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


Last visit was: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:02 am
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:02 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 - Oct 9, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 5 of 10 [ 2410 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:57 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Is it back to the drawing board for the timeline experts, at least for the mid morning/early afternoon of 2nd November?"

The 13:22TS carabinieri car is a problem for the police's RT=TS-10 theory.

The lesser problem is that 13:12RT is too close to the time of breaking down the door of which the earliest estimate we have seen is 13:10.
Those present don't say in their narratives that "as we rushed out there were some carabinieri".

And if the carabinieri indeed called for instructions to find the house then where is that call?
There is only one call and it is at 13:29.

On the other hand a 5 minute navigation seems too long time in a street of 100m in length.

So it must be first established that the carabinieri car that stops there is the one called by Raffaele.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:16 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint,

The pause I am talking about is at the end of RS's first call, he went silent, not sure exactly how long, but enough to give the impression that he was stumped by the question. Then the line went dead. It is not the pause between that between calls.

In general, I think he was reluctant to make the call at all, which is why he called his sister first.

To me, the 'phone call not made' is more important than any other. This is the call that RS and AK could have made, that would have saved Meredith's life. I am worried that they will be found not guilty, due to lack of evidence that they were in the bedroom when Meredith was sexually assaulted and killed and go unpunished for possibly not saving her life.

I think that if RS was arguing with Knox in the piazza on the night of the murder, because he didn't want to call the police. I think he is more likely to be reluctant to call the police because he is from the south of Italy (a CULTURAL difference, not because I am racist ..... that is a dirty, cheap shot). Otherwise, why wait, observering from the piazza if the murder was done, Guede had fled and you both have bloodstains on your clothes?. Knox couldn't speak good enough Italian at this stage to make the call herself, so RS had the 'advantage' in the decision (She still should have got help though).

If they were waiting for Guede to emerge from the gate, before going back to the house, what happened?. I think Guede escaped by running down the stairs at the side of the house and through the gardens. This is the way he decriibed his 'mystery man' escaping, it is also a better way for a murderer, who had dabbled in house breaking and knew the area, to escape?.

They didn't return to the house until the early hours, because they had not seen Guede leave, and were scared. I think that RS was arguing with Knox at the house in the early hours of 2nd Nov, for the same reason. By now, there are really in trouble, for not calling immediately, and I think they compounded the error by trying to show that there were not present when things got out of hand.

The 'phone call not made' could be the key to understanding what happened. I don't think that understanding what happened is easy if you have taken a position as a Knox supporter or hater, with a level of conviction equalled only by the Westboro Baptist Church?.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"I think he is more likely to be reluctant to call the police because he is from the south of Italy (a CULTURAL difference"

Cultural difference here or there, his sister is still a carabiniere so I don't think being southern weighted too much.

Guede as murderer is not against my theories, but if we accept Curatolo's description, AK and RS did not seem worried at all in the park.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"The 'phone call not made' could be the key to understanding what happened."

How did Rudy get into it in the first place?

"I don't think that understanding what happened is easy if you have taken a position as a Knox supporter or hater"

Sure.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

indie, i have been reading here awhile before i joined and following this case since the beginning. i disagree with you on van zandt. the quality of his statement in this instance, and in fact in other cases, shows his level of analysis in my view. he's a pundit now and is out for sound-bite visibility and self-promotion.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Hey, folks, I have found a real pearl!



Its incredibly interesting, Bolint -- it is something at last that is not hearsay! thanks -- interpreting it is a bit more difficult, at least for me --
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint,

Cultural differences are very important, someone in a black ghetto is reluctant to go to the police, a Catholic in Nothern Ireland, until recently, would have been the same.

If we believe Curatolo, RS and AK were very agitated which each other, RS kept going to the railings to look towards the gate of the house. If they had just murdered Meredith, and Guede fled at them same time as them, surely, they would have done like Guede ..... put a lot of distance between themselves and the crime and be more worried about establishing an alibi.

I don't think they knew what had happened in the bedroom until they returned in the early hours, a good reason to believe this is that there were no hairs, fibers, fingerprints etc.in the bedroom. The prosecution alleged that Meredith's bra was cut off well after the murder by RS (DNA is disputed) . In court the female footprint was not definately said to have come from Knox, the range of shoe sizes of both Knox and Meredith came within the those possible. The experts in the video 'how to commit the perfect murder' over on Utube, say it is well nigh impossible to commit murder, especialy in a knife attack, without leaving traces.

Bongiorno, especially, surely wouldn't have taken the case, if she thought the evidence was anywhere near airtight, her political career depends partly on the outcome?.

Incidentally, the top lawyer in Italy and other experts are talking about this case and others at a conference of some sort near Lucca tomorrow, that could be interesting?.

I'll keep an eye on that
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint,

Cultural differences are very important, someone in a black ghetto is reluctant to go to the police, a Catholic in Nothern Ireland, until recently, would have been the same.

If we believe Curatolo, RS and AK were very agitated which each other, RS kept going to the railings to look towards the gate of the house. If they had just murdered Meredith, and Guede fled at them same time as them, surely, they would have done like Guede ..... put a lot of distance between themselves and the crime and be more worried about establishing an alibi.

I don't think they knew what had happened in the bedroom until they returned in the early hours, a good reason to believe this is that there were no hairs, fibers, fingerprints etc.in the bedroom. The prosecution alleged that Meredith's bra was cut off well after the murder by RS (DNA is disputed) . In court the female footprint was not definately said to have come from Knox, the range of shoe sizes of both Knox and Meredith came within the those possible. The experts in the video 'how to commit the perfect murder' over on Utube, say it is well nigh impossible to commit murder, especialy in a knife attack, without leaving traces.

Bongiorno, especially, surely wouldn't have taken the case, if she thought the evidence was anywhere near airtight, her political career depends partly on the outcome?.

Incidentally, the top lawyer in Italy and other experts are talking about this case and others at a conference of some sort near Lucca tomorrow, that could be interesting?.

I'll keep an eye on that
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin wrote:
"put a lot of distance between themselves and the crime and be more worried about establishing an alibi. "

They didn't seem to work hard on alibi. Guede did more for it when he went to dance.

"Bongiorno, especially, surely wouldn't have taken the case, if she thought the evidence was anywhere near airtight"

It never was airtight, this is a difficult case for both sides.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"The prosecution alleged that Meredith's bra was cut off well after the murder by RS (DNA is disputed) "

But why should they stage a sexual attack if they were not involved?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"it is something at last that is not hearsay!"

But don't forget we don't know if it is an official version, it is just downloaded from a website.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Hey, folks, I have found a real pearl!

http://lnx.giovinazzo.it/images/postale.pdf

It seems to be the PDF version of the trial presentation of the Sollecito defence on the arrival of the postal police.


what a great find, thank you!

I asked before where the postal police parked their car. The answer was in the cottage driveway. But that's not true, is it?

12.36 black fiat punto shows up, goes into reverse, disappears
12.41 car is back, drives past
less than a second later two men on the street
12.48 two men at the cottage driveway

defence: RT = ST + 10min
12.58
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Quite a find Bolint! Is it back to the drawing board for the timeline experts, at least for the mid morning/early afternoon of 2nd November?



Hmm, I think there's certainly things to look at here, but I don't think so Tiziano. That 13:29 time must be wrong in some way, because if not, it would mean 'everyone' is either lying or mistaken. We have Filomena and friends arriving shortly before 13:00, at which point the postal police are already there. Now that call time if correct, would in effect be saying that Filomena and friends (and her boyfriend and his friend who arrived even earlier) actually arrived some time after 13:29. The police would also be wrong in their times as they stated they arrived almost an hour ealier then that. The door being broken down time would also have to be put back almost half an hour. Even the defence don't agree on that time since they claim the Postal Police arrived around 13:00 - 13:05.

Therefore, that call must be wrong. Either, it is actually not from the Postal Police, or it is from the Postal Police but on a different matter (a follow up call)), or is a seperate Postal Policeman, from those who already went, wanting to come to the cottage and wanting directions. It must be considered, those records show times but not the conntents of a call.

Here's the other problem for me. How could the Postal Police have even called Amanda 'before' they arrived? They didn't have her number. The number they had was Raffaele's, as he'd made the call. Raffaele gave out an address in his call but not people's telephone numbers. However, the Postal Police on arrival at the cottage may have taken Amanda's number while they were there and called her at some later point for 'some' reason.

_________________
"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 MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
"The prosecution alleged that Meredith's bra was cut off well after the murder by RS (DNA is disputed) "

But why should they stage a sexual attack if they were not involved?



Dead right - esp Sollecito actually touching the corpse to get the bra off. That was ill-considered and desperate not the act of someone who wasn't really involved. Besides which its clear from his tactics in court that he looks after number 1 ; he wouldn't put himself on the line to help Amanda or Rudy. In fact he'd have squealed by now if he wasn't directly involved.



I think he may have been the director of operations that night but he lost control of the other two before his own "payoff" .The worst scenario for him is a Knox/Guede coalescence of stories to take him down with them.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
Therefore, that call must be wrong. Either, it is actually not from the Postal Police, or it is from the Postal Police but on a different matter (a follow up call)), or is a seperate Postal Policeman, from those who already went, wanting to come to the cottage and wanting directions. It must be considered, those records show times but not the conntents of a call.


it's the carabinieri, not the postal police.

Raffaele gave them Amanda's number when he called earlier.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
it's the carabinieri, not the postal police.

Raffaele gave them Amanda's number when he called earlier.


Alright, you've lost me now, so when did he call the Carabinieri? (I need more coffee).

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
it's the carabinieri, not the postal police.

Raffaele gave them Amanda's number when he called earlier.


Alright, you've lost me now, so when did he call the Carabinieri? (I need more coffee).


when he dialled 112

12.51 and 12.54
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
when he dialled 112

12.51 and 12.54


Right, okay then, so the 13:27 call changes absolutely nothing in the scheme of things then.

_________________
"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 Aug 03, 2009 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Inspecting the phone records it is interesting to note that Raffaele did not call back his sister when the body was found.
(I certainly would have done that once I had asked her help)

In fact, he did not call anybody, hist father called him first at 13:40 and four more times the last one at 17:42.




Don't you mean his father called him at 12:40? (Not 13:40)

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Don't you mean his father called him at 12:40? (Not 13:40)"

No. I was speaking of the period after they found the body. His father called him at 13:40, too.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Either, it is actually not from the Postal Police"

Definitely not from the postals, it is from the carabinieri, as the presentation says:
"CHIAMANTE 7554247561 – Stazione Carabinieri di Perugia"

I checked the Perugia phone book, 07554241 is the main number of the carabinieri headquarters.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Right, okay then, so the 13:27 call changes absolutely nothing in the scheme of things then."

As I understand the table:
13:24:18 Amanda calls mother (162 seconds)
13:27:32 Amanda calls father (26 seconds, probably only ringing but unanswered, Seattle time 5:27am)
13:29:00 Carabinieri call Amanda (296 seconds)
13:58:33 Amanda calls mother (1 second (sic!), voice, not SMS) misdial? engaged?
13:59:06 Amanda calls father (350 seconds, Seattle time 5:59am)
14:46:15 Amanda is called from Germany (102 seconds)
15:31:51 Amanda receives SMS (from so far unknown to us)
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
when he dialled 112

12.51 and 12.54


Right, okay then, so the 13:27 call changes absolutely nothing in the scheme of things then.



The timestamp on the CCTV photos shows the carabinieri arriving at 13.22.


But according to the phone records, at 13.29 the carabinieri call Amanda asking for directions.


So the defence is saying that the CCTV clock is running around 10 minutes behind.




The CCTV camera also shows two men, supposedly the postal policemen, walking towards the cottage. The timestamp says 12.48.


That means we have an arrival time of the postal police at 12.58 .
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"12.41 car is back, drives past
less than a second later two men on the street"

So they are hardly from that car.
I don't know if that car is the same as the 12:36TS car.
The news reporting on the CCTV testimony said so, but I doubt it now.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
The timestamp on the CCTV photos shows the carabinieri arriving at 13.22.


But according to the phone records, at 13.29 the carabinieri call Amanda asking for directions.


So the defence is saying that the CCTV clock is running around 10 minutes behind.



I don't think so. There'd just been a murder, it was known about by this time, the Postals had called it in, so there would have been multiple carabinieri heading to the scene. That call could have been made on behalf of any one of the cars heading to the scene, not necessarily the particular car shown arriving at "13:22".

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"That means we have an arrival time of the postal police at 12.58."

12:58:55, so that is 12:59 at the gates, and 13:00 at the house.
And still no sign of Luca and Marco.

When will the door be broken down?
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
"12.41 car is back, drives past
less than a second later two men on the street"

So they are hardly from that car.
I don't know if that car is the same as the 12:36TS car.
The news reporting on the CCTV testimony said so, but I doubt it now.


the 12.36 photo is the one the prosecution used to prove that the postal police arrived then.
but the car drives past, drives backwards and drives past again 5 minutes later and then 2people must have fallen out of the car on to the street.
well, i don't know either...
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael, the basic problem is that no other carabinieri calls are on the phones of either of them.
If the postal inspector testifies that he gave directions to the carabinieri through Raffaele's phone as they had called him then where is that call?
The defence's explanation is that it was Amanda's phone that Raffaele passed to the postal inspector (Battistelli or Marzi).

There may be some other explanation but in the phone records only the 13:29 call can be assigned to it.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"but the car drives past, drives backwards and drives past again 5 minutes later "

We don't know if it is the same car.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
"but the car drives past, drives backwards and drives past again 5 minutes later "

We don't know if it is the same car.


they look rather similar...but you are right, we can't see the number plate, so we don't know if it is the same car and we don't know if the car or either one of the cars is the postal police and we don't know who the two men are.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"and we don't know if the car or either one of the cars is the postal police and we don't know who the two men are"

Limited to these frames we don't.
But it is only the defence's selection from all available frames.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
they look rather similar...but you are right, we can't see the number plate, so we don't know if it is the same car and we don't know if the car or either one of the cars is the postal police and we don't know who the two men are.


It should also be pointed out, that Judge Micheli had full access to both police reports and and video from the car park CCTV, as well as the phone records. He accepted the police times. Neither have the defence in the trial made any successful or valid challenge on the timing of the arrival of the Postal Police.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

The CCTV camera also shows a pair of legs wearing the striped trousers of the carabinieri walking by (arrows) just before the car with the "Cariabnieri" on it's side is seen.

Having looked at a Google map, it seems odd to me that there would be much confusion about finding the house except that it doesn't sit adjacent to Via del Pergola--the end of the driveway is more or less at the junction of Via del Pergola and Viale Sant'Antonio and the house sits below/alongside Via Sant'Antonio. It is the only house on the ravine side of Via del Pergola/Viale Sant'Antonio except for one some distance away that sits below Via Sant'Antonio but has no driveway connecting to it. There are a couple of houses on the town side of Via del Pergola, a parking lot, and the parking structure across from the cottage. That's it. There aren't any houses on Viale Sant'Antonio in the vicinity of Via del Pergola except for the cottage. There would have only been about three doors to knock on to find the cottage.

According to Google.it, there are two carabinieri stations, between 9.3 and 9.5 km away from the cottage with an estimated travel time of 13 minutes. Time of second call 12:54-12:55:36 (say 12:56). So if the carabinieri had to come from their station and they arrived at 13:22 that would give them 26 minutes of travel time, or if you take 10 minutes off for the CCTV clock, 16 minutes. Its a rather straightforward path on highways not city streets. Not impossible.

Could the 12:29 call to Amanda be from a second carabinieri perhaps in response to the report of a body found by the postal police or the first carabinieri on the scene? Is there a record of the actual conversation during that call or only the time and duration?


Last edited by beans on Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

For reference I translated the main point of the defence's call argument:

Slide 147 top:
"LA TESI DEI DIECI MINUTI E’ SMENTITA DAI DATI OGGETTIVI
Nel corso dell’udienza del ………….. l’Ispettore …………………………durante l’interrogatorio
dichiarò che Raffaele Sollecito ricevette una telefonata dai Carabinieri che, trovandosi in
Via della Pergola e non riuscendo a rintracciare il civico n. 7 chiedevano indicazioni in
merito. Lo stesso Ispettore, tramite il cellulare del Sollecito, dava al Carabiniere le dovute
indicazioni. Dall’analisi dei tabulati telefonici del Sollecito non risulta la chiamata in
effettuata dai Carabinieri."

Translation:
"The thesis of ten minutes denied by objective data
In the hearing of ......... inspector .......... during the interrogation stated that Raffaele Sollecito received a phone call from the Carabinieri who, finding themselves in Via della Pergola and not able to find number 7, asked for directions in the question. The same inspector, through the cellphone of Sollecito, gave the Carabinieri the necessary information. From the analysis of the tabulated traffic of Sollecito no call made by the Carabinieri has resulted."


Last edited by bolint on Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Brian S. wrote:
(Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:12 am)

StewartHome2000 wrote:

"The argument was over the system that caused the CCTV to start filming. If a person walks by on the street or a car passes by the road, the CCTV is not activated, but if they come in the garage whether it be a car or person, the CCTV begins recording and continues at least 30 seconds AFTER the car or person has left the "radar" area. Hence you will see scenes of people walking on the street and ars going by only if a car or person set the CCTV off and then left the field of vision."

So unless the postal police parked in the car park, it would only be the chance that someone entered the car park at the same time they (PP) were passing that would show their arrival in the area of the cottage.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Having looked at a Google map, it seems odd to me that there would be much confusion about finding the house "

Yes. The far end of the street is about a 100m from the cottage.
If they needed 5 minutes of instructions to get there, then ... :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Beans wrote:
So unless the postal police parked in the car park, it would only be the chance that someone entered the car park at the same time they (PP) were passing that would show their arrival in the area of the cottage.


Anything going by on the road would have activated it also, which would include any police car arriving at the cottage, it would have had to pass by the camera's motion sensor.

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Could the 12:29 call to Amanda be from a second carabinieri perhaps in response to the report of a body found by the postal police or the first carabinieri on the scene? "

13:29 is correct.

Yes, could be. Also, the carabinieri car of 13:22TS can be an unrelated carabinieri car. But how could we know?

Anyways, it is interesting that this was discussed at the trial on March 13 and no news of such a seemingly important argument have surfaced so far.
Even the defence has not trumpeted it. Why?
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Also, the carabinieri car of 13:22TS can be an unrelated carabinieri car. But how could we know?


on the photos it turns left into the cottage driveway. or is that not the cottage driveway?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
on the photos it turns left into the cottage driveway. or is that not the cottage driveway?



Yes. But it still can be an unrelated car that stops there for a moment. We can't exclude it based on the photos. The police should know.
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Kevin wrote:
"put a lot of distance between themselves and the crime and be more worried about establishing an alibi. "

They didn't seem to work hard on alibi. Guede did more for it when he went to dance.

"Bongiorno, especially, surely wouldn't have taken the case, if she thought the evidence was anywhere near airtight"

It never was airtight, this is a difficult case for both sides.





Not airtight certainly, but perhaps not as defendable as she thought. Was she one of the political contacts that Sollecito senior managed to rope in? She's no stranger to high profile cases and an international case must have been appealing. If memory serves, Berlusconi has charged her with drafting new laws to limit police phone tapping. Here was a big case where ambiguous evidence from phone tapping from a prosecutor already rapped for his over enthusiastic use of it formed a big slice of the evidence. A nice aquittal would be great not just for her personal standing but also her political one.



Now what's happened? The phone tapping has left her client's family facing possible charges for attempting to pervert the course of justice through the political connections of which she appears to be one. Embarrassing even if there is no suggestion that she tried to use political pressure herself as Sollecito senior thought she could or would.



It was put out very early that the reason that the police could not see that RS used his computer all night was because they did not have the right equipment. Her experts would prove it. They didn't!!!!! eee-)



Then we had the circus at the cottage where they were going to show how easily a burglar could enter through the window. All they managed to do was show how hard it was. The rock throwing contest was abandoned and some measurements were taken instead to save face.



Her client is still in a three legged race with a co-defendant that she has no control over, who is at best eccentric ser-) and to most eyes plain bonkers and certainly not the sweet normal student put out at the beginning. With some pretty unbelievable evidence about a spot of scapolotti pf-)) being the reason for accusing Lumumba, for cartwheels and perhaps even her memory loss she fared better than predicted but still came off badly. Worse, she comes with an international entourage hell-bent on sliming Italy and the entire judicial system and putting out the most ridiculous lies. The odium that this creates will leave her smelling too by association. But her client is stuck in a pretend cordial relationship that extends to exchanging flowers and chocolates. The elephant in the room being that he denies her alibi. They feign attachment in a situation that would make a normal innocent person incandescent with rage. Why? cu-)) More unanswered questions.

His multiple versions of events have a near virgin forgetting the hump-) that his partner vividly recalls but remembering a film called Amelie. Must be a hell of a film to make that impression.la-)



The DNA evidence has not been explained away by her experts and they manage to contradict the experts from the co-defendant. Her client cannot take the stand and has not made the continuous spontaneous statements to refute evidence that was promised at the start of the trial. He has made several innefective interjections that only raise more questions and then tailed off to mute silence.



Even the homeless witness who should have been an easy target for a lawyer of her experience turned out to be articulate and intelligent and beat her into retreat. Another unexpected reverse. fen-)



In short, the prosecution may not have been watertight but the defence has been leaking like a sieve. No wonder she doesn't bother to come to court too often. Parliamentary duties of course. I imagine Harriet Potter thinks that she has been had. I think she has been. She has my sympathy of course.:) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Thinking of spending more time with the family Julia ? It's been bruising. cr-))
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

" Her client cannot take the stand and has not made the continuous spontaneous statements to refute evidence that was promised at the start of the trial"

Yes, I remember.

But Raffaele, in his silence, may deliberate over arguments so deep that they, even unspoken, shatter the prosecution's case.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

(( OT OT ))

Pot shot: Scientists find cannabis trigger for forgetfulness

PHYSORG

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

The following was posted by stewarthome2000 on March 13, 2009, 2:31 pm

"The witness was there to testify about the CCTV images stating that it was only possible to make out that there was a person and it could not really be used for identification unless it was a very clear image. The argument was over the system that caused the CCTV to start filming. If a person walks by on the street or a car passes by the road, the CCTV is not activated, but if they come in the garage whether it be a car or person, the CCTV begins recording and continues at least 30 seconds AFTER the car or person has left the "radar" area. Hence you will see scenes of people walking on the street and ars going by only if a car or person set the CCTV off and then left the field of vision.

There was testimony that a person with a white or light colored jacket (lt. blue for example) was captured by the CCTV and believed to be Meredith...but that could not be verified. How could they say it was Meredith?..it was agreed identity could not be confirmed. The carabinieri stated that the time on the CCTV was actually 10 minutes late..hence an image captured at 8:50pm was really captured t 8:40pm.

Buongiorno used slides of the CCTV taken on Nov 2nd at 1:55pm where there was a carabinieri caught walking and shortly afterwards a carabinieri car (you could see the strip on the pant leg and the name carabinieri on the car) hence trying to show that they came much later to the crime scene then previously stated. The CCTV was triggered by a black fiat punto that stopped in from of the entrance and moved on...the carabinieri were then seen in the footage... but it proved little. They could have been there well beforehand.

It really did not go anywhere... she did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late, how it worked, where it was located etc. She also complained that there were people captured by the CCTV that night that the carabinieri did not thorougly check out. She used the images with supposedly Rudy in the CCTV around 8:40pm."

I believe he attended court sessions in those days. So it would seem that the concept that the car park CCTV would not be activated by a car or person passing by on the street was part of court testimony. Too bad, stewarthome2000 is not still posting trial info here.

I also found it interesting that Buongiorno indicates that the carabinieri walked by and the car with the Carabinieri on it were seen at 1:55 pm not 1:22 as seen on the CCTV photos??
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Mutley wrote:

"Not airtight certainly, but perhaps not as defendable as she thought. Was she one of the political contacts that Sollecito senior managed to rope in? She's no stranger to high profile cases and an international case must have been appealing. If memory serves, Berlusconi has charged her with drafting new laws to limit police phone tapping. Here was a big case where ambiguous evidence from phone tapping from a prosecutor already rapped for his over enthusiastic use of it formed a big slice of the evidence. A nice aquittal would be great not just for her personal standing but also her political one."

Bolint appears to assume (1) that lawyers don't ever misjudge cases they agree to take on and (2) that Bongiorno's brand recognition and enhancement are tied to winning cases. I think that for someone at her level of notoriety, the important thing is to be associated with high profile cases, not necessarily to win every one. I agree with Mutley -- that a nice acquittal here would be nice for Bongiorno on both levels, but not absolutely necessary. She has already gotten lots of mileage out of this case. It may be that her inability to impress so far is due to the fact that she doesn't have all that much to work with. It is harder to make water flow uphill than most people think.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"Bolint appears to assume (1) that lawyers don't ever misjudge cases they agree to take on and (2) that Bongiorno's brand recognition and enhancement are tied to winning cases. "


And also appears to quote Kevin. :D
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
"Anything going by on the road would have activated it also, which would include any police car arriving at the cottage, it would have had to pass by the camera's motion sensor."

Just to reiterate stewarthome2000"s March 13th, 2:31 post"

"The argument was over the system that caused the CCTV to start filming.

If a person walks by on the street or a car passes by the road, the CCTV is not activated,

but if they come in the garage whether it be a car or person, the CCTV begins recording and continues at least 30 seconds AFTER the car or person has left the "radar" area.

Hence you will see scenes of people walking on the street and cars going by only if a car or person set the CCTV off and then left the field of vision."

This was apparently part of the testimony in court that day. The photos of the dark Punto at 12:36 and the carabinieri and car at 13:22 both have human or vehicular activity within the car park covering the time frame of the photos. In the case of the 12:36 photos, the person is only seen as a "dark lumpiness" on the lower right, but if you continue along, the person walks into camera view.

Lancelotti wrote:

""and we don't know if the car or either one of the cars is the postal police and we don't know who the two men are"

and Bolint wrote:

"Limited to these frames we don't.
But it is only the defence's selection from all available frames."

My point is, if some motion within the car park is necessary to activate the camera, the dark car turning around and then supposedly driving past the second time, even if it is the same car, may not be the car of the postal police. The postal police vehicle may not have been photographed at all if there was no activity within the car park. That doesn't mean that the postal police didn't arrive at 12:35 (or 12:25 if the time stamp being off means it arrived earlier), just that they were not photographed doing so.
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 Aug 03, 2009 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Beans -

Hmm, you may be right then.

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

beans quotes Stewart:
"Buongiorno used slides of the CCTV taken on Nov 2nd at 1:55pm where there was a carabinieri caught walking and shortly afterwards a carabinieri car"

Was Stewart right with this 1:55pm? In this presentation it is 1:22pm.
1:55pm clearly doesn't prove anything.
And the carabinieri car recording is triggered by a silver car which is not a Punto.
Top Profile 

Offline BJB


Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that RS and AK are innocent given the over whelming evidence of a clean up of the crime scene, in addition to the DNA left behind which I do not need to go into. I know this has been discussed in detail already, but why would two innocent people discovering a murder scene, ever clean that murder scene up, then repeatedly lie about their ailibi, with AK having no Ailbi if they were innoccent?

In this case the DNA evidence is not the strongest sign of guilt because of the clean up, and proving the clean up and focusing on this and proving this proves guilt beyond doubt. Also AK's lieing and amnesia is another equally strong sign of overwhelming and insummountable guilt.


Both are guilty, but what will be the sentance?



Can anyone assuming guilty as charged give me the likely sentance?



Will the american poster girl, get a lesser sentance than RS and how?
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 Aug 03, 2009 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Oh dear:

http://freeaman.001webs.com/

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I found something that seems to be interesting on the Giovanazzo link. Under the heading Perugia 13 mar. there is a paragraph describing the car park images and it ends with:

" Le immagini sono state proiettate in aula durante la testimonianza davanti alla Corte d'Assise di Perugia dell'assistente capo Mauro Barbadori, in servizio presso la sezione criminalita' organizzata della squadra mobile e al quale fu affidato il compito di installare alcune microspie negli uffici della questura Perugia, i giorni successivi all'omicidio di Mez."

Barbadori, as my inadequate skills in Italian suggest, "was entrusted with the task of installing some hidden microphones in the offices of the Perugia police headquarters following the homicide of Mez."

The paragraph continues:
"L'agente ha riferito come, intercettata durante una conversazione con Raffaele Sollecito, il 4 novembre del 2007, Amanda Knox fece riferimento ad un'altra persona, "forse ad un uomo nero". Particolare che spinse la polizia a sviluppare l'ipotesi che potesse esserci qualcun altro nell'appartamento di Via della Pergola. Barbadori ha spiegato, quindi, che che la giovane statunitense durante la conversazione con Raffaele parlava in inglese e il tono dei due ex fidanzatini a volte si abbassava."

This is what I found to be interesting and what I would like Tiziano or someone else who can actually translate from Italian to English to translate, because I don't want to imply anything when my idea of what this says turns out to be nonsense. What I think it says is that in a conversation with Raffaele on November 4, 2007, Amanda "made reference to another person, perhaps a black man."

This might be a little awkward for Amanda, since she says she only accused Patrick Lamumba, on November 5th, because the police pressured and hit her.

Will someone please give us a real translation?

Edited by beans to relieve the "bloat" of the additional comments.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Edited from my previous post:

While looking to find the kind of car that activated the car park camera to take the carabinieri pictures (it was according to stewarthome, a Prowler) I found a link to Andrea Vogt's article "Knox kept under surveillance" in the Seattle PI, March 13, 2009:

It included the following:

"In other testimony Friday, official police translators described how Knox, 21, and her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were put under months of electronic surveillance. Italy has liberal wiretapping laws that make it easy for police to monitor phone calls and correspondence."

and

"During the interrogation, Knox denied responding to a text message after the killing from Lumumba, but when shown evidence to the contrary, Knox fell apart, Donnino said.

"At that point it became obvious that was a lie," the witness said. "Then she showed such extreme emotional involvement -- she was crying and visibly shocked, saying 'It was him, it was him. He's bad,' and began explaining everything very credibly. Based on this, we believed her."

According to testimony Friday, authorities began their undercover surveillance of Knox and Sollecito shortly after the slaying. They listened in on their conversations in the police headquarters waiting room -- with interpreters donning headphones and translating for police in real time in an adjacent room.

Police testimony later revealed that nearly all members of Sollecito's immediate family also had their phones tapped.

When family members and friends came to visit Knox in prison, interpreters joined a police officer in an adjacent room hooked up with live audio and video.

On cross-examination, lawyers for Knox and Sollecito questioned interpreters about their role as noninvestigators who have broad authority to decide what parts of conversations were relevant to the investigation.

"I've worked as an interpreter for 22 years at the Perugia Police Department," Colantone said. "I am rigorous about my work, and I know what they are looking for."

Donnino said it took a team of four interpreters to work on the various surveillance operations, including the massive review and translation of more than 600 letters to and from Knox that came in and out of the prison where she was held.

Each time she wrote a letter, it was photocopied and given to interpreters before being sent out.

"There was so much material. Some letters were 10 pages long. There wasn't time to do a word-for-word translation of everything," Donnino said."

I wondered about the phone taps and how much time and material they might have encompassed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I've been rereading the posts from March 13 and 14 to try to find more information on the arrival times of the postal police and carabinieri.

On March 14th at 5:30 am, stewarthome2000 wrote:

"On the version shown in court the capture area is larger than what is on the web. You can see the stripe on the pants and you can read the word "CARABINIERI" on the car. The point is that the video was captured at 1:45pm, but that does not mean they (the carabinieri) arrived at that time anyway. They could have been there well beforehand.

Buongiorno was trying show that if the carabinieri arrived at 1:45-1:55pm, and it was only 1/2 hour or so after the postal police, the postal police could not have arrived before 1:00pm... but it did not fly. Funny enough she stated in an article in the Corriere dell Umbria today which addressed the bleach issue that "she was glad that she proved the postal police arrived after Raf made the call"....hah NO WAY was that proven."
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 Aug 03, 2009 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Beans wrote:
Buongiorno was trying show that if the carabinieri arrived at 1:45-1:55pm, and it was only 1/2 hour or so after the postal police, the postal police could not have arrived before 1:00pm... but it did not fly. Funny enough she stated in an article in the Corriere dell Umbria today which addressed the bleach issue that "she was glad that she proved the postal police arrived after Raf made the call"....hah NO WAY was that proven."


Actually, she does that rather a lot...claims to have proven this or that in the court room when she's done no such thing. In fact, when she makes such claims to the media it's almost proof that the complete opposite is true. It's like a rule, that which is weak in your case you go out of your way to claim a victory. It's politics and all just part of the game.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

beans wrote:
"On the version shown in court the capture area is larger than what is on the web. You can see the stripe on the pants and you can read the word "CARABINIERI" on the car. The point is that the video was captured at 1:45pm, but that does not mean they (the carabinieri) arrived at that time anyway. They could have been there well beforehand.


Indeed, they could have arrived at 13.22 (13.32 defence time)

as shown on p.126 here
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

beans wrote:
" Le immagini sono state proiettate in aula durante la testimonianza davanti alla Corte d'Assise di Perugia dell'assistente capo Mauro Barbadori, in servizio presso la sezione criminalita' organizzata della squadra mobile e al quale fu affidato il compito di installare alcune microspie negli uffici della questura Perugia, i giorni successivi all'omicidio di Mez."
"L'agente ha riferito come, intercettata durante una conversazione con Raffaele Sollecito, il 4 novembre del 2007, Amanda Knox fece riferimento ad un'altra persona, "forse ad un uomo nero". Particolare che spinse la polizia a sviluppare l'ipotesi che potesse esserci qualcun altro nell'appartamento di Via della Pergola. Barbadori ha spiegato, quindi, che che la giovane statunitense durante la conversazione con Raffaele parlava in inglese e il tono dei due ex fidanzatini a volte si abbassava."
Barbadori, as my inadequate skills in Italian suggest, "was entrusted with the task of installing some hidden microphones in the offices of the Perugia police headquarters following the homicide of Mez."

What I think it says is that in a conversation with Raffaele on November 4, 2007, Amanda "made reference to another person, perhaps a black man."
This might be a little awkward for Amanda, since she says she only accused Patrick Lamumba, on November 5th, because the police pressured and hit her.


You are quite right Beans:
The images were shown in the courtroom during testimony before the Court of the Assizes of Perugia by deputy-chief Mauro Barbadori who works for the organised crime branch of the flying squad and who was given the task of installing several concealed microphones in the offices of the Perugia police headquarters in the days after Meredith's murder.
The officer attested how on November 4th, 2007, during a recorded conversation with Sollecito, Amanda Knox referred to another person, "perhaps a black man". This detail persuaded the police to develop the hypothesis that there could have been someone else in the apartment at Via della Pergola. Barbadori explained then that the young American was speaking in English during the conversation with Raffaele and that the two ex-fiancés at times lowered their voices.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:



Well, he obviously got tired of that pretty quickly. (I haven't done my knife experiment yet.)
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

The Freeaman blogger says:

"I have come to firmly believe that Amanda and Raffaela are innocent, so I am not a neutral observer"

Not a neutral observer he says, but his observations are lousy. Raffaela! Sollecito will be so happy with the female version of his name.
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
"

But Raffaele, in his silence, may deliberate over arguments so deep that they, even unspoken, shatter the prosecution's case.


Touche' Bolint,

When I first read the comment of yours that I highlighted above, I thought I was reading a strong inversion phrase constructed by Kafka from either "The Judgment" or "The Mole". A very nice turn of a phrase by you. Perhaps a few years after The Trial, R will be walked to the quarry with two men close by his side as K was - "like a dog!".
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:10 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Jools wrote:
The Freeaman blogger says:

"I have come to firmly believe that Amanda and Raffaela are innocent, so I am not a neutral observer"

Not a neutral observer he says, but his observations are lousy. Raffaela! Sollecito will be so happy with the female version of his name.


Jools! Good one. cl-)

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:41 am   Post subject: Mini book review   

Just quickly, between moonbeams (another full moon tonight):




The Mastronardi and Castellini Book


The authors: one is a journalist (now editor) at the Giornale dell’Umbria and the other is a psycho-pathologist from Rome with a string of qualifications.

When it came out: Jan-2009. After Micheli’s reasons for judgement were published, but before the full trial started.

The book itself: A slim volume, more newspapery in layout than scientific (e.g., occasional misprint, lots of “NdRs” inserted into the verbatim quoted texts, very easy to read), it is in chronological order, containing excerpts and summaries from various witness testimonies, legal counsel addresses (both sides) to various courts, and the latter half of the book has large slabs of Micheli’s judgement, directly or indirectly quoted, and the book comes with a 24-page graphological analysis section at the back inluding charts, plus there is a DVD containing a good (but in terms of surface textures, not overly-sophisticated) VRML file for a 3D-walkthrough of the various rooms of the cottage.

The book’s position is best summarised by quoting from the Acknowldgements: “… neither colpevolista [“They did it!”] nor innocentista [“They can’t have done it!”], but more an objective garantista viewpoint, objectively examining the legal items, the facts, the states of mind and the personality characteristics of those involved in this tragedy, so as to better understand the possible interactions between them…”

Amid the pages of detailed handwriting analysis tables and charts, there are three handwriting samples.

Rudy’s writing looks he was writing on a piece of paper resting on his knee while he was sitting in the back of a van going from A to B; Raffaele’s writing stays, very neatly, on the lines; and Amanda’s writing is the big printing style typical (from what I have seen elsewhere) of kindergarten teachers or a lot of US college students.

Aside from the physical characteristics of the writing itself, seeing what they actually wrote is different to reading a summarised (and sometimes interpreted) version in the newspaper reports.
Raffaele is using a “It would have been the case that”-structure in composing his alibi, which will not bode well for his legal team; and Amanda, even though she spells as well as any typical college student these days, and despite her raucous behaviour, is not unintelligent.

p127
sample of RS handwriting (in Italian)

…to smoke cannabis.
…at this moment my problems started,
…[because] I have confused memories of various moments,
..first thing Amanda and I went
out into the town centre through Piazza Grimana and Corso
Vanucci passing by the back of the University
for Foreigners and ending up in Piazza Morlacchi
(I’m sure because we always take that road)
then I don’t remember exactly but presum-
ibly we did some shopping.
We came back to my house around
20 – 20.30 and then I had another
joint and seeing that it was the holidays I
chilled out [preso tutto con estrema tranquillita`=”frozen”:)] without
the least intention of going out seeing that
outside it was cold.
I don’t actually remember at what hour



p120
AK handwriting sample (in English)

…I can explain, such as:
(1) I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long
[to call] someone when I found the door to my house open and blood
[in the] bathroom. The truth is, I wasn’t sure what to think, but I
[immedi]ately didn’t think the worst, that someone was
[s]xxx[/s]murdered.
[I t]hought a lot of things, mainly perhaps that someone got hurt
[and?]
[s]x[/s]left quickley to take care of it. I also thought that maybe
[one] of my roommates was having menstral problems and hadn’t
[clea]ned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn’t know
[wha]t to think and that’s the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele
[abou]t it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
(2) I also knew that the fact that I can’t fully recall the
[eve]nts that I claim took place in Raffaele’s home during the time
[tha]t Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my
[sta]tements that I made last night about events that could have
[tak]en place in
[s]xx[/s]my home with Patrik, but I want to make very
[cle]ar that these events seem more unreal than what I said
[bef]ore, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.





Edited to adjust formatting.
and to do some research on image posting.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:32 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

beans wrote:

"According to Google.it, there are two carabinieri stations, between 9.3 and 9.5 km away from the cottage with an estimated travel time of 13 minutes."



9 km would be a huge distance in a town like Perugia.

I checked it, in the phone book there are two carabinieri addresses with the number 07554241 (the most similar to 07554247561 listed in the phone records), in c. Cavour and in v. Ruggia.

They are only 1km and 2km, respectively, from the cottage in straight line.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:56 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

On the arrival of the carabinieri:

Amanda Nov 4 email:
"the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police investigators."
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:45 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

More on the arrival of the carabinieri:



Amanda 13:24 call:



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



What police before 13:32 or 13:29 in the defence version? The postals?



And it is interesting that there is no call back "moments later" in the phone records.

The next call to her mother is at 13:58 and it is only a 1 second call.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:56 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint,

You ask 'how did Guede get into the house?' I think Knox let him in, if she met Guede on the way home (rather than PL) he could have simply asked to use the bathroom. We know that Meredith wanted to go to bed early and read. We know Guede fancied Meredith. Also in Italy, when then is one guy with a girl ( RS and AK) the other guy often automatically assumes that the other girl is 'with him'. .... I've seen it cause trouble many times .... again a cultural thing.

If Guede said something inappropriate to Meredith before going to the bathroom, Meredith could have said ' Amanda, why the f**K did you bring that asshole around?' . For me, that is the most likely cause of a fight, and the reason Knox had a scratch on her neck. Worse, if Guede heard overheard this from the bathroom he could have been so angry, that he went immediately to attack Meredith. At some point, when things got serious, I think RS and AK ran to the piazza.

When they finally returned to the house in the early hours of the morning, I think they were the couple overheard arguing. By now they are up to their neck in trouble. To believe that they thought they could get away with simply trying to fake it that they were not present at the attack, they would have to be very stupid and arrogant. RS certainly was this, he told his father that the Police are 'stupid'. Their behaviour over the next few days could be seen as 'false bravado' mixed with fear that their secret would come out?.

Once the lawyers were involved, I think the case took a life of it's own. The lawyers obviously think they can get full acquittals, my worry is that, if they are successful, RS and AK could go unpunished for not calling the police whilst they were in the piazza, and Guede was in the bedroom sexually assualting and murdering Meredith, or later from the house, when they returned.
Top Profile 

Offline lady garden


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:46 pm

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin-that would make them innocent of complicity-i hear what you are saying but i think their actions since the murder indicate far more involvement than they are letting on-Afternoon btw!
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

From Corriere dell Umbria:
Sollecito trasferito a Sabbione di Terni.

Per qualche giorno è stato a Verona per sostenere un esame che è andato male.
PERUGIA04.08.2009
Raffaele non ce l’ha fatta. Ha provato a superare un esame il neo-laureato (all’inizio dell’anno all’università di Perugia, in Informatica), ma non gli è andata bene. L’esame Raffaele Sollecito lo ha affrontato a Verona, ateneo al quale si è iscritto dopo la laurea breve ottenuta a Perugia, per seguire un corso di studi sulla “realtà virtuale”. Per qualche giorno Raffaele è stato appoggiato al carcere della bella città veneta, proprio per permettergli di affrontare l’esame, poi è stato riportato in Umbria. Non più a Capanne, il carcere del capoluogo umbro, dove è rimasto in questi ultimi mesi, a a Sabbione di Terni, la casa di reclusione nella quale è stato appoggiato. Non si hanno notizie sul fatto se lo studente in attesa di giudizio abbia gradito o meno il trasferimento a Terni. Al suo arrivo a Perugia Sollecito si era lamentato del fatto che nella sua cella di Terni aveva avuto l’autorizzazione ad un collegamento via internet con l’ateneo di Verona (un collegamento chiuso, insomma: solo con la facoltà universitaria per permettergli uno scambio di informazioni con il professore), mentre a Perugia questa possibilità, pare per problemi tecnici, non gli era stata concessa. Intanto nei giorni scorsi sono stati depositati i documenti che erano stati chiesti dalle difesa nell’ultima udienza relativi alle analisi e agli accertamenti effettuati sul dna da parte della dottoressa e genetista della polizia Patrizia Stefanoni. Secondo i consulenti delle difese Sollecito e Knox questa documentazione, relativa ai “picchi” e agli alleli sono indipensabili per leggere e interpretare i dati e fornire perciò una risposta scientifica ai quesiti. La prossima udienza è fissata al 14 settembre, quando sfileranno altri testi e consulenti delle difese. In quella occasione si saprà come valuteranno i consulenti delle difese i documenti depositati. La corte di assise spera di poter emettere la sentenza su Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox entro il mese di ottobre.
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=35

Sollecito has failed the exam in 'Virtual Reality' that he took earlier in the year at the University of Verona and is now back at Terni prison.
All documented files by the scientific police ( Dr. Stefanoni) and requested by RS & AK defense were deposited last week.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint wrote:
"I checked it, in the phone book there are two carabinieri addresses with the number 07554241 (the most similar to 07554247561 listed in the phone records), in c. Cavour and in v. Ruggia."

Thanks, Bolint. I knew there had to be a carabinieri station closer in to Perugia, but I only looked on Google and they didn't have a listing for a station in town.

I think that the police that kicked them all out of the cottage were the postal police after Luca broke down the door. But with the carabinieri so close by, I'd bet that they arrived soon after the door was opened and the body discovered. The crime scene was no longer a break-in, it was a murder scene at that point.

It occurs to me that the 13:29 call that Buongiorno would like to use as an indication that the carabinieri, thus by inference, the postal police, arrived later than the prosecution has said, might have come from someone who specializes in violent crime. Such an officer may have less frequent occasion to be out and about in the streets of Perugia and thus might be less knowledgeable about the street system than a carabinieri who answers routine police calls on a daily basis.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Administrator Note:

PMF experienced some down time today due to a DDOS attack on the main server. This has all now been resolved and the forum should now be running smoothly.

_________________
"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 Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:
Bolint,

You ask 'how did Guede get into the house?' I think Knox let him in, if she met Guede on the way home (rather than PL) he could have simply asked to use the bathroom. We know that Meredith wanted to go to bed early and read. We know Guede fancied Meredith. Also in Italy, when then is one guy with a girl ( RS and AK) the other guy often automatically assumes that the other girl is 'with him'. .... I've seen it cause trouble many times .... again a cultural thing.

If Guede said something inappropriate to Meredith before going to the bathroom, Meredith could have said ' Amanda, why the f**K did you bring that asshole around?' . For me, that is the most likely cause of a fight, and the reason Knox had a scratch on her neck. Worse, if Guede heard overheard this from the bathroom he could have been so angry, that he went immediately to attack Meredith. At some point, when things got serious, I think RS and AK ran to the piazza.

When they finally returned to the house in the early hours of the morning, I think they were the couple overheard arguing. By now they are up to their neck in trouble. To believe that they thought they could get away with simply trying to fake it that they were not present at the attack, they would have to be very stupid and arrogant. RS certainly was this, he told his father that the Police are 'stupid'. Their behaviour over the next few days could be seen as 'false bravado' mixed with fear that their secret would come out?.

Once the lawyers were involved, I think the case took a life of it's own. The lawyers obviously think they can get full acquittals, my worry is that, if they are successful, RS and AK could go unpunished for not calling the police whilst they were in the piazza, and Guede was in the bedroom sexually assualting and murdering Meredith, or later from the house, when they returned.


eee-) Mahhhhhhhhhhhh va' ........!!!!!!!!!!!! eee-) Just where & with whom have you been hanging out in Italy to experience all these weird "cultural things"? And BTW, Guede isn't Italian, or has he been "negatively encultured" during his years in Perugia, which last time I was there was still in Umbria, "il cuore verde d'Italia", right in the centre, so you can't blame all those wicked "southerners".
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Jools wrote:
From Corriere dell Umbria:
Sollecito trasferito a Sabbione di Terni.


Sollecito has failed the exam in 'Virtual Reality' that he took earlier in the year at the University of Verona and is now back at Terni prison.
All documented files by the scientific police ( Dr. Stefanoni) and requested by RS & AK defense were deposited last week.








Shame the professors couldn't use his court behaviour as credits. He's been doing pretty well in virtual reality there.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hahaha Mutley, exactly!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

beans wrote:
I think that the police that kicked them all out of the cottage were the postal police after Luca broke down the door. But with the carabinieri so close by, I'd bet that they arrived soon after the door was opened and the body discovered. The crime scene was no longer a break-in, it was a murder scene at that point.



This comment about the police kicking them out of the cottage after Luca broke down the door reminded me of this article in (ok, it's a rag) the Daily Mail here in the UK, in Nov 2007. I know one has to take account of the source, but even if it is not 100% accurate there are so many discrepancies with later statements I thought I would paste it in here as it is mostly RS, being uncharacteristically forthcoming it seems. Shame it's all BS.

"At the weekend Raffaele Sollecito spoke of his horror at finding Miss Kercher's body and paid tribute to her...
After news of Meredith's death emerged he was one of the first to speak publicly about her, giving a journalist an account of how he and Amanda had 'discovered' her bloodsoaked body.
"It is something I never hope to see again," he said. "There was blood everywhere and I couldn't take it all in.
"My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, 'How could anyone do this?'
"Meredith was always smiling and happy. She was really popular and it's horrible that someone would want to hurt her."
With remarkable composure he told how he and Amanda went to a party with friends, returning to his home last Thursday evening.
He claimed Amanda returned to the home she shared with Miss Kercher at lunchtime the next day for a shower.
"When she arrived the front door was wide open," he said. "She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar. But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. She ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. I agreed to go back with her.
"When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.
"We went into the bedroom of Philomena [another flatmate who was away] and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something.
"But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. I tried to knock it down but I wasn't strong enough so I called the police."
He said he followed police into the room. "It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming. I dragged her away because I didn't want her to see it, it was so horrible. It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place.""

This is quite a detailed statement, so I don't think the journalist could have made it all up somehow. I note he does not mention that Amanda had a shower, but RAN back to his place as she did not want to go into the house alone. And he is in no doubt about the bathroom blood here. Absolutely sure. I don't think Amanda had a shower at all. I think that is just to explain the bloody foot prints. Or if she had a shower it was the night before to get blood off herself. Also I thought the police said they had sent everyone outside before they broke the door down. I don't recall testimony about them being inside when the door was kicked in. And as for Sollecito not being strong enough to knock the door down, PULEASE don't insult our intelligence. These kids must think we were born yesterday! I could have kicked that in! And Amanda is a tough strong athlete, she could have easily done it with those hiking boots on!

Anyway, for what it's worth I just thought I'd post this as is just an interesting flashback to how our doe-eyed Raff was soooooo keen to help way back then...






_________________
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Tiziano,

I lived in Italy for 10 years, got married to an Italian girl there, worked all over Italy, still spend a lot of time there, still got lots of friends there, I'm now just over the border in the Italian part of Swirtzerland, been here 10 years. There is nothing 'weird' about how people in different places act and think differently .... that is what cultural differences mean. We don't yet live in a completely globalized world.

I never said that Guede was Italian, however, he grew up there and would act and think like an Italian. I think it very, very likely that he would assume that if AK was with RS, then Meredith is in his mind 'automatically' with him. I have seen this situation happen many, many times, especially with guys like Guede, who was known to be a pain in the ass with girls at the best of times. He could well have said or done something Meredith took exception to. If Guede went to the bathroom, Meredith could well have got into a row with Knox about bringing him around.

Why do you think southern Italians are wicked ? I have never said that.

Anyway, I'll just repeat that I think that RS ran to the piazza when things got out of hand, he then kept looking back at the gate of the cottage to see how the situation ended, which is exactly what you would expect a guy with his background to do. If he was looking back to see how it all ended, the assualt wasn't finished and that would explain the lack of evidence that RS and AK were involved in the final assualt on Meredith in the bedroom. I've asked Italian friends, family and colleagues, and not one of them disagree.

If I am right, then AK and RS are guilty of being involved at the start of the attack, but more seriously, of not calling for help when maybe Meredith could have been saved. However, it looks like their lawyers think they can get them a full aquittal. It would be sad if my senario is right, but they are found not guilty because of the lack of evidence against them where the sexual assault and murder happened .... in the bedroom?.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:
Tiziano,

I lived in Italy for 10 years, got married to an Italian girl there, worked all over Italy, still spend a lot of time there, still got lots of friends there, I'm now just over the border in the Italian part of Swirtzerland, been here 10 years. There is nothing 'weird' about how people in different places act and think differently .... that is what cultural differences mean. We don't yet live in a completely globalized world.

I never said that Guede was Italian, however, he grew up there and would act and think like an Italian. I think it very, very likely that he would assume that if AK was with RS, then Meredith is in his mind 'automatically' with him. I have seen this situation happen many, many times, especially with guys like Guede, who was known to be a pain in the ass with girls at the best of times. He could well have said or done something Meredith took exception to. If Guede went to the bathroom, Meredith could well have got into a row with Knox about bringing him around.

Why do you think southern Italians are wicked ? I have never said that.

Anyway, I'll just repeat that I think that RS ran to the piazza when things got out of hand, he then kept looking back at the gate of the cottage to see how the situation ended, which is exactly what you would expect a guy with his background to do. If he was looking back to see how it all ended, the assualt wasn't finished and that would explain the lack of evidence that RS and AK were involved in the final assualt on Meredith in the bedroom. I've asked Italian friends, family and colleagues, and not one of them disagree.

If I am right, then AK and RS are guilty of being involved at the start of the attack, but more seriously, of not calling for help when maybe Meredith could have been saved. However, it looks like their lawyers think they can get them a full aquittal. It would be sad if my senario is right, but they are found not guilty because of the lack of evidence against them where the sexual assault and murder happened .... in the bedroom?.




Kevin,

Doesn't this just mean that you've basically accepted the Lone Wolf scenario, only with the addition of AK/RS leading Rudy into it? You're saying Amanda made Meredith mad, things escalated, Rudy came on to her and it became violent--with AK/RS at the piazza during the murder, their only crime not going back to intercede (and then lying, lying, lying...)? So you discount the faked break-in, phone and internet discrepancies, shoe & footprints, DNA on the bra clasp and AK's need to accuse PL? (And many more unresolved and incriminating pieces of evidence I won't bother bringing in.) It makes no sense to me.

I know we got Van Sandt's recent video but he also did an article posted in Newsvine which is good and balanced, if we didn't get it already:


[urlx=http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/31/3099308-amanda-knox-the-prosecution-rests-for-the-woman-called-angel-face]Van Sandt Article[/urlx]
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Tiziano wrote:
eee-) Mahhhhhhhhhhhh va' ........!!!!!!!!!!!! eee-) Just where & with whom have you been hanging out in Italy to experience all these weird "cultural things"? And BTW, Guede isn't Italian, or has he been "negatively encultured" during his years in Perugia, which last time I was there was still in Umbria, "il cuore verde d'Italia", right in the centre, so you can't blame all those wicked "southerners".



Hi Tiziano,

I have never been to Umbria. Two questions:

a) is it called "il cuore verde d'italia", because it has the highest percentage of trees of all italan regions?

b) is it true that umbria produces the best olive oil?

rul-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

martin wrote:
Hi Tiziano,

I have never been to Umbria. Two questions:

a) is it called "il cuore verde d'italia", because it has the highest percentage of trees of all italan regions?

b) is it true that umbria produces the best olive oil?

rul-)


Martin, I don't know if anyone's counted the trees, but topographically, it is 70.7% hilly and 29.3% mountainous and the countryside is beautifully green! And it has many parks, both regional and national.
Among other products, it is famous for its oil which is characteristically "green" and grassy in flavour. I wouldn't dare say it's the best oil in Italy; I'd be pursued by all my Abruzzese relatives and friends, who would claim that honour for themselves!
Have a look here:
http://www.regioneumbria.eu/
http://www.parks.it/regione.umbria/index.html
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Peter Quennell posted a piece on the parks of Umbria on TJMK today.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:28 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:
There is nothing 'weird' about how people in different places act and think differently .... that is what cultural differences mean. We don't yet live in a completely globalized world.

Why do you think southern Italians are wicked ?



wh-) Oh Kevin, haven't you ever heard of irony? wh-)

kevin wrote:
I never said that Guede was Italian, however, he grew up there and would act and think like an Italian.


This is the problem I have with your theories Kevin; they are characteristically wild hypotheses, which you attempt to support by referring to ethnic and cultural stereotypes. There are nearly 60 million people living in Italy and many more millions of Italians living all over the world. How can you possibly believe that there is a specifically Italian way of acting and thinking?
The type of arrogant male chauvinism you characterise as "Italian" in Guede is unfortunately a global phenomenom; it is not specific to any one nationality. Fortunately it is not the norm of male behaviour, just a sad aberration.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I'm just cross posting this post by Yummi, over from the Smog, regarding the PDF Bolint recently dug up:

Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/4/09 5:31 p.m.

Charlie and Candace linked to the pdf file with this conclusions:

"Come è possibile che i carabinieri abbiano telefonato
alle ore 13:29:00 se alle 13:22:50 (orario telecamere),
o alle 13:12:50 (secondo la ricostruzione della polizia)
erano già con la macchina all'ingresso del civico n. 7?
La spiegazione è solo una,..."

But I found this file rather damaging for the defendants instead.
At a first reading, i found the conclusion in the reasoning inacceptable by consequential logic. The conclusion is: "the explaination is only one: the parking clock was ten minutes late and not ten minutes forward".
I can't see this as the "only" possible explaination.
In fact, the easiest explaination for why the Carabinieri called at 13:29 is that they didn't know they were just passing by the hous they were looking for.
The cottage has an entrance in via della Pergola 7, but is located in Via S. Antonio, and we don't know exactly what indication was given to the Carabinieri Patrol from their HQ.
My first hypotherys is that the Carabinieri passed by the parking at 13:12 and phoned later, at 13:29, not because the parking CCTV clock was late but simply because they didn't know they had yet arrived by the place and they realized that *they* were late.
On the other hand this CCTV with video and timing provides three informations:
1) The Fiat belongs to the Postal Police and, after a momentary uncertainty about the address, parks a few meters forward on via S.Antonio.
2) The Carabinieri HQ phoned Amanda at 13:29 to have informations about the exact location of the house
3) Battistelli declared that he was given the phone by Sollecito and he spoke himself with the Carabinieri, we assume quite a long call containing an explaination in Italian. This is quite an important testifying from Battistelli that the Carabinieri were *not* yet at the house at 13:29. If we want to discredit his version, we have to assume he is lying about this point. But if he is lying, why? And why do we have this long call from the Carabinieri to Amanda's phone? What is this call about?
4) The CCTV clock was found running 10 minutes early by the Squadra Mobile. Which means not by the Carabiniari nor by the Postal Police, but another branch, the State Police which has control on issues within the city.

The defense proposes to assume that the CCTV clock was late and the Postal Police arrived after 12:54. But on these premises, to maintain this theory we have to give an explaination about #3 and #4 and so we need two strange things to happen at the same time: a) Ispettore Battistelli is lying *and* b) the Mobile Squad is wrong about a clock in their territory.
we also have to assume a third thing: c) that Battistelli, who was *not* there at 13:29, anyway happens to know about the content of this call from the Carabinieri HQ to Amanda, and he decides to invent in his early report a story of himself giving road information to the Carabinieri.

Plus, on the side of Raffaele Sollecito, I have to record that the logical conclusion of the defense's reasoning - "the only explaination is that the clock is late" - is an inconsistent argument.



THE SMOG

_________________
"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 Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:21 am   Post subject: Broader canvas prompts detective insight via caller "clues"   

Hungarian wrote:
... I don't understand why he volunteers: "nothing was taken" -- maybe it was already a subject of the first conversation. His calm surprised me, Raffaele's, but the call itself, if you listen to it, seems to be kind of hectic, staccato-like. Robbery or murder -- not the same category. R. seems to imply, all he knows it is a robbery, but there are other signs too -- the dynamics of the two suspicions are not the same. If it is a murder -- the police will fly to the scene. If only robbery, maybe not that fast. But there is blood...

[ link ] Mon 03 Aug, 2009


I think it may be a Generation-Y thing: mistaking TV-Storyland for the way things are in reality. The convention becomes the conventional.

For example, adrenalin-junkies Lisa Rojany Buccieri and Peter Economy, Writing Children’s Books for Dummies, Wiley 2005, in a misunderstanding of what mediaeval romance really is, think that The Lord of the Rings should have ended with the destruction of the One Ring on Mount Doom:

The story could have ended right there – the hobbits are heroes, evil is defeated, and everyone lives happily ever after. But no. Instead, Tolkien decided to drag out the story for another 85-plus pages, including the oft-complained-about ending, “The Scouring of the Shire”. Believe us: Sometimes shorter can be sweeter.
p134


First time I’ve heard about “the oft-complained-about ending”, but, setting that aside (the news about that may not have arrived here yet), what we have here is a classic modern-generation Dick-and-Jane story:

[*]See Lisa and Peter getting bored, yawning, and saying “Ho hum.”
[*]See Lisa and Peter switch over channels to an exciting non-stop action-packed James Bond all-nighter.


So Dick and Jane wake up one morning and a couple of hours later they call the police. They (he, mainly) describe what happened by describing what they found. It begins with a burglar, or rather, with what he must have done, according to the signs…

a description of place or context in a story…moves the plot forward by providing information causing the character to move his feet. Or if the description creates the mood you want to set for a scene. Or if it adds flavor and spice that really sets the tone for the scene.
p161


A burglar who breaks in, but a burglar who doesn’t steal, and morphs into a burglar who leaves bloodstains like the proverbial movie debt-collector (and, unmentionable behind the closed door, there are signs of sexual assault, the burglar became a rapist, and more): Not your typical burglar or burglary…

Stereotyped characters are ones who are too familiar and thus wooden: the smart geek, the airhead cheerleader, the mean beauty queen. …One way to avoid stereotyping your characters is to combine traits that the reader will not expect to encounter in one character. So if that means the beauty queen turns out to be moonlighting as a janitor at a homeless shelter to pay for her uniforms while conjuring up spells to cure ailing pets at the local animal shelter, then you have a character who is potentially very interesting.
p122


Besides the obvious application of the above to the current propaganda campaign (US: public relations campaign) on the one hand, and the now-waning media-fascination with the could-have-been potentially-very-interesting protagonists on the other, we have a very carefully constructed narrative by those same protagonists along the lines of Non tutti i ladri vengano per nuocere (“Not all burglars are thieves”, say – sounds a bit like Rudy in the pre-school, doesn’t it? – but anyway, to continue) :

For this scene I’ll need:

item: one detective, world-weary cynical but observant
item: one eager but naïve, helpful assistant, in the Watson/Lewis/Fazio/Linetti mould

They are having a conversation at the scene, like Kezia and Mickey do in The Bill in almost every second episode.

[*]Look! There’s a broken window.
– (crunching underfoot) All this glass everywhere! It’s on top of everything. There’s the rock they must have used!
– Looks like that’s how they must have gained ingress.
– Through that tiny hole!?
[*]Everything’s been turned upside down and tossed over.
– Probably a burglary, then, hey?
[*]But nothing’s been stolen.
– The valuable stuff’s all still lying in plain view.
– So it’s probably not a burglary after all, then.
[*]There are some bloodstains in the bathroom.
– What, the burglar cut himself shaving? Or maybe the burglar cut himself on the window and was looking for a bandage?
– How about: One of the housemates lost their keys and because no-one else was home, tried getting in the hard way by breaking a window, cut themselves on the broken glass, and then tried looking for a bandage before going out the front door to who knows where? The hospital maybe?
[*]The front door was open.
– It’s that time of the month for one of the roommates, maybe? And now she’s gone off somewhere for some reason? It doesn’t make sense.
– And why toss the clothes around then? It must have been a stranger.
– Hmm, this smear of blood is in the wrong place. By the way, did you notice the foul smell from the main bathroom as we came in? The toilet wasn’t flushed. Not very tidy, I’d say.
– Hmm, There aren’t any towels in this little bathroom, either. Interesting.
[*]One of the roommates is missing.
Aside: Yeah, so says Mr Know-It-All-About-Everything. I’m beginning to have my doubts about him.
Tries the door.
[*]And the door to her room is locked.
– Now that’s really worrying.
– Unless it’s normal for her to lock her door. What if she’s gone back home for the weekend without telling anyone, say?
– She’s not answering her phone.
– That’s because I’ve got it here.


I’d give the Dick-and-Jane not-you-typical-burglar plot a C-minus or a D-plus. It requires a real-life detective to be a little bit too unobservant in the circumstances, as I’ve hinted in the dialogue.


Instead of labelling a character as smart or dumb, athletic or not, get deeper into those labels and decided what they really mean to you. For example, instead of a character who is smart, how about one whose abilities allow him access to secret and special information or events that others might miss? Instead of a character who is beautiful, how about one who is so attractive that she constantly finds herself feeling very alone and wishing she could have a companion who saw her soul instead of her lovely face.
p123


It will be a hard task, in novelising this case, to capture all the nuances and subtleties and reflections-within-reflections of the thought-processes of the characters and what’s motivating them psychologically, why they get together and do what they do (besides just the usual hungers of base instinct, that is).

Grisham has his work cut out for him.

Maybe he’ll end up just doing the usual ho-hum yawn stereotypical action-packed thriller or something.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:09 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

wow, Catnip, and I thought, this later-summer phase of the frenzy will abate a bit -- but what a great piece you wrote here! out of my half rummaged ramblings! I appreciate it, I really do.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Quote:

Posted by Charlie Wilkes at 8/4/09 9:38 p.m.
Candace wrote:

i will let Charlie argue it point by point, because he had studied it far more than I have.

I can't argue it point by point because I can't be sure what the photos actually depict. But no one else can be sure either. Anyone who says these pictures prove that the postal police arrived before Raffaele called 112 is blowing smoke


He knows what he´s talking about...he´s a pro in 'blowing smoke' cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:19 am   Post subject: Re: Non tutti ladri vengono per nuocere   

Catnip wrote:
A burglar who breaks in, but a burglar who doesn’t steal, and morphs into a burglar who leaves bloodstains like the proverbial movie debt-collector (and, unmentionable behind the closed door, there are signs of sexual assault, the burglar became a rapist, and more): Not your typical burglar or burglary…

....we have a very carefully constructed narrative by those same protagonists along the lines of Non tutti i ladri vengono per nuocere (“Not all burglars are thieves”, say – sounds a bit like Rudy in the pre-school, doesn’t it? – but anyway, to continue) :


Love your script, Catnip!
Some summer-time entertainment: Non tutti ladri vengono per nuocere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWjV6JdS7w
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Disinterested, Tiziano,

Ok, even if we accept YOUR weird idea that the world is culturally completely globalized, which has been described to me as 'fake political correctness', are you saying that AK and RS already knew the outcome of the attack when they were in the piazza and looking back towards the gate of the cottage?. If they already knew the outcome, and Guede had fled at the same time as them, it seems unlikely that they would hang around, especially if they are covered in blood. I think they were arguing over whether to call the police or not.

The lack of evidence against them in the bedroom supports the idea that they fled before Guede sexually assaulted Meredith and murdered Meredith ... it was his DNA found inside her, not anyone elses's.

It looks like they returned to the cottage in the early hours and were heard arguing. If they already knew what had happened, surely they would have had their argument before returning, and already have decided what to do. I think they realised that they were in deep trouble for not calling the police earlier and in panic, decided to try and make it appear that they were not present or involved at the beginning of the attack. RS was certainly arrogant enough to think this would work.

This is not a 'lone wolf' senario, since it has AK and RS involved at the beginning of the attack (hence the only evidence we have on them is a scratch on Knox's neck) the most serious crime of which they are guilty is not getting help and possibly saving Meredith. It wouldn't be the first time that people in trouble have dug a deeper hole for themselves?.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:

This is not a 'lone wolf' senario, since it has AK and RS involved at the beginning of the attack (hence the only evidence we have on them is a scratch on Knox's neck) the most serious crime of which they are guilty is not getting help and possibly saving Meredith. It wouldn't be the first time that people in trouble have dug a deeper hole for themselves?.


Can you explain the faked break-in, the clean-up, the double DNA-knife, the mixture of blood with DNA and RS´s DNA on the bra clasp in your scenario?
And why risk so much? Only because you let the killer into the house without knowing what will happen later? nnn-))

And what reason should RS have to move the victims body and remove her bra (with a knife), following your scenario?
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:01 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:
Disinterested, Tiziano,
Ok, even if we accept YOUR weird idea that the world is culturally completely globalized, which has been described to me as 'fake political correctness', are you saying that AK and RS already knew the outcome of the attack when they were in the piazza and looking back towards the gate of the cottage?.


Kevin, I believe that the more likely scenario is that all three, Guede, Sollecito & Knox, were present at the murder and ran away when Meredith screamed, fearing that the terrible noise would bring someone to the scene. The woman who heard the scream also heard the noise of people running away in different directions. (I can't find the passage, but I remember translating this particular point in a report of her evidence.) Guede ran away up the steel steps, from memory (another person witnessed this fact), while RS & AK ran in another direction, ending up lurking in the piazza, acting erratically - I remember translating this passage too- as Curatolo reported. They were probably watching 7 Via della Pergola, trying to decide if and when it would be safe to return to the cottage and begin their attempted clean-up and cover-up/dépistage or whatever you want to call it.

This is putting it very briefly, but this position has been argued by those in this forum who have a far more extensive knowledge and understanding of the case than I. I have been here for a very brief time and feel more comfortable assisting with translation than with arguing the details of the case.

As one of dual Australian/Italian citizenship (gained by marrying an Italian), I feel particular affection for and loyalty to Italy and Italians. Therefore I cannot leave unchallenged sweeping statements such as you have made, impugning the reputation of Italians in general and "southerners" in particular. I would do the same if you were to make similar statements about Australians, French, Americans or Irish or whomever! I did not say that the world is "culturally completely globalized" (your words). I said that there are men all over the world who show a lack of respect for women and who are capable of acting violently towards them. The man - perhaps men - who attacked and killed Meredith Kercher is/are in this category. There are also women who are capable of murderous actions, although they are not so numerous, which to me makes their cruelty even more horrific and aberrant. In challenging some of your more outré statements I am not inspired by political correctness. What I like about the overwhelming majority of contributors here and on TJMK is that they argue their positions logically, with reference to the facts as far as it is possible to know them, resisting the errors of arguing ad hominem or from personal prejudice. Where the debate resorts to the latter I cannot keep silent.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:01 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:

[...]Otherwise, why wait, observering from the piazza if the murder was done, Guede had fled and you both have bloodstains on your clothes?. [...]

Because there was a loud scream (from the victim) just before and they didn´t know if that scream could have called some help/police/attention to the crime scene, so they watched from a save distance what happens. Or do you think they just hang arround because they know that Meredith and RG have consensual sex at the moment? To give them some privacy? Why leave the cottage? That makes no sense.


kevin wrote:

If they were waiting for Guede to emerge from the gate, before going back to the house, what happened?. I think Guede escaped by running down the stairs at the side of the house and through the gardens.

Waiting for what? You say they could be only guilty of not calling for help. But if they are waiting for Rudy to complete the attack, that makes them accomplices. Don´t understand what you mean by 'waiting'.


kevin wrote:

They didn't return to the house until the early hours, because they had not seen Guede leave, and were scared.

More than one person ran away from the house, in different directions. There´s no reason for that witness to lie about that.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Just copying these posts by Yummi over:

Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/5/09 1:20 a.m.

funnycat,
my source in this case is obviously the pdf file itself. Which is a document that appears to be redacted on material released by the defense, and it is a defensive document.
I am making the point that this file is damaging for the defense.

Charlie wrote:

"Couldn't Battistelli have been speaking with Carabinieri HQ at around the same time the patrol car finally located the cottage?"

I think he could, but "about the same time" means - obviously - only a few minutes before. They were alerted it was a murder case (the body discovered at 13:24). Which means the Carabinieri located the cottage and arrived between 13:29 and 13:38. A late clock would have indicated a time between 13:19 and 13:28. This clock indicates in fact 13:22 so I consider seriously the defense's theory, which seems to propose that otherwise there would be a too long gap between the 12:54 call and the arrival of Carabinieri after 13:29, also considering that they were yet there at 13:12. But we have 1) Battistelli who testifies the phone call with street indications and 2) the Mobile Squad report on the clock, two information in accordance (also in accordance with the PP report), and 3) we have a phone call from the HQ otherwise still not described in court testimonies.
But another element in this CCVT video is we see how all movements about arrivals are detectable. Police car park in that point looking in search of an entrance, people cross the road in the same direction, policemen and Carabinieri move around in the same way. There is no other Fiat Punto detected that can be matched with the Police Police car: it is clear that the camera is shooting at the actual police cars. This idea is accepted in this defense's theory. The first Carabiniere is on foot wandering around between 13:12 and 13:32, he probably got of the car and is looking for an entrance, a few seconds later we see a patrol. All this happens anyway significantly later than the Postal Police entrance (between 12:38 and 12:58), although a half-an-hour waiting for a Carabinieri patrol is less realistic.
My conclusion is that information #1 and #2 are againt the defence's theory, also the 12:54 – 13:32 gap is quite against because unrealistic and we have an assumption that the CCTV records the actual police cars; only the gap 13:12 - 13:29 works in favour to the defense theory. This is the balance in he given information set in this footage.



Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/5/09 1:48 a.m.

So, i'm looking more accurately to this defense theory.
Aa a summary, we can assume for certain that:

1. Battistelli entered the cottage between 12:38 and 12:58
2. At 12:54 the Carabinieri talked with Raffaele and sent a patrol.
3. Between 12:58 and 13:23 PP and people in the house felt the situation of emergency and broke bown the door.
4. at 13:24 the body had been already discovered by the PP.
5. At 13:29 the Batistelli was exchanging information with the Carabinieri HQ via Amanda's phone, giving street indications.
6. Carabinieri are walking around the cottage, apparently not yet in emergency mode, between 13:12 and 13:32.
7. The PP testifyies having arrived there at 12:35 (entrance at 12:38). The Mobile Squad personnel testifies the clock being 10 minutes forward than real time. Battistelli testifies having spoken with the Carabinieri before they arrived.

Our conclusions are to be based on this data.



THE SMOG

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


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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:44 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Mistercrunch,

I think AK and RS WERE involved at the beginning of the attack, but all they got to show for it was a scratch on Knox's neck. At some point, Guede dragged Meredith into the bedroom and I think RS and AK fled to the piazza and waited to see the outcome

If AK and RS returned to the house, and after arguing about what to do, stupidly decided to cover up thier involvement, that would explain the faked breakin, AK's DNA mixed with Meredith's etc. If they had not seen Guede escape and delayed their return until the early hours out of fear of him, they may well have taken the Knife from RS's flat for protection. That knife could then have been used to cut the bra off, and we've got RS's DNA on the bra and both Knox's and Meredith's on the knife?.

I think that having failed to call the police, and realising that they could have maybe saved Meredith, real panic set in and they just kept digging a bigger hole for themselves.

Really, the biggest problem with my senario is that it could never be believed by anyone who has already decided that Knox is a sociopathic, crazed killer or that she couldn't possibly do any wrong ..... you've more chance of convincing Shirley Phelps-Roper and her Westboro Baptist Church that homosexuals go to heaven?.

Knox was asked a very good question by the judge about the letter withdrawing her accusation against PL. It went something like ' why didn't you notify the police of this directly' she replied 'by that time, the best thing to do was to leave everything for the lawyers to decide' the judge then said 'yes, of course' in a way that sounded like 'yes, I can accept that'. If they can, the lawyers job is to get them not guilty verdicts on all charges, maybe they will, if it is simply a question of whether or not they were in the bedroom helping Guede.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:14 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin,

nice try to reduce the imprisonment from 30 years to...maybe 10-15 years. Although i cant imagine your scenario and find it very implausible, this still would mean


- assisted homicide (Beihilfe zum Mord/Totschlag)
- failure to assist a person in danger (unterlassene Hilfeleistung)
- intentional mislead of the police (Behinderung laufender Ermittlungen, Strafvereitelung)
- false oath (Meineid)
- obscuring a criminal act (Vortäuschen einer Straftat)
- help a murderer to escape to germany by calling a wrong/PL´s name (Begünstigung zur Flucht)
- Slander in at least one (PL), maybe 2 cases (police) (Rufmord)
- maybe theft (300,- Euros) (Diebstahl)

and it would still make them accomplices with Rudy in a horrible crime.

Even if you are still sitting on the fence in that case, does the list above sound more like innocence or more like guilt? I think we can at least agree that AK and RS are guilty. So (against all FOA-wishful thinking), the remaining question is: 'Guilty of what?', right?



EDIT: added the german legal terms because i don´t know the english legal terms exactly.


Last edited by mistercrunch on Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lady garden


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:46 pm

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin-once the attack was underway Meredith was doomed-there was no 'saving her -why would anyone "wait to see the outcome" of a sexual attack-its pretty obvious they would be in the shite which ever way it went.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Meanwhile, they are discussing the subject 'how often do you take a shower in general' over at the cooks smog, while completely missing the point for this particular shower in this particular murder case p-(((


German teachers say: "Thema verfehlt, setzen, ungenügend" (something like 'Missed the subject, sit down, fail'). I´m glad to know, in contrary to that, that the judges and jury will very well regard the circumstances of the shower in that morning, without thinking about showering/bathing-habits in general wh-)


Last edited by mistercrunch on Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Mistercrunch,

I am not trying to reduce any punishment, merely trying to understand what happened. I agree absolutely that my senario makes AK and RS guilty of all the things you list, except possibly the theft of 300 euros (It was Guede's DNA found on Meredith's handbag, inside and outside). It is not sitting on the fence to say that AK and RS look very guilty, but guilty of what?. My senario has them realizing what they were guilty of ... not saving Meredith ... and then trying to coverup this guilt.

Lady Garden,

Once the attack was underway I think RS and AK's first thought was for themselves. I'm not sure they knew Meredith was doomed and that murder would follow a sexual assualt, but they certainly knew they were already in trouble and waited to see the outcome. When they returned to the house in the early hours, I am sure they were schocked at exactly how much trouble they were in. If they already knew what had happened, I think they would have argued about what to do and made a decision BEFORE returning to the house. They would then have tried to alter the scene as quietly as possible .... not argue so loudly that they can be heard.

Depending on which expert we are to believe, Meredith could have bled to death in 10 minutes or it could have taken over an hour, therefore a call for help from the piazza may well have saved her.

Real life is messy?, people who are panicing do strange things?. That drunken American girl in Florence recently, who let her boyfriend bleed to death, while she repeatedly called the wrong number for the emergency services, shows how messy life can be.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:

Real life is messy?, people who are panicing do strange things?. That drunken American girl in Florence recently, who let her boyfriend bleed to death, while she repeatedly called the wrong number for the emergency services, shows how messy life can be.

What do you expect from a lifeguard in extreme situations? Or a sky diver? Or a freeclimber? Do you expect panic? Or do you estimate that they simply call the emergency number?


Oh, wait, first you have to turn on your simultanously turned-off phones. And... no... you don´t have to load up your phoneaccount, the emergency number is for free.


Last edited by mistercrunch on Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Administrator Note:

Some of the PowerPoints in Kermit's PowerPoint thread HERE have been unavailable for download for a period of time. This was due to FreeForums imposing a maximum file size limit of 5 MB per file. All files above that limit were automatically removed from the board.

There is no such limit with our new hosts, so I've uploaded all the missing PowerPoints back up to the board and they are available for download once again! :)

I would strongly advise any recent visitors to PMF, that have not viewed the PowerPoints to go and do so (the downloadable PowerPoint versions attachments are the best quality, rather then the PDF or view online versions). Kermit's PowerPoints provide essential information and context on the case.

For those of you unable to view PowerPoints because you are using some other operating system, such as Linux, you can view them online or download them in PDF format. Some of the PowerPoints in the thread have a 'View online' hyperlink. Click on that. It will take you to that PowerPoint online (which you can also opt to download from there in PDF format if you wish) but also in the right panel of the page click on the 'view more from this author' link and that will show every PowerPoint' I've uploaded to PMF. Simply expand each one you wish to view or download.

I would just add though, do download and view the attached PowerPoints if all you lack is the right software to view PowerPoints. The first post in the thread contains links to free software you can download and install that will allow you to view them. If you need PDF solutions, there's also links to very good free and safe versions of those.

_________________
"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: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin wrote:

"I am not trying to reduce any punishment, merely trying to understand what happened. I agree absolutely that my senario makes AK and RS guilty of all the things you list, except possibly the theft of 300 euros (It was Guede's DNA found on Meredith's handbag, inside and outside). It is not sitting on the fence to say that AK and RS look very guilty, but guilty of what?. My senario has them realizing what they were guilty of ... not saving Meredith ... and then trying to coverup this guilt."

Everything I have read leads me to believe that Meredith's money was not in her handbag when she was murdered. And so does logic. Meredith had gone to visit friends that evening; I doubt she was walking around Perugia with her rent money in her purse. Of course, this is just speculation on my part, but I believe it is more likely that the money was not taken from Meredith's purse.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin wrote:

"Depending on which expert we are to believe, Meredith could have bled to death in 10 minutes or it could have taken over an hour, therefore a call for help from the piazza may well have saved her."

I have read expert testimony on the 10-minute figure but not on "well over an hour". Which expert testified to this?

_________________
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: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Frank Sfarzo & Chris Mellas BrokebackPerugia moment:


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

mistercrunch wrote:
Quote:

Posted by Charlie Wilkes at 8/4/09 9:38 p.m.
Candace wrote:

i will let Charlie argue it point by point, because he had studied it far more than I have.

I can't argue it point by point because I can't be sure what the photos actually depict. But no one else can be sure either. Anyone who says these pictures prove that the postal police arrived before Raffaele called 112 is blowing smoke


He knows what he´s talking about...he´s a pro in 'blowing smoke' cl-)




Ha, ha, good one mistercrunch. Funny how Charlie is an armchair expert on every subject, yet refuses to answer questions about his one true area of personal expertise, which is blowing smoke. What about the occasional joint and memory loss, huh Charlie?



In fact, the main problem I have with Charlie is that he is like a man who has been converted to the ideas of a sect or cult. To hear him tell it, he was just minding his own business, posting copiously on his various user groups, convinced that AK and the black guy did it, until he had a revelation reading Candace's advance book plug for Doug Preston -- oops, I mean interview with that esteeemed author -- after which his whole world was turned upside down about the whole question of AK's guilt or innocence. It has all the markings of a religious conversion. That's what great art -- and great pot -- can do!

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Jools! Your photo made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. Two hotheads, sharing an intimate moment. How cute!

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Catnip wrote:

"It will be a hard task, in novelising this case, to capture all the nuances and subtleties and reflections-within-reflections of the thought-processes of the characters and what’s motivating them psychologically, why they get together and do what they do (besides just the usual hungers of base instinct, that is).

Grisham has his work cut out for him.

Maybe he’ll end up just doing the usual ho-hum yawn stereotypical action-packed thriller or something."

Great post, venerable Catnip! I think Grisham will just skip over all that dull stuff about nuances and churn out an action-packed thrillah... or something. That's what his people and his publishers want, after all. Leave the subjective, internal, nuancy stuff to others. Leave the Harlequin romance treatment to Candace ("Like an English rose, plucked too soon", before all its petals had fully opened, the young Englishwoman stepped off the train at the platform in Perugia with a shy smile....).

_________________
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: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

sc-)) sc-))
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Jools! Your photo made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. Two hotheads, sharing an intimate moment. How cute!



How cute is that? The two pals bromancing!
sc-))
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skep,
Here they are again. This time Sfarzo is acting as the crime tourist guide!


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Thanks for the pics Jools. That second pic is sometime ago, since the cottage is still sealed there. Just goes to show the pair of them have been chums for quite a while, or should I say employer and employee? :)

In the first pic, would that be the case file next to the laptop?

_________________
"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 Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael,
The pictures have the date of March 11. The caption below the pic says:
NELLA FOTO CHRIS E CON L'AMICO ITALIANO FRANK SFARZO CHE LO ACCOMPAGNA DURANTE LE UDIENZE E CREATORE DI UN SITO CHE PARLA DEL DELITTO DI CRONACA AVVENUTO NELLA VILLETTA.NEL PC IL SITO AMERICANO DEDICATO AD AMANDA.

In the photo Chris with his italian friend Fank Sfarzo who accompanies him during the trial hearing and creator of a site that talks about the murder that occurred in the cottage. The PC shows an American site dedicated to Amanda.


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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
I'm just cross posting this post by Yummi, over from the Smog, regarding the PDF Bolint recently dug up:

Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/4/09 5:31 p.m.
But I found this file rather damaging for the defendants instead.
...

3) Battistelli declared that he was given the phone by Sollecito and he spoke himself with the Carabinieri, we assume quite a long call containing an explaination in Italian. This is quite an important testifying from Battistelli that the Carabinieri were *not* yet at the house at 13:29. If we want to discredit his version, we have to assume he is lying about this point. But if he is lying, why? And why do we have this long call from the Carabinieri to Amanda's phone? What is this call about?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/172993.asp?page=22#comments


???
So Battistelli testified that at 13.29 the carabinieri hadn't arrived yet. How could that be damaging for the defendants? That's exactly what the defence was trying to prove.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'm just cross posting this post by Yummi, over from the Smog, regarding the PDF Bolint recently dug up:

Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/4/09 5:31 p.m.
But I found this file rather damaging for the defendants instead.
...

3) Battistelli declared that he was given the phone by Sollecito and he spoke himself with the Carabinieri, we assume quite a long call containing an explaination in Italian. This is quite an important testifying from Battistelli that the Carabinieri were *not* yet at the house at 13:29. If we want to discredit his version, we have to assume he is lying about this point. But if he is lying, why? And why do we have this long call from the Carabinieri to Amanda's phone? What is this call about?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/172993.asp?page=22#comments


???
So Battistelli testified that at 13.29 the carabinieri hadn't arrived yet. How could that be damaging for the defendants? That's exactly what the defence was trying to prove.



Actually, the defense tried half-heartedly to prove that the 112 calls were made before the arrival of the postal police, not how long it took the carabinieri to arrive.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:

"In the first pic, would that be the case file next to the laptop?"

I think it is Frank's screenplay in progress. He's hoping Doug Preston can get it to Tom Cruise, so that he can option it and Frank can retire.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skeptical Bystander,

Maybe you are right about the money. Also, unless the money went missing earlier and was the cause of a fight, the question of who stole it pales into insignificance compared with the murder, sexual assualt and I believe failure to call help.

The testimony that Mereith took 10 minutes to bleed to death came during the trial, which surprised me. I think the other estimate was in Micheli's report, which was why the second estimate surprised me. I'll check it.

If I get time, I'll also see if I can find out what happened at that conference near Lucca the other day. Italy's top lawyer and other experts were to talk about the Kercher case, although I think the focus was on media aspects, which don't really interest me that much .... more Peter's department
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I was just thinking about Kevin's scenario and his belief that there is lack of evidence of AK and RS being in Meredith's room--since, of course RS's DNA on the bra clasp is obviously contamination by pixie dust, or angel dust or, oh yes, fabulous flying DNA dust. If there was so much of RS's DNA swirling around Meredith's room to contaminate the bra clasp, why is was it not found on anything else in that room. And where did RS's DNA dust come from in the first place since he supposedly was never in the room. On the day that it was removed as evidence, the bra clasp was found 39 inches from where it was first seen on discovery of the crime. It was located under a rug or mat or something--which apparently had not been contaminated by the flying DNA. The defense would like to say that the bra clasp spent the interval between the crime and it's rediscovery traveling from room to room about the cottage, but nothing I have seen indicates that they have shown that to be true.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hello
So a little new information has appeared after all, in Bolint's find.

The defense's point about the 13:29 phone call by the carabinieri to Amanda's phone, during which Battistelli was the one to take the phone and give them directions to reach the cottage, is that it helps to fix the actual time of events with respect to the time marked on the CCTV camera.

The point is that the carabinieri park in front of the cottage at 13:22 (CCTV time) and one of them arrives on foot.

The prosecution claims that this corresponds to a true time of 13:12. However, at 13:29 (true time attested by phone records) the carabinieri call asking for directions to reach the house. So they were there at 13:12 yet called for directions at 13:29. To explain this, Michael appears to think that maybe a different set of carabinieri called, but that does not seem right since Battistelli testified to giving them directions to the house and there were no carabinieri there at that time. Yummi's explanation seems to be that what is possible is that the carabinieri (one on foot and one patrol car) arrived in front of the cottage at 13:12, didn't realize they were in the right place and then circulated for 17 minutes searching for the cottage until finally calling at 13:29.

The defense claims that the CCTV camera is ten minutes early, not ten minutes late (everyone seems to agree that it's correct to within 10 minutes either way). This would correspond to the carabinieri phoning for directions at 13:29 and arriving at a CCTV camera time of 13:22 corresponding to a real time of 13:32, so three minutes after their call, since they were already searching around the right area.

The defense claim appears more likely than a 17 minute search starting from a carabinieri on foot and a patrol car stopped directly at the cottage gate.

The relevance of this to the 112 phone calls by Raffaele lies in the correction to the CCTV camera time.

If it is true that the carabinieri patrol car stopped in front of the house was the first to arrive (which must be true even given the prosecution timing of 13:12 since there were no carabinieri present when the door was broken down) and if it is true that it arrived after Battistelli gave directions (as per his testimony), and if it was not a chance stopping in front of the cottage preceding a seventeen minute search for the same cottage as Yummi suggests, then it must have been there a few minutes after 13:29, so one can solidly deduce that the CCTV camera was about ten minutes early, not late.

If we assume as both sides appear to, that the black Fiat Punto which moves backwards and forwards in front of the parking lot was the car of the postal police, and if we assume that the two pedestrians seen meeting up in front of the cottage a few minutes after these movements were really Battistelli and Marzi, then the 12:48 time of the CCTV camera would correspond to a real time of 12:58 for the postal police arrival.

This is the defense argument.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

So we have breathtaking 34 minutes from RS´s second call until the carabinieri at least ask for the way to the cottage, and 37 minutes from beeing alarmed by RS until they arrive at the crime scene?

I cant believe that. Given that this .pdf-file is the defenses presentation on the events, it would be interesting to see the prosecutions presentation, maybe with additional informations.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Although I'm not 100% sure, I believe that PDF data was the defence data presented to Micheli in the first hearing. He rejected their arguments that Raffaele called the police before the Postal Police arrived and accepted the times as provided by the police. Having reviewed all of the evidence, he must have had good reason for doing so. All of those present also support the times given by the Postal Police (except for Raffaele of course), but I trust them far more then I trust Raffaele.

_________________
"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: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

kevin wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

Maybe you are right about the money. Also, unless the money went missing earlier and was the cause of a fight, the question of who stole it pales into insignificance compared with the murder, sexual assualt and I believe failure to call help.

The testimony that Mereith took 10 minutes to bleed to death came during the trial, which surprised me. I think the other estimate was in Micheli's report, which was why the second estimate surprised me. I'll check it.

If I get time, I'll also see if I can find out what happened at that conference near Lucca the other day. Italy's top lawyer and other experts were to talk about the Kercher case, although I think the focus was on media aspects, which don't really interest me that much .... more Peter's department




In fact, I really don't know about the money. I am just guessing based on what I have read so far. Micheli apparently rejected the idea that Rudy Guede stole it and that it was stolen from the victim's purse.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

thoughtful wrote:

"so one can solidly deduce that the CCTV camera was about ten minutes early, not late. "



How do you define early and late?
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

surp-)
kevin wrote:
Disinterested, Tiziano,

Ok, even if we accept YOUR weird idea that the world is culturally completely globalized, which has been described to me as 'fake political correctness', are you saying that AK and RS already knew the outcome of the attack when they were in the piazza and looking back towards the gate of the cottage?. If they already knew the outcome, and Guede had fled at the same time as them, it seems unlikely that they would hang around, especially if they are covered in blood. I think they were arguing over whether to call the police or not.

The lack of evidence against them in the bedroom supports the idea that they fled before Guede sexually assaulted Meredith and murdered Meredith ... it was his DNA found inside her, not anyone elses's.

It looks like they returned to the cottage in the early hours and were heard arguing. If they already knew what had happened, surely they would have had their argument before returning, and already have decided what to do. I think they realised that they were in deep trouble for not calling the police earlier and in panic, decided to try and make it appear that they were not present or involved at the beginning of the attack. RS was certainly arrogant enough to think this would work.

This is not a 'lone wolf' senario, since it has AK and RS involved at the beginning of the attack (hence the only evidence we have on them is a scratch on Knox's neck) the most serious crime of which they are guilty is not getting help and possibly saving Meredith. It wouldn't be the first time that people in trouble have dug a deeper hole for themselves?.




Kevin,

I'd be the first to admit that I am no expert in forensics and DNA, but in studying this case I've become convinced that determining the truth about events in a murder case can't be based just upon the lack of evidence at the crime scene. It is true that you may not be able to uphold and prove your case without having that kind of evidence, but we've seen very little dependable occurrence of DNA traces from any of the residents or suspects at the murder scene. It isn't that predictable. Even in regard to Rudy there's a low level of DNA on the body and in the room in regard to what's being described as his involvement there. We don't have the weapon either (or at least a proven weapon/or the
"other" smaller knife) so it seems sensible to look instead for other kinds of evidence, such as time contradictions, all the illogic of the break-in, behavior, circumstances, etc.--rather than base our suppositions on what DNA isn't there at this point. That's just negative proof. There's enough positive proof that AK & RS very much wanted to cover up the physical and circumstantial signs of something to make me believe they're more involved than you're suggesting.

As to cultural differences and political correctness, I live in a country which still, even though we've elected a minority president, seems to trend toward an alarming need to condemn or deride people on the basis of racial and social characteristics. (Of course Obama was damned for arugula, not watermelon.) So, call me P.C., but I always feel more comfortable discussing people as individuals--I think there's more likely to be truth found with a mind open to complexities rather than cliches. Saying a Southern Italian is likely to flee the scene doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion, plus no one likes to be lumped into some stereotype out of Mario Puzo. I know sometimes it seems hard to resist (especially in the "investigative" state of mind), but it's usually advisable to avoid presumption.
Having said all that, it's great to look at things from different perspectives, (but be prepared for an argument)!

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
"The defense claims that the CCTV camera is ten minutes early, not ten minutes late (everyone seems to agree that it's correct to within 10 minutes either way). This would correspond to the carabinieri phoning for directions at 13:29 and arriving at a CCTV camera time of 13:22 corresponding to a real time of 13:32, so three minutes after their call, since they were already searching around the right area."

This call lasted 296 seconds - almost 5 minutes - and began at 13:29. It therefore ended at 13:34.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
thoughtful wrote:

"so one can solidly deduce that the CCTV camera was about ten minutes early, not late. "



How do you define early and late?






In this excerpt from Knox's email of Nov 4th, she mentions two different police arrivals. I have corrected the obvious typos:



"then filomena arrived with her boyfriend marco-f
and two other friends of hers. all together we checked the house out,
talked to the police, and in a big [word missing] they all opened meredith's door.
i was in the kitchen standing aside, having really done my part for
the situation. but when they opened meredith's door and i heard
filomena scream "a foot! a foot!" in italian i immedaitely tried to
get to meredith's room but raffael grabbed me and took me out of the
house. the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the
carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police
investigators. they took all of our informaton and asked us the same
questions over and over."

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

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

That “having really done my part for the situation” gets me every time.
Sometimes it seems she’s been done with this situation since Nov. 2, 2007--
Gawd can't I just kill my friend in peace and move on with my life? Geez you guys. Soooooooooo annoying. Bleargh--
But it’s the jury who will decide exactly what her part was.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skeptical Bystander quoted AK wrote:
the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the
carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police
investigators
. they took all of our informaton and asked us the same
questions over and over.


So we don´t know if the carabinieri-car and the carabinieri per pedes in the CCTV-camera are the first, second, third or twentieth policeman that arrive, and we also don´t know if the carabinieri in the phone call at 13:29 are the ones that arrive because RS called them, right?


Last edited by mistercrunch on Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skep wrote:

"...the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the
carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police
investigators...."



Yes, I also quoted this part above.

My problem now was with the direction of early and late, not the amount. Thoughtful uses it differently than do.



If the camera time is 12:22 and the true time is 12.32 then I would say that the camera is late.


Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:

If the camera time is 12:22 and the true time is 12.32 then I would say that the camera is late.

I would say the camera(time) is 'early' because it shows an 'earlier' time compared to the true time. But thats just my interpretation.

Some might say it is 10 minutes 'behind' and therefor 'late'.

In german we would just say 'die Uhr geht nach' what would simply be 'behind' (real time) so we don´t use 'late' or 'early' maybe thats why it confuses me.


Last edited by mistercrunch on Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:


My problem now was with the direction of early and late, not the amount. Thoughtful uses it differently than do.



If the camera time is 12:22 and the true time is 12.32 then I would say that the camera is late.


no, that's 10min early.

btw, I looked at the phone records again and I think there is a phone call Amanda/mother right after 13.24, at 13.27.

In the email amanda 'forgets' those calls too. Calling her mom doesn't seem to be so important to her.


Last edited by Lancelotti on Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
bolint wrote:


My problem now was with the direction of early and late, not the amount. Thoughtful uses it differently than do.



If the camera time is 12:22 and the true time is 12.32 then I would say that the camera is late.


no, that's 10min early.

btw, I looked at the phone records again and I think there is a phone call Amanda/mother right after 13.24, at 13.27.

In the email amanda 'forgets' those calls too. Calling her mom doesn't seem to be so important to her.



These calls make more sense, though, because they were made after the discovery of the body. Incidentally, the second one, at 13:27, is to a different number in Seattle than the one called in the previous two calls. Would that be a call to someone else? Curt Knox maybe? Or does Edda have two phones at home with West Seattle prefixes?

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Skep wrote:

"...the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the
carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police
investigators...."



Yes, I also quoted this part above.

My problem now was with the direction of early and late, not the amount. Thoughtful uses it differently than do.



If the camera time is 12:22 and the true time is 12.32 then I would say that the camera is late.





I would just say the camera time is wrong.:)

_________________
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: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skep wrote:
These calls make more sense, though, because they were made after the discovery of the body. Incidentally, the second one, at 13:27, is to a different number in Seattle than the one called in the previous two calls. Would that be a call to someone else? Curt Knox maybe? Or does Edda have two phones at home with West Seattle prefixes?


Didn't she try and call Chris mellas but failed to reach him?

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

thoughtful wrote:
" Battistelli testified to giving them directions"



We don't know if it was Battistelli.
We only know that he/she was an inspector. The other postal is also an inspector in the news.
From the presentation (slide 147) it is not clear if he was a postal at all. It comes from Frank's account below.

Also not clear from the presentation if he gave direction to those carabinieri who came on Raffaele's call. Frank says so.

Not big difference if it was Battistelli or Marzi, it is just better not to create "facts" to avoid later false arguments.



The primary sources are:
Quote:
PDF file
plus the three pieces below:



Quote:
Frank, Feb 7
You may even got lost if you don't have someone who tells you. That's what indeed will happen to the Carabinieri called by Raffaele. They got lost, they needed to call back Raffaele, who passed them to the Postal Police, who gave them the directions.





Quote:

Frank March 13
"Today the video was projected of the arrival of the postal police car at 12:36. But the clock was then minutes ahead so it was 12:26. For the police.
Sollecito's defence doesn't think the same. They think the clock was behind of 10 minutes, so it was 12:46.
Nobody seems to notice that that video can't prove anything because it justshows a car of the same model used by postal police of which you can't read the plate and of which you can't recognize the only person inside.


That car could even really be the one of the postal police with the driver still inside while Bartolozzi was on foot looking for the house. But I have to remind that the problem is not at what time they arrived in viale S.Antonio. The problem is at what time they entered the house of that wrong address of via della Pergola 7. And for that no video exists. So it remains the word of Bartolozzi against the word of Raffaele and Amanda, with several elements in favor of the latter, as we have seen.
(Frank wants to say Battistelli instead of Bartolozzi here, I think)"





Quote:

Stewart March 13
"Buongiorno used slides of the CCTV taken on Nov 2nd at 1:55pm where there was a carabinieri caught walking and shortly afterwards a carabinieri car (you could see the strip on the pant leg and the name carabinieri on the car) hence trying to show that they came much later to the crime scene then previously stated. The CCTV was triggered by a black fiat punto that stopped in from of the entrance and moved on...the carabinieri were then seen in the footage... but it proved little. They could have been there well beforehand.


It really did not go anywhere... she did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late, how it worked, where it was located etc. She also complained that there were people captured by the CCTV that night that the carabinieri did not thorougly check out. She used the images with supposedly Rudy in the CCTV around 8:40pm."






Quote:

Funnycat is not a primary source but is clearly close to some documents:
"Giulia Bongiorno broke officer Bartolozzi down completely on the witness stand and Mr. Bartlolozzi admits that some technician whose name he does not recall must have determined that 10 minutes, since categorically, Bartolozzi did not.


Bartolozzi made a run at getting the court to believe that checking the Internet to calibrate the CCTV time (famously at my house that is some minutes off) was something that he could bring to court to nail the defendants."






Thats's all, the rest is derivation.


Last edited by bolint on Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
These calls make more sense, though, because they were made after the discovery of the body. Incidentally, the second one, at 13:27, is to a different number in Seattle than the one called in the previous two calls. Would that be a call to someone else? Curt Knox maybe? Or does Edda have two phones at home with West Seattle prefixes?


Didn't she try and call Chris mellas but failed to reach him?



I don't know. But it was 5 am, so perhaps he was sleeping and did not hear the phone ring. No wait, he was awake, along with Edda, having been roused from sleep by the earlier call.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"I would just say the camera time is wrong."

From now on I will resort to ambiguity, too. :D
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
"Calling her mom doesn't seem to be so important to her."

Just like retracting. :D
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
"I looked at the phone records again and I think there is a phone call Amanda/mother right after 13.24, at 13.27."

The second is her father.

I repeat my earlier post:

As I understand the table:
13:24:18 Amanda calls mother (162 seconds)
13:27:32 Amanda calls father (26 seconds, probably only ringing but unanswered, Seattle time 5:27am)
13:29:00 Carabinieri call Amanda (296 seconds)
13:58:33 Amanda calls mother (1 second (sic!), voice, not SMS) misdial? engaged?
13:59:06 Amanda calls father (350 seconds, Seattle time 5:59am)
14:46:15 Amanda is called from Germany (102 seconds)
15:31:51 Amanda receives SMS (from someone unknown to us so far)
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
The second is her father.


ok, so while Amanda forgets phone calls, her mother imagines one that never happened. interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"her mother imagines one that never happened. interesting."

Yes, imaginative. Police must have suggested it.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

thoughtful wrote:



Quote:
The defense claim appears more likely than a 17 minute search starting from a carabinieri on foot and a patrol car stopped directly at the cottage gate.




At first, I made this thought too.



But I want to compare the two hypothesys with all data fitting in.



Wre also have a call to the Carabinieri at 12:54 and it is recorded, wher the Carabiniere answers "ok we send a patrol".



Raffaele and Amanda should have been waiting for them arriving in front of the gate at via della Pergola 7. They didn't. Thus, is it possible some kind of waiting or wandering or inspecting could have taken place? Or that they simple turned back and stopped to call back the HQ and say "there is nobody here, we give another look".



In the defense's theory, what happens is that the Carabinieri are sending a patrol at 12.54 and the Patrol arrives at 12:29, this means 35 minutes later.

I have to consider that this timing is even less realistic than the 17 minutes search.

If you are in the city and you call the police, i speak without knowledge of protocols just on my experience, they don't jast hang up the phone and then arrive after a 35 minutes waiting. It simply doesn't happen so. A 5-6 minutes waiting would be considered a maximum, and this was a case of a missing person, if there is any delay they usually call back again to give you informations about ti e, etc. I hardly believe the Carabinieri arrived later then 10 minutes after. It is not what Carabinieri ususlly do. A 35 minutes delay is quite a fault in a service to citizens. I also hardly believe they asked indication about where is via della Pergola, even before ariving there. This is another unrealistic detail. maybe they don't know the house, but certainly they know the road: maybe they previoulsy got to a wrong adresss, it's very possible; but they won't just ask indication even *before* gettig there, just to know where the road is. Ok, let's admit they are even so ignorant about topography they have to ask people how to get there, so they asked for indication but only when they were just behind the corner and about to arrive, I admit it as a possibility.

But in addition, I am facing two other data: the written report by the PP says they arived there at 12:35, and a report by the Mobile squad of the State Police says the park clock is 10 minutes early. Those two informations are in agreement and are coming from two different sources. If they are both wrong, it is another unlikely element. This would mean three mistakes or unusual behavior from three different police forces.

On this considerations, I started to see the 17 minutes wandering as the more credible option. Although I realize the other option remains open. But I disagree with the pdf file that presents it as the "only" explaination, while in fact is not the only one neither the most likely.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Well, Yummi, the prosecution must have all the cards to refute these claims, if they are refutable.
Almost four months have passed and I don't hear them refute.
And I'm leaning to think now it's because they can't.

How could they let a witness take the stand without asking him first if he can prove the -10 minutes theory?

They are playing like the bad chess player, thinking only one move ahead.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Well, Yummi, the prosecution must have all the cards to refute these claims, if they are refutable.
Almost four months have passed and I don't hear them refute.


Actually, I don't think it works like that.
It is the judge who refutes or accepts scenarios and claims. So far, judge Micheli has rejected the defensive theory presented in the pdf file. Maybe judge Massei and the Assise Court will accept instead the defensive claims.
The prosecutors won't answer in real time to a defensive claim.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"The prosecutors won't answer in real time to a defensive claim."

Ok, Ok.
But will they leave this to the closing argument?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Administrator Note:

Members are now free to choose a different board style to the default 'ExtremeDark Red' style, via their User Control Panel. You now have two other choices:

prosilver

or

subsilver2

Neither are particularly exciting I'm afraid, but they are clean, bright and unfussy.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

From the Smog:

Dempsey wrote:
Posted by Candace Dempsey at 8/5/09 3:31 p.m.

Coffee,

Rudy's mitts were on the purse, not his blood. The blood was Meredith's and it was inside. Which leads me to believe that he reached in. He admits to leaving Meredith while she was choking to death on her own blood. He has a history of petty crime. So why wouldn't he take her money?

I accept that Judge Micheli said it couldn't be proved. The same goes for Raffaele and Amanda, who didn't even need it. Rudy did.



THE SMOG

No Candace, Rudy's prints (in Meredith's blood) were on the 'outside'. There was no blood on the inside.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Administrator Note:

Members can now subscribe to PMF via RSS. While on PMF, simply click the RSS button on your browser's toolbar and select 'subscribe'.

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Quote:
Ok, Ok.
But will they leave this to the closing argument?



I don't know.

I don't know even if there is an argument on this specific issue actually.

There will be probably a claim that the Postal police arrived at about 12:58 as a defensive argument, on the basis of the analisys a CCTV video. If they want the prosecutors can set an attack on this claim with a number of arguments. I think the prosecution in a a general principle does not have to respond to defensive arguments. The prosecution exposes their theory, and the defenses speak after. The defense theory is never directly refuted in court debate.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:38 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Disinterested,

Nice to hear from someone who hasn't called me a racist, sexist, someone who doesn't understand the place I've lived in for 20 years or ''disrepects Meredith'. In florence they are still trying to understand how that drunken American girl could get herself into a situation where she let herself allow her boyfriend to bleed to death. No Italian girl would ever get herself into that situation? ..... I think that we can safely say that there are some cultural differences between America and Florence?.

Someone just told me that if my senario is correct, then Knox only gets 15 years .... that is not the point, first we have to understand what happened and then punishment comes after?, we are talking about a messy human situation, thank God I don't need to decide the appropriate punishment.

How would you punish the American girl in Florence? .... for sure, she didn't start the evening thinking it would finish like that?. How responsible is she? ... I would say ... 'above my pay grade' as Obama says . The thing that we can be thankful for is that the Italian system first tries to find out what happened, then gives the most approriate punishment. The judge sounds to me 'above my pay grade'.

I have got two questions for anyone who likes to answer .... sometimes doesn't it feel a bit 'pornographic' digging into the lives of AK, RS and RG?. I am starting to feel shit about it?.
also, doesn't being confronted with real hatred (Knox supporters and haters) for the first time in your life, make you feel 'f**k this´?

I'm very happy that thoughtful hasn't let herself be shouted down
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin wrote:



Quote:
hatred (...) for the first time in your life




The "first time" i found it an interesting assumption or projection; this can't apply to me, for sure.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:22 am   Post subject: carabinieri arrival   

To me, CCTV time=13:22 and real time=13:32 corresponds to: CCTV clock is early
CCTV time=13:22 and real time=13:12 corresponds to: CCTV clock is late.
Probably I should have said "the CCTV clock is slow" for the first case and "fast" for the second case. Sorry for the ambiguity.

I agree with those who feel that the 34 minute interval between Raffaele's 12:54 call to the carabinieri and the 13:29 call from the carabinieri to ask for directions appears very long. However, it is borne out by the phone records. (One can perhaps bear in mind the fact is that Raffaele's call was not really an emergency call about a missing person, but more about a suspicious break-in.)

The only way to disbelieve this 34 minute interval is to assume that some carabinieri arrived earlier and were already at the house when the 13:29 call was made (as Michael suggested), and that the inspector who gave directions to the carabinieri on Amanda's phone was speaking from a house already full of carabinieri.

The only explicit account we have seen that this is not the case was from Frank's blog on March 13, according to which Battistelli gave the directions to carabinieri before they arrived at the house, confirming the 34 minute interval and the defense timeline of arrivals: postal police at 12:58, carabinieri at about 10 minutes after 13:22, so around 13:32 (maybe 13:34, as Skeptical pointed out that the call started at 13:29 and lasted for about five minutes, which probably means that they kept talking up until the patrol car actually pulled up at the gate.)

Of course, Frank is often not very accurate. But here it doesn't seem that the defense could have made their presentation at all, if in fact there had already been carabinieri in the house. Their whole argument is simply too easy to refute, with a simple question put to Battistelli, or by calling the carabinieri as witnesses. The prosecution will not stand there in court protesting the defense's proposition, but Judge Massei can ask any questions he likes and he appears to ask very relevant ones. It would be impossible to get away with such an outright and easily contradicted assertion: not just some far-fetched theory or argument contradicting scientific experts, but directly and simply contradicting easily established facts.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
"The only way to disbelieve this 34 minute interval is to assume that some carabinieri arrived earlier and were already at the house when the 13:29 call was made (as Michael suggested), and that the inspector who gave directions to the carabinieri on Amanda's phone was speaking from a house already full of carabinieri."


From "The Comprehensive Primary Timeline of the Case" posted by Michael on True Justice for Meredith Kercher, 5/14. Las edit April 22, 2009:

"1235 Police Postale arrive at the cottage in order to arrange the return of the cell phones. Their arrival time was confirmed by the car park CCTV camera and time was also recorded in the log by their supervisor, Battistelli, when they radioed in their arrival. Reported in the press, the Postal Police noted that RS and AK were holding a mop when they arrived."

So, the question is, was Battistelli, the supervisor, at the cottage or back at headquarters? Incidentally, who is Bartalozzi--I'm confused about the names and haven't got time to track Bartalozzi down to identify him.
If Battistelli is the supervisor and was at headquarters, he wouldn't therefore be speaking from a house full of carabinieri at 13:29. The house could have been full of carabinieri, perhaps those that deal with more routine calls and therefore know the streets of Perugia, without his knowing it. The 13:29 call could have come from carabinieri who were not familiar with the area--ie those assigned to investigating serious crimes such as murder.

If the CCTV camera is only activated by humans or cars in the car park itself, there might have been other carabinieri who arrived before the 13:22 time stamp (or not) and the black Punto that backed up and then returned, if the one that passed by second was a different car, might have had nothing to do with the arrival of the postal police. If they arrived when there was no activity withing the car park, then presumably their car would not have been filmed.

I still find it difficult that someone would have much difficulty locating the house. Via della Pergola has only a couple of houses on the town side of the street and a parking lot. The cottage is the only house on the ravine side of the street for several blocks, and while it is not actually situated adjacent to Via della Pergola, it's driveway is at the junction of Via della Pergola and Viale Sant'Antonio and the house is obvious. It would seem that with the large parking structure on Viale Sant'Antonio, it would be a reasonably well-known street. It is reached at one end from Via della Pergola.

This sounds if


Last edited by beans on Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:14 am   Post subject: The list of arrivals   

Careful everyone.
There may (or may not) be nuances in play.
One man's carabinieri may be another man's trooper.

For example, note how M&C list the "carabinieri" separately to the rest of the cavalcade:

The [Postal Police] agents at this point [i.e., after the door had been broken down] made everyone leave the house. A little later there arrived the Flying Squad (led by Giacinto Profazio, [with] Organised Crime Chief Marco Chiacchiera, head of Homicide Monica Napoleoni, superintendent Stefano Gabbiotti, inspector Lorena Zugarini), the carabinieri, the medico-legal, and the [investigating] magistrate Giuliano Mignini. And so began the mystery of Perugia…

Mastronardi and Castellini, Meredith, page 9


For what it's worth, I got the impression from overall that it was the mini-van guys (presumably the medico-legal team?) that needed the directions. (And from there, I can fantasize about the van being just an inch too wide to fit through the single traffic-light gate-arch in the city wall just back down the road (west) of the cottage. - but that's just me!)

Certainly, there was a of activity during that lunchtime period.

Anyway, obviously, those involved know who spoke to who and when about what and why.

I expect, if it is important, that it will be mentioned in the summing up.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Thoughtful wrote:


"Of course, Frank is often not very accurate. But here it doesn't seem that the defense could have made their presentation at all, if in fact there had already been carabinieri in the house. Their whole argument is simply too easy to refute, with a simple question put to Battistelli, or by calling the carabinieri as witnesses. The prosecution will not stand there in court protesting the defense's proposition, but Judge Massei can ask any questions he likes and he appears to ask very relevant ones. It would be impossible to get away with such an outright and easily contradicted assertion: not just some far-fetched theory or argument contradicting scientific experts, but directly and simply contradicting easily established facts."



The fact that it is too easy to refute does not prove that they must be right to have put it forward. As to whether or not they will get away with it, this remains to be seen.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:21 am   Post subject: carabinieri   

The 13:29 phone call came to Amanda's phone from the number (0)7554247561 attributed to Stazione Carabinieri di Perugia (main contact number (0)7554241). There are many kinds of police as Catnip noted, and many of the policemen who came to the house that day were not carabinieri, and for all we know, some other kinds may have arrived before 13:29. However, the carabinieri were definitely the ones who were (1) called by Raffaele, (2) filmed, one on foot and one car parking in front of the cottage at 13:22 CCTV camera time -- the uniform is recognizable and the word Carabinieri appears on the side of the car, and (3) the ones who called at 13:29 asking for directions. These three points are the only pieces of information used in the defense justification of the CCTV clock error.

Bartolozzi was the postal policeman who remained at headquarters. Battistelli and Marzi went together to the cottage in a black Fiat Punto. While we have no proof that the Fiat Punto seen in the CCTV film is theirs, it seems to be accepted by both the prosecution and the defense, probably because the two figures meeting up on foot in front of the cottage shortly after the car's manoeuvers were accepted by Battistelli and Marzi as being themselves, corresponding to their own movements. The prosecution simply places their movements at about 10 minutes before the recorded camera time of 12:48, so at about 12:38, while the defense places them at about 10 minutes after, so at about 12:58.

This difference is essential in terms of knowing whether Amanda and Raffaele's claim to have called the carabinieri before the postal police arrived is or is not a lie. It seems irrelevant to any question of their involvement in the murder, but gauging the truth of their statements is nevertheless important.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:39 am   Post subject: the SAME carabinieri?   

THOUGHTFUL: "the carabinieri were definitely the" SAME (?) "ones who were (1) called by Raffaele, (2) filmed, one on foot and one car parking in front of the cottage at 13:22 CCTV camera time -- the uniform is recognizable and the word Carabinieri appears on the side of the car, and (3) the ones who called at 13:29 asking for directions. These three points are the only pieces of information used in the defense justification of the CCTV clock error." -- But where is the proof that the SAME carabinieri parked before the parking lot who called the phone of Amanda (by the way, I don't really understand, if they got the call from RS, why did they call Amanda back, but never mind, I don't remember any mentioning of giving Amanda's phone number in the telephone calls of RS -- but it may have eluded me) -- so the contents of conversation of Battistelli while being in the house with the arriving (or whatever) carabinieri is not known exactly -- and I find it funny that the defence decides it is not ten minutes forwards but backwards, as if it was a linguistic problem and not a technical one -- why don't they allege twenty minutes, it would make their case even more convincing, or seven minutes, that would make it more realistic? I don't quite get it. Why exactly ten minutes? They deem the official who said the parking lot timing is ten minutes early (I mean "wrong", or "late"), they say, he is an idiot, or simply cannot use his own mother tongue properly? He meant "later" when he said "earlier", or vice versa? I don't get it.


Last edited by Hungarian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:51 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Administrator Note:

Members have brought it to my attention that the PMF search feature wasn't working. I've been working on fixing the issue. After testing, it now seems to be working fine. We now have a search feature once again :)

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hungarian asked:

"if they got the call from RS, why did they call Amanda back"



Because in the 112 calls RS gave them Amanda's phone number.

At the carabinieri call 13:29:00 the phone was almost surely in Amanda's as she had finished the previous call (father's number) a minute before at 13:27:58.

I think that she couldn't understand the carabibieri, passed it over to RS and for some reason he passed it over to the postals.

5 minute of directions seem too much for me, that would be enough to go through Perugia, so there may have been some conversation on other topics, not necessarily with the postal inspector. But we don't know any other details of that call.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:15 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Thanks Bolint -- do you have the text of the first telephone conversation (RS -- carabinieri) ?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"and I find it funny that the defence decides it is not ten minutes forwards but backwards, as if it was a linguistic problem and not a technical one "

When Frank first wrote it I thought it would be their argumnent that who determined the difference may have written it in the record wrong, so it is a linguistic problem.
Now we don't know if such record exists at all and the defence has and independent technical argument, too.

The technical ten minutes comes from the length of the call which is finished at 13:33:56 that should be the same as 13:22:48TS, So it is actually 11 minutes.


One more thing, the woman in white clothes.
Barbadori (the CCTV guy, there will be even more confusion with the names Bartolozzi, Battistelli, Barbadori :D) said that it was at 20:41 (in other reports 20:43). The reports before the police's -10 minute theory said that it was at 20:53 so I think this is the camera timestamp.
My problem with 20:41 was that neither Meredith nor Amanda could have been there at that time. Meredith was chatting with the English girls while Amanda was grinning to Jovana Popovic at Raffaele's front door at about that time.

The defence's +10 minute theory better fits this footgae, as either Meredith or Amanda could at least have been there at that time.


Last edited by bolint on Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:38 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint: "The technical ten minutes comes from the length of the call which is finished at 13:39:56 that should be the same as 13:22:48TS, So it is actually 11 minutes. " -- this is, if I understand what you say, still 17 minutes -- and also:

"said that it was at 23:41 (in other reports 23:43)" and later you say "20:41" -- which is right?

And where does this statement of discrepancy of timing originate from? the police, the prosecution, the parking lot, or the defence?

And could anyone point to a link of the first conversation? -- text or the recorded version
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:45 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

It was a double typo, I corrected both, 13:33, not 13:39 and the other is 20.43 not 23:43. Thank you for pointing them out.





"And where does this statement of discrepancy of timing originate from? the police, the prosecution, the parking lot, or the defence?"



From the news last summer and in the trial from Barbadori, the police's CCTV guy.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:59 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

And do you know how he came to the conclusion? what kind of numbers he compared?
my problem is: if the defence is right, than it is clearly tampering with technical evidence from the prosecution or the police: but why would they do such a silly thing, if it is so easily refutable? Or they realized the discrepancy comparing the arrival of the postal police with the parking-lot timeline, and every later event had to fit in that frame? And also, the carabinieri -- as the postal police -- has an other timeline, absolutely independent from the parkinglot video-clock -- their own logs. Don't they: in this, the parking lot is only a solidifying byproduct of the investigation. Or, if the defence is right -- it can tear it apart. But I don't see, how this Barbadori could mix up the things -- I mean, the contradiction of the time-differences had to be visible very early, even before the arrest of RS and AK -- and not concocted afterwards -- but who knows?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:26 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"And do you know how he came to the conclusion? what kind of numbers he compared? "


Don't know, though I would have very much liked to know.



The only key is funnycat's remark above that the witness (she writes Bartolozzi, but I think it was Barbadori) said something about checking internet time and thus concluding the difference. But no details how, when, based on what, etc.



" if the defence is right, than it is clearly tampering with technical evidence from the prosecution or the police"



Why tampering?



"but why would they do such a silly thing, if it is so easily refutable?"



Because they think only one move ahead and they are not critical enough with respect to their theories. That was my feeling all along.



I think they won't push this line further.



"But I don't see, how this Barbadori could mix up the things "



I don't see what he did not mix up. :D

For example he said at the trial that the white lady must be Meredith judging from the time and the clothes. Both are crap.


It was a big mistake to let him testify.


Bongiorno took him apart (said Stewart).


Last edited by bolint on Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

" I mean, the contradiction of the time-differences had to be visible very early, even before the arrest of RS and AK -- and not concocted afterwards -- but who knows?"


When police confiscate the hard disk of a camera they must record the time difference between true time and camera time. I think this was not down properly.

They seem to have determined the difference later somehow.

I hope they did not do it based on Battistelli's claim of their 12:35 arrival. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint:
"When police confiscate the hard disk of a camera they must record the time difference between true time and camera time. I think this was not down properly."

WHY?

"They seem to have determined the difference later somehow."

WHY?

"I hope they did not do it based on Battistelli's claim of their 12:35 arrival."

SO DO I.

My problem is, that half of the big discussion here is conjectures about things that could be known. Okay, I don't know what is in AK's head, but it is quite irritating (or thrilling, according to the viewpoint), that the discussion is sometimes swirling around things, that could be easisly established if it was an open trial, and one could study every day in court, through the protocols. I am baffled sometimes, that some "bitter" fights between the posters could be easily decided if one could read the court-materials the day after lets say. But no. It makes it interesting and stimulating but sometimes it is very frustrating. It is sometimes like asking: is the sky blue there? Is the sun shining? Or is it raining? -- And the answer is: we don't know because stewarthome didn't go there. Or even if he was there, maybe he was not observant of this tiny detail: if the sun was shining, or not. The case itself gives enormous riddles to the mind, but it seems, that the participants behaviour or motives -- I mean that of the process in Perugia -- is just as complicated to assess, as the crime itself. There are two paralell discussions, one of which could be easily reduced to studying the exact documents and words of defence and prosecution. Instead we must relay on hearsay in many cases. Okay, I admit, it is frustrating and inspiring at the same time. But a lot of stuff is only conjectures about things that could be known. Battistelli, Bartolozzi, Barbadori -- three players in a greek drama, the B-choir.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin wrote:

"I have got two questions for anyone who likes to answer .... sometimes doesn't it feel a bit 'pornographic' digging into the lives of AK, RS and RG?. I am starting to feel shit about it?.
also, doesn't being confronted with real hatred (Knox supporters and haters) for the first time in your life, make you feel 'f**k this´?"

With regard to your remark about being called out for using racist stereotypes, you will notice that certain people took exception to your generalizations and said so. What follows in these cases is fairly typical. The person who has made the generalization tries to defend himself (or herself) against the charge of stereotyping without admitting that the generalization is wrong or unfair. Then comes the argument about stereotypes and the animosity. Maybe the best thing is just to let it go. If you feel in your heart of hearts that you aren't guilty of stereotyping southern Italians, then these comments shouldn't bother you too much. Just forget about it. This is a sterile debate that has nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

As for your remark about "digging" into the lives of murder suspects, the people who post here are discussing elements of the case. A murder case necessarily involves people, including suspects. I haven't noted - at least on this board - gossip about the private lives of the suspects. Everything posted about them is in the public domain. Indeed, they have put a lot of it out there. The myspace pages, the diaries, etc. The discussion of it on this board is wholly voluntary. If it makes you uncomfortable, then you should consider not participating.

One of the key people behind the FOA has sent emails to posters here, and also posted anonymously on boards, to the effect that their interest in understanding this case and their empathy for the victim, Meredith Kercher, are somehow wrong and shameful because they didn't know her. Why should it be wrong and shameful to feel empathy for another person?

Being confronted by "haters" of any kind makes me uncomfortable. That's why I only moderate this board and only post here. The people here are not haters, even though they have been called haters by the very people who want to shame them out of their interest in truth for the victim. I have been referred to in a couple of places as an "activist" in a "hate" campaign or an "anti-Knox" campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth: I am not an activist and I am not a hater. I believe that the investigation and the ensuing criminal process have been fair and transparent. If the prosecution fails to make its case, then the remaining suspects will be acquitted. That's how the world works. I also believe that the campaign, spearheaded by Doug Preston back in January of 2008 with the aim of smearing Mignini and indeed the entire judiciary of the country of Italy, has been driven by a thirst for revenge and power. It has nothing to do with Meredith Kercher any more, if it ever did. It has nothing to do with Amanda Knox, if it ever did. Doug Preston, a fiction writer, has been trying to impose his stamp on this story as it unfolds.

My main criticism of Doug Preston (and of his early enabler, Candace Dempsey) is that he played and continues to play an instrumental but mostly behind the scenes role in maintaining the polemical and hate-filled climate. There are a few nuts out there whose hatred has found a place to roost on either side of this case. But they are a distinct minority. There are others who have decided that it is about winning and losing, and they don't want to lose. They want their version of events to win and get angry at anyone who stands in the way. They come close to being haters. And there are people who, for perhaps very relevant and personal reasons, feel strongly about guilt or innocence and want their voice to be heard. What's wrong with giving them a place to express themselves and hearing them 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: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint wrote:

"It was a big mistake to let him testify.


Bongiorno took him apart (said Stewart)."

Yes, he said that but he also said the defense attempt to push the postal police arrival time to much later did not really go anywhere. So what are we supposed to think?

I think that Yummi has made a very thorough and disinterested analysis of the situation and that the judge and jury, with all relevant items in hand, will be able to sort things out. One of the mistakes made by amateurs is to take documents provided by one side or the other (prosecution and defense) at face value, without doing any fact-checking, cross-checking, etc. That's why good investigative reporters and journalists are invaluable. They have access to the files, they talk to people on both sides, they dig deeper, etc. I know which ones I trust to come back and tell the truth, whatever it happens to be.


I disagree with you on a more fundamental level, however. I don't believe it was a "mistake" to "let" him testify. In fact, his input is important in understanding what happened. He may not have performed well by your standards, or by Stewarthome's, but that is beside the point. For me, we still have two competing versions and no way to do any independent fact-checking.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Has anyone besides me noticed that on Wednesday nights (and on into Thursday mornings) the comments on Frank Sfarzo's blog take a particularly nasty and personal turn? A PMF poster recently alerted me to this phenomenon and it stands up to scrutiny. I can't help but wonder how many people who gather for the weekly phone call bring their laptops and pass the time making nasty comments about people.

In addition to the usual baddies, I see that "Just Stupid", aka Dynamohum, is now a focus of the man-rage. Kevin, you were mentioning "haters" earlier. Have you seen these comments?

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Yummi wrote:
"It is the judge who refutes or accepts scenarios and claims. So far, judge Micheli has rejected the defensive theory presented in the pdf file."

At that time no testimony of the postal inspector existed and it is a key point in the Sollecito defence's theory, so Micheli could not reject this theory.

Quote:
Frank 3rd Oct 2008
Today it was confirmed that the garage video recorded the car of the postal police arriving at 12.26, while Raffaele and Amanda called 112 at 12.51.


(Also for Hungarian: so this seems to be the first official use of the -10 minutes theory)


Last edited by bolint on Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

grazie.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Has anyone besides me noticed that on Wednesday nights (and on into Thursday mornings) the comments on Frank Sfarzo's blog take a particularly nasty and personal turn? A PMF poster recently alerted me to this phenomenon and it stands up to scrutiny. I can't help but wonder how many people who gather for the weekly phone call bring their laptops and pass the time making nasty comments about people.

In addition to the usual baddies, I see that "Just Stupid", aka Dynamohum, is now a focus of the man-rage. Kevin, you were mentioning "haters" earlier. Have you seen these comments?


The weekly phone-call to Amanda?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Has anyone besides me noticed that on Wednesday nights (and on into Thursday mornings) the comments on Frank Sfarzo's blog take a particularly nasty and personal turn? A PMF poster recently alerted me to this phenomenon and it stands up to scrutiny. I can't help but wonder how many people who gather for the weekly phone call bring their laptops and pass the time making nasty comments about people.

In addition to the usual baddies, I see that "Just Stupid", aka Dynamohum, is now a focus of the man-rage. Kevin, you were mentioning "haters" earlier. Have you seen these comments?


The weekly phone-call to Amanda?




Or from her - not sure which.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Bolint wrote:

"And do you know how he came to the conclusion? what kind of numbers he compared? "


Don't know, though I would have very much liked to know.



The only key is funnycat's remark above that the witness (she writes Bartolozzi, but I think it was Barbadori) said something about checking internet time and thus concluding the difference. But no details how, when, based on what, etc."


Personally, I would not put too much store in what Funnycat writes, for many reasons. She is on the extreme side of the innocentisti spectrum and has been from the start. She is Candace Dempsey's sister; and Candace is also an extreme innocentisti who is not viewing this case from a neutral perspective. I suspect Funnycat has some sort of prior relationship with the Entourage, and/or that her innocentisti fervor has a religious tinge to it. I think she gets a lot of her information about what was said in the courtroom from people like Chris Mellas, who doesn't speak Italian and who is not a neutral party. In any case, a remark by Funnycat, who claims DNA and forensic expertise she surely does not have (or we would know about it by now), is not something that I would personally take at face value. I would want to check with reliable, non-partisan observers with access to information.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skep wrote:
"She is on the extreme side of the innocentisti ..."

I know, thats's why I ignored the rest what she said as only opinion.
But there was this little piece of information and I quickly turned round to compare it with the police's version of how they determined the difference, but their version was zero which I accepted at face value.

Stewart wrote it on that day:
"(Bongiorno) ... she did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late, how it worked, where it was located etc."

How can they call a witness testifying on the camera footage who does not know the answer to one of two important questions (that is the postal timing) that was expected from his testimony?
(The other question was the woman in white skirt about which the witness also said silly things)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Has anyone besides me noticed that on Wednesday nights (and on into Thursday mornings) the comments on Frank Sfarzo's blog take a particularly nasty and personal turn? A PMF poster recently alerted me to this phenomenon and it stands up to scrutiny. I can't help but wonder how many people who gather for the weekly phone call bring their laptops and pass the time making nasty comments about people.

In addition to the usual baddies, I see that "Just Stupid", aka Dynamohum, is now a focus of the man-rage. Kevin, you were mentioning "haters" earlier. Have you seen these comments?




Well, it's the usual suspects isn't it, Chris Mellas and his Goofy Gang and I can tell you as well, Candace isn't above trolling Frank's cess pit either. Remember how there was a fraction of the abuse which is so common there when the family all went off to Perugia recently? It's only too clear who's responsible and who always has been. They love Frank's, they can slag off all the people they can't openly, like Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt, the Admins here, Fast Pete, Snape, FBN, Tara, Nicki, Miss R and just about anyone else they don't like. I suppose they want to get their money's worth out of the site they pay for. How well they represent Amanda. Truly odious people. Meanwhile, Frank happily sits back and let's it happen. I'm glad he's no longer claiming to represent Meredith, he's a stain on her honour and memory.

_________________
"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: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

If the CCTV camera is only activated by movement within the car park (per StewartHome's post on the March 13, 2009 testimony), it is difficult to know if the arrival of the Postal Police and the first Carabinieri were actually caught on camera. There are probably a lot of dark Punto's in Perugia. Also, when this became a murder scene rather than a break-in, there were probably more carabinieri who arrived after the one first called by Raffaele.

I just looked at Kermit's powerpoint "Surroundings, History and Structure of the Cottage" (in Media). Some of the pictures appear to have been taken while the murder was being investigated. In slide 42, you can see six cars parked in the cottage's driveway, four are dark colored and look similar to the car on the CCTV film. In slide 48, there are forensic police in white protective clothing in the yard and what appear to be the same cars as in slide 42. If these pictures were taken the day the body was discovered, we know there were at least 4 cars whose arrival time we do not know. So who's to say, which car's occupants made the 13:29 phone call? (Of course, that photo may have been taken in the days following--but I'd bet there were just as many cars in the driveway the first day if that is the case.)

And about that phone call

In the section of the defense presentation of the CCTV film "LA TESI DEI DIECI MINUTI E' SMENTITA DAI DATI OGGETTIVI" (page 147), there is this:

"Nel corso dell'udienza del.......l"Ispettore...............durante l'interrogatorio dichiaro` che Raffaele Sollecito ricevette una telefonata dai Carabinieri che, trovandosi in Via della Pergola e non riuscendo a rintracciare il civico no. 7 chiedevano indicazioni in merito. Lo stesso Ispettore, tramite il cellulare del Sollecito, dava al Carabiniere le dovute indicazioni."

I loosely translate this to be:

In the course of the hearing of ..........the Inspector.........during the questioning declared that Raffaele Sollecito received a telephone call from the Carabinieri that, finding themselves on Via della Pergola and not being able to track down no. 7 asked for information regarding it. The same Inspector by means of Sollecito's cell phone gave the necessary information to the Carabiniere.

The defense shows the phone records of Raffaele and Amanda to demonstrate that the call was received on Amanda's phone. They also indicate that the duration of the call was 296 seconds.

Please refer to Slide 27 of the same powerpoint, which shows Via della Pergola from beginning to end, the position of the cottage in the absolute center of the photo, and the car park. If the carabinieri were on either Via della Pergola or Viale Sant'Antonio at the time of the call, there is no way that it would have taken 5 minutes to give them directions. That call may have involved directions, but had to include something else as well.

Edited to add page number.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Sorry, Bolint, I see you already translated the quote above on Monday. I guess I got so caught up in the "time stamp shuffle" that I forgot.

Beans
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: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:39 am   Post subject: Parking arrangements   

12+ officials in/on
[*]1 motorcycle (the patrol?)
[*]3 dark cars (all Puntos?)
[*]1 silver car (medico-legal, or magistrate?)


Photo by aKatus [ Flickr ]
Internal photo timestamp: 2007:11:02 15:23:43 (don’t know if this is summer time or standard time)

See post [ link ] Catnip, Tue May 19, 2009
VIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, April 09 - May 22, 09, page 10




[*]

Unknown timestamp (a JFIF file), but probably(?) earlier than the other photo (based on the lack of civilians in that other photo).
See post [ link ] Jools, Sat Jul 18, 2009
XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -, page 1





By the way,
I found my screenshot relating to the M&C book's DVD's basic 3D-walkthrough VRML file:
[*]This is zoomed "above": front door is centre-left, facing "up", then the 3 rooms left-to-right across the top of the image: Filomena, Amanda, Meredith. Laura's is bottom left, next to the big bathroom.
[*]
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:04 am   Post subject: Re: Parking arrangements   

Catnip wrote:
[*]



By the way,
I found my screenshot relating to the M&C book's DVD's basic 3D-walkthrough VRML file:
[*]This is zoomed "above": front door is centre-left, facing "up", then the 3 rooms left-to-right across the top of the image: Filomena, Amanda, Meredith. Laura's is bottom left, next to the big bathroom.
[*]
So AK wandered through the kitchen with the bathmat-dance?
[*]And why did she choose the big bathroom for showering -- the small one is much closer to her room --
[*]and if she passed by Filomena's room, how could she see it is closed when it was open?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:39 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"why did she choose the big bathroom for showering -- the small one is much closer to her room --"



She says that she used the smaller one.

She says that she went to the other bathroom for the hairdryer of the other two girls.

"if she passed by Filomena's room, how could she see it is closed when it was open"



She says it was closed, Raffaele says it was open when they entered the house together.


Last edited by bolint on Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:45 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

The story is supposedly that she showered in the small bathroom, did the bath mat boogie to her bedroom for a towel, and then went into the big bathroom to use the other girl's hair dryer.

Filomena's room is just off to the left on the way from the front door to Amanda's room, so she should have passed it at least twice, once going from the front door to her room, and once going from her room to the large bathroom to use the hair dryer.

She and Raffaele really needed to work on their story...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Amanda Nov 4 email:

"when i entered i called out if anyone was
there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,
they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt
home, and filomenas door was also closed
."



???
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:25 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Raffaele and Amanda's alibis remind me of the old song from the movie Gigi "I Remember It Well," sung by Maurice Chevalier and Hermione Gingold.

He: We met at nine.
She: We met at eight.
He: I was on time.
She: No, you were late.
He: Ah yes! I remember it well.

Etc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:00 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
"why did she choose the big bathroom for showering -- the small one is much closer to her room --"



She says that she used the smaller one.

She says that she went to the other bathroom for the hairdryer of the other two girls.

"if she passed by Filomena's room, how could she see it is closed when it was open"



She says it was closed, Raffaele says it was open when they entered the house together.


Thanks Bolint, I always imagined it the other way round, I don't know why.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:03 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

bolint wrote:
Amanda Nov 4 email:

"when i entered i called out if anyone was
there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,
they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt
home, and filomenas door was also closed
."



???



this "also" must refer to Meredith's closed door -- but it is in the subconscious, it is the most important door, that obliterates everything else. It may also be a subconscious (or conscious) trick to underplay the significance of a door being open or closed. There is a lot of calculation in the text, which may come partly from the repeating of it many times, to the police, to RS, and maybe others too. But there is a sense of calculation there, to eliminate inconsistencies, but they always pop up.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Quote:
Posted by Harry R.Wilkens at 8/6/09 6:06 p.m.
ShowMe: European lawyers (Ferdi can confirm) are learning at Law school that there are 2 ways of judging:

1) The inquisitional way, like in Italy, where you first have the theory/sentence, and then you are looking for the facts and adding up anything you find or think to have found.
This has nothing to do with Einstein, who is right when he says that by intuition (big) men first find a theory, and then they try to prove it by experiments, if they can prove it.
2) The "normal" or modern way, like in most civilized countries, where you first have the facts/evidence, and then you are looking for the logical deduction and motive of it, and only then you are reaching a decision/sentence. Only then you may be sure (?) if the accused is innocent or guilty.


So we can conclude, that the FOA also act the 'inquisitional way'? First, you have a goal (Free Amanda) without knowing the facts, and to reach that goal, you make all upcoming facts fit (spin) into your agenda?
It´s always nice to learn something new from the Wilke(n)s-Twins bu-)

I think the judges and jury will find it quite funny to be compared by FOA with the [urlx=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition]Inquisition[/urlx] . People with an archaic thinking about Europe like that usually also think Hitler is still alive :roll:


P.S.: No joke, when i was staying in Chicago a while ago, i was asked about what Hitler is doing these days eee-)
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

You probably know that the Capanne prison population has suddenly doubled and is now full to the capacity it was built for as other prisoners are moved in. The womens' wing perhaps more-so.

There is a video somewhere on-line that has computer-generated graphics of the interior of Capanne prison including AKs cell from various angles. In Italian I think. One of the media groups. Dioes anyone have a link to it? It would make for an interesting look right now.

By the way the prison is quite easy to see from the high point at the south end of the walled city, though it is probable that most of those taking in the view there (and there are often dozens doing that) have no idea what it is.

You may know that Alcatraz in San Francisco bay was reputed to be one of the toughest prisons to take, because the sights, sounds and smells of the San Francisco downtown were so easy to pick up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Just for the crack, from the Smog:

Wilkens wrote:
Posted by Harry R. Wilkens at 8/6/09 3:26 p.m.

Now I tell you what is happening BACKSTAGE:
I receive a lot of mails on Facebook from Perugians who pretend not to understand the English counter-evidence of the FOA, and they let me explain it to them in Italian language.
Well, I do this, but my answers appear only on THEIR Facebook, and in a hidden way, so that it is just a loss of time and nerves, and the Facebook Management threatening EACH time I post my (hidden) answer to shut me down (!!!)
The always same question which returns is not so much the innocence of Amanda, but the alleged money her family makes allegedly out of interviews, photographs and the like. As I am fed up to always refer to the Curt Knox interview (in Italian!!!) in http://freeamanda.livejournal.com , I give them the original direct link to that Italian video:
http://www.video.mediaset.it/mplayer.ht ... rom=matrix
- But now I have it also constantly published on top of my Facebook. BECAUSE THIS IS THE MAIN REPROACH THE ITALIANS MAKE AMANDA...
It's as easy as that!
Just to bring this video - or a shorter version and a short TEXT - to the attention of all the Perugians and as many Italians as possible!!!



THE SMOG

It would seem even Facebook has had enough of our friend Gollum, aka Harry Wilkens, and are threatening to ban him. Too much Gollum and not enough Smeagol.

It's interesting how the Italians seem to be primarily thinking about the financial wheeling and dealing by the Knox family in this case. That doesn't bode well for her in the trial. If this is in the public consciousness, so it is in that of the judges.

_________________
"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 Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
It's interesting how the Italians seem to be primarily thinking about the financial wheeling and dealing by the Knox family in this case. That doesn't bode well for her in the trial. If this is in the public consciousness, so it is in that of the judges.


The US NBC TV network seem to be the REALLY big paymasters of Knox-Mellas Incorporated right now.

You will find at least 15 gushy and highly biased and misleading NCC morning-show reports ("exclusives") on YouTube for THIS YEAR ALONE.

And I was told by someone in publishing here in NYC that they will soon make out like bandits - and especially so, if Amanda goes down.

Now... how can K-M Incorporated keep Amanda from hearing that their greed is counter to her own best interests?!!

The sooner she divorces the lot of them, the better it will be for her. I thought she was well on the way once to divorcing Chris Mellas.


Last edited by Fast Pete on Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:38 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

I've disabled the WYSIWYG Text Editor and the post reply will now be the same as it was before the move to our new hosts. This is for the following reasons:

1. It was doing my head in

2. It wasn't formating posts or utilising custom BBCode correctly

3. It was doing my head in

4. It wasn't playing well with the default PMF theme and certain standard browsers

5. It was doing my head in

6. Everything it contains exists via the custom BBCode buttons in the standard reply box anyhow

7. It was doing my head in

Thank You

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


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

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I dont ever read white on black. It does my head in... !!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's interesting how the Italians seem to be primarily thinking about the financial wheeling and dealing by the Knox family in this case. That doesn't bode well for her in the trial. If this is in the public consciousness, so it is in that of the judges.


The US NBC TV network seem to be the REALLY big paymasters of Knox-Mellas Incorporated right now.

You will find at least 15 gushy and highly biased and misleading NCC morning-show reports ("exclusives") on YouTube for THIS YEAR ALONE.

And I was told by someone in publishing here in NYC that they will soon make out like bandits - and especially so, if Amanda goes down.

Now... how can K-M Incorporated keep Amanda from hearing that their greed is counter to her own best interests?!!

The sooner she divorces the lot of them, the better it will be for her. I thought she was well on the way once to divorcing Chris Mellas.



Perhaps they'll tell her that her share is in a trust fund for when she gets out. Could be a nice nestegg in thirty years.

Don't the Knox / Mellas clan run the risk of having their profits taken away by being sued in court if they profit from the crime of a relative? Surely any money that AK makes must be at risk. I don't know what the law is in the US. Could the Kercher family sue the whole lot of them?
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 856

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Mutley wrote:
Don't the Knox / Mellas clan run the risk of having their profits taken away by being sued in court if they profit from the crime of a relative? Surely any money that AK makes must be at risk. I don't know what the law is in the US. Could the Kercher family sue the whole lot of them?


Interesting question Mutley.

Until Italian law, if convicted, AK is likely to have the same civil award against her for the Kercher family (upward of $25 million) as they have against Guede. The Kerchers might not ever see any of that, but at least it stops books and other projects in the works with her direct involvement.

Under American law, my guys here tell me, the Kerchers could possibly instigate a wrongful death suit against the K-M family, if it can be proven that they sent a mentally unstable girl off to Europe and knew she was that way. (Others in Seattle seem to have known she was at least erratic.) That would sure eat into their profits a bit.

But the threat of that suit might also be what prevents them from encouraging AK to switch to a mental defense. Although that was always a long shot, at the moment they have all their chips on sliming Itally and the players and it looks like a guaranteed loser to me.

They needed good legal advice from Day One and instead they gave a contract to the utterly contemptible David Marriott for a PR campaign. You can bet your sweet batooties not a lot of other murder suspects are going to be lining up for Marriot's disastrous services.
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 Aug 08, 2009 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Informative post by Yummi on the Smog:

Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/6/09 5:45 p.m.

Charlie,

yes you hinge your perception of the case a bit on this reasoning about why then the two "almost uninvolved" didn't speak. They should have confessed if they had a minor role. That's what you say isn't it? It's what people usually do.

I take a distance from this point, which is essentially a pont of a psychologic content. It is a point based on empathy.
I am not so sure as you are. I can see that other psychology assumpions are possible.
Rudy Guede for example had to gain a lot in confessing the crime, but he didn't in spite of evidence and he gets a higher sentence for this (30 years instead of 20).
But I also think forward to other elements.
The concept of "minor role" must be regarder with caution.
Implicating Rudy Guede would have meant: pointing to another person, he is guilty. But it doesn't mean authomatically that you will be believed to be innocent. You can implicate Rudy, but Rudy can implicate you. It is not just a matter of who is the guily one, or the more guilty one. It can be the feeling of an absolute fear and necessity of not being implicatet with the murderer, not being contaminated with the murder case. Maybe you expect the two suspects to crumble and declare they only had a minor role and put their trust in the investigators that they will be believed. But that's not necessarily the smartest choice. Being in another apartment all the time could be a much better solution: you were not there. Why shall they implicte you? Why shall you bear responsability? How could they know you were there?
And, you know the investigators won't believe to people who alter a murder scene to tamper the investigation. Those people will be considered guilty. You *have* to be elsewere.

You indicated Patrick as an odd point. Because accusing Patrick is a very high risk move: the police could find immediately that he is innocent and you become guilty.
But let's add some more observations. In fact we don't have just the accusation against Rudy. We have, immediately after, a written memory the intent of which is very striking: it is to declare that the accusation against Patrick might be not *usable* (in case there is an opposite evidence maybe) and therfore she is not responsible for their content, but the document carefully avoids to make clear the untruth of the witness report about Patrick, she even declares she stands by it: she has one line.
Another fact to consider, is that the Police believes in Patrick's implication, Amanda understands it; consider now how accusing Rudy might give Amanda a precious opportuinity to gain time, because if the Police gets wrong on anybody she has a chance to be released and go back to the U.S.
Among others, just a last consideration is that if you see that the two suspects, havig had a minor role, have not much interest in lying, consider that innocent suspects have even less interest in doing so.
But what actually happened is not only that Amanda invented a false accusation. What happen is that - to be blunt and plain - the two were arrested because what they told and wrote in the first days of investigation is a huge bunch of crap. I have read Amanda's email, written memory, and then heard her following statements in court and her questioning. I'v read Sollecito's written diaries and snippets from their interrogations. I don't come to details. Just if you take Amanda's email to friends, you realize that the problem is not of one invention out of place or a lie under pressure. It is an essential lack of consistency and credibility. You can see it in the structure of the story itself: just aìfor example, when Amanda enters the house already "looking around for signs of theft". There is no consistency among facts, there is instead a consistency with the requirements of narrative devices, a consistency between emotions and scene. Then, also coincidences in false elements which are, incredibly, in accord in versions of both Raffaele and Amanda. And clamorous contradictions on some key narrative points. I don't go forward because the material is a lot. Raffele's declaration are totally odd. In his case, his silence has the worse effect. His role in the murder, for me is inexplicable. If there is any. But the absurdity of his set of declarations is a fact, and this would be inexplicable too. I don't want to bring in other issues for now.



THE SMOG


Yummi wrote:
Posted by Yummi at 8/7/09 4:26 p.m.

OK, Yummi, so maybe I belive in you. If it was you in prison, isnt that the point? This isnt a game or contest.

Tufa it's very immediate and quick to comment empathy. I'm not in prison. But I'm not the father or brother of a murdered girl, desperately demanding justice. Which is, in the first essence, something that deals with an attitude towards truth. It is not a matter of punishment. It is the need for something which is opposed to silence. Opposed also to charming youthful feelings this could be less real then before so not usable but maybe true. Or to a light narrative of unaware first visit in the house, leaving then feeling unconfortable, breakfast discussion and then sudden concern, attempt to brake door but stop wait for Filomena, rush to call the police, a narrative of intense scenes to tell but unattached, changing reality, as on a script with no backbone structure.
Now I was taking the email but we explored other topics. Not just what Amanda did.
What I mean justice is oppose to silence. Don't mix up silence with accusation for the bad work of police. People telling that Amanda could leave Italy but decided to stay to help the investigation, while the truth is that, as any person who provides information to the police, she had immediately her passport blocked and received the order not to leave the state. Things like this.
I telly you i believe truth is a word with very special sound in this country. It is a concept rooted in such way which means, more than a fact to estabilish as false or true, it means an attitude, a commitment, a personal risk. It means to respond to a demand, to be serious. Something to which inventing diaries, political correctness, deciding not to speak, having two answers, chanting that this is the story because there is no evidence and doubt shall make you appear innocent before the world, all this is offensive. On the side of a victim like Meredith, i want to say that i respect and understand tufa's fears (as well as CMellas and others) their view and you know this, but i forward what tufa says to me to what RS and AK said and to defenders, this not a game neither.



THE SMOG

_________________
"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 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: Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:31 am   Post subject: Further logic   

It’s time to break the monopoly on information flows and considered opinions.

“First-layer” sources like newspaper reports are good and serve their purpose. After the facts have been found and laid out on the table, the “second-layer” analysis and interpretation can begin, in an effort to put the pieces of the puzzle together.



Criminologist Carmelo Lavorino (over at [ DetCrime ] ) wrote a piece for the Corriere dell’Umbria of 03 January 2008 (that is, two months after the murder).

As Lavorino’s piece went to press, at that point in time, investigations were still ongoing: the bloodied shoe print that had been thought compatible with Raffaele’s shoes was being re-attributed to Rudy instead; Patrick was in the final stages of having all charges against him officially removed and being officially cleared of all involvement; Rudy was still only partway through his versioning of what he said happened; the lab was still analysing what had been collected, and Raffaele’s DNA on the bra-clasp would be detected two weeks later.

All these, and other developments, have not substantially changed the outlines of Lavorino’s thesis even after all the time that has passed since (over a year and a half ago), and so, for that reason, I thought it worthwhile to translate it even though it so old.

Luckily, he kept some copies of the paper. :)



The Pieces of the Puzzle


Meredith Kercher’s death gives rise to three murder scenario hypotheses:

(a) the murderer is in the Rudy, Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick group
(b) the murderer is outside of that group and is that racist white person that Rudy indicated as “carrying a knife, I fought with him, I was injured…”
(c) or else, in the extreme case, he was Rudy’s accomplice during a sexually violent burglary blitz, wherein Rudy remained caught in the net while the guilt party had done a bunk (US: rode off into the sunset; vamoosed)


Ascertaining the following 18 items could help to solve the mystery:

1 – Mez and Rudy had sexual contact – on the bra and the on the body of the victim, seminal traces from Rudy were recovered [correction: Rudy’s DNA was not seminal]; Mez didn’t have signs of proactive defence (shreds of skin under the fingernails), however she did show signs of reactive defence and of violence (bruisings); the sex appears to have been the violent kind and non-consensual;

2 – Mez returned home around 21.15; the time of the murder was between 22.30 and 23.30; Rudy was on the scene (in the bathroom and in the bedroom), however, his presence has never been testified to by Amanda;

3 – After the fatal act, there was a frenetic cleaning up of evidence and a staging; Rudy participated with great invention in the above-mentioned activity, however he showed himself to be not very alert or aware, leaving his own biological traces and fingerprints;

4 – Mez had been struck in the throat and died from blood loss after a long agony; the lass could have been saved, but, instead, whoever organised and effected the cleaning and the staging preferred to let her die, even to hush up a dangerous witness of their felonious actions and the motive for the throat-cutting; the displacement of the victim’s things and of her body, the diversionary scene-setting and the staging are notable, organised to be read as another truth;

5 – The staging was intended to simulate a burglary through the smashing of the glass and the forcing of the window, culminating in the death of Mez; the escape to the outside was going to be evidenced by the two mobile phones left out in the open;

6 – Mez didn’t have that furious and destructive rage termed “over-killing” directed against her, that series of punches or blows against the victim that we have already seen in the murders at Via Poma (29 punches), Cogne (17 stab wounds) and elsewhere; Mez suffered three stab wounds, one of them mortal, then there was an immediate forgetting or oblivion, like a sense of inconvenience and bother, of dominion, and of contempt and disdain;

7 – Covering the face and body of the victim is the classic subconscious act symbolic of auto-negation, of “mental deletion” or “repair”: an attempt to placate one’s conscience and to atone for the bad deed; it is not a behaviour met with amongst psychotics and sociopaths, but rather in a personality with strong obsessive-compulsive traits;

8 – The scene appears chaotic, disorganised, full of blood on the floor, on the wall and in the bathroom, however, it had been deliberately altered: the murderer stationed themselves there for a long time, exactly to alter things and divert attention away, a sign that he has a direct connection with the victim and the environment;

9 – The composing of the scene, the posing of the victim and the alteration of the traces and of the scene are instrumental in the smokescreen and in the construction of a false alibi;

10 – The bloodstains reveal an aggression in the bedroom, followed by a voluntary repositioning of the bloody body into another area; on the scene there are tangible, psychological, biological, situational, behavioural and operational traces;

11 – The traces are all noteworthy and useful in reconstructing the dynamic of the crime and profiling the murderer;

12 – Notwithstanding the cleanup, bloodstained fingerprint traces were recovered and attributed to Rudy and Amanda: the two were present on the scene after the aggression, Rudy touching the bloodied body and Amanda the bidet;

13 – There were a lot of traces of Amanda missing, which, from her living in that house, ought to have been there; the cleanup had been frenetic, instinctive and childish;

14 – A bloodied print from a sports shoe was recovered, size to be established;

15 – A knife was recovered from Raffaele’s house, with the blade containing the victim’s DNA and the handle holding Amanda’s DNA: a nexus of causality between the two girls, the death of Mez and the steel of the blade;

16 – Amanda has recounted a heap of lies [panzane=”cock-and-bull stories”] and has produced contradictory versions, stuffed full of flashes and dream-like memories;

17 – Raffaele has put some distance between himself and Amanda; the presence of his traces on the scene and after the crime will nail him without a way out;

18 – Rudy has proposed, for his part, an improbable alternative, even if worth investigating and cross-checking.



The strategy of the parties

Each member of the group is hiding and/or falsifying a part of the truth, producing obvious or hidden contradictions, protecting themselves or the others, accusing the others in a veiled way without direct confirmation. Each one trying to divert, taint, cheat. It seems that all three are, in their own way, following a malevolent gameplan of “Each for himself and the Devil for all”, certain or hopeful, organised or unawares, that, by widening the inkblot and tangling up the skein of wool, they can escape scot-free.

This gameplan, at times able and measured, at times unprincipled and childish, is motivated by four factors:

(1) awareness of guilt: the murderer, knowing full-well the “how, when and why” of what happened, seeks to divert and to tamper;
(2) hiding away shameful situations and to keep secrets: distributing and consuming drugs; promiscuous sexuality, even up to extreme sex; urbane and widespread actions of criminality such as petty theft, blackmail and so on are the context from within which the seed of Meredith’s murder sprouted forth;
(3) a crime-fuelled explosive situation caused by group dynamics – orgiastic, violent sex, alcohol, drugs, the loss of inhibitions and a descent into a behavioural cesspit;
(4) the non-genuineness of the memories of the protagonists as regards them having been stoned out of their minds by alcohol, hashish, drugs and so on.



Criminological analysis of the traces and the “nose” will solve the case

The case has all the ingredients to be solved thanks to the science of criminal investigation, analysis of the crime scene and investigative intelligence. In fact, every murderer, before the crime, during the crime and after the crime, enters into contact with the crime scene and with the victim, always leaving on them traces of himself, his behaviour and characteristics, and takes on, in his turn, traces of the victim and of the scene: this is one of the principles of criminal investigations. Naturally, you need to know to what signs to look for, and to identify, document, analyse, decode and interpret them.

In the Perugia mystery, we don’t have to think of only the pieces of evidence proving certain guilt like “the bloodied murder-knife in the hands of the killer” or “the eyewitness testimony”, rather we have to work on the fingerprints and palm prints, shoeprints, on the layout of the blood inside the murder house and outside, on the signs of a cleanup, on the attempt at staging, on the biological traces (hair, skin, dandruff, sperm, etc). The wounds on the victim must be read, each trace interpreted individually and in combination, and then linked to the correct context.

Each trace will furnish dozens of pieces of information thanks to its special characteristics, such as composition, which will point to its producer (who made it), its morphology and direction, where it was found, when it was produced, whether it was done before or after another trace (chronology/timing), what were the reasons and the situation producing it. Each trace is then inter-related with all the others. The set of traces together will form a system that will be tied back to the declarations by Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, to everybody who visited the two apartments, and to all the matters emerging, declarative and investigative.

Every thing found on the crime scene, and its disposition, is going to be tied back to the declarations of the people in the case, and could even produce useful confirmations and clues.

Witness declarations and evidence collected by the investigators, the verification of alibis, the evaluation of the various examinations and the comportment of everyone involved in the mystery, the conclusions springing from the video, photographic and collection records of the Police are then going to be added to the pieces of the criminal puzzle: who lied is going to caught in the net of their own falsehood!

The analysis, comparison and interpretation of the finger- and hand-prints and the biological traces will say who was present at the crime scene and who was not; they will reveal what Amanda, Mez, Rudy and Raffaele touched, what things the other visitors of the house touched. They will tell why and how each print came to be on that object and in that place, for what reason and in which manner the object was touched, handled or moved. All the visitors in the house will be re-interviewed to verify the exactness of the reconstruction gained from the trace analysis, and from here it will be possible to define the final puzzle.

The means used to remove or destroy evidence could have ended up in the trash bins, in the basins, in the S-bends of the plumbing, in other parts of the house or the garden. In the ashtrays, on plates and glasses and a thousand other places and objects at the scene there could be resting, silently and innocently, extremely important testimony regarding the truth of the crime: we only need to know how to listen to it!

When you remove evidence, other evidence is left behind, of the instruments used (with what were those traces removed?), of final aim (to what end?) and technical pragmatics (what type of ability and knowledge would such a person have?). Due consideration will be given to prints that were wiped, added, altered or simulated: how were they cleaned, why and when, which were added with a view to putting up a smokescreen, or during other behaviour.

The phone records and the mobile phones are going to help the investigators to verify the spatial and temporal position of everyone involved in the case.

The objective, logical and scientific truth that will emerge – thanks to the criminal investigation, analysis of the crime scene and investigative intelligence – is going to form a powerful sieve which will filter out the versions, contradictions and lines of reasoning of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, thereby ensnaring the liars: why, how and what they’re lying about … and so reveal the name of the murderer.


[ Corriere dell’Umbria ] 03 January 2008, Page 1 (PDF)
[ CdU ] Page 5 (PDF)
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Kevin, the one thing I really enjoy about this board is the level of intelligent discussion and dissection of the facts. Fact is, I don't hate Amanda or Raffaele. How could I? I don't even know them. I didn't know Meredith either but, I can feel empathy at such a horrific crime. i don't feel like a "peeping Tom" as I don't not care whether they did or didn't have sex, etc. What I care about is justice for Meredith and some closure for her family and the good people of Perugia. Your posts make me crazy. While the majority of posters take the facts and break them down into plausible theories, you use supposition and generalities to spin tales. While I haven't been following this case as long as the majority, what I do get a feel for? Amanda really liked attention. Had she had any knowledge of an impending or occurring crime, she would have been on that phone to the police,if only to bask in the glory of being the "discoverer" or hero, not standing idly by to "see what the end product would be".
From what I glean from all this information is that her language skills were very good and she would have had no problem telling the police that she thought a crime was occurring/had occurred.
I know that any person in their right mind, stoned or not, would have been in the streets screaming their heads off that something was wrong at that house, even if they couldn't remember the emergency number (insert heavy sarcasm here). If, as you suggest, they awaited the outcome, as far as I am concerned, this is aiding and abetting and they are still guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Another thought: Papa Sollecito apparently has ties to organized crime (can't recall where this was stated), is it possible that Guede has been threatened and this is the reasoning for his not speaking? (Besides waiting for the outcome of this trial).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: Further logic   

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Catnip, Thank you for translating the hypothesizes proposed by the Criminologist Lavorino.
I enjoyed reading and pondering over their implications.
Lavorino's hypotheses have the credibility of understated and distanced perspective, rather than "smell of the lamp", an issue illuminating some of the ideas I see proposed.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Catnip wrote:

"It’s time to break the monopoly on information flows and considered opinions.

First-layer sources like newspaper reports are good and serve their purpose. After the facts have been found and laid out on the table, the second-layer analysis and interpretation can begin, in an effort to put the pieces of the puzzle together."


Thanks for translating this interesting and thorough analysis, Catnip. It sure beats the "only people who need money steal" and "I could tell by looking at his photo that he wasn't the killer" variety of analytic thought.

A couple of OT comments:

Steve Huff's village voice blog (truecrimereport.com) has some excellent coverage of the horrific multiple shooting followed by the gunman's suicide that occurred in a Pennslvania fitness club last week. The psychopathic killer, George Sodini, planted a lot of material online prior to executing his plan, and most of it is available for viewing and contemplation. It is all quite chilling.

I saw an excellent movie last night about how people act when they are desperate to impose a narrative on events and maintain power at all costs while avoiding accountabily, also at all costs. It is called In the Loop and is a BBC film production. It is filmed in a style reminiscent of The Office.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Yummi wrote:

"What I mean justice is oppose(d) to silence."

Amen.

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

Offline tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Forgive me if this is too much off-topic, but as all the months have gone by and the evidence seems inexorably hardening against Amanda et al, my heart goes out to Edda Mellas. (I hasten to add here that I also grieve deeply for the Kercher family - how could you not. So, so sad, a brutal and tragic end to a promising young life. And a family circle broken beyond repair.)
As a mother of 2 daughters though, I find myself trying on her shoes and getting some sense of the fear and despair she must be feeling. In her heart she must have her moments of asking, Is this true? Could my daughter possibly be guilty? Then surely she would feel disloyal, and this would strengthen her fierce resolve to believe in Amanda's innocence. . .
I just think that the pit that has opened beneath Edda's feet must be horrifying indeed, and if (when?) Amanda is found guilty, her life too will be forever changed.
Perhaps we should be a little more charitable towards her. I suspect that in her place, I too would be clutching desperately at any straw.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Quote:
Perhaps we should be a little more charitable towards her. I suspect that in her place, I too would be clutching desperately at any straw.


But if Amanda and Raffaele really are guilty, one thing to consider is that a confession of their role could be a great advantage fore everybody. The Italian law has a great number of benefits, which if you are guilty you have to consider starting to exploit. Imagine a situation like: there is evidence of an implication of a person, but not evidence about his/her precise role. If you confess a secondary role in a believeble way, and the court finds it compatible with the evidence, you are taking an advantage from the evidence and things are very different. I realize that maybe such a strategy is better to be played in an appeal. But i would consider the possibility of better chances aiming to a lighter sentence and then take advantage of its benefits, rather than the danger of pointing to acquittal with a 30 years sentence stake.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

tjt wrote:
Forgive me if this is too much off-topic, but as all the months have gone by and the evidence seems inexorably hardening against Amanda et al, my heart goes out to Edda Mellas. (I hasten to add here that I also grieve deeply for the Kercher family - how could you not. So, so sad, a brutal and tragic end to a promising young life. And a family circle broken beyond repair.)
As a mother of 2 daughters though, I find myself trying on her shoes and getting some sense of the fear and despair she must be feeling. In her heart she must have her moments of asking, Is this true? Could my daughter possibly be guilty? Then surely she would feel disloyal, and this would strengthen her fierce resolve to believe in Amanda's innocence. . .
I just think that the pit that has opened beneath Edda's feet must be horrifying indeed, and if (when?) Amanda is found guilty, her life too will be forever changed.
Perhaps we should be a little more charitable towards her. I suspect that in her place, I too would be clutching desperately at any straw.


tjt,

My sense lately (since the defense presented their case) is that Amanda's family is feeling more confident and that the "opening pit" seems less threatening to them, which would probably include a waning concern that Amanda's case doesn't "add up." I'm not entirely sure why I think this--possibly because I see Curt Knox as a sort of bellwether of their hopes as he's always projected a more tuned-in, reality based anxiety about the proceedings. He began to seem more optimistic after Amanda testified. Even though nothing she said was particularly self-redeeming to me, she did present as stronger, more determined and "rational" (if your perspective was inclined to support that belief) than she ever had before and Curt seemed relieved. Even though I was recently renouncing all national and racial stereotyping, I do have to say that Americans seem to embrace that old "nothing succeeds like success" attitude--and Amanda appeared to have succeeded and so now they may not feel things are "hardening against her." But if things don't go well in the fall, they may be more disarmed against bad news than they were earlier in the year.

As a mother myself, I've never stopped feeling sympathy for Amanda's parents. I don't know what I'd do or how my mind would contend with the dissonance between love for my child and the conflicting evidence of their guilt in such an awful crime. I can't imagine.

Didi
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 Aug 09, 2009 3:21 am   Post subject: Contrasting OT   

Hi Didi,

There's a lot of parents that go into their children.
It's not off-topic at all.
I can empathise.
It is heart-breaking to see what they write down sometimes.



My linguistic/translation interests are OT, though
(in the sense of being background information (for me)):

Quote:

I know this is minor and a bit OT but every time I read this:

Amanda: "Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."

it bothers me. Do you think Amanda thinks "contrasting" means the same as conflicting or contradicting (she uses it numerous times) or is that just translation from the Italian?

link disinterested, Sun Jul 26




I think “contrasting” might mean “noticeably different”, or “contains a mixture of different elements”. Its usage might derive from the world of teaching.

– in teaching, you can use contrasting images to illustrate the course of a river (1)
– “contrasting” can come to mean “opposite to”, like colours (2)
– or “unexpected”, like a flower in a desert (3)
– or “thought of as opposite or comparable”, like when an architect contrasts home and city (4)
– “contrasting” can be on any characteristic, and comes on a scale, rather than an on-off switch: “contrast relations represent a continuum with the infinity of intermediate "shades," or levels, of contrast.” (5)
– but there has to be something common as well: “The widely known opposition of serif vs. sans serif fonts … is simply too different, not contrasting” (5)
– so then we are left with the question: where do we draw the line? (11)

Examples of things that are contrasting are:
– a jacket (6, see picture, figure on the right)
– natural colours side by side (7)
– the main entrance to Stoneleigh B&B in Wales (8)
– a sign in a stairwell in Ontario (9)
– the room décor in Howgills Bunk Barn in Cumbria (10)


The evidence in this case is contrasting.

I think the statement was in English.

The prison diary is in English, it turns out:

Quote:

Meredith was the most studious and she also went out with her friends to discotecas and to have dinner. She was very smart. To me she was always a good friend. She gave me advice and also protected me when she knew I was in an uncomfortable situation. She was the most solitary of us all, but only because at home she liked to be at peace to read her mysteries, but at the same time she also joined us to watch silly gameshows on TV together. Then there was me, the littlest one. Young, but also very particular. I do things like sing and play the guitar and stretch. Laura really liked me because she told me I was a free spirit.


So, “mysteries” are probably books; unlikely to be the newspaper articles I was thinking.

There are hints of language leaner vocabulary mixing: discoteca = “(dance) club, disco, pub, party place”; particolare = “special, distinctive, unusual, particular”, probably not the English particular = “precise, (minutely) detailed, neat and trim”

And “liked to be at peace” strikes me as possibly retrospective pre-emptive thinking (or the writer doesn’t know what “at peace” is for), or it might be an Englished version of something like the typical plea Lasciami un po’ in pace! “Just leave me alone!”, only softer, but still contrasting.



TruTV Page 1


TruTV Page 2



References
1:
Geographers often contrast locations and situations, such as the differences between MEDC and LEDC environments, or between climate zones or highland / lowland.
It's perfectly possible to do this without a single diagram or photograph if you subscribe only to the 1890's techniques of statistics and lists to memorize and regurgitate, but I hope there are very few geographers left who are so dull in the classroom!
Using selections of contrasting photographs allows the teacher to present specific information and enables the pupils to learn from their own observations.
[ David Robinson ] Blog, Tuesday, November 14, 2006: Contrasting Images


2:
What is Contrasting Colours?
They are the opposites on a colour wheel.
[ Wiki Answers ]

3:
Show your Best Contrasting Nature Shot

We all know that black and white is contrasting, but I'm curious to see some contrasting nature shots. What I mean by this are some ideas that come to mind... A bird sleeping on a lion, a flower in the desert, etc. Do ya get the picture? (no pun intended) Lets only see your BEST photo

[ Flickr ] SA Sheila, above a picture of a frozen waterfall


4:
Lyotard contrasts the traditional domus with our present condition, that of the megalopolis. In other words he is contrasting two modes of existence, two ideals of living. Although the one, the domus, is associated with the simple homestead, and the other, the megalopolis, with the city, he is not contrasting the homestead with the city, so much as the condition of the homestead with the condition of the city. He is contrasting the myth of the domus – the phenomenon of “home” – with the more alienated model of “city life” within the age of the megalopolis.
[ Google Books ] What is architecture? By Andrew Ballantyne, p92

5:
Proportions are mostly about sizes; contrast is (by contrast :-) about nearly anything. You can't name a thing that could not be contrasted to some other thing based on any of its aspects: color, size, shape, font, texture, etc. Contrast is an immensely powerful concept, probably the most powerful among the design tools. Once you start analyzing, you will be surprised by the number of compositions where contrast is responsible for the overall arresting impression.
At first sight, contrast may seem to you a pretty simple, probably even primitive, concept. You may even consider it a "binary" characteristic---i.e., either there is an outspoken contrast in the composition or there is none. In reality, however, contrast relations represent a continuum with the infinity of intermediate "shades," or levels, of contrast. One of the most important design skills is to choose the level of contrast that's necessary for your case.

Probably the most tricky business is contrasting fonts. The widely known opposition of serif vs. sans serif fonts is of little help, since these two varieties of fonts are simply too different, not contrasting, and it's extremely difficult to create a balanced logo containing both serif and sans serif letters (although they can work happily together in a bigger composition such as an entire page, e.g. used for contrasting headings and body text). For the same reasons, marrying all-lowercase and all-uppercase styles in one logo is not recommended. Probably the only meaningful opposition that can be made with fonts is the contrast of different styles within one font family, such as normal, italics, and bold…
[ WebReference ] “Contrast”




6:

Simplicity 3863 A
Chest 30"
Simple to make: The sleeveless blouse has soft pleats at front neck edge. Top-stitching trims the neck band which fastens with one button. The full skirt has soft pleats at front and back waistline. The pert jacket has a high round neckline, front button closing and push-up kimono sleeves. A patch pocket trims left front. View 1 features a purchased cummerbund. View 2: skirt and blouse are one fabric; jacket is contrasting.
c. 1952

[ Old Patterns ] “Teens Clothes: Size 10 - and up: 1950s”

7:
This is the first MBP Photography Assignment, and I must say, I'm really excited about this new adventure we're embarking on.

The first Assignment is "Contrasting Colours" and entries are to be posted in the Assignment Gallery…
[ The Photography Forum ] “Contrasting Colours Assignment - April 2006”, Album [ link ]

8:
Main entrance
• The main entrance is easily identified and is contrasting to its surroundings.
• The main entrance door is a manual single leaf door with upper and lower glass viewing panels and a clear opening of 760mm wide.
• The door has a knob style handle positioned at 820mm high.
• There are two door bells to alert for assistance.
• The threshold is a total of 85mm high.
[ Stoneleigh B&B ] “Access Statement” (Wales Tourist Board)


9:
The sign shall be contrasting in colour so that the sign is clearly visible on the surface in which it is applied. (White, with a green background is the recommended colour contrast combination for this sign.)
[ Office of the Fire Marshal ] Ontario


10:
The flooring is carpet and is all level. The seating is movable soft furnishings and the rooms decor is contrasting with natural lighting and uniform lighting. There is emergency lighting throughout these areas.
[ Howgills Bunk Barn ] Castlehaw Farm, Castle Haw, Sedbergh, Cumbria. LA10 5BA: “Access Statement”


11:
At what point does a similar [musical] passage become different enough to be considered contrasting?
[ McMaster Music Analysis Colloquium ] “Ternary Form in Tonal Music”
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:13 am   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

I have now added an 'Easy Style Switcher' mod to the board. Members are still able to switch board styles from their UCP just as they always were, but this little feature may make things easier for some. The Style Switcher is on the PMF PORTAL page. The Portal can be reached either by clicking on the destination bar at the top of the page, or scrolling down the Index page to the 'Sub Forums' catagory at the bottom and clicking on 'Portal'.

On the Portal page, simply look in the left vertical panel of graphs. The Style Switcher graph is just below the 'Random Member' graph and just above the 'Top Poster' graph. The graph you are looking for is 'Board Style'. Simply select the style you wish in the drop-down box and the style will switch.

It has also been brought to my attention that the 'Image Poster' option is not available when posting replies and I'm currently looking into it.

One final thing. As some of you have no doubt discovered, some font colours when posted can be very difficult to read, depending on which style one is using. A colour which may show very well to the actual poster using it in their chosen style, may not view very well in another. Some colours may just strain or hurt your eyes trying to read them, or even be almost invisible. When that happens, here's a tip - simply left click and run your cursor over the offending text with your mouse to highlight it. That should make the text far more friendly and readable.

Thank You

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

"She gave me advice and also protected me when she knew I was in an uncomfortable situation. She was the most solitary of us all, but only because at home she liked to be at peace to read her mysteries, but at the same time she also joined us to watch silly gameshows on TV together. Then there was me, the littlest one. Young, but also very particular".

What a fascinating observations on style. I'm wondering of some opinion from Americans or English speakers or people who know a bit both languages: don't you feel this writing a bit "Italianized" ? Like borrowing patterns of speech. I don't know enough American English to give a judgmenet. Just a curiosity.

at home she liked to be at peace reading her mysteries
a casa le piaceve starsene in pace a leggere i suoi gialli

giovane, ma anche molto particolare
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:23 pm   Post subject: Mellas Rant   

Oh dear. It would seem that a certain poster over on Sfarzo's cess pit (Fulcanelli) has provoked Chris Mellas into a rant, one so long in fact he had to make it into a double post. Of course, the tone, language, attitude, bearing, descriptive labels applied to anyone who questions Amanda's innocence, the aggressivenss, hostility, bitterness, persecution complex, defensiveness and insults contained are ones anyone who has read Sfarzo's comments sections over the many months will be most familiar with. Only, on this occassion, Mellas has decided to do so under his own name rather then the usual anon or throwaway ID. Here, in two posts is embodied exactly the reason why Mellas finds he is so unpopular and there is such little sympathy for him on the blogsphere and amongst journalists alike. The man simply cannot stop being what he is:

Chris Mellas wrote:
Chris said...
Fulcanelli (and the rest of the losers):
Who the hell are you to talk to me like that? Some blog monkey, telling me how it is with the case? Really? Oh, that’s rich!
Some dumbass who thinks he knows more than anyone else, even though he has nothing, is trying to give me what for. You have a lot of nerve, and yet no clue.
When was the last time you spoke with the lawyers? Raffaele's parents? Mignini? Any of the jury? How about just anyone at all, other than your grandma? I am talking "IRL"... not just in a blog or on a webcam.

Now, let’s take a moment and talk about victim status here.
First off, I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be "a victim".
But!
I don't see you shelling out all you have and then more, to fix a bad mistake that you did not make.
So I don't see where you get off telling me anything. Much less what constitutes a "victim".
Hell...what would you know about victim status anyways? You likely claim victim status when your connection is laggy and you get lag fragged on your video game, am I right?
You have no stake in this. You are the peanut gallery, in every sense of the phrase, and nothing more. So, how about you STFU and go away. Ok, pal? I mean, really...why are you here? The Warcraft server down? Did the other blogs you frequent ban you?

Meanwhile...
I will continue defending my innocent step daughter.

So enjoy hiding behind your monitor in your grandma's basement. I am sure you are all cozy down there with your closed off world of hate blogging and kiddy porn and god only knows what else. What would I know about stress or pain anyways right? I can't possibly imagine the emotional strain you are under...you must be the victim, and I am just mistaken that my situation is anything less than a cake walk...poor you! No life. Only getting it with a blow up doll. Although I bet you get a chance to take care of the neighbor’s dog on occasion. Happy days for you, eh? "Woohoo! Get the velcro gloves out! Fido wants to fetch my stick!" (I'm guessing these are the nights when you are not on here, and you post the next day a bit less like an asshole)
Am I right? hehe : )

August 9, 2009 1:06 AM



Chris Mellas wrote:
Chris said...
Continued from my last post...

I bet this describes most of the bloggers who think that Amanda is guilty too. The ones who have no life and just sit here all day and night, jerking off to each others hate posts.

Finally...not that you will believe me...I don't ever come here, or post here, barring situations like this where scumbags like you push the envelope, and others start emailing me about how stupid the idiots on franks site are being. And even then, I typically don't care. I abstain...most of the time. But when you start making it personal, and it gets bad enough...then yeah. I come here, and I reply.
But I never spontaneously post here anymore, haven't in a long time, and I always log in.
Even when I am replying, it is still a waste of time but it makes me feel better, and if it pisses any of you or your butt buddies off, well that’s just a bonus. It puts a smile on my face to think that I may have taken the edge off yours.

In closing:
I believe that tonight, I have painted an accurate picture of the average scumbag naysayer who thinks they know what happened that night, and thinks that Amanda was the one who did it. The ones who feel the need to stick their noses into others business.
I also believe that the increase in nasty posts from these losers is due to the strain of the case coming to an end. They can't handle the fact that this case is not at all what they thought it was. Here they were told by the tabloids and the prosecution, as well as the police, that Amanda was some crazy person and that there was tons of evidence against her, AND THAT SHE HAD CONFESSED!!
Now...they are all sitting around thinking "oh shit, my theory isn't working so well anymore". "What about the...oh, they didn't even talk about it, and the prosecution side is done and over with...Oh Fret! What to do!?"
We should all feel sorry for their let down, especially the really crazy ones. It must really impact them terribly. Poor babies!
Oh, what to do, what to do!?!

Honestly though...I don't feel an ounce of pain for any of you nasty bloggers. In fact, thinking that you may well be a bit less happy because your theories are working less and less for you every day, makes me sleep a bit easier at night. And if my presence on here aides in that, then great!

Glad we could have this talk...it was real.

Next time you get the idea that I am on here posting? Let it go. You're wrong. It's not me. And while you are at it, you should try to get used to the fact that you're just plain wrong in every way.
: )

For those of you posting here on behalf of Raffaele and Amanda? Thanks.
I would even go so far as to say thank you to those who, even if they do not think that Amanda is innocent, you at least keep it above the belt and have decent discussions about the case. You are better than most of the goons on here.

-Chris

August 9, 2009 1:07 AM




Chris Mellas on other matters:


Chris Mellas wrote:
Chris said...
Anon said:
Why weren't you a witness with your "first hand account" when the door was broken down?

This is simply answered.
Time constraints and support in court.
We have only a fraction of the time that the prosecution had to lay out the case. Two people talking about the same event would be redundant. Edda had to be on the stand because Patrick's lawyer called her, so she was able to cover both points. Also, whoever was going to take the stand could not be in the court room until they gave testimony. So, I would be in the court room since I could work remote which allowed me to be in Italy more. Edda, being a teacher, did not have that option.

Edda and I were both on the phone the night that Amanda called. As for cell records? What about them? In every cell record I have seen out there (the same one) it is there. If you don't know your time frames, well...it's not my job to teach you so you can have joy and satisfaction in your hobby. Do it yourself.

-Chris




Chris Mellas wrote:
Chris said...
$300.00 per month for rent plus utilities and spending money - and around $4600 when she was arrested.

Can anyone make these numbers work for a year of studies in Italy?

What do you think, you moron? Or do you at all...

She got money from us, once a month. It was the equivelent of what we paid for her to live at the UW, with full room and board, plus a bit more because it is a bit more expensive to live there.

Since you are digging around the haloscan site, why don't you dig up the answers to these stupid questions, so I don't have to answer them.

August 9, 2009 1:22 AM



SFARZO'S CESS PIT

_________________
"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 Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Yummi wrote:
"She gave me advice and also protected me when she knew I was in an uncomfortable situation. She was the most solitary of us all, but only because at home she liked to be at peace to read her mysteries, but at the same time she also joined us to watch silly gameshows on TV together. Then there was me, the littlest one. Young, but also very particular".

What a fascinating observations on style. I'm wondering of some opinion from Americans or English speakers or people who know a bit both languages: don't you feel this writing a bit "Italianized" ? Like borrowing patterns of speech. I don't know enough American English to give a judgmenet. Just a curiosity.

at home she liked to be at peace reading her mysteries
a casa le piaceve starsene in pace a leggere i suoi gialli

giovane, ma anche molto particolare


Don’t know enough of American English, but to me it does feel as if that paragraph was dictated by an Italian and one with the idea to released it to the press.
Knox diary “La Mia Prigione” was released to the press by her lawyer, with this in mind is quite possible that certain parts in her diary were dictated to her. http://www.newsweek.com/id/94993
As much as Sollecito’s diary also released to the press by his lawyer IMO parts of it shows that he was told to write about the damaging clues that were known at the time during the investigative stage. http://tinyurl.com/naz3pe
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

What is your opinion about this:

" [.. ] Ripensando e ricostruendo, mi sembra che sia rimasta sempre con me; l’unica cosa che non ricordo esattamente è se si sia allontanata in prima serata per qualche minuto.


Sono convinto che non può aver ammazzato Meredith per poi ritornare a casa. Il fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme, io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello, l’ho punta sulla mano, e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente. Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa.


Non sono tranquillo perché se hanno trovato una traccia così irrisoria possono trovarne altrettante altre sugli stracci e quant’altro... [...] "

What is gli stracci?
What rags?
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: Mellas Rant   

Oh dear. It would seem that a certain poster over on Sfarzo's cess pit (Fulcanelli) has provoked Chris Mellas into a rant, one so long in fact he had to make it into a double post. Of course, the tone, language, attitude, bearing, descriptive labels applied to anyone who questions Amanda's innocence, the aggressivenss, hostility, bitterness, persecution complex, defensiveness and insults contained are ones anyone who has read Sfarzo's comments sections over the many months will be most familiar with. Only, on this occassion, Mellas has decided to do so under his own name rather then the usual anon or throwaway ID. Here, in two posts is embodied exactly the reason why Mellas finds he is so unpopular and there is such little sympathy for him on the blogsphere and amongst journalists alike. The man simply cannot stop being what he is.


I have some understanding (probably meaning comprehension rather than sympathy by this point) for Chris Mellas' attitude in regard to those who seem to malign his step-daughter, even though I'd be seen as one of them myself. Curt Knox has restraint (and some good sense I think) so he doesn't get into it publicly, but if you didn't have the ability to maintain some kind of dignity--or rather recognize it as dignity--my guess is that it "feels more like a hero" to be taking it on. I'd bet he's definitely one of those "bombs not diplomacy" guys (or he'd say appeasement, I guess).

But I sure wouldn't have wanted to be one of the step-daughters having to grow up with a man who has such a nasty temper and ugly world view.

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Yummi wrote:
What is your opinion about this:

" [.. ] Ripensando e ricostruendo, mi sembra che sia rimasta sempre con me; l’unica cosa che non ricordo esattamente è se si sia allontanata in prima serata per qualche minuto.


Sono convinto che non può aver ammazzato Meredith per poi ritornare a casa. Il fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme, io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello, l’ho punta sulla mano, e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente. Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa.


Non sono tranquillo perché se hanno trovato una traccia così irrisoria possono trovarne altrettante altre sugli stracci e quant’altro... [...] "

What is gli stracci?
What rags?

Stracci/Rags= Kitchen cloths. While he is on the proposing (or as he puts it, the one and only truthful explanation) subject of Meredith being in his kitchen cooking together with the ‘irrisoria’ excuse of her DNA found on his knife… he throws in the possibility that other traces of Meredith’s DNA could be found in the kitchen cloths.

IMO he is trying mainly to mock the police collected evidence, while subtly pointing the finger at Knox. I mean he is suggesting -not directly but as dictated by his family and/or lawyer at the time- that if Knox transported the knife from and to his flat, he anticipates the possibility of more traces turning up in the kitchen cloths and others places and since he is not responsible in any way it can only be the result of police inferior work or if that fails then Knox is responsible for whatever other traces might be in his flat.

Both suspects diaries are mostly the result of what their respective families and lawyers were telling them what to put down on paper at the time, that’s why they are so disjointed.
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Regarding Mellas' Recent Long-Winded Rant

Mr. Mellas loves his daughters and sincerely believes Amanda to be innocent. She is real to him, not a picture or a quick impression sketched by a reporter to fill out a story and meet a deadline (*sorry*). Imagine for a second if Amanda was your daughter, either biological or acquired. No - don't turn away and say it could never happen to you. It could. If your kids start hanging out with weirdos and doing drugs that they can't handle, anything can happen if they don't have the survival point. How would you feel reading the endless smears and sick theories about your daughter on blogs? I don't deny the charges. I usually refer to the lass as either Ak47 or as a charming murderess. If she was your daughter, you would possibly be as protective and irrational as Mellas is, or sit and sadly listen to testimony in Perugia without a translator as her biological father has done. I think in this case I would probably do as Mr. Knox has done, love her and be there for her,..but I won't finish my thought.

Did you ever consider the distress the Kerchers are going through with all these websites on their daughter's murder? They seem like private people, the way most people here in the South once were. I have two daughters in college that are around the same age as AK and MK; I would go ballistic if I found a website solely dedicated to their murder if such a sad event ever happened. We may hide in the petticoats shouting from our sanctuary that we are seeking justice for MK or that we are just a crime buff attempting to solve mysteries (the fib I tell myself), but face what we are really doing here. And then go beyond it. Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed it well:" “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

I think that this may be Klingsor's Last Summer. Thank you for your camaraderie. And if that cute girl who once wrote that she loved me is lurking around; I hope she will consider thawing me out for the holographic website reunion party in 30 years when Amanda get out of prison.
It will be a blast!
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

No, stracci is not a word good to use for kitchen rags, not for something you use to touch dishes, pans, coultelry. Most people would use the word strofinacci for these or another equivalent. Straccio is an unusual word in this case. It is more often to indicate an object for dirty job, something you use for the floor. Maybe he really meant kitchen rags, a you say a simple invention to change the meaning of the knofe-DNA, and he used this word, we don't his word chooices. But you see why this word has surprised me. I imagine imediately a floor. So I think: why, in a kitchen, does he think that the stracci could incriminate him.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Amanda's prose:
""She gave me advice and also protected me when she knew I was in an uncomfortable situation. She was the most solitary of us all, but only because at home she liked to be at peace to read her mysteries, but at the same time she also joined us to watch silly gameshows on TV together. Then there was me, the littlest one. Young, but also very particular."

Yummi remarks:
"I'm wondering of some opinion from Americans or English speakers or people who know a bit both languages: don't you feel this writing a bit "Italianized" ? Like borrowing patterns of speech. I don't know enough American English to give a judgmenet. Just a curiosity."

******

I taught freshman English composition at a major US university for years.
Yes, this passage is fairly inarticulate and oddly constructed, as if the language itself is unfamiliar.
As a result it almost sounds as if it is somehow influenced by some other language, but sadly, no.
The unfamiliar language is formal English prose.
I have waded through literally tens of thousands of pages of similar stuff; it is quite familiar to me.
This is how American freshmen write - native English speakers of English, but the ones who are not the top stream.
Products of "good" suburban schools, college-bound students with fine grades, typically couldn't write their way out of a paper bag to save their lives.
So sure, I hear she is Dean's List at UW, but frankly that doesn't really mean much.
There are issues of grade inflation, of how actually demanding or not her course of study may really have been, of what classes were taken pass/not pass in order to prevent a difficult subject from effecting her grade average, and so on.
A person need not be particularly competent to do well, and she may not have taken many courses actually requiring much writing.
Not having access to her actual transcript, I can't speak to the specifics of her case, but I know I had students who were dumb as rocks who did perfectly well.
But I can pin down this writing, as well as the Prison Diary, as typical American B/B- level freshman prose.
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 Aug 09, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Greggy _

I can only wonder, in light of what you say in your post, how it is the Kercher's have mangaed to remain so silent for so long. After all, it is they that have lost a daughter forever. Yet, despite them having to endure the terrible reality of what happened to their daughter and it being publicly exposed and despite the oh so loud publicity and smear campaign mounted by those supporting the ones responsible, they've maintained that dignified silence. They have lost the most, yet retain grace. At the same time, we have in complete contrast Mellas. Do you feel he has some license that the Kerchers do not?

_________________
"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 lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I find it peculiar for Mellas to start complaining about public interest in this case, given the family's choice to hire a PR firm to handle the case here in the US.
Without that campaign it doesn't seem likely to me that there would be anything like this level of coverage, at least in the US.
(For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction....)
Mellas's anger seems to me to arise from the public's tendency, despite all his expensive interventions, to examine information independently of the FOA spin on things, and his resultant inability to control their opinion.
Oh, and the insults people chose to apply to others are always curiously self-revealing: I know much more about the inside of this man's mind than I really wish to.

That said, I remain quite sorry for Edda.
I have friends who have had terrible times with their children - drugs, theft, lying - and I've never known whether it is sadder when they are deceived about things or when finally they run out of excuses for their child's behavior.
Edda and her husband have tried, however oddly, to support their child.
I can't know what is in their heads, but I certainly don't think that in the beginning they ever thought things would end up as they have.
And I expect it will only get worse for them.
Amanda just leaves a continual trail of destruction behind her.
Raphael's family?
Well, I don't see much evidence that they are deluded about who their son really is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
Greggy _

I can only wonder, in light of what you say in your post, how it is the Kercher's have mangaed to remain so silent for so long. After all, it is they that have lost a daughter forever. Yet, despite them having to endure the terrible reality of what happened to their daughter and it being publicly exposed and despite the oh so loud publicity and smear campaign mounted by those supporting the ones responsible, they've maintained that dignified silence. They have lost the most, yet retain grace. At the same time, we have in complete contrast Mellas. Do you feel he has some license that the Kerchers do not?


Michael, of course Mr Mellas seems to be a difficult person with rude manners, but at least he takes care of his stepdaughter
and tries to protect her as best as he can. If he truly believes that ak is innocent and is going to be railroaded then I can
understand his anger, despair and hatred. (honestly, if i were in the same situation, i don't know if i would have reacted
differently).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hi there,

C.M. wrote: "So, how about you STFU and go away."

What does "STFU" mean?
hugz-)
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 Aug 09, 2009 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

martin wrote:
Hi there,

C.M. wrote: "So, how about you STFU and go away."

What does "STFU" mean?
hugz-)


STFU = Shut the fuck up

hugz-)

_________________
"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 Aug 10, 2009 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Alright Martin, let's be clear. mellas has not simply been the primary instigator of a campaign for his daughter, which would be understandable and forgivable, but a campaign 'against' people. He, Marriott, his family, the FOA (which is a front for the same) has been actively and aggressively trying to damage and hurt a whole range of people. In addition, they have been hell bent on undermining the legal process and it has all been done with an utter contempt for the victim...Meredith and her family. That isn't acceptable, in any universe. Whatever the prvocation, we are responsible for our actions. I don't care what ordeal his family may have been going through, that isn't license to treat the rest of humanity the way they have.

Let me give you a comparisson. 9/11 saw the worst terrorist attack in history. The world was aghast on Amerca's behalf, including even muslim countries and their long-term enemies. The world on mass offered their sympathy, support and help. And whilst that compassion for the American 'people' remained, President Bush took it and squandered it. He instigated a policy that said now this has happened we have license to do what we want in the world, we will treat others with contempt and anyone that doesn't jump when we say jump we will bully into submission (you're either with us or against us). For some years the US turned into a monster, to the point that even American citizens were appalled. It wasn't only in its foreign policy of course, but domestic too with such measures as the Patriot Act. The ideals expressed in the declaration of Independence and the Constitution were forgotten in a stroke. Whilst sympathy remained for the American people, the administration was despised the world over. President Obama has been going some way to undoing the damage.

The Knox family and FOA have adopted an exact same policy and mind set.

It doesn't matter if your towers have been blown up or your daughter is on trial for murder, the policy is wrong on every level. It's about right and wrong.

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Quote:
But I can pin down this writing, as well as the Prison Diary, as typical American B/B- level freshman prose.


Thank you leowolf,
that's interesting, it is a clear point. The diary is not influenced.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Yummi wrote:
No, stracci is not a word good to use for kitchen rags, not for something you use to touch dishes, pans, coultelry. Most people would use the word strofinacci for these or another equivalent. Straccio is an unusual word in this case. It is more often to indicate an object for dirty job, something you use for the floor. Maybe he really meant kitchen rags, a you say a simple invention to change the meaning of the knofe-DNA, and he used this word, we don't his word chooices. But you see why this word has surprised me. I imagine imediately a floor. So I think: why, in a kitchen, does he think that the stracci could incriminate him.


OK, maybe stracci is not a good word to use for kitchen rags, to me kitchen rags and stracci are the same, cloths remnants that could be use in the kitchen. (some of my relatives from Rome & Bari used the word stracci to refer to Kitchen cloths ie: tea towels, dish cloth etc) and seems other do same: http://tinyurl.com/mhtzat.

Why would the stracci incriminate him? He is continuing with the lie that Meredith was in his kitchen in case other traces turn up in maybe a kitchen cloth that was used to wipe the knife. When he wrote this there was some news in the press about rags found under his kitchen sink, probably he was inventing explanations to justify some of the clues.

There is also another instance in his diary where he mentions rags, when explaining the cleaning/flooding of the kitchen floor, but here the word he uses is different, so rags this time are ‘pezze’:
‘Era pulita e mi aveva portato un mocio Vileda per aiutarmi ad asciugare per terra vicino al lavandino. La sera prima avevo messo solo delle pezze per terra e non bastavano.’
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:04 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

martin wrote:
Hi there,

C.M. wrote: "So, how about you STFU and go away."

What does "STFU" mean?
hugz-)



www.acronymfinder.com -- the place where I find the answers to such questions.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:38 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Greggy wrote:
Regarding Mellas' Recent Long-Winded Rant

If she was your daughter, you would possibly be as protective and irrational as Mellas

If my daughter was on trial for murder, I sure as hell wouldn't be reading blogs about her. What possible good could come from such an endeavor?

And I suspect the Kerchers share my sentiment on that matter with regard to their situation.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:33 am   Post subject: Two questions   

kevin wrote:
I have got two questions for anyone who likes to answer .... sometimes doesn't it feel a bit 'pornographic' digging into the lives of AK, RS and RG?. I am starting to feel shit about it?.
also, doesn't being confronted with real hatred (Knox supporters and haters) for the first time in your life, make you feel 'f**k this´?


These are two interesting questions for me - I'm only just reading them today.

To answer the second one first, I don't really see what I read on internet blogs as being "real hatred". Actually the internet seems to provide a place for countless tens of thousands of people to blow off steam. And the internet is full of such behavior - not only about this particular case, by any means, and I've read a lot of very strange and angry things over the past few years of being online. It's not really "hatred", though, any more than road rage is caused by drivers genuinely hating other drivers. Probably less. People just have tensions in their own lives that they want to express, and they do it online, from behind the safety of a computer screen.

So far as this case goes, I've spent most of my time on the Seattle PI blogs, starting with Monica Guzman's Big Blog pieces, which fizzled out, and then shifted over to Candace Dempsey's "Italian Woman at the Kitchen" pieces, which have continued at quite a prolific rate during the course of the case. And since Candace's blog is slanted very heavily toward the defense of Amanda Knox, and since I'm not a fully paid up believer of that angle, I quite often get "attacked" on that blog. But these aren't real attacks, and its not real hatred.

Actually I have a lot of sympathy for the friends and family of both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - and of Rudy Guede too, for that matter. I can understand why their emotions must run very high, and I can understand too that they find if impossible to believe that their friend or relative was involved in a crime this senseless and this horrible. And I can see how it must be very exasperating to come across someone like me, who is neutral but who is increasingly skeptical of the defense case. I can also see how it would be comforting to have a supportive blog, such as those run by Candace and Frank. And I don't see anything wrong with that, either.

But often, the insults I get are from people who don't have any connection with the defendants, but who just have a gut instinct that the defendants are innocent, and they don't want anyone to disturb that feeling. Those kinds of insults are just typical internet silliness, and you can find them in many parts of the web, as soon as you go into a site where people are voicing their opinions about anything.

On the other hand, there are people like Charlie Wilkes over at Candace's, or Lancelotti over here, who I find are always polite and honest, even though they personally don't agree with my analysis. And that's how it should be.

Also, if I ever gingerly open the door onto the comments section of Frank's blog, I tend to shut it again very quickly, because it just seems to be full of people furiously typing insults at each other, like a peculiarly nasty cyber-pillowfight.

As for Kevin's first question, what continues to interest me about this case is simply trying to understand what happened. I now feel like I've finally got a pretty good idea of what happened on the morning of November 2nd. But I still don't understand what happened on the evening of November 1st, and I'd like to.

The murder itself seems so unexpected, so hard to have anticipated, that maybe nothing useful can be learned from it. But the whole way that it is being analyzed in cyberspace is a new phenomenon, very 21st century, and I've found that very interesting, and very educational.

What first motivated me to post was Monica Guzman's question: "Amanda Knox: are we being fair?" Monica was troubled by this question because of the media's (and the public's) use of MySpace, Facebook and YouTube to pry into the lives of the main protagonists - which (I think) is precisely what Kevin is getting at there by raising that question. I think it's a very valid question, and one that we're going to have to keep asking ourselves over the coming years, as we look at actual crimes in the not-so-brave new world of the internet.

But what struck me all those months ago was how Patrick Lumumba seemed disadvantaged precisely because he lacked such a cyber-presence. There were no YouTube clips or Facebook pages for people to make his excuses for him. As a result, he became (briefly) an unknown figure that people could project their fears and anger toward. Maybe there was some racism in there too - the media reported that he was from the Congo, and certainly on Seattle PI there were some straightforwardly racist posts about him. But his absence from the internet was partly what allowed the mass demonization of him to continue unchecked.

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Jools wrote:

Quote:
There is also another instance in his diary where he mentions rags, when explaining the cleaning/flooding of the kitchen floor, but here the word he uses is different, so rags this time are ‘pezze’:


In fact, that's what i understood when he told about 'stracci'. I just thought he was talking of those 'pezze'.
There are in fact two possibilitieaa: either he refersd to kithcen rags - in that case he is only lying further to make the cooking-with-Meredith like more credible - and in this case, the answer is simple.
But, if he instead refers to the stracci under the sink. Think, how this reference is a bit strange. In this case i was wondering why, among all items in the kitchen, does he expect those floor cleaning rags to be incriminating.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Finn wrote:

"Also, if I ever gingerly open the door onto the comments section of Frank's blog, I tend to shut it again very quickly, because it just seems to be full of people furiously typing insults at each other, like a peculiarly nasty cyber-pillowfight."

This is a really good description of the comments section of Frank's blog. I do feel like I've walked in on a pillow fight: feathers flying everywhere, no way to sort out who started it, usually impossible to figure out who's hitting whom or where they're coming from, and totally devoid of adult supervision.

_________________
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 Aug 10, 2009 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

New story by the CU, so before it vanishes:



Il delitto di Perugia - Sul dna le difese vogliono la superperizia.

A un mese dal ritorno in aula si preparano le strategie. E’ scontro totale sui risultati degli esami di laboratorio.


PERUGIA 10.08.2009


Ex fidanzati Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito

Tra un mese riprenderà il processo per l’omicidio di Meredith Kercher. La corte d’assise (presidente Giancarlo Massei, a latere Beatrice Cristiani) ha stabilito una serie di udienze, fino ai primi giorni di ottobre, per ascoltare gli ultimi consulenti e i residui testimoni citati dalle difese di Amanda Knox (gli avvocati Luciano Ghirga e Carlo Della Vedova) e di Raffaele Sollecito (Giulia Bongiorno e Luca Maori). I due imputati già hanno espresso in più occasioni e di recente con dichiarazioni e “pizzini” rilasciati ad un settimanale, di sperare di tornare liberi in autunno. Ma le indiscrezioni lasciano filtrare una possibilità e che cioè le difese, forti delle critiche mosse dai propri consulenti (in particolare quelle del professor Adriano Tagliabracci, genetista, sul test del dna sul gancetto del reggiseno della vittima e sul coltello, ritenuto arma del delitto, rinvenuto e sequestrato in casa Sollecito), possano chiedere alla corte d’assise una superperizia. Cosa che, ovviamente, allungherebbe i tempi del processo. In pratica i giudici, attualmente, si trovano davanti i risultati e le affermazioni del perito dell’accusa, la genetista Patrizia Stefanoni, che assicura di aver effettuato gli esami in maniera del tutto corretta e di aver rilevato sul gancetto il dna misto di Meredith e di Raffaele Sollecito e sulla lama del coltello il dna della Kercher (sulla punta) e di Amanda (sul manico). Elementi che, per l’accusa (i pm Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi e le parti civili avvocati Francesco Maresca e Serena Perna) sono decisivi per attribuire la responsabilità del delitto alla coppia di studenti. I genetisti delle difese (da un lato Tagliabracci, dall’altro Sara Gino, consulente della posizione Knox) replicano che nella raccolta dei reperti sulla scena del delitto prima e nei laboratori della polizia scientifica poi, i parametri, consigliati dalla comunità scientifica internazionale, non sono stati rispettati, che sono stati commessi errori e che i risultati finali non sono scientifici, ma frutto di interpretazioni (e come tali opinabili). Per scoprire dove sia la ragione e dove il torto - queste le probabili argomentazioni delle difese - sarà necessario ordinare una superperizia, con consulenti tecnici di ufficio individuati e scelti dalla stessa corte, che opereranno in contraddittorio con gli esperti dell’accusa e con quelli della difesa. Certo la corte potrebbe dire di no, che non c’è bisogno di nuovi accertamenti, visto che sull’emiciclo si sono succeduti nomi di tutto rispetto, su un fronte e sull’altro, della genetica nazionale e ricordare che comunque il giudice è “peritus peritorum” e che dunque la corte ha in mano tutti gli elementi per esprimere la propria decisione e di conseguenza stabilire di passare subito alla discussione finale (le requisitorie pubbliche e private e le arringhe difensive). Se invece la corte dovesse aderire alla richiesta e disporre la perizia, ecco che le difese potrebbero decidere una mossa ulteriore: chiedere la scarcerazione dei propri assistiti. Sotto questo profilo i difensori hanno già più volte ripetuto il concetto di una carcerazione preventiva troppo lunga (già ventuno mesi). E su questo tema, nelle loro dichiarazioni più recenti, si sono espressi sia Sollecito (“Quasi due anni di carcere preventivo mi sembrano già una punizione enorme” - ha affermato), sia Amanda (“Tutti i giorni, tutti i mesi di carcere sono difficili, se sai che sono ingiusti, che sei dietro le sbarre senza motivo” - ha dichiarato). Insomma neanche alla ripresa del dibattimento mancheranno, probabilmente, i colpi di scena che si sono succeduti in questi sette mesi di udienza, nell’Aula degli Affreschi

Elio Clero Bertoldi



Google Translation:



The crime of Perugia - The dna defenses want superperizia.

A month after returning to the classroom are preparing strategies. E 'total confrontation on the results of laboratory tests.

PERUGIA10.08.2009indietroEx Amanda Knox and boyfriend Raffaele urge

In a month will resume the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The court of assise (president Giancarlo Massei, alongside Beatrice Christians) has established a series of hearings, until the first days of October, to hear the last remaining advisers and witnesses cited by the defense of Amanda Knox (lawyers, Carlo Luciano Ghirga Della Vedova) and Raffaele urge (Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori). The two defendants have already expressed on several occasions and recently with statements and "Pizzini" issued a week, hoping to get back in free fall. But the rumors filter leaving a possibility and that is that the defense of strong criticism from its consultants (particularly those of Professor Adriano Tagliabracci, genetics, DNA testing on the hook of the bra of the victim and the knife, considered a weapon of the crime, found and seized in the house call) may ask the court for a meeting superperizia. Which, of course, lengthen the time of the process. In practice the courts currently are located in front of the findings and statements of the expert of the prosecution, the geneticist Patrizia Stefanoni and makes sure that you make tests in an entirely correct and that he found on the hook dna mix of Meredith and Raffaele and I call on the blade of the knife to Kercher dna (the tip) and Amanda (the handle). Elements which, for the prosecution (the pm Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comfortable and civil lawyers Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna) is crucial to allocate responsibility for the crime to the pair of students. The genetics of defenses (on the one hand Tagliabracci other Sara Gino, Knox location consultant) responded that in the collection of exhibits on the first scene of the crime and forensic laboratories then, the parameters recommended by the international scientific community, not were respected, that mistakes have been made and that the final results are not scientific, but the result of interpretation (and as such questionable). To find out where the reason and where the are wrong - these are the likely defense arguments - you must order a superperizia with technical consultants office identified and selected by the same court, which will contradict the prosecution and the experts with those of defense. Certainly the court could say no, that there is no need for new investigations, given that there have been sull'emiciclo names of all respect, on a face and on the national genetic and remember who the judge is " peritus peritorum "and that therefore the court has in hand all the elements to make its decision and thus decide to skip straight to the final debate (the public and private indictment and pleading defensive). If the court accedes to the request and have the expertise, then the defense may decide a further step: ask for the release of their clients. In this respect, the defenders have repeatedly said the notion of a pre-trial detention is too long (already twenty months). And on this theme in their latest statements, have expressed either urge ( "Almost two years in prison prior to me seem to have an enormous punishment" - he said), Amanda is ( "All day, every month in prison are difficult, if you know that are unjust, you're behind bars for no reason "- stated). So even the resumption of the hearing be short, probably, the shots of the scene that have followed in these seven months of hearing of the Frescoes nell'Aula

_________________
"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 BJB


Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps we should be a little more charitable towards her. I suspect that in her place, I too would be clutching desperately at any straw.


But if Amanda and Raffaele really are guilty, one thing to consider is that a confession of their role could be a great advantage fore everybody. The Italian law has a great number of benefits, which if you are guilty you have to consider starting to exploit. Imagine a situation like: there is evidence of an implication of a person, but not evidence about his/her precise role. If you confess a secondary role in a believeble way, and the court finds it compatible with the evidence, you are taking an advantage from the evidence and things are very different. I realize that maybe such a strategy is better to be played in an appeal. But i would consider the possibility of better chances aiming to a lighter sentence and then take advantage of its benefits, rather than the danger of pointing to acquittal with a 30 years sentence stake.


This is a very interesting post as it deals with the game plan of AK, RS and Ruede.

Will AK and RS ever admit to guilt, if found guilty to gain a lesser sentance on appeal, or will they still try to state their innocence?

Will Ruede ever tell his story, in his own words, and his own true story.

Will we ever be able to pick apart the pieces of this case and ever really know what happened that night, or more realistically, know about most of what actually happened?

I think that once the dust has settled, and RS and AK are found guilty, which I believe is now almost a matter of course in this trial, that they will have to play a different card. I would like to see one of them play the truth card.


Will AK ever play the truth card, will RS ever play the truth card, and will Ruede?


Ruede has the least to lose and I am surprised we have not heard more his course of events up to now. Why has Ruede not given us the "truth" from his persective, which will greatly help us to judge AK's and RS's stories alongside the evidence and the lies.

I also think that RS is more likely to tell us the "truth" as AK seems to be least likely to let everyone know about her true involvement in the crime, simply based on her changing her story the most of all of them. Why does anyone with anything to hide, ever change their story over and over again? If you are telling the truth, there is only one truth!

This is also the knot that ties AK as guilty, as already mentioned here before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael,

Thanks for the CU article. It all sounds to me like the focus--perhaps based on typical Italian criminal trials--is going to be on proceeding to appeal.

I did check out the actual article (I'm always interested in those Google translations, how Sollecito becomes "urge" and Comodi = "comfortable!) and got to see the accompanying photo of AK/RS, which i found so interesting I will give the URL here, even though it may disappear.

Corriere Dell'Umbria

dd (Alas photo is now gone: interesting B&W with a Bonnie and Clyde romantic look about it!)


Last edited by disinterested on Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

delete pls


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Bluetit


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:01 am

Posts: 39

Location: France

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

OT
I have just read " An Opera Singer's Tragedy, a Victim's Justice: the Murder of Laura Ronning "
on Steve Huff's True Crime Report
http://truecrimereport.com/

Horrific murder (and rape) – gruesome indeed (you have been warned !).
Quite a few things may remind you of "our" murder investigation. Some excerpts from this well-researched and well-written story :

"Lt. Mitchell observed something interesting as he spoke with Jeff Plishka - a scratch under Plishka's eye."
...
"His [= Jeff Plishka's] account of what he'd done the day she vanished didn't jibe with times and locations."
...
"Police found blood on the barrel of a .22 caliber Magnum Ithaca rifle taken from Jeff Plishka's residence. Forensic testing showed that the same rifle could not be "ruled out" as the weapon that killed Laura Ronning."
...
"Laura Ronning's mitochondrial DNA matched a profile pulled from the blood on the rifle."
...
"Jeff Plishka found himself answering questions about Laura Ronning again on May 12, 2009. He became more anxious as he spoke, eventually standing and pacing. Finally he stopped and turned to his interrogators.
Plishka said, "I hope I didn't kill that girl."
One of the investigators, Corporal R. Stoud, wasn't sure he'd heard right. "What did you say?"
Plishka repeated, "I hope I didn't kill that girl."
The two began a verbal pas-de-deux. Stoud asked, "Did you kill her?"
Jeff Plishka said, "No."
Asked if his DNA might be on the victim's body, Plishka said, "I sure hope not." The cops pressed, and he said he 'hoped' his DNA wasn't on Laura Ronning's body. Then he said his DNA "shouldn't be" on the victim.
Plishka was scrambling. (...)"
...
" Paul Plishka has made no public comment on his son's arrest, but a "former family friend" told the New York Post that the Plishkas have "done everything [they] can to keep [Jeff] off the radar."
At a bail hearing, the Wayne County District Attorney stated that Jeff Plishka was a flight risk, due to "considerable family resources." The DA stopped short, however, of accusing the Plishkas of obfuscating the investigation."

I seem to hear faint echoes ...
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hi,
tonight, i met an american student (paleontology and biology) in a bar. He believes that
amanda is innocent, and you know why? He told me that back in the US, he was talking about
the case with an hillbilly who votes republican and believes in intelligent design. He told me that if that redneck believed she was guilty then she surely must be innocent.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:56 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

RE: Michael's post of new story by the CU:

TRANSLATION OF CU REPORT:
The Perugia Crime: The Defence wants an expert review of the DNA

A month before the return to the courtroom strategies are being prepared. There is a total clash between the results of laboratory tests.

PERUGIA 10th August, 2009.

(Caption on photo: Former fiancés Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.)

In a month the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher will resume. The Court of the Assizes (President Giancarlo Massei assisted by Beatrice Cristiani) has set the date for a series of hearings up until the beginning of October, in order to hear the final expert consultants and the remaining witnesses listed for the defence of Amanda Knox (the lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Carlo della Vedova) and Raffael Sollecito (Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori).
The two accused have said on several occasions and recently in statements and "leaks" given to a weekly magazine that they hope to be free again in autumn. But unofficial sources have hinted about one possibility, and that is that the defence, supported by the criticisms levelled by their own consultants (in particular those of the genetics expert Prof Adriano Tagliabracci about the DNA test on the victim's bra clasp and on the knife), may call on the Court of the Assizes for an expert review. Obviously this would draw out the timetable of the trial.
In fact, at the moment the judges have before them the results and the claims of the expert for the prosecution, Patrizia Stefanoni, who assures that she has carried out the tests in a completely correct way and that she has detected the mixed DNA of Meredith and Raffaele Sollecito on the clasp, and the DNA of Kercher on the blade of the knife (on the tip) and of Amanda (on the handle). For the prosecution, Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi, and the lawyers for the civil complainants, Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna, these data are decisive in attributing the responsibility for the crime to the two students. The genetic experts for the defence (on the one side Tagliabracci, and on the other Sara Gino, consultant for Knox) reply that first in the gathering of exhibits from the crime scene, and then in the laboratories of the Police Scientific branch, the parameters advised by international scientific community were not respected, and that errors were committed, and that the final results are not scientific, but the result of interpretations (and as such open to challenge).
To discover which side is right and which is wrong - these are the probable arguments of the defence - it will be necessary to order an overall review, with specialist technical advisors identified and chosen by the court itself, who will cross examine the experts for the defence and for the prosecution.
Certainly the court would be able to reject this, saying that there is no need for new assessments, seeing that on both sides highly respected national experts in genetics have followed one another. It could note that the judge is moreover "peritus peritorum" (the expert of all experts), and that therefore the court has available all the data necessary to come to its own decision and that it may decide to immediately move on to the final discussion (the closing addresses of the prosecution and the defence).
If on the other hand the court should agree to the request and organise a review, the defence could decide on yet another move: to ask for the release of those it is representing. As far as this aspect is concerned, the defence has already repeated several times the idea that the remand imprisonment (twenty-one months so far) is too long. In their most recent statements, both Sollecito and Knox have expressed themselves on this subject. Sollecito has affirmed, "Almost two years of remand already seems to me to be an enormous punishment." Knox has declared, "Every day, every month in prison is difficult, if you know that it is unjust, that you are behind bars for no reason." All in all, not even when the debate begins again, will there probably be any lack of the dramatic twists which have followed one another in the seven months of hearings in the Hall of Murals.

Elio Clero Bertoldi

[urlx=http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=29]Corriere Dell'Umbria[/urlx]


Last edited by Tiziano on Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:12 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

martin wrote:
Hi,
tonight, i met an american student (paleontology and biology) in a bar. He believes that
amanda is innocent, and you know why? He told me that back in the US, he was talking about
the case with an hillbilly who votes republican and believes in intelligent design. He told me that if that redneck believed she was guilty then she surely must be innocent.



A kind of "any enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of reasoning.

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

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:09 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Further to The Perugia Crime: The Defence wants an expert review of the DNA

An interesting snippet I found when searching for something else today: Knox's defence has been obviously been thinking about a requesting a review of the scientific evidence for some time.

FROM LIBERO-news.it

OMICIDIO MEREDITH: LEGALE KNOX, PRESENTEREMO ISTANZA PER SUPERPERIZIA

Perugia, 5 giu. - ''Presenteremo istanza per una superperizia'' perche' ''rimangono punti di contrasto scientifici, non certo faziosi o oltranzisti''. Ad affermarlo uno dei legali di Amanda Knox, l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, a conclusione dell'udienza di oggi e delle deposizioni dei consulenti della famiglia Kercher, parte civile nel processo che vede imputati Amanda Knox e Raffele Sollecito per l'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher.

''Le posizioni rimangono immutate sotto il profilo genetico - ha concluso il legale Ghirga - e le obiezioni rimangono le medesime''. Quindi per l'avvocato la superperizia rimane ''l'unica strada per aggiustare processualmente le cose''.




MURDER OF MEREDITH: KNOX COUNSEL WILL PETITION FOR EXPERT REVIEW
PERUGIA JUNE 5TH.

"We will petition for an expert review" because "there are still scientific points of disagreement which are by no means partisan or extremist". This was asserted by one of the lawyers for Amanda Knox, Luciano Ghirga, at the end of today's hearing of the depositions by the consultants for the Kercher family, civil complainant in the trial in which Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito are accused of the murder of the English student, Meredith Kercher.
"The positions have not changed as far as the genetic profile is concerned," the lawyer Ghirga concluded, "and the objections remain the same." Therefore, for the lawyer, an expert review remains "the only judicial avenue for fixing things".
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:29 pm   Post subject: DNA Experts   

Tiziano -

Thank you very much for so kindly translating those articles for us.

Well, for me, this shows two things:

1. The defence are very unconfident that the judges have been persuaded by their arguments against the DNA evidence

2. If the court rejects their request for a 'super expert' this is very bad news for the defence, since that would signify the court is happy with the evidence provided, with few doubts and therefore it will be a major indicator of the verdict

The above is supported by the fact that the judges did not themselves request the intervention of a 'super expert', which of course they could have at any time if they had serious doubts on the integrity of the evidence.

Moreover, Raffaele's defence is also biting its nails waiting for the results of the further testing on Raffaele's hard drive to come back. The fact they requested it and won their request signifies that they consider that hard drive to be of paramount importance in proving or disproving Raffaele's guilt. All the original tests show Raffaele lied about using his machine during the hours he said he did on the night of the murder. Unless the new test results overturn that, he's in big trouble.

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


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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Tiziano wrote:
OMICIDIO MEREDITH: LEGALE KNOX, PRESENTEREMO ISTANZA PER SUPERPERIZIA

Perugia, 5 giu. - ''Presenteremo istanza per una superperizia'' perche' ''rimangono punti di contrasto scientifici, non certo faziosi o oltranzisti''. Ad affermarlo uno dei legali di Amanda Knox, l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, a conclusione dell'udienza di oggi e delle deposizioni dei consulenti della famiglia Kercher, parte civile nel processo che vede imputati Amanda Knox e Raffele Sollecito per l'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher.

''Le posizioni rimangono immutate sotto il profilo genetico - ha concluso il legale Ghirga - e le obiezioni rimangono le medesime''. Quindi per l'avvocato la superperizia rimane ''l'unica strada per aggiustare processualmente le cose''.


Tiziano, this superperizia expert: does he act more like an "arbitro" and leaves the decision to the jury or does he finally and definitely decide who is right and who is wrong? Private question:
Don't you miss the italian food in australia?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
OMICIDIO MEREDITH: LEGALE KNOX, PRESENTEREMO ISTANZA PER SUPERPERIZIA

Perugia, 5 giu. - ''Presenteremo istanza per una superperizia'' perche' ''rimangono punti di contrasto scientifici, non certo faziosi o oltranzisti''. Ad affermarlo uno dei legali di Amanda Knox, l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, a conclusione dell'udienza di oggi e delle deposizioni dei consulenti della famiglia Kercher, parte civile nel processo che vede imputati Amanda Knox e Raffele Sollecito per l'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher.

''Le posizioni rimangono immutate sotto il profilo genetico - ha concluso il legale Ghirga - e le obiezioni rimangono le medesime''. Quindi per l'avvocato la superperizia rimane ''l'unica strada per aggiustare processualmente le cose''.


Tiziano, this superperizia expert: does he act more like an "arbitro" and leaves the decision to the jury or does he finally and definitely decide who is right and who is wrong? Private question:
Don't you miss the italian food in australia?


It's not to me, but I'll answer. No, the super expert is merely a third party who is highly qualified but has hitherto not been involved in the case. He/she then provides an expert opinion, which isn't necessarily any more valid then that of the prosecution or defence experts, but can at least be argued to be completely neutral. But, they don't actually decide anything. The decision on the value of the evidence always remains with the judges. The super expert merely provides a second opinion if you like, for the judges to consider.

_________________
"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 Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
martin wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
OMICIDIO MEREDITH: LEGALE KNOX, PRESENTEREMO ISTANZA PER SUPERPERIZIA

Perugia, 5 giu. - ''Presenteremo istanza per una superperizia'' perche' ''rimangono punti di contrasto scientifici, non certo faziosi o oltranzisti''. Ad affermarlo uno dei legali di Amanda Knox, l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, a conclusione dell'udienza di oggi e delle deposizioni dei consulenti della famiglia Kercher, parte civile nel processo che vede imputati Amanda Knox e Raffele Sollecito per l'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher.

''Le posizioni rimangono immutate sotto il profilo genetico - ha concluso il legale Ghirga - e le obiezioni rimangono le medesime''. Quindi per l'avvocato la superperizia rimane ''l'unica strada per aggiustare processualmente le cose''.


Tiziano, this superperizia expert: does he act more like an "arbitro" and leaves the decision to the jury or does he finally and definitely decide who is right and who is wrong? Private question:
Don't you miss the italian food in australia?


It's not to me, but I'll answer. No, the super expert is merely a third party who is highly qualified but has hitherto not been involved in the case. He/she then provides an expert opinion, which isn't necessarily any more valid then that of the prosecution or defence experts, but can at least be argued to be completely neutral. But, they don't actually decide anything. The decision on the value of the evidence always remains with the judges. The super expert merely provides a second opinion if you like, for the judges to consider.


Sounds like a risky strategy. If the neutral expert fails to back the defence claims there will be nowhere to run. Bearing in mind the apparent problems that the defence have had in getting good experts to stand up and propagate their line, I wouldn't give them evens. The expert has only been requested by Ghirga but I assume he will look at ALL the evidence so RS's defence is equally on the line.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Mutley wrote:
Sounds like a risky strategy. If the neutral expert fails to back the defence claims there will be nowhere to run. Bearing in mind the apparent problems that the defence have had in getting good experts to stand up and propagate their line, I wouldn't give them evens. The expert has only been requested by Ghirga but I assume he will look at ALL the evidence so RS's defence is equally on the line.


Hi Mutley. You have it in one. It's a 'gamble', pure and simple. Because of course, any super witness could go either way...endorse the testimony of the prosecution expert witness, or that of the defence. The fact that the defence are in such a position that they feel they need to risk that gamble says everything about the strength of their situation.

Indeed, these are high stakes and they are going for a 'winner takes all' strategy.

_________________
"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 Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

martin wrote:
Tiziano, this superperizia expert: does he act more like an "arbitro" and leaves the decision to the jury or does he finally and definitely decide who is right and who is wrong? Private question:
Don't you miss the italian food in australia?


As Michael has already explained and you said yourself, this court-appointed expert really is a type of arbitrator, in that he presents another expert opinion to the court. But he does not arbitrate the final decision. The judge remains the peritus peritorum; he and the panel just have more information, expert advice at their disposal. I had not met the term before and did some research to find the best way to translate it.

I found a report by the same CU journo about another case (il caso Narducci) involving Mignini, Comodi, Carlo Torre. It is an excellent report which makes clear the role played by the superperito. http://perugianotizie.blogspot.com/2008 ... e-una.html

Another report from la Repubblica is about a current case: il caso Garlasco, where the judge has called for reports on 5 points before coming to a decision:
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/02/sezion ... iglio.html

It would be good if those who so freely attack the Italian judicial system would take the time do a little research on this judicial tool (la superperizia) which offers the courts another means of getting at the truth in complex matters.

On a more mundane level, Martin, I miss everything about Italy, even some of the not-so-good things, in a mad way! But if you marry an Italian there is no way you can avoid learning to cook all'italiana. And in Australia spag bol (ie our versions of spaghetti alla bolognese) has been proven statistically to be one of our national dishes! But Italian food in Italy still gets first prize!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:24 am   Post subject: Green Women   

I'm going to attempt to make an argument here. It's going to be clumsy, because I've been trying to figure out how to make for a long time (over a year actually). It's not the argument that matters, but the point...it's just making it.

For some time, we've seen defenders of Amanda Knox making various arguments that she couldn't poosibly have been involved in the murder of Meredith due to certain criteria in her make-up having no precedent in previous similar murders.

She's American, female, middle class, young, a student (an honours student no less) and all her friends think she's great. There is no previous murderess that checks all those 'particular' boxes. that's the argument.

Okay, bear with me. Green women. The other day I was watching something quite inane, the latest Star Trek film (not normally the sort of thing I watch, but I felt like an having a mental time out). On it, just featuring as eye candy and a short-term love interest of the star was a well endowed green alien lady. I began thinking on the case and crime in general. Myra Hindley (If you're British, you've for certain heard of her, if not it's still rather likely you may have). I thought, well...what if this green lady (apologies to the green lady for she's done no such thing) had committed such crimes. What do we do? Do we go down a check box list...sex...class...age and go mmm, okay, they all have a precedent, but wait, hang on, she's green!!! No green lady has committed such crimes before, so therefore, just for the very fact she's green we must dismiss her involvement, in spite of all the evidence! I don't think it matters if there's no history of any green lady committing any such offence before. If the evidence says she committed the offence, or was involved in some way, the fact she's green shouldn't come into it. Otherwise, let's face it, she'd be able to get away with anything she wanted just because she's green right?

I feel the same applies to 'whatever' may be on the check box list...whether the person be green, an honours stuident, female, or anything else. Everything has to have a precedent in any case, even the most prevelent of crimes. Wherever it was, there was a first recorded theft somewhere, even though they are most common place and happen all the time now. What criteria did that first theif meet?

Now, in addition, items on check box lists can always be combined to provide a convenient result. Say you have a dwarf who's murdered someone with an axe. Say he has a beard and has only got one arm and has a limp. One could turn round and say...well, name me a case where a dwarf, with a beard, with only one arm and a limp has murdered someone before!!!! Then say you could. But hey, we could always find other things to add about him to add to the check box list...perhaps he wears glasses, or whatever, the list could go on, but the fact is each thing we add and arbitrarily demand others find precedent for to meet that check list, will ultimately diminish a precedence match for that particular individual. Of course, because we are individualising them and that naturally seperates them from the rest of, well...'everyone else'. The longer the check box list, the stronger our case for defence. But is that really an argument for defence? I say not. Otherwise, we would have to rule that a one armed bearded dwarf wearing glasses and who has a limp couldn't possibly murder another human being or commit any other crime as there's no known previous criminal meeting that specific criteria. That's a fantastic claim, built on faith and a consciouse engineering of the positioning of goal posts. So what if he did commit the crime? Then we'd have a precedent. But then what if we had another one armed bearded dwarf with a limp come along and murder someone but he didn't happen to wear glasses? We discount him and declare him innocent on the basis that while he matched all the criteria of a previous murderer, one of the boxes remained unchecked due to the fact say, this one didn't wear glasses? I'm sorry to go off about green women or dwarves. The fact is, for this argument, they could be green, purple or giants, it doesn't really matter. We are all unique in some way and we would each of us be able to check some box on top of all the standard ones that would prvide a profile that is unique in some way in terms of recorded murderer history, should we ever commit one. Green ladies and dwarves are merely extreme examples to make the point.

This for me is why the whole check box mentality of whether someone can be guilty or innocent of a crime falls down. It can't be based on statistics or some silly check boxed criteria method. Although, I can see how it ma be appealing to those that can't refute the charges via actual proof, evidence or logical argument. Rulings on guilt or innocence can and must be based on one thing and one thing only...the evidence. That has to be the criteria. If the evidence shows they are culpable, that is what has to be followed. If check box criteria could solve a case, then we wouldn't need courts, we could just dispose of them and all beauracracy along with it. I can't think of anything more dangerous...or horrific.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:59 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

From the Smog:

TD wrote:
Posted by turtle dove at 8/11/09 5:39 p.m.

Frank called the building manager at Nara's building. The appartment has double pane glass windows.



THE SMOG


Single glazed. Look at the TV footage from inside Nara's apartment. Frank called the building manager? Where and when did he ever write this?

_________________
"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 DakotaJune


Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:13 am

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:46 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Hi Michael, although I get where you are coming from I feel that when judging a case you should take advantage of all the information available. This includes evidence at a crime scene. This also should include a person's history. The tricky part of course is to fairly weigh these two sources of information. Just as it should be 'easier' to convict someone with a prior criminal record (assuming the previous crimes are relevant to the one being prosecuted) it should be 'harder' to convict someone with a squeaky clean past. Of course, in many cases regardless of the weight you assign to a person's prior history, the evidence against the person is just so overwhelming it trumps everything else (imo: this case :) ). Now when you talk about individual characteristics of a person and how that should affect the outcome of the case it is quite a hard question for me. For example, take the question of one characteristic, gender. If I give you the stat the probability someone is male and commits a crime is four times the probability someone is female and commits a crime, theoretically everything else (evidence at the scene etc) being equal it should be easier to convict a male of the crime. Of course I'm not sure how this actually plays out in the real world where judges don't work with numbers like the probability a Seattle born, white woman commits a crime etc and where judges don't actually assign numerical values to amount of evidence at the scene or set exact thresholds for conviction. I just feel that a good judge should take these factors into consideration. Sorry for the ramble
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael, as a green one-armed limping lady dwarf I am offended!!! Kidding.

I agree- grades, appearance, money, youth have no claims on morality. Or sensibility. Merely details, which become blobs of color in the particular landscape of a trial. The lack of a criminal past is not an alibi. You’re right, it must be based on the evidence and basing it on anything else is stomach churning. One doesn’t even need to commit a crime for this criteria to be suspect, considering all the hoo haa regarding Curatolo.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Michael wrote:
From the Smog:

TD wrote:
Posted by turtle dove at 8/11/09 5:39 p.m.

Frank called the building manager at Nara's building. The appartment has double pane glass windows.



THE SMOG


Single glazed. Look at the TV footage from inside Nara's apartment. Frank called the building manager? Where and when did he ever write this?



In fact, the neighbor's apartment, which is where Ciolino conducted his "experiment" because Sra Nara wisely told him to buzz off, does have double glazing. This would certainly have a significant impact on the comparability of his findings.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

DakotaJune wrote:
Hi Michael, although I get where you are coming from I feel that when judging a case you should take advantage of all the information available. This includes evidence at a crime scene. This also should include a person's history. The tricky part of course is to fairly weigh these two sources of information. Just as it should be 'easier' to convict someone with a prior criminal record (assuming the previous crimes are relevant to the one being prosecuted) it should be 'harder' to convict someone with a squeaky clean past. Of course, in many cases regardless of the weight you assign to a person's prior history, the evidence against the person is just so overwhelming it trumps everything else (imo: this case :) ). Now when you talk about individual characteristics of a person and how that should affect the outcome of the case it is quite a hard question for me. For example, take the question of one characteristic, gender. If I give you the stat the probability someone is male and commits a crime is four times the probability someone is female and commits a crime, theoretically everything else (evidence at the scene etc) being equal it should be easier to convict a male of the crime. Of course I'm not sure how this actually plays out in the real world where judges don't work with numbers like the probability a Seattle born, white woman commits a crime etc and where judges don't actually assign numerical values to amount of evidence at the scene or set exact thresholds for conviction. I just feel that a good judge should take these factors into consideration. Sorry for the ramble



Hi Dakota June. I don't think we should confuse someone's past with their profile. Take Amanda Knox. She's an American female honours student from seattle. That's what she 'is', superficially, but is that her past? There are many things that could be discused in regard to the question of 'what defines an individual?' Is say, American white moddle class female honurs student her definition? Does that pigeon hole her? We also have to ask, is it rare for people with those sorts of profiles to commit serious crime, or simply rare because they are better resoureced and connected to extricate themselves from trouble when they find themselves in it, combined with a natural disposition of the LE's only to look at the 'usual suspects'? There certainly is a debate to be had here.

I of course agree, that someones surface profile and their past can be useful tools in terms of evaluation. However, I don't feel someone should get extra brownie points towards an innocent verdict in a trial simply because of that profile, especially if it ceases to function as a mere evaluation tool and becomes a 'predjudice', in spite of what the actual evidence may say. That is why only the evidence should be the foundation for any verdict.

_________________
"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 BJB


Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

I think that the point that is being made here is related to the following question:

Is the evidence both circumstantial (the lies, the stories made verbally both in court and to the police thoughout) and the actual (the DNA) the only thing that the judges and jury will be thinking about when deciding on AK's guilt and RS's guilt?

I think the evidence is undisputed in terms of pointing at guilt and involvement. So Yes.

However, and this a big however, in terms of sentancing there is no doubt that "past records" and "stereotypes" will play a factor. This is why I believe that AK gets the lightest sentance, even though she may have been the most involved and the actual perpetrator of this most vile act. RG has already taken a 30 year hit and I am sure that RS will take a heavy hit.

I do also believe the propaganda and PR that AK has, is on her side in terms of arranging for her to be given the lightest sentance and to never tell the real story and then to appeal and try to get out early.

AK's position, greatly depends also on whether RG and RS ever actually tell us the truth.

Maybe they might actually feel like not spending years of their life behind bars for the sake of an intransient "pretty girl" that stole their heart.

I would also like to give a great emphasis on the quotation marks around pretty girl, even before I read this case, as she is not pretty, and just plain. I think manipulation is her best quality given the current state of play.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

BJB wrote:
However, and this a big however, in terms of sentancing there is no doubt that "past records" and "stereotypes" will play a factor. This is why I believe that AK gets the lightest sentance, even though she may have been the most involved and the actual perpetrator of this most vile act. RG has already taken a 30 year hit and I am sure that RS will take a heavy hit.


Hi BJB,

I think Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be both sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. Judge Massei will be influenced by the fact that Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured with a knife and brutally murdered, and not by past records or stereotypes.

Amanda Knox also faces an additional charge of slander and the possibility of another one for claiming that she was hit by a police officer. She will be found guilty of the slander charge. If anyone is going to serve more time in prison it will be Amanda Knox. However, I can't see Knox or Sollecito ever being released from prison.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

Does anyone know when Amanda made the statement about Raffaele killing Meredith with the knife and then bringing it back to his place and pressing it into her hands while she was sleeping? Is that comment admissible in court or is it in Judge Micheli's report or some other admissible document? Also, is Raffaele's statement about pricking Meredith with the knife admissible?

Their concern about that knife, and their idiotic statements to explain it, to me trump any expert testimony from the defense. Amanda and Raffaele knew that knife was used in the murder and were desperate to explain away the evidence found on it which connected it to them.

As others have said before, all Raffaele needed to say was that it was impossible for Meredith's DNA to be on the knife, it hadn't left this apartment and she had never been there. Then, his defense attorney's attempt to discredit that DNA as contamination might have had some basis. But he admitted that it was Meredith's DNA on the blade--and that he knew it was there--with his cock and bull story of how it got there.

And all Amanda had to say was, "Sure my DNA's on the handle, I cooked with that knife all the time." End of story. But she came up with the drivel saying Raffaele killed Meredith and then tried to frame her for the killing by pressing her fingers to the knife.

If the statement's are admissible and the jury knows about them, the knife is an extremely powerful piece of evidence and none of the defense witnesses comments about multiple stabs in the same place with a smaller knife or about possible DNA contamination are particularly believable because both Amanda and Raffaele have as much as admitted that that knife was used to kill Meredith and they knew it because they were involved.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

beans wrote:
Does anyone know when Amanda made the statement about Raffaele killing Meredith with the knife and then bringing it back to his place and pressing it into her hands while she was sleeping? Is that comment admissible in court or is it in Judge Micheli's report or some other admissible document? Also, is Raffaele's statement about pricking Meredith with the knife admissible?


Both are in their diarys respectively. Their diarys form part of the case file and therefore have been admitted as evidence.

_________________
"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 ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

The Machine wrote:
BJB wrote:
However, and this a big however, in terms of sentancing there is no doubt that "past records" and "stereotypes" will play a factor. This is why I believe that AK gets the lightest sentance, even though she may have been the most involved and the actual perpetrator of this most vile act. RG has already taken a 30 year hit and I am sure that RS will take a heavy hit.


Hi BJB,

I think Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be both sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. Judge Massei will be influenced by the fact that Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured with a knife and brutally murdered, and not by past records or stereotypes.

Amanda Knox also faces an additional charge of slander and the possibility of another one for claiming that she was hit by a police officer. She will be found guilty of the slander charge. If anyone is going to serve more time in prison it will be Amanda Knox. However, I can't see Knox or Sollecito ever being released from prison.


but WHY ...
why not as an aside can't we be told what happened ... by at least the male protagonists

jailed they may be yes ... but it's still a deceit a deception

WHY won't guedo or soll break and tell what happened if even to get 5 years off their sentence what actually happened ... society needs to know this in order to address a fault ...

WHY?

and what happened?
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -   

[album][/album]
The Machine wrote:
BJB wrote:
However, and this a big however, in terms of sentancing there is no doubt that "past records" and "stereotypes" will play a factor. This is why I believe that AK gets the lightest sentance, even though she may have been the most involved and the actual perpetrator of this most vile act. RG has already taken a 30 year hit and I am sure that RS will take a heavy hit.


Hi BJB,

I think Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be both sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. Judge Massei will be influenced by the fact that Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured with a knife and brutally murdered, and not by past records or stereotypes.

Amanda Knox also faces an additional charge of slander and the possibility of another one for claiming that she was hit by a police officer. She will be found guilty of the slander charge. If anyone is going to serve more time in prison it will be Amanda Knox. However, I can't see Knox or Sollecito ever being released from prison.

Hi Machine!
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 10 [ 2410 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 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 


29,144,389 Views