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


Last visit was: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:51 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:51 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 9 of 10 [ 2441 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:42 pm   Post subject: Raffaele's hard drive   

Kermit said:

Maybe the Italian state should spend the extra euros to get that hard disk repaired after all ....


Is there something I'm missing here--meaning is this a true possibility? My understanding is that Raffaele's initial alibi was that he was working on his computer for a good part of the evening of the murder, this statement was disproved by an examination of the computer memory, then somehow afterward the investigators damaged the hard drive. This is always a joke from FOAKers: "Oh yeah, sure, then they ruined the hard drive so the evidence can't be examined, etc...."

If it can be fixed so the memory is retrieved (and it seems hard to believe cost could be the issue) why wouldn't the defense have wanted to make sure this happened in order to substantiate the claim that Raffaele wasn't on-line?

(I'm fully prepared to be told this question reveals total dim witism, not knowing much about the whole subject--but it's been one of those nagging matters of which there are so many.)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: WTF???   

Revealed: Foxy Knoxy's sisters, posing happily for 'macabre' photos at the house where Meredith Kercher died
By Nick Pisa
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 11th July 2009


The sisters of murder suspect Amanda Knox have posed for photographs outside the cottage where British student Meredith Kercher was brutally killed.
Americans Deanne and Ashley Knox were taking part in a photoshoot for an Italian magazine.
And last night their decision to stand beside the house in Perugia, Italy, where Meredith, 21, was sexually assaulted and murdered was described as ‘macabre’ by her family’s lawyer

The sisters, aged 20 and 14, were interviewed along with Knox’s mother Edda Mellas, 47, for glossy Italian weekly Gente.
Biology undergraduate Deanne told the magazine: ‘At the end of this trial my sister Amanda will be coming home to Seattle with us. There are no other possibilities.

'She is totally innocent. When I saw her in jail during our visit it was so emotional. My sister knows that we are always behind her. Her whole family is with her.’
But Francesco Maresca, the lawyer representing Meredith’s family, said: ‘Amanda Knox’s sisters posing for photographs outside the house where the murder took place is macabre.
‘I accept that the Knox family has a right to give interviews. But there are other places where they could have been photographed. Outside the prison where Amanda Knox is being held would have been better.’


The behaviour of Knox’s sisters was criticised earlier in the case when they attended court wearing shorts and ‘revealing’ tops.

One observer in court at the time said: ‘It’s not what I would choose to wear if my sister was in court accused of a sex murder. It was very revealing.’


The Daily Mail


qt-)

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: Raffaele's hard drive   

disinterested wrote:
Kermit said:

Maybe the Italian state should spend the extra euros to get that hard disk repaired after all ....


Is there something I'm missing here--meaning is this a true possibility? My understanding is that Raffaele's initial alibi was that he was working on his a computer for a good part of the evening of the murder, this was disproved by an examination of the computer memory, then somehow afterward the investigators damaged the hard drive. This is always a joke from FOAKers: "Oh yeah, sure, then they ruined the hard drive so the evidence can't be examined, etc...."

If it can be fixed, and it seems hard to believe cost could be the issue, why wouldn't the defense want to get it fixed and have made sure this happened?

I'm fully prepared to be told this question reveals total dim witism, not knowing much about the whole subject--but it's been one of those nagging matters of which there are so many.


You have a bit of a misunderstanding there disinterested:

The investigators examined 4 computers:

Meredith's:
Most of the hard disc content related to her coursework from the University plus the personal stuff you'd expect to find on a girls PC. None of the content or it's last time of use shed any light on the murder.

Amanda's:
The hard disc in Amanda's PC is/was damaged by "someone". It cannot be read. Amanda's defense claim it was "undamaged" before it was taken by the investigators. They say they wanted to use some of it's content [a film of Meredith and Amanda at the chocolate festival etc] to prove that Meredith and AK were on good terms. The investigators used a standard forensic software in an attempt to clone and read the drive. We hear that it had been "chocked", but there's "shocked" and there's "shocked". One involves electricity and the other involves a sudden nasty jolt??? Disc drives don't like either of these things and if I had to give a personal opinion I think that maybe Amanda's PC was damaged "in transit".


Raffaele 1: His sisters PC which he'd had for a couple of months. This PC had a fault which existed prior to it's collection by the investigators. It does work a bit but it sounds as if it suffered from some kind of corruption. Raffaele said he didn't use it anyway and its certainly not relevent to the crime.

Raffaele 2: His Apple MAC laptop. This is the one that counts. It was the one he used regularly. It's the one on which the couple watched Amelie. It's the one on which "someone" opened a media file and played some music at 5:30am on Nov 2nd(strange thing that, AK and RS both claim they were fast asleep). It remians completely undamaged. It disc drive has been cloned and examined for the computer activity which is relevent to the crime. Raffaele's defense have a clone and were even given permission to send the original drive to a company in Switzerland for an independant examination of it's activity over the relevant time period.

The activity on Raffaele's MAC does indeed demonstrate the couple watched Amelie early in the evening of Nov 1st but the "last human interaction" with it was a download started at 9:10pm. It was left switched on all night until someone used it again to play music at 5:30am Nov 2nd. I've been approximate with the times but accurate to minutes. The investigations are accurate to the second. I just can't be bothered to track it down. It's on here "somewhere".
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: WTF???   

Michael wrote:
Revealed: Foxy Knoxy's sisters, posing happily for 'macabre' photos at the house where Meredith Kercher died
By Nick Pisa
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 11th July 2009


The sisters of murder suspect Amanda Knox have posed for photographs outside the cottage where British student Meredith Kercher was brutally killed.
Americans Deanne and Ashley Knox were taking part in a photoshoot for an Italian magazine.
And last night their decision to stand beside the house in Perugia, Italy, where Meredith, 21, was sexually assaulted and murdered was described as ‘macabre’ by her family’s lawyer

The sisters, aged 20 and 14, were interviewed along with Knox’s mother Edda Mellas, 47, for glossy Italian weekly Gente.
Biology undergraduate Deanne told the magazine: ‘At the end of this trial my sister Amanda will be coming home to Seattle with us. There are no other possibilities.

'She is totally innocent. When I saw her in jail during our visit it was so emotional. My sister knows that we are always behind her. Her whole family is with her.’
But Francesco Maresca, the lawyer representing Meredith’s family, said: ‘Amanda Knox’s sisters posing for photographs outside the house where the murder took place is macabre.
‘I accept that the Knox family has a right to give interviews. But there are other places where they could have been photographed. Outside the prison where Amanda Knox is being held would have been better.’


The behaviour of Knox’s sisters was criticised earlier in the case when they attended court wearing shorts and ‘revealing’ tops.

One observer in court at the time said: ‘It’s not what I would choose to wear if my sister was in court accused of a sex murder. It was very revealing.’


The Daily Mail


qt-)



This is absolutely disgusting. How insensitive can these people be? It is just beyond belief. Imagine how Meredith's sister is going to feel, seeing those photos. I am just lost for words.
Sick, sick, sick. And I agree with the 'observer' too. If that's the 13 year old in the photograph then someone needs to take a flannel to her face and get all that muck off it. I find this quite revealing actually - the parenting style is clearly 'relaxed' shall we say. I wouldn't let a little girl of mine dress like that, especially not in court. It's disrespectful. I thought Edda's dress was inappropriate too, come to that, when she was testifying. And as for posing outside the house where a girl was murdered, which one of my other daughters is accused of involvement in...crass. I can see where Amanda gets her famed 'lack of judgement' from. Edda.

For shame.

Sorry to sound off. I just feel sick.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: WTF???   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Revealed: Foxy Knoxy's sisters, posing happily for 'macabre' photos at the house where Meredith Kercher died
By Nick Pisa
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 11th July 2009


The sisters of murder suspect Amanda Knox have posed for photographs outside the cottage where British student Meredith Kercher was brutally killed.
Americans Deanne and Ashley Knox were taking part in a photoshoot for an Italian magazine.
And last night their decision to stand beside the house in Perugia, Italy, where Meredith, 21, was sexually assaulted and murdered was described as ‘macabre’ by her family’s lawyer

The sisters, aged 20 and 14, were interviewed along with Knox’s mother Edda Mellas, 47, for glossy Italian weekly Gente.
Biology undergraduate Deanne told the magazine: ‘At the end of this trial my sister Amanda will be coming home to Seattle with us. There are no other possibilities.

'She is totally innocent. When I saw her in jail during our visit it was so emotional. My sister knows that we are always behind her. Her whole family is with her.’
But Francesco Maresca, the lawyer representing Meredith’s family, said: ‘Amanda Knox’s sisters posing for photographs outside the house where the murder took place is macabre.
‘I accept that the Knox family has a right to give interviews. But there are other places where they could have been photographed. Outside the prison where Amanda Knox is being held would have been better.’


The behaviour of Knox’s sisters was criticised earlier in the case when they attended court wearing shorts and ‘revealing’ tops.

One observer in court at the time said: ‘It’s not what I would choose to wear if my sister was in court accused of a sex murder. It was very revealing.’


The Daily Mail


qt-)



This is absolutely disgusting. How insensitive can these people be? It is just beyond belief. Imagine how Meredith's sister is going to feel, seeing those photos. I am just lost for words.
Sick, sick, sick. And I agree with the 'observer' too. If that's the 13 year old in the photograph then someone needs to take a flannel to her face and get all that muck off it. I find this quite revealing actually - the parenting style is clearly 'relaxed' shall we say. I wouldn't let a little girl of mine dress like that, especially not in court. It's disrespectful. I thought Edda's dress was inappropriate too, come to that, when she was testifying. And as for posing outside the house where a girl was murdered, which one of my other daughters is accused of involvement in...crass. I can see where Amanda gets her famed 'lack of judgement' from. Edda.

For shame.

Sorry to sound off. I just feel sick.


You would think that with all the money spent on PR someone might have been able to advise against this and be heard.

_________________
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: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:35 pm   Post subject: Marriott, we want our money back!!!   

Skep wrote:
You would think that with all the money spent on PR someone might have been able to advise against this and be heard.


Exactly. What the f*** was Marriott thinking in allowing this to happen?!

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


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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: WTF???   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Revealed: Foxy Knoxy's sisters, posing happily for 'macabre' photos at the house where Meredith Kercher died
By Nick Pisa
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 11th July 2009


The sisters of murder suspect Amanda Knox have posed for photographs outside the cottage where British student Meredith Kercher was brutally killed.
Americans Deanne and Ashley Knox were taking part in a photoshoot for an Italian magazine.
And last night their decision to stand beside the house in Perugia, Italy, where Meredith, 21, was sexually assaulted and murdered was described as ‘macabre’ by her family’s lawyer

The sisters, aged 20 and 14, were interviewed along with Knox’s mother Edda Mellas, 47, for glossy Italian weekly Gente.
Biology undergraduate Deanne told the magazine: ‘At the end of this trial my sister Amanda will be coming home to Seattle with us. There are no other possibilities.

'She is totally innocent. When I saw her in jail during our visit it was so emotional. My sister knows that we are always behind her. Her whole family is with her.’
But Francesco Maresca, the lawyer representing Meredith’s family, said: ‘Amanda Knox’s sisters posing for photographs outside the house where the murder took place is macabre.
‘I accept that the Knox family has a right to give interviews. But there are other places where they could have been photographed. Outside the prison where Amanda Knox is being held would have been better.’


The behaviour of Knox’s sisters was criticised earlier in the case when they attended court wearing shorts and ‘revealing’ tops.

One observer in court at the time said: ‘It’s not what I would choose to wear if my sister was in court accused of a sex murder. It was very revealing.’


The Daily Mail


qt-)



This is absolutely disgusting. How insensitive can these people be? It is just beyond belief. Imagine how Meredith's sister is going to feel, seeing those photos. I am just lost for words.
Sick, sick, sick. And I agree with the 'observer' too. If that's the 13 year old in the photograph then someone needs to take a flannel to her face and get all that muck off it. I find this quite revealing actually - the parenting style is clearly 'relaxed' shall we say. I wouldn't let a little girl of mine dress like that, especially not in court. It's disrespectful. I thought Edda's dress was inappropriate too, come to that, when she was testifying. And as for posing outside the house where a girl was murdered, which one of my other daughters is accused of involvement in...crass. I can see where Amanda gets her famed 'lack of judgement' from. Edda.

For shame.

Sorry to sound off. I just feel sick.




Ashley is evidently the half sister:

Ten thousand miles away in Seattle, Curt Knox, Amanda's sister Deanna, 19, and half-sisters, Ashley, 13, and Delaney, 9, also sent birthday cards.

...so Edda isn't her mother. Although that doesn't refute your last words, Bard. Ashley does look like she's ready for a Kabuki show.

Also, thanks Brian for clearing up (above) my confusion as to whose hard drive got damaged.

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Bad taste on the side of the two girls, but I reckon that this was for sure an idea of the magazine's editor, this photo is the most morbid to sell more copies. The Knoxs' maybe didn't realize the kind of use of their image and the implications.
One thing, to remind, that I want to associate to Maresca's words, is that anyway Amanda's sisters are certainly innocent. They don't have any spacial duty to show respect nor obligation towards the victim (and, on their point of view, the victim's family is unfair against their sister). This is useful at least to remind us that even an innocent person can behave in a disrespectful way or with contemptuos manners. This is trua also for Amanda, I never relate the two aspects to each other, sympathy and responsability. About their bad taste, I don't subscribe so much to the comments by Maresca on this, because Maresca is now appointed to work in a trial and I don't think he really has to express any special interest or opinion about what other people think and do, those people are outside the trial and can do what they want with their image, with their opinions, their taste and their memories about the cottage, their respect or disrespect about a murder victim.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:59 pm   Post subject: What happened at 1300 on November 2   

Thoughtful, I was just looking through Frank's account of the early days of the trial. He's here trying to prove the exact opposite of what I believe to be the case, but no matter, there's some useful information in there.

For example:

Frank Sfarzo wrote:
In the meanwhile a call arrives from the patrol in via della Pergola: Filomena got to the house (13:00) and explained that the user of the italian cellphone is Meredith and she has also an english sim. Bartolozzi understands.


I think this is the kind of thing I was thinking about with relation to the 1300 timing. The timing (1300) is quoted in Micheli, and Frank quotes it again here as (I think) part of Bartolozzi's evidence, and I've understood this all to be connected - the arrival of Filomena, the "call from the patrol" and Filomena's explanation about the English sim. It seems to me that Lana Elisabetta (the lady into whose garden the phones were thrown) brought in the English phone at 1246, and that Bartolozzi couldn't trace the phone because it was an unknown SIM. (I don't think this means the activation, but I'm no expert - it's just how the reports read to me.) Then he gets a call from the patrol, who say that Filomena has arrived at the cottage and explained that it's a UK cellphone. So Bartolozzi understands why the SIM was unknown, and at that point the cellphone is activated, as recorded in Micheli's report as being at 1300.

The only way for Filomena to arrive after 1300 is if I've completely misunderstood the above order of events, which is perfectly possible. But if so, I'm surprised that the defense teams allowed such a defense-friendly blogger as Frank to post such misleading information about what's a pretty crucial arrival time.

Micheli himself is in no doubt about the police arrival time, vis-a-vis the phone call.

Paolo Micheli wrote:
...in vero, successive acquisizioni istruttorie portavano a verificare che la presunta telefonata al “112” (in realtà furono due, immediatamente dopo una prima chiamata che il S. fece alla sorella, Ufficiale dell’Arma in servizio altrove) seguì, e non precedette, l’arrivo degli Agenti...


Micheli definitely places Battistelli's tour and examination of the cottage as BEFORE the arrival of Luca and Marco, and that Amanda and Raffaele had already started explaining about trying to break down the door at the point when Luca and Marco arrive.

Paolo Micheli wrote:
...Inoltre, la porta di una delle camere, quella occupata dalla studentessa inglese KM, era chiusa, tanto che il S. - non rispondendo la ragazza alle telefonate della K. - sosteneva di aver provato a forzarla senza riuscirvi: sulla maniglia, e comunque in prossimità dell’uscio, vi erano ulteriori tracce ematiche. Nel frattempo, giungevano sul posto altri due giovani (AL e ZM, quest’ultimo presentandosi come fidanzato della R.)...


And a few minutes later, Filomena and Paola arrive:

Paolo Micheli wrote:
Nel giro di qualche altro minuto, arrivavano anche la stessa R. e GP, fidanzata dell’A.: ed era la R., dopo aver precisato che il telefono con la scheda a lei intestata apparteneva in effetti alla K. (gliel’aveva regalata proprio lei, perché la quarta ragazza con loro convivente, ML, aveva fatto analogo dono di una diversa scheda alla K.), ad insistere affinché venisse buttata giù la porta di M...


So the timetable you've outlined is specifically taking issue with Micheli on these points. It's a timetable that argues that Micheli is badly wrong on several counts. First, he claims that the facts show that the 112 calls followed, and did not precede, the arrival of the police - your timetable claims that it's the other way round. Second, he describes how the postal police examined various aspects of the scene, and that "nel frattempo", Luca and Marco arrived. But your timetable again demands that Luca and Marco arrive before that examination begins. Micheli also records that "qualche altro minuto" pass before Filomena and Paola arrived. Your timetable not only keeps this few minutes to the absolute minimum, but also insists that the examination of the house took place after the girls' arrival, not before.

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

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Mr Marriott's great expertise is probably a rather expensive commodity. So the classy Mellas clan must pose where they can to raise the most money to pay Mr Marriott to handle the (latest) resulting PR disaster. Which costs more money so the wailing clan will pose and interview to order to pay the fees to...... It never ends. As far as the PR conultants are concerned, the Mellas crew are the gift that keeps on giving. Funny how they squealed indignantly about tabloids and then spent so much time using same. ''Hey Deanna, to the left a bit, a bit more. We want to get the window in shot. Any chance of a cartwheel? How about sychronised handstands ladies? ''

Lets see. At the trial of their sister where she and her legal team are trying to dispel the image of her as a sex obsessed, classless tart totally unable to judge appropriate behaviour or feel respect and empathy with others, her sisters turn up in court looking like a pair of tarts. Well, all you need is love. Maybe none of the family actually like Amanda at all and they are all doing their best to get her locked up. Where's Chris when you need him? bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Bad taste on the side of the two girls, but I reckon that this was for sure an idea of the magazine's editor, this photo is the most morbid to sell more copies. The Knoxs' maybe didn't realize the kind of use of their image and the implications.


I've no doubt that it was the editor's suggestion Yummi and that the Knox family didn't realise. But it's the fact that the Knox family didn't realise that bothers me. Although it doesn't surprise me, why should it? We see it time and time again, in interviews...on the blogs, various family members being completely clueless to the concepts of tact, class, decorum, grace or proper conduct...or anything remotely resembling 'appropriate'. You can't teach people this, they either possess these concepts or they don't. It seems these people can't make it through one week to the next without committing some tasteless faux pas.

Perhaps at the end of this case they can pose for photographs outside of their trailer. They already live in one spiritually, but by that time their financial situation will have put them where they clearly belong. The Knox girls can then stick their tits out for 'that' shot, instead of where they absolutely don't belong.

_________________
"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 ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Bad taste on the side of the two girls, but I reckon that this was for sure an idea of the magazine's editor, this photo is the most morbid to sell more copies. The Knoxs' maybe didn't realize the kind of use of their image and the implications.


I've no doubt that it was the editor's suggestion Yummi and that the Knox family didn't realise. But it's the fact that the Knox family didn't realise that bothers me. Although it doesn't surprise me, why should it? We see it time and time again, in interviews...on the blogs, various family members being completely clueless to the concepts of tact, class, decorum, grace or proper conduct...or anything remotely resembling 'appropriate'. You can't teach people this, they either possess these concepts or they don't. It seems these people can't make it through one week to the next without committing some tasteless faux pas.

Perhaps at the end of this case they can pose for photographs outside of their trailer. They already live in one spiritually, but by that time their financial situation will have put them where they clearly belong. The Knox girls can then stick their tits out for 'that' shot, instead of where they absolutely don't belong.

You are spot on. Trailer trash. I take it Wal-Mart fashion isn't rampant in Italy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
We see it time and time again, in interviews...on the blogs, various family members being completely clueless to the concepts of tact, class, decorum, grace or proper conduct...or anything remotely resembling 'appropriate'.


But we are not here to judge other (outsider) people's decorum, are we?
I live in a country where the elected prime minister has orgies with minor daughters of mafia representants in his imperial villa and prostitute - cocaine - based parties in his Roman apratment, maybe I just got used to pass by these little details.

OT.
look toa live TG1 RAI footage from the G8 in l'Aquila (people from l'Aquila thought about G8..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_J58OyPJFI
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
But we are not here to judge other (outsider) people's decorum, are we?
I live in a country where the elected prime minister has orgies with minor daughters of mafia representants in his imperial villa and prostitute - cocaine - based parties in his Roman apratment, maybe I just got used to pass by these little details.


Yummi, whenever I visit Italy again I would love to come and stay with you. I could have parties and everything...and you'd just be totally chilled about it all :)

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


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

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Actually Ashley Knox is quite conservatively made-up and dressed in these photos compared to in an interview she did with one of the Seattle TV stations a while back--I don't remember the station or the date, sorry. She had long pants instead of shorts, but the make-up and top were more suitable for a "working girl"* than a 13-year old, if you get my drift.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:18 am   Post subject: The Lost Phones   

The Mastronardi and Castellini book ([ link ]) I ordered arrived a couple of days ago.
It makes interesting reading (and I’ll put up a quick review of it in a later post), and it makes obvious how much the newspaper reports actually leave out (which is understandable, given that they do not have acres of print-space to spare, and that, because of circumstance, they are usually reporting while events are still unfolding and before everything is fully known).

For example, the dynamics of the coincidences that led to the opening of the investigation are a little bit clearer to me now:


Quote:

The Two Mobile Phones and the Threatening Phone Call

But there are many pieces of the puzzle in this mystery, and we need to wind back the clock and go back to the day of the murder and the following morning.

It’s 11pm on Thursday the 1st of November when, at the Biscarini family home, there’s a phone call. Mrs Elisabeta Lana (Biscarini’s wife – editor) answers the phone: there’s a male voice on the line claiming that there is a bomb in the house. He warns her not to use the bathroom and to leave the house. The lady of the house, frightened, calls 113 and shortly afterwards a search is carried out which discovers nothing untoward. The police leave, but not before inviting the lady to go, the following morning, to the Postal Police and make a report. We know from afterwards that the caller was a boy in Rome on a dare [in vena di bravate] who, having a promotional credit on his phone that was about to expire, decided to play some random bad-taste prank.

But the turning point [svolta] is the day after. As Mrs Lana’s daughter tells the investigators: “The following morning, around 9am, my brother, after having exited the house, discovered in the garden, more or less in the middle of the same, in a region free of trees, a clear-coloured Motorola-brand mobile phone. My brother, at this point, came back into the house asking if the found phone belonged to anyone in the family. On a negative response, my father called 113 to ask whether any of the agents from the previous night might have lost a mobile phone. The 113 operator, not knowing the answer, asked my father to go the Postal Police. So at 10am, my father and my mother went to the Postal Police to report the threatening phone call and they also handed over the phone found in the garden.”

As mentioned earlier, the enquiries done at that time identified Filomena as the owner of the phone.

The second turning point happened at noon. The lass continues: “Afterwards, around about 12, together with the woman who does the house cleaning, I went into the garden to check if someone had gotten in the previous night, because I was worried about how that mobile phone could have been left there. During this check, I heard the ringtone of a mobile phone. At first I thought that maybe it was the cleaning lady’s, but, given her denial that it was hers and seeing that the mobile phone was still ringing, I made my way towards the bushes from whence I heard the ringtone originate. At this point, making use of a shovel [pala], I moved the bushes aside and noticed a dark-coloured Ericsson-brand mobile phone on the ground, which at that moment was ringing no more.” It was Meredith’s UK phone.

This is only one of a series of coincidences running through this case from the start. Who threw those two mobile phones into the garden of that house on Via Sperandio? And when? And why there?


Pages 15-16




The discovery of the second phone is relayed to the PolPost officers in the middle of their enquiries:


Quote:

It was a cold morning in Perugia, that 2nd of November 2007, battered by a mountain wind still blowing from the previous night. Two agents of the Postal Police arrive at 7 via della Pergola at 12.35. They are looking for Filomena Romanelli, the registered owner of a mobile phone discovered three hours earlier, around 9am, in the garden of the Biscarini family, in via dello Sperandio, about a kilometre away. Outside the cottage, they find two youngsters: Amanda Knox, 22, …and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 24, …


The PolPost agents are asking Amanda and Raffaele about the young Italian woman who owns the mobile phone. In the meantime, a call from Central reaches them informing them that, in the garden at via Sperandio, a second mobile phone has been found, registered to a Meredith Kercher, also a tenant at the cottage at 7 via della Pergola.

But what are Amanda and Raffaele doing outside the cottage? …


p7
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:29 am   Post subject: Conversations in a Cottage   

Mastronardi and Castellini summarise the money discussions like this:

Quote:

The Mystery of the Missing Money

Rudy, as we have seen, affirms that Meredith was complaining about the fact that Amanda had taken her money. In one of the interview sessions, he also affirmed that on the night of the murder Meredith had confronted Amanda, accusing her of the theft. And in fact, about 250-300 euros have vanished from Mez’s room, euros that were intended for paying the rent a few days later. Together with the cash, two credit cards that the lass had with her also disappeared, in addition to the two mobile phones found in the garden at the Biscarini’s, in via Sperandio.

On the 7 November 2007, the prosecution affirms, in their final address [requistoria], that Romanelli had referred to, amongst other things, that she and the other roommates were paying 300 euros per head on the 5th of each month. At the end of October 2007, Meredith had told them of having the rent money, and she and Mezzetti had even commented favourably on the fact, saying that she was quite punctual. Amanda was present during this conversation.

On the 11 November 2007, both Romanelli and Mezzetti added further particulars, saying, right on the 30th October, and to Meredith, and with Amanda present, that after the long weekend, that is, by the 5th, they were going to have to pay the rent. Meredith replied that she already had the money ready and that she was willing to give it to the two Italian roommates, knowing that the four of them would contribute the sum for the lease. Amanda, instead, said that Lumumba hadn’t paid her yet [non la pagava]. Meredith repeated, still in Amanda’s hearing, having ready access to money at that time because she had won a study bursary and had two credit cards.



Mastronardi and Castellini, pp52-53


Such an innocent conversation.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:04 am   Post subject: The Lost Memories   

I think Raffaele's memory has gone bung.

He thinks he called the police before they arrived:


Quote:

Raffaele’s phone call

Another mystery relates to Raffaele Sollecito’s phone calls, first to his sister, an officer in the Force, and then to “112”. The crucial question is knowing with certainty whether Raffaele made these calls before or after the arrival of the Postal Police officers at via della Pergola. GUP Micheli, in his orders remanding Knox and Sollecito to stand trial, had no doubts, affirming that “the line of reasoning put up (by the defence – editor) to rebut the thesis that Sollecito’s ‘112’ calls were after the arrival of the Postal Police has no merit [non ha pregio neppure]”.

For the GUP, the sequence of events was as follows:
The Postal Police arrive at 12.35, as confirmed by the PolPost notation signed by Inspector Battistelli, “and,” continues the GUP, “regarding the the Sant’Antonio parking lot security camera, bearing in mind an adjusted timestamp, maybe the agents arrived there even earlier”.

Raffaele’s call to his sister was, instead, at 12.50, thence the first “112” call at 12.51 and the second at 12.54 (during the first call, the line had dropped out). For the prosecution and for the GUP, then, Sollecito alerted the forces of law and order after and not before the arrival of the PolPost – though this is being contested by the defence.

The fact that Raffaele had called after, and not before, the arrival of the PolPost is therefore an indication to the investigators that the lad, together with Knox, had something to hide. And Micheli also cites that Raffaele, in the two “112” calls, confirms that “nothing had been stolen, while there was a locked door with the occupant still sought-for and not responding, and in front of which there were marks of blood”.

On his side, Raffaele affirms instead of having called before the Postal agents’ arrival.


Mastronardi and Castellini , pp16-17



The logic of the phone call is not internally consistent:


Quote:

Prosecutor Mignini, though, points to the contents of the second phone call made by Sollecito on the morning of 2 November describing to the carabinieri the situation as found in via della Pergola. Mignini says: “Here, in relation to the call to the carabinieri, there is an extremely important further passage, in addition to the subsequentness of the “112” call itself with respect to the arrival of the Postal Police. If one listens to the second call made by Sollecito to “112”, at 12.54 on the 2nd November, one hears the trooper rostered on at the centre asking Raffaele: “What have they taken?” and the latter responding with: “No no, they’ve taken nothing”.

How was Sollecito able to know that nothing had been taken from Romanelli if she arrived ten or so minutes later and if, only after her arrival, she, after a quick check, had determined that nothing at all had been taken? The lapsus telefonico by Sollecito appears even more evident, because, listening to the phone call, one can hear that, straight after having let loose this particular admission of involvement by himself and Amanda in the simulation of the crime and, therefore, logically as far as it was placing such conduct upstream and realising that a diversionary tactic was required, that is via the homicide, Sollecito sought to divert the carabinieri’s attention onto the details of the locked door of Meredith’s room”.




Mastronardi and Castellini, p31



Also, he is doing the classic witness response to the "Do you remember what happened?" question.
When people start answering with: "Oh, it would have been X", the lawyers gently guide them to answering the actual question, not what would have been:

Says Raffaele:

Quote:

RS: “I received a phone call from my father, who calls me every evening before going to bed, I don’t remember if he called me on the landline or on the mobile.


I remember having called 112 before the Postal Police agents arrived. I spoke to the agents and so did Amanda, understanding what they were saying. I mentioned that there was something strange, pointing out to them that the door to Filomena’s room was open wide [spalancata] with broken glass on the floor and that the door to Meredith’s room was locked. The roommate arrived with her boyfriend and some of their friends. The Postal Police agents broke down the door to Meredith’s room and were saying they saw a foot and blood.”
Mastronardi and Castellini, pp28-29



A warning bell rings in the part about receiving the call from his father: Raffaele doesn't remember how it arrvived.


Quote:

RS in front of the GIP, 8 Nov 2007:
“My father calls me every day and it seems strange to me that on the 1st he did not do so.”

Mastronardi and Castellini, p29



The part about remembering Filomena and everybody else arriving altogether is not what actually happened, so it could be a conflation of events in memory, or it could be how he actually remembers it, because he first saw everybody together, and thereby concluded they all arrived altogether. (Or it could be disingenuous, to borrow a phrase from some of the Full Moon posts prior.)


Quote:

The Prosecution:
“[With] the door opened (while Knox remained at a distance, out of the hallway, therefore in the kitchen-living room area, while Sollecito was nowhere to be seen, according to Zaroli), a scene unfolded in which…”


p25


In any case, squaring someone's account with other evidence, and putting the pieces together where possible, is a good definition of the riscontro ("collation, comparison") process.

I think the book deserves a full translation.
Top Profile 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:12 am   Post subject: Re: WTF???   

Michael wrote:
Revealed: Foxy Knoxy's sisters, posing happily for 'macabre' photos at the house where Meredith Kercher died
By Nick Pisa
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 11th July 2009


The Daily Mail


qt-)



Edda has completely disconnected with reality. This is an astonishingly morbid decision by a mother of a child on trial for murder. No one agrees to something like this unless they already see the writing on the wall. It must be over in Edda's mind.
Top Profile 

Offline jw


Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:18 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
OT.
look toa live TG1 RAI footage from the G8 in l'Aquila (people from l'Aquila thought about G8..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_J58OyPJFI



Unequivocal political opinion there be-) be-) More amusing than the usual pro-)

Loved the quick camera pan-away.

Thanks, Yummi.

jw
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:26 am   Post subject: Mastronardi and Castellini   

Catnip, thanks very much for those excerpts from the Mastronardi and Castellini book. They're saying many of the things that I've been thinking myself, and with more facts at their fingertips.

If we outline the timeline of events, mapping the testimonies of Knox and Sollecito to the cellphone records, the police records, the testimonies of other witnesses and the CCTV footage from the carpark, then the defense narrative looks completely absurd and unworkable. I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree to that - certainly Charlie Wilkes did, over on Candace's blog.

The two attempts I've read to make the narrative workable - first by Ferdi on Candace's blog, and then by Thoughtful on here - both depend on shifting a lot of the activity to a point after one o'clock. (In fact, I think Ferdi's and Thoughtful's ideas are quite similar in how they frame that narrative.)

I've read some interesting discussions and speculations on here, on Candace's blog, on Frank's blog, and so on, about what might have happened on that night - both for and against particular defendants. The discussion about the faked break-in, for example, I think is genuinely interesting because of the mountain of evidence and theorizing that we have access to.

But there are other points where it seems to me that discussing them is a waste of time - because we're discussing things that may be uncertain to us, and yet which are known perfectly well to the court. And I think the question of whether Filomena had arrived by 1300 is one of those points.

I've quoted above from Frank's summary of Bartolozzi's evidence on those timings. Frank doesn't seem to have a problem with Filomena being there at 1300 (even though I don't think Frank has twigged that it undermines the point he thinks he's making about who're the more reliable witnesses, the defendants or the police). There's no evidence that the defense put up any objection to her being there at 1300. And yet the only two attempts to make Amanda's narrative work (both by blog posters, not by lawyers) depend on Filomena's arriving after 1300. Otherwise, I think we all agree, the required events cannot possibly take place in four and a half minutes.

I'm confident about the cellphone records, because I've seen them. I'm slightly less confident about what exactly was happening at 1300, because I don't have such hard evidence in my hand. As such - sure, it's open to challenge in the blogworld. But in the world of the actual court, it doesn't seem to have been challenged at all, and that's where the case will be decided.

I agree that it's easier to cram 45 minutes of activity into 20 minutes, instead of cramming 30 minutes of activity into 4 and a half. But I think we should be aware that, if that's what we're choosing to do, to make the defense narrative workable, we're taking a flying leap of faith, that contradicts Micheli's report, police records, witness testimonies, and so on, based only on a hunch that (at least in the world of the defense teams) Knox and Sollecito must be, prima facie, innocent.

And it's in that context that we should look at the testimony of Edda Mellas, who recounted in court that in the 1247 call, she told Amanda to hang up and call the police, and the testimony of Amanda Knox, who recounted in court that she had no memory of even taking part in that conversation, nor was she in a position to overhear what Raffaele said to his sister two minutes later, even though she was clearly part of the 112 conversation a couple of minutes after that, and even though she gives conflicting reasons for not having overheard it - two of which are flatly contradicted by the phone records.

And it's also in that context that we should remember that Raffaele Sollecito is refusing to testify at all.

So we have one defendant who can't remember what happened, and who contradicts herself, and another who is refusing to say what happened, and our hunch about their innocence means that we're happy to disregard witness testimony, Micheli's analysis, CCTV footage, and so on, plus the sworn testimony of policemen who say they CAN remember what happened and that in fact they kept detailed records of it.

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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: Mastronardi and Castellini   

FinnMacCool wrote:
If we outline the timeline of events, mapping the testimonies of Knox and Sollecito to the cellphone records, the police records, the testimonies of other witnesses and the CCTV footage from the carpark, then the defense narrative looks completely absurd and unworkable.


The problem is that the prosecution narrative doesn't look convincing either. Isn't there also a 12.40 phone call? 1240: Raffaele receives a call from his father. (67 seconds)
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:33 am   Post subject: Re: Mastronardi and Castellini   

Lancelotti wrote:
The problem is that the prosecution narrative doesn't look convincing either. Isn't there also a 12.40 phone call? 1240: Raffaele receives a call from his father. (67 seconds)


How does this undermine the prosecution's narrative?
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:56 am   Post subject: SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
If we outline the timeline of events, mapping the testimonies of Knox and Sollecito to the cellphone records, the police records, the testimonies of other witnesses and the CCTV footage from the carpark, then the defense narrative looks completely absurd and unworkable.

The problem is that the prosecution narrative doesn't look convincing either. Isn't there also a 12.40 phone call? 1240: Raffaele receives a call from his father. (67 seconds)

The prosecution narrative actually fits in quite well with the information at hand, the carpark CCTV, Filomena's testimony, Paola's testimony, Marco's testimony, Luca's testimony, Bartolozzi's testimony, the 112 recordings, the phone times, and the police station activity reports.

That is, unless if you believe that right on the 2nd of November, Bartolozzi had faked his arrival time in police records, in a conspiracy theorist scenario which would believe that the Evil Mignini conspiracy was already underway, and Bartolozzi had already been inducted into the Brotherhood from the very moment of Discovery.

While that makes for entertaining banter on an Internet discussion board, I don't think the jury will be swayed by the volume of fairly coherent testimony on one hand, and the absence of coherent testimony on the other (either because it's literally absent - Raffaele has availed himself of his right to not declare - or because it's incoherent - Amanda's court declarations don't add up with the initial witness statements, nor with call data, nor with her memory lapses).

As for his phone call with his father, yes, it would be nice if Raffaele could talk about that call (if it took place) and many other aspects of 1-2 November 2007.
=======================

While we have you here, Lancelotti, what's your take on the Pink Hobbit Foot? Does FOA really think they'll convince anyone that the bathmat footprint is Rudy's if they shrink Rudy's foot to an adolescent girl's size in order to make it fit the ball of the foot and the big toe on the bathmat?
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:12 am   Post subject: Re: Mastronardi and Castellini   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
If we outline the timeline of events, mapping the testimonies of Knox and Sollecito to the cellphone records, the police records, the testimonies of other witnesses and the CCTV footage from the carpark, then the defense narrative looks completely absurd and unworkable.


The problem is that the prosecution narrative doesn't look convincing either. Isn't there also a 12.40 phone call? 1240: Raffaele receives a call from his father. (67 seconds)


Yes, there is. But how does that make any difference at all to the prosecution narrative?

Battistelli reports talking first to Raffaele and Amanda and then, after the arrival of Luca and Marco, switching his attention to them. To me, that 1240 phone call looks like the early stages of Raffaele and Amanda drawing to one side - less than twenty minutes later, Paola Grande will see them coming out of Amanda's bedroom. So that seems to fit the prosecution narrative exactly.

As Kermit says, maybe if Raffaele was prepared to talk, he might be able to give a more exculpatory explanation. But to be honest, I'm hard pushed even to imagine one on his behalf, given the rest of the evidence.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:24 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Finn wrote:
"Battistelli reports talking first to Raffaele and Amanda and then, after the arrival of Luca and Marco, switching his attention to them. "

But when did Luca and Marco arrive?
Micheli report:
"Nel giro di qualche altro minuto, arrivavano anche la stessa ROMANELLI e GRANDE PAOLA ..."

According to this they arrived only a couple of minutes before Filomena and Paola, seems to be nowhere near to 12:40.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:40 am   Post subject: Nel giro di qualche altro minuto   

bolint wrote:
Finn wrote:
"Battistelli reports talking first to Raffaele and Amanda and then, after the arrival of Luca and Marco, switching his attention to them. "

But when did Luca and Marco arrive?
Micheli report:
"Nel giro di qualche altro minuto, arrivavano anche la stessa ROMANELLI e GRANDE PAOLA ..."

According to this they arrived only a couple of minutes before Filomena and Paola, seems to be nowhere near to 12:40.


I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but why do you think that's "only a couple of minutes"?

Personally, if I was pushed to put timings on it, I would guess that Luca and Marco arrived at around 1245, because the chain of police phone calls starts (in my reckoning) with the one to Edda at 1247. And I would guess that Filomena and Paola arrived "nel giro di qualche altro minuto", which I was thinking was more like ten minutes later, around 1255. But maybe I've overlooked something - if so, please tell me what it is...

Before Luca and Marco arrived, what do I think? I think Raffaele doesn't want to talk too much to the police. Amanda - okay, she's a resident, but she's not Italian - does most of the talking, which seems a bit odd. Meanwhile Raffaele decides to take this opportunity to top up the credit on his phone, which you wouldn't have thought would be the most pressing thing on his mind, under normal circumstances. I think he uses the phone as a distraction, something to do instead of talking to the police.

And in fact he doesn't seem very keen on talking to the police, even to this day.

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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:50 am   Post subject: Re: SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME   

Kermit wrote:
The prosecution narrative actually fits in quite well with the information at hand, the carpark CCTV, Filomena's testimony, Paola's testimony, Marco's testimony, Luca's testimony, Bartolozzi's testimony, the 112 recordings, the phone times, and the police station activity reports.

The question really is when did Luca and Marco arrive. From Finn's timeline (older and longer version):

1234: Filomena calls Amanda. (source: Charlie Wilkes; not mentioned in Amanda Knox email.)
1240: Raffaele receives a call from his father. (67 seconds)
After 1234: Filomena calls Marco Zaroli, who calls Luca Altieri.

Filomena, shopping at the Fiera dei Morti with Paola, is not worried for the blood, she thinks someone could be menstruating. But for the theft she's panicking. So much panicking that she has problems even in remembering where her car is parked. Better calling Marco and telling him to go there before her. Marco calls Luca, who has a car, and they drive there. (source: Frank Sfarzo, February 7, 2009)

1246: Amanda calls her mother in the US, Edda Mellas. (source: Charlie Wilkes; not mentioned in Amanda Knox email.)
1250: Raffaele calls his sister.
1251: Raffaele calls 112 but they ask him to call back.
1254: Raffaele calls 112 and gets through to the police

Quote:
While we have you here, Lancelotti, what's your take on the Pink Hobbit Foot? Does FOA really think they'll convince anyone that the bathmat footprint is Rudy's if they shrink Rudy's foot to an adolescent girl's size in order to make it fit the ball of the foot and the big toe on the bathmat?

I honestly couldn't care less what the FOA thinks, does or wants us to believe. Why do you think it's important? Do you think they can influence the trial in any way?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:51 am   Post subject: Timeline   

Finn, I think what is happening here is that we are not reading the same passages as meaning the same thing. For me, Catnip's book quotes support what I'm going to call "the defense timeline" (because I'm increasingly certain that this is what the defense is building up).

Defense timeline:
(1) 12:54: Raffaele's second 112 call
[Note: I see no contradiction in that he tells the police that nothing was taken. At this point he and Amanda have already looked into Filomena's room, seen that her computer and camera are still there as well as those of the other roommates, and called Filomena to tell her this. "Nothing was taken" was Amanda's quick assessment.]
(2) 12:55: Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly
[Note: Amanda testified to being amazed at the speed. But this contradicts Battistelli's explicit testimony]
(3) 12:55-12:58: Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she and Raffaele immediately bring them into the kitchen and start telling them together a bunch of stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop them, show them a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli.
(4) 12:59: Amanda stops short in her explanations and tells them that Filomena is on her way. They ask her to write down the phone numbers of everyone who lives in the house, which she writes on a post-it.
(5) 13:00: Meredith's English phone is activated at HQ.
[Note: This may be chance or it may be a direct consequence of the post-it (and Battistelli calling Meredith's number from it) or it may be a first contact with HQ that happens now before Filomena arrives and which is absent from Micheli's report, but mentioned in the following quote from Catnip's book:
Quote:
The PolPost agents are asking Amanda and Raffaele about the young Italian woman who owns the mobile phone. In the meantime, a call from Central reaches them informing them that, in the garden at via Sperandio, a second mobile phone has been found, registered to a Meredith Kercher, also a tenant at the cottage at 7 via della Pergola.
]
(6) 13:01-13:02: Luca and Marco arrive. They find the police standing in the kitchen with Amanda, Raffaele, telephone(s) on the table and a post-it, which is consonant with the above.
[Note: in Amanda's testimony, she mistakenly says that Luca Altieri and Paola Grande arrive. Raffaele says all four friends arrived together (cf. Catnip's book)]
(7) 13:03-13:04: Filomena and Paola arrive.
[Note: Micheli says "After a few minutes". I will research more testimony on this point.]
(8) 13:04-13:15: Everyone immediately starts looking around the house, probably starting in Filomena's room.
[Note: Amanda and Raffaele slip into Amanda's room, then emerge]
(9) 13:15: Filomena authorizes Luca to break down the door.
[Note: I don't know what Bartolozzi's testimony saying that he authorized Battistelli to do it corresponds to. We had heard that Battistelli was claiming there wasn't sufficient evidence to warrant him doing it, and this is why Luca did it in the end.]

Now Finn, I don't agree with your arguments showing I am contradicting Micheli or other testimony on points (3) (you claim he says they looked around the apartment at this point) and (5) you claim it has been shown that Filomena was present at this time.

Point (3): Finn wrote:
Quote:
Micheli definitely places Battistelli's tour and examination of the cottage as before the arrival time of Luca and Marco

and quotes the third sentence of the passage below as justification. I think it reads differently when you read the whole passage.

Micheli wrote:
Quote:
Secondo quanto rappresentato all'Isp. BATTISTELLI, la K. ed il S. avevano dunque rilevato la presenza di macchie di sangue in alcuni dei vani dell'appartamento, in particolare in uno dei bagni, nonche tracce di un apparente furto (anche se nessuno dei due riferiva di aver notato che qualcosa fosse stato effettivamente rubato) proprio nella stanza della R., dove c'era un vetro infranto e un grosso sasso in terra. Nell'altro bagno vi erano delle feci, con lo sciacquone non scaricato. Inoltre, la porta di una delle camere, quella occupata dalla studentessa inglese KM, era chiusa, tanto che il S. - non rispondendo la ragazza alle telefonate della K. - sosteneva di aver provato a forzarla senza riuscirvi: sulla maniglia, e comunque in prossimita dell'uscio, vi erano ulteriori tracce ematiche. Nel frattempo, giungevano sul posto altri due giovani.


I translated this yesterday. To me this passage pretty clearly says that Battistelli was TALKING with Amanda and Raffaele who were TELLING him ("la K. ed il S. avevano dunque rilevato..."="they had noticed", not "they showed me") about the closed door and bloody traces (which anyway he checked for himself minutes later) and IN THE MEANTIME ("nel frattempo") the boys arrived (finding as we know the two inspectors standing in the kitchen with Amanda, Raffaele, one or two phones and a post-it). I'm not saying the passage isn't a little ambiguous. It could also be read Finn's way, but I actually read it this way myself. I'm not just twisting things to force an argument. I believe it is misleading to quote this starting from the third sentence which misses out the "they had noticed" phrase. And keep in mind that I am trying to build up what the defense reasoning is going to be. They are certainly going to claim that there is no contradiction with this passage. As for Frank, I looked at the passage you pointed out to me and now I see where you got your information. But Frank is not trustworthy and I simply don't believe what he says. I was surprised at your remark, Finn, about the defense "letting him write those things". You don't seriously think Frank works for the defense, do you? I think Amanda's lawyers are very sober and Frank is a maverick whose work is by no means always helping the defense, any more than the FOA's work.

Point (5): I argued yesterday that no evidence links the contact with Bartolozzi at HQ to the activation of Meredith's English phone. This was because Bartolozzi testified to having authorized Battistelli to break down the door. Now this evidence is surprising because Battistelli told Filomena that he didn't have sufficient evidence to justify doing so, and that is why Luca ended up doing it. So this particular contact with HQ can't have been at 13:00. I don't know when it was. In any case, now the quote from Catnip's book has come to clarify things further. Perhaps there were two contacts with HQ, that is certainly possible, although neither is attested to in Micheli's report. Anyway, this quote completely supports my description of point number (5):
Quote:
The PolPost agents are asking Amanda and Raffaele about the young Italian woman who owns the mobile phone. In the meantime, a call from Central reaches them informing them that, in the garden at via Sperandio, a second mobile phone has been found, registered to a Meredith Kercher, also a tenant at the cottage at 7 via della Pergola.
]
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:01 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Bad taste on the side of the two girls, but I reckon that this was for sure an idea of the magazine's editor, this photo is the most morbid to sell more copies. The Knoxs' maybe didn't realize the kind of use of their image and the implications.
One thing, to remind, that I want to associate to Maresca's words, is that anyway Amanda's sisters are certainly innocent. They don't have any spacial duty to show respect nor obligation towards the victim (and, on their point of view, the victim's family is unfair against their sister). This is useful at least to remind us that even an innocent person can behave in a disrespectful way or with contemptuos manners. This is trua also for Amanda, I never relate the two aspects to each other, sympathy and responsability. About their bad taste, I don't subscribe so much to the comments by Maresca on this, because Maresca is now appointed to work in a trial and I don't think he really has to express any special interest or opinion about what other people think and do, those people are outside the trial and can do what they want with their image, with their opinions, their taste and their memories about the cottage, their respect or disrespect about a murder victim.


Yummi, whilst I respect your opinion I don't agree with it in this instance. I think in any situation where life has been lost, we all - as human beings - should do our utmost to show respect for the grief and loss of others. Anyone who has been bereaved themselves will know of the special kind of hell bereavement is. Add to this the fact that the deceased is a child, away from home, and taken in the most appalling circumstances imaginable. Double that hellish torment. No-one should feel permitted to add to that pain, in any way. Why would you?

To me, the actions of Edda Mellas in allowing these girls to be posed in this way is doing just that. SHE has parental responsibility here. They are her family. I would not care how pushy a 'magazine editor' was if what they were asking my daughters to do was inappropriate and adding to the pain of another human being. Why would you?

Here the answer is painfully clear, and very ugly indeed. You would if you were trying to get maximum sympathy and publicity for your 'wrongly imprisoned and innocent' daughter. Why can't these people LET JUSTICE TAKE ITS COURSE. If Amanda is innocent, then the evidence will be seen and heard. Italians are not STUPID, nor does it serve them well to be seen as wrongly and incompetently imprisoning a foreign student. No. They are bravely and rightly pursuing justice, and the evidence points towards a case to answer. Their work is meticulous as far as I can see. They have their country's top experts to testify. Italy is not some third world country. Sure I don't know the system, but I would trust them from what I have seen so far - and also as it is such a controversial case. No way are they going to be held up as incompetents in front of the whole world.

So why can't Edda and Curt and Chris accept this? Why keep pushing their daughter's case in the way they do? Why put her two sisters in the tabloids? Two little nymphets. Nice picture. It'll sell, it will 'get the message out there'. To me. Well. To me that is sick. It's exploitative of the girls and it is adding to the pain of Meredith's family.

We are not here to judge the decorum of others, no. But my God it's hard not to. Don't you think?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:06 pm   Post subject: Further   

I just want to add that the defense is going to call on the fact that Luca Altieri accused Battistelli of lying about having stepped into the room. I read the relevant passage yesterday where they are face-to-face and Luca was very firm about it. "You went in, you stooped down, you lifted up the corner of the quilt near her face." Battistelli replied: "I didn't go in, the color of her foot was enough for me to know that she was dead." Personally, here, I believe Luca one hundred percent because he has no reason to lie, no reason at all, and because Battistelli is in the postal police and he made a mistake and has to defend himself, and he has probably not seen a lot of cadavers, and because going to see if the person is dead or not seems to me to be an obvious reflex -- what if she's still alive and needs an ambulance?!! But the defense will make the most of this and imply that Battistelli is a liar.

On another note, I completely agree with Lancelotti that the FOA's pink hobbit foot lies and other lies are not all that interesting because they are not going to influence the trial at all. Inversely, I suspect that the bloody footprint will be attributed to Rudy by the defense on the basis of the 25.1 cm measurement, if that is true...but we'll see.

Finally -- Skep, it's nice of you to think that the Mellas clan's PR would dissuade them from posing in front of the house!!! But I very much doubt it, as long as it keeps the money rolling in. Happy, happy Marriott, big smile on face...happy, wealthy Marriott...
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:11 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful quotes from Mastronardi and Capellini's book:
"In the meantime, a call from Central reaches them informing them that, in the garden at via Sperandio, a second mobile phone has been found, registered to a Meredith Kercher, also a tenant at the cottage at 7 via della Pergola."

I doubt that such call happened. Their problem was that they could not determine whose SIM card was the English one (unlike Filomena's SIM card whch had been issued in Italy and thus easily checked and identified by 11:38am)
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Woo! The Daily Mail just changed their online picture! The final one at the bottom, where they had made a composite picture of Amanda and Meredith smiling at each other by taking two photos and joining them into one. I actually thought that was in even poorer taste than the top picture. It's gone now, replaced by two separate pics! Someone must have protested.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Thoughtful quotes from Mastronardi and Capellini's book:
"In the meantime, a call from Central reaches them informing them that, in the garden at via Sperandio, a second mobile phone has been found, registered to a Meredith Kercher, also a tenant at the cottage at 7 via della Pergola."

I doubt that such call happened. Their problem was that they could not determine whose SIM card was the English one (unlike Filomena's SIM card whch had been issued in Italy and thus easily checked and identified by 11:38am)


Very possible that it didn't happen, bolint, I don't know. It doesn't matter for the defense timeline anyway. As I said, there could have been several different reasons for the activation of the English phone at 13:00. My only point is that it didn't happen because of anything to do with Filomena's arrival.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: Further   

thoughtful wrote:
I just want to add that the defense is going to call on the fact that Luca Altieri accused Battistelli of lying about having stepped into the room. I read the relevant passage yesterday where they are face-to-face and Luca was very firm about it. "You went in, you stooped down, you lifted up the corner of the quilt near her face." Battistelli replied: "I didn't go in, the color of her foot was enough for me to know that she was dead." Personally, here, I believe Luca one hundred percent because he has no reason to lie, no reason at all, and because Battistelli is in the postal police and he made a mistake and has to defend himself, and he has probably not seen a lot of cadavers, and because going to see if the person is dead or not seems to me to be an obvious reflex -- what if she's still alive and needs an ambulance?!! But the defense will make the most of this and imply that Battistelli is a liar.


Hi thoughtful,

Has anyone else corroborated Luca Altieri's testimony that Battistelli went into Meredith's room and lifted the quilt?

Luca caused some confusion when he claimed that he saw two mobile phones on the table in the cottage. I wonder how reliable Luca is as an eyewitness.


Last edited by The Machine on Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Re the photograph of the sisters outside the cottage

I can see how thoughts of the victim would be forgotten during the glamour of a photoshoot (still not good), but turning up in court in shorts/bare shoulders is pretty disrespectful anywhere, and Mom had plenty of time to think about that.....and there is still no excuse for not contacting the Kerchers or telling the lawyers or police that Amanda knew Lumumba was innocent. ...this is all especially if she really does believe her daughter is innocent. That's why it bothers me most. It makes me think Mom knows or deeply, deeply suspects.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Further   

thoughtful wrote:
I suspect that the bloody footprint will be attributed to Rudy by the defense on the basis of the 25.1 cm measurement, if that is true.


Although we humoured the FOA people by playing with footprint images based on a 25.1 mm measurement, we have yet to see that as a police/investigation official measurement. I personally don't think that that is the right number, nor that the defence will ever bring up that number, only FOA.
-
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti quotes Frank:
"Filomena, shopping at the Fiera dei Morti with Paola, is not worried for the blood, she thinks someone could be menstruating. But for the theft she's panicking. (source: Frank Sfarzo, February 7, 2009)"


It's characteristic bullshit from Frank.
Though it is Filomena who calls, Frank says she was not worried.
As for Amanda, she did not think it worth calling Filomena with the news of her ransacked room, but it is understandable because she is capable of learning 5 languages, Frank would say. :D
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
"As I said, there could have been several different reasons for the activation of the English phone at 13:00"

The most plausible is that they turned it on at the police at that time.
It is known that it was switched off by the family who had found it in their garden ringing and displaying the name 'Amanda'. So it was switched off at about 12:08.

At some point it must have been turned on, at 13:00 the latest.
The Biscarinis surely did not turn it on as they were afraid of a remote controlled bomb according to their testimony.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Re the photograph of the sisters outside the cottage

I can see how thoughts of the victim would be forgotten during the glamour of a photoshoot (still not good), but turning up in court in shorts/bare shoulders is pretty disrespectful anywhere, and Mom had plenty of time to think about that.....and there is still no excuse for not contacting the Kerchers or telling the lawyers or police that Amanda knew Lumumba was innocent. ...this is all especially if she really does believe her daughter is innocent. That's why it bothers me most. It makes me think Mom knows or deeply, deeply suspects.


I thought it was telling that Edda Mellas didn't tell Amanda Knox to tell the truth, but to revert to her story that she was with Raffaele Sollecito all night.

Curt and Edda seem intent on getting Amanda Knox out of prison regardless of whether she is innocent or guilty. David Marriott's PR campaign has been aggressive and dishonest. How many times did Curt and Edda tell journalists that the DNA on the double DNA knife could match half the population of Italy. It was dishonest of them.

In several interviews with Curt and/or Edda, the journalists claimed in their articles there was no evidence of sexual assault. They must have been told this by Curt or Edda. It's absolutely disgusting for anyone to insinuate that Meredith consented to sexual activity with Rudy Guede.

Curt and Edda are often interviewed together, which gives the impression that they are united family. This couldn't be further from the truth. Curt and Edda have been divorced for years and Edda had to take Curt to court on a number of occasions to get child support from him. I bet Marriott wasn't too happy when that fact became public knowledge.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:18 pm   Post subject: DOESN'T SOUND REASONABLE TO ME   

Lancelotti wrote:
I honestly couldn't care less what the FOA thinks, does or wants us to believe. Why do you think it's important? Do you think they can influence the trial in any way?


Well, here's one issue where you, I, Thoughtful, The Machine, Ferdi, Skep, Michael, and almost everybody else is in agreement.

As a completely separate issue to this crime, the subsequent investigation and now the trial, the existence of FOA and The Entourage is quite an interesting phenomenon. Whenever you get a group of persons together, you have to ask yourself 1) what is the objective of these people as a group (and there may be "official" and "unofficial" objectives), and, 2) what are the objectives of these persons as individuals.

So if we all agree that it can't influence the trial, why do these people band together and try to convince the English speaking world with slight-of-hand tricks like the Pink Hobbit Foot, of a specific and unique scenario to explain this crime?

I don't know if "FOA" has "card carrying members" or not, but certainly in terms of the more loosely grouped "Entourage", the likes of Paul Ciolino, Anne Bremner, Judge Heavey, Doug Preston, David Marriott, The Cook (I don't know if I should put her in the big sluggers league ...) and many more certainly have personal benefits that arise (or that they thought would arise) from associating themselves with the pro-Amanda movement.

Yes, it seems to me that it's all about money, money, money, money. And not money for the pro-Amanda movement, but money for themselves.

What about the Knox-Mellas families? I'm sorry that they have to mortgage their houses, borrow from family, and use up the university education investment money of Amanda's sisters (her sisters will be even more sorry...). But with FOA bringing in much more money for the prime-time TV stars and book authors (and would-be book authors), maybe the Knox-Mellas families should ask themselves if FOA is really serving their purposes both financially and image-wise.

Will the Knox-Mellas families have their own book deals? Probably. Maybe they already have signed them. I'm sure they'll be able to recover from any current debt they have. FOA goes well beyond the Knox-Mellas' needs and purpose.
-
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Finn wrote:
"I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but why do you think that's "only a couple of minutes"? "

Because "nel giro di qualche minuto" means "in a few minutes".

"Personally, if I was pushed to put timings on it, I would guess that Luca and Marco arrived at around 1245, because the chain of police phone calls starts (in my reckoning) with the one to Edda at 1247. And I would guess that Filomena and Paola arrived "nel giro di qualche altro minuto", which I was thinking was more like ten minutes later, around 1255. But maybe I've overlooked something - if so, please tell me what it is..."

I don't have more data, either.

But imagine that at 12:34 the postals are standing there in the yard telling the pair that they are looking for a certain Filomena Romanelli and right at that moment Amanda's phone starts ringing and it is Filomena calling. And Amanda is talking with her about the breka-in but,
1 - not telling her that the policemen are there
2 - not telling the policemen that it is the Filomena Romanelli that they are looking for.

One needs nerves to do that especially when she is surprised by the police's appearnce.

That makes it hard for me to beleive that the policemen were there before Filomena's 12:34 call.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
Lancelotti quotes Frank:
"Filomena, shopping at the Fiera dei Morti with Paola, is not worried for the blood, she thinks someone could be menstruating. But for the theft she's panicking. (source: Frank Sfarzo, February 7, 2009)"


It's characteristic bullshit from Frank.
Though it is Filomena who calls, Frank says she was not worried.
As for Amanda, she did not think it worth calling Filomena with the news of her ransacked room, but it is understandable because she is capable of learning 5 languages, Frank would say. :D


Sure, but isn't that what she testified? She only became really worried when she heard about the smashed window and the apparent burglary and that's when she called Marco.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Re the photograph of the sisters outside the cottage

I can see how thoughts of the victim would be forgotten during the glamour of a photoshoot (still not good), but turning up in court in shorts/bare shoulders is pretty disrespectful anywhere, and Mom had plenty of time to think about that.....and there is still no excuse for not contacting the Kerchers or telling the lawyers or police that Amanda knew Lumumba was innocent. ...this is all especially if she really does believe her daughter is innocent. That's why it bothers me most. It makes me think Mom knows or deeply, deeply suspects.


I thought it was telling that Edda Mellas didn't tell Amanda Knox to tell the truth, but to revert to her story that she was with Raffaele Sollecito all night.

Curt and Edda seem intent on getting Amanda Knox out of prison regardless of whether she is innocent or guilty. David Marriott's PR campaign has been aggressive and dishonest. How many times did Curt and Edda tell journalists that the DNA on the double DNA knife could match half the population of Italy. It was dishonest of them.

In several interviews with Curt and/or Edda, the journalists claimed in their articles there was no evidence of sexual assault. They must have been told this by Curt or Edda. It's absolutely disgusting for anyone to insinuate that Meredith consented to sexual activity with Rudy Guede.

Curt and Edda are often interviewed together, which gives the impression that they are united family. This couldn't be further from the truth. Curt and Edda have been divorced for years and Edda had to take Curt to court on a number of occasions to get child support from him. I bet Marriott wasn't too happy when that fact became public knowledge.


Machine, any sympathy I had for Edda has just evaporated after this. I am all for defending people when they're down, but this is beyond decency. It makes me question Edda's values, decency and morality. And I never thought I would write those words. There is absolutely NO NEED for those children to be dragged into the whole revolting scene that is developing in the media around this case. It's is like they think they are celebrities, being courted by the press, being flattered by the attention...and now they are getting their other children in on the act. Add to this the way that the younger girl is presenting herself too - I know young girls like to experiment with clothes and make up - it's normal, and to some extent I expect mothers of teenage girls have to turn a blind eye. That's one thing. But to have her presenting herself like that in a magazine...it's just not an appropriate or responsibly thing to do, aside from the fact it is deeply disrespectful to Meredith's family. I feel sorry for the girls. I am sure at such a young age they would not have known the effect of this. But they should have been guided by a responsible adult. Cue Edda....

Oh dear. Big mistake. Lord knows what she told Amanda was 'ok' and acceptable as she was growing up. In my day a mother's role was to protect her daughter's modesty, not allow her to throw it away in a bid for magazine sales and a fat cheque to the cause. Yuck. Pimp your step-daughter. Cover her up woman! She's THIRTEEN and knows no better.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:54 pm   Post subject: OVERLY GENEROUS   

thoughtful wrote:
(3) 12:55-12:58: Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she and Raffaele immediately bring them into the kitchen and start telling them together a bunch of stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop them, show them a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli.

Keep in mind that the Communications Police inspector testified that Amanda and Raffaele were surprised and embarrassed by his and his partner's arrival; the couple told him they were waiting for the Carabinieri.

Battistelli's court testimony was not new news to us. Since shortly after their arrest, we had heard about Amanda's and Raffaele's reaction to the Communications Police arriving, although at that point we didn't have yet available the phone call data.

While Amanda could hide behind the language and cultural barrier, saying that she believed them to be the Carabinieri who were summoned through the 112 call, Raffaele doesn't have this excuse. Between the distinctive badges and labels on their uniforms (different from his sister's uniform), and their initial explanation in Italian as to why they were there, it requires an overly generous dosis of compassion to the defence alibi/explanation to justify in court that Raffaele (and probably Amanda too) didn't really know that these police were not the ones whom had not even been called for yet.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
"Sure, but isn't that what she testified? She only became really worried when she heard about the smashed window and the apparent burglary and that's when she called Marco."

Little is known from her half-day testimony. Frank's selection is hardly a representative sample.
She surely said that at the first call she was not that worried.
Worried or not she still called back three times and only at the third times did she get informed of the break-in.
Worried Amanda, however, did not call her once more.

Furthermore for whatever reason Amanda in her Nov 4 email wrote this:
"filomena seemed really worried, so i told her id call meredith and then call her back"

Filomena is still waiting that callback. :D


Last edited by bolint on Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Kermit wrote:
"to justify in court that Raffaele (and probably Amanda too) didn't really know that these police were not the ones"

While his sister is a carabiniere lieutenant. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: Fashion etc   

Yesterday, thoughtful wrote:
Kermit quoted Raffaele, who wrote:
I don't remember how she (Amanda) was dressed on the first (of Nov.), but I'm sure that she had changed and had put on the white skirt and her usual black hiking boots

Kermit wrote:
That doesn't sound too fashion conscious to me. Didn't she have something other than hiking boots to put on with her white skirt? Maybe her normal shoes got misplaced.

Okay, fashion-conscious was the wrong word. What I meant was, many people including many young people including many young Italian people will actually notice what their friends are wearing and recall it. Furthermore, hiking boots is a translation from the Italian. Maybe he meant high-top sneakers like Converses that a lot of girls love wearing

I know it's not a big issue (although sometimes the innocuous observations are the ones which reflect most on the deeper questions of a crime), but here's the original Italian, from Raffaele's Prison Diary, where he describes Amanda on the morning of 2 November 2007:
[urlx=http://quotidianonet.ilsole24ore.com/cronaca/2007/12/08/53233-amanda_meredith.shtml]"Non mi ricordo come era vestita il giorno 1, ma sono certo che lei si fosse cambiata e che aveva messo la gonna bianca e le sue solite scarpe nere da trekking."[/urlx]
"black trekking shoes/boots".

What a shame those leaves are blocking the view!!:
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Kermit:
"What a shame those leaves are blocking the view!!:"

In the Panty Raid images of Nov 3 one can see that she was wearing some dark shoes with the same white skirt.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
bolint wrote:
Lancelotti quotes Frank:
"Filomena, shopping at the Fiera dei Morti with Paola, is not worried for the blood, she thinks someone could be menstruating. But for the theft she's panicking. (source: Frank Sfarzo, February 7, 2009)"


It's characteristic bullshit from Frank.
Though it is Filomena who calls, Frank says she was not worried.
As for Amanda, she did not think it worth calling Filomena with the news of her ransacked room, but it is understandable because she is capable of learning 5 languages, Frank would say. :D


Sure, but isn't that what she testified? She only became really worried when she heard about the smashed window and the apparent burglary and that's when she called Marco.



Lancelotti,

Filomena was 2km from the cottage(distance as per Google maps - shown a couple of pages back). That's less than a mile and a half. OK she also said they "had trouble parking the car" but again looking at the map and a couple of one way traffic flows it can't be more than a 10 minute drive.

Following the 12:34 phone call with Amanda she said she phoned Marco because he would get there quicker. I get the impression that he was perhaps somewhere only 5 minutes from the cottage. A 12:45 arrival time for Luca and Marco is well within the bounds of possibility.

I also think as the boyfriend of the "senior household figure", he will have been under instruction from Filomena to find out "just what the hell was going on". He likely took charge of the situation from the residents point of view and dealt directly with the police. This would leave AK and RS free to perhaps wander out of sight and make a few phone calls.


EDIT to add: Was there really any phone call between Marco and Luca to introduce a delay which you also claimed? I've always been under the impression that Luca and Marco were together when Filomena phoned.

Actually, it's more than an impression. I'm sure that in one of her statements Filomena said that Marco was with Luca while she and Poala went to the fair.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:34 pm   Post subject: This and that   

Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
Was there really any phone call between Marco and Luca to introduce a delay which you also claimed? I've always been under the impression that Luca and Marco were together when Filomena phoned.


That's in passage in Micheli that has been much-cited since yesterday:

Quote:
Nel frattempo, giungevano sul posto altri due giovani (A. L. e Z. M., quest’ultimo presentandosi come fidanzato della R.): lo Z. spiegava di avere ricevuto una telefonata dalla sua ragazza, avvertita dalla K. in merito allo stato dell’appartamento, sicché ella - che aveva passato la notte con lui in un altro luogo, ma era già uscita con un’amica - si era premurata di mandarlo a dare un’occhiata; a quel punto, lo Z. aveva pregato l’A. di passarlo a prendere.


"Zaroli asked Altieri to pass by and pick him up." Maybe Marco didn't have a car. Here one has to imagine Filomena ending her call with Amanda and calling Marco, who then calls Luca who after getting the call, going out to his car, starting it up and taking it over to Marco's house, then drives to the cottage. Ten minutes sounds very minimal to me for this (we're always in Benny Hill scenarios
here no matter what we do). It's possible, of course, but if the houses were all so close to each other, you'd think they'd have just walked. I actually think that 25-26 minutes sounds more reasonable here, counting in everything including the 12:34 phone call between Filomena and Amanda.

My next research project will be to compare the testimonies of Luca, Marco, Paola and Filomena, not just on their arrival times but, for instance, on what conversation was held between Battistelli and Marco before the girls arrived (I read that he just had time to introduce himself but this will need confirmation).

Kermit wrote:
Quote:
Keep in mind that the Communications Police inspector testified that Amanda and Raffaele were surprised and embarrassed by his and his partner's arrival; the couple told him they were waiting for the Carabinieri.

Battistelli's court testimony was not new news to us. Since shortly after their arrest, we had heard about Amanda's and Raffaele's reaction to the Communications Police arriving, although at that point we didn't have yet available the phone call data.

While Amanda could hide behind the language and cultural barrier, saying that she believed them to be the Carabinieri who were summoned through the 112 call, Raffaele doesn't have this excuse. Between the distinctive badges and labels on their uniforms (different from his sister's uniform), and their initial explanation in Italian as to why they were there, it requires an overly generous dosis of compassion to the defence alibi/explanation to justify in court that Raffaele (and probably Amanda too) didn't really know that these police were not the ones whom had not even been called for yet.


All excellent points, Kermit. From the defense point of view, I'd answer them like this: the police mistook Amanda's amazement at seeing them show up so fast as "surprise and embarrassment". Raffaele probably guessed they weren't carabinieri, but to start with, there was Amanda chattering in broken Italian nineteen to the dozen about locked doors and broken windows, but within a couple of minutes it was straightened out who they were, anyway. Amanda didn't even catch it properly, she says, but Raffaele presumably did.
Top Profile 

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: Further   

thoughtful wrote:
Inversely, I suspect that the bloody footprint will be attributed to Rudy by the defense on the basis of the 25.1 cm measurement, if that is true...but we'll see.

It's impossible for Rudy's footprint to have been 25cm. I already demonstrated that a few days ago. Has the defense actually made this claim in court, as opposed to on an FOA website?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
"All excellent points, Kermit. From the defense point of view, I'd answer them like this: the police mistook Amanda's amazement at seeing them show up so fast as "surprise and embarrassment". Raffaele probably guessed they weren't carabinieri, but to start with, there was Amanda chattering in broken Italian nineteen to the dozen about locked doors and broken windows, but within a couple of minutes it was straightened out who they were, anyway. Amanda didn't even catch it properly, she says, but Raffaele presumably did."

Thoughtful, I am sorry to point it out -- whatever the defence says about the telephones, if you don't accept that the Postal Police was there at 12 35 (so you presume, they, the police, are lying, or they are such dumbasses, or it is a prepared plot against a four day later only evident possible culpability of AK and RS, a kind of pre-framing, because Luca said that the guy stepped in the room, so he is not beleivable, so they didn't arrive at the stated point, which is by the way corroborated by the police, that was at the receiving end at 12 35) then your defence-simulating exercise (in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.

If, if, if -- do you think the postal police was there at 12 35 or don't you? This hypothizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile intellectually, trying to ignore this tiny little information, trying pass by this tiny little nuance, that the postal police, the prosecution, and a lot of evidence points to the fact, that they arrived at 12 35 and Amanda called her mother 12 minutes later. Etc.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Re: "Bambi"

I've been puzzled by the attribution to Walt Disney's Bambi. I'd assumed it was a shortened form of "bambina", she being the youngest in the cell. BTW "the baby" is how she described her role in the shared flat. Edda alluding to a poor, dumb...er, helpless (?) animal sounded a bit loopy, I thought. And she doesn't look like Bambi, either. v-))
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: Timeline   

thoughtful wrote:
As for Frank, I looked at the passage you pointed out to me and now I see where you got your information. But Frank is not trustworthy and I simply don't believe what he says. I was surprised at your remark, Finn, about the defense "letting him write those things". You don't seriously think Frank works for the defense, do you? I think Amanda's lawyers are very sober and Frank is a maverick whose work is by no means always helping the defense, any more than the FOA's work.


Okay, I don't agree with you about Battistelli's evidence - particularly in the light of what he said in court about believing the break-in to be faked and checking this out with Raffaele and Amanda. I'm not sure how you think that happened retrospectively, with them just describing the scene and him saying, "hey, that sounds fake to me", but we'll agree to differ.

What I meant about Frank is not that he works for the defense, but rather that, as I understand it, there are many of Amanda's supporters who post on his blog. (I never read the comments myself, so I might be completely wrong about this.) So I'm guessing that, if this was a really crucial issue to the defense, they'd be on him like a ton of bricks saying there's no way Filomena could have got there before one o'clock.

But actually, the only people I've heard saying that are people like yourself and Ferdi, people who are imaginatively trying to make the defendants' impossible timeline work. And hey, there's nothing wrong with that. But I just have one of those "meanwhile, back in the real world" feelings about it, that makes me think there isn't any serious objection to that timing in the courtroom itself.

By the way, on the subject of the radio conversations between the patrol and HQ, my impression is that there are at least three conversations, and that the walkie-talkie chat is pretty much ongoing in the way that walkie-talkie chats quite often are. I think there's one from HQ to the patrol after 1246, when the second phone comes in. I think there's another from the patrol to HQ at around 1300, after Filomena arrives. And there's probably at least one more just before 1315, when Bartolozzi gives permission to kick down the door, but this permission has become redundant because Filomena has already given Luca the go-ahead for this to happen anyway.

_________________
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: This and that   

thoughtful wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
Was there really any phone call between Marco and Luca to introduce a delay which you also claimed? I've always been under the impression that Luca and Marco were together when Filomena phoned.


That's in passage in Micheli that has been much-cited since yesterday:

Quote:
Nel frattempo, giungevano sul posto altri due giovani (A. L. e Z. M., quest’ultimo presentandosi come fidanzato della R.): lo Z. spiegava di avere ricevuto una telefonata dalla sua ragazza, avvertita dalla K. in merito allo stato dell’appartamento, sicché ella - che aveva passato la notte con lui in un altro luogo, ma era già uscita con un’amica - si era premurata di mandarlo a dare un’occhiata; a quel punto, lo Z. aveva pregato l’A. di passarlo a prendere.


"Zaroli asked Altieri to pass by and pick him up." Maybe Marco didn't have a car. Here one has to imagine Filomena ending her call with Amanda and calling Marco, who then calls Luca who after getting the call, going out to his car, starting it up and taking it over to Marco's house, then drives to the cottage. Ten minutes sounds very minimal to me for this (we're always in Benny Hill scenarios
here no matter what we do). It's possible, of course, but if the houses were all so close to each other, you'd think they'd have just walked. I actually think that 25-26 minutes sounds more reasonable here, counting in everything including the 12:34 phone call between Filomena and Amanda.

My next research project will be to compare the testimonies of Luca, Marco, Paola and Filomena, not just on their arrival times but, for instance, on what conversation was held between Battistelli and Marco before the girls arrived (I read that he just had time to introduce himself but this will need confirmation).



I'm not sure how much luck you'll have with that Thoughtfull.

Filomena was on the stand for over 4 hour and so were one or two of the others. The majority of what was in the press related to the events at the cottage after their arrival. The smashing down of the door and whether or not Batistelli stepped into the room. These subjects involved a great deal of cross examination.

However, the inconvenient call time and their arrival times at the cottage were never examined by the defense in any real detail. I don't think they wanted to draw any attention to these inconvenient facts.

Out of 4 hours from Filomena I think this is as good as you are likely to get on her version of pre13:00 events:

Quote:
"Amanda mi chiamò al telefono e mi disse che, entrando in casa, in via della Pergola, aveva notato qualcosa di strano. Lo disse in inglese: "There is something strange", perché parlava un po' nella sua lingua e un po' in italiano. Mi diceva che aveva trovato la porta aperta, che c'era sangue dappertutto e che si era fatta la doccia. Fatti in contrasto tra di loro, almeno a mio avviso, che mi avevano lasciato abbastanza perplessa. Le risposi di controllare e di richiamarmi. Io in quel momento ero in auto con la mia amica Paola e stavamo andando alla Fiera di Pian di Massiano." Filomena Romanelli, 29 anni, è una delle coinquiline di Amanda e di Meredith. Calabrese di Corigliano, vive da anni in città, lavora in uno studio legale perugino e studia per diventare avvocato. Quattro ore di interrogatorio senza mostrare stanchezza. "Possiamo andare avanti fin quando volete" - ha detto la testimone, quasi con tono spavaldo. "Io chiamai il mio fidanzato Marco Zaroli e gli chiesi di andare con Luca Altieri, fidanzato di Paola Grande che era con me, a vedere. Noi saremmo arrivate quanto prima. Arrivammo intorno alle 13. Trovai la mia camera tutta sottosopra. Con i vetri sopra i vestiti e gli altri oggetti. Ci sembrò un furto anomalo e facemmo anche battute sul ladro poco professionale. Ma Mez non si trovava e c'era sangue nel bagno. Ero preoccupata. Chiesi ai poliziotti, che erano venuti perché avevano rinvenuto un telefonino, la cui sim card era intestata a me, di buttare giù la porta. Mi risposero che non potevano farlo. Io ero la padrona di casa e dissi ai miei amici di abbatterla. Fu così che trovammo il cadavere". La teste ha riferito di un accesso tra il 2 e il 7 novembre. Per cui le difese l'hanno incalzata. "Indossava i calzari? - ha domandato Giulia Bongiorno. E lei: Sì". "E i guanti? Il camice?" - ha insistito la penalista. "No". Insomma un modo, per le difese, per sottolineare che la scena del delitto non è rimasta incontaminata. In un passaggio ha raccontato che durante gli interrogatori in questura, Amanda aveva mostrato un quaderno, sul quale aveva scritto qualcosa, a Raffaele. "Non so cosa ci fosse scritto" - ha ammesso la teste. Poi una scandagliata all'ambiente. Le hanno chiesto di un pranzo consumato il 30 ottobre, poche ore prima del delitto. "Mi ricordo. Pranzammo intorno alla 14. Lo chiamavamo il "pranzo Beautyful". Fu quel giorno che Amanda parlò di Raffaele che io avevo conosciuto, a casa nostra il 26 ottobre. Disse che Raffaele gli piaceva che era carino ma che si sentiva un poco in colpa per il suo fidanzato americano, Dj, che tra l'altro, in quel momento era in Cina o in Giappone, non ricordo". E' stato Luca Maori ha proporle una domanda galeotta: "Lei ha mai fumato spinelli?" E lei: "Ho peccato, una volta. Ho tirato anche io... Mi pare fosse il giorno del compleanno di Giacomo Silenzi. No, non ritengo che fossero tossicodipendenti. Ne facevano un uso normale. Amanda può. Mez no". Un passaggio anche sulla vita sessuale di Meredith e di Amanda. "Mez era una ragazza molto brava, molto seria. Era venuta a studiare e quello faceva. Un giorno mi confidò che aveva notato alcune attenzioni da parte di Giacomo Silenzi, uno dei ragazzi del piano di sotto. Un corteggiamento carino, discreto, gentile. Ma non sapeva se accettarlo o meno... Eravamo agli inizi di ottobre. No, lei non portò mai uomini in casa. Amanda è una ragazza con molti interessi: musica, yoga, lingue. Io non ho mai visto di persona che lei portasse uomini in casa. Ma mi hanno detto che lo faceva. Ho saputo di un ragazzo albanese e di un ragazzo italiano, per esempio, che ha dormito a casa nostra". Tra gli aspetti affrontati anche quello del coltello (il reperto numero 36) sul quale sono stati repertati il Dna di Meredith e di Amanda. "Quel coltello non faceva parte della dotazione delle posate di casa nostra. Ne sono sicura perché appena entrate in casa lavammo tutto quello che c'era. Non mi risulta che Mez sia stata mai ospite a casa di Raffaele. Ci fosse stata me lo avrebbe confidato". Al termine della sua deposizione, la dottoressa Romanelli ha chiesto il dissequestro dei suoi beni ancora custoditi nel cascinale di via della Pergola. Stessa richiesta aveva presentato la dottoressa Laura Mezzetti. La corte d'assise, su parere conforme dell'accusa, ha accolto l'istanza disponendo l'immediata restituzione dei beni. Il compito è stato affidato alla squadra mobile. Unica condizione che il giorno della restituzione vengano convocate le parti interessate (le difese degli imputati in particolare) che potranno assistere alle operazioni.


From Corriere Dell'Umbria (now disappeared from the net)

She says she phoned Marco because he could get there "much quicker" than she could.

Marco and Luca's locations and situations would be well known to her in the context in which she made that statement. Marco was her boyfriend and Luca was her friend Paola's boyfriend. They'd only separated because I'd guess the guys didn't want to go shopping with the girls at the fair. Prior to that, all four had been together.


Last edited by Brian S. on Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian wrote:
(in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.


Hi Hungarian,

I think thoughtful's attempts at writing a defence timeline is utterly pointless. She is not going convince anybody intelligent that Amanda Knox genuinely thought that the police were able to arrive at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito called 112.

The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Finn wrote:

Quote:
What I meant about Frank is not that he works for the defense, but rather that, as I understand it, there are many of Amanda's supporters who post on his blog. (I never read the comments myself, so I might be completely wrong about this.) So I'm guessing that, if this was a really crucial issue to the defense, they'd be on him like a ton of bricks saying there's no way Filomena could have got there before one o'clock.


As I noted yesterday, the handful of Knox supporters who post on Frank's blog -- chief among them the stepfather and his goofy friend(s) -- have conceded this point. Their replacement talking point is that the fact that Knox called (notified) Filomena proves she and Sollecito are innocent and that it doesn't matter when they actually called the police. So apparently any lies they may have told at any time on this subject should just be forgotten or chalked up to confusion, stress or pot.

Personally, I think the call to 112 would have happened more quickly after the arrival of the postal police had Sollecito been able to discreetly find a quiet corner sooner. I believe that what gave Sollecito (and Amanda) the opportunity to slip into her room to make a few calls was the fact that others (Marco and Luca) arrived to converse with the police. So Finn's projected arrival time (12:45) makes sense. Two minutes later (the time needed to make introductions) Knox was in her room calling her mom. This was followed quite rapidly by Sollecito's call to his sister. Perhaps he thought that would be enough. But she told him to go through official channels and call 112. I think by that time they were both feeling stress and panic, not thinking clearly. Otherwise, they might have realized that records of these calls with exact times could do more harm than good.

This is just my gut feeling. Are there are elements in the known timeline and/or witness testimony that support or refute it?

_________________
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
(in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.


Hi Hungarian,

I think thoughtful's attempts at writing a defence timeline is utterly pointless. She is not going convince anybody intelligent that Amanda Knox genuinely thought that the police were able to arrive at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito called 112.

The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.



In fact, they have been quite useful if you ask me. They have added to my list of unlikely things one must believe for this version of events to hang together.

_________________
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
Finn wrote:
"I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but why do you think that's "only a couple of minutes"? "

Because "nel giro di qualche minuto" means "in a few minutes".


True, but "couple" means "two".

bolint wrote:
"Personally, if I was pushed to put timings on it, I would guess that Luca and Marco arrived at around 1245, because the chain of police phone calls starts (in my reckoning) with the one to Edda at 1247. And I would guess that Filomena and Paola arrived "nel giro di qualche altro minuto", which I was thinking was more like ten minutes later, around 1255. But maybe I've overlooked something - if so, please tell me what it is..."

I don't have more data, either.

But imagine that at 12:34 the postals are standing there in the yard telling the pair that they are looking for a certain Filomena Romanelli and right at that moment Amanda's phone starts ringing and it is Filomena calling. And Amanda is talking with her about the breka-in but,
1 - not telling her that the policemen are there
2 - not telling the policemen that it is the Filomena Romanelli that they are looking for.

One needs nerves to do that especially when she is surprised by the police's appearnce.


I think they probably arrived not long after 1225, when their car was shown coming into the car park. Let's say 1230. Four minutes later, they've moved into the house and are starting to investigate the "strange things". The police seem a bit suspicious about the break-in, and so on. So at 12:34:56, Filomena calls Amanda again. To me, it doesn't require nerves of steel to say, "Get here quickly, the window of your room is broken," because it's true. It is. Filomena asks if Amanda has called the police and she says yes. And why should she say anything to the police, given that all she's doing is talking to the person they're looking for, and telling her to hurry home.

That just doesn't sound odd to me. In fact, it sounds like what happened.

(I'm also thinking of this in terms of what I'm guessing was the defendants' Plan A, which was that Filomena herself would come home, notice the strange things, and take care of the calling the police herself.)

bolint wrote:
That makes it hard for me to believe that the policemen were there before Filomena's 12:34 call.


When do you think they arrived, then?

I tell you what I also find interesting, which is that twelve seconds after Amanda receives the call from Filomena, Raffaele decides it will be a good idea to top up his credit. Why now, of all times? My guess is that he's got no good reason, except he just wants a distraction, he doesn't want to be stuck on his own having to talk to these suspicious cops, especially after Plan A has just gone haywire because Filomena was so slow getting home.

And I think Luca and Marco turn up at about 1245.

_________________
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Finn wrote:

Quote:
What I meant about Frank is not that he works for the defense, but rather that, as I understand it, there are many of Amanda's supporters who post on his blog. (I never read the comments myself, so I might be completely wrong about this.) So I'm guessing that, if this was a really crucial issue to the defense, they'd be on him like a ton of bricks saying there's no way Filomena could have got there before one o'clock.


As I noted yesterday, the handful of Knox supporters who post on Frank's blog -- chief among them the stepfather and his goofy friend(s) -- have conceded this point. Their replacement talking point is that the fact that Knox called (notified) Filomena proves she and Sollecito are innocent and that it doesn't matter when they actually called the police. So apparently any lies they may have told at any time on this subject should just be forgotten or chalked up to confusion, stress or pot.

Personally, I think the call to 112 would have happened more quickly after the arrival of the postal police had Sollecito been able to discreetly find a quiet corner sooner. I believe that what gave Sollecito (and Amanda) the opportunity to slip into her room to make a few calls was the fact that others (Marco and Luca) arrived to converse with the police. So Finn's projected arrival time (12:45) makes sense. Two minutes later (the time needed to make introductions) Knox was in her room calling her mom. This was followed quite rapidly by Sollecito's call to his sister. Perhaps he thought that would be enough. But she told him to go through official channels and call 112. I think by that time they were both feeling stress and panic, not thinking clearly. Otherwise, they might have realized that records of these calls with exact times could do more harm than good.

This is just my gut feeling. Are there are elements in the known timeline and/or witness testimony that support or refute it?


Yep, that's pretty much what I think, too.

_________________
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
"Zaroli asked Altieri to pass by and pick him up." Maybe Marco didn't have a car. Here one has to imagine Filomena ending her call with Amanda and calling Marco, who then calls Luca who after getting the call, going out to his car, starting it up and taking it over to Marco's house, then drives to the cottage. Ten minutes sounds very minimal to me for this (we're always in Benny Hill scenarios
here no matter what we do). It's possible, of course, but if the houses were all so close to each other, you'd think they'd have just walked. I actually think that 25-26 minutes sounds more reasonable here, counting in everything including the 12:34 phone call between Filomena and Amanda.


I disagree that 10 minutes is very minimal in this case and believe that 25-26 minutes is only reasonable if you need it to be. Filomena was 2 km away, and called the guys because they were closer to the cottage. Why did they drive instead of walk? Because they felt some urgency -- it would seem that the only two people who did not were AK and RS. In response to the question (was it a serious one?) why drive when the distance is so short, I would say that people choose the quickest mode of transportation in an emergency. My vet's clinic is located within a five-minute walk of my house, but if one of my animals needed treatment for an injury, I would drive up there. I figure I could save up to four minutes.

Filomena's call to Amanda lasted 48 seconds and began at 12:34:56. She immediately calls Altieri who immediately calls Zarolo. This may have taken one minute. I don't know about you, but it takes me a few seconds to start my car. This leaves nine minutes or so to drive less than 2 km, unless it was necessary to drive a great distance to pick up Alterieri, which would defeat the purpose for Filomena of calling them in the first place.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: Timeline   

thoughtful wrote:
As for Frank, I looked at the passage you pointed out to me and now I see where you got your information. But Frank is not trustworthy and I simply don't believe what he says. I was surprised at your remark, Finn, about the defense "letting him write those things". You don't seriously think Frank works for the defense, do you? I think Amanda's lawyers are very sober and Frank is a maverick whose work is by no means always helping the defense, any more than the FOA's work.


Who do you think is giving Frank the various court documents: autopsy photographs, DNA charts, the photograph of the woman's bloody shoeprint etc?

We know it was the defence lawyers who gave Stewart Home access to the same documents. Why do you think they did this? What did they want from Stewart in return? Perhaps, Stewart can answer that question if and when he posts on PMF again.

Barbie Nadeau wrote that the defence lawyers were trying to influence the journalists covering the case after the court proceedings had finished for the day. If the defence lawyers were confident about winning the case, they wouldn't need to try to get journalists on their side. It's a measure of their desperation and the strength of the prosecution's case that they have been reduced to this.

Marriott and the FOA have tried to exert a stranglehold over the media and the blogs.

Candace Dempsey was on board from the very beginning. She started covering the case as a favour to her sister funnycat. She was never an impartial reporter who just happened to be following the case. She is and probably always was one of the inner circle of the FOA. She was seen at the FOA fundraising event at Salty's in the New Year and she was captured leaving the courtroom in Perugia with Edda Mellas, Andrew Seliber and Frank on Italian television.

I know it's hard to believe now, but Frank was fairly objective when he first started blogging about the case. At some point he was contacted by Amanda Knox's family because Perugia Shock was the main blog about the case in the beginning. Knox's supporters hail him as an authority on the case and as a journalist. Frank doesn't reveal his identity because he knows that he isn't a journalist and the illusion will be completely shattered. The question I would like answered is: who is paying Frank to write his blog? I suspect it is Marriott.

I believe that the FOA tried to influence the content on TJMK. It was never going to happen.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
(in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.


Hi Hungarian,

I think thoughtful's attempts at writing a defence timeline is utterly pointless. She is not going convince anybody intelligent that Amanda Knox genuinely thought that the police were able to arrive at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito called 112.

The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.


Hi, Machine,

true , simply I felt that he (or she) stretches this 'alternative' time-table-stuff a bit far, so I wanted to give a sign, a wave of the flag. (And thanks for yours.)
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Hi, Machine,

true , simply I felt that he (or she) stretches this 'alternative' time-table-stuff a bit far, so I wanted to give a sign, a wave of the flag. (And thanks for yours.)


Or they? :D
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
(in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.


Hi Hungarian,

I think thoughtful's attempts at writing a defence timeline is utterly pointless. She is not going convince anybody intelligent that Amanda Knox genuinely thought that the police were able to arrive at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito called 112.

The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.



In fact, they have been quite useful if you ask me. They have added to my list of unlikely things one must believe for this version of events to hang together.


Exactly. Like Sir Karl Popper said: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Still, I had a feeling it got a bit further than that. I didn't speak up till now. But I frankly adore your balance (I am a translator myself -- when not a writer) -- and I enjoy your precision.

-- and my English is a bit rusty.


Last edited by Hungarian on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Finn wrote:
"When do you think they arrived, then?"

Let's take Battistelli's report of 12:35 (per Micheli) at face value. The report must have been prepared on the same day, probably before the CCTV nominal value of 12:36 was known, though it is an interesting coincidence.
It could not be exactly at 12:35:00 as Amanda was talking with Filomena at that time and Battistelli and Marzi did not observe such activity (nor even later, at least no such news came from the trial).

So it could be after 12:35:44.


Last edited by bolint on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:03 pm, edited 1 time 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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
"Zaroli asked Altieri to pass by and pick him up." Maybe Marco didn't have a car. Here one has to imagine Filomena ending her call with Amanda and calling Marco, who then calls Luca who after getting the call, going out to his car, starting it up and taking it over to Marco's house, then drives to the cottage. Ten minutes sounds very minimal to me for this (we're always in Benny Hill scenarios
here no matter what we do). It's possible, of course, but if the houses were all so close to each other, you'd think they'd have just walked. I actually think that 25-26 minutes sounds more reasonable here, counting in everything including the 12:34 phone call between Filomena and Amanda.


I disagree that 10 minutes is very minimal in this case and believe that 25-26 minutes is only reasonable if you need it to be. Filomena was 2 km away, and called the guys because they were closer to the cottage. Why did they drive instead of walk? Because they felt some urgency -- it would seem that the only two people who did not were AK and RS. In response to the question (was it a serious one?) why drive when the distance is so short, I would say that people choose the quickest mode of transportation in an emergency. My vet's clinic is located within a five-minute walk of my house, but if one of my animals needed treatment for an injury, I would drive up there. I figure I could save up to four minutes.

Filomena's call to Amanda lasted 48 seconds and began at 12:34:56. She immediately calls Altieri who immediately calls Zarolo. This may have taken one minute. I don't know about you, but it takes me a few seconds to start my car. This leaves nine minutes or so to drive less than 2 km, unless it was necessary to drive a great distance to pick up Alterieri, which would defeat the purpose for Filomena of calling them in the first place.


I have to say I agree with you again on this one, Skep. With me, as a busy dad, I quite often get a call to pick up a 12 year old girl, usually one who is no relation of mine, from Point X and deliver her to Point Y as quickly as possible. I usually do it in about five minutes (in a town roughly Perugia's size) in order to get back to my non-12-year-old-life as quickly as possible.

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

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
Hi, Machine,

true , simply I felt that he (or she) stretches this 'alternative' time-table-stuff a bit far, so I wanted to give a sign, a wave of the flag. (And thanks for yours.)


Or they? :D



He/she/they -- it comes in waves. But I respect in Thoughtful, that he/she/they is really diligent, and I sense a certain honesty in the efforts, a kind of fervour. Only this obstinate ignoring of a simple little fact kind of irritated me. Otherwise I can accept different opinions and different theories anytime as possibilities.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
(in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.


Hi Hungarian,

I think thoughtful's attempts at writing a defence timeline is utterly pointless. She is not going convince anybody intelligent that Amanda Knox genuinely thought that the police were able to arrive at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito called 112.

The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.



In fact, they have been quite useful if you ask me. They have added to my list of unlikely things one must believe for this version of events to hang together.


Exactly. Like Sir Karl Popper said: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Still, I had a feeling it got a bit further than that. I didn't speak up till now. But I frankly adore your balance (I am a translator myself -- when not a writer) -- and I enjoy your precision.

-- and my English is a bit rusty.



Your English is excellent! Karl Popper is one of my favorite philosophers of science and indeed one of the leading lights of twentieth century epistomology. As a translator, you might appreciate the fact that translating the notion of falsification into French from English proved problematic, because in French it does not have the connotation of "refutation" -- only that which is associated with deliberate acts of fraud. As in falsifying papers, documents, etc. In fact, I believe that later translations of Popper's work into French use the term "réfuter" for "falsify". One of the limitations of Popper's method, of course, is that the fact that something cannot be falsified does not make it true. It is a weak form of truth.

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:44 pm   Post subject: WHY WALK WHEN YOU CAN PARK?   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
She immediately calls Altieri who immediately calls Zarolo. This may have taken one minute. I don't know about you, but it takes me a few seconds to start my car. This leaves nine minutes or so to drive less than 2 km, unless it was necessary to drive a great distance to pick up Alterieri, which would defeat the purpose for Filomena of calling them in the first place.

I have to say I agree with you again on this one, Skep. With me, as a busy dad, I quite often get a call to pick up a 12 year old girl, usually one who is no relation of mine, from Point X and deliver her to Point Y as quickly as possible. I usually do it in about five minutes (in a town roughly Perugia's size) in order to get back to my non-12-year-old-life as quickly as possible.

For many people who don't have a place to park, and on a busy day, I can imagine that setting forth in the streets of Perugia in a vehicle could be a very slow process.

However, as for the traffic, 2 November 2007 was a sleepy holiday weekend where the many people go to their home towns, and those who haven't gone home are getting up late.

And as for parking, one great advantage of the girls cottage is the private parking area, with space for a number of cars.

Also, if I were Marco, thinking the way guys do, I would think: "Well that's just great, Filomena gets burgled and now we'll have to fill out police reports. BUT, better take the car anyway, as this afternoon we can all drive to Assisi (or the Lake or wherever) and have a good time".
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:03 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
(in fact I feel that you -- and not the defence -- is looking for a waterproof proof of innocence for the two of them, but that position I can accept, only I don't like you hiding all the time behind the backs of the 'defense'), so this defence-simulating exercise is a continuosly crumbling card-castle.


Hi Hungarian,

I think thoughtful's attempts at writing a defence timeline is utterly pointless. She is not going convince anybody intelligent that Amanda Knox genuinely thought that the police were able to arrive at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito called 112.

The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.



In fact, they have been quite useful if you ask me. They have added to my list of unlikely things one must believe for this version of events to hang together.


Exactly. Like Sir Karl Popper said: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Still, I had a feeling it got a bit further than that. I didn't speak up till now. But I frankly adore your balance (I am a translator myself -- when not a writer) -- and I enjoy your precision.

-- and my English is a bit rusty.



Your English is excellent! Karl Popper is one of my favorite philosophers of science and indeed one of the leading lights of twentieth century epistomology. As a translator, you might appreciate the fact that translating the notion of falsification into French from English proved problematic, because in French it does not have the connotation of "refutation" -- only that which is associated with deliberate acts of fraud. As in falsifying papers, documents, etc. In fact, I believe that later translations of Popper's work into French use the term "réfuter" for "falsify". One of the limitations of Popper's method, of course, is that the fact that something cannot be falsified does not make it true. It is a weak form of truth.


And it seems to me, that this "weak form" kind of applies to this whole case as well: there are many areas where one can only guess. Its a pity it isn't an open process - and one has to theorize all the time -- although all the really interesting cases resemble this one in this respect --
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:21 pm   Post subject: INSPECTOR MARCEL MARCEAU   

thoughtful wrote:
All excellent points, Kermit. From the defense point of view, I'd answer them like this: the police mistook Amanda's amazement at seeing them show up so fast as "surprise and embarrassment". Raffaele probably guessed they weren't carabinieri, but to start with, there was Amanda chattering in broken Italian nineteen to the dozen about locked doors and broken windows, but within a couple of minutes it was straightened out who they were, anyway. Amanda didn't even catch it properly, she says, but Raffaele presumably did.


As for Amanda's "surprise and embarrassment" being in reality her "amazement" at the speed-of-light quickness with which the Italian police respond to 112 calls, I don't buy it and I don't think the jury will either. But, for the sake of argument, and given that the defence presents cartwheels, and self-agression in the form of Amanda hitting herself repeatedly on the head, as normal behaviour in a murder investigation, we could say okay, Amanda was amazed at the fast arrival of the police.

But Raffaele hasn't been using the "I'm just a weird chick" explanation for any behaviour of his.

And if you put yourself in the shoes of the Communications Police inspector, after spending 20 seconds going "crunch crunch crunch" along the 30 metres of gravel to the door of the cottage (leaving only 4 minutes until Meredith's phone is activated), the first thing you're going to do if a non-Italian speaker (part of Amanda's defence is that she didn't understand Police Italian at that point in her sojourn) starts going yackety-yack, is to say (directing yourself to the Italian who speaks Italian): "WAIT! First of all, my name is Inspector Battistelli, and I've come with my colleague to return a mobile phone to Ms. Filomena Romanelli. Does she live here?"

(That's another 15 seconds gone ... that leaves three minutes and something).

To do otherwise is to turn Battistelli into an Italian Marcel Marceau, dressed up in a Communications Police inspector's uniform, and having him patiently listen to an American speaking broken Italian about an issue that is unrelated to the reason he came, and meanwhile the real Italian speaker (Raffaele) is silently brooding over in the corner.

PHOTO CAPTION: Postal and Communications Police Inspector Marcel "Marceau" Battistelli listens to Amanda Knox explain what was happening, as the precious seconds tick by.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: INSPECTOR MARCEL MARCEAU   

Kermit wrote:
As for Amanda's "surprise and embarrassment" being in reality her "amazement" at the speed-of-light quickness with which the Italian police respond to 112 calls, I don't buy it and I don't think the jury will either.


Hi Kermit,

It would have taken the police operator more than 11 seconds to explain the situation and give the address of the cottage to the police patrol. The police patrol would then have to drive to the cottage and walk up the drive. Besides, we already know that the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.25 and Sollecito admitted in his witness statement that he hadn't call 112 before the postal police turned up at the cottage.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
I think they probably arrived not long after 1225, when their car was shown coming into the car park.



die Maschine said:
Quote:
The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.


I'm confused. Where did they park the car? In the car park or at the gate of the cottage?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
I think they probably arrived not long after 1225, when their car was shown coming into the car park.



die Maschine said:
Quote:
The CCTV camera recorded the arrival of the postal police at the cottage at 12.25. There is no way it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.


I'm confused. Where did they park the car? In the car park or at the gate of the cottage?



The gate, in the driveway.

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


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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I see. Thank you Michael. That's a problem then..
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
I know it's hard to believe now, but Frank was fairly objective when he first started blogging about the case. At some point he was contacted by Amanda Knox's family because Perugia Shock was the main blog about the case in the beginning. Knox's supporters hail him as an authority on the case and as a journalist. Frank doesn't reveal his identity because he knows that he isn't a journalist and the illusion will be completely shattered. The question I would like answered is: who is paying Frank to write his blog? I suspect it is Marriott.

I believe that the FOA tried to influence the content on TJMK. It was never going to happen.


Why not, after all, they tried to recruit us, or Skep at least. This was back when we were on the TCWMB and they had the cheek to try it after formerly doing their damndest to sabotage us on Haloscan. They offered Skep the keys to the kingdom...the full Amanda prison diary and private showings of evidence from the case files round the Mellas house (or at their lawyers' office, I forget which exactly). All Skep had to do was give them her word that she wouldn't breath a squeak about it to the TCWMB membership. Naturally, Skep refused on those terms. Without a doubt, that was an attempt to 'turn' Skep. After she refused they got quite nasty with her again and we had to ban them from the forum. They didn't do this openly on the board of course, this was all via PM. Skep had Chris Mellas in one PM box and Goofy in another at the same time as they worked on her together. They didn't try this on me, because I didn't live locally in Seattle like Skep, so they couldn't give me private showings to turn me. They never forgave her for turning them down and Skep and her family have been subject to non-stop abuse from them ever since.

I'm sure the arrangment they offered Skep they had going with Candace Dempsey from day one and at around the same time Skep was approached they also approached Frank. I think Frank oooed and ummed about it for a little while until they arranged a meet with him in Perugia on one of Mellas' visits...goods were handed over from the case file and the deal was made. From that point they just got cosier and cosier until finally Frank got into bed with them completely, with his being funded by the FOA directly, or by a firm acting as a front for it. That kind of makes Frank and his site owned by the FOA...perhaps not in the fully legal sense, but certainly in practical terms. The turning of Frank wasn't over night, but rather was a process over a period of time. Of course, Frank still wants to push this image of 'objectivity', which is a bit of a joke, but the fact that he may still be seen as objective by some, including possibly some media outlets makes him an asset to the FOA. Even if the latter were not the case, it still at least neutralises an enemy of the FOA, as that's how they viewed him in the early months of the case, as he now no longer harms them. Enemies are defined as any site or journalist that actually 'is' objective and can't simply be fed a line. It's also rather useful to them, in their view, as they now have the run of his forum and use it as a launch pad to make disgusting attacks on any and all that they view as their enemies under the cloak of annonymity, all under the benevolent gaze of Frank who happily lets them until the media report on what a cess pit his comments sections are. We then get a sudden burst of Moderating from Frank, but only up to the point he feels the media aren't watching any more and then it's back to buisness as usual.

They treat Frank's like it's theirs because well, to all intents and purposes...it is.

_________________
"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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian, your message was very interesting.
Quote:
This hypothesizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile intellectually...


Now, I would disagree with this, intellectually. I think this hypothesizing is fascinating intellectually and that the most interesting role played in the case at this point, the most challenging, the most difficult, the most intriguing to understand, is the role of the defending lawyers.

However, I detect something else in your remarks. Maybe what you meant to say was something more like:
Quote:
This hypothesizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile emotionally...


My feeling from your message is that you are annoyed because you feel that what I am really trying to do is prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and that I'm hiding this purpose (possibly even from myself) behind a mask of "just determining what the defense position is".

Well, in a way that's true, I'm trying to build the best argument for their being innocent. But the reason for my doing this is not because I actually believe that they are innocent. I'm not exactly sure why I am doing it (with "fervour", even!). I mean, on the purely intellectual level I really am fascinated by the whole trial aspect of the case independently of guilt, as I have said before, and particularly by the defense. But you seem to be questioning the deeper reason behind this fascination, and there I'd have to admit that I don't really know. I believe that while I cannot make myself believe that they are innocent, I must somehow really wish deep down that I could believe it.

Maybe I really am more than one person and "we" all believe different things?!
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Hungarian, your message was very interesting.
Quote:
This hypothesizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile intellectually...


Now, I would disagree with this, intellectually. I think this hypothesizing is fascinating intellectually and that the most interesting role played in the case at this point, the most challenging, the most difficult, the most intriguing to understand, is the role of the defending lawyers.

However, I detect something else in your remarks. Maybe what you meant to say was something more like:
Quote:
This hypothesizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile emotionally...


My feeling from your message is that you are annoyed because you feel that what I am really trying to do is prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and that I'm hiding this purpose (possibly even from myself) behind a mask of "just determining what the defense position is".

Well, in a way that's true, I'm trying to build the best argument for their being innocent. But the reason for my doing this is not because I actually believe that they are innocent. I'm not exactly sure why I am doing it (with "fervour", even!). I mean, on the purely intellectual level I really am fascinated by the whole trial aspect of the case independently of guilt, as I have said before, and particularly by the defense. But you seem to be questioning the deeper reason behind this fascination, and there I'd have to admit that I don't really know. I believe that while I cannot make myself believe that they are innocent, I must somehow really wish deep down that I could believe it.

Maybe I really am more than one person and "we" all believe different things?!


Information to help your search on Marco's arrival time:

No information on the arrival time of Luca, Marco, Filomena and Poala at Frank's.

Bottom two posts on this page at Perugia Shock

He uses a whole post to contest the arrival time of the police using his own theory of possible events related to the discovery of the 2nd mobile phone.

And then when it comes to the testimony of the four, who could throw some light on events between 12:35 and 13:00 he doesn't mention call times or their their arrival times once.

Instead he concentrates on the two same things as the defense:

1)The relationship between Amanda and Meredith as understood by the girls.

2)Did Batistolli step into the room and polute the crime scene or not.

These arguments buried the information which was important both in the court and in the press coverage.

He then uses Batistolli's possible discomfort with admitting he may have stepped into the room to suggest he may have also lied about his arrival time.

I think its a fact the the defenses used questioning and disputes about the relationship and the possible crime scene contamination to totally obscure one or two questions asked by Mignini of his witnesses.

"Luca and Marco, what time did you arrive?"

"Filomena and Poala, what time did you arrive?"


Il Messaggero Umbria consistently gives the most detailed coverage in the Italian press but it's stories also disappear from the net.

Unfortunately, Filomena and the others also gave their evidence before Catnip started his wonderfull coverage of the Italian press.


Last edited by Brian S. on Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: INSPECTOR MARCEL MARCEAU   

The Machine wrote:
Kermit wrote:
As for Amanda's "surprise and embarrassment" being in reality her "amazement" at the speed-of-light quickness with which the Italian police respond to 112 calls, I don't buy it and I don't think the jury will either.


Hi Kermit,

It would have taken the police operator more than 11 seconds to explain the situation and give the address of the cottage to the police patrol. The police patrol would then have to drive to the cottage and walk up the drive. Besides, we already know that the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.25 and Sollecito admitted in his witness statement that he hadn't call 112 before the postal police turned up at the cottage.


Perhaps it was amazement -- I mean, how often do the police turn up before you have even called them?

_________________
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: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

This posted by Frank on his cess pit today in response to a poster's statement that someone should have been looking out for the Knox/Mellas girls regarding their posing for photos in front of the cottage for Gente magazine:

Sfarzo wrote:
frank said...
Actually I was looking out for them but i realized they don't like to receive advice, so I didn't give them. I told only the photographer, who is a friend of mine, not to take pictures there. I told him a hundred times, but he wouldn't listen...

July 12, 2009 11:42 AM



The Cess Pit


And where were their parents in all this? Obviously, they were quite happy for this to happen which makes them negligent and crass. Either that, or they were unaware as they weren't supervising the debacle...which makes them negligent. Either way, the responsibility was theirs and they were negligent.

It doesn't surprise me to hear they are reluctant to take advice, even from their friends, after all, they won't do what even their own Italian lawyers advise, nor what multiple people have advised them about their ill conceived PR campaign...'pig headed in their ignorance and folly' defines them well.

In any event, here we have an admission by Sfarzo of his closeness to the family, in that he actually advises them, or considers advising them and even accompanies them on their little stunts. But, why would they listen to Sfarzo anyway...he's just the paid help. You're just meant to do what you're told 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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
My feeling from your message is that you are annoyed because you feel that what I am really trying to do is prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and that I'm hiding this purpose (possibly even from myself) behind a mask of "just determining what the defense position is".

Well, in a way that's true, I'm trying to build the best argument for their being innocent. But the reason for my doing this is not because I actually believe that they are innocent. I'm not exactly sure why I am doing it (with "fervour", even!). I mean, on the purely intellectual level I really am fascinated by the whole trial aspect of the case independently of guilt, as I have said before, and particularly by the defense. But you seem to be questioning the deeper reason behind this fascination, and there I'd have to admit that I don't really know. I believe that while I cannot make myself believe that they are innocent, I must somehow really wish deep down that I could believe it.


I'd be interested in knowing why you can't make yourself believe that they are innocent. What are the strongest indications of guilt for you?

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Yikes, lots of posts over the weekend. Okay slowly working my way through them.

Finnmaccool:

Quote:
I can't give you a link to the phone records, because I've been sent a copy of them separately and confidentially - they're not online. But they're the same records that the FOA are working from, and they're not in dispute.


Who did you get them from? And why did they give them to you?

Quote:
So far as the 1247 call goes - don't get me wrong, I don't particularly see it as any kind of deal-breaker. The reason I've focused on that (in one post) is because it's one of the few items that we've got a lot of evidence about. (Our ignorance is mostly because Rudy and Raffaele have refused to testify.)


You posted a lot tho which basically came up to: 1. a single phone call being the point of contention 2. not knowing the contents of the "missing phone calls" ie, RS to actually put together some context. If you don't have a 100% of the information, how can you come to a hypothesis that is better than the defense or prosecution?

Quote:
Because it had been quite fun, over the previous months, imagining scenarios that could keep the kite of innocence flying - you know, like they called the carabinieri because they didn't think the communications police were taking it seriously, or whatever. But all that came grinding to a halt when Edda testified that she did in fact tell Amanda to call the police at 1247, and Amanda testified that she had no memory of that call.


This makes me think, the whole basis of your post, etc, was based on the single phone call AK and her mom did, and supposition on what happened with the RS ones.

Quote:
"I don't have the police's cellphone records."


I mean, this is the crux of it isn't it? You don't have a ton of the information that the prosecution/defense has, you're trying to cobble it together. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating...in work, if three people come to me and try and explain the parts they did on a spreadsheet, and it doesn't make sense, I'll ask for the raw data and rework it myself. Do you have the raw data, or at least logs, of the parties, so I can work a timeline from scratch? I know you don't have the police ones, but at least point me to where I can find them so I can work from scratch.

FC
Top

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Does this from the Micheli report place Luca and Batistelli in the kitchen at 12:46?

Quote:
Da ultimo, non ha pregio neppure la serie di argomentazioni svolte per confutare la tesi delle chiamate del SOLLECITO al “112” solo dopo l’arrivo della Polizia Postale. A parte il contenuto delle chiamate in parola, dove il SOLLECITO dice che non era stato rubato nulla, mentre c’era una porta chiusa con l’occupante cercata ma non rispondeva, davanti alla quale vi erano delle macchie di sangue (in teoria, egli avrebbe potuto fidarsi di quel che gli andava dicendo la KNOX sull’apparente stato dei luoghi, per ipotizzare che nulla mancasse), è pacifico che egli chiamò la sorella - Ufficiale dei Carabinieri - alle 12:50, quindi il “112” alle 12:51 e alle 12:54. L’annotazione della Polizia Postale, a firma dell’isp. BATTISTELLI, indica l’orario di arrivo dell’equipaggio alle 12:35, e stando alle telecamere del parcheggio Sant’Antonio, recanti un orario da arrotondare, forse gli agenti giunsero anche prima.
E’ stato sostenuto che nelle relazioni di quell’intervento i poliziotti non dicono di avere identificato subito i presenti o di essersi immediatamente qualificati, ma certo è impensabile che per un quarto d’ora o più se ne siano andati a spasso o siano rimasti a guardare; poi si è obiettato che il BATTISTELLI riferisce di essersi recato in loco perché erano stati trovati due cellulari, ma la signora LANA viene presa a verbale sul secondo telefono rinvenuto solo alle 12:46; infine, secondo ALTIERI LUCA gli agenti erano in cucina, con i due telefoni appoggiati sul tavolo. A sostegno di tali assunti, si dà atto che l’informativa del Dirigente la Polizia Postale precisa che la signora LANA era tornata per consegnare un secondo cellulare e, alla luce di quanto emerso, si era deciso di inviare personale in Via della Pergola.


Scuze my Google translation:

Finally, did not even merit a series of arguments put forward to refute the argument of the call urges the "112" only after the arrival of the Police Post. Apart from the content of the calls in question, where the early says that was not stolen anything, but there was a closed door with the occupant sought but did not respond, before which there were stains of blood (in theory, he could trust what he was saying KNOX over the state of places to assume that nothing is missing), it is undisputed that he called his sister - Official Carabinieri - at 12:50 p.m., so the "112" at 12: 51 and at 12:54 p.m.. The remark of the Police Post, signed by Manager. Battistelli, indicating the time of arrival of the crew at 12:35 p.m., according to the cameras and parking Sant'Antonio, a time marked by round, maybe the officers arrived earlier.
E 'that was claimed in the reports of His police say they have not been identified in the present or to have immediately qualified, but it is unthinkable that one quarter of an hour or more if they are going to walk or to have remained look, then, it was claimed that the BATTISTELLI reported to have traveled to the spot because they were found two mobile phones, but the lady wool is taken on record on the second phone found only at 12:46 p.m.; and second Altiero LUCA agents were in the kitchen , with the two phones placed on the table. In support of these assumptions, it is recognized that the Information Manager of the Police Post states that the wool had returned to deliver a second phone and, in light of the results, it was decided to send staff in Via della Pergola.


The confusion over the phones on the table:

Luca assumed they were both Meredith's phones but in fact only one belonged to her, the other belonged to somebody else. The second of Meredith's phones was reported found in the garden at 12:46.



ISTM that Micheli is stating that Luca and Batistelli were standing by the kitchen table at 12:46.

Can anyone do a proper translation?
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:00 am   Post subject: WHEN ON THE DEFENSIVE, ACCUSE AND DISTRACT   

Frumpycat to Finn about the phone call records wrote:
Who did you get them from? And why did they give you to them?

Um, does it matter to you who Finn is in contact with? Do you ask The Cook where she gets her print outs from or Charlie Wilkes where he gets his footprint images from? At the end of the day, Finn's phone call records come from the Investigation report, just like Charlie's footprints (except for the homegrown pink overlay, of course).

Boy, you're charging into the bullring energetically. "Why did they give you to them?" I guess you mean, why did they give them to you?

Who cares? (Oops, I don't mean to say that "Whocairz" gave them to Finn).

I forgot to say to you, Frumpycat, after your first post: Welcome to the board, we're here to discuss the Murder of Meredith Kercher, not to investigate Finn's sensible analysis or where he gets his data from. If you're concerned that his data is wrong, Candace, Charlie and others also refer to the exact same times. In fact, Finn could say with plausible deniability that he got his call data from reading other blogs if he wanted to.

Take it easy, FC.

Frumpycat to Finn about Amanda's first call home wrote:
Its seems a lot tho to have such a massive amount of posting based not only on: 1. a single phone call being the point of contention 2. not knowing the contents of the "missing phone calls" ie, RS to actually put together some context. If you don't have a 100% of the information, how can you come to a conclusion of "they're guilty?"


Please tell us who said that AK and RS are guilty on the basis of AK's first call home?

And if nobody said that, then please don't make such accusatory questions.

The first call to Edda is simply one additional piece of an overall mosaic, which by itself is simply a call home to mother to say something was awry, and mother saying to call the cops, when the cops were already there, and Amanda completely forgetting about this "Wake up Mom on the other side of the world in the middle of the night emergency call".

Nothing more, nothing less.

Frumpycat to Finn about Raffaele's call from Doctor S wrote:
This makes me think, the whole basis of your post, etc, was based on the single AK and her mom phone call, and what you have no idea happened with the RS ones.... I mean, this is the crux of it isn't it? You don't have a ton of the information that the prosecution/defense has, you're trying to cobble it together. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating...

Frumpycat, at 12.40 on 2 November 2007, Meredith brutally attacked body hadn't yet been discovered. Therefore, the police investigation hadn't yet begun. Therefore, no one's phones had been tapped, or conversations taped.

Therefore, the only people who today know any information about what occurred in the RS-DocS phone call is Raffaele and his father.

Raffaele has invoked his right to not declare since shortly after his arrest a year and a half ago. Mignini never got a chance in the investigation nor in the trial to ask him any questions about it.

Doc S declared in an uninteresting way the other day, but to be honest, he never said anything about that call, and the prosecution probably never wanted to ask him anything since he wouldn't be considered believable, given all the of the "Money can make water flow uphill" nasty activities which have been going on.
==================================

It's kind of funny how certain issues and non-issues turn into talking points over night, like dead horses they're whipped because someone thinks that a point against the prosecution can be made. Then the next day, the talking point disappears and a new one appears.

It seems that the Doc S phone call is today's talking point. Actually, it's a great point, because everyone knows that nobody knows anything about it, except for Raffaele and his dad.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skep, it's impossible to answer your question without getting personal about my own feelings. This will probably make my post annoying to some so maybe I'd better put out a warning sign:

PERSONAL FEELINGS NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO FACTS OF CASE AND POSSIBLY INFURIATING TO MANY
(Do not read if "thoughtful" irritates you)

Here's the thing, Skep: I can't rationally explain why the oft-repeated "13 separate pieces of forensic evidence" don't create a state of emotional conviction in me; it just seems to me that they could all be explained in natural ways (e.g. Amanda went all over the house barefoot leaving DNA here and there and Meredith's blood was tracked into it...Amanda cooked with Raffaele's knife...etc.etc.) Nor can I rationally explain why the much-considered pieces of circumstantial evidence don't create emotional conviction in me either; I just don't think cartwheels and flagrant insensitivity prove guilt, I don't really believe that Quintavalle necessarily saw her since Chiriboga was there too and saw nothing, I don't really believe Kokomani, I'm not completely convinced that Amanda was wildly jealous of an infinitely superior and saint-like Meredith (although I have considered the fact that she felt humiliated by the slight tinge of contempt and disapproval she may have been getting from Meredith and also from Patrick). I take all these things into account but I just don't feel utterly convinced by them as some here definitely do. Certains me trouveront débile mais c'est comme ça; je ne choisis pas, je m'observe, je constate et cela me surprend moi-même.

So it's down to knowing whether or not I feel she is telling the truth or lying, whence the immense importance for me of determining whether she is a liar. To determine this, it's theoretically necessary to test her statements as thoroughly as possible to see if they can possibly hold water, which was the purpose of my exercise.

Yet at the same time, I feel intimately that she is a liar. I could hear lies in her voice at certain points, for example when she denied knowing about the marijuana plantation, or when she gave that cutesy description of herself doing the bathmat shuffle and "accidentally" sometimes putting one wet foot off the mat and directly onto the floor. I listened to her voice for hours and I wasn't able to come out of it and say to myself: "She's innocent as the day. She's hiding nothing."

So there you have it. I, a research scientist by profession and writer of crime fiction on the side, am discovering that there is a part of me that reason alone simply will not reach, no matter how convincing. Only some kind of intuition seems to get there. It's shocking but it's human. It's probably exactly the reason for which juries are notoriously unpredictable.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Quote:
I can't give you a link to the phone records, because I've been sent a copy of them separately and confidentially - they're not online. But they're the same records that the FOA are working from, and they're not in dispute.


Who did you get them from? And why did they give you to them?


If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

Okay, they're confidential files because they're from the court documents and they've got the actual phone numbers on them. So there's a big privacy issue there. But there are plenty of people from the Friends of Amanda, for example, who have access to those files, so if you build up some credibility with them, I'm sure you'll get to see them for yourself.

Frumpycat wrote:
If you don't have a 100% of the information, how can you come to a conclusion of "they're guilty?"


Well, that's what life is like. We hardly ever have 100% of the facts, and sometimes we have to make decisions all the same. In this case, I've followed this particular case very closely since November 2, 2007, and I've considered as many angles as I've been able to think of. Maybe you'll be able to find something I've missed.

Frumpycat wrote:
I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating...in work, if three people come to me and try and explain the parts they did on a spreadsheet, and it doesn't make sense, I'll ask for the raw data and rework it myself. Do you have the raw data, or at least logs, of the parties, so I can work a timeline from scratch. I know you don't have the police ones, but at least point me to where I can find them so I can work from scratch.


Well, yes. But this isn't your workplace, and there's an ongoing court case with a whole lot of confidential information that isn't easy to access. So one thing you could do is just forget it and let the courts make their decisions.

If that doesn't satisfy you, join the club. For the early part of the case, Corriere della Sera is still useful, if you read Italian. But they've moved on, because far more interesting cases have come along, and so the latest court materials aren't in there. Perugia Shock is still a good source, and you'll find it very agreeable if you think that the defendants are innocent. TJMK has some very good materials, but it is less convinced that the defendants are innocent.

Finally, the threads on this page labeled "Main Discussion" are worth wading through, because the ideas and testimonies have been discussed on a daily basis.

But prepare for a LOT of reading.

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:10 am   Post subject: TRY THIS TECHNIQUE INSTEAD   

Frumpycat, here's a little suggestion (he says, leading FC aside with his arm across the accusing poster's back)...

Why don't you try a different tactic? Try saying: "Finn, thanks so much for all the analysis you have done on the phone calls. As a reader of this discussion board, I really appreciate the effort you have put into it. Although I don't agree with every aspect of your analysis, it has helped us - the readers of this board and the followers in general of this trial - in understanding an important element in the mosaic of evidence which is being considered by the judge and jury. I look forward to future posts by you on the subject, and I will in fact try to contribute to the pot of analysis with my own work"
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:26 am   Post subject: Luca, Paola, Dan'l Widdon, Harry Hawke, Old Uncle Tom Cobley   

Frumpycat wrote:

Quote:
You don't have a ton of the information that the prosecution/defense has, you're trying to cobble it together.


Aren't we all, Frumpycat, aren't we all?

And worse. Even those who have 100 % of all the court documents -- those who are in the court working on the case -- they don't have a ton of the information that the murderers have, so they're all cobbling like mad as well!

So, thank you Brian S. for citing the article about Filomena's testimony earlier today, and pointing me to Frank's blog. You were absolutely right. Those are the most precise sources for the testimony of the four friends. Everything else adds nothing at all, no little useful detail, to what we already know. Some places quote Battistelli's testimony in a very confusing way: he talks with Amanda and Raffaele, then he looks all over the house, and then Luca kicks down the door -- but when did Luca arrive? You never know.

I found several messages from bolint setting up the first sketches of the timeline. I hadn't realized that. At that time bolint uses the 13:00 contact with HQ as indicating that Filomena had arrived, just as Finn does, but I have found no corroboration of this except by Frank. Frank, however, includes it in a post so rife with errors that it makes no sense. For instance he says that Amanda called Filomena at 12:34 and tries to figure out why she did it. (This said, his description of Filomena on the stand is quite comical.) Bolint also expressed disappointment at the postal police testimony and the fact that pointed questions about timing were apparently not asked.

Filomena states that she and Paola arrived home "around 13:00". It could have been 13:05. All of her times are off by several minutes. The only testimony I found about what happened between the arrival of the boys and the arrival of the girls was that Luca and Marco introduced themselves. Basically, we cannot be more precise about this because we don't know enough. It will have to wait until the summing-ups...if those are public...
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:27 am   Post subject: Sources   

FC wrote:
Who did you get them from? And why did they give them to you?


Frumpy, I suggest you back off of that line of questioning. Just as many journalists and bloggers have, we (as a community) have been following this case from the very beginning...that's more then a year and a half, literally around the clock each and every day. Over that time, we have built up our own sources of information and these have allowed us direct access to a range of original case records and documents. We are not going to post up the originals or name the sources unless we have permission and it's safe to do so. This is to protect our sources and that is the golden rule in the journalistic world. We will happily post up whatever source material whenever we can, but if we don't, it is either to protect the sources, or because it would breach the privacy of certain individuals who are not accused of any crimes in the case or, would be in breach of Italian law to do so. Sometimes, it is a combination of those things. But, I can confirm to you that Finn's data is correct. You'll just have to take my word on that. I'll also simply say, none of our documents come directly from either the prosecution or the defence.

The only exception to the latter, may possibly be within some of the information provided in earlier reports by Stewart Home, whom I believe while in the court room got into discussions with the defence teams and on those occassions, I believe Stewart made it clear who his sources were, so those were declared.

That's all you need to know, all you're going to know and you either accept it or you don't. But, from this point, when someone explains to you that their information comes from a source they cannot reveal and they can't publish the original file due to strong reasons, please don't push it. By all means, feel to doubt peoples' word and be skeptical (although that principle should then be applied equally across the blogsphere and to journalists if so), but don't pressure people to do what they are not at liberty to do.

_________________
"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 Pacific NW


Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:04 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: INSPECTOR MARCEL MARCEAU   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Perhaps it was amazement -- I mean, how often do the police turn up before you have even called them?

As in the old American TV show Columbo, sometimes the police show up at the most inopportune moments, or stumble onto a murder scene uninvited. Just as the murderers begin to feel confident of skirting disaster, Fate intervenes; this time in the guise of the Postal Police.

I sometimes wonder how the case would've sorted itself out if AK and RS had had a little more time to stage the scene, hone their emotional reactions, ditch the knife, and get their alibis straight; if the discovery of the murder had been on their terms. Maybe another pass with the mop and sponge with the bleach solution would've obliterated most of the incriminating DNA evidence, and bought AK enough time to catch the next flight home to Seattle. Certainly, the poorly staged break-in, Amanda's lamp in MK's room, and the Luminol glowing blue (in response to the bleach residue) would've raised suspicions, but without the DNA evidence, it may have been harder to bring the case to trial or even to extradite AK.
Top Profile E-mail 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Catnip - On the 11 November 2007, both Romanelli and Mezzetti added further particulars, saying, right on the 30th October, and to Meredith, and with Amanda present, that after the long weekend, that is, by the 5th, they were going to have to pay the rent. Meredith replied that she already had the money ready and that she was willing to give it to the two Italian roommates, knowing that the four of them would contribute the sum for the lease. Amanda, instead, said that Lumumba hadn’t paid her yet [non la pagava]. Meredith repeated, still in Amanda’s hearing, having ready access to money at that time because she had won a study bursary and had two credit cards.


AK and RS had thousands in their accounts. AK in particular had saved up for a long time to get this trip. Coming from a poor background myself I don't see any surprise here, she did not want to touch her savings, and would rather use the cash from her current employer if it was a couple of days on the offing. NPV.

Quote:
Catnip - Another mystery relates to Raffaele Sollecito’s phone calls, first to his sister, an officer in the Force, and then to “112”. The crucial question is knowing with certainty whether Raffaele made these calls before or after the arrival of the Postal Police officers at via della Pergola. GUP Micheli, in his orders remanding Knox and Sollecito to stand trial, had no doubts, affirming that “the line of reasoning put up (by the defence – editor) to rebut the thesis that Sollecito’s ‘112’ calls were after the arrival of the Postal Police has no merit [non ha pregio neppure]”.


This isn't a surprise either. If I thought there was something scary going on, and I had a relative in the police force, I would call them first to see what to do.

Quote:
Catnip - How was Sollecito able to know that nothing had been taken from Romanelli if she arrived ten or so minutes later and if, only after her arrival, she, after a quick check, had determined that nothing at all had been taken? The lapsus telefonico by Sollecito appears even more evident, because, listening to the phone call, one can hear that, straight after having let loose this particular admission of involvement by himself and Amanda in the simulation of the crime and, therefore, logically as far as it was placing such conduct upstream and realising that a diversionary tactic was required, that is via the homicide, Sollecito sought to divert the carabinieri’s attention onto the details of the locked door of Meredith’s room”.


Cuz I think RS ran his mouth off. He was probably thinking just for himself and AK. There was nothing stolen in AK's room - And he didn't see anything indicating theft in the common rooms, so he decided to blurt out "Nothing was stolen!" hoping to help the police, hoping he was not reeking of pot.

Quote:
Finnmaccool - So we have one defendant who can't remember what happened, and who contradicts herself, and another who is refusing to say what happened, and our hunch about their innocence means that we're happy to disregard witness testimony, Micheli's analysis, CCTV footage, and so on, plus the sworn testimony of policemen who say they CAN remember what happened and that in fact they kept detailed records of it


Finn...concerning she couldn't remember?
-I think she cant remember. Her lawyer said heck, makes sense, go with that. They'll try and go nuts over any details she says otherwise.
- Witnesses? Are you referring to Filomena?
- Micheli's analysis....its a rehash of what you've been saying correct? That one phone call looks really suspicious concerning AK. The other calls we actually aren't privy to.
- CCTV footage - The black and white one where they only saw the nose of the car and couldn't tell the color?
- Policemen/woman testimonies - detailed records you haven't seen? Or perhaps the police suddenly realize they had stumbled on a major international crime scene and that they maybe have to do some creative recollecting? Only a tiny gap in the phone call records.

FC
Top

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:38 am   Post subject: I ALWAYS WANTED TO BE A LAWYER   

thoughtful wrote:
So there you have it. I, a research scientist by profession and writer of crime fiction on the side, am discovering that there is a part of me that reason alone simply will not reach, no matter how convincing. Only some kind of intuition seems to get there. It's shocking but it's human.

On the basis of intuition, most people would have condemned and sentenced Amanda a long time ago.

It's when you see the "break-in" through Filomena's window, Raffaele's concern about the things Rudy may say, the knife prick story, the "Amanda told me to tell a sack of lies" confession, the lack of computer activity overnight (in spite of writing emails to Seattle and watching movies and navigating), the inexistent 11 pm call from dad, the bathmat footprint, Sra Nara's testimony, the impossibility of calling 112 and having the cops arrive in a millisecond, the bra strap DNA (which really no one has been able to dint much, except for FC suggesting that students had broken into the cottage before 18 December and contaminated it somehow) .....

The evidence piles up.

thoughtful wrote:
I think this hypothesizing is fascinating intellectually and that the most interesting role played in the case at this point, the most challenging, the most difficult, the most intriguing to understand, is the role of the defending lawyers.

Pardon me for noticing it and being so bold as to comment on it, but your exercise seems to go beyond the legal defence team's stand ... why do I say that? Because Amanda's legal defence posture at least, seems to be simply: "we were at Raffaele's all night, and that's that. I have the odd memory lapses, I was pressured and hit" ... and on the basis of this, she'll try to weather the legal storm.

Her lawyers have carefully avoided, for example, a meticulous analysis of the phone calls, á la Finn. They have not wanted to study how long it should take Filomena to arrive from the fair. They didn't want to ask Doctor Sollecito about the phone call with Raffaele on the morning of 2 November 2007.

The defending lawyers in Amanda's case (and also in Raffaele's case, with the notable exception of Bongiorno's extraordinary effort to pin it all on Rudy), actually seem to have a strategy of simply hunkering down and getting it over with, and not wanting to develop any complicated explanations.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi thoughtful,

Skep asked you the following question:

"I'd be interested in knowing why you can't make yourself believe that they are innocent. What are the strongest indications of guilt for you?"

When you responded to her question you only wrote about Amanda Knox. Why are you are more concerned about her than Raffaele Sollecito? Is it because she's a woman?

You wrote:

"Here's the thing, Skep: I can't rationally explain why the oft-repeated "13 separate pieces of forensic evidence" don't create a state of emotional conviction in me;it just seems to me that they could all be explained in natural ways (e.g. Amanda went all over the house barefoot leaving DNA here and there and Meredith's blood was tracked into it...Amanda cooked with Raffaele's knife...etc.etc.)"

If you can offer a plausible explanation why Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife sequestered from Sollecito's apartment, I'd love to hear it.

I'd also like to hear your explanation why an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA was on a small piece of Meredith's underwear.

Incidentally, Amanda Knox never claimed she went into Filomena's room in bare feet, so you'll have to come up with another scenario to explain why Knox's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood on the floor of the room.

You seem fixated on Amanda Knox and proving that she's innocent to the point you're coming up with far-fetched and ridiculous scenarios that involve Knox believing that the police could turn up at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito had called 112 and it taking the postal police 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.

You don't come across as logical scientist objectively examining the case, but someone is so emotionally driven that they are prepared to believe things which are clearly not true. I don't know about anyone else, but watching someone becoming so deluded makes me feel uncomfortable.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:44 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
AK and RS had thousands in their accounts. AK in particular had saved up for a long time to get this trip. Coming from a poor background myself I don't see any surprise here, she did not want to touch her savings, and would rather use the cash from her current employer if it was a couple of days on the offing. NPV.


Or, not use her own money at all...that's even cheaper still :)

Actually, Amanda had been complaining that Patrick hadn't been paying her. Now, that's a problem. Amanda wasn't working in the bar for the fun of it or for the 'educational' experience of doing so, or for something to put on her CV (resume), she worked there because she 'needed' the money, despite what she may have already had in her bank account.

_________________
"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 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Why so negative?

Quote:
Frumpycat, here's a little suggestion (he says, leading FC aside with his arm across the accusing poster's back)...

Why don't you try a different tactic? Try saying: "Finn, thanks so much for all the analysis you have done on the phone calls. As a reader of this discussion board, I really appreciate the effort you have put into it. Although I don't agree with every aspect of your analysis, it has helped us - the readers of this board and the followers in general of this trial - in understanding an important element in the mosaic of evidence which is being considered by the judge and jury. I look forward to future posts by you on the subject, and I will in fact try to contribute to the pot of analysis with my own work"


My reply is, as in work, if someone has done a good job, and I am convinced of it, I will praise him/her, but not in the debate/research portion, especially when they don't have information from all sides.

FC
Top

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Kermit wrote:
Her lawyers have carefully avoided, for example, a meticulous analysis of the phone calls, á la Finn.


Indeed. And it's quite clear that their only strategy in dealing with them is to 'hope' the judges follow suit and avoid looking at them too closely 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 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Okay...still trying to make it through the original posts but replying:

Michael

Quote:
Or, not use her own money at all...that's even cheaper still :)

Actually, Amanda had been complaining that Patrick hadn't been paying her. Now, that's a problem. Amanda wasn't working in the bar for the fun of it or for the 'educational' experience of doing so, or for something to put on her CV (resume), she worked there because she 'needed' the money, despite what she may have already had in her bank account.


Doesn't make sense, a straight "A" student, will kill and thieve for 300 E. She was asking her flatmates if they could give her a couple of days til she was paid by Patrick, who apparantly was late in paying her. As a former student abroad I don't see this as much of a stretch.

And to tell you that's more Patrick's problem then AK's. I think she took the first job possible. And to tell you the truth, I don't think Patrick's business "Failed b/c of the notoriety of the MK death", I think the place was on its last legs anyway.

FC

FC
Top

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:56 am   Post subject:    

Kermit -- before answering any details, I have to say how great your posts are. Because on top of great reasoning, you have so much humor! First I laugh, and then I think.

So just to be very brief, to answer your Marcel Marceau objection earlier: of course, she went yackety-yack and Raffaele didn't stand by and brood, but slavishly fixated on his girlfriend, translated for her. And after just a couple of sentences, Battistelli went "WAIT!---etc." just as you said. That's about how it was in my timeline and that is probably what actually happened, independently of whatever time he actually arrived. I notice, however, that you keep repeating "4 minutes to telephone activation...3 minutes to telephone activation..." etc. whereas I believe, as does bolint, that the telephone activation consists of Meredith's phone being turned on at HQ by the people there who are taking reception of the phone.

To answer your message just above, no, I completely disagree with you that Amanda's defense are just putting forth the vague "I was at Raffaele's" line with no details. I believe they have put many months of intense work into the scenario they are trying to put across. At first, when I heard Amanda's testimony, I was amazed they let her continue to say that they called 112 before the postal police came. I thought that they would have worked together with her and with the phone records to fix her statement. Then it became clear to me that they had worked over the phone records with her, because many little inaccuracies in the e-mail for example had become fixed. So why did they not work out a story for which her call to Edda and Battistelli's arrival happened at the right times? I believe the reason is that they are trying to avoid story changes that are too flagrant. Well, there's no need to get into more detail and keep flogging the question, but I think they're building up something in a careful and detailed way, not just hoping for the best with some vague rubbish.


Last edited by thoughtful on Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Or perhaps the police suddenly realize they had stumbled on a major international crime scene and that they maybe have to do some creative recollecting? Only a tiny gap in the phone call records.


Actually Frumpy, coming from the States, I think you may have the wrong impression on this.

It seems to have built up into such a case, but cross border crime in Europe is really common. The police forces are very used to it. It's a question of size.

A case involving an English national in Italy would appear no more intimidating to the police Perugia than for instance a Californian being killed in Seattle would be to the police there.

Because the US is so much larger you may find it easier to think of the countries in Europe as equivalent to states in the US.

Think: Instead of heading for the state line, criminals in Europe head for the border. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
Doesn't make sense, a straight "A" student, will kill and thieve for 300 E. She was asking her flatmates if they could give her a couple of days til she was paid by Patrick, who apparantly was late in paying her. As a former student abroad I don't see this as much of a stretch.


I don't think the money was taken because it was 'wanted and 'needed' alone, but also because there had to be a 'theft' if they were to pull off the impression of a fake burglary. The theft of the money therefore, was not only convenient for the thief, but actually a requirement for staging the scene and taking money was easier then other items that would need to be disposed of, whereas, cash is easily spent and it's light. Moreover, Meredith didn't need it any more, so to have left it would have been a waste (in an opportunist's eyes).

Quote:
And to tell you that's more Patrick's problem then AK's. I think she took the first job possible. And to tell you the truth, I don't think Patrick's business "Failed b/c of the notoriety of the MK death", I think the place was on its last legs anyway.

FC


How could you possibly know that? How also could you possibly know how Patrick's buisness would have fared had it not have been for this? Fact: before he was accused by Amanda his buisness had a chance and that chance lay in his own hands. After, it had none at all and it was no longer down to him.

Is this cynical statement meant somehow to excuse what Amanda did? It seems like what you are implying is 'well, his buisness was going to fall apart anyway, so it doesn't matter what Amanda did...no foul there'. Have I got you right?

It didn't fail because of the 'notoriety of Meredith's death' anyway. It failed because his bar was sealed by the police for well over 6 months by the police (yet he still had to pay the rent for the premises as well as make repayments on any loans he may have had for it, along with rent for his home and day to day bills) because he was an official murder suspect and then when the seals were finally removed and it did re-open he found he'd been tainted by his association with the case ( a bloody sex murder no less) and nobody wanted to come to his bar anymore.

_________________
"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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:11 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Machine, I honestly don't think that you and I can communicate properly. We're not really on the same wavelength. Your message responding to my message to Skep sounds to me like all the answers are already in my message to Skep. This is probably a useless exercise, but here's a go at responding.

Quote:
When you responded to her question you only wrote about Amanda Knox. Why are you are more concerned about her than Raffaele Sollecito? Is it because she's a woman?


No. It's because I listened to her voice for several hours' worth of testimony and this had an emotional effect which no other evidence has had. If Raffaele had testified and I could have listened, I am sure the emotional effect would also have been very strong.

Quote:
If you can offer a plausible explanation why Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife sequestered from Sollecito's apartment, I'd love to hear it

I'd also like to hear your explanation why an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA was on a small piece of Meredith's underwear.


Well, I could repeat the defense arguments here, but you already know them. The answer would miss the point, as your question is missing the point. The point I tried to make in my post to Skep was that this kind of information does not have an emotional impact on me and therefore cannot seem to reach the emotional place inside me in which I wish they were innocent. I think it's pretty useless writing this to you, Machine, as I have no belief that you will be able to comprehend it.

Quote:
Incidentally, Amanda Knox never claimed she went into Filomena's room in bare feet, so you'll have to come up with another scenario to explain why Knox's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood on the floor of the room.


No, I don't have to, thank you. I don't have to do anything. Amanda didn't claim this because she wasn't asked. I wish she had been asked. There are many questions that were not asked that to my mind should have been.

Quote:
You seem fixated on Amanda Knox and proving that she's innocent to the point you're coming up with far-fetched and ridiculous scenarios that involve Knox believing that the police could turn up at the cottage 11 seconds after Sollecito had called 112 and it taking the postal police 30 minutes to walk from the gate to the cottage.


You don't read my posts properly so why bother to answer? I already explained to you that I myself already had the experience of calling the police only to see them arrive barely one minute later -- because they radioed a patrol car that happened to be in the immediate vicinity. You have invented the ridiculous 11 seconds in order to try to pour scorn on my timeline, but I really think you could just pour scorn on it the ordinary way without stooping to cheap idiocy.

Quote:
You don't come across as logical scientist objectively examining the case, but someone is so emotionally driven that they are prepared to believe things which are clearly not true.


You may not be aware of this, Machine, but logical scientists have emotions, too, yes. Gosh, what a surprise! This said, go ahead and tell me. What exactly am I prepared to believe that is clearly not true? I don't think you know my beliefs, because I don't think you read or understand my posts very well.

Quote:
I don't know about anyone else, but watching someone becoming so deluded makes me feel uncomfortable.


Believe me, Machine, watching someone as rigid as you makes me uncomfortable, too. I can live with it, though, and I expect you can manage it, too.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:18 am   Post subject: CHAMPIONS LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL CRIME   

Brian S. wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
Or perhaps the police suddenly realize they had stumbled on a major international crime scene and that they maybe have to do some creative recollecting? Only a tiny gap in the phone call records.


Actually Frumpy, coming from the States, I think you may have the wrong impression on this.

It seems to have built up into such a case, but cross border crime in Europe is really common. The police forces are very used to it. It's a question of size.

A case involving an English national in Italy would appear no more intimidating to the police Perugia than for instance a Californian being killed in Seattle would be to the police there

Frumpycat, just as one small, tiny example, every time there's a Champions League or UEFA football (soccer) match, there are thousands of Europeans from one country who travel to another, and what with the drink and the hooligans, inevitably there are a few cases of violence, sometimes a knifing, sometimes even more rarely a killing. It makes the news, but for the cops it's just another night on the beat.

The Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy attract Europeans from the north. We're used to "international crime" here. Nothing that will upset international relations or make a prosecutors cheeks turn red.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:25 am   Post subject: KEEP THINKING ..... REAL HARD   

Frumpycat wrote:
Doesn't make sense, a straight "A" student, will kill and thieve for 300 E. She was asking her flatmates if they could give her a couple of days til she was paid by Patrick, who apparantly was late in paying her. As a former student abroad I don't see this as much of a stretch.

But did she ask for more time to pay the rent? I haven't heard that.

And in any case, she didn't need extra time: she had almost 300€ in cash when she was arrested. She already had the money to pay the rent (and not because Patrick had paid her).

Frumpycat wrote:
And to tell you that's more Patrick's problem then AK's. I think she took the first job possible. And to tell you the truth, I don't think Patrick's business "Failed b/c of the notoriety of the MK death", I think the place was on its last legs anyway.

Keep thinking Frumpycat, think as hard as you want.

You complain about Finn's effort (requiring a lot more time than you've put into this case), and now you slime Patrick and his livelihood because you "think" it was going down the drain.... what to you know about Patrick's bar, his business, how popular it was. I think very little.
Top Profile 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi Kermit,

Quote:
Please tell us who said that AK and RS are guilty on the basis of AK's first call home?


I'm inferring it from this post concerning her last call home ... the first call home was never in doubt, my apologies if it seemed to be so from my original post:

Quote:
Finnmaccool - This is where I personally ran into a brick wall following the testimonies of Edda and Amanda. Because it had been quite fun, over the previous months, imagining scenarios that could keep the kite of innocence flying - you know, like they called the carabinieri because they didn't think the communications police were taking it seriously, or whatever. But all that came grinding to a halt when Edda testified that she did in fact tell Amanda to call the police at 1247, and Amanda testified that she had no memory of that call. Because that's what left Amanda and Raffaele with half an hour's worth of activity (attested by various witnesses, police records, cellphone records, CCTV footage, and so on) being required to fit into four and a half minutes, contrary to what was attested by various witnesses, police records, cellphone records, CCTV footage, and so on.


FC
Top

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:

Quote:
AK and RS had thousands in their accounts.


This is nonsense. RS had 40 euros in his account at the end of October. As for Knox, Thoughtful has provided the translation from the courtroom about the particulars of her economic situation. I doubt anyone would describe it as having "thousands". The subject has been discussed here in great detail, including attempts to analyze how far the money would go, the euro/dollar exchange rate at the time (disastrous for an American in Europe). Vague and misleading statements like the one above just don't cut it here.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Kermit

Quote:
Frumpycat, at 12.40 on 2 November 2007, Meredith brutally attacked body hadn't yet been discovered. Therefore, the police investigation hadn't yet begun. Therefore, no one's phones had been tapped, or conversations taped.

Therefore, the only people who today know any information about what occurred in the RS-DocS phone call is Raffaele and his father.


I am referring to the police's not AK and RS's.

FC
Top

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:

Quote:
I'm inferring it from this post concerning her last call home ... the first call home was never in doubt, my apologies if it seemed to be so from my original post:


Quote:
Finnmaccool - This is where I personally ran into a brick wall following the testimonies of Edda and Amanda. Because it had been quite fun, over the previous months, imagining scenarios that could keep the kite of innocence flying - you know, like they called the carabinieri because they didn't think the communications police were taking it seriously, or whatever. But all that came grinding to a halt when Edda testified that she did in fact tell Amanda to call the police at 1247, and Amanda testified that she had no memory of that call. Because that's what left Amanda and Raffaele with half an hour's worth of activity (attested by various witnesses, police records, cellphone records, CCTV footage, and so on) being required to fit into four and a half minutes, contrary to what was attested by various witnesses, police records, cellphone records, CCTV footage, and so on.


FC


For anyone who has read Finn's analysis, and all of the intelligent and good faith discussion it has generated, your inference is so ludicrous that it isn't worth responding to.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Finnmaccool

Quote:
Well, yes. But this isn't your workplace, and there's an ongoing court case with a whole lot of confidential information that isn't easy to access. So one thing you could do is just forget it and let the courts make their decisions.

If that doesn't satisfy you, join the club. For the early part of the case, Corriere della Sera is still useful, if you read Italian. But they've moved on, because far more interesting cases have come along, and so the latest court materials aren't in there. Perugia Shock is still a good source, and you'll find it very agreeable if you think that the defendants are innocent. TJMK has some very good materials, but it is less convinced that the defendants are innocent.


Thanks for the reply, I am in total agreement.

FC
Top

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
FC wrote:
Doesn't make sense, a straight "A" student, will kill and thieve for 300 E. She was asking her flatmates if they could give her a couple of days til she was paid by Patrick, who apparantly was late in paying her. As a former student abroad I don't see this as much of a stretch.


I don't think the money was taken because it was 'wanted and 'needed' alone, but also because there had to be a 'theft' if they were to pull off the impression of a fake burglary. The theft of the money therefore, was not only convenient for the thief, but actually a requirement for staging the scene and taking money was easier then other items that would need to be disposed of, whereas, cash is easily spent and it's light. Moreover, Meredith didn't need it any more, so to have left it would have been a waste (in an opportunist's eyes).


FC,

How much do you think Patrick could possibly have owed Amanda? He was paying her E5 hour cash in hand. She only worked for him about 2 nights a week. Maybe he owed her E50/E100.

I accept that Amanda didn't really need Patrick's money to pay her rent. She had the money in the bank. But at the time of the conversation with the girls she obviously didn't have it in her pocket else why would she make that comment, and here is where I think her problem may lie.

I don't think Patrick ever paid her the money he owed her because she didn't work for him again to collect it. Patrick phoned her and said not to come in on Novemeber 1st.

I don't think she stole Meredith's money because "she needed it". I think she may have stolen it because it was part of the crime scene staging, the one that simulated a robbery by someone who broke in through Filomena's window.

I don't think the police can "prove" that the E215 Amanda had in her pocket belonged to Meredith but I also don't think Amanda can "prove" she withdrew it from the bank. So where did it come from?

Not from Raffaele, he didn't have enough in his account at the time as we also know.
Top Profile 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:37 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SB

Quote:
This is nonsense. RS had 40 euros in his account at the end of October. As for Knox, Thoughtful has provided the translation from the courtroom about the particulars of her economic situation. I doubt anyone would describe it as having "thousands". The subject has been discussed here in great detail, including attempts to analyze how far the money would go, the euro/dollar exchange rate at the time (disastrous for an American in Europe). Vague and misleading statements like the one above just don't cut it here.


Yet Amanda still had money to hold her for months, RG came from a wealthy family whom I'm sure would have been willing to spare him the cash. To speculate that "theft" was part of the scheme, other than from Rudy's point of view, seems like a stretch.

FC
Top

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:39 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Does this from the Micheli report place Luca and Batistelli in the kitchen at 12:46?

Quote:
Da ultimo, non ha pregio neppure la serie di argomentazioni svolte per confutare la tesi delle chiamate del SOLLECITO al “112” solo dopo l’arrivo della Polizia Postale. A parte il contenuto delle chiamate in parola, dove il SOLLECITO dice che non era stato rubato nulla, mentre c’era una porta chiusa con l’occupante cercata ma non rispondeva, davanti alla quale vi erano delle macchie di sangue (in teoria, egli avrebbe potuto fidarsi di quel che gli andava dicendo la KNOX sull’apparente stato dei luoghi, per ipotizzare che nulla mancasse), è pacifico che egli chiamò la sorella - Ufficiale dei Carabinieri - alle 12:50, quindi il “112” alle 12:51 e alle 12:54. L’annotazione della Polizia Postale, a firma dell’isp. BATTISTELLI, indica l’orario di arrivo dell’equipaggio alle 12:35, e stando alle telecamere del parcheggio Sant’Antonio, recanti un orario da arrotondare, forse gli agenti giunsero anche prima.
E’ stato sostenuto che nelle relazioni di quell’intervento i poliziotti non dicono di avere identificato subito i presenti o di essersi immediatamente qualificati, ma certo è impensabile che per un quarto d’ora o più se ne siano andati a spasso o siano rimasti a guardare; poi si è obiettato che il BATTISTELLI riferisce di essersi recato in loco perché erano stati trovati due cellulari, ma la signora LANA viene presa a verbale sul secondo telefono rinvenuto solo alle 12:46; infine, secondo ALTIERI LUCA gli agenti erano in cucina, con i due telefoni appoggiati sul tavolo. A sostegno di tali assunti, si dà atto che l’informativa del Dirigente la Polizia Postale precisa che la signora LANA era tornata per consegnare un secondo cellulare e, alla luce di quanto emerso, si era deciso di inviare personale in Via della Pergola.


Scuze my Google translation:

Finally, did not even merit a series of arguments put forward to refute the argument of the call urges the "112" only after the arrival of the Police Post. Apart from the content of the calls in question, where the early says that was not stolen anything, but there was a closed door with the occupant sought but did not respond, before which there were stains of blood (in theory, he could trust what he was saying KNOX over the state of places to assume that nothing is missing), it is undisputed that he called his sister - Official Carabinieri - at 12:50 p.m., so the "112" at 12: 51 and at 12:54 p.m.. The remark of the Police Post, signed by Manager. Battistelli, indicating the time of arrival of the crew at 12:35 p.m., according to the cameras and parking Sant'Antonio, a time marked by round, maybe the officers arrived earlier.
E 'that was claimed in the reports of His police say they have not been identified in the present or to have immediately qualified, but it is unthinkable that one quarter of an hour or more if they are going to walk or to have remained look, then, it was claimed that the BATTISTELLI reported to have traveled to the spot because they were found two mobile phones, but the lady wool is taken on record on the second phone found only at 12:46 p.m.; and second Altiero LUCA agents were in the kitchen , with the two phones placed on the table. In support of these assumptions, it is recognized that the Information Manager of the Police Post states that the wool had returned to deliver a second phone and, in light of the results, it was decided to send staff in Via della Pergola.


The confusion over the phones on the table:

Luca assumed they were both Meredith's phones but in fact only one belonged to her, the other belonged to somebody else. The second of Meredith's phones was reported found in the garden at 12:46.



ISTM that Micheli is stating that Luca and Batistelli were standing by the kitchen table at 12:46.

Can anyone do a proper translation?


Finally, the series of propositions put forward to refute the thesis that calls by Sollecito to "112" were made only after the arrival of the Postal Police has no value either. Apart from the content of the calls in question, during which Sollecito says that nothing had been stolen, while there was a locked door (to a room) whose occupant who was being looked for but who was not answering, and in front of which there were drops of blood (theoretically he would have been able to rely on what Knox was saying to him about the apparent state of the premises in order to draw the conclusion that nothing was missing), it is obvious that he called his sister - an officer of the Carabinieri - at 12.50, then "112" at 12.51 and at 12.54. The records of the Postal Police, signed by Inspector Battistelli, indicated the time of arrival of the team at 12.35, and according to the surveillance cameras of the Sant'Antonio carpark which report a time to be rounded off, perhaps the police arrived even earlier.

It has been claimed that in their reports of that visit the police officers do not say either that they identified those present straight away, or that they immediately stated who they themselves were, but certainly it is unthinkable that for a quarter of an hour or more they wandered around or that they were just there looking; then the fact that Battistelli refers to having come to the premises because two mobile phone had been found is challenged, since Signora Lana's statement about the second phone being found was recorded only at 12.46; finally, according to Luca Altieri, the police officers were in the kitchen with the two mobile phones on the table. To support such assumptions, it is acknowledged that the briefing of the Head of the Postal Police notes that Signora Lana had returned to hand in a second mobile phone and that in the light of what had emerged, it had been decided to send officers to Via della Pergola.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:40 am   Post subject: Re: Sources   

Michael wrote:
FC wrote:
Who did you get them from? And why did they give them to you?


Frumpy, I suggest you back off of that line of questioning. Just as many journalists and bloggers have, we (as a community) have been following this case from the very beginning...that's more then a year and a half, literally around the clock each and every day. Over that time, we have built up our own sources of information and these have allowed us direct access to a range of original case records and documents. We are not going to post up the originals or name the sources unless we have permission and it's safe to do so. This is to protect our sources and that is the golden rule in the journalistic world. We will happily post up whatever source material whenever we can, but if we don't, it is either to protect the sources, or because it would breach the privacy of certain individuals who are not accused of any crimes in the case or, would be in breach of Italian law to do so. Sometimes, it is a combination of those things. But, I can confirm to you that Finn's data is correct. You'll just have to take my word on that. I'll also simply say, none of our documents come directly from either the prosecution or the defence.

The only exception to the latter, may possibly be within some of the information provided in earlier reports by Stewart Home, whom I believe while in the court room got into discussions with the defence teams and on those occassions, I believe Stewart made it clear who his sources were, so those were declared.

That's all you need to know, all you're going to know and you either accept it or you don't. But, from this point, when someone explains to you that their information comes from a source they cannot reveal and they can't publish the original file due to strong reasons, please don't push it. By all means, feel to doubt peoples' word and be skeptical (although that principle should then be applied equally across the blogsphere and to journalists if so), but don't pressure people to do what they are not at liberty to do.



This also goes for urging people to publish private email content. The phone records contain the phone numbers of real individuals and they have a right to expect non-disclosure of that information.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S.

Quote:
Actually Frumpy, coming from the States, I think you may have the wrong impression on this.

It seems to have built up into such a case, but cross border crime in Europe is really common. The police forces are very used to it. It's a question of size.

A case involving an English national in Italy would appear no more intimidating to the police Perugia than for instance a Californian being killed in Seattle would be to the police there.

Because the US is so much larger you may find it easier to think of the countries in Europe as equivalent to states in the US.

Think: Instead of heading for the state line, criminals in Europe head for the border. :lol:


Brian, within a short amount of period this became druggy US gal and bf, kill british roommate in orgy gone wrong, where the police were driving up and down the streets saying they caught them. Ooops, then RG came along the scene. This turned into a huuuuuge deal, at least in Italy and England when if first happened. That is my point. I can't remember the story outright but apparantly things were sensitive between the brits and italians already concerning a crime.

FC
Top

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:44 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:

Quote:
Yet Amanda still had money to hold her for months, RG came from a wealthy family whom I'm sure would have been willing to spare him the cash. To speculate that "theft" was part of the scheme, other than from Rudy's point of view, seems like a stretch.



No one but you is suggesting that theft is part of the motive or that people only steal because they need money. I'm sure there are places where these ideas are taken seriously, but not here.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:47 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:

Quote:
Brian, within a short amount of period this became druggy US gal and bf, kill british roommate in orgy gone wrong, where the police were driving up and down the streets saying they caught them. Ooops, then RG came along the scene. This turned into a huuuuuge deal, at least in Italy and England when if first happened. That is my point. I can't remember the story outright but apparantly things were sensitive between the brits and italians already concerning a crime.


I doubt the police were reading the tabloids, though, so they probably missed this rendition of the post crime environment.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
And to tell you that's more Patrick's problem then AK's. I think she took the first job possible. And to tell you the truth, I don't think Patrick's business "Failed b/c of the notoriety of the MK death", I think the place was on its last legs anyway.

FC


How could you possibly know that? How also could you possibly know how Patrick's buisness would have fared had it not have been for this? Fact: before he was accused by Amanda his buisness had a chance and that chance lay in his own hands. After, it had none at all and it was no longer down to him.


FC has probably been listening to Chris Mellas and his friends, who have been suggesting this for some time. It is important to them to believe that Patrick's business was crumbling anyway. I don't have time to check it out yet again, but maybe Frumpy could go back through the archives and find the source for that. Better yet, Frumpy might find press references to the fact that Lumumba's bar had only recently opened. At least that is my recollection. If so, it was more on its first legs than its last legs. But it certainly did not survive several months of closure.

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:57 am   Post subject: CLOCKING TIME   

thoughtful wrote:
So just to be very brief, to answer your Marcel Marceau objection earlier: of course, she went yackety-yack and Raffaele didn't stand by and brood, but slavishly fixated on his girlfriend, translated for her. And after just a couple of sentences, Battistelli went "WAIT!---etc." just as you said.

But in my case, Battistelli wouldn't have even let Amanda get more than 2 words of macaroni-English out of her mouth, before saying his "WAIT!". He's a cop, a law enforcement officer. He's not going to complacently let Raffaele translate for Amanda for a couple of minutes until she runs out of breath ... The first thing he's going to say is "I'm Inspector Battistelli, and I'm here to find Ms. Filomena Romanelli, in order to return her mobile phone, and ask her a couple of questions about a prank phone call. ...."

thoughtful wrote:
I completely disagree with you that Amanda's defense are just putting forth the vague "I was at Raffaele's" line with no details. I believe they have put many months of intense work into the scenario they are trying to put across. At first, when I heard Amanda's testimony, I was amazed they let her continue to say that they called 112 before the postal police came. I thought that they would have worked together with her and with the phone records to fix her statement. Then it became clear to me that they had worked over the phone records with her, because many little inaccuracies in the e-mail for example had become fixed....

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying that Amanda's and Raffaele's populated and expensive legal teams haven't been doing their work over the last year and a half. I'm sure these people are top quality defence lawyers, and that they've tried dozens of combinations of explanations for all sorts of aspects of the evidence, before even stepping into the courtroom.

And then they finally decide that it's best to keep Raffaele quiet and work actively to show that Rudy was the one and only criminal, in the case of RS, and in the case of Amanda, follow the "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid) focus : at home with Raffaele, the odd email on his unconnected and inactive PC, a bit of Harry Potter and then the bathmat boogie the next morning.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:59 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
(This said, his description of Filomena on the stand is quite comical.) Bolint also expressed disappointment at the postal police testimony and the fact that pointed questions about timing were apparently not asked.


Personally, I did not find Frank's description that comical, as it seemed to me that his disapproval of her was somehow due to the fact that he did not find her "hot" enough. Not a fun party girl, that Filomena.

Whether or not pointed questions were asked is another matter. However, one thing that strikes me as obvious is that when Battistelli signed off on the arrival time, it was not with the knowledge that cell phone records would later show that AK and RS had made their calls after the arrival of the postal police.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael,

quote]I don't think the money was taken because it was 'wanted and 'needed' alone, but also because there had to be a 'theft' if they were to pull off the impression of a fake burglary. The theft of the money therefore, was not only convenient for the thief, but actually a requirement for staging the scene and taking money was easier then other items that would need to be disposed of, whereas, cash is easily spent and it's light. Moreover, Meredith didn't need it any more, so to have left it would have been a waste (in an opportunist's eyes).[/quote]

Okay, that makes sense. But it still doesn't solve why there wasn't ANY DNA found of the two other than the disputed bra clasp.

Quote:
How could you possibly know that? How also could you possibly know how Patrick's buisness would have fared had it not have been for this? Fact: before he was accused by Amanda his buisness had a chance and that chance lay in his own hands. After, it had none at all and it was no longer down to him.

Is this cynical statement meant somehow to excuse what Amanda did? It seems like what you are implying is 'well, his buisness was going to fall apart anyway, so it doesn't matter what Amanda did...no foul there'. Have I got you right?

It didn't fail because of the 'notoriety of Meredith's death' anyway. It failed because his bar was sealed by the police for well over 6 months by the police (yet he still had to pay the rent for the premises as well as make repayments on any loans he may have had for it, along with rent for his home and day to day bills) because he was an official murder suspect and then when the seals were finally removed and it did re-open he found he'd been tainted by his association with the case ( a bloody sex murder no less) and nobody wanted to come to his bar anymore.


True on the chance being in his hands, and we'll not know how he fared if this whole mess hadn't of happened. However, he was released after two weeks. And the placed was sealed by the police. If it was closed for over six months, then there is definitely egg on my face and I apologize. I cannot find this on the Internet however. How long did the police keep his bar closed? And I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely curious.

I also don't believe "murder association" would hurt a pubs business...in fact most thrive from that kind of stuff.

FC
Top

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SB

Quote:
I doubt the police were reading the tabloids, though, so they probably missed this rendition of the post crime environment.


I disagree on this. I dated an agent for awhile. They luuurve this kind of stuff. Especially if they got their names in it.

FC
Top

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian wrote:
I don't think the police can "prove" that the E215 Amanda had in her pocket belonged to Meredith but I also don't think Amanda can "prove" she withdrew it from the bank. So where did it come from?


Actually Brian, Charlie Wilkes has been shouting you on Sfarzo's claiming he is in possession of Amanda's bank statements showing that she withdraw E300 on the 1st. Of course, he hasn't published the statement...nor probably could he if he did possess it, so it's a take his word for it on that one. But, if he's correct, the money found on Amanda can be accounted for due to that withdrawl.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
And to tell you that's more Patrick's problem then AK's. I think she took the first job possible. And to tell you the truth, I don't think Patrick's business "Failed b/c of the notoriety of the MK death", I think the place was on its last legs anyway.

FC


How could you possibly know that? How also could you possibly know how Patrick's buisness would have fared had it not have been for this? Fact: before he was accused by Amanda his buisness had a chance and that chance lay in his own hands. After, it had none at all and it was no longer down to him.


FC has probably been listening to Chris Mellas and his friends, who have been suggesting this for some time. It is important to them to believe that Patrick's business was crumbling anyway. I don't have time to check it out yet again, but maybe Frumpy could go back through the archives and find the source for that. Better yet, Frumpy might find press references to the fact that Lumumba's bar had only recently opened. At least that is my recollection. If so, it was more on its first legs than its last legs. But it certainly did not survive several months of closure.


Patrick opened the bar that Summer and got it ready for the intake of students in the fall. He must have only had a couple of months "real" trading behind him. But there is absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn't have been a success, Patrick was well known in Perugia for organising events and musical occasions. He'd been well involved in student social/cultural events for years.
Top Profile 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:07 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Kermit

Quote:
Frumpycat, just as one small, tiny example, every time there's a Champions League or UEFA football (soccer) match, there are thousands of Europeans from one country who travel to another, and what with the drink and the hooligans, inevitably there are a few cases of violence, sometimes a knifing, sometimes even more rarely a killing. It makes the news, but for the cops it's just another night on the beat.

The Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy attract Europeans from the north. We're used to "international crime" here. Nothing that will upset international relations or make a prosecutors cheeks turn red.


And I'm a Manchester City fan and I disagree. Its not a fair equation to compare a football match where someone stabs someone in the buttocks the same as this trial. And we've also got an American national in the mix. This is a big deal. How many times have we fought over extradition on nearly everything? From banking to the death penalty?

FC
Top

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Finally, the series of propositions put forward to refute the thesis that calls by Sollecito to "112" were made only after the arrival of the Postal Police has no value either. Apart from the content of the calls in question, during which Sollecito says that nothing had been stolen, while there was a locked door (to a room) whose occupant who was being looked for but who was not answering, and in front of which there were drops of blood (theoretically he would have been able to rely on what Knox was saying to him about the apparent state of the premises in order to draw the conclusion that nothing was missing), it is obvious that he called his sister - an officer of the Carabinieri - at 12.50, then "112" at 12.51 and at 12.54. The records of the Postal Police, signed by Inspector Battistelli, indicated the time of arrival of the team at 12.35, and according to the surveillance cameras of the Sant'Antonio carpark which report a time to be rounded off, perhaps the police arrived even earlier.

It has been claimed that in their reports of that visit the police officers do not say either that they identified those present straight away, or that they immediately stated who they themselves were, but certainly it is unthinkable that for a quarter of an hour or more they wandered around or that they were just there looking; then the fact that Battistelli refers to having come to the premises because two mobile phone had been found is challenged, since Signora Lana's statement about the second phone being found was recorded only at 12.46; finally, according to Luca Altieri, the police officers were in the kitchen with the two mobile phones on the table. To support such assumptions, it is acknowledged that the briefing of the Head of the Postal Police notes that Signora Lana had returned to hand in a second mobile phone and that in the light of what had emerged, it had been decided to send officers to Via della Pergola.


Thanks for the translation Tiziano.

Unfortunately, I guess it doesn't prove what I hoped it would.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:11 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thuoghtful wrote:

Quote:
So there you have it. I, a research scientist by profession and writer of crime fiction on the side, am discovering that there is a part of me that reason alone simply will not reach, no matter how convincing. Only some kind of intuition seems to get there. It's shocking but it's human. It's probably exactly the reason for which juries are notoriously unpredictable.


I am not at all shocked by your "confession" about intuition -- just look at the Pascal citation that is tacked on to all of my posts. It is there for a reason, but also perhaps is an intuition about how we arrive at the truth. If I have understood correctly, you feel intuitively that AK and RS were involved, but you can't get there just by examining the evidence because all of that, taken individually, can be explained away. In any case, an alternative explanation -- more or less plausible -- can be put forth.

I can understood your point of view. For me, it all comes down to credibility and integrity. If I have a prima facie bias, it is that people lie for a reason.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:17 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
SB

Quote:
I doubt the police were reading the tabloids, though, so they probably missed this rendition of the post crime environment.


I disagree on this. I dated an agent for awhile. They luuurve this kind of stuff. Especially if they got their names in it.

FC


I was actually being facetious because your comment was ridiculous but I guess you didn't get it. I have LEO's in my family entourage. And mine don't use the tabloids in their casework. Also, in my family entourage, getting your name in the papers or tabloids isn't something to strive for. My LEO people just want to be top-notch professionals.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:

Quote:
True on the chance being in his hands, and we'll not know how he fared if this whole mess hadn't of happened. However, he was released after two weeks. And the placed was sealed by the police. If it was closed for over six months, then there is definitely egg on my face and I apologize. I cannot find this on the Internet however. How long did the police keep his bar closed? And I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely curious.



Thanks for specifying that you were not being snide.

As for the information about the pub, it is out there on the Internet. You just have to look harder. Don't worry; take your time. There is lots to read about this case.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Kermit - Um, does it matter to you who Finn is in contact with? Do you ask The Cook where she gets her print outs from or Charlie Wilkes where he gets his footprint images from? At the end of the day, Finn's phone call records come from the Investigation report, just like Charlie's footprints (except for the homegrown pink overlay, of course).


Quote:
Michael - Frumpy, I suggest you back off of that line of questioning. Just as many journalists and bloggers have, we (as a community) have been following this case from the very beginning...that's more then a year and a half, literally around the clock each and every day. Over that time, we have built up our own sources of information and these have allowed us direct access to a range of original case records and documents. We are not going to post up the originals or name the sources unless we have permission and it's safe to do so. This is to protect our sources and that is the golden rule in the journalistic world. We will happily post up whatever source material whenever we can, but if we don't, it is either to protect the sources, or because it would breach the privacy of certain individuals who are not accused of any crimes in the case or, would be in breach of Italian law to do so. Sometimes, it is a combination of those things. But, I can confirm to you that Finn's data is correct. You'll just have to take my word on that. I'll also simply say, none of our documents come directly from either the prosecution or the defence.

The only exception to the latter, may possibly be within some of the information provided in earlier reports by Stewart Home, whom I believe while in the court room got into discussions with the defence teams and on those occassions, I believe Stewart made it clear who his sources were, so those were declared.

That's all you need to know, all you're going to know and you either accept it or you don't. But, from this point, when someone explains to you that their information comes from a source they cannot reveal and they can't publish the original file due to strong reasons, please don't push it. By all means, feel to doubt peoples' word and be skeptical (although that principle should then be applied equally across the blogsphere and to journalists if so), but don't pressure people to do what they are not at liberty to do.


Quote:
SB - This also goes for urging people to publish private email content. The phone records contain the phone numbers of real individuals and they have a right to expect non-disclosure of that information.


I was not trying to coerce people into admitting their secret sources that they have culled over the past year. I am not urging people to publish private email content. My point is I want clarity where they got it fro. If they can say:
- It's online - go to it - great
- It's my secret source close to the case - great as well

It leaves me room on what I believe I am able to corroborate and what I can't. I am not trying to "out" anyone, and I think what happened to SB sucked.

And that leads me to this:

Quote:
Michael - Why not, after all, they tried to recruit us, or Skep at least. This was back when we were on the TCWMB and they had the cheek to try it after formerly doing their damndest to sabotage us on Haloscan. They offered Skep the keys to the kingdom...the full Amanda prison diary and private showings of evidence from the case files round the Mellas house (or at their lawyers' office, I forget which exactly). All Skep had to do was give them her word that she wouldn't breath a squeak about it to the TCWMB membership. Naturally, Skep refused on those terms. Without a doubt, that was an attempt to 'turn' Skep. After she refused they got quite nasty with her again and we had to ban them from the forum. They didn't do this openly on the board of course, this was all via PM. Skep had Chris Mellas in one PM box and Goofy in another at the same time as they worked on her together. They didn't try this on me, because I didn't live locally in Seattle like Skep, so they couldn't give me private showings to turn me. They never forgave her for turning them down and Skep and her family have been subject to non-stop abuse from them ever since.


If that is true I am very upset with the defense...I can see trying to combat an incredibly slanderous, negative image in the Italian and Brit press... but to try and subvert someone locally? That's wrong.

FC
Top

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks

Quote:
Thanks for specifying that you were not being snide.


I realize after posting here I better caveat everything. I'm not coming here "gunz a blayzin" and trying to go all "loco". But I do realize, on rereading some of my posts I can come off as hostile, especially if someone is diametrically opposed to me.

"If we shadows have offended,Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear."

Call me out on anything you find offensive and I can at least explain where I was coming from, if in the wrong, I will apologize.

And I will say, tho the whole Knox picture thing by the house was stuuuupid (I just found out a couple of hours ago), I just want to shout out to Yummi and say thanks, those are my feelings exactly. Unbelievably stupid, but ignorance behind it, not malice. Yummi, you rock.

FC
Top

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
Okay, that makes sense. But it still doesn't solve why there wasn't ANY DNA found of the two other than the disputed bra clasp.


The 'disputed' bra clasp? Trust me, were it found in two or three other places in the room, that would be 'disputed' too...that's the defences' job! What do you expect from them other then to dispute the evidence...'oh...yeah...fair cop'?

It seems you've been sold the fantasy line about dna. It's clear you believe that in regard to dna we are paint brushes and that dna is emulsion and we just paint it all over the place. It actually is extremely difficult to leave dna. It actually requires the deposition of bodily fluids, or vigorous friction or parts of the body being yanked off/out (ie, hair and that has to be yanked out...not 'shed').

Let me turn this around, just to give you an idea.

Raffaele had visited the cottage on multiple occassions and probaly altogether had been in the cottage for multiple hours. How many places after all that was his dna found in the 'whole' cottage? One. On a cigarette but in th kicthen and it being on something like that wouldn't be surprising, since it would have been in contact with saliva (a bodily fluid). Yet, his dna was found nowhere else in the cottage. Except that is, in Meredith Kercher's room on her cut off bra clasp, a room that if guilty of the crime, he'd have been in for no more then an hour but most probably less. So, how is it only one trace of his dna being found in a room in which he'd have been in for probably less then an hour is so shocking when only one trace of his dna was found in the rest of the cottage where he had been for mutliple hours?

How is it therefore possible, that even as you yourself admit, not one single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found 'on' Meredith's body? She should be literally 'covered' in his dna if it works the way you seem to think it does.

How is it possible, that no single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found in Laura's room, which he had supposedly gone through, in the small bathroom which he actually admitted entering to get towels, in Filomena's bedroom he supposedly ransacked and had entered through the window and traces of him weren't found outside the window either? How is this possible?

Absence of dna is not proof of the absence of the individual. But as it happens, we do have dna in Meredith's room from all 3 of the accused. It seems though, you are inventing your own arbitrary rules, nothing to do with actual science, rather your own preconceived notions of dna...that the dna levels of Raffaele and Amanda in Meredith's room should exactly match those of Guede.

That's no law created by any forensic scientist. Maybe you need to not impose your own preconceived notions on what 'should' be, especially as a) you're no geneticist and b) the examples I've given above shows them to be intrinsically flawed in their premise.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks for the headsup Michael.

Charlie, I gave up reading the comments long ago hence I missed you:

Quote:
Charlie Wilkes said...

Ping Brian S.

I have Amanda's bank statement. On the weekend of the murder, she withdrew $361.54 (250 Euro). That is the money she was carrying when she was arrested.

July 10, 2009




Quote:
Anonymous said...

Charlie Wilkes said...
Ping Brian S.

I have Amanda's bank statement. On the weekend of the murder, she withdrew $361.54 (250 Euro). That is the money she was carrying when she was arrested.


Date? Time? Location? She had 215 euros on her when she was arrested is that correct?

In the email home sent in the wee hours of Sunday, November 4th, Knox was upset about having to pay rent; she said "it sucks".

Rent was 300. She must have had plenty of cash on her to cover the balance. Plus go shopping for underwear, pizza etc.

Did she ever pay her rent Charlie?


That following comment didn't come from me but it raises a couple of points.

I've always thought the rent was in fact only E250.

Now the question you've got to answer Charlie is "Did Amanda ever give that money to Filomena?" If she didn't then I guess she can explain the money with which she was arrested and I'll let my suspicions go about that.


EDIT to ask something of Thoughtful:

Amanda spoke to Filomena on the phone from the police waiting room on the 5th about the rent and accomodation. Did she give any impression about whether she had given the money to Filomena or whether Filomena may have paid the rent or not?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
And I'm a Manchester City fan and I disagree. Its not a fair equation to compare a football match where someone stabs someone in the buttocks the same as this trial. And we've also got an American national in the mix. This is a big deal. How many times have we fought over extradition on nearly everything? From banking to the death penalty?


You must either be rather young, or not follow the news very much if you think the only English football fan casualty abroad was one who suffered a painful indignity to his bottom. Over the years, multiple English football fans have been murdered in foreign countries while supporting their respective teams.

The American national in the mix did not even enter the case in the public eye until the 6th Nov, 2007. The first forensic inspection of the cottage and the subsequent post mortem on Meredith all took place before Amanda Knox was even in the frame. The police ideas of what had happened in the cottage where first formed then...only at that time they didn't have any firm idea of 'who' was responsible.

As for being a Manchester City fan...I won't hold it against you.

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


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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael

Quote:
The 'disputed' bra clasp? Trust me, were it found in two or three other places in the room, that would be 'disputed' too...that's the defences' job! What do you expect from them other then to dispute the evidence...'oh...yeah...fair cop'?

It seems you've been sold the fantasy line about dna. It's clear you believe that in regard to dna we are paint brushes and that dna is emulsion and we just paint it all over the place. It actually is extremely difficult to leave dna. It actually requires the deposition of bodily fluids, or vigorous friction or parts of the body being yanked off/out (ie, hair and that has to be yanked out...not 'shed').

Let me turn this around, just to give you an idea.

Raffaele had visited the cottage on multiple occassions and probaly altogether had been in the cottage for multiple hours. How many places after all that was his dna found in the 'whole' cottage? One. On a cigarette but in th kicthen and it being on something like that wouldn't be surprising, since it would have been in contact with saliva (a bodily fluid). Yet, his dna was found nowhere else in the cottage. Except that is, in Meredith Kercher's room on her cut off bra clasp, a room that if guilty of the crime, he'd have been in for no more then an hour but most probably less. So, how is it only one trace of his dna being found in a room in which he'd have been in for probably less then an hour is so shocking when only one trace of his dna was found in the rest of the cottage where he had been for mutliple hours?

How is it therefore possible, that even as you yourself admit, not one single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found 'on' Meredith's body? She should be literally 'covered' in his dna if it works the way you seem to think it does.

How is it possible, that no single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found in Laura's room, which he had supposedly gone through, in the small bathroom which he actually admitted entering to get towels, in Filomena's bedroom he supposedly ransacked and had entered through the window and traces of him weren't found outside the window either? How is this possible?

Absence of dna is not proof of the absence of the individual. But as it happens, we do have dna in Meredith's room from all 3 of the accused. It seems though, you are inventing your own arbitrary rules, nothing to do with actual science, rather your own preconceived notions of dna...that the dna levels of Raffaele and Amanda in Meredith's room should exactly match those of Guede.

That's no law created by any forensic scientist. Maybe you need to not impose your own preconceived notions on what 'should' be, especially as a) you're no geneticist and b) the examples I've given above shows them to be intrinsically flawed in their premise.


My original point was there was none of their DNA found other than the disputed bra clasp. They found RG's DNA yet none of AK and RS's except for this bra clasp.

"The 'disputed' bra clasp? Trust me, were it found in two or three other places in the room, that would be 'disputed' too...that's the defences' job! What do you expect from them other then to dispute the evidence...'oh...yeah...fair cop'?"

But no DNA was found and its not being disputed because it doesn't exist and was not brought up in trial. I can't debate something that hasn't happened.

"It seems you've been sold the fantasy line about dna. It's clear you believe that in regard to dna we are paint brushes and that dna is emulsion and we just paint it all over the place. It actually is extremely difficult to leave dna. It actually requires the deposition of bodily fluids, or vigorous friction or parts of the body being yanked off/out (ie, hair and that has to be yanked out...not 'shed')."

I almost failed an upper organic chemistry course...does that count? :D

Seriously, you live in a place, your DNA is gonna be there. Imagine a friend of yours drunk, puking in your living room. Would love to see that come up under luminol. This was a college (and somewhat) party house.

When I was an RA I remember wondering why the bed was having trouble seperating from the wall when cleaning a room over summer break and realizing it was from used condoms gluing it to the wall. And I went to a good school. College kids are VILE, VILE I tell you!

"Except that is, in Meredith Kercher's room on her cut off bra clasp, a room that if guilty of the crime, he'd have been in for no more then an hour but most probably less. So, how is it only one trace of his dna being found in a room in which he'd have been in for probably less then an hour is so shocking when only one trace of his dna was found in the rest of the cottage where he had been for mutliple hours?"

Yet again, this is a piece of evidence that the police, after 40 days of kicking around the cottage, decided to pick up, and finally found important. After hearing about how they recalibrated the machine I wouldn't be surprised if his DNA was showing up in hot dogs in the fridge.

"How is it possible, that no single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found in Laura's room, which he had supposedly gone through, in the small bathroom which he actually admitted entering to get towels, in Filomena's bedroom he supposedly ransacked and had entered through the window and traces of him weren't found outside the window either? How is this possible?"

Cuz I don't think the police checked for it correctly. Just like they couldn't find any evidence of AK's fingerprints in her room. When asked? Oh, we didn't test there.

"Absence of dna is not proof of the absence of the individual. But as it happens, we do have dna in Meredith's room from all 3 of the accused. It seems though, you are inventing your own arbitrary rules, nothing to do with actual science, rather your own preconceived notions of dna...that the dna levels of Raffaele and Amanda in Meredith's room should exactly match those of Guede.

That's no law created by any forensic scientist. Maybe you need to not impose your own preconceived notions on what 'should' be, especially as a) you're no geneticist and b) the examples I've given above shows them to be intrinsically flawed in their premise."

And you are not a geneticist either, and if the absence of dna is not such a big deal, ask the prosecution, their entire case seems to hinge on a tiny sample on a knife and a couple of mixed drop spots in a shared bathroom and by a windowsill.

FC
Top

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC -

You are of the 'dude' tribe of California right? You were wondering if you could have a 'dude' pass on PMF as you can't stop saying the word?

_________________
"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 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael,

Quote:
You must either be rather young, or not follow the news very much if you think the only English football fan casualty abroad was one who suffered a painful indignity to his bottom. Over the years, multiple English football fans have been murdered in foreign countries while supporting their respective teams.

The American national in the mix did not even enter the case in the public eye until the 6th Nov, 2007. The first forensic inspection of the cottage and the subsequent post mortem on Meredith all took place before Amanda Knox was even in the frame. The police ideas of what had happened in the cottage where first formed then...only at that time they didn't have any firm idea of 'who' was responsible.

As for being a Manchester City fan...I won't hold it against you.


I think every English footie fan abroad is a causality. :D

Blue Moon, you saw me standing alone,
Without a dream in my heart,
Without a love of my own..

"The American national in the mix did not even enter the case in the public eye until the 6th Nov, 2007. The first forensic inspection of the cottage and the subsequent post mortem on Meredith all took place before Amanda Knox was even in the frame. The police ideas of what had happened in the cottage where first formed then...only at that time they didn't have any firm idea of 'who' was responsible."

I'm not talking forensics, even tho, those were shady as all get out, I'm talking about the plods who were writing in their times. Once this got to drama, and their bosses were "where were you", I'm not counting out some creative writing.

FC
Top

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:08 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:

Quote:
I realize after posting here I better caveat everything. I'm not coming here "gunz a blayzin" and trying to go all "loco". But I do realize, on rereading some of my posts I can come off as hostile, especially if someone is diametrically opposed to me.

"If we shadows have offended,Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear."

Call me out on anything you find offensive and I can at least explain where I was coming from, if in the wrong, I will apologize.


Maybe you should reread and amend the hostility out of your posts before hitting the send button. The fact that you recognize it means that you can correct it privately, rather than creating a situation and then having to apologize. That sounds like attention-seeking behavior.

We try not to make this board about the personalities of its posters. That is tedious for everyone. I feel you are trying a little too hard to promote an atmosphere of hostility by using the same old talking points we have heard for months and months. Intelligent opposing views are always welcome, but hostility and argument for argument's sake are not. Also, if your goal is to take the opposing view on everything, you are much more likely to be taken seriously if you have your facts straight and if you don't misrepresent the arguments put forth by others.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:08 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael

Quote:
FC -

You are of the 'dude' tribe of California right? You were wondering if you could have a 'dude' pass on PMF as you can't stop saying the word?


That's not me, I posted last when I said the "d" word. And I wouldn't, obviously, slag someone else for using it.

FC
Top

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:12 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Hungarian, your message was very interesting.
Quote:
This hypothesizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile intellectually...


Now, I would disagree with this, intellectually. I think this hypothesizing is fascinating intellectually and that the most interesting role played in the case at this point, the most challenging, the most difficult, the most intriguing to understand, is the role of the defending lawyers.

However, I detect something else in your remarks. Maybe what you meant to say was something more like:
Quote:
This hypothesizing all the time in the name of the 'defence' is a bit fragile emotionally...


My feeling from your message is that you are annoyed because you feel that what I am really trying to do is prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and that I'm hiding this purpose (possibly even from myself) behind a mask of "just determining what the defense position is".

Well, in a way that's true, I'm trying to build the best argument for their being innocent. But the reason for my doing this is not because I actually believe that they are innocent. I'm not exactly sure why I am doing it (with "fervour", even!). I mean, on the purely intellectual level I really am fascinated by the whole trial aspect of the case independently of guilt, as I have said before, and particularly by the defense. But you seem to be questioning the deeper reason behind this fascination, and there I'd have to admit that I don't really know. I believe that while I cannot make myself believe that they are innocent, I must somehow really wish deep down that I could believe it.

Maybe I really am more than one person and "we" all believe different things?!



Thoughtful, okay, I never questioned your belief or desire for them to be innocent. What I don't understand is what your problem is with the exact hour and minute (the approximatively exact hour and minute) of the arrival of the postal police. This is something I don't understand. It is simply irrational to pretend to beleive, that the postal police was falsifying facts the very moment they arrived to the scene -- just in case, in the future, somebody would have the case of calling the police after the police has arrived -- otherwise I respect even multiple convictions of anybody, even yours -- but to get around this tiny little fact and then connect it with an other momentum, the stepping or not stepping in the room of Meredith of the postal police guy, to question his authenticity or truthfulness -- that's stretching it a bit far, and my problem is, that I knew it was coming, before you even posted it. Best regards to your multiple identities --
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:13 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Michael,

Quote:
You must either be rather young, or not follow the news very much if you think the only English football fan casualty abroad was one who suffered a painful indignity to his bottom. Over the years, multiple English football fans have been murdered in foreign countries while supporting their respective teams.

The American national in the mix did not even enter the case in the public eye until the 6th Nov, 2007. The first forensic inspection of the cottage and the subsequent post mortem on Meredith all took place before Amanda Knox was even in the frame. The police ideas of what had happened in the cottage where first formed then...only at that time they didn't have any firm idea of 'who' was responsible.

As for being a Manchester City fan...I won't hold it against you.


I think every English footie fan abroad is a causality. :D

Blue Moon, you saw me standing alone,
Without a dream in my heart,
Without a love of my own..

"The American national in the mix did not even enter the case in the public eye until the 6th Nov, 2007. The first forensic inspection of the cottage and the subsequent post mortem on Meredith all took place before Amanda Knox was even in the frame. The police ideas of what had happened in the cottage where first formed then...only at that time they didn't have any firm idea of 'who' was responsible."

I'm not talking forensics, even tho, those were shady as all get out, I'm talking about the plods who were writing in their times. Once this got to drama, and their bosses were "where were you", I'm not counting out some creative writing.

FC


Oh, right, just like on television crime shows. Where the bosses are all like, where were you and you're like, well shit I was dating Agent Hotness and now I have to lie about the time. Or maybe I was at Dunkin' Donuts having coffee with the other officers and now I'm like all, shit, I'm going to get in trouble. Except since it's Italy, land of the Shady forensics (or as Anne B said, Fellini forensics), I guess I was like, in a friggin' pizza parlor or something. Umm, what were we talking about again? 'Cuz I'm like totally lost, dude.

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

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:16 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:

And I will say, tho the whole Knox picture thing by the house was stuuuupid (I just found out a couple of hours ago), I just want to shout out to Yummi and say thanks, those are my feelings exactly. Unbelievably stupid, but ignorance behind it, not malice. Yummi, you rock.

FC



For the record, not one poster on this board thought the pictures taken of the sisters next to the cottage were motivated by malice. ISTM we all viewed it as reflecting the type of mothering Amanda experienced as a child. Edda, apparently makes decisions based on self interests without looking at the consequences. It is becoming clearer as to why Amanda's escalating use of drugs and risky sexual experiences just seems like normal "young adult" behavior to her family.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:19 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
But no DNA was found and its not being disputed because it doesn't exist and was not brought up in trial. I can't debate something that hasn't happened.


But it DOES exist, it's on Meredith's bra clasp...in COPIOUS amounts.

FC wrote:
Yet again, this is a piece of evidence that the police, after 40 days of kicking around the cottage, decided to pick up, and finally found important. After hearing about how they recalibrated the machine I wouldn't be surprised if his DNA was showing up in hot dogs in the fridge.


It wasn't 'kicked around the cottage' for 40 days. It never left Meredith's room and her room was sealed, as was indeed the whole cottage for those 40 days after the first examination by police, a first examination that was done with proper protocols. If you're going to make statements like 'kicked around the cottage for 40 days' you need to provide evidence of that or not make them in the first place.



FC wrote:
And you are not a geneticist either, and if the absence of dna is not such a big deal, ask the prosecution, their entire case seems to hinge on a tiny sample on a knife and a couple of mixed drop spots in a shared bathroom and by a windowsill.


Well look, either you're right...which means Rudy Guede is clearly completely innocent of the break-in to the cottage and the ransacking of Filomena's and Laura's rooms due to it being 'proved' by his 'complete absence' of DNA, or, I'm right and it is quite possible to interact with ones environment quite vigorously and 'not' leave dna evidence in which case, Guede isn't on the basis of the absence of his dna from those areas proven innocent of entering the cottage via the window and ransacking the rooms.

So, which one is it? Your choice.

_________________
"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 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SB

Quote:
Maybe you should reread and amend the hostility out of your posts before hitting the send button. The fact that you recognize it means that you can correct it privately, rather than creating a situation and then having to apologize. That sounds like attention-seeking behavior.

We try not to make this board about the personalities of its posters. That is tedious for everyone. I feel you are trying a little too hard to promote an atmosphere of hostility by using the same old talking points we have heard for months and months. Intelligent opposing views are always welcome, but hostility and argument for argument's sake are not. Also, if your goal is to take the opposing view on everything, you are much more likely to be taken seriously if you have your facts straight and if you don't misrepresent the arguments put forth by others.


Argh...there was no hostility meant in my last posts.

- I am not arguing for arguments sake.
- I am not trying to misrepresent anyone.
- Occasionally points like there "was none of AK nor RS" DNA tends to be salient points in the argument. Here's a counterpoint...look how many times the bucket and mop, and the lack of fingerprints came up which were for naught. I'm not being argumentative, I'm just saying that until something comes that blows it out of the water, then I still think its a fair conversation point if it comes up in the context of the argument. An example of this would be - they stole the money! I feel its very valid to state, "their DNA was not in the room where the money was stolen, however, RG's was found on the outside of her purse".
- And I'm not on the opposite side of everything. And...also, is that necessarily a bad thing....a devil's advocate? Not for stupid stuff like "should we throw out RGs DNA?" etc, but for things like "cartwheels are obviously a sign of dementia and should lead to suspicion." You may agree with that, but I believe its debatable.

FC
Top

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:27 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Indie

Quote:
For the record, not one poster on this board thought the pictures taken of the sisters next to the cottage were motivated by malice. ISTM we all viewed it as reflecting the type of mothering Amanda experienced as a child. Edda, apparently makes decisions based on self interests without looking at the consequences. It is becoming clearer as to why Amanda's escalating use of drugs and risky sexual experiences just seems like normal "young adult" behavior to her family.


I think its a stretch, for one massive faux paus, to be judged on your lifelong mothering skills. Amanda smoked pot. Rudy did Cocaine, was thieving and harassing women. Rudy had been booted from his house. If you want to see a case study in disfunctionality look at him. I sure don't know of many stoner murderers, ... coke and meth heads however...heck yes. And some of the stuff said about them above, reread them, yowtch. 10 years from now all of Eddas kids will be through college.

FC
Top

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:28 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Skep, it's impossible to answer your question without getting personal about my own feelings. This will probably make my post annoying to some so maybe I'd better put out a warning sign:

PERSONAL FEELINGS NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO FACTS OF CASE AND POSSIBLY INFURIATING TO MANY
(Do not read if "thoughtful" irritates you)

Here's the thing, Skep: I can't rationally explain why the oft-repeated "13 separate pieces of forensic evidence" don't create a state of emotional conviction in me; it just seems to me that they could all be explained in natural ways (e.g. Amanda went all over the house barefoot leaving DNA here and there and Meredith's blood was tracked into it...Amanda cooked with Raffaele's knife...etc.etc.) Nor can I rationally explain why the much-considered pieces of circumstantial evidence don't create emotional conviction in me either; I just don't think cartwheels and flagrant insensitivity prove guilt, I don't really believe that Quintavalle necessarily saw her since Chiriboga was there too and saw nothing, I don't really believe Kokomani, I'm not completely convinced that Amanda was wildly jealous of an infinitely superior and saint-like Meredith (although I have considered the fact that she felt humiliated by the slight tinge of contempt and disapproval she may have been getting from Meredith and also from Patrick). I take all these things into account but I just don't feel utterly convinced by them as some here definitely do. Certains me trouveront débile mais c'est comme ça; je ne choisis pas, je m'observe, je constate et cela me surprend moi-même.

So it's down to knowing whether or not I feel she is telling the truth or lying, whence the immense importance for me of determining whether she is a liar. To determine this, it's theoretically necessary to test her statements as thoroughly as possible to see if they can possibly hold water, which was the purpose of my exercise.

Yet at the same time, I feel intimately that she is a liar. I could hear lies in her voice at certain points, for example when she denied knowing about the marijuana plantation, or when she gave that cutesy description of herself doing the bathmat shuffle and "accidentally" sometimes putting one wet foot off the mat and directly onto the floor. I listened to her voice for hours and I wasn't able to come out of it and say to myself: "She's innocent as the day. She's hiding nothing."

So there you have it. I, a research scientist by profession and writer of crime fiction on the side, am discovering that there is a part of me that reason alone simply will not reach, no matter how convincing. Only some kind of intuition seems to get there. It's shocking but it's human. It's probably exactly the reason for which juries are notoriously unpredictable.


I am sorry thoughtful but Quintavalle and Chiriboga weren't at the same point at the same time -- they were not standing side by side, were they? to see or not to see the same ephemeral phenomemon -- and what about Curatolo? you left him out -- I also have mixed feelings about the very heterogenous mix of forensic evidence, but put together -- with a lot of other facts -- they are quite strong I think --
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Michael

Quote:
FC -

You are of the 'dude' tribe of California right? You were wondering if you could have a 'dude' pass on PMF as you can't stop saying the word?


That's not me, I posted last when I said the "d" word. And I wouldn't, obviously, slag someone else for using it.

FC


Nah, that's not what I was getting at Frumpy.

What I was actually wondering, just to share my mind with you....is just....how exactly would Manchester City Football Club in cold, windy, rainy Northern England fit into the 'Californian dude subculture' you claim to hail from exactly?

_________________
"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 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael,

Quote:
FC wrote:
But no DNA was found and its not being disputed because it doesn't exist and was not brought up in trial. I can't debate something that hasn't happened.


But it DOES exist, it's on Meredith's bra clasp...in COPIOUS amounts.

FC wrote:
Yet again, this is a piece of evidence that the police, after 40 days of kicking around the cottage, decided to pick up, and finally found important. After hearing about how they recalibrated the machine I wouldn't be surprised if his DNA was showing up in hot dogs in the fridge.


It wasn't 'kicked around the cottage' for 40 days. It never left Meredith's room and her room was sealed, as was indeed the whole cottage for those 40 days after the first examination by police, a first examination that was done with proper protocols. If you're going to make statements like 'kicked around the cottage for 40 days' you need to provide evidence of that or not make them in the first place.



FC wrote:
And you are not a geneticist either, and if the absence of dna is not such a big deal, ask the prosecution, their entire case seems to hinge on a tiny sample on a knife and a couple of mixed drop spots in a shared bathroom and by a windowsill.


Well look, either you're right...which means Rudy Guede is clearly completely innocent of the break-in to the cottage and the ransacking of Filomena's and Laura's rooms due to it being 'proved' by his 'complete absence' of DNA, or, I'm right and it is quite possible to interact with ones environment quite vigorously and 'not' leave dna evidence in which case, Guede isn't on the basis of the absence of his dna from those areas proven innocent of entering the cottage via the window and ransacking the rooms.

So, which one is it? Your choice.



"But it DOES exist, it's on Meredith's bra clasp...in COPIOUS amounts."

Your argument was "what if" DNA had been found in other spots. I put the clasp into a different part of the argument.

"It wasn't 'kicked around the cottage' for 40 days. It never left Meredith's room and her room was sealed, as was indeed the whole cottage for those 40 days after the first examination by police, a first examination that was done with proper protocols. If you're going to make statements like 'kicked around the cottage for 40 days' you need to provide evidence of that or not make them in the first place."

Did they have a guard there 24/7? The clasp was left there for over 40 days. A policeman or aggressive journalist wanting to check things out for themselves? I would be more comfortable if they had taken the bit of evidence day one. I don't find this to be a reasonable doubt.

"Well look, either you're right...which means Rudy Guede is clearly completely innocent of the break-in to the cottage"

I never argued this. And I think the reason he left DNA in MK's room is he tried to rape her, got in a massive fight, and ended up killing her but filomena's stuff was before. All the DNA afterwards was a result of the trauma he caused. I'm starting to hypothesize she went to do a load of washing and ran into him.

Night all, gotta get ready for work. Cheers,

FC
Top

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:37 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
How is it possible, that no single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found in Laura's room, which he had supposedly gone through, in the small bathroom which he actually admitted entering to get towels, in Filomena's bedroom he supposedly ransacked and had entered through the window and traces of him weren't found outside the window either? How is this possible?

There were only 2 bathrooms in the (second floor of the) cottage, right? So I guess by the "small bathroom" you mean the one where Rudy left his calling card. Not only did they collect DNA from his feces, but I believe from the toilet paper as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:45 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
Rudy did Cocaine, was thieving and harassing women. Rudy had been booted from his house.


Do you have a source for any of that?

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


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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:46 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael

Quote:
What I was actually wondering, just to share my mind with you....is just....how exactly would Manchester City Football Club in cold, windy, rainy Northern England fit into the 'Californian dude subculture' you claim to hail from exactly?


Board went kerplooey before I could post...

Michael, you stated lets keep it anonymous, try not to dig into the past fine. But once I get to know you better, and this trial is almost done, you can ping me on it.

FC
Top

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael

Quote:
Do you have a source for any of that?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 776347.ece

gotta. get. ready. for. work.

FC
Top

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FC wrote:
Did they have a guard there 24/7? The clasp was left there for over 40 days. A policeman or aggressive journalist wanting to check things out for themselves? I would be more comfortable if they had taken the bit of evidence day one. I don't find this to be a reasonable doubt.


The cottage was locked and sealed. Unless you have any evidence someone else entered, you need to provide it. If you can't, I suggest your argument is without substance.

FC wrote:
I never argued this. And I think the reason he left DNA in MK's room is he tried to rape her, got in a massive fight, and ended up killing her but filomena's stuff was before. All the DNA afterwards was a result of the trauma he caused. I'm starting to hypothesize she went to do a load of washing and ran into him.


Well, since neither Raffaele or Amanda attempted to rape Meredith in the prosecution's scenario, doesn't that answer your own question, as per your theory above of the only way DNA gets left, of why, aside from on the bra clasp, their DNA is absent from her room, or at least, why it's in less places then Rudy's?

If the window was broken before, why is it then that micro glass fragments that are present in Filomena's room, the corridor and the kitchen are absent from Meredith's room?

What 'washing', since Meredith had done her washing (per Amanda) earlier that day?

By the way, when you return, I'd like you to address this from my previous post before you continue to do anything else:

Michael wrote:
Nah, that's not what I was getting at Frumpy.

What I was actually wondering, just to share my mind with you....is just....how exactly would Manchester City Football Club in cold, windy, rainy Northern England fit into the 'Californian dude subculture' you claim to hail from exactly?

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:11 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Michael

Quote:
Do you have a source for any of that?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 776347.ece

gotta. get. ready. for. work.

FC



You mean this:

"Judge Micheli admitted new evidence in the case, including the testimony of Abukar Mohamed Barrow, a Somali who played basketball with Mr Guede on Piazza Grimani, a basketball court and small public park just uphill from the cottage which Ms Kercher shared with Ms Knox, and where she was found with her throat cut."

You mean the same Abukar Barrow whose testimony Judge Micheli threw out for being completely false, the same Abukar Barrow who gave that testimony because he was paid several thousand euros by an Italian TV network to do so just before the hearing, the Abukar Barrow who Buiscotti the lawyer for Rudy Guede sensationally provided film footage in the court room of said Abukar Barrow negotiating the money with the TV reporter for agreeing to give such testimony and the very same Abukar Barrow, who under Judge Micheli's instructions as a result has been charged by the police for perverting the course of justice? That Abukar Barrow?

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:20 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Michael

Quote:
What I was actually wondering, just to share my mind with you....is just....how exactly would Manchester City Football Club in cold, windy, rainy Northern England fit into the 'Californian dude subculture' you claim to hail from exactly?


Board went kerplooey before I could post...

Michael, you stated lets keep it anonymous, try not to dig into the past fine. But once I get to know you better, and this trial is almost done, you can ping me on it.

FC



No...you see, we have a problem here. We keep getting people coming along claiming to be one person, not having an agenda, not having anything to do with the FOA or what have you and then the opposite turns out to true. Now, that isn't a crime in itself you understand...I'd be fine with it, if people are up front about it when they arrive. It's when the deceit comes in...then I have a problem with that. It's just a case of everyone being on the level and being able to trust that those they are engaging with are also. Trust is essential. We have a rule about 'good faith'.

So, I'll really be needing an answer to that dude.

_________________
"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 malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:28 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
[What 'washing', since Meredith had done her washing (per Amanda) earlier that day?

I thought there was a load of unwashed clothing of Meredith's in the washer. wash-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

malcolm wrote:
Michael wrote:
[What 'washing', since Meredith had done her washing (per Amanda) earlier that day?

I thought there was a load of unwashed clothing of Meredith's in the washer. wash-)


Indeed, there was Meredith's and Amanda's clothes mixed together in the washing machine...although they weren't unwashed, they'd been washed.

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:44 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

malcolm wrote:
Michael wrote:
How is it possible, that no single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found in Laura's room, which he had supposedly gone through, in the small bathroom which he actually admitted entering to get towels, in Filomena's bedroom he supposedly ransacked and had entered through the window and traces of him weren't found outside the window either? How is this possible?

There were only 2 bathrooms in the (second floor of the) cottage, right? So I guess by the "small bathroom" you mean the one where Rudy left his calling card. Not only did they collect DNA from his feces, but I believe from the toilet paper as well.


No, I meant the small bathroom...Meredith's and Amanda's bathroom. Rudy stated he entered that bathroom to get a towel to try and staunch the blood from Meredith's wound. The bathroom he left his mess in was the large bathroom, the other bathroom...that was the one used by Laura and Filomena.

_________________
"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 malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
"dove il SOLLECITO dice che non era stato rubato nulla"
"ma la signora LANA viene presa a verbale sul secondo telefono rinvenuto solo alle 12:46"
"si dà atto che l’informativa del Dirigente la Polizia Postale precisa che la signora LANA era tornata per consegnare un secondo cellulare"

Scuze my Google translation:

"where the early says that was not stolen anything"
"but the lady wool is taken on record on the second phone found only at 12:46 p.m"
"it is recognized that the Information Manager of the Police Post states that the wool had returned to deliver a second phone"


I love how Google is now translating the names, too. Il Sollecito is "the early" (why not "the reminder" or "the prompt"?) whereas la signora Lana is "the lady wool" or just "the wool."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
malcolm wrote:
Michael wrote:
How is it possible, that no single trace of Rudy Guede's dna was found in Laura's room, which he had supposedly gone through, in the small bathroom which he actually admitted entering to get towels, in Filomena's bedroom he supposedly ransacked and had entered through the window and traces of him weren't found outside the window either? How is this possible?

There were only 2 bathrooms in the (second floor of the) cottage, right? So I guess by the "small bathroom" you mean the one where Rudy left his calling card. Not only did they collect DNA from his feces, but I believe from the toilet paper as well.


No, I meant the small bathroom...Meredith's and Amanda's bathroom. Rudy stated he entered that bathroom to get a towel to try and staunch the blood from Meredith's wound. The bathroom he left his mess in was the large bathroom, the other bathroom...that was the one used by Laura and Filomena.

But he left his footprint on the bathmat in there. Surely that should count just as much as DNA. yr-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:05 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael,

Quote:
No...you see, we have a problem here. We keep getting people coming along claiming to be one person, not having an agenda, not having anything to do with the FOA or what have you and then the opposite turns out to true. Now, that isn't a crime in itself you understand...I'd be fine with it, if people are up front about it when they arrive. It's when the deceit comes in...then I have a problem with that. It's just a case of everyone being on the level and being able to trust that those they are engaging with are also. Trust is essential. We have a rule about 'good faith'.

So, I'll really be needing an answer to that dude.


About to go to bed and saw this. You are seriously going to ban me because you think I'm deceitful and that I'm some multiple entity? Here's my word: I'm a single entity. I have nothing to do with the FOA. Print that out. Highlight it. I will give you full knowledge of who I am after the trial. If you want to push it, ping me when I'm online. And I really, really don't appreciate this.

FC
Top

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Indeed, there was Meredith's and Amanda's clothes mixed together in the washing machine...although they weren't unwashed, they'd been washed.


Could you please supply a reference for this? There was a rumour that the washer was being used when the police arrived, and then there was a rumour that Filomena found the machine was "warm", with some versions of this story claiming that all the clothes were Meredith's, while others stating that it was a mixture of MK's and AK's clothing. And then most recently I read somewhere that the machine wasn't on and that the clothes in it were dirty, which actually makes the most sense, even if they are guilty. (In fact, if RG acted alone and thus did the cleanup himself afterwards, it would've been logical for him to wash all of MK's clothes instead of leaving them in the room. He wouldn't even have had to stick around for it to finish.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:22 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael

Quote:
No...you see, we have a problem here. We keep getting people coming along claiming to be one person, not having an agenda, not having anything to do with the FOA or what have you and then the opposite turns out to true. Now, that isn't a crime in itself you understand...I'd be fine with it, if people are up front about it when they arrive. It's when the deceit comes in...then I have a problem with that. It's just a case of everyone being on the level and being able to trust that those they are engaging with are also. Trust is essential. We have a rule about 'good faith'.

So, I'll really be needing an answer to that dude.


I am one single person. And then for me, this begs the question if there was a ton of people posting under my ip: would my arguments be any less valid? Would your defenses be weakened in any way? There could be a hundred of us and you should still be able to forward your arguments with ease.

Yet, its me.

FC
Top

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:26 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Michael,

Quote:
No...you see, we have a problem here. We keep getting people coming along claiming to be one person, not having an agenda, not having anything to do with the FOA or what have you and then the opposite turns out to true. Now, that isn't a crime in itself you understand...I'd be fine with it, if people are up front about it when they arrive. It's when the deceit comes in...then I have a problem with that. It's just a case of everyone being on the level and being able to trust that those they are engaging with are also. Trust is essential. We have a rule about 'good faith'.

So, I'll really be needing an answer to that dude.


About to go to bed and saw this. You are seriously going to ban me because you think I'm deceitful and that I'm some multiple entity? Here's my word: I'm a single entity. I have nothing to do with the FOA. Print that out. Highlight it. I will give you full knowledge of who I am after the trial. If you want to push it, ping me when I'm online. And I really, really don't appreciate this.

FC


I didn't mention the word 'ban' Frumpy.

But, I am concerned about the fact that one moment, you're a Californian surfer dude who can't stop saying, well...dude...because it's the 'Californian subculture' you hail from, yet the next minute you're a Mancunian Man City supporter, versed in English football fans' overseas travels and singing the lyrics of the Man City anthem at me. You also have only just arrived on the board, full of FOA talking points.

Now...put yourself in my place, wouldn't that look a bit suss to you? It's okay, you don't have to tell your story on the open board if you like, if there's something 'private' going on. That's what the PM system is for, so feel free to contact me privately via that channel, which is probably better anyway, because frankly...this is off-topic to the main discussion. If there's anything private...I'm discreet, one has to be as an Administrator of a forum.

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:36 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Malcolm wrote:
Could you please supply a reference for this? There was a rumour that the washer was being used when the police arrived, and then there was a rumour that Filomena found the machine was "warm", with some versions of this story claiming that all the clothes were Meredith's, while others stating that it was a mixture of MK's and AK's clothing. And then most recently I read somewhere that the machine wasn't on and that the clothes in it were dirty, which actually makes the most sense, even if they are guilty. (In fact, if RG acted alone and thus did the cleanup himself afterwards, it would've been logical for him to wash all of MK's clothes instead of leaving them in the room. He wouldn't even have had to stick around for it to finish.)


Well, it seems the machine wasn't running when police arrived as previously reported in the press, unless that is in the Postal Police report which has not been heard in the trial and isn't permitted to be (according to Yummi). Filomena 'did' testify that the washing machine was warm when 'she' arrived, but not that it was running.

As for the source on the mixed clothing, that was raised in the main trial so you'll find that in earlier board discussion. If you insist 'I' get you the source, you'll have to wait a bit as I have to run off for a few hours and I don't have the time right now to hunt it down. But in the meantime, this may help you:



Check also Andrea Vogt's and Barbie Nadaeu's articles, I have a suspicion it may be in one of those (but I'm not 100% sure).

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:44 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
Michael,

Quote:
No...you see, we have a problem here. We keep getting people coming along claiming to be one person, not having an agenda, not having anything to do with the FOA or what have you and then the opposite turns out to true. Now, that isn't a crime in itself you understand...I'd be fine with it, if people are up front about it when they arrive. It's when the deceit comes in...then I have a problem with that. It's just a case of everyone being on the level and being able to trust that those they are engaging with are also. Trust is essential. We have a rule about 'good faith'.

So, I'll really be needing an answer to that dude.


About to go to bed and saw this. You are seriously going to ban me because you think I'm deceitful and that I'm some multiple entity? Here's my word: I'm a single entity. I have nothing to do with the FOA. Print that out. Highlight it. I will give you full knowledge of who I am after the trial. If you want to push it, ping me when I'm online. And I really, really don't appreciate this.

FC


I didn't mention the word 'ban' Frumpy.

But, I am concerned about the fact that one moment, you're a Californian surfer dude who can't stop saying, well...dude...because it's the 'Californian subculture' you hail from, yet the next minute you're a Mancunian Man City supporter, versed in English football fans' overseas travels and singing the lyrics of the Man City anthem at me. You also have only just arrived on the board, full of FOA talking points.

Now...put yourself in my place, wouldn't that look a bit suss to you? It's okay, you don't have to tell your story on the open board if you like, if there's something 'private' going on. That's what the PM system is for, so feel free to contact me privately via that channel, which is probably better anyway, because frankly...this is off-topic to the main discussion. If there's anything private...I'm discreet, one has to be as an Administrator of a forum.


FC,
You're lucky you can sleep on the job. Two hours ago, you were just about to go to work! Now you're getting ready for bed. Does this job pay well?

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

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:51 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Michael

Quote:
No...you see, we have a problem here. We keep getting people coming along claiming to be one person, not having an agenda, not having anything to do with the FOA or what have you and then the opposite turns out to true. Now, that isn't a crime in itself you understand...I'd be fine with it, if people are up front about it when they arrive. It's when the deceit comes in...then I have a problem with that. It's just a case of everyone being on the level and being able to trust that those they are engaging with are also. Trust is essential. We have a rule about 'good faith'.

So, I'll really be needing an answer to that dude.


I am one single person. And then for me, this begs the question if there was a ton of people posting under my ip: would my arguments be any less valid? Would your defenses be weakened in any way? There could be a hundred of us and you should still be able to forward your arguments with ease.

Yet, its me.


FC


FC, I don't get this "after the trial"-thing. I am not interested if you are from Manchester or Miami -- but why 'after the trial'? what has that thing to do with that? I'd be glad, if you communicated who you are and where you are from to Michael. I would be glad if you passed this 'trial' of honesty -- after the frenzy with which you jumped in here, posting zillions of posts only revealing a terrible haste to run and shout at everything and everybody here. What is the reason of this frenzy?
Top Profile 

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:13 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SB

Quote:
FC,
You're lucky you can sleep on the job. Two hours ago, you were just about to go to work! Now you're getting ready for bed. Does this job pay well?


I prepare for my day the night before, I get out my suit, and I make my breakfast and lunch. I make sure all my batteries (bby, laptop, iphone) are charged, I iron my own shirts. NOW I totally see where your random theories come from.

Quote:
I didn't mention the word 'ban' Frumpy.

But, I am concerned about the fact that one moment, you're a Californian surfer dude who can't stop saying, well...dude...because it's the 'Californian subculture' you hail from, yet the next minute you're a Mancunian Man City supporter, versed in English football fans' overseas travels and singing the lyrics of the Man City anthem at me. You also have only just arrived on the board, full of FOA talking points.

Now...put yourself in my place, wouldn't that look a bit suss to you? It's okay, you don't have to tell your story on the open board if you like, if there's something 'private' going on. That's what the PM system is for, so feel free to contact me privately via that channel, which is probably better anyway, because frankly...this is off-topic to the main discussion. If there's anything private...I'm discreet, one has to be as an Administrator of a forum.


Putting myself in your place? No. Why should you care? Its the argument that counts right? Yet you haaaaave to know if its from multiple people. You didn't mention the word "ban" but you inferred it. Here's some stuff for you:
- Military brat raised on a UK base - Hey...some of my kid pals were for MC, so was I.
- Lived most of my life in California, but have traveled all over the world. I don't know what ingrained "dude" into my speech but I think it was Santa Barbara damn that wonderful town.

Your turn Michael. Where are you from?

FC
Top

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:46 am   Post subject: Responding to Frumpycat   

Frumpycat wrote:

Finn...concerning she couldn't remember?
-I think she cant remember. Her lawyer said heck, makes sense, go with that. They'll try and go nuts over any details she says otherwise.


Well, it doesn't make sense to me. And it didn't make sense to Edda either - it was one of the first things she wanted to ask Amanda about, when they met in prison on November 10.

Frumpycat wrote:
- Witnesses? Are you referring to Filomena?


Yes, I'm referring to Filomena, Paola, Luca, Marco, and the two policemen.

Frumpycat wrote:
- Micheli's analysis....its a rehash of what you've been saying correct? That one phone call looks really suspicious concerning AK. The other calls we actually aren't privy to.


I'm not sure what you mean here, but Micheli's analysis isn't a rehash of what I've been saying.

Frumpycat wrote:
- CCTV footage - The black and white one where they only saw the nose of the car and couldn't tell the color?


I mean the footage that shows a black Fiat Punto arriving at the cottage at the time the police said they arrived.

Frumpycat wrote:
- Policemen/woman testimonies - detailed records you haven't seen? Or perhaps the police suddenly realize they had stumbled on a major international crime scene and that they maybe have to do some creative recollecting? Only a tiny gap in the phone call records.


Again, I'm not sure what you mean.

Personally, I don't have any interest in whether you're a Man City fan or a Orange County airhead. It doesn't matter to me where another poster comes from.

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

Frumpycat


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian

Quote:
What is the reason of this frenzy?


Ahhhhhhhh....triple shot non fat latte...that's the stuffffff...... :D

No frenzy and no agenda. I miss justlooking. He was actually pretty cool to debate with and then he abandoned PS. I wish he would come out of lurker status so he could kick my ass, again. He is the definition for me of "arbiter".

FC
Top

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I am looking for a transcript of Amanda's very first 'confession'. The 'he is a bad man' one. Or was that all she said and then started writing? :) Does anyone know if there is such a transcript?
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:23 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
SB

Quote:
FC,
You're lucky you can sleep on the job. Two hours ago, you were just about to go to work! Now you're getting ready for bed. Does this job pay well?


I prepare for my day the night before, I get out my suit, and I make my breakfast and lunch. I make sure all my batteries (bby, laptop, iphone) are charged, I iron my own shirts. NOW I totally see where your random theories come from.

FC[/quote

Now perhaps Frumpycat is a misnomer for you: you sound more like "Tidypuss" in the light of the above.


Last edited by Tiziano on Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:31 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Hungarian

Quote:
What is the reason of this frenzy?


Ahhhhhhhh....triple shot non fat latte...that's the stuffffff...... :D



FC


Frumpycat, I'm worried about you. You're showing signs of a split personality: after a sleepless night brought on by all that caffeine you'll be Sleepykitten by the time you get to work tomorrow.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.


You're right, Skep. This says it all, doesn't it?

Quote:
Amanda spoke to Filomena on the phone from the police waiting room on the 5th about the rent and accomodation. Did she give any impression about whether she had given the money to Filomena or whether Filomena may have paid the rent or not?


Brian, they don't openly talk about paying the rent, yet my impression was that they did not pay the rent for November, which was not due until Nov 5th, because they were well aware that they were not going to be allowed in the house for that month or ever again. Filomena was going to talk to her lawyer in order to see what their rights were in terms of getting out of the rental contract, probably starting immediately. By the way, the rent was 300 E per month for each girl.

Quote:
I am sorry thoughtful but Quintavalle and Chiriboga weren't at the same point at the same time -- they were not standing side by side, were they?


Well, Hungarian, then perhaps I misunderstood the testimony, but I thought that Quintavalle opened his store, raising the iron curtain, and saw Amanda first standing outside, then entering and going to the cleaning products, whereas Chiriboga was at that point standing at the cash register and would have not only seen anyone entering and leaving but also checked out any purchase. Is that wrong?

Quote:
I thought there was a load of unwashed clothing of Meredith's in the washer.


There was a load of wet, washed clothing in the washer, mixed items of Meredith and Amanda, mostly Meredith. I have read two newspaper accounts of Filomena's testimony where she says the washer was warm when she arrived, whereas Frank insists that she did not say this. I choose to disbelieve Frank here because I find him so inaccurate in general. At the same time, I can't figure out the point of running the washing machine with just some t-shirts in it, no rags, no cleaning materials, and no trace of blood (luminol detects blood even after machine washing).

Quote:
Rudy stated he entered that bathroom to get a towel to try and staunch the blood from Meredith's wound.


Michael, I had been wondering about this: which bathroom did he take the towels from? If he took them from Amanda's bathroom, then it's normal she didn't find any towel there after her shower next morning. The towels were gone and she took a shower and didn't ask herself where they were? That is very strange. I wish that Maresca had asked her about these towels in court. Of course, she might have just answered "Those were Meredith's towels, I kept mine in my room", but at least one could have checked for proof.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:02 am   Post subject: Re: Conversations in a Cottage   

Catnip wrote:
Mastronardi and Castellini summarise the money discussions like this:

Quote:

The Mystery of the Missing Money

Rudy, as we have seen, affirms that Meredith was complaining about the fact that Amanda had taken her money. In one of the interview sessions, he also affirmed that on the night of the murder Meredith had confronted Amanda, accusing her of the theft. And in fact, about 250-300 euros have vanished from Mez’s room, euros that were intended for paying the rent a few days later. Together with the cash, two credit cards that the lass had with her also disappeared, in addition to the two mobile phones found in the garden at the Biscarini’s, in via Sperandio.

On the 7 November 2007, the prosecution affirms, in their final address [requistoria], that Romanelli had referred to, amongst other things, that she and the other roommates were paying 300 euros per head on the 5th of each month. At the end of October 2007, Meredith had told them of having the rent money, and she and Mezzetti had even commented favourably on the fact, saying that she was quite punctual. Amanda was present during this conversation.

On the 11 November 2007, both Romanelli and Mezzetti added further particulars, saying, right on the 30th October, and to Meredith, and with Amanda present, that after the long weekend, that is, by the 5th, they were going to have to pay the rent. Meredith replied that she already had the money ready and that she was willing to give it to the two Italian roommates, knowing that the four of them would contribute the sum for the lease. Amanda, instead, said that Lumumba hadn’t paid her yet [non la pagava]. Meredith repeated, still in Amanda’s hearing, having ready access to money at that time because she had won a study bursary and had two credit cards.



Mastronardi and Castellini, pp52-53


Such an innocent conversation.


Can we add "thief" to AKs list of charming attributes?
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Hungarian

Quote:
What is the reason of this frenzy?


Ahhhhhhhh....triple shot non fat latte...that's the stuffffff...... :D

No frenzy and no agenda. I miss justlooking. He was actually pretty cool to debate with and then he abandoned PS. I wish he would come out of lurker status so he could kick my ass, again. He is the definition for me of "arbiter".

FC


I'm still here Frumpy :). Not sure what we were debating on PS as there were so many 'anons', though I think I recognise your posting style. I've no problem with it by the way, but I'm no admin walking softly and carrying a big stick :).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:34 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
I am sorry thoughtful but Quintavalle and Chiriboga weren't at the same point at the same time -- they were not standing side by side, were they?


thoughtful wrote:

"Well, Hungarian, then perhaps I misunderstood the testimony, but I thought that Quintavalle opened his store, raising the iron curtain, and saw Amanda first standing outside, then entering and going to the cleaning products, whereas Chiriboga was at that point standing at the cash register and would have not only seen anyone entering and leaving but also checked out any purchase. Is that wrong?"

I didn't read anything about Quintavalle and Chiriboga seeing each other -- from the point where Quintavalle stood, he didn't observe the movements of Chiriboga in the shop, which, as far as I know, is not a simple little space. It is physically possible that Chiriboga was doing something the moment Amanda was there, and also possible that Amanda didn't buy anything -- still it is absolutely possible -- and I don't remember Amanda standing up in court and refuting Quintavalle's testimony, like she did in other cases --, the thing is, she may have been there earlier than she said she woke up, that's all -- nobody contested that in court: and of course Quintavalle could be wrong, and it was an other person, but the two testimonies of Q. and Ch. don't necessarily negate each other, as they weren't at the same place the same time -- in a shop like this, there are many possibilities of seeing or not seeing somebody. And Ch. could be in the in a backroom, a storage place, whatever, I don't know, and AK could, why not, take what she wanted, without paying even, why not, I don't imply this happened, simply that the two witness statments don't negate each other -- by the way Quintavalle didn't see Amanda leave the shop -- so, following your logic, she is still there?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Even without proving Amanda took Meredith's money, I think the discussion the girls had about the rent supports the idea that Amanda was indeed the flatmate from hell. The rent is almost due, the others are prepared, Amanda even has plenty in the bank, but just complains that Lumumba hasn't paid her yet. Immature much? Playing guitar while the others are trying to watch tv, not flushing the loo, not pulling her weight with the cleaning, bringing home strange men, and (I noticed this, but probably only got the significance because I'm a girl) helping herself to the other girls' hairdryer and bathroom.
Top Profile 

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: Conversations in a Cottage   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:

Rudy, as we have seen, affirms that Meredith was complaining about the fact that Amanda had taken her money. In one of the interview sessions, he also affirmed that on the night of the murder Meredith had confronted Amanda, accusing her of the theft. And in fact, about 250-300 euros have vanished from Mez’s room, euros that were intended for paying the rent a few days later. Together with the cash, two credit cards that the lass had with her also disappeared, in addition to the two mobile phones found in the garden at the Biscarini’s, in via Sperandio.

Can we add "thief" to AKs list of charming attributes?

Wouldn't this also support the argument that Rudy had taken the money and then invented this accusation by MK against AK to deflect the blame?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
...but the two testimonies of Q. and Ch. don't necessarily negate each other, as they weren't at the same place the same time -- in a shop like this, there are many possibilities of seeing or not seeing somebody.


No, Hungarian, if your job is to man the cash register, then that is where you are standing, and you are seeing the people who come in and go out. Quintavalle explained that it was she and not he who was at the cash register at that moment, which is why he did not know if Amanda bought anything. Now, perhaps she didn't (although this begs the question of what the heck she would have been doing there at 7:45 in the morning -- window shopping?) but the person at the cash register would still have seen the entrance and exit. Now you're the one ignoring one tiny little detail that bothers you: the person at the cash register on that morning did not see Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:46 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

malcolm wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:

Rudy, as we have seen, affirms that Meredith was complaining about the fact that Amanda had taken her money. In one of the interview sessions, he also affirmed that on the night of the murder Meredith had confronted Amanda, accusing her of the theft. And in fact, about 250-300 euros have vanished from Mez’s room, euros that were intended for paying the rent a few days later. Together with the cash, two credit cards that the lass had with her also disappeared, in addition to the two mobile phones found in the garden at the Biscarini’s, in via Sperandio.

Can we add "thief" to AKs list of charming attributes?

Wouldn't this also support the argument that Rudy had taken the money and then invented this accusation by MK against AK to deflect the blame?


The problem with that Malcolm, is that it is clear Rudy had blood all over his hands at the time, due to his bloody fingerprints on the outside of the bag. Therefore, had he actually opened Meredith's handbag and gone inside, we would expect to see bloody fingerprints or blood traces on the fastener. More importantly, thrusting ones bloody hands into an open handbag would be devestaing in terms of the blood residue that would be left inside. However, there is no blood on the inside at all (neither are there fingerprints or dna from Rudy). We also have no micro traces of blood on the mobile phones which Rudy would have handled had he been the thief (all those nice little crannies for it to get in between the buttons etc,). Judge Micheli therefore concluded that Rudy had merely grabbed the handbag and lifted it to move it, which is what the positioning of the bloody prints on the bag actually showed.

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
...but the two testimonies of Q. and Ch. don't necessarily negate each other, as they weren't at the same place the same time -- in a shop like this, there are many possibilities of seeing or not seeing somebody.


No, Hungarian, if your job is to man the cash register, then that is where you are standing, and you are seeing the people who come in and go out. Quintavalle explained that it was she and not he who was at the cash register at that moment, which is why he did not know if Amanda bought anything. Now, perhaps she didn't (although this begs the question of what the heck she would have been doing there at 7:45 in the morning -- window shopping?) but the person at the cash register would still have seen the entrance and exit. Now you're the one ignoring one tiny little detail that bothers you: the person at the cash register on that morning did not see Amanda.


In my experience, if a shop assistant is at the till and there are no customers to serve, they will often spend their time doing something productive, such as preparing the till (sorting out change, sorting the till role etc,) or be stacking the shelves behind and around them, or doing stock check or some other activity.

It's the first time that I've heard it's like being in the army and they have to be stoiod at attention behind their till, eyes front the whole time :)

What would she have seen if she had been eyes front? A blur going by. The assistant didn't even know Amanda or what she looked like and had little reason to take note, whereas the owner did since he knew her and also she was the first one there and he had to let her in...she would have been entering to go to one of the aisles, not go straight up to the till, so the assistant had no need to be on instant alert. As I recall also, Amanda was wearing a hat pulled down walking quickly with her head down and a scarf pulled up round her neck. It's clear from the owner's testimony Amanda didn't want to be seen. And really, it's amazing what in the world around them people don't notice.

Therefore, I really don't agree with your concept of an 'absolute' where the assistaint 'certainly would' have seen her, and 'certainly would' have had reason enough to remember her over a year after the fact.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
...but the two testimonies of Q. and Ch. don't necessarily negate each other, as they weren't at the same place the same time -- in a shop like this, there are many possibilities of seeing or not seeing somebody.


No, Hungarian, if your job is to man the cash register, then that is where you are standing, and you are seeing the people who come in and go out. Quintavalle explained that it was she and not he who was at the cash register at that moment, which is why he did not know if Amanda bought anything. Now, perhaps she didn't (although this begs the question of what the heck she would have been doing there at 7:45 in the morning -- window shopping?) but the person at the cash register would still have seen the entrance and exit. Now you're the one ignoring one tiny little detail that bothers you: the person at the cash register on that morning did not see Amanda.


Often, when I go into a small shop there is no one at the cash register. Some stores have buzzers and bells for this reason. Sometimes, even the sound of a bell or buzzer does not bring shop employees rushing to the cash register.

In addition, I was wondering how well the person at the cash register would know AK, since she apparently had stopped working for RS prior to his relationship with her.

One other thing that makes me wonder about her as a witness is that she had a prior relationship with RS. She worked for him. Perhaps her "memory" (of not seeing AK) was sparked by loyalty.

Finally, she remembers "not" seeing someone she did not know, which is much weaker in my opinion than a "positive" memory. I don't remember seeing X is not as forceful as I remember seeing X.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Hungarian

Quote:
What is the reason of this frenzy?


Ahhhhhhhh....triple shot non fat latte...that's the stuffffff...... :D

No frenzy and no agenda. I miss justlooking. He was actually pretty cool to debate with and then he abandoned PS. I wish he would come out of lurker status so he could kick my ass, again. He is the definition for me of "arbiter".

FC


How could I have missed your agenda? You were so subtle.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Michael, I had been wondering about this: which bathroom did he take the towels from? If he took them from Amanda's bathroom, then it's normal she didn't find any towel there after her shower next morning. The towels were gone and she took a shower and didn't ask herself where they were? That is very strange. I wish that Maresca had asked her about these towels in court. Of course, she might have just answered "Those were Meredith's towels, I kept mine in my room", but at least one could have checked for proof.


Using my own bathrooms as an example, they have open shelving where the towels are stored. Therefore, I always have a stack of clean towels and not just one or two. In fact, in addition to a stack of clean ones, I have hooks for the ones I have already used but plan to re-use. Without extrapolating to the situation in the cottage, I certainly have seen my type of towel storage system elsewhere, especially places without built-in closets.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

justlooking wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
Hungarian

Quote:
What is the reason of this frenzy?


Ahhhhhhhh....triple shot non fat latte...that's the stuffffff...... :D

No frenzy and no agenda. I miss justlooking. He was actually pretty cool to debate with and then he abandoned PS. I wish he would come out of lurker status so he could kick my ass, again. He is the definition for me of "arbiter".

FC


I'm still here Frumpy :). Not sure what we were debating on PS as there were so many 'anons', though I think I recognise your posting style. I've no problem with it by the way, but I'm no admin walking softly and carrying a big stick :).



I guess Frumpy too was finally turned off from posting at Frank's by the deranged psychopath who posts there non-stop, making crass, sexist and occasionally racist remarks about people who disagree with him. You know, the one I filed a police complaint against. The one who gets off on telling people he follows me to the grocery store and making snide remarks about my sex life. In this case, I can understand why Frumpy would seek refuge elsewhere.

But sometimes I find myself feeling sorry for Goofy, Goofy and Goofy yimt. Others might say "whocairz?" But I say, how lonely it must be to talk to yourself all day. If it were me, I would miss the excitement of having my ass kicked by smarter and more articulate people. But I would also wonder what I had done to drive them away.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
In my experience, if a shop assistant is at the till and there are no customers to serve, they will often spend their time doing something productive, such as preparing the till (sorting out change, sorting the till role etc,) or be stacking the shelves behind and around them, or doing stock check or some other activity.


Well sure. She probably was doing this or that, but in those little stores, the till is right by the door. I don't think the point here is whether she saw Amanda, but whether she saw anyone at all. I am certain that if she had testified there was a customer in the store when it opened that morning but she didn't know who it was, that would have emerged as very important. My impression was that she saw no one and certainly didn't take payment for anything.

In the face-to-face opposition between Quintavalle and Chiriboga, why would one choose to believe her rather than him? For me, the reason is because Quintavalle took his memory to the paid television show Porta a Porta before taking it to police. I might be still willing to believe it if no one opposed it, but between the two (and trying to reconcile them is like trying to reconcile the Battistelli timeline), I'll go for the one who didn't earn any money.

Skep, never would I have thought for a moment that she would perjure herself on the stand out of loyalty to a former employer. Nor can I believe that, but still you have a shrewd and subtle mind.

But there's also a simple question of utility here. Why would they have bought any cleaning products when we have since learned that both Raffaele's house and the girls' house contained half-full bottles of various cleaning products? Plus they had rags at Raffaele's and a mop at the house. Plus she didn't buy anything, so if she took anything at all, she stole it which seems like a crazy risk to take at a moment when one wouldn't want to be noticed. Inexplicable. I guess that's my real problem with it. If I'm wondering whether she did something, I at least want that thing to make sense.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Frumpycat wrote:
Okay...still trying to make it through the original posts but replying:

Michael

Quote:
"Failed b/c of the notoriety of the MK death", I think the place was on its last legs anyway.

FC

FC


Rubbish FC.. you have jumped in here with some rubbish assertions - this is just one of them.

Working for the FOA? who are you
you wanted to know where a recent poster got the phone call evidence from because you wanted to know who's feeding them

just my opinion - carry on
Top Profile 

Offline shazavaar


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:42 pm

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi everyone.

There are a few things puzzling me about what I have read so far in this case which might have already been addressed but IO have not come accross them.

With regard the money Amanda was found to have. Would the police not have taken note of the numbers on these euros? When they fill ATM's the banks keep a record of the numbers going in. If those numbers correspond to the numbers at the ATM Mereideth used then Amanda would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

Am I correct that Amanda in her statements on entering the cottage in the morning states that Filomena's door was shut - yet RS in his statement says it was wide open?

There are many things that Amanda states which quite frankly, insults the intelligience of her audience. One of them concerns Rudy's deposit in the toilet. Who would not automatically just flush it. She does not. She states she noticed it after she had dried her hair in that bathroom. That bathroom surely would be smelling foul with a used toilet left unflushed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
malcolm wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:

Rudy, as we have seen, affirms that Meredith was complaining about the fact that Amanda had taken her money. In one of the interview sessions, he also affirmed that on the night of the murder Meredith had confronted Amanda, accusing her of the theft. And in fact, about 250-300 euros have vanished from Mez’s room, euros that were intended for paying the rent a few days later. Together with the cash, two credit cards that the lass had with her also disappeared, in addition to the two mobile phones found in the garden at the Biscarini’s, in via Sperandio.

Can we add "thief" to AKs list of charming attributes?

Wouldn't this also support the argument that Rudy had taken the money and then invented this accusation by MK against AK to deflect the blame?


The problem with that Malcolm, is that it is clear Rudy had blood all over his hands at the time, due to his bloody fingerprints on the outside of the bag. Therefore, had he actually opened Meredith's handbag and gone inside, we would expect to see bloody fingerprints or blood traces on the fastener. More importantly, thrusting ones bloody hands into an open handbag would be devestaing in terms of the blood residue that would be left inside. However, there is no blood on the inside at all (neither are there fingerprints or dna from Rudy). We also have no micro traces of blood on the mobile phones which Rudy would have handled had he been the thief (all those nice little crannies for it to get in between the buttons etc,). Judge Micheli therefore concluded that Rudy had merely grabbed the handbag and lifted it to move it, which is what the positioning of the bloody prints on the bag actually showed.


This is irrelevant. I never claimed he stole money from the bag, and by consensus everyone seems to agree that there was no money in there to steal anyway. I was talking only about the story he told concerning MK and AK. But if you want to bring the bag into it, considering how little DNA evidence there was at the crime scene, the lack of DNA evidence inside the bag doesn't tell us a whole lot.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
In the face-to-face opposition between Quintavalle and Chiriboga, why would one choose to believe her rather than him? For me, the reason is because Quintavalle took his memory to the paid television show Porta a Porta before taking it to police. I might be still willing to believe it if no one opposed it, but between the two (and trying to reconcile them is like trying to reconcile the Battistelli timeline), I'll go for the one who didn't earn any money.


I don't find it quite so easy to make this choice. She took money on a regular basis from the Sollecitos for her work as a cleaner. It is possible she has been taken care of financially. As for Quintavalle, Frank worked a little too hard to discredit him and that makes me suspicious.

I maintain, though, that cognitively speaking the statement "I remember not seeing X" (or "I don't remember seeing X") is not as compelling. The "type" of memory she is being asked to call on is quite unreliable and empirically delicate.

As for buying anything at the shop, I have no problem with the statement "No one bought anything between 7:45 and 8:30", backed by till records.

But for now, I don't see Chiriboga as a particularly important witness and I don't see her testimony as strong or compelling. At least Quintavalle's testimony was focused on a specific event (I saw her standing at the door when I raised the iron grate). And there is the troubling fact that RS stated he was asleep until 10 when in fact he was not. Again, why lie?

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

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
In my experience, if a shop assistant is at the till and there are no customers to serve, they will often spend their time doing something productive, such as preparing the till (sorting out change, sorting the till role etc,) or be stacking the shelves behind and around them, or doing stock check or some other activity.


Well sure. She probably was doing this or that, but in those little stores, the till is right by the door. I don't think the point here is whether she saw Amanda, but whether she saw anyone at all. I am certain that if she had testified there was a customer in the store when it opened that morning but she didn't know who it was, that would have emerged as very important. My impression was that she saw no one and certainly didn't take payment for anything.

In the face-to-face opposition between Quintavalle and Chiriboga, why would one choose to believe her rather than him? For me, the reason is because Quintavalle took his memory to the paid television show Porta a Porta before taking it to police. I might be still willing to believe it if no one opposed it, but between the two (and trying to reconcile them is like trying to reconcile the Battistelli timeline), I'll go for the one who didn't earn any money.

Skep, never would I have thought for a moment that she would perjure herself on the stand out of loyalty to a former employer. Nor can I believe that, but still you have a shrewd and subtle mind.

But there's also a simple question of utility here. Why would they have bought any cleaning products when we have since learned that both Raffaele's house and the girls' house contained half-full bottles of various cleaning products? Plus they had rags at Raffaele's and a mop at the house. Plus she didn't buy anything, so if she took anything at all, she stole it which seems like a crazy risk to take at a moment when one wouldn't want to be noticed. Inexplicable. I guess that's my real problem with it. If I'm wondering whether she did something, I at least want that thing to make sense.



I saw pictures of the shop -- I don't find them now, I would be grateful if somebody pointed me to where I can see them -- and it is not a tiny shop, in my memory. And they easily -- I mean AK and RS -- if the cleanup really took place -- could have run out of cleaning stuff -- or they had to replace the ones they used -- but still, to chose between two 'opposing' testimonies in this case doesn't stand absolutely, because they were not at the same point the same time -- Q. was alone on the street before the shop, Ch. was somewhere in the shop -- and "not remembering" something is not an absolute proof of something not taking place -- so I still don't think the two statements diametrically oppose each other, there is contradiction here, but not an absolute one -- and there are signs, that AK didn't tell the truth about waking up so late -- for me, she could have been at the shop (and she bought or didn't buy there whatever) -- you chose Ch. as an absolute proof of AK not being there, but this still doesn't eliminate Q.'s testimony for me. He saw her, early in the morning, she didn't. He remembers, she doesn't. But still, they were not standing side by side before the shop -- when Q. saw AK, he was alone, before the shop, on the street, and Ch. was somewhere inside.



[Mr Quintavalle] said"I was inside and I opened the shutters of my supermarket at 7.45am. Outside I saw a girl waiting to come inside.

“She had a hat and jeans on but what struck me was how pale she looked and the colour of her blue eyes, I can still see them in front of me now.

“She was young, around 20 or 21 years old. She came in and went to the section at the back of the supermarket on the left where there are the cleaning products.

“I can’t remember if she bought anything. A few hours later I heard about the murder and then a few days later I saw Amanda’s picture in the newspaper and I recognised her as the same girl.”

He said he had no doubt about identifying her. “The shape of the face was the same, as was the nose, she was pretty. For me the girl in the newspapers was the same girl.”


Last edited by Hungarian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

shazavaar wrote:
Hi everyone.

There are a few things puzzling me about what I have read so far in this case which might have already been addressed but IO have not come accross them.

With regard the money Amanda was found to have. Would the police not have taken note of the numbers on these euros? When they fill ATM's the banks keep a record of the numbers going in. If those numbers correspond to the numbers at the ATM Mereideth used then Amanda would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

Am I correct that Amanda in her statements on entering the cottage in the morning states that Filomena's door was shut - yet RS in his statement says it was wide open?

There are many things that Amanda states which quite frankly, insults the intelligience of her audience. One of them concerns Rudy's deposit in the toilet. Who would not automatically just flush it. She does not. She states she noticed it after she had dried her hair in that bathroom. That bathroom surely would be smelling foul with a used toilet left unflushed.


Welcome Shazavaar. In reply to your question about the status of Filomena's door, it is true that AK claimed the door was closed while RS claimed it was open.

As for the deposit in the toilet, I think most people would have simply flushed it down. But as we have been told time and again, AK is not like other people. And yes, a deposit left overnight in a small room would create a noticeable stench.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Skep, never would I have thought for a moment that she would perjure herself on the stand out of loyalty to a former employer. Nor can I believe that, but still you have a shrewd and subtle mind.


I was thinking that because she is making such a weak claim (I don't remember seeing her there as opposed to she was not there) she is not taking a huge risk of being called out for perjury. She can always say, if it later turns out that AK was in the shop (and this will never be proven either way, obviously), that she did not see her. Thus, she has not committed perjury. Who will ever be able to prove that she did see her? Only a third person who saw them both staring at one another.

Applying the same reasoning, why would Quintavalle perjure himself? Out of loyalty to whom? He has made a stronger statement and therefore taken a bigger risk: he has said that he saw AK. He has also stated that he already knew who she was, having seen her in the shop with RS.

I have no way of knowing which of these two is telling the truth or if either one is. In fact, I agree with Hungarian: it is possible that both of them are. Was Chiriboga standing at the grill when Quintavalle opened the shop? Or did she arrive several minutes later? Did Chiriboga know AK at the time? Were there several people at the door when the store opened? There are lots of variable here that we don't have access to. Too many for me to state with certainty that Chiriboga's testimony trumps Quintevalle's.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Malcolm wrote:

Quote:
This is irrelevant. I never claimed he stole money from the bag, and by consensus everyone seems to agree that there was no money in there to steal anyway. I was talking only about the story he told concerning MK and AK. But if you want to bring the bag into it, considering how little DNA evidence there was at the crime scene, the lack of DNA evidence inside the bag doesn't tell us a whole lot.


This is true.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
This is irrelevant. I never claimed he stole money from the bag, and by consensus everyone seems to agree that there was no money in there to steal anyway. I was talking only about the story he told concerning MK and AK. But if you want to bring the bag into it, considering how little DNA evidence there was at the crime scene, the lack of DNA evidence inside the bag doesn't tell us a whole lot.


Actually, I'm not 'certain' where her money was.

As for DNA being absent from the handbag, that I only mentioned in passing and it's absence isn't quite so important for the reasons you state. However, the absence of BLOOD from the inside the bag IS important, since as I stated, Guede's bloody fingerprints on the outside of the bag showed that his hands were wet with blood. Had he have grabbed the bag to open it and then thrust his hands inside, there would also certainly blood inside the bag. There isn't. This shows that he didn't open the bag or go inside. So it's clear that:

1) He didn't rob any money that may have been inside the bag.

2) He didn't enter the bag looking for money (or anything else in there) to rob

This is also relevant in that a certain poster here has argued, that even were the money in the draw, Rudy going into the bag acts as some form of proof that he then went into the draw and took the money from there.

The fact is, whether the money was in the bag or the drawer, Rudy didn't go in the bag.

By the same token, neither was there blood on the drawer handle or on or inside the drawer itself, so he clearly didn't go in the drawer either.

Ditto with his being responsible for taking the phones, since they have no traces of blood on them either.

As for the story he told reagrding the two housemates, it's one of the few elements of his story that has some ring of truth about it. It also does offer an explanation for how or why things may have gotten nasty and then completely out of control, allthough it's not the only possible explanation.

_________________
"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 rexfelis


Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
As for the deposit in the toilet, I think most people would have simply flushed it down. But as we have been told time and again, AK is not like other people. And yes, a deposit left overnight in a small room would create a noticeable stench.


Noticeable to say the least. It must have been gag worthy being there overnight.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian said:

How do you know that the till is by the door? I saw pictures of the shop -- I don't find them now, I would be grateful if somebody pointed me to where I can see them -- and it is not a tiny shop, in my memory, and the till is not by the door. And also -- they easily, I mean AK and RS -- if the cleanup really took place -- could have run out of cleaning stuff -- or they had to replace the ones they used -- but still, to chose between two 'opposing' testimonies in this case doesn't stand absolutely, because they were not at the same point the same time -- Q. was alone on the street before the shop, Ch. was somewhere in the shop -- and "not remembering" something is not an absolute proof of something not taking place -- so I still don't think the two statements diametrically oppose each other, there is contradiction here, but not an absolute one -- and there are signs, that AK didn't tell the truth about waking up so late -- for me, she could have been at the shop (and she bought or didn't buy there whatever) -- you chose Ch. as an absolute proof of AK not being there, but this still doesn't eliminate Q.'s testimony for me. He saw her, early in the morning, she didn't. He remembers, she doesn't. But still, they were not standing side by side before the shop -- when Q. saw AK, he was alone, before the shop, on the street, and Ch. was somewhere inside.

* * * * * *
I've been to many of these continental shops that are often formed higgledy-piggledy from more than one ancient building. They often have more than one door, and not within sight of one another. Just BTW, really, because I totally agree that Ch's testimony was pretty meaningless.
But I wonder:

Maybe they didn't stock what she was looking for? A mop? floorcloths? A substantial carrier bag?

Why does she tell us about the bag she carries allegedly to the cottage? In case someone saw her with same?
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It had always been my understanding that both parties (i.e. the defense and the prosecution) had to agree before this type of DNA testing was carried out. Can't find the specific statement at the moment as I have to rush off but I certainly recall reading it.


Frumpycat wrote:
Brian S.

Quote:
And so are you.

MK's DNA wasn't detected by a machine used beyond it's limits.

The machine has a "default" setting which Stefononi switched off.

She then used the machine's controls to selected a different setting.

The machine is not "beyond it's limits" when it's own controls allow a user a choice of alternate settings besides the default.


This is not in dispute:

- She went over the limits of her machine. Just cuz she was able to overide the regulator on a machine DOES NOT mean the machines manufacturers condone it. Her "selected a different setting." was going over the manufacturers specs.

This is crazy. "Hey, then manufacturer said not to run it into the red in the rpm line, but you know what, I'm gonna do it. Cuz they have the red over the rpm line means its okay with them."

And your bullet points fail to point out the fact that the sample could not be tested again, per international standards.

FC

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ALL of their objections regarding the amplification and electrophoresis of that sample are spurious and incorrect. But they just won't have it! lol
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thoughtful wrote:
In the face-to-face opposition between Quintavalle and Chiriboga, why would one choose to believe her rather than him? For me, the reason is because Quintavalle took his memory to the paid television show Porta a Porta before taking it to police. I might be still willing to believe it if no one opposed it, but between the two (and trying to reconcile them is like trying to reconcile the Battistelli timeline), I'll go for the one who didn't earn any money.

Skep, never would I have thought for a moment that she would perjure herself on the stand out of loyalty to a former employer. Nor can I believe that, but still you have a shrewd and subtle mind.

But there's also a simple question of utility here. Why would they have bought any cleaning products when we have since learned that both Raffaele's house and the girls' house contained half-full bottles of various cleaning products? Plus they had rags at Raffaele's and a mop at the house. Plus she didn't buy anything, so if she took anything at all, she stole it which seems like a crazy risk to take at a moment when one wouldn't want to be noticed. Inexplicable. I guess that's my real problem with it. If I'm wondering whether she did something, I at least want that thing to make sense.

My take on this is that the average shop assistant doesn't remember who came into the shop, and who bought what, several days later. Dozens or hundreds of people are walking in and out and buying things all day, every day. Unless there is a particular reason to remember someone (e.g. pretty young girl waiting outside for shop to open), I doubt whether most shop assistants could tell you whether a certain a person bought something or not, a few days later.

Students were coming into the shop all the time. When the shop assistant saw Amanda's picture after her arrest, she would think back a few days as to whether she had seen her in the shop before, but probably she honestly couldn't say for certain if or when Amanda had bought anything in the shop.

There is no need to imagine conspiracies. The simplest explanation is that out of (say) 30-40 young female students who buy things in the shop throughout the day, every single day, Amanda just didn't register particularly with the shop assistant. If Amanda bought something, the shop assistant probably scanned the purchase, put it in a bag, gave her change, and hardly even looked at her.

Even if she thought later that maybe she recognized her from coming into the shop at some time, she was probably just not sure enough to make a sworn statement in a murder case.

The simplest explanation which fits the facts is often the best, as old Bill Occam used to say.
:)
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Hungarian said:

How do you know that the till is by the door? I saw pictures of the shop -- I don't find them now, I would be grateful if somebody pointed me to where I can see them -- and it is not a tiny shop, in my memory, and the till is not by the door. And also -- they easily, I mean AK and RS -- if the cleanup really took place -- could have run out of cleaning stuff -- or they had to replace the ones they used -- but still, to chose between two 'opposing' testimonies in this case doesn't stand absolutely, because they were not at the same point the same time -- Q. was alone on the street before the shop, Ch. was somewhere in the shop -- and "not remembering" something is not an absolute proof of something not taking place -- so I still don't think the two statements diametrically oppose each other, there is contradiction here, but not an absolute one -- and there are signs, that AK didn't tell the truth about waking up so late -- for me, she could have been at the shop (and she bought or didn't buy there whatever) -- you chose Ch. as an absolute proof of AK not being there, but this still doesn't eliminate Q.'s testimony for me. He saw her, early in the morning, she didn't. He remembers, she doesn't. But still, they were not standing side by side before the shop -- when Q. saw AK, he was alone, before the shop, on the street, and Ch. was somewhere inside.

* * * * * *



I've been to many of these continental shops that are often formed higgledy-piggledy from more than one ancient building. They often have more than one door, and not within sight of one another. Just BTW, really, because I totally agree that Ch's testimony was pretty meaningless.
But I wonder:

Maybe they didn't stock what she was looking for? A mop? floorcloths? A substantial carrier bag?

Why does she tell us about the bag she carries allegedly to the cottage? In case someone saw her with same?



Just a tiny remark, I edited my posting above, as upon reflection I think, the till, as it is logical, is usually close to the the door, so I deleted this part of my post, in the first phrase, still it stands what I stated, that these shops are sometimes quite labirinthine -- since my posting I saw the photos on TJMK, and I also attached Quintivalle's testimony to my post (quote from an English newspaper), again from the same article on TJMK -- it seems, that the cleaning stuff was way back somewhere in the shop, and Q. didn't bother to follow the whitefaced blueeyed girl, who was waiting eagerly for him to open the shop early morning --


Last edited by Hungarian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lone_wolfe


Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:02 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Regarding chiriboga's testimony the only reference i found to it is from PS and according to this report I believe her more than Quintivalle(spelling?)

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/06/chiriboga-at-stand.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

justlooking wrote:
It had always been my understanding that both parties (i.e. the defense and the prosecution) had to agree before this type of DNA testing was carried out. Can't find the specific statement at the moment as I have to rush off but I certainly recall reading it.


Frumpycat wrote:
Brian S.

Quote:
And so are you.

MK's DNA wasn't detected by a machine used beyond it's limits.

The machine has a "default" setting which Stefononi switched off.

She then used the machine's controls to selected a different setting.

The machine is not "beyond it's limits" when it's own controls allow a user a choice of alternate settings besides the default.


This is not in dispute:

- She went over the limits of her machine. Just cuz she was able to overide the regulator on a machine DOES NOT mean the machines manufacturers condone it. Her "selected a different setting." was going over the manufacturers specs.

This is crazy. "Hey, then manufacturer said not to run it into the red in the rpm line, but you know what, I'm gonna do it. Cuz they have the red over the rpm line means its okay with them."

And your bullet points fail to point out the fact that the sample could not be tested again, per international standards.

FC


I believe it was on the Mellas Goofy blog run by their faithful employee/babysitter Frank Sfarzo that you read this. I saw it here, when someone posted the relevant paragraph. In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

lone_wolfe wrote:
Regarding chiriboga's testimony the only reference i found to it is from PS and according to this report I believe her more than Quintivalle(spelling?)

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/06/chiriboga-at-stand.html



It doesn't surprise me that you believe her more based on Frank's report. Frank is not a neutral source of information and hasn't been for a long time. He started trashing Quintavalle months ago, partly because of an ongoing turf war with some of the real local journalists.

In any case, for the reasons I have given I don't think it is a clear-cut matter of believing one or the other. Neither witness proves anything critical.

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

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Pictures of the Conad Supermercato that Amanda is said to have visited can be seen on the TJMK site. They were posted by Peter Quennel on November 16th in a post titled "The HUGE Problem With The "There Is No Evidence" Mantra"

The store is does not look huge, but there are at least two aisles with very high shelving between them. I think it would be quite possible for someone to be in the store without the clerk seeing them, especially as people go in and out of stores all through the day, some purchasing things, some not. If the clerk made special note of every single person that passed through the store on every day, she'd probably go home totally befuddled. I doubt that she would be paying much attention to individuals. Whereas, someone waiting outside the store until it opened, early in the morning would be more memorable, IMO. And not to be sexist, I think a man would be more apt to notice an attractive young woman than a woman--he noticed her blue eyes after all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Someone posted information relative to the DNA found on the knife blade to the effect that the defense had to be notified and could observe any test that was non-repeatable. In fact, it said something about their having observed tests run on other DNA samples. I can't quote this verbatim because I haven't been able to find the exact post, but it was stated that no defense representative observed this test, even though they were notified that it was to take place, because, after all, they couldn't just live in the lab and since the sample was from Sollecito's apartment it wasn't considered to be as important as it would have been had it come from the crime scene. Though I should think that there would have been enough specific information in the notice to indicate that this was a test they should observe.

The information might have been originally posted on Frank's or some other similar site. It was posted here after one of the interminable discussions of the machine being run past its limits, etc. I just couldn't think of a specific enough term to locate it.

Anyway, I don't know whether the defense didn't observe the test because they knew the DNA was apt to be Meredith's and wanted to be able to scream loudly that they didn't have a chance to test it so it should be thrown out, or somebody slipped up majorly, or what.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

beans wrote:
Anyway, I don't know whether the defense didn't observe the test because they knew the DNA was apt to be Meredith's and wanted to be able to scream loudly that they didn't have a chance to test it so it should be thrown out, or somebody slipped up majorly, or what.


I wonder if their next tactic is to attribute contamination due the presence of defense witnesses who were often in close proximity to the defendants :).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Pacific NW


Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:04 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian wrote:
[Mr Quintavalle] said"I was inside and I opened the shutters of my supermarket at 7.45am. Outside I saw a girl waiting to come inside.

“She had a hat and jeans on but what struck me was how pale she looked and the colour of her blue eyes, I can still see them in front of me now.

“She was young, around 20 or 21 years old. She came in and went to the section at the back of the supermarket on the left where there are the cleaning products.

“I can’t remember if she bought anything. A few hours later I heard about the murder and then a few days later I saw Amanda’s picture in the newspaper and I recognised her as the same girl.”

He said he had no doubt about identifying her. “The shape of the face was the same, as was the nose, she was pretty. For me the girl in the newspapers was the same girl.”

Q's testimony rings true to me: he saw a pale, pretty, young girl with memorable blue eyes and the testosterone coursed through his veins. At the risk of a sexist generalization, this is exactly the kind of person I would expect him to remember. Sexual attraction (perhaps aided by a bit of fantasizing) is a powerful stimulus for retaining a memory in detail.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:18 pm   Post subject: ON THE PAYROLL ... MAKING WATER GO UPSTREAM   

Pacific NW wrote:
Q's testimony rings true to me: he saw a pale, pretty, young girl with memorable blue eyes and the testosterone coursed through his veins. At the risk of a sexist generalization, this is exactly the kind of person I would expect him to remember. Sexual attraction (perhaps aided by a bit of fantasizing) is a powerful stimulus for retaining a memory in detail.


Their declarations have two different levels of strength:

1) Quintavalle states actively and affirmatively: I saw her. Her eyes remain in my memory.

2) Chiriboga states passively: I didn't see her ... but I wasn't looking out for her, nor did I know who she was until after the crime, by reading the newspapers, and I honestly can't remember that day now, as it would have been just another early opening of the store and I had no reason to be on the lookout and remember this young lady's face. I had stopped working for Raffaele weeks before that (his father always paid me on time, and I especially appreciate the most recent bonus), well before the female accused and him started going out, which I have learned about through the newspapers was just a few days before the crime. (my paraphrase of her possible thoughts)
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi


Well put, Didi. About drama queens striding in and sucking all the air out of the room. I read on MSN today that some teen had fallen into an open sewer while texting (a manhole cover had been removed). Perhaps it was Frumpycat.

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:07 pm   Post subject: ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND   

disinterested wrote:
It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

He continues to reheat the meatloaf which we refused yesterday, trying to serve it like its the first time. After a while, old, reheated meatloaf just starts to smell bad.

Another tact to take is to purposefully introduce spelling errors in your posts, as another posting artist (or technician?) here was doing, in order to have something to talk about if and when anybody gets confused and asks you what's up.

In real life, do these people walk around with their underwear on the outside of their pants, hoping that someone will make a comment about it, and thereby turn the spotlight on themselves?

I actually had jotted down some replies to FC, about how long Patrick's bar was closed, about percentages of crimes involving foreigners in European countries, about red-lining DNA testing equipment and causing core meltdowns, about the unbroken seals on the cottage before 18/12/2007, but then I realised that we have already all posted a number of variations on these replies, and that this guy should simply read the replies already made to him before he starts asking the same questions, or starts making the same accusations again.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi


Well put, Didi. About drama queens striding in and sucking all the air out of the room. I read on MSN today that some teen had fallen into an open sewer while texting (a manhole cover had been removed). Perhaps it was Frumpycat.



Oh wow ow!! Shouldn't be funny, but really...right out of the Simpsons: "And, like, dude, I was like so out of it, man, and then the other dude, he was..." WAAAAAAaaaa...!

The confusing thing is that with the Frumpy Cats of the world--and oh, lo, those many legions who proceed him--you develop a kind of sympathy for them due to pure exposure and the "fervour" (our new word) they inspire and then, when they kind of wander off, licking their wounds a bit maybe but mostly looking for a new scene to capture, you feel like you almost miss them, because they have sucked all the air out of the room so then you feel deflated. (This is much better explained by Modern Physics.)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND   

Kermit wrote:
disinterested wrote:
It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

He continues to reheat the meatloaf which we refused yesterday, trying to serve it like its the first time. After a while, old, reheated meatloaf just starts to smell bad.

Another tact to take is to purposefully introduce spelling errors in your posts, as another posting artist (or technician?) here was doing, in order to have something to talk about if and when anybody gets confused and asks you what's up.

In real life, do these people walk around with their underwear on the outside of their pants, hoping that someone will make a comment about it, and thereby turn the spotlight on themselves?

I actually had jotted down some replies to FC, about how long Patrick's bar was closed, about percentages of crimes involving foreigners in European countries, about red-lining DNA testing equipment and causing core meltdowns, about the unbroken seals on the cottage before 18/12/2007, but then I realised that we have already all posted a number of variations on these replies, and that this guy should simply read the replies already made to him before he starts asking the same questions, or starts making the same accusations again.


I have read an update on the teen who fell in the sewer (call him FC), and it seems the authorities are trying to decide whether or not it is worth pulling him out or just leaving him in what appears to be his element.

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:18 pm   Post subject: KEEP SWIMMING ...... OVER IN THAT DIRECTION   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I have read an update on the teen who fell in the sewer (call him FC), and it seems the authorities are trying to decide whether or not it is worth pulling him out or just leaving him in what appears to be his element.

There's a saying in Spanish: "como pez en el agua", which means: he fits in there, like a fish in water.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I don't see what motivation Marc Quintovalle would have to lie at a murder trial. His testimony seemed to have left quite impression on Stewart Home:

"The courtroom was on edge when the prosecutor asked Quintovalle to identify the person he saw that morning by looking at a picture.

He finally looked directly at Amanda in the courtroom, staring at her in the eye only a few feet away and stated, “era lei, era Knox...” - ”It was her, it was Knox, she was the person I saw that morning”.

Comments: this was quite a climax of a scene. A direct eye witness testifying, without any doubt in his mind, that in effect Knox was lying about not getting up until around 10am on that morning. " (Stewart Home, TJMK).

It's important to note that Marc Quintovalle's and Chiriboga's testimonies are not mutually exclusive.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
It's important to note that Marc Quintovalle's and Chiriboga's testimonies are not mutually exclusive.

Quite right, TM. Not everyone in that courtroom is a liar, nor does everyone in that courtroom have the right to lie if they want to.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: KEEP SWIMMING ...... OVER IN THAT DIRECTION   

Kermit wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I have read an update on the teen who fell in the sewer (call him FC), and it seems the authorities are trying to decide whether or not it is worth pulling him out or just leaving him in what appears to be his element.

There's a saying in Spanish: "como pez en el agua", which means: he fits in there, like a fish in water.


Et en français : heureux comme un poisson dans l'eau.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi


Well put, Didi. About drama queens striding in and sucking all the air out of the room. I read on MSN today that some teen had fallen into an open sewer while texting (a manhole cover had been removed). Perhaps it was Frumpycat.



Oh wow ow!! Shouldn't be funny, but really...right out of the Simpsons: "And, like, dude, I was like so out of it, man, and then the other dude, he was..." WAAAAAAaaaa...!

The confusing thing is that with the Frumpy Cats of the world--and oh, lo, those many legions who proceed him--you develop a kind of sympathy for them due to pure exposure and the "fervour" (our new word) they inspire and then, when they kind of wander off, licking their wounds a bit maybe but mostly looking for a new scene to capture, you feel like you almost miss them, because they have sucked all the air out of the room so then you feel deflated. (This is much better explained by Modern Physics.)


That's funny, I think just before falling into the sewer he said something about missing you over at Frank's. Something about wanting to have his butt kicked or his ass kicked. He has such a colorful way of expressing himself.

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

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi


Well put, Didi. About drama queens striding in and sucking all the air out of the room. I read on MSN today that some teen had fallen into an open sewer while texting (a manhole cover had been removed). Perhaps it was Frumpycat.



Oh wow ow!! Shouldn't be funny, but really...right out of the Simpsons: "And, like, dude, I was like so out of it, man, and then the other dude, he was..." WAAAAAAaaaa...!

The confusing thing is that with the Frumpy Cats of the world--and oh, lo, those many legions who proceed him--you develop a kind of sympathy for them due to pure exposure and the "fervour" (our new word) they inspire and then, when they kind of wander off, licking their wounds a bit maybe but mostly looking for a new scene to capture, you feel like you almost miss them, because they have sucked all the air out of the room so then you feel deflated. (This is much better explained by Modern Physics.)


That's funny, I think just before falling into the sewer he said something about missing you over at Frank's. Something about wanting to have his butt kicked or his ass kicked. He has such a colorful way of expressing himself.


He missed Justlooking -- but on that other site FC was still anonymus, so Justlooking just didn't remember exactly who FC could have been among many others
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi


Well put, Didi. About drama queens striding in and sucking all the air out of the room. I read on MSN today that some teen had fallen into an open sewer while texting (a manhole cover had been removed). Perhaps it was Frumpycat.



Oh wow ow!! Shouldn't be funny, but really...right out of the Simpsons: "And, like, dude, I was like so out of it, man, and then the other dude, he was..." WAAAAAAaaaa...!

The confusing thing is that with the Frumpy Cats of the world--and oh, lo, those many legions who proceed him--you develop a kind of sympathy for them due to pure exposure and the "fervour" (our new word) they inspire and then, when they kind of wander off, licking their wounds a bit maybe but mostly looking for a new scene to capture, you feel like you almost miss them, because they have sucked all the air out of the room so then you feel deflated. (This is much better explained by Modern Physics.)


That's funny, I think just before falling into the sewer he said something about missing you over at Frank's. Something about wanting to have his butt kicked or his ass kicked. He has such a colorful way of expressing himself.


He missed Justlooking -- but on that other site FC was still anonymus, so Justlooking just didn't remember exactly who FC could have been among many others


Of course, how could I have confused JL and Disinterested. I knew he was pining to have his ass kicked by someone with a neutral sounding name. He longs for a fight club (FC).

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

What are they doing?



Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:39 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

No idea Jools, but looks like it would make a great subject for a catchphrase competition :).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
What are they doing?






In the first picture Edda prepares for an interview -- to have a nice background and proper lights

In the second a guy in robes demonstrates an action (strangling?) to a colleague


Last edited by Hungarian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.


He's certainly worn me out. Now I just scroll down the page Frumpy Cat...Frumpy Cat....Frumpy Cat---until there's a break and I figure he may have gone to work. As far as not knowing what he's talking about, tell him that. Going by his statements about what he knows, we don't need Wikipedia anymore. I really do not like to get personal, but on a regular basis someone comes along and takes over this forum and they just suck all the air out of the room. It's not the "hostility" or the coming in with "your guns ablazin," it's just proceeding as though you are the center of the world: "I want, I think, I know, etc.," when this forum has existed how long without him? (Kind of reminds me of a girl I know named Amanda.)

Didi


Well put, Didi. About drama queens striding in and sucking all the air out of the room. I read on MSN today that some teen had fallen into an open sewer while texting (a manhole cover had been removed). Perhaps it was Frumpycat.



Oh wow ow!! Shouldn't be funny, but really...right out of the Simpsons: "And, like, dude, I was like so out of it, man, and then the other dude, he was..." WAAAAAAaaaa...!

The confusing thing is that with the Frumpy Cats of the world--and oh, lo, those many legions who proceed him--you develop a kind of sympathy for them due to pure exposure and the "fervour" (our new word) they inspire and then, when they kind of wander off, licking their wounds a bit maybe but mostly looking for a new scene to capture, you feel like you almost miss them, because they have sucked all the air out of the room so then you feel deflated. (This is much better explained by Modern Physics.)


That's funny, I think just before falling into the sewer he said something about missing you over at Frank's. Something about wanting to have his butt kicked or his ass kicked. He has such a colorful way of expressing himself.


He missed Justlooking -- but on that other site FC was still anonymus, so Justlooking just didn't remember exactly who FC could have been among many others


Of course, how could I have confused JL and Disinterested. I knew he was pining to have his ass kicked by someone with a neutral sounding name. He longs for a fight club (FC).



that was funny SB!
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

OT:
The serial rapist that has terrorized Rome in the last few months has been arrested. Luca Bianchini, an accountant and law student, a social activist, very well liked and thought of by friends and collegues, a steady normal relationship with his girlfriend, has been charged with having raped at least three women in the last few months, but the number could go up to 10 or 12. His DNA matches the last three victim's, and police searching his house found some jewerly that belonged to one of the victims, a plastic band of the kind used to immoilize them, hard core porno videos picturing true rape scenes, a "Halloween Rites" and other esoteric rites books, knives and red wax woodoo dolls complete with pins. His girlfriend, collegues and friends are astonished, Bianchini is proclaiming his innocence and is requesting another DNA test, while screaming he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. His attorney -a friend of his-has said today that he is thinking of pleading insanity.


Corriere

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

nicki wrote:
OT:
The serial rapist that has terrorized Rome in the last few months has been arrested. Luca Bianchini, an accountant and law student, a social activist, very well liked and thought of by friends and collegues, a steady normal relationship with his girlfriend, has been charged with having raped at least three women in the last few months, but the number could go up to 10 or 12. His DNA matches the last three victim's, and police searching his house found some jewerly that belonged to one of the victims, a plastic band of the kind used to immoilize them, hard core porno videos picturing true rape scenes, a "Halloween Rites" and other esoteric rites books, knives and red wax woodoo dolls complete with pins. His girlfriend, collegues and friends are astonished, Bianchini is proclaiming his innocence and is requesting another DNA test, while screaming he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. His attorney -a friend of his-has said today that he is thinking of pleading insanity.


Corriere


Nicki, Very interesting. Appearing as a nice, normal person I gather...just like the med student rapist here in US recently. I'd love to know how they caught him.

dd
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

nicki wrote:
OT:
The serial rapist that has terrorized Rome in the last few months has been arrested. Luca Bianchini, an accountant and law student, a social activist, very well liked and thought of by friends and collegues, a steady normal relationship with his girlfriend, has been charged with having raped at least three women in the last few months, but the number could go up to 10 or 12. His DNA matches the last three victim's, and police searching his house found some jewerly that belonged to one of the victims, a plastic band of the kind used to immoilize them, hard core porno videos picturing true rape scenes, a "Halloween Rites" and other esoteric rites books, knives and red wax woodoo dolls complete with pins. His girlfriend, collegues and friends are astonished, Bianchini is proclaiming his innocence and is requesting another DNA test, while screaming he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. His attorney -a friend of his-has said today that he is thinking of pleading insanity.


Corriere


Ciao Bella,

Oh, another la_)

Perhaps a prospective client for Torre & Gino?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

That's funny, I think just before falling into the sewer he said something about missing you over at Frank's. Something about wanting to have his butt kicked or his ass kicked. He has such a colorful way of expressing himself.

* * * * *
Sounds a bit gay. lol
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   



Ha!

That's Ghirga strangling Doc Sollecito for not allowing Rafe to alibi his Mandy. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

This is off the subject of the current discussion, but I finally found the post about the defense missing the testing of the DNA from the blade of the knife.

It was posted by DLW on July 9th at 7:00 pm:
Quote:
According to Frank on the non-repeatable DNA test on the Kitchen blade.

‘A non-repeatable test is valid only when the parties are present. This DNA test is valid, it has been acquired, because it was done at the presence of the parties, as the law requires. But what does it mean the parties to be present? It means that the one who makes the test notifies the parties that the test will be done. Then, if they show up or not, under the legal point of view they were present anyway, because they were notified to…
The parties did send their experts for the most important tests, about crime scene stuff. But they certainly couldn't live in that lab, and they wouldn't go for stuff seized at Raffaele's place…
Here we have an example of difference between actual truth and legal truth. The representatives of Knox and Sollecito weren't there. But for the trial they were there, the test was done at their presence. In this case, when the freedom of two people is into question, what would you suggest to the judge, to consider the legal truth or the actual truth?’

So the non-repeatable positive sample of Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is valid. That the representatives of Knox and Raffaele didn’t show up even when notified, either due to negligence or willful neglect on their part, is their fault. That is the legal and actual truth.


For me, since the DNA profile was such a good, clean match and remembering Raffaele's sly little "pricked her with the knife while cooking" remark--the legal truth seems just fine.


Last edited by beans on Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pacific NW


Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:04 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:28 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

nicki wrote:
OT:
The serial rapist that has terrorized Rome in the last few months has been arrested. Luca Bianchini, an accountant and law student, a social activist, very well liked and thought of by friends and collegues, a steady normal relationship with his girlfriend, has been charged with having raped at least three women in the last few months, but the number could go up to 10 or 12. His DNA matches the last three victim's, and police searching his house found some jewerly that belonged to one of the victims, a plastic band of the kind used to immoilize them, hard core porno videos picturing true rape scenes, a "Halloween Rites" and other esoteric rites books, knives and red wax woodoo dolls complete with pins. His girlfriend, collegues and friends are astonished, Bianchini is proclaiming his innocence and is requesting another DNA test, while screaming he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. His attorney -a friend of his-has said today that he is thinking of pleading insanity.


Corriere

Poor Luca! This case sounds like another "railroad job from hell"! I bet that evil Mignini is involved, especially since there are Satanic and kinky sex overtones. He is clearly innocent. I bet Patrizia Stefanoni performed the DNA testing with no regard for proper procedure. What a miscarriage of justice. I think I'll start an FOL group and hire a PR firm ...

yr-)

[this is not to make light of the tragedy that befell the women involved; I just couldn't resist drawing a parallel]
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
justlooking wrote:
It had always been my understanding that both parties (i.e. the defense and the prosecution) had to agree before this type of DNA testing was carried out. Can't find the specific statement at the moment as I have to rush off but I certainly recall reading it.


Frumpycat wrote:
Brian S.

Quote:
And so are you.

MK's DNA wasn't detected by a machine used beyond it's limits.

The machine has a "default" setting which Stefononi switched off.

She then used the machine's controls to selected a different setting.

The machine is not "beyond it's limits" when it's own controls allow a user a choice of alternate settings besides the default.


This is not in dispute:

- She went over the limits of her machine. Just cuz she was able to overide the regulator on a machine DOES NOT mean the machines manufacturers condone it. Her "selected a different setting." was going over the manufacturers specs.

This is crazy. "Hey, then manufacturer said not to run it into the red in the rpm line, but you know what, I'm gonna do it. Cuz they have the red over the rpm line means its okay with them."

And your bullet points fail to point out the fact that the sample could not be tested again, per international standards.

FC


I believe it was on the Mellas Goofy blog run by their faithful employee/babysitter Frank Sfarzo that you read this. I saw it here, when someone posted the relevant paragraph. In this matter, as in so many others, Frumpy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking because he likes to talk until he wears everyone else out.



Greggy wrote:
Regarding the Detection of MK's DNA on the Knife

A considerable amount of discussion recently has centered on how the DNA polymerase chain reaction instrument (PCR; also called thermal cycler) was used to detect Mk's DNA on the knife found in RS apartment. Like many debates, both sides on this issue make valid points.

I think it is helpful to point out that some of the ideas that have been presented concerning a PCR instrument are fanciful. In brief, it is a simple instrument that raises the temperature up and down on a tiny tube containing a solution of DNA reactants in a highly controlled manner. Each time the temperature goes up and then down, more specific DNA is made (amplification). It has buttons you can push on its keypad that allow you to develop programs/protocols to raise and lower the temperature in either a precise stepwise or gradient manner, set the number of cycles, etc. It doesn't have dangerous over-ride functions, a red zone, or will blow-up in your face. It is a simple and flexible lab instrument. Scientists develop experimental PCR protocols to optimally amplify DNA and identify it. After a PCR protocol has been published, tested many time, and approved, it is used routinely by police technicians to amplify DNA and reliably identify it in criminal cases.

In this case, the Italian police scientists developed and used an unpublished, unapproved protocol to detect an incredibly minute amount of MK's DNA on the blade of the knife. You can't create DNA in a PCR instrument; you can only amplify what is already there. I thoroughly applaud the ingenuity of the scientists who developed and used this protocol to identify an exceedingly trace amount of DNA. I have seen some of the data and it strongly indicates that MK had some sort of contact with the blade of the knife. An alternative interpretation could be that someone else carrying MK's DNA touched the knife but left no DNA of themselves, though their DNA should have been found on the knife's edge in far greater amounts. I have concluded that the knife had contact with MK. But two thorny issues remain: (1) they used a novel unapproved protocol to detect MK's DNA, and; (2) there was not enough of the sample left for the Prosecution Scientists, or even better the Defense Scientists, to confirm the results. These two issues, a lack of published reliability and no reproducibility, are not good for the Prosecution's case concerning this piece of DNA evidence. Science, like a lover, derives much of its value and charm from fidelity.



As Skep [edit to add: and Beans and DLW :)] states in her post the information that the defences were offered the opportunity to attend this test comes from Frank. The defense could have attended with any experts they deemed necessary. Because they were offered that opportunity, Frank says the result is valid in an Italian Court albeit with a lower weighting than would be the case if a second test could have been held.

He then joked about whether the lab thought lawyers had time to hang around waiting for the test. What do you think their job is Frank?

I'd suggest to Frank that a time and date for the test could have been fixed with the lab, but I suspect it's not in the interests of defences to attend tests such as these, and they may well choose to be absent, deliberately.

If the test proves negative, they've lost nothing.

If the test proves positive, they can throw doubts on the procedure and the result because it wasn't observed by others who could offer an expert opinion on the correctness and quality of the test.


Last edited by Brian S. on Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:59 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

disinterested wrote:
nicki wrote:
OT:
The serial rapist that has terrorized Rome in the last few months has been arrested. Luca Bianchini, an accountant and law student, a social activist, very well liked and thought of by friends and collegues, a steady normal relationship with his girlfriend, has been charged with having raped at least three women in the last few months, but the number could go up to 10 or 12. His DNA matches the last three victim's, and police searching his house found some jewerly that belonged to one of the victims, a plastic band of the kind used to immoilize them, hard core porno videos picturing true rape scenes, a "Halloween Rites" and other esoteric rites books, knives and red wax woodoo dolls complete with pins. His girlfriend, collegues and friends are astonished, Bianchini is proclaiming his innocence and is requesting another DNA test, while screaming he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. His attorney -a friend of his-has said today that he is thinking of pleading insanity.


Corriere


Nicki, Very interesting. Appearing as a nice, normal person I gather...just like the med student rapist here in US recently. I'd love to know how they caught him.
For Disinterested:
The Corriere website reported that he was caught on CCTV in one of the garages where an attack had taken place. Also caught on surveillance video was one of his cars and its number plate. On RAI TV news they showed a very good identikit photo police had prepared of him before his arrest. A wealth of evidence, it seems.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:16 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Tiziano wrote:

Quote:
Nicki, Very interesting. Appearing as a nice, normal person I gather...just like the med student rapist here in US recently. I'd love to know how they caught him.
For Disinterested:
The Corriere website reported that he was caught on CCTV in one of the garages where an attack had taken place. Also caught on surveillance video was one of his cars and its number plate. On RAI TV news they showed a very good identikit photo police had prepared of him before his arrest. A wealth of evidence, it seems.



It sounds like he needs a little of that Bongiorno magic, combined with the money of Doc Sollecito and a schlocky-shocky "people" format blog financed by American money. I have heard that Frank has tired of his current gig and may fold the pro-defense blog he's currently running. He may have his sights set on a return to the big city, and could perhaps be talked into setting up a similar one for Luca. And before y'all know it, water will actually start flowing uphill.

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Nicki, Very interesting. Appearing as a nice, normal person I gather...just like the med student rapist here in US recently. I'd love to know how they caught him.


Tiziano wrote:

For Disinterested:
The Corriere website reported that he was caught on CCTV in one of the garages where an attack had taken place. Also caught on surveillance video was one of his cars and its number plate. On RAI TV news they showed a very good identikit photo police had prepared of him before his arrest. A wealth of evidence, it seems.


Thanks Tiziano for the follow-up on the Italian news about this arrest. It's sort of impressive how well these security systems and CCTV placements work to provide evidence in crimes that would otherwise be totally unavailable. I never notice that many of the cameras myself--but I'm probably not looking very hard. (Better watch my own behavior though...)

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:11 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Here's an idea which has been "fermenting" in my brain ever since I sat down to cogitate with a bottle of wine the other day.

Has Guilia Bongiorno played into Walter Biscotti's hands?

First a bit of history:

"Rudy through the window" has been a favourite with FOA since the beginning, and it was being shot down then in just the same ways that it continues to be shot down now.

It's been the case that since March/April time 2008 that Walter Biscotti said Rudy would take the alternate trial route to the other two, whatever may be their decision.

Guilia Bongiorno was recruited to Raffaele's defense April 2008.

Mignini officially laid his charges towards the end of June.The defense teams had 3 weeks to respond before everything became official. Not much happened and then the Italian legal system took it's apparently annual holiday fronm sometime towards the end of July through August.

Two things relevent to my theory happened in early September.

Guilia Bongiorno took her climbing expert out to the cottage to investigate the possibilities of entry through the window. This was the first real indication that "Rudy through the window" was actually going to form a major plank in Raffaele's defense and would be backed up by "expert witness" testimony at trial.

Biscotti and Gentile poured scorn on the idea and announced that Rudy had applied for "a shortened trial".

"Rudy through the window" didn't play any part in Rudy's trial. The prosecution wasn't suggesting it and counsel for AK and RS couldn't give evidence in Rudy's shortened trial which was conducted based on the written evidence in Mignini's 10,00o pages and a written defense given to the court by Rudy's lawyer's. With the judges permission Rudy was allowed to call a couple of character witnesses and Kokomani where Biscotti disputed his evidence placing the three together ouside the cottage. That was it and Micheli went on to find Rudy guilty.


Walter Biscotti's high stakes game:

The spark for my theory comes from the new knowledge and the reasons why Micheli disqualified Christian Tromolo's evidence back at the pretrial of AK and RS. For various reasons he found it unreliable and also said that the description it contained of Rudy's actions suggested Tromolo had read that information from newspaper reports of Rudy's original statement of his confrontation with Raffaele.

In the week immediately preceeding Meredith's murder, Rudy was arrested in the school in Milan and had been found in possession of a laptop which had been stolen by a thief who had thrown a rock through a window and climbed up to it to gain access to the property.

Rudy's problems won't have happened in a vacuum. His friends and aquaintances in Perugia were probably very aware of his "little difficulty". It may well have been a topic of conversation. It may have even warranted a paragraph in the local rag. Rudy himself went to see the lawyers to tell them, "it wasn't me". Rudy was known in the Merlin, Le Chic, Domus, Piazza Grimana and to the boys downstairs and Meredith, not to mention Amanda, by her own admission. Filomena even worked for a firm of lawyers (which firm??}. Maybe even she bought the topic of Rudy, the laptop, the rock and the window back to the cottage.

Fast forward to the last two or three weeks of this trial. Guilia Bongiorno has made "Rudy through the window" almost the entire basis for Raffaele's defense. Witness after witness has been devoted to it.

Meanwhile, Biscotti and Gentile have stood on the sidelines pouring scorn on Bongiorno's theories at every opportunity.

But they've also said two other things during the time this evidence was presented:

They have a "new witness(s)".

Rudy may well ask for his appeal to happen at a full trial - thus risking an increase in his sentence if he is still found guilty.

So what?

If RS and AK are found guilty at this trial, "Rudy through the window" will be a discredited theory and dismissed by this court as an untruth. That the evidence at the cottage was arranged AK and RS to incriminate Rudy.

Armed with this, Biscotti may well have the opportunity to base Rudy's appeal on the discedited "Rudy through the window" crime scene staging, backed up by a new witness(s) who will testify that AK and RS well knew about the story of "Rudy throwing a rock through the lawyer's window" in the days immediately preceeding Meredith's murder.



I'm gonna pursue this theory over the next day or so in the light of some other evidence which is "known".

ISTM that the crime scene staging wasn't just restricted to the cottage.

It's been assumed by many that Meredith's mobile phones were taken to prevent her calling for help. Maybe this isn't so. Merediths room was a bloody scene after she was stabbed. Rudy himself admits he was covered in blood and thats likely true because someone held those towels to Meredith's wounds or put them directly in the flow of blood. But as Michael points out, there wasn't a trace of Rudy's DNA or Meredith's blood on her mobile phones. They were clean.

Rudy was also caught with a stolen mobile phone in Milan. So who also may have known about that in addition to rocks through windows?

Meredith's phones were found in a garden opposite a gate in the city wall which provides entry through into the road where Rudy lives. See Kermit's power points. I believe it was also Kermit who discovered that gate is closed every night at 8pm. It's not a gate you can climb over. It's of solid construction and fills completely the hole in a towering city wall. Again, I think Kermit has posted pics of the gate.

Rudy can't live more than 50 metres from that gate and he'd lived in that apartment for the best part of a year. It's impossible that he wouldn't be aware that the gate was closed every night. But Raffaele lived around the corner in another road. He'd only been there for a couple of months, it's entirely possible he wouldn't be aware of the closing time of that gate.

So who would throw 2 mobile phones into a garden opposite a gate which leads through the wall and on the Rudy's apartment.

It would only be Rudy if he was totally stupid and became angry when he arrived at the gate after killing Meredith only to discover he'd forgotten it closed at 8pm and he couldn't get back to his place.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:11 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...
As for the deposit in the toilet, I think most people would have simply flushed it down. But as we have been told time and again, AK is not like other people. And yes, a deposit left overnight in a small room would create a noticeable stench.


Sorry for this smelly subject again, but is the picture showed previously (I think by thoughtful) the right one? ISTM that there were statements regarding 'the deposit disappearance"... but that picture clearly shows it did could not disappear. Maybe I am wrong.

Z.

Ps:
lone_wolfe nice to see you back.
fc, wow! un vrai moulin à paroles!
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Poo in the Loo and crime scene staging:

That Rudy left the poo there is no doubt. His DNA was also found on the toilet paper.

BUT There was no trace of Meredith's blood in that bathroom. Not in footprints, not on the toilet paper and not in the washbasin. Nada! Zilch! Not one speck anywhere.

Conclusion: Rudy pooed before Meredith was killed.


Amanda said she discovered that poo when she went to get the girls' hairdryer after washing her hair in that cold, cold house without the heating on.

We know that Amanda's fingerprints were notoriously absent from that house.

Are they absent from the hairdryer too?
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:39 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Will Knox's Boyfriend Sacrifice Himself?

During his original taped deposition, which he has not retracted, Sollecito said he did not know if Knox spent the night of November 1 with him.


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...


Barbie Nadeau - The Daily Beast


S'funny, I thought she was concentrating on blaming Rudy.

She's sacked her DNA expert and Amanda could be blamed for transferring Raffaele's DNA to the clasp.
Top Profile 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian, as you ruminate in that brain of yours about some of these possible staging issues, I'd like you to consider when they might have hatched this idea. Was it on the fly after the murder or perhaps part of a more evil plot with pre-murder planning? There continues to be a part of me that cannot just cancel out Amanda's creative writing rape story and Raffaele's violent manga interests. They risked involving another person for a reason.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:08 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Poo in the Loo and crime scene staging:

That Rudy left the poo there is no doubt. His DNA was also found on the toilet paper.

BUT There was no trace of Meredith's blood in that bathroom. Not in footprints, not on the toilet paper and not in the washbasin. Nada! Zilch! Not one speck anywhere.

Conclusion: Rudy pooed before Meredith was killed.


Amanda said she discovered that poo when she went to get the girls' hairdryer after washing her hair in that cold, cold house without the heating on.

We know that Amanda's fingerprints were notoriously absent from that house.

Are they absent from the hairdryer too?


Or, 'while' she was being killed. Does this work...

The assault on Meredith begins. Rudy participates for a time, during which Meredith is well restrained...one on each arm and another in front restraining her by the hair combined with menacing her with a knife, keeping her in check. It escelates, perhaps when the sexual assault starts and something reacts inside Rudy psychologicaly which presents physicaly ...it goes to his guts. He has to leave, which probably he's quite relieved about as he has an excuse to run away from that which is causing him such a reaction and heads for the bathroom. Meanwhile, where Meredith had been restrained by 3 people, fully under control and in a hopeless situation, she now finds herself restrained by only 2 people. The situation is no longer hopless...with only 2 people she perceives she suddenly may have a chance, maybe her only chance, so she struggles frantically and throws all her energy into it before the third can return. It's at this time she manages to break a hand free and tries to force the knife away from her that's been thrust closer to counter her struggle and she sustains the knife injuries to her hand. The two attackers at this point move from alarm to panic as they suddenly feel they are losing control and in desperation they prick her under the chin to try and regain control. The final straw is Meredith screams...the frantic blow to the neck is a knee jerk panicked response to deal with a girl they've lost control over, due to the fact their number has been reduced to two instead of three.

This explains both the existence of Meredith's defensive wounds, combined with the paradox that they were only slight. The situation escalated out of control and the resulting consequences simply happened too fast for the defence wounds to be more severe, she wasn't free for long enough and everyone was just running on instinct at this point.

Those restraining her being reduced from 3 to 2 explains how control may have broke down and she was able to break free in the first place and it was that momentary breaking free combined with a scream that forced her two captors to resort to desperate measures, without thinking...just plain reaction.

On hearing the scream, Rudy runs out of the bathroom and the image he's presented with is more or less as he described in his story. Only now events have gone further then he planned or ever imagined they would. The other two stand numb, while his reaction is to grab a towel and attempt to staunch the blood. He leans over towards the bed to grab the pillow, but needs to move her handag on the bed out of the way to reach it. He wants to make her comfortable and to try and undo what has been been done at this point. It quickly comes to a point where he realises it's useless and it suddenly turns from trying to save her...to hastening her death...pressure is put on the neck...

At this point, Rudy runs, the others run after him...they have to speak. The conversation is brief and then they split, Rudy leaving the cottage, not returning to the bathroom to flush. The other two are left to deal with the mess. They leave the cottage and move to the piazza watching the cottage from a distance. They realise no police are going to arrive and start to think about a plan to deal with the situation. It is several hours before they return to the cottage with an idea of what they are going to do. The plan is simple...remove any visible traces of themselves and make the crime scene appear as though someone broke in to rob the cottage, found Meredith and attacked her with sexual intent before fleeing. In an attemt to validate a robbery but also meet the need of practicality and avoid being noticed, only small but valuable items are taken from the scene...as they are easy to transport without attracting attention and to dispose of.

My apologies for being graphic...but the scenario had to be put into words to see if it made logical sense.

_________________
"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 Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:48 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
My apologies for being graphic...but the scenario had to be put into words to see if it made logical sense.


It makes perfect sense, Michael.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:58 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brian S. wrote:
S'funny, I thought she was concentrating on blaming Rudy.

She's sacked her DNA expert and Amanda could be blamed for transferring Raffaele's DNA to the clasp.


Haven't we been expecting this all along? The defense teams have clearly not been able to successfully attack the evidence against their clients. Something has to break.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:32 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Zopi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...
As for the deposit in the toilet, I think most people would have simply flushed it down. But as we have been told time and again, AK is not like other people. And yes, a deposit left overnight in a small room would create a noticeable stench.


Sorry for this smelly subject again, but is the picture showed previously (I think by thoughtful) the right one? ISTM that there were statements regarding 'the deposit disappearance"... but that picture clearly shows it did could not disappear. Maybe I am wrong.

Z.

Ps:
lone_wolfe nice to see you back.
fc, wow! un vrai moulin à paroles!


Il mouline comme un attrape-nigaud. Méfiez-vous !

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:34 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
S'funny, I thought she was concentrating on blaming Rudy.

She's sacked her DNA expert and Amanda could be blamed for transferring Raffaele's DNA to the clasp.


Haven't we been expecting this all along? The defense teams have clearly not been able to successfully attack the evidence against their clients. Something has to break.


Chacun pour soi et Dieu contre tous!

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

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:46 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

disinterested wrote:
Nicki, Very interesting. Appearing as a nice, normal person I gather...just like the med student rapist here in US recently. I'd love to know how they caught him.


Tiziano wrote:

For Disinterested:
The Corriere website reported that he was caught on CCTV in one of the garages where an attack had taken place. Also caught on surveillance video was one of his cars and its number plate. On RAI TV news they showed a very good identikit photo police had prepared of him before his arrest. A wealth of evidence, it seems.


Thanks Tiziano for the follow-up on the Italian news about this arrest. It's sort of impressive how well these security systems and CCTV placements work to provide evidence in crimes that would otherwise be totally unavailable. I never notice that many of the cameras myself--but I'm probably not looking very hard. (Better watch my own behavior though...)

Didi





The tiny difference with this case -- I was accidentally in Italy for a few days when the arrest happened, and with my residue of Italian I fumbled through the articles -- is that he had a case with a neighbour girl as an adolescent, where he arrived with a knife to rape her, and almost did rape her, but miracuosly the judge deemed he didn't intend to steal or wasn't intellectually responsible, something like that -- so the guy did have a history -- its not only the number plates that pointed towards him -- and the beautiful part of the story is, when the party comrades -- as he was a small functionary in the Pd, Partito Democratico -- are astonished because he frequently accompanied a woman colleague home late at night, saying: "in these times, you never know", and he expressed a wish or hope, that "they will catch the rapist soon". His wish was fulfilled.


Last edited by Hungarian on Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hungarian wrote:


The tiny difference with this case -- I was accidentally in Italy for a few days when the arrest happened, and with my residue of Italian I fumbled through the articles -- is that he had a case with a neighbour girl as an adolescent, where he arrived with a knife to rape her, and almost did rape her, but miracuosly the judge deemed he didn't intend to steal or wasn't intellectually responsible, something like that -- so the guy did have a history -- its not only the number plates that pointed towards him -- and the beautiful part of the story is, when the party comrades -- as he was a small functionary in the Pd, Partito Democratico -- are astonished because he frequently accompanied a woman colleague home late at night, saying: "in these times, you never know", and he expressed a wish or hope, that "they will catch the rapist soon".


Hungarian, This sounds just like Ted Bundy to me. He did the same sort of thing - walking his female colleagues to their cars late at night - always expressing hope that the rapist/murderer would be caught. Another Seattle area gem!
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
S'funny, I thought she was concentrating on blaming Rudy.

She's sacked her DNA expert and Amanda could be blamed for transferring Raffaele's DNA to the clasp.


Haven't we been expecting this all along? The defense teams have clearly not been able to successfully attack the evidence against their clients. Something has to break.


Chacun pour soi et Dieu contre tous!



In this case, though, it's more like "chaque homme contre lui-même" consdidering varied alibis and illogical explanations.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 9 of 10 [ 2441 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,674 Views