeline   

thoughtful wrote:
Finn, I just noticed that you dashed off much the same argument as me to Machine earlier on. (He never answers my posts these days,
filled with interesting questions as they are. But perhaps he'll answer this one coming from you.)

Anyway, it's easy enough to figure out an innocent explanation for Edda's phone call testimony. I really don't think a time lapse of one or two minutes between events is big enough to warrant being called a lie. Amanda might have said "Raff, why don't you call your sister while I call my mom?" "Sure honey". They go into separate rooms. Amanda says what she says to Edda thinking that he is calling. Hangs up and goes off to find him. But he's stopped off briefly in the bathroom or out in the garden under a tree for a minute. Or maybe he did some relaxing cartwheels and splits. "I was just about to call, here, let me do it." I mean, he's all of two or three minutes later than expected. It's not too much of a stretch.

i know I used a similar argument to explain the call to carabinieri occurring after the arrival of the postal police when I was trying to predict what Amanda would say on the stand, but I predicted wrong -- wouldn't have guessed she'd stay with the old version! So I guess I'm free to use it again.


Thoughtful, that's a brilliant suggestion. I was forgetting about the old cartwheels. There's life in the old defense arguments yet.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi americans,
i just read Ann Coulter's report on TJMK. Can you please tell me who is "Mumia Abu-Jamal"
and what is the "duke-lacrosse-case" ? She also refers to strippers as "enemies of civilization".
What's wrong with strippers? My ex-wife worked as an exotic dancer and her body is very
"civilized"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

martin wrote:
Hi americans,
i just read Ann Coulter's report on TJMK. Can you please tell me who is "Mumia Abu-Jamal"
and what is the "duke-lacrosse-case" ? She also refers to strippers as "enemies of civilization".
What's wrong with strippers? My ex-wife worked as an exotic dancer and her body is very
"civilized"


Stoppppppppp! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ann Coulter is an ultra-extreme-right-winger talking head. Even a lot of conservatives can't stand her. I think she once made a statement that everyone in the world should be forced to convert to Christianity?????

The Duke Lacrosse case, in a very brief nutshell: A bunch of fraternity idiots at Duke University held a party and hired a stripper who happened to be black. She accused them of rape, but the evidence of it was extremely questionable and the guys were eventually cleared. Ann believes that certain mainstream media outlets trumpeted the guys' guilt merely because the alleged victim was poor and black and the alleged perpetrators were affluent and white.

Mumia Abu-Jamal: I can't recall the details of this case, but I think he was a black guy who shot some police officers? Ann probably has some extremist right-wing theory about why certain media outlets supported aspects of his case. I dunno.

Sorry in advance MrsD, as I know that you and I will differ re: Ann's views on these things. ;)

_________________
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 FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
I think she once made a statement that everyone in the world should be forced to convert to Christianity?????


Ah, now you're mixing her up with St Paul. An easy mistake to make.

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Swanny wrote:
It seems that AK and RS may both be lying about what they did that morning. Which means, nothing they say about that morning can be believed, including sleeping in, the trips to and from RS’s apartment to the cottage, the mop, the state of the front door, the state of the door to Filomena’s room, the absence of copious amounts of blood in the bathroom, the shower, the bathmat shuffle, and trying to knock open the door to MK’s room, among others I’m sure.

Wow, a clean slate. What did they do, go for a picnic? yr-) n-((

Swanny


Not quite clean Swanny,

But your point is well taken.

Someone turned on Rafffaele's phone at around 5:30am and someone used his computer before 6:00.

And if we believe the shopkeepers evidence, Amanda was waiting outside his store when he opened up at 7:45am although unfortunately he didn't see what if anything she subsequently purchased.

Perhaps she purchased some charcoal for the picnic? :lol:


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: postal police timeline   

thoughtful wrote:
Anyway, it's easy enough to figure out an innocent explanation for Edda's phone call testimony. I really don't think a time lapse of one or two minutes between events is big enough to warrant being called a lie. Amanda might have said "Raff, why don't you call your sister while I call my mom?" "Sure honey". They go into separate rooms. Amanda says what she says to Edda thinking that he is calling. Hangs up and goes off to find him.


That's a good thought! And it's close to what Amanda actually testified.

from your translation (thanks btw gb-) ):

"So,
when I went back upstairs, I said look, Raffaele, who should we call, because
I don't know how to call the police? I didn't even know the difference
between police and carabinieri because to me they were all the same, so
he said, ah, let's call my sister, who I think was a carabiniere or worked
for the carabinieri, I'm not sure, and she told him, she advised him, I
didn't listen to their phone call, but I think I was talking to Filomena on
the phone at the same time"

of course she wasn't talking to Filomena but her mother who she doesn't remember talking to..... but anyway, she thought she was on the phone and didn't listen to Raffaele's phone call to his sister.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I think she once made a statement that everyone in the world should be forced to convert to Christianity?????


Ah, now you're mixing her up with St Paul. An easy mistake to make.


: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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
I'm not sure, and she told him, she advised him, I
didn't listen to their phone call, but I think I was talking to Filomena on
the phone at the same time"

of course she wasn't talking to Filomena but her mother who she doesn't remember talking to..... but anyway, she thought she was on the phone and didn't listen to Raffaele's phone call to his sister.


Except that this is not true. She had finished her call a minute and a half before Sollecito made his. So you're saying she thought she was on the phone but in fact was not?

And we are still left with the real problem, which is that the police had arrived several minutes before any of these calls were made.

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

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi americans,
i just read Ann Coulter's report on TJMK. Can you please tell me who is "Mumia Abu-Jamal"
and what is the "duke-lacrosse-case" ? She also refers to strippers as "enemies of civilization".
What's wrong with strippers? My ex-wife worked as an exotic dancer and her body is very
"civilized"


Stoppppppppp! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ann Coulter is an ultra-extreme-right-winger talking head. Even a lot of conservatives can't stand her. I think she once made a statement that everyone in the world should be forced to convert to Christianity?????

The Duke Lacrosse case, in a very brief nutshell: A bunch of fraternity idiots at Duke University held a party and hired a stripper who happened to be black. She accused them of rape, but the evidence of it was extremely questionable and the guys were eventually cleared. Ann believes that certain mainstream media outlets trumpeted the guys' guilt merely because the alleged victim was poor and black and the alleged perpetrators were affluent and white.

Mumia Abu-Jamal: I can't recall the details of this case, but I think he was a black guy who shot some police officers? Ann probably has some extremist right-wing theory about why certain media outlets supported aspects of his case. I dunno.

Sorry in advance MrsD, as I know that you and I will differ re: Ann's views on these things. ;)

LOL! I hate her too! Just in this case, she actually said something intelligent. Yes, I understand that Amanda wouldn't be subject to the death penalty if they returned her, and truth be told, I don't want to see her back! However, things do happen in prisons here.........Doubtful they would be able to extradite her. Yes, I too, know there are good and bad people in every part of the world and yet, somehow, I feel responsible for they way the American media has rallied behind this girl. There must have been some very heavy cash changing hands. Lord knows the Pacific Northwest has had it share of felons (serial killers especially). As for Duke-Lacrosse, the black girl was a stripper and intoxicated at the time and they vilified her as well. That said, I feel the love, thanks for the welcome and I really enjoy reading your posts. If any of you ever become investigators or lawyers (or, if you are!), you will definitely be formidable.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Except that this is not true. She had finished her call a minute and a half before Sollecito made his. So you're saying she thought she was on the phone but in fact was not?

That's right, whatever Amanda says, it's never EXACTLY true because she doesn't seem to remember anything exactly.
She wasn't with Raffaele when he talked to his sister, that's what she says here and that makes sense when you look at her mother's testimony.
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

martin wrote:
Hi americans,
i just read Ann Coulter's report on TJMK. Can you please tell me who is "Mumia Abu-Jamal"
and what is the "duke-lacrosse-case" ? She also refers to strippers as "enemies of civilization".
What's wrong with strippers? My ex-wife worked as an exotic dancer and her body is very
"civilized"


Mumia Abu-Jamal is a convicted murdered that was sentenced to be executed in the State of Pennsylvania in 1982. He was convicted of murdering a Philadelphia Police officer, Daniel Faulkner. He has been a cause célébre for anti death penalty advocates for years, and his case has been gotten much attention in Europe. I believe his sentence was commuted and to life in prison after a 2001 appeals changed the sentence but upheld the conviction. Some of the outrage in the US, was that NPR (National Public Radio) was going to have broadcasts from him while he was on Death Row. One reason there was interest and attention about him, he was a former radio reporter, and can be eloquent when he sees fit. However I don't think he has ever talked about his case in detail in his interviews, or what he was doing that night of the murder.

http://danielfaulkner.com/
http://tinyurl.com/mc6uz2

The Duke Lacrosse case, was when a stripper named Crystal Mangum in 2006 accused three Duke University Lacrosse players of rape at a party of Lacrosse player that hired her as a stripper along with another woman, in Durham, North Carolina. (ie the Raleigh-Durham metropolis) A Durham County District Attorney, Michael Nifong indicted the three Lacrosse players on weak evidence to start with, and was accused of hiding exculpable evidence against the three players. The charges were dropped after it became apparent there was much evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by Nifong. Nifong was disbarred, and found guilty of criminal contempt. He also declared bankruptcy..

http://tinyurl.com/yawe96


Personally, Ann Coulter doesn't really care about the Meredith Kercher murder trial. She just wants to stick it to the New York Times. There is only one and half articles I have ever agreed that Ann Coulter wrote about. I half agree with her piece against Tim Egan and the New York Times, and an article she wrote about the nomination of Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court. I am more critical of the New York Times for publishing as an Op/Ed piece by Daphne Merkin about the Bernard Madoff scandal, even though her brother, J. Ezra Merkin is right of the middle of it, and probably ripped off many of his clients.

I kind of blame Bob Guccione Jr. for unleashing Ann Coulter on society. If he kept on dating her, and kept her with an ample suppy of Chardonnay and Malboro Lights, she may have kept her psychosis at bay. Instead she had go out and write books to pay for her daily usage of cigs and wine.

Ann Coulter is closer intellectually to Tristan Tzara than Irving Kristol. Basically she is a shock artist, an absurdist. She knows outrage and shock gets more attention than delicate prose and good writing. She kind of re-appears before Father's Day, or published books around this time, because they sell well. My favourite picture of her was with a former gay porn star at the C-PAC convention a couple years back... (A guy named Matt Sanchez)


Last edited by Ferret on Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Ferret wrote:



I kind of blame Bob Guccione Jr. for unleashing Ann Coulter on society. If he kept on dating her, and kept her with an ample suppy of Chardonnay and Malboro Lights, she may have kept her psychosis at bay. Instead she had go out and write books to pay for her daily usage of cigs and wine.


OMG, they used to date? There's some heavy irony in that, given his father and all. :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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

OT)))

Mumia Abu-Jamal (birth name: Wesley Cook) is an African-American part-time journalist and cab driver who was convicted and sentenced to death in the early 1980s for murdering a policeman named Dan Faulkner. He had been a member of the Black Panthers. He is a cause célèbre the world over, and has become a sort of symbol for opponents of the death penalty. Many wonder in addition if he got a fair trial. I suppose most of those who believe he got screwed are also against the death penalty and are left of center.

I'm guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Ann Coulter is an ardent supporter of the death penalty who has no time for people who support the likes of Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier, a native American who was also tried and convicted for murder involving law enforcement officials (in this case, the FBI). Many feel his trial was unfair, and those who support him tend to be liberals in the American sense of the term. Clinton was going to pardon Peltier but the FBI staged a march on Washington to protest.

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: postal police timeline   

Lancelotti wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Anyway, it's easy enough to figure out an innocent explanation for Edda's phone call testimony. I really don't think a time lapse of one or two minutes between events is big enough to warrant being called a lie. Amanda might have said "Raff, why don't you call your sister while I call my mom?" "Sure honey". They go into separate rooms. Amanda says what she says to Edda thinking that he is calling. Hangs up and goes off to find him.


That's a good thought! And it's close to what Amanda actually testified.

from your translation (thanks btw gb-) ):

"So,
when I went back upstairs, I said look, Raffaele, who should we call, because
I don't know how to call the police? I didn't even know the difference
between police and carabinieri because to me they were all the same, so
he said, ah, let's call my sister, who I think was a carabiniere or worked
for the carabinieri, I'm not sure, and she told him, she advised him, I
didn't listen to their phone call, but I think I was talking to Filomena on
the phone at the same time"

of course she wasn't talking to Filomena but her mother who she doesn't remember talking to..... but anyway, she thought she was on the phone and didn't listen to Raffaele's phone call to his sister.


Lancelotti,

I don't think anyone believes that Edda's testimony was a lie.

First off, she was awoken from her sleep, not likely at her most alert to have a perfect memory of Amanda's exact words.

Plus she is tied by what she said about that call to Amanda when taped by the police on Nov 10th.

Also what she herself has told the media in numerous interviews:


EDDA MELLAS

She goes, "I'm back at my house, and I want you ... first I know I'm okay." And I said, "Okay, you know, what's goin' on?" And she said, "Well, I was at Rafael's last night...and I've come home now and I think somebody's been in my house." ...And she told me, "We can't find Meredith. We can't get a hold of Meredith. And her room is locked."

And I said, "Hang up and call the police."


The Seattle PI.

The problem revolves around the very fact that Amanda made that call at the time she did and said the things that she said.

This when the police had been at the cottage for 15 minutes.

Or are you suggesting that two police officers, Batisttelli plus his oppo have committed perjury and given false evidence. That Luca , Marco, Filomena and Paola all misunderstood the situation they found as they arrived on the scene. That the car which the police claim shows their vehicle in the CCTV is a misidentity, despite the fact that it corroborated Battistelli's evidence.

All this evidence must be discounted as false, mistaken or downright lies if the defense is to maintain that Amanda called her mother and Raffaele called the Carabinarie before the Postals arrived.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
I think it's a heroic attempt by yourself, but it doesn't work, not least because Amanda's version has no such phone call, and no such conversation about calling Vanessa - rather,

It depends on which version you want to go by, doesn't it? I looked at her testimony, which is, I am sure, quite different from all the other versions.

Quote:
Amanda's version wants us to believe that they tried to break down the door and then - because they'd failed to do that - they called Vanessa/112.

Is that from the email version? I don't trust that version.

Quote:
And, okay, let's say that she decided as well to call her mother in Seattle at that point WAY before breakfast, then the least she could do is remember the call.

Yes, that's what I thought! :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:33 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote;

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Except that this is not true. She had finished her call a minute and a half before Sollecito made his. So you're saying she thought she was on the phone but in fact was not?

That's right, whatever Amanda says, it's never EXACTLY true because she doesn't seem to remember anything exactly.
She wasn't with Raffaele when he talked to his sister, that's what she says here and that makes sense when you look at her mother's testimony.


That's not quite what she says. She doesn't say she wasn't with him. But if that works for you, Lancelotti that's great. I'm still left with the problem of why these calls were made after the postal police arrived and why Knox didn't tell her mother that one of Meredith's cell phones had been found, delivered by two men who had shown up several minutes before saying they were members of the postal police. I guess it's like you say: for such minor details, AK just can't be counted on because she doesn't seem to remember anything exactly. sh-)))

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
I think it's a heroic attempt by yourself, but it doesn't work, not least because Amanda's version has no such phone call, and no such conversation about calling Vanessa - rather,

It depends on which version you want to go by, doesn't it? I looked at her testimony, which is, I am sure, quite different from all the other versions.


Quote:
Amanda's version wants us to believe that they tried to break down the door and then - because they'd failed to do that - they called Vanessa/112.

Is that from the email version? I don't trust that version.


Quote:
And, okay, let's say that she decided as well to call her mother in Seattle at that point WAY before breakfast, then the least she could do is remember the call.

Yes, that's what I thought!


If I understand correctly, you think that the version given 19 months after the fact is closer to the truth than that given to police and to friends back home in the days following the event.

I think it is more likely that Edda Mellas told the truth, in part because she is a basically honest person and in part because she had no choice but to stick with what she has repeated on record. Plus, the time she gives is concordant with the actual phone records, except that the second call from Amanda came 37 minutes later and not one hour later.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thanks, truthseeker, thanks ferret
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
I think it's a heroic attempt by yourself, but it doesn't work, not least because Amanda's version has no such phone call, and no such conversation about calling Vanessa - rather,

It depends on which version you want to go by, doesn't it? I looked at her testimony, which is, I am sure, quite different from all the other versions.


I'm just curious to know, Lancelotti, if you believe that the postal police and the other witnesses lied about their time of arrival at the cottage. Also, do you think that witness testimony to the effect that Knox and Sollecito went into Knox's bedroom and emerged a little before 1 pm is false? (Maybe because that witness is wrong or lying about time of arrival.) If that witness testimony is valid, do you have any idea what AK and RS might have been doing in AK's room? IF you think the witness is lying, do you have any idea why?

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Is that from the email version? I don't trust that version.


Is there a version that you do trust?

The email version and last weekend's testimony are roughly the same on that point, so it doesn't matter too much. The cellphone records show a phone call that Amanda can't remember making.

And why not? Even if we invent cartwheels, and walking into other rooms that they never mentioned walking into, Raffaele put down the phone to his own father at 12:41:10.

Amanda's call to Edda begins at 12:47:23.

I feel another Benny Hill moment coming on, but this means that they have six minutes and thirteen seconds to try (and fail) to break down a locked bedroom door and then devise a plan whereby Amanda will call Edda and then (a minute and a half later) Raffaele will call his sister. They kind of separate for these phone calls, maybe turning cartwheels while the other is on the phone, before dovetailing again for the second 112 call, that ends just before one o'clock.

And just before one o'clock, Paola sees them coming out of Amanda's bedroom. At that stage, Luca and Marco had arrived "a few minutes" before, and the police had arrive a few minutes before that.

And all that witness testimony corroborates the police's own report that they arrived at around 1230.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

[quote="tigger3498"][quote="Truth Seeker"][quote="martin"]
Ann Coulter is an ultra-extreme-right-winger talking head. Even a lot of conservatives can't stand her. I think she once made a statement that everyone in the world should be forced to convert to Christianity?????

Maybe we should invite her to the church of the flying spaghetti monster ft-)) wor-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

From a post above:

Quote:
The eminent urologist also said his son had a habit of carrying knives - a flick knife was found in his pocket when he was first arrested over the murder.

The father said: "It's a habit he has had since childhood. He grew up in the country and he always carried a knife with him. He is not violent - he would not hurt a fly."

The father said he knew his son had taken drugs in the past too, adding that he had received a letter from the local police station in Giovinazzo advising him...





Quote:
Knox and Sollecito had just begun a “beautiful love story,” the Italian's father told the court earlier.

Francesco Sollecito, an eminent urologist, told the trial he was his son's “confidant” and that he told him about everything.

Mr Sollecito, from Giovinazzo near Bari, told the court: “Raffaele told me he had just started a beautiful love story with Amanda. He loved her and he adored her.

“He spoke to me about her in a way that he had never done about other girls. Raffaele had a certain affection towards Amanda.”


This is London

This is the guy I wouldn't trust an inch.

Is he preparing the scene for Raffaele's ultimate betrayal of Amanda?

Raffael first betrayed her on the 5th November.

IMHO the Sollecito family wouldn't be in the slightest concerned if they thought that by portraying Raffaele as besotted with Amanda they could find a way to diminish his part or responsibility.

I think sooner or later they will claim that Raffaele's lies were the result of his infatuation.

Raffaele still won't give Amanda an alibi, nor will he with the evidence as it stands against her. I still feel that if things look bad for Sollecito later in this trial his defense will suggest that Amanda could have been the contaminating agent which left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:17 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
So Raffaele says: She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived.

Fine. The trouble is that the cellphone records show that he did phone the 112 number. In fact he phoned it twice. Straight after he'd put down the phone to his sister.

So it's not an "admission" about what really happened. It's another lie, and as such cannot be seen as any more reliable than any other statement by himself or anyone else who claims to do or say things that the external evidence shows they couldn't possibly have said or done.

I think it's a good quote if you want to show Raffaele's unreliability or mendacity. But it's no kind of quote to use as a confession of "truth", because it plainly isn't the truth.


Hi Finn/thoughtful,

I need to clarify what I meant. I don't believe for a second that the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.55 as Sollecito was about to call 112, but I do believe him when he admits he hadn't called 112 before the postal police turned up.

When Sollecito was questioned on 5 November, the police were able to prove that he had lied to them. I believe they showed him a record of the telephone calls that had been made and this is what prompted Sollecito to admit that he hadn't called 112 before the arrival of the postal police, and to state that Amanda Knox had asked him to lie.

It was during this interrogation that Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi and this is the real reason why Knox admitted that she was actually at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

In both instances, when Knox and Sollecito were confronted with the truth, they had no choice but to acknowledge it. They simply changed their stories to fit facts as they became known. However, they both continued to lie when they thought they could get away with it.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
This is the guy I wouldn't trust an inch.

Is he preparing the scene for Raffaele's ultimate betrayal of Amanda?

Raffael first betrayed her on the 5th November.

IMHO the Sollecito family wouldn't be in the slightest concerned if they thought that by portraying Raffaele as besotted with Amanda they could find a way to diminish his part or responsibility.

I think sooner or later they will claim that Raffaele's lies were the result of his infatuation.

Raffaele still won't give Amanda an alibi, nor will he with the evidence as it stands against her. I still feel that if things look bad for Sollecito later in this trial his defense will suggest that Amanda could have been the contaminating agent which left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.


Brian, at the same time, perhaps you might agree that AK didnt do RS any favors on the stand last week by being so unconvincing and contradictory on so many points?

My guess (aided and abetted by a tip or two) is that he actually was tied to her through last weekend, but the reaction to her in Italy was so negative, he just had to think twice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline gungadin


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:11 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Sorry, but I couldn't let this one go. First of all, the mainstream media in the US is liberal and was not behind Bush and often complained about how America was perceived abroad. These are the same people who are mis-reporting this case in a lot of instances.


I would say that the media in the States has swung more to the left now.... as a result of how bad it was under Bush.. and how Obama offers a little bit of hope.. From 2000 through to 2006 it was right... or either left but too afraid to question the status quo. I was gutted by CNN when I lived in the States I had always held them in a similar light to BBC in terms of objecive and international new's. That was not the case leading through Bush's time in power... not atleast until it was obvious that Bush was fair game.. then not only CNN but a few others swung left. One thing that will not swing is Fox.. although it is comical watching them trying to rebrand their image with more women on the show and minorities. You still have the old head, angry, bitter white guys there... a leopard cant change its stripes.

I can only see this case gaining momentum over this summer, especially in the States. Hopefully some objective reporting can be done in the mainstream media.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skep wrote:
Some of our British friends might say if it has a photo of a scantily clad young woman on page 3 (is it?), then it's a tabloid. The NY Post puts its raunchiest crap on page 6, innit?


(( OT OT ))

Innit? My dear Skeppy, all I can say, is you've been hanging with too many of us Brits for far too long and have become infected...with our lingo. Have no fear, there are treatments, aside from the terrifying Colonic Irrigation...large needles and various aversion therapies you may have heard about. I can tell you, that there are cheap, natural...and painless (mostly) treatments available. Email me privately and I'll be happy to recommend some remedies :)

As for our page 3 tradition here...well, that all came about due to the concept that the nipples on page 3 would poke the eyes of the reader out so they wouldn't be able to see the content of the following pages due to blurred vision. But despite that, they hoped page 3 would dispel any requirements for a refund and in that regard, it's been quite a success. It has been a buisness plan that has worked...up to now anyway.

Tongue firmly in cheek,

Michael

_________________
"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 DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Ferret wrote:

‘Personally, Ann Coulter doesn't really care about the Meredith Kercher murder trial. She just wants to stick it to the New York Times.’

I believe I read somewhere from one of Ann Coulters’ followers that she had expressed some interest in this case that predates the Tim Egan article. And had once made a statement similar to ’Aren’t pretty white girls capable of killing someone, and then to continually lie about it?” You might think that this matter would be right up her alley. A foreign government picking on a naïve, helpless, and confused American girl. Well she‘s not buying whatever it is they are trying to sell. The Tim Egan article gave Ann a reason to go after the New York Times, and judging from the amount and the nature of the comments he got was a red flag. Although I think Ann has more interest in this case than her hard core fans do. There are thousands of other subject matter's that she could have written about to make her point about the media. So this had to be something on her mind.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:23 am   Post subject: Evil   

Humour aside...the serious discussion, on and off, we have been having ever since this case began...on the nature of humanity, of people...of what could allow this crime to happen.

I'm going to do a rare thing now and put forward an opinion....and by that I mean, an idea on how the world works. And I do think, in part, that's why many of us are here...much to do withthe terrible tragedy that was 'inflicted' upon Meredith, but a little more then that. What happened to meredith symbolised a question for many of us...how can this happen? Why did this happen? Perhaps the answer to that6 question can answer the question of why so many terrible things in humanity happen.

I've watched the dance around this subject for well over a year and a half...and I refer to it is a 'dance', simply due to the fact the nature of the question has never been as yet put in straight words. What is the nature of evil?

Meredith was murdered and in the most terrible way, with no need to repeat the detail here, we all know it...or should.

For the last few months...I have seen various ideas, with repetition I might add, put forward as to the cause (but truthfully, in the context..should be referred to as an 'excuse') or motive behind Merediths' murder. The murderers were on meth...they were on coke...they were on some other drug...they were simply...enraged, or they had some psycho-whatever-disorder...psychopathy, sociopathy...ADSD, for whatever reason. If they do you see, that lets the rest of us off the hook.

This is a natural human desire...we have to explain, provide some excuse...we have to offer some rationale for the evil others do. This need is understandable, otherwise, what are we left with? Evil. Without a rationale, that makes us all deeply uncomfortable. Without all the excuses...we are left with 'evil' as a tangible force. Choice aside...that unsettling thought that evil is as valid a part of nature, or more so, then anything that ends with 'thy' at the end of its name.

Don't mistake what I'm trying to get at here...this has nothing to do with religion...or any other organised hierarchy's superficial claim on the human psychy or their souls. It's just about our our nature, what we are and what is.

A couple of evenings ago I took some time out from the board to watch the film 'Downfall''...tonight I watched Schindler's List. I had seen each before of course, but this time I watched seeking an answer...about the nature of evil. In Schindler's List...Oskar Schindler spoke of the labour camp Kommandant as a good guy, it was just the war that made him act to some extremes...if it wasn't for the war, he'd be perfectly nice. If it wasn't for the war and he is our age...perhaps he'd be a comnmenter on our board...adding to the debate, as outraged as the rest of us about Meredith's brutal murder. If the war hadn't happened, perhaps Oskar was perfectly right and the Kommandant would have been a very good guy.

It was raised earlier...the question...are we all capable of murder? the answer is yes. Perhaps not so in the lives we currently are in, but put us in a different one and each of us are. And I'm not just talking about killing for self defence...or to protect a loved one, that isn't murder in any case...we'd be in neglect of natural law did we not kill in defence when there was no other way. I'm talking of 'murder', a completely different thing...that requires the killing of another simply for ideology, for kicks, for sexual thrils or for the sustanance of some raging need.

Evil is a fact, it does exist and it does govern when permitted...and we are 'all' susceptible to it.

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


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

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:34 am   Post subject: Shock   

Frank has a new article at the THE SHOCK

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

Offline Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Ok. I have been reluctant to write this piece, however, I feel that I must - just to confirm to myself that I am not going bonkers.

Lancelloti. PLEASE READ AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS POINT OF VIEW HEREIN.


I joined this forum because of the exceptional contributions delivered - fairly - by Skep, The Machine and many, many others.

Before and during the early stage of my membership to PMF, I held no judgement on Ms Knox or Mr Sollelicito. It has taken time and for many questions being answered (mainly in the archived sections), for me to lean (heavily) towards guilt.

They are both now reaping what they have sewn due to continuous lies.
Like it or not (and in your case it seems the latter), DNA evidence counts - as like in the US. Substantial circumstantial evidence counts - as like in the US. Reliable prosecution witness testimonies do count - as like in the US.
TIMELINES DO count, as like in the US.
If Ms Knox, her mother or anyone else for that matter for the defence, 'screw it up' when being cross examined - and with that, providing the prosecution with even more ammo against the defendants (and supporting the guilty element, seeking a FURTHER excuse to justify their errors (aka lies), is becoming pathetically absurd.

I do not know if you believe that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito did murder Meredith and frankly I no longer care.

Evidence does not seem to mean anything to you.
You continually question whether "black is really black" and "white is really white", even when such colours are staring you in the face - if you get my drift!

Of course, I would encourage many to ask questions here - IF the content of the said query is NOT already answered.

I cannot see how it is productive for users here, to answering again, and again, and again, your now rather predictably shallow and repetitive questions - only for you to counter them with nauseatingly and child like bile, like "Ahh! but AK might have been doing cartwheels because she slipped on a banana skin - and that it could have been put on the floor by the nasty Italian cops, to cause her injury". OR "It MIGHT be the norm, for people to take a shower in a blood splattered bathroom, when in the North American continent". OR "due to the Earth's magnetic polars being erratic, it is possible that AK did speak to her mother at the times that she stated - because Italy had moved slightly west at that time".

Be an apologist for the defendants if you want to but:

Please, please, please, stop all this absurd nonsense.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:53 am   Post subject: Thanks KCL   

Kent County Lad,

Thank you.

Tara

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

Offline bbelle


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:31 pm

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:56 am   Post subject: Re: Summer in Italy   

andy1956 wrote:
Tara wrote:
From NICK PISA, SKY NEWS

Edda Mellas is quoted:

Quote:
''Her friends have been to see her and they will spend the summer here and so will I - we just want to be here for her and let her know that she has our support.''


From INSIDE EDITION, a tabloid gossip television show:

Quote:
"This is, without a doubt, the absolute last person out of our friends who could even come close to being like this," said Madison Paxton, a friend of Amanda's from the University of Washington. She says it would be impossible for Amanda to commit such a vicious crime.

"She hated violence. She didn't even let people joke about violence. If there was a confrontation, if someone was yelling, she just kind of froze up," Paxton said.

She told INSIDE EDITION that Amanda's friends are outraged that she's being portrayed as drug-crazed and sex-obsessed by Italian prosecutors

Another friend, Greg Lucas, says Amanda has been railroaded by the authorities.

"They're just quick to cast Amanda as the villain [...] they want her to be guilty," he said. "I know this is not her. I just know this is not in the realm of possibilities."


It's a bit surprising that Amanda Knox's good friend, Madison Paxton decides to resurface on a Hollywood tabloid gossip tv program.

Perhaps she needed some funds for her summer in Italy?


The point is I think that a friend is not by definition an independant judge of character, she is a friend and is hardly likely to condemn AK. The only thing of importance is the eivdence against AK produced in court, not what her friends and family think she is like.




Ok, first time posting, but I've been completely absorbed in this case. For the most part, I believe that AK is guilty, but I've never believed the idea that it was because of some sort of sex game that went wrong. That just seems to be a little too far fetched.
Instead I think that AK may have killed her in a fit of panic. Most who know her keep saying she couldn't have done it because that's not the type of person she is. I think that Meredith witnessed something, possibly even was a part of this something, that AK was doing that would not be deemed "normal" by most standards. AK, in her intoxicated mind, became paranoid that Meredith would say something and freaked out that those who knew her would find out that she wasn't so "squeaky clean." I know plenty of people that think something will be the end of the world when their minds are a little gone and a problem arises. I think she worried that Meredith would tell a secret about AK that AK didn't want the world to know, and attacked her. I don't think it was intentional, and the moment it happened she realized what she had done and tried to cover it up with the help of the other two.
I know this probably makes no sense, since I'm having trouble trying to convey what I'm thinking in words (it's been a long day and especially long week). Sorry for this, and also if I didn't post correctly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I'm not going to quote the post, but someone very recently, in this thread, complained of the fact that this site is overtly for Meredith Kercher...and they'd only just discovered that fact.

I'm not going to go into a long and wordy piece in order to justify who we are and what we are about. There is no need and there shouldn't be. PMF is for the victim, Meredith kercher and her family. That is what this site has always been about, from our earliest incarnation. We don't speak for them... but we care.

The post at the beginning of this thread introduces Meredith...just as every single post does at the beginning of every single main discussion thread...and this is there to see for anyone who checks. I don't see how this makes us unobjective in any way. Justice requires truth, that the innocent go free and the guilty are brought to account. If there is a fault with that you can see, bring it to our attention and we'll discuss it. There is also little harm in mentioning the victim every now and then and I'm sorry some may begrudge it...especially as so many other places seem so hell bent on erasing her from history. Not here. This trial is about Meredith....not about your Patricks, Rudys, house owners, Amandas or Raffaeles...or anyone else. The accused and hurt are numerous, but there is only one murder victim.

If anyone has a problem with that, they are free to take their discussion elsewhere where it is more civilised, objective and reasonable...if they can find such a place.

In the meantime, we here will continue under the same ethos and principles as we have always existed under. There are some things, not many, in life, that will never change...PMF is one of them.

_________________
"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 jetlagged


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:17 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:00 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

[quote="Fast Pete]My guess (aided and abetted by a tip or two) is that he actually was tied to her through last weekend, but the reaction to her in Italy was so negative, he just had to think twice.[/quote]

Ooh, I do hope so. I'd love to hear RS putting the blame on AK. Surely this would bring us nearer to the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
This is the guy I wouldn't trust an inch.

Is he preparing the scene for Raffaele's ultimate betrayal of Amanda?

Raffael first betrayed her on the 5th November.

IMHO the Sollecito family wouldn't be in the slightest concerned if they thought that by portraying Raffaele as besotted with Amanda they could find a way to diminish his part or responsibility.

I think sooner or later they will claim that Raffaele's lies were the result of his infatuation.

Raffaele still won't give Amanda an alibi, nor will he with the evidence as it stands against her. I still feel that if things look bad for Sollecito later in this trial his defense will suggest that Amanda could have been the contaminating agent which left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.


Brian, at the same time, perhaps you might agree that AK didnt do RS any favors on the stand last week by being so unconvincing and contradictory on so many points?

My guess (aided and abetted by a tip or two) is that he actually was tied to her through last weekend, but the reaction to her in Italy was so negative, he just had to think twice.


Yabbut Pete,

He'd also have to change his story.

On the 5th November he said Amanda went out while he stayed at home. He said he'd previously lied because he didn't realise the inconsistencies in what Amanda said. Any official statement he has made since has reaffirmed that assertion. The last I'm aware of is his appeal for release to the Supreme Court April 2008 where one of his mitigating claims was "the evidence against Amanda is being arbitrarily used against me on the erroneous assumption that we were together that night".

Nothing was said to change that evidence at the pre-trial.

He isn't gonna give evidence at this trail and to change his story through his lawyers at this stage would be disasterous. Would anyone believe that his poor memory had suddenly returned and he could instead be certain that Amanda spent the night at his house along with him?

I've just been looking back to the tapped conversations between Raffaele, his father and Mara whilst he was in prison. The ones that started leaking to Il Messaggero along with the taps of Francesco's, Raffaele's aunt's and Vanessa's phone calls to politicians.

It's a pity that Il Messaggero Umbria links go dead on the web after a week but here are some snippets from Damian's translations:

Quote:
Both his father and his step-mother try to make him understand that his relationship with that young woman can bring nothing but trouble. During the first weeks in prison, Raffaele is unsure but the step-mother is determined..”You must stay at home, at your place…because you don’t know anything about that person…you must feel sorry for the young woman who is no more…you must feel sorry for her…”

She continues: “Imagine if you can really know what somebody is like after knowing them for 15 days…” But Raffaele still can’t believe that his Amanda is a murderer: (these are the days just after the murder) “Anyway, now I can tell you that I have doubts about the fact that she went and killed her…”The only person that calls you at the scene of the crime is her…so, with this ‘I don’t remember’, everybody is thinking about themselves…”

From Damians earlier translation:

Raffaele Sollecito, his father and his new wife, dated March1.

“Don’t ever talk about the crime with Amanda”

It’s the conversation in which Raffaele says he feels bad because he couldn’t remember whether Amanda had been with him the whole time on the night of the murder. According to the father and step-mother, “Amanda got herself in trouble” (’Amanda si e’ incastrata da sola’ d). She’s in prison because of what she said, because she involved Patrick Lumumba, “who’s never been in that house, there’s no trace of him.”

Francesco: “…It’s not like they just base it on (the fact d) that you said you didn’t remember. Or also if you had said she was there it was for (incomprehensible) you told a lie like you said before because, to cover for her, because she said, they put her inside because she said…she said to him that…she said she went to meet Lumumba. (…) The statements she made are very circumstantial. Because she told him she went out at that time, that she was in contact before with sms messages with that professor, then she left your house, she went to the basketball court where she met Lumumba…

Mara: “It’s worth thinking about this, you must give this some thought because the Americans are a bit more advanced than we are, do you understand? They do lots of things for notoriety even if they become meteours, that is today…(incomprehensible)…tomorrow you don’t remember them anymore because someone else has taken their place.”.......

The parents then advise him on what he should do when he is released. He and Amanda, say the Sollecito’s - can write to each other, send each other e-mails, but they should never talk about the murder. Advice which the investigators thought was suspicious.

“Don’t feel bad about what you said”

“She (referring to Amanda) did it all for the notoriety”, the parents continue. Raffaele then gets back to details of the investigation, trying to reconstruct what happened in the days leading up to the murder saying that there are receipts for the acquisition of bleach. (which, according to the police, was used to clean the cottage and Raffaele’s appartment in corso Garibaldi.)

“Tell the psychologist that you’ve got nothing to do with it”

The young man is clearly finding things difficult in prison and has seen a psychologist. “Also in this case, the father’s partner’s reaction is precise: Raffaele, also when you speak to the doctor, you mustn’t let yourself go: “Always say that you’ve got nothing to do with this.”
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

KCL wrote:
I cannot see how it is productive for users here, to answering again, and again, and again, your now rather predictably shallow and repetitive questions - only for you to counter them with nauseatingly and child like bile, like "Ahh! but AK might have been doing cartwheels because she slipped on a banana skin - and that it could have been put on the floor by the nasty Italian cops, to cause her injury". OR "It MIGHT be the norm, for people to take a shower in a blood splattered bathroom, when in the North American continent". OR "due to the Earth's magnetic polars being erratic, it is possible that AK did speak to her mother at the times that she stated - because Italy had moved slightly west at that time".

Be an apologist for the defendants if you want to but:

Please, please, please, stop all this absurd nonsense.



The bullshit you mean? :)

Or, to put it in a more highbrow way...stop insulting everyones intelligence?

I'm all for that, but that isn't going to happen. You have to realise, the plain fact of the matter...is for certain people, it doesn't matter a damn if the guilty are guilty as charged...they want them out of there.

Guilt/innocence is irrelevant to them.

We see that time and again.

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


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

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
I'm not going to quote the post, but someone very recently, in this thread, complained of the fact that this site is overtly for Meredith Kercher...and they'd only just discovered that fact.

I'm not going to into a long and wordy piece in order to justify who we are and what we are about. There is no need and there shouldn't be. PMF is for the victim, Meredith kercher and her family. That is what this site has always been about, from our earliest incarnation. We don't speak for them... but we care.

The post at the beginning of this thread introduces Meredith...just as every single post does at the beginning of every single main discussion thread...and this is there to see for anyone who checks. I don't see how this makes us unobjective in any way. Justice requires truth, that the innocent go free and the guilty are brought to account. If there is a fault with that you can see, bring it to our attention and we'll discuss it. There is also little harm in mentioning the victim every now and then and I'm sorry some may begrudge it...especially as so many other places seem so hell bent on erasing her from history. Not here. This trial is about Meredith....not about your Patricks, Amandas or Raffaeles...or anyone else. The accused are numerous, but there is only one victim.

If anyone has a problem with that, they are free to take their discussion elsewhere where it is more civilised, objective and reasonable...if they can find such a place.

In the meantime, we here will continue under the same ethos and principles as we have always existed. There are some things, not many, in life, that will never change...PMF is one of them.


Michael,

I thought it appropriate that the poster in question was totally ignored by everyone!
Buh-bye!
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:11 am   Post subject: Raffaele, the land baron   

From Frank's:

"We don't know about Amanda butRaffaele's dad --in order to explain why he wouldn't need to steal Meredith's money-- revealed today that his son owns several properties he inherited from his mother. Properties on which Meredith's lawyer still dreams to put his Florentine hands"

...then applied to the judgment owed the Kerchers let's hope.

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

Offline andy1956


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:24 am

Posts: 2

Location: Suffolk

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:17 am   Post subject: Re: when they are found guilty   

kredsox wrote:
When the defendants are found guilty, it will be intersting to see what type of analysis there will be concerning putting AK on the stand. My opinion is the defense should not have put her on the stand. Statements like," In the end, I only knew Meredith for a month and I need to get on with my life.", can only do harm to her. It shows a window to her soul. Also, Everyone knows about the testimony she gave about Patrick. Supposedly that testimony was thrown out. I am just some guy in the states and I know pretty much all the ins amd outs of this case. Believe me, the jury knows more than I do. This supposed thrown out testimony will be on all the jurors minds and it will be one of the biggest pieces of evidence that will help the jury arrive at guilty. After all, people are only human and will want to arrive at justice. I have said a million times innocent people do not implicate innocent people. Only guilty people implicate innocent people. If I am innocent, I say so. That's it. No reason to blame someone else. If I'm guilty,...On a lighter note, does anyone know what kind of olives the cab driver threw at Knox? Also, has Amanda denied going to the store early in the A.M. following the murder? If that is the case, a lot of people are lying except for her: cab driver, store owner, police, dna experts, cab drivers friends at the bar, Sollecito who has claimed ak did not spend whole night with him. There is so much evidence against them, it will be very easy for the jury to convict. What will be interesting to see is to what degree are they convicted? premeditated or not?


Interesting to read this. Over here in the UK the general consensus in my experience of discussing the case is that AK will walk even though most of the people I have spoken have the opinion she is guilty as hell.

There are a lot of comparisond here to he OJ Simpson trial, rightly or wrongly.

Of course none of us have been sitting in the courtroom week after week and so have not heard all the evidence or testimony, we rely on what the media feeds us, but I assume all the defence has to prove is "reasonable doubt" in which case anything is possible as an outcome.

There does appear to have been to many lies and inconsistencies, too much physical evidence , to allow me to believe in AK's innocence but she probably will walk free.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: when they are found guilty   

andy1956 wrote:
There does appear to have been to many lies and inconsistencies, too much physical evidence , to allow me to believe in AK's innocence but she probably will walk free.


I disagree with you completely. Knox will NEVER walk free. Ever.
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:27 am   Post subject: Re: Evil   

Michael wrote:
Humour aside...the serious discussion, on and off, we have been having ever since this case began...on the nature of humanity, of people...of what could allow this crime to happen.

I'm going to do a rare thing now and put forward an opinion....and by that I mean, an idea on how the world works. And I do think, in part, that's why many of us are here...much to do withthe terrible tragedy that was 'inflicted' upon Meredith, but a little more then that. What happened to meredith symbolised a question for many of us...how can this happen? Why did this happen? Perhaps the answer to that6 question can answer the question of why so many terrible things in humanity happen.

I've watched the dance around this subject for well over a year and a half...and I refer to it is a 'dance', simply due to the fact the nature of the question has never been as yet put in straight words. What is the nature of evil?

Meredith was murdered and in the most terrible way, with no need to repeat the detail here, we all know it...or should.

For the last few months...I have seen various ideas, with repetition I might add, put forward as to the cause (but truthfully, in the context..should be referred to as an 'excuse') or motive behind Merediths' murder. The murderers were on meth...they were on coke...they were on some other drug...they were simply...enraged, or they had some psycho-whatever-disorder...psychopathy, sociopathy...ADSD, for whatever reason. If they do you see, that lets the rest of us off the hook.

This is a natural human desire...we have to explain, provide some excuse...we have to offer some rationale for the evil others do. This need is understandable, otherwise, what are we left with? Evil. Without a rationale, that makes us all deeply uncomfortable. Without all the excuses...we are left with 'evil' as a tangible force. Choice aside...that unsettling thought that evil is as valid a part of nature, or more so, then anything that ends with 'thy' at the end of its name.

Don't mistake what I'm trying to get at here...this has nothing to do with religion...or any other organised hierarchy's superficial claim on the human psychy or their souls. It's just about our our nature, what we are and what is.

A couple of evenings ago I took some time out from the board to watch the film 'Downfall''...tonight I watched Schindler's List. I had seen each before of course, but this time I watched seeking an answer...about the nature of evil. In Schindler's List...Oskar Schindler spoke of the labour camp Kommandant as a good guy, it was just the war that made him act to some extremes...if it wasn't for the war, he'd be perfectly nice. If it wasn't for the war and he is our age...perhaps he'd be a comnmenter on our board...adding to the debate, as outraged as the rest of us about Meredith's brutal murder. If the war hadn't happened, perhaps Oskar was perfectly right and the Kommandant would have been a very good guy.

It was raised earlier...the question...are we all capable of murder? the answer is yes. Perhaps not so in the lives we currently are in, but put us in a different one and each of us are. And I'm not just talking about killing for self defence...or to protect a loved one, that isn't murder in any case...we'd be in neglect of natural law did we not kill in defence when there was no other way. I'm talking of 'murder', a completely different thing...that requires the killing of another simply for ideology, for kicks, for sexual thrils or for the sustanance of some raging need.

Evil is a fact, it does exist and it does govern when permitted...and we are 'all' susceptible to it.


Nicely done. I have come to this awareness myself over the years, that evil does exist, not just as a manifestation of bad choices and disordered personalities, but as a force unto itself, with a power of its own. I would never say an animal is capable of doing evil or being seduced by evil...from my own perspective, which is a religious one I admit, evil seems to exert its pressure exclusively on the human soul.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian,

Very interesting information in the Il Messaggero Umbria article. Thank you for posting that. I have read many of the previous blog threads from the Haloscan days but had not seen that article. I wonder what the reaction would be from an American "news" outlet covering this conversation!

Hi andy1956 and welcome! I'm not sure why the comparisons between knox's trial and OJ's! Everything is so completely different. The only thing these two cases have in common it seems to me is that the defendants are both experienced liars who have had a lot of experience manipulating people - workin' their "charm". Perhaps people are referring to the sensational coverage of the trial.

And KCL, I tip my hat, sir! th-)
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Maybe this has been reviewed before, but I haven't seen it. In Amanda's e-mail of November 4th, 2007 she writes "which meant the only one who had spent the night at our house last night was meredith, and she was as of yet unaccounted for".

My question is this: How would Amanda know who spent the night at the cottage and where Miss Kercher spent the night? Amanda was supposedly gone all night.

What if Meredith didn't spend the night there? How would Amanda know who had visited the house the night before and made the mess? For all she knew one of her other two roommates and friends came over and had a party. Maybe someone cut there finger at the party, maybe someone else forgot to flush the toilet, and maybe the door went unlocked and the wind blew it open. I quess this also goes to panicking and trying to break down the door when Meredith can't be reached.

I'm just saying, I can't imagine that I would think my roommate was incapacitated behind the door or that something "tragic" had happened. Yes, maybe I would call the police due to the mess in the room, but I'm not sure I'd do more.


Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:05 am   Post subject: Re: when they are found guilty   

The Machine wrote:
andy1956 wrote:
There does appear to have been to many lies and inconsistencies, too much physical evidence , to allow me to believe in AK's innocence but she probably will walk free.


I disagree with you completely. Knox will NEVER walk free. Ever.


Machine, do you mean that after her sentence is served she will be burdened with her guilt forever? Because I have a hard time believing that Amanda will get a "life without parole"-type of sentence. I find it more likely that she will serve a long term of years but then be released on parole or a parole equivalent at some point.

_________________
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: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:10 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
Hi andy1956 and welcome! I'm not sure why the comparisons between knox's trial and OJ's! Everything is so completely different. The only thing these two cases have in common it seems to me is that the defendants are both experienced liars who have had a lot of experience manipulating people - workin' their "charm". Perhaps people are referring to the sensational coverage of the trial.



Yeah, I think people tend to make comparisons between the two trials simply because of the type of crime (brutal murder) and the magnitude of the press coverage (each has been termed a "trial of the century").

I second the welcome to Andy. :)

_________________
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: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:21 am   Post subject: Re: when they are found guilty   

lane99 wrote:
kredsox wrote:
...I have said a million times innocent people do not implicate innocent people...


Well, the next time you say it will be the 1,000,001st time that you've been wrong. Innocent people have been known to implicate innocent people. Not too much doubt about that.



Under torture or in cases where the person is mentally unstable or deficient perhaps...It has to be quite a rarity that an innocent person of sound mind will implicate another innocent person.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:30 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Just in case anyone wasn't aware, new article by FRANK

_________________
"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 Hubie


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:25 pm

Posts: 5

Location: Haw River

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

My son is a detective (was with a city but now i special ageant for the Navy) and I don't think he has seen many innocent people that have implicate innocent people knowlingly. I will call him tomorrow. On thing I do know is that when they lead you into a lie they will really zero in on you. High correlation between lying in questioning and guilt.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:18 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Tara quoted:

Quote:
From Frank's:

"We don't know about Amanda butRaffaele's dad --in order to explain why he wouldn't need to steal Meredith's money-- revealed today that his son owns several properties he inherited from his mother. Properties on which Meredith's lawyer still dreams to put his Florentine hands"


This may be the most self-revealing and pathetic thing that "Frank Sfarzo" has ever "reported".
This is what our intrepid reporter latched onto from today's testimony?

:shock:
ss-)

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

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:00 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael and KCL,

Thank you for amazing responses to the nonsense that I've had to scroll past.

xxxJumpy
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

OT a bit, but i was struck by this article in today's indy..a med student, white, school record without a blemish, blah, blah, blah....

Sex, death and cyberspace: Who is the Craigslist Killer?

.......It seemed inconceivable that this bridegroom-to-be could indulge in the week-long spree of violence that had turned him into the most famous murder suspect in the country. "Philip is a beautiful person inside and out," his fiancée declared the day he was arraigned, "he could not hurt a fly."
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:12 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Hi Finn/thoughtful,

I need to clarify what I meant. I don't believe for a second that the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.55 as Sollecito was about to call 112, but I do believe him when he admits he hadn't called 112 before the postal police turned up.

When Sollecito was questioned on 5 November, the police were able to prove that he had lied to them. I believe they showed him a record of the telephone calls that had been made and this is what prompted Sollecito to admit that he hadn't called 112 before the arrival of the postal police, and to state that Amanda Knox had asked him to lie.

It was during this interrogation that Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi and this is the real reason why Knox admitted that she was actually at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

In both instances, when Knox and Sollecito were confronted with the truth, they had no choice but to acknowledge it. They simply changed their stories to fit facts as they became known. However, they both continued to lie when they thought they could get away with it.


Hi Machine. I think it reads a lot better the way you've said it there.

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

Offline tammy


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:02 pm

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish."

Im not certian how many of you have ever been bled on by a fish, but I certianly haven't. I could understand if it were a fish that Raf was gutting....but then surely she wouldn't have to say 'I was under the impression'...would she? And do I believe that Raf gutted a fish for their midnight munchies? No, I dont think I do. That didn'y really happen, I'm sure...Miss Knox once again making wiggle room for herself. How clever. yr-)


Last edited by tammy on Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
La Stampa:

""Un uomo in giardino angosciava Meredith"

Un amico degli inquilini del piano di sotto: “Me ne parlò lei, indossava un giubbotto blu”
ALESSANDRA CRISTOFANI
PERUGIA
C’è un quarto uomo, uno con un giubbino blu, e si aggirava intorno alla casa di via della Pergola, da solo, in un raggio di cinquanta metri, attirando, col suo fare sospetto, perfino l'attenzione di Meredith Kercher, l'inglesina di Couldson assassinata la notte di Ognissanti del 2007, che, proprio qualche giorno prima di essere uccisa, disse di essere turbata dalla presenza di questo sconosciuto.

A ricordarsene, diciotto mesi dopo l'omicidio, è un amico degli inquilini del piano di sotto, uno che frequentava il casolare delle studentesse e che dice d'aver raccolto, direttamente dalla vittima, un frammento di discorso. Ce n'è abbastanza per cambiare tutto un'altra volta, sia che si tratti di una nuova pista, sia che si tratti invece di un fuorviante depistaggio.

In entrambi i casi, l'audizione del testimone che racconta di un figuro avvistato nelle vicinanze della casa del delitto, non fa che portare acqua al mulino delle difese dei due imputati. Che ieri, sul banco dei testimoni, hanno chiamato a deporre i genitori dei due ex fidanzatini, in cella con l'accusa di omicidio e violenza sessuale. "



A friend of the boys downstairs (is it Cocciaretto mentioned in the Micheli report?) testified yesterday that Meredith saw an unknown man in blue jacket in the garden a couple of days before the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:21 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yes, this was discussed earlier in the trial (in February):

Quote:
Stefano Bonassi, controinterrogato dalle difese, ha rivelato l’avvistamento, per due volte, di un uomo nel giardino della casa. La prima volta fu di pomeriggio: Mez avvertì Giacomo e insieme uscirono a controllare. La seconda volta fu un loro amico, Giacomo Cocciaretto, a spaventarsi per lo stesso motivo.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
A coroner told a jury Saturday that a stab wound to the neck of a British student slain in Italy was caused by a shorter knife than the one believed to be the murder weapon...Introna, who was called to the stand by Sollecito's defense lawyers, testified that the cut on Kercher's neck was made with a knife with a 3-3 1/2-inch-long (8-9 centimeters long) blade....Introna said that the bedroom where Kercher was killed was too small and that it would be "physically impossible" that three people could have attacked her, ANSA said.


Associated Press

This guy's got his work cut out convincing the jury.

As I noted before, in a way it may have been a blessing in disguise for the prosecution when Lalli, the official coroner, was fired for leaking his report. His work was then reviewed by three further experts who concurred with what he had said.

Those exxperts were the ones who gave evidence at the hearing held by Matteini in April 2008 which accepted the knife into evidence as the murder weapon because it "was compatible with the wound".

I make that 4 against 1.



EDIT to add:

Quote:
Franscesco INTRONA

Full Professor, Chief of the Laboratory for Forensic Entomology
Laboratory/Institution: Section of Legal Medicine
(Di.M.I.M.P) - University of BARI
Laboratory of Forensic Entomology (Chief: Prof. Francesco Introna)
Address: piazza Giulio Cesare Policlinico, - 70124 -
BARI. -ITALY-


eafe.org




Quote:
Today, 6 December, is Saint Nicholas' Day, and in honor of that occasion, I shall pass on a bit of research regarding Old Saint Nick himself....

In May 1087 (21 years after the Normal Conquest of England, and 33 years after the schism between Constantinople and Rome), Italian mercenaries and sailors entered Myra on the South coast of Turkey to retrieve the relics of Saint Nicholas. The stolen remains were then taken to the Basilica di San Nicola, Bari, Italy, where they remain to this day. (N.b.: please see the references below for the resting places of other parts of Nicholas. Also please note that the Royal Society does not have any portion of Old St Nick in its attic.)

A certain Professor Francesco Introna (coincidentally from Bari, Italy) has studied the relics in the modern day, and comissioned Dr Caroline Wilkinson of Manchester University to reconstruct the face of the bishop, using tools now familiar through forensic police work, which have also shed light on the faces of Tutankhamun and Copernicus through similar reconstruction...


procroyalsoc.blogspot.com



Why do I get the feeling that this is one of Doc Sollicito's friends from his home town of Bari?
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:43 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Room to small for 4 people to fight says Introni.

Meredith didn't have a chance to fight replies Comodi.

AGI
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:45 pm   Post subject: Today's hearing   

Nothing much from today's hearing so far:
TOD moved to 930-1030 pm
-knife not compatible with major wound
-room not large enough for three aggressors to attack
-wounds on victim's body not compatible with multiple aggressors (i love this one!)
Sources: AGI, Audionews

A nice article today on "Il Giornale" about parents being blinded by love for ntheir children, titled
"We, the parents, enslaved by love insanity". I find the conclusion very true:

"Let's avoid the mistake very often parents make. Parents, because of their excessive and stupid love and their incapability to see evil in their children,often hamper their path towards the truth, thus involuntarily becoming their worst enemies.
Il Giornale

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Because I have a hard time believing that Amanda will get a "life without parole"-type of sentence. I find it more likely that she will serve a long term of years but then be released on parole or a parole equivalent at some point.


Even in case she gets the worst sentence, she would in anyway in no case actually stay in a condition of full-day imprisonment - or anyway under arrest - for a time longer than 18-19 years. In no case under the present laws. And, after 10 years or so, she would anyway start having short "trips" outside jail.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish


What a lovely girlfriend
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:56 pm   Post subject: Amanda and Raffaele   

Fast Pete wrote:
Quote:
Brian, at the same time, perhaps you might agree that AK didnt do RS any favors on the stand last week by being so unconvincing and contradictory on so many points?

My guess (aided and abetted by a tip or two) is that he actually was tied to her through last weekend, but the reaction to her in Italy was so negative, he just had to think twice.


Pete, I would have to disagree with this assessment. Amanda did a LOT of favors to Raffaele on the stand this weekend, in places where I thought she might drop him to help herself a little bit.

For example, asked about Raffaele's sudden withdrawal of the alibi he was giving her until Nov 5, 2007, she could have said "He's lying." Instead: "I don't know why he had to do that, why he felt he had to do that." (I'm not quoting, but that's the essence.)
She also upheld his crazy story about the phone calls to police instead of saying that he had told her he called minutes before he really did, or something of the kind. In return, Bongiorno's questioning of Amanda was VERY kind. With her sharp, aggressive tone, she put questions that were really presents (such as "Kokomani claims you have very broad front teeth. Is that the case?") In every way, Amanda showed support for Raffaele and never once implied even faintly that he could have anything to do with the guilt. Asked explicitly about Meredith's DNA on the knife she only said "I just couldn't understand it. It's totally impossible."

It looks very much as though in spite of Raffaele's denial of Amanda's alibi, the lawyers have decided to hook their fates together.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Evil   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Michael wrote:
Humour aside...the serious discussion, on and off, we have been having ever since this case began...on the nature of humanity, of people...of what could allow this crime to happen.

I'm going to do a rare thing now and put forward an opinion....and by that I mean, an idea on how the world works. And I do think, in part, that's why many of us are here...much to do withthe terrible tragedy that was 'inflicted' upon Meredith, but a little more then that. What happened to meredith symbolised a question for many of us...how can this happen? Why did this happen? Perhaps the answer to that6 question can answer the question of why so many terrible things in humanity happen.

I've watched the dance around this subject for well over a year and a half...and I refer to it is a 'dance', simply due to the fact the nature of the question has never been as yet put in straight words. What is the nature of evil?

Meredith was murdered and in the most terrible way, with no need to repeat the detail here, we all know it...or should.

For the last few months...I have seen various ideas, with repetition I might add, put forward as to the cause (but truthfully, in the context..should be referred to as an 'excuse') or motive behind Merediths' murder. The murderers were on meth...they were on coke...they were on some other drug...they were simply...enraged, or they had some psycho-whatever-disorder...psychopathy, sociopathy...ADSD, for whatever reason. If they do you see, that lets the rest of us off the hook.

This is a natural human desire...we have to explain, provide some excuse...we have to offer some rationale for the evil others do. This need is understandable, otherwise, what are we left with? Evil. Without a rationale, that makes us all deeply uncomfortable. Without all the excuses...we are left with 'evil' as a tangible force. Choice aside...that unsettling thought that evil is as valid a part of nature, or more so, then anything that ends with 'thy' at the end of its name.

Don't mistake what I'm trying to get at here...this has nothing to do with religion...or any other organised hierarchy's superficial claim on the human psychy or their souls. It's just about our our nature, what we are and what is.

A couple of evenings ago I took some time out from the board to watch the film 'Downfall''...tonight I watched Schindler's List. I had seen each before of course, but this time I watched seeking an answer...about the nature of evil. In Schindler's List...Oskar Schindler spoke of the labour camp Kommandant as a good guy, it was just the war that made him act to some extremes...if it wasn't for the war, he'd be perfectly nice. If it wasn't for the war and he is our age...perhaps he'd be a comnmenter on our board...adding to the debate, as outraged as the rest of us about Meredith's brutal murder. If the war hadn't happened, perhaps Oskar was perfectly right and the Kommandant would have been a very good guy.

It was raised earlier...the question...are we all capable of murder? the answer is yes. Perhaps not so in the lives we currently are in, but put us in a different one and each of us are. And I'm not just talking about killing for self defence...or to protect a loved one, that isn't murder in any case...we'd be in neglect of natural law did we not kill in defence when there was no other way. I'm talking of 'murder', a completely different thing...that requires the killing of another simply for ideology, for kicks, for sexual thrils or for the sustanance of some raging need.

Evil is a fact, it does exist and it does govern when permitted...and we are 'all' susceptible to it.


Nicely done. I have come to this awareness myself over the years, that evil does exist, not just as a manifestation of bad choices and disordered personalities, but as a force unto itself, with a power of its own. I would never say an animal is capable of doing evil or being seduced by evil...from my own perspective, which is a religious one I admit, evil seems to exert its pressure exclusively on the human soul.


OT1:
Hi Mrs. D.,
For me, “evil” is not so much a human quality but perhaps part of nature, including animals. Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey have written about the “crimes” (my word) they’ve witnessed while observing chimps and gorillas in the wild. Fossey spent a harrowing two weeks combing through gorilla feces for possible evidence- bones- of what happened to a baby gorilla. On lighter notes, there are the bonobos, thank goodness, who exhibit another angle of our nature, and Frans de Waal has written about altruistic tendencies in apes. They're also great dancers dm-)

OT2:
Michael, you might be interested in this documentary, “Inheritance”. It’s about the Kommandant Amon Goeth’s daughter, Monika Hertwig, meeting with Helen Jonas, a woman who worked at the camp in the Kommandant’s house. It’s gut wrenching, heartbreaking and complicated. You can read more about it here:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/inherita ... s-daughter
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
A coroner told a jury Saturday that a stab wound to the neck of a British student slain in Italy was caused by a shorter knife than the one believed to be the murder weapon
I don't see that this conclusion can be made. If the depth of the wound is less than the length of the knife, then it could simply mean that the knife wasn't pushed in to its full depth.

However, I dare say he went into a lot more detail than is being reported in the press so far.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
The pm Giuliano Mignini rejected the reconstruction of
Introna adviser after a bitter contradiction. "Her and 'never been in the room of Meredith?" asked the pm to the consultant, who claimed to have known only virtually.
The pm has also continued with an example addressing increasingly to the consultant: "The lift that leads to this class in your opinion of the court who will square meters'?" answer: "I do not know, I am not an expert on elevators." "Then I say to him, we say that space and 'a half feet square and the official approval' for five people. How do you see in the room of Meredith, even on a surface more 'could move more extensive' people."


Google translation of part of this story at RaiNews
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
A coroner told a jury Saturday that a stab wound to the neck of a British student slain in Italy was caused by a shorter knife than the one believed to be the murder weapon
I don't see that this conclusion can be made. If the depth of the wound is less than the length of the knife, then it could simply mean that the knife wasn't pushed in to its full depth.

However, I dare say he went into a lot more detail than is being reported in the press so far.




GreenWyvern,

I think what you suggest is likely what the prsosecution has argued.

This from TGCom

Quote:
During the reconstruction of the crime, Introna said that the deepest wound to the neck of the victim was caused by a knife with a blade up to 8-9 cm "while sequestered in a house call and found the weapon against the the crime, is about 17.5 cm.




It's also noticable that apart from the length of the knife, Introna doesn't appear to have argued that the other dimensions of the wound were incompatible with the blade.

There was much argument from Amanda's defenders in the early days that the other dimensions of the knife didn't fit the the wound. They also made the suggestion that the wound was caused by a knife with a serrated blade.


Last edited by Brian S. on Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Raffaele ha replicato a Rudy Guede che aveva invitato i genitori degli imputati a convincere i figli a dire la verità: “Cominciasse a raccontarla lui”"

Raffaele replied to Rudy Guede who had invited the parents of the defendants to convince their children to tell the truth: "Let him start to tell it".
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The space in Meredith's room.

Meredith's body is laid out full length under the duvet.

Top Profile 

Offline Principessa Etrusca


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:15 am

Posts: 33

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish


What a lovely girlfriend


I have always read the sentence above in the context of Raffaele's withdrawal of Amanda's alibi for the night of the murder.

There seems to be an interesting dynamics in the relationship since their imprisonment.

Amanda is a great manipulator and has made a few attempts to rekindle whatever had been between her and Raffaele, but always to coincide with the needs of her defense.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

From Barbie Nadeau's very interesting article in The Daily Beast, entitled Will Knox's Boyfriend Sacrifice Himself?

Quote:
In stark contrast to his co-defendant, Sollecito clearly does not revel in his notoriety. He acts nervous and uncomfortable in the spotlight of this epic trial. While Knox spends her days in court with the confidence of an Oscar winner, Sollecito instead sulks with the humility of a murder suspect.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

More from Nadeau:

Sollecito’s chief lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, is the most sought-after defense attorney in the country, a Johnny Cochran-style legal star who, at 28, made her name as part of a powerful defense team that got then-Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti cleared of several Mafia-related charges. The fact that his father can afford her services is not lost on anyone following this case. Several of Dr. Sollecito’s patients in Bari have been accused of Mafia ties, and one journalist described him as « urologist to the dons. » During the trial, local papers and courtroom staff have taken to referring to the various family members who sit in the back the courtroom and scowl at prosecution witnesses as the “the Sollecito clan.

But even with his powerful family and expert counsel, there are problems within Sollecito’s defense team. Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill. Back in September, Pascali, who declined to comment for this story, hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA. The bra clasp, which was collected some 40 days after the murder, is the most contestable piece of evidence in the entire case against Sollecito.

Bongiorno says her defense will focus on discrediting the evidence of the bra clasp, and on Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. The two defendants are planning a joint defense, but Bongiorno admits her own client’s acquittal is her priority. Still, she often sticks up for Knox, vigorously cross-examining the prosecution's forensic witnesses and emphasizing lack of motive to argue for their innocence. Knox and Sollecito had only dated for six days before Kercher was killed. Last January, Bongiorno described the defendants as “two lovebirds in the first week of their romance,” not some “bored couple looking for excitement » with group sex.

Early on in the investigation, however, Sollecito’s stepmother was wiretapped telling him to “erase the girl from your mind,” and court observers say the defense teams could split at the first sign of trouble. Legal analysts in Italy predict that Bongiorno will not risk her reputation to save Knox if things start to go bad. But even if she decides to abandon the joint defense strategy and put Sollecito on the stand, where he will be confronted by his sworn statements contradicting Knox’s alibi, Sollecito’s meek demeanor would make him a risky witness. It seems unlikely that he could project the same sort of confidence as Knox did last week.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hubie wrote:

Quote:
My son is a detective (was with a city but now i special ageant for the Navy) and I don't think he has seen many innocent people that have implicate innocent people knowlingly. I will call him tomorrow. On thing I do know is that when they lead you into a lie they will really zero in on you. High correlation between lying in questioning and guilt.


Thanks for this, Hubie. Police investigators are generally good at seeing when people are lying. For one thing, they come across the phenomenon quite often.

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

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
More from Nadeau:

Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill
It would be interesting to know why this forensic consultant walked off the case. Was it because the bra clasp DNA evidence is so clear, and contamination so unlikely, that he couldn't argue effectively against it without damaging his own reputation?
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Amanda is a great manipulator and has made a few attempts to rekindle whatever had been between her and Raffaele, but always to coincide with the needs of her defense.


I have the impresion to remind some images of Principessa Etrusca waving a bloody knife, but I thnk I am probably getting it wrong and that maybe was not necessarily exactly a bloody knife, because when I thin to it now that memory appears at the moment very faint. Anyway I don't think Principessa would ever commit anything wrong of that kind, nor even testify anithing against me, since we, I and Principessa Etrusca are very good friends.
I also think my knowledge of Italian is improving very quickly.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi quoted and wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Amanda is a great manipulator and has made a few attempts to rekindle whatever had been between her and Raffaele, but always to coincide with the needs of her defense.



I have the impresion to remind some images of Principessa Etrusca waving a bloody knife, but I thnk I am probably getting it wrong and that maybe was not necessarily exactly a bloody knife, because when I thin to it now that memory appears at the moment very faint. Anyway I don't think Principessa would ever commit anything wrong of that kind, nor even testify anithing against me, since we, I and Principessa Etrusca are very good friends.
I also think my knowledge of Italian is improving very quickly.


Mamma mia! Grandissimo!

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Amanda is a great manipulator and has made a few attempts to rekindle whatever had been between her and Raffaele, but always to coincide with the needs of her defense.


I have the impresion to remind some images of Principessa Etrusca waving a bloody knife, but I thnk I am probably getting it wrong and that maybe was not necessarily exactly a bloody knife, because when I thin to it now that memory appears at the moment very faint. Anyway I don't think Principessa would ever commit anything wrong of that kind, nor even testify anithing against me, since we, I and Principessa Etrusca are very good friends.
I also think my knowledge of Italian is improving very quickly.


Good one Yummi. :lol:

If you get the chance, would you mind clarifying some questions I posed in this prior post? Thanks. :)

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
More from Nadeau:

Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill
It would be interesting to know why this forensic consultant walked off the case. Was it because the bra clasp DNA evidence is so clear, and contamination so unlikely, that he couldn't argue effectively against it without damaging his own reputation?


I was wondering the exact same thing, GreenWyvern.

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hubie wrote:
My son is a detective (was with a city but now i special ageant for the Navy) and I don't think he has seen many innocent people that have implicate innocent people knowlingly. I will call him tomorrow. On thing I do know is that when they lead you into a lie they will really zero in on you. High correlation between lying in questioning and guilt.


Do pressured Interrogations go on? YES.
Throughout history Medieval Interrogations have occurred, stretching people, chairs with nails in them, it is within Human nature to do this. The recent Waterboarding, here locally it goes on in.
We're only talking yelling and screaming and exhausting someone thru hours of questioning in this case. No one mentioned beatings and waterboarding except the media vomit.

Is it believable a 10-14hr interrogations and maybe a slap on the back of the head occurred? yes, its very believable.
Patricks took 10hrs and AK's was 14 hours. There are no films, no cameras in the interrogation room if thats what you need to convince ourselves. Supposedly an audio tape thats not allowed. but thats weak anyway.


Why no cameras in the interrogation room? Its 2009 , not 1634! Whats there to hide, I ask?
All of this could have been avoided had there been a video-camera filming the interrogation.
Video-cameras are extremely cheap these days.

So I have to side with the accused on this one issue, the interrogation wasn't proven to be non-coerced.

The people making the accusations have to prove it, not the accused. The prosecution was benefitting saying she admitted to murder per this interrogation.

In 1641, not having a video tape would have been believable.....but not in 2007.

I vote.... BS on not having it filmed. It was intentionally not filmed. Why?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:45 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
But even with his powerful family and expert counsel, there are problems within Sollecito’s defense team. Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill. Back in September, Pascali, who declined to comment for this story, hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA. The bra clasp, which was collected some 40 days after the murder, is the most contestable piece of evidence in the entire case against Sollecito.

Bongiorno says her defense will focus on discrediting the evidence of the bra clasp, and on Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. The two defendants are planning a joint defense, but Bongiorno admits her own client’s acquittal is her priority. Still, she often sticks up for Knox, vigorously cross-examining the prosecution's forensic witnesses and emphasizing lack of motive to argue for their innocence. Knox and Sollecito had only dated for six days before Kercher was killed. Last January, Bongiorno described the defendants as “two lovebirds in the first week of their romance,” not some “bored couple looking for excitement » with group sex.


I find it odd the bra clasp rolled around on the floor for , what 6 weeks?
and even more amazing it is this bra clasp, that is the only DNA found with RS DNA in this extremely violent, up close, murder scene.

If it so happens to have AK's DNA, I would find it highly believable to be a blatant setup, staged piece of evidence.
But it wasn't brought up was it? I thought the prosecution rested, so there isn't any of AK's DNA on the bra clasp, I ask?

the prosecution makes it sound as if they wrestled the victim, holding the victim, very physical crime....
but only one tiny piece of evidence was found on that one small piece of evidence?
not the shirts, not the bed sheets, not the pillow, not a knife, nothing?

Is this normal in a violent, up close, murder scene, to have only one tiny specific dna piece?


Last edited by jfk1191 on Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Patricks took 10hrs and AK's was 14 hours.

qt-)
JFK, you are with us quite a while, arent you? How can you still write such stupid things? I don't get it...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

JFK wrote:

Quote:
Do pressured Interrogations go on? YES.
Throughout history Medieval Interrogations have occurred, stretching people, chairs with nails in them, it is within Human nature to do this. The recent Waterboarding, here locally it goes on in.
We're only talking yelling and screaming and exhausting someone thru hours of questioning in this case. No one mentioned beatings and waterboarding except the media vomit.

Is it believable a 10-14hr interrogations and maybe a slap on the back of the head occurred? yes, its very believable.
Patricks took 10hrs and AK's was 14 hours. There are no films, no cameras in the interrogation room if thats what you need to convince ourselves. Supposedly an audio tape thats not allowed. but thats weak anyway.


Why no cameras in the interrogation room? Its 2009 , not 1634! Whats there to hide, I ask?
All of this could have been avoided had there been a video-camera filming the interrogation.
Video-cameras are extremely cheap these days.

So I have to side with the accused on this one issue, the interrogation wasn't proven to be non-coerced.

The people making the accusations have to prove it, not the accused. The prosecution was benefitting saying she admitted to murder per this interrogation.

In 1641, not having a video tape would have been believable.....but not in 2007.

I vote.... BS on not having it filmed. It was intentionally not filmed. Why?


I look forward to your reasoned analysis and proof of this accusation, JFK. I don't see how the prosecution benefits from saying "she admitted to murder". For one thing, the prosecution was not present for the questioning and for another, the interrogation did not last 14 hours as you claim.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "Medieval Interrogations" occurred in the Middle Ages and not throughout history. The modern Italian state does not have a reputation for torture of the kind you mention. Or do you have proof to the contrary?

We like spirited debate here, but without any kind of reasoned analysis it is just baseless assertion and irrational individual opinion.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Petafly wrote:

Quote:
Patricks took 10hrs and AK's was 14 hours.


JFK, you are with us quite a while, arent you? How can you still write such stupid things? I don't get it...



JFK is wedded to a few old nuggets (the talking points, use as needed, repeat as necessary), Petafly. They are not part of a discussion. I think I'll clean out my shed today. Is there an emoticon for "big fat yawn". I couldn't find it. :lol:

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Patricks took 10hrs and AK's was 14 hours.

qt-)
JFK, you are with us quite a while, arent you? How can you still write such stupid things? I don't get it...


Um, yeah, JFK --- it seems you've been rooting around on this site for some time, so surely you should know that AK did not make her "confession" after a 14-hour interrogation? At any rate, hopefully now you will know: The "confession" did not occur after a 14-hour interrogation. I can't remember the exact time period offhand, but it was more like after a couple of hours or so (it may have been even sooner than 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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Is it believable a 10-14hr interrogations and maybe a slap on the back of the head occurred? yes, its very believable.


Why are you prepared the accept the uncorroborated word of a compulsive liar over the corroborated testimony of numerous witnesses?

You claim to be objective, but all you've done is attempt to undermine the prosecution's case and discredit the evidence. I don't ever recall you questioning the defence's case.

Perhaps, you would like to explain why Amanda Knox lied to the postal police officers at the cottage, to her friends in the e-mail she wrote on 4 November and to police officers BEFORE her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

JFK wrote:
If it so happens to have AK's DNA, I would find it highly believable to be a blatant setup, staged piece of evidence.
But it wasn't brought up was it? I thought the prosecution rested, so there isn't any of AK's DNA on the bra clasp, I ask?


JFK,

I don't know why I bother responding to you any more.

Details of Stefononi's evidence was all over this board about a month ago.

I'm 60 and my memory ain't what it was, but yours would appear to be far worse.

Stefononi gave testimony that Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA were on the bra clasp in the proportions of 6:1.

Please try and pay attention to what is said if you want to contribute to sensible discussion.

p-(((
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:


But it wasn't brought up was it? I thought the prosecution rested, so there isn't any of AK's DNA on the bra clasp, I ask?
<snip>
Is this normal in a violent, up close, murder scene, to have only one tiny specific dna piece?


Even though earlier press reports hinted that Knox's DNA was on the clasp, my guess is that test results were inconclusive to match Knox's DNA, so the prosecution didn't state this when they testified about the bra clasp.

Raffaele's dna on the clasp probably came from saliva or sweat.

Tiny or not, DNA testing and a crime scene match is better and more reliable than eyewitness testimony. Because it wasn't bagged for 40 or so days, doesn't mean a crime lab couldn't get a match.

The bra clasp alone could convict Raffaele, however it just compounds the other evidence against him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Patricks took 10hrs and AK's was 14 hours.

qt-)
JFK, you are with us quite a while, arent you? How can you still write such stupid things? I don't get it...


Your wrong, I have not been with you quite awhile. I only started reading June 4. As it shows on the membership tag.
I have apprx. a few weeks reading about this.
Some have been following this case heading to 2years...I understand their boredom and burn out with newbies like myself, as many have concrete conclusions already in place.

I missed the entoire January prosecution! think about it....cut me some slack here! :D

I read the questioning timeline and in general, it was very lengthy evening & day. I didn't see a big "lie"?
I speak in approximates too.

"In general" it was a very lengthy time "period" of questioning= interrogation.
She went to the Police station at 5pm, 17:00 Nov 5...ongoing in one form or another...she wrote the "spontaneous" letter later than 5:45 Nov 6.....thats apporx. 12-14 hrs of questioning or interrogationing imo.
"in general" thats a long day of being questioned, at the police station from a "accumulated" in general sense.
I often say I "worked all day about 10hrs"...when I must be a liar, because I drove to work, I took breaks, I had lunch, I drove home, and I did some emails, I talked to people in the hallways.....but "in general" I was working for 10hrs.
I wasn't home during that period. AK I always assumed this is what she was referring to. Thats how I interpreted it.

for the other things like the bra clasp...I was just agreeing that it seems odd only the bra clasp has all this evidnece? is this normal?
why isn't the DNA everywhere on the sheets, other materials/clothes?

actually when I get time I was planning on reading all these closed forums.

To explain myself the defense is up, they're perspective is in my posts, obviously,
I been reading but am nowhere near 2years worth...

I'll try to not post so frequently and sit back and read more!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I find it odd the bra clasp rolled around on the floor for , what 6 weeks?


Eh What? Rolled around for six weeks? What was it, subisdence or a slow earthquake?
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Amanda's interrogation began no earlier than 2330, and possibly midnight. (She was talking to FIlomena about where they should live at 2239, and she was turning cartwheels at around 2300.) She accused Patrick Lumumba of the crime at 0150.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Mutley wrote:
I find it odd the bra clasp rolled around on the floor for , what 6 weeks?


Eh What? Rolled around for six weeks? What was it, subisdence or a slow earthquake?


:D :D :D
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I find it interesting that Francesco Introna is Chief of the Laboratory of Forensic ENTOMOLOGY. What do insects have to do with the compatability of a knife with a wound?

Beans
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
...Why are you prepared the accept the uncorroborated word of a compulsive liar over the corroborated testimony of numerous witnesses?

You claim to be objective, but all you've done is attempt to undermine the prosecution's case and discredit the evidence. I don't ever recall you questioning the defence's case...


Do you claim to be objective, Machine? If I go through your posts, how many will I see that are anything but trying to undermine the *defense's* case?

And regarding the interrogation. Who are these "numerous witnesses"? Surely not the interrogators themselves. Were there any independent, arm's length observers? I doubt it. But I stand to be corrected.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

beans wrote:
I find it interesting that Francesco Introna is Chief of the Laboratory of Forensic ENTOMOLOGY. What do insects have to do with the compatability of a knife with a wound?

Beans



Well, he is certainly a pathologist with experience performing autopsies; he may be a specialist in dealing with insects and corpses, ie. time of death issues, etc., but this doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of general experiences with dead bodies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
"In general" it was a very lengthy time "period" of questioning= interrogation.
She went to the Police station at 5pm, 17:00 Nov 5...ongoing in one form or another...she wrote the "spontaneous" letter later than 5:45 Nov 6.....thats apporx. 12-14 hrs of questioning or interrogationing imo.
"in general" thats a long day of being questioned, at the police station from a "accumulated" in general sense.
I often say I "worked all day about 10hrs"...when I must be a liar, because I drove to work, I took breaks, I had lunch, I drove home, and I did some emails, I talked to people in the hallways.....but "in general" I was working for 10hrs.
I wasn't home during that period. AK I always assumed this is what she was referring to. Thats how I interpreted it.


for the other things like the bra clasp...I was just agreeing that it seems odd only the bra clasp has all this evidnece? is this normal?
why isn't the DNA everywhere on the sheets, other materials/clothes?


Interesting interpretation, JFK. This means, since Amanda wasn't at home for over 730 days, her interrogation lasts over 17500 hours now. Bloody italians! pf-))

About the DNA: You know, Rudy left just 4 traces, and only two on Meredith (and one inside her). There's not much doubt he struggled with her, but he left just 2 traces on her body and none(!) under her fingernails. Raffaele left one. On Merediths underware, which was manipulated long after her death. Contamination was excluded by more than one independent expert. Period.

But I love the slow earthquake theory (the SET), Mutley. For sure it's caused by the global warming...


Last edited by petafly on Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Link to the Barbie Nadeau story in The Daily Beast which Skep has quoted.

and since the direct link seems to give a 404 error,

the story can be obtained via this link - Will Knox's Boyfriend Sacrifice Himself?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
Do you claim to be objective, Machine? If I go through your posts, how many will I see that are anything but trying to undermine the *defense's* case?

And regarding the interrogation. Who are these "numerous witnesses"? Surely not the interrogators themselves. Were there any independent, arm's length observers. I doubt it. But I stand to be corrected.


I originally thought that Amanda Knox didn't kill Meredith. When I read that she and Sollecito were claiming that they couldn't remember much about what happened on the night of the murder because they had smoked cannabis, I knew they were both lying and changed my mind.

As more facts emerged e.g. Knox and Sollecito gave conflicting and contradictory witness statements, Knox's and Meredith's DNA on the knife sequestered from Sollecito's apartment and Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp etc. It became crystal clear that they were both involved in Meredith's murder.

I've examined the facts carefully and objectively, and reached the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murdering Meredith. I have no doubts whatsoever that they will be both found guilty of Meredith's murder in October.

Three interpreters testified under oath that Amanda Knox was treated well by the police and that she wasn't maltreated. I don't believe they are lying. I don't believe that any of the countless witnesses who have flatly contradicted Amanda Knox are lying either.

Perhaps, you would like to explain why Amanda Knox lied to the postal police at the cottage, to her friends in her e-mail on 4 November and to the police officers before she made her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba. JFK, like may trolls, has the habit of asking many questions, but ignoring many of the questions that are put to him.

JFK frequently gets his facts wrong in a desperate attempt to prove that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. How many times have I got my facts wrong? I always make sure that I verify my facts before posting. That's the difference between me and him.
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
...for the other things like the bra clasp...I was just agreeing that it seems odd only the bra clasp has all this evidnece? is this normal?
why isn't the DNA everywhere on the sheets, other materials/clothes?
...


"Normal" might not be the right word. But it's not at all unusual. And even more so when some clean up may have been attempted. Don't forget there's only a couple samples of dna even from Rudy - bathroom break excepted, perhaps. (And the claim you hear bandied about that his dna is "all over the place" seems to be a deliberate attempt to distract).

At any rate, there are no shortage of examples where people have been murdered in a very messy fashion and there's even less dna evidence recovered than was found here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
...Why are you prepared the accept the uncorroborated word of a compulsive liar over the corroborated testimony of numerous witnesses?
You claim to be objective, but all you've done is attempt to undermine the prosecution's case and discredit the evidence. I don't ever recall you questioning the defence's case...


Do you claim to be objective, Machine? If I go through your posts, how many will I see that are anything but trying to undermine the *defense's* case?

And regarding the interrogation. Who are these "numerous witnesses"? Surely not the interrogators themselves. Were there any independent, arm's length observers? I doubt it. But I stand to be corrected.


Sure the "interrogators", btw a mixed bunch of police officers and not a pack. They testified under oath knowing, that a "falsa testimonianza" would mean 2 to 6 years in prison link for every single one of them, much less than they'd get for violence on duty!

And honestly there was no need to squeeze a confession out of Amanda. Everybody who was in italy once and had contact with the police knows, italian police has loads and loads of time... p-(((
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Mutley wrote:
I find it odd the bra clasp rolled around on the floor for , what 6 weeks?


Eh What? Rolled around for six weeks? What was it, subisdence or a slow earthquake?


Or someone picking it up, handling it, and not returning it to the same location, perhaps?

Haven't I read that it seemed to have mysteriously changed position in various photos taken at various different times? I'm assuming that is what the poster was alluding to.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

JFK wrote:

Quote:
"In general" it was a very lengthy time "period" of questioning= interrogation.
She went to the Police station at 5pm, 17:00 Nov 5...ongoing in one form or another...she wrote the "spontaneous" letter later than 5:45 Nov 6.....thats apporx. 12-14 hrs of questioning or interrogationing imo.
"in general" thats a long day of being questioned, at the police station from a "accumulated" in general sense.
I often say I "worked all day about 10hrs"...when I must be a liar, because I drove to work, I took breaks, I had lunch, I drove home, and I did some emails, I talked to people in the hallways.....but "in general" I was working for 10hrs.
I wasn't home during that period. AK I always assumed this is what she was referring to. Thats how I interpreted it.


See Finn's post and other posts here for a reality check. AK and RS had a pizza dinner, sometime after 5 pm. AK was doing her homework and cartwheels in the police waiting room. She was on the phone with Filomena at 22:30, etc. Saying "I was subjected to grueling questioning for 14 hours and that caused confusion, which is why I accused an innocent man" is quite different from saying "I worked 10 hours today". The first statement implies a causal relationship between the 14-hour "non-stop" questioning and the subsequent action of accusing an innocent man. So if you're going to prove the conclusion, then it has to be with true premises.
As for the written statement - a gift to police, according to AK - that was not written after 14 hours of grueling questioning. If we're going to have a discussion, it has to be in good faith and fact based. Otherwise, we might as well spend the day cleaning our sheds.

Others have posted the same message: at least pay attention to what others are saying. If Brian can remember what has been written at the ripe old age of 60, then it is probably not too much to ask.

Remind me again why we are on this subject again.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lane wrote:

Quote:
Or someone picking it up, handling it, and not returning it to the same location, perhaps?

Haven't I read that it seemed to have mysteriously changed position in various photos taken at various different times? I'm assuming that is what the poster was alluding to.


Where have you read these things? I have not read that it was picked up and handled. In any case, what is the evidence supporting contamination again? It being the case that contamination is always possible, but this does not invalidate the concept of DNA testing or its importance in solving crimes - in particular ruling out suspects.

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

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Amanda's interrogation began no earlier than 2330, and possibly midnight. (She was talking to FIlomena about where they should live at 2239, and she was turning cartwheels at around 2300.) She accused Patrick Lumumba of the crime at 0150.


Such that it was at *least* a couple hours, and in the middle of the night, that would be enough time to break down, whether one was guilty or not. It's certainly happened before.

At any rate, do I understand correctly that generally people who believe Knox is guilty attribute the false accusation against Patrick to her needing a way to explain away why Raf apparently said she may have left his apartment at some point?

If so, how about this, instead: "That stoner is out of his hash-fogged mind. I *was* there all night. He needs to cut down".

If they're supposedly treating her with tea, cookies, and fuzzy slippers; and she's this cunning, manipulative, experienced liar; wouldn't *that* have been the lie (if it WAS a lie) that you would expect in that scenario, from that kind of person?

Very simple. And problem basically solved. Particularly when the boyfriend will almost certainly, subsequently, back her up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I find it quite strange, that a coroner tells the court, that Merediths bedroom is too small for four people and therefor he thinks it was Rudy and Rudy alone. And the autopsy then fits to this conclusion?

It seems the Sollecitos couldn't find an expert on crime scene reconstruction, who is willing to risk his reputation, and so they told the coroner to use this argument.

But what about two agressors, the room isn't that small, right?? And who says the main fight didn't happen in the living room? And even if he's right, and there's only room for one man with 6 hands, that doesn't mean AK and RS weren't there and watching the crime. And let her die...

I wonder where the defense looks for their experts. On the black market for corruptible experts? b-((((


Last edited by petafly on Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

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


A 2nd degree "regular" appeal has no limitation of that kind.
There is a larger (10 members) and usually more qualified (high-educated) jury and the president is a senior judge.

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


Exactly. Supreme Court is called, properly, Supreme Court of Cassation, because it is not allowed to look directly at the evidence, but only to the process and judges' work.

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


The set of laws id slightly different.
First, there is no appeal of any kind is automatic. But there is a *right* for a defendant to have an appeal trial, and a right to have at least one Supreme Court review after the second. However it is possible that, after a request by the Supreme Court, a defendant wins the right to have a the Sureme Court judging the first degree or even other issues and parts of the process (as in the AK case, the Supreme Court was questioned directly on the admission of some investigation activity). So there is no automatism, but there is a right. The right must be applied within a number of month after the issueing of the sentence.
In Italy, a verdict is considered effective ("real") not when it is read, but only when the "book" with the motivation is published and depositated by the chancelry. If the court does not publish the motivations within 90 days, the provisional imprisonment of the convicted decays and the prisoner is released (at least untill the written verdict is published).

The rules for the appeal are slightly different from the ordinary and the abbreviated trial on what regards the prosecution. In the short-track trial, the prosecutor cannot appeal against the defendant if the defendant is convicted, or even if acquitted under certain conditions. In the ordinary trial, both the prosecution and the defense have a right to appeal in any case.
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
Mutley wrote:
I find it odd the bra clasp rolled around on the floor for , what 6 weeks?


Eh What? Rolled around for six weeks? What was it, subisdence or a slow earthquake?


Or someone picking it up, handling it, and not returning it to the same location, perhaps?

Haven't I read that it seemed to have mysteriously changed position in various photos taken at various different times? I'm assuming that is what the poster was alluding to.


The whole contamination claim was argued both in court and here.

Firstly, RS's dna was only found in one other sample which was the cigarette butt. So where did this very abundant dna sample magically materialise from? To contaminate there must be a source of contamination. A much stronger source too. Not even the defence can point to a credible source except the guy sitting next to them.

Secondly, we have already had expert testimony that it is actually very hard to transfer dna. The clasp would have had to have been handled quite forcefully by RS for this much to get transferred. It doesn't bounce around like a football when a blundering policeman plays football with the evidence as some parties would have us believe happened. The clasp may have been moved when I think the duvet was moved but that still doesn't give a credible scenario for contamination. Nor did the police play pass the parcel with the evidence.

Thirdly, dna is not like superglue with wings; flying around the room looking for a home with a particular partiallity for bra clasps and then hanging on for dear life when it finds a suitable home. Bizarre FOAKERS claims of policemen's shoes somehow transferring it are as daft as they are buried.

Fourthly, we have already argued the great difference between UNDISCOVERED AND UNCOLLECTED. During your six weeks the bra clasp was not running around the room like an olympic sprinter looking for some dna pals to party with. It was lying inert as bra claps are prone to do and doing and collecting absolutely nothing in the process.

Fifthy, even the RS defence appears to have backed away from claiming contamination on site. They know it's not going to fly. They are trying instead for lab contamination. Scuppered by testimony on the lab contamination cross checks in a department that in some years work has not had a single case of contamination.

The defence line is not at all convincing. The FOA crew line appears to be 'Just keep repeating the same old allegations until they are believed'. But they wont be unless they come up with something a little more credible.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:24 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lane99 wrote:
If so, how about this, instead: "That stoner is out of his hash-fogged mind. I *was* there all night. He needs to cut down".


The problem with that scenario is that smoking cannabis does not cause you to forget that somebody was with you all night. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia.

The fact is that Amanda Knox admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered. The forensic evidence corroborates her admission.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 10 [ 2441 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,446,085 Views