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


Last visit was: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:58 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:58 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 - Dec 9, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 27 [ 6513 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 27  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:27 pm   Post subject: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 - Dec 9, 09   

XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 9 - DEC 9, 2009






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

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 - OCT 9, 09

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

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


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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:32 am   Post subject: who is amanda knox?   

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3479429n
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: who is amanda knox?   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3479429n

I understand that it must be difficult for the friends and the family of Amanda Knox to see her as a murderer. But the evidence is the evidence and the evidence clearly incriminates Amanda Knox. I am wondering why that young man gave this interview? Seems to me they want to imply that when you seem to be a nice person, you cannot possibly be a murderer. What a nonsense!

Quote:
007 « Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:46 am » Unless you live in Texas and your governor was GW Bush. Lot's of folks were put to death down there on circumstantial evidence... So sad.
007 « Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:45 am » Circumstantial evidence does not generally meet the requirements for conviction in Capital cases such as this.

I would also like to say the following regarding this comment made in the chat room: Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife in the US. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. He was not convicted in Texas but in California. So it seems they have 'monkey-trials' in the US too and there it was allowed to use common sense, I cannot see why the Italians should be reproached for using common sense.

There is no doubt that most of the evidence couldn't be contested and disproved successfully like Frank Sfarzo and his equals try to make the public believe. The conflicting statements of both defendants are only the icing of the cake.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:44 am   Post subject: Re: who is amanda knox?   

Nell wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3479429n

I understand that it must be difficult for the friends and the family of Amanda Knox to see her as a murderer. But the evidence is the evidence and the evidence clearly incriminates Amanda Knox. I am wondering why that young man gave this interview? Seems to me they want to imply that when you seem to be a nice person, you cannot possibly be a murderer. What a nonsense!


Unfortunately for "bff" Jeff, "Foxy Knoxy" freely admits that she was drunk and stoned out of her mind on the night of the murder - that must have come as an unbelievable surprise. So much for the All American Girl.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Link to La Nazione, Perugia section and article on resumption of trial.

Riprende

THE TRIAL RESUMES FOR THE INVESTIGATORY REQUESTS

The trial of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher resumes in the Court of the Assizes. It seems that the lawyers for the accused will ask for an impartial expert investigation on the DNA traces at the centre of the investigation. The time for the verdict will then depend on this decision.

Perugia October 8th, 2009.
Tomorrow's sitting of the trial of RS and AK for the murder of MK before the Court of the Assizes of Perugia , the examination of the witnesses having been completed, will be dedicated to final investigative requests which will be presented by the parties.
This sitting is being prepared for by the prosecution and the defence with the greatest discretion.

However it is taken as given that the lawyers for the accused will ask for an impartial expert report on the DNA traces at the centre of the investigation. The court will begin to examine these requests tomorrow from 3.30 PM. The time to arrive at a verdict will then depend upon the decision, which could arrive on Saturday. The trial could lengthen if in fact expert reports or eventual other witnesses should be be permitted. If this is not so, however, the final phase with closing arguments and addresses will ensue.

The defences for Sollecito and Knox have already announced that they intend to ask for an expert report on the DNA traces found on the bra clasp of the victim, attributed to the young man from Puglia, and on the traces on the blade of the knife, considered to be the weapon used in the crime, which belong to the American and to MK. The lawyers have in fact challenged the means by which the items were collected and the way that they were analysed, advancing the hypothesis of accidental contamination.

Thus tomorrow a formal request for the expert report should be made, but the possibility of a surprise request is not ruled out. On the other hand, it does not appear that the PMs Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini will be making any particular requests. They have spoken of a "solid prosecution picture" emerging from the witnesses. The lawyers for the civil complainants, the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna, seem to be following the same line, having highlighted the "quality" of the work done by the investigators.


Translated from La Nazione.


Last edited by Tiziano on Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:42 am   Post subject: Re: who is amanda knox?   

Fly by Night wrote:
Nell wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3479429n

I understand that it must be difficult for the friends and the family of Amanda Knox to see her as a murderer. But the evidence is the evidence and the evidence clearly incriminates Amanda Knox. I am wondering why that young man gave this interview? Seems to me they want to imply that when you seem to be a nice person, you cannot possibly be a murderer. What a nonsense!


Unfortunately for "bff" Jeff, "Foxy Knoxy" freely admits that she was drunk and stoned out of her mind on the night of the murder - that must have come as an unbelievable surprise. So much for the All American Girl.


Yep, times must have changed considerably. I find it curious how the Knox-defenders are trying to imply every student would take drugs and drink until he/she drops. My impression is that they are trying to paint those students who don't do drugs are strange - but the exact opposite true.

The nice guy from the video says that Amanda Knox didn't drink or take drugs more than the "average" student. Well, does that mean all his friends have memory loss? beer-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:55 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I don't know why Frank Sfarzo didn't delete this one. He must have overlooked it.

Frank, you resumed it so nicely, nobody could have done a better job! Enjoy!


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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Birds of a feather....

In the latest ABC TV interview with Anne Bremmer, a Seattle lawyer, Anne says:

"There is no physical evidence at all to connect her to this crime." http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8690894

Curt Knox and Edda Mellas have said the same, in almost identical language, since testimony was concluded in the court hearings. It's one thing for the Knox/Mellas clan, and their "Friends", to emphasize whatever strengths they find in the defense, or weaknesses they see in the prosecution, but quite another to be telling blatant lies. No physical evidence???? The clear intent in this cynical orchestrated strategy is to convince the American public that Amanda is in a kangaroo court and so can expect only marsupial justice. So a guilty verdict will prove not the malice of Amanda... but the perfidy of Perugia! In which case all the more need --or should I say "demand"--for an expose, in book or film. In America "cashing in," when it's profitable enough, is called "Making A Killing". A continuation of the long train of deceptions that began with breaking Filomena's window.

/////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:40 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Thanks Tiziano as always for an excellent translation of today's agenda there.

I grabbed it for TJMK. Most helpful.

Peter Quennell
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 Oct 09, 2009 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Amanda Knox Trial Takes Toll of Family Finances, Emotions
Dad Has Lost Job, 'Mortgaged Everything,' Spent Retirement Funds: ABC

_________________
"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 daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International ... id=8782722

Whilst I respect their right to defend their daughter, my very first thought was "Idiots, why risk the futures of three children for the sake of one who will definitely be convicted" They've flogged themselves to the brink of financial extinction for a woman who is a self confessed liar. Whether they believe Amanda or not, surely there was a "head not heart" decision to be made here and a risk assessment to be taken. Apart from blood relations, Swiss mental patients and long term friends, is there a person alive who thinks Amanda is innocent? I struggle to find any in Yorkshire, I'm guessing Seattle is a similar.
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Ah beat me to it by a minute :D
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-defense-costs-million/story?id=8782722

Whilst I respect their right to defend their daughter, my very first thought was "Idiots, why risk the futures of three children for the sake of one who will definitely be convicted" They've flogged themselves to the brink of financial extinction for a woman who is a self confessed liar. Whether they believe Amanda or not, surely there was a "head not heart" decision to be made here and a risk assessment to be taken. Apart from blood relations, Swiss mental patients and long term friends, is there a person alive who thinks Amanda is innocent? I struggle to find any in Yorkshire, I'm guessing Seattle is a similar.



"No legacy is so rich as honesty"

William Shakespeare

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

More with Edda Mellas on THE EARLY SHOW.

Edda states "True Justice" for Amanda will probably come in the appeal process.

Excuse me Edda, but don't you mean TRUE JUSTICE FOR MEREDITH KERCHER? The lack of compassion for the real victim is appalling. sp-))

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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

On looking at the abc article the first thing that struck me was the image of Edda Mellas in the video player. It looked like a mugshot with the only thing missing the board with her name and number on it.
Would this be a Marriot sanctioned/paid for article by any chance?
On reading through the piece one can't help feeling sorry for Curt as he is the only one in my opinion who has shown any shred of decency from the family/FOA side.
As a father myself of daughters around the same age as Knox I do kind of know how he feels but then again I dont, as none of my children have been imprisoned for murder.
Coming again to the article as a whole, the sympathy I mention above is precisely what the article is structured to invoke.
There is just a cursory mention of the victim who was viciously sexually assaulted and murdered in cold blood.
Once again we have here what has been observed many times before in the PR campaign - the Amanda Knox is the victim angle, although they are bringing in the whole family as the victims now.
Also unmentioned in the section covering the Knox/Mellas financial ruination is the small matter of the cost of the Marriot PR campaign they have no doubt happily paid through the nose for but I guess an article like this would not report on itself in any negative way.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

so, the family is steeling themselves for the inevitable guilty verdict?
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:50 pm   Post subject: 20/20 Report tonight...   

For those in the US, ABC's 20/20 SHOW will have a more in depth report tonight.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox Trial Takes Toll of Family Finances, Emotions
Dad Has Lost Job, 'Mortgaged Everything,' Spent Retirement Funds: ABC



I don't know if Curt Knox's job loss has anything to do with his frequent absences in the past two years. I read in the paper at least a year ago that Macy's was closing its administrative unit in Seattle and combining the function with the SF office, which has become the administrative office for a much larger region. Many struggling retailers have done the same. Some 7 million jobs have disappeared in the US economy since the economic and financial crisis began. Many of these people are out of work; indeed, a bill is being passed at the federal level that would require all states to extend their unemployment benefits by sixteen weeks (or something like that), with those states hardest hit by unemployment (Michigan, for example; in Detroit, one out of three workers is currently without work) required to extend entitlement by twenty weeks.

To add to Macy's troubles, the Liz Claiborne label has just jilted the department store in favor of JC Penney, one of its main rivals.

This may seem boring and OT, but I just wanted to situate the issue of unemployment into a broader context and also point out that, if my information is correct, everyone in admin for Macy's locally got a pink slip.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

More stories:

Amanda Knox's Mom Confident About Trial
Hopes Court will Decide to Have Independent Experts Review Evidence: CBS


Amanda Knox murder trial resumes: Linda Byron for KING 5

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

This from Linda Byron:

Quote:
There are two civil trials going on at the same time as the murder trials of Knox and Sollecito. Patrick Lumumba, the former bar owner who was falsely accused by Knox, is suing her family for defamation. The Kercher family is also suing Knox’s family for the wrongful death of their daughter.



Is this correct or has Linda Byron simply mispoke? I thought the Kerchers were only suing Amanda. Are they also suing her family 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 Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox Trial Takes Toll of Family Finances, Emotions
Dad Has Lost Job, 'Mortgaged Everything,' Spent Retirement Funds: ABC


Hmmm. How about the interviewer at the end, offering Edda any help they can? Good thing the family is giving all these "exclusive" interviews. From what I understand, that means they get PAID. How many times did they mention foreign prison to whip up the flag-waving troops? What about the victim? I honestly can't bear to go back and watch it again, but I do believe Meredith's name was only mentioned one time.

Sad. Pathetic. Predictable.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
This from Linda Byron:

Quote:
There are two civil trials going on at the same time as the murder trials of Knox and Sollecito. Patrick Lumumba, the former bar owner who was falsely accused by Knox, is suing her family for defamation. The Kercher family is also suing Knox’s family for the wrongful death of their daughter.



Is this correct or has Linda Byron simply mispoke? I thought the Kerchers were only suing Amanda. Are they also suing her family then?


Michael, I think you already know that the civil part of the trial is only for awards from the alleged perps if they are found guilty.

Could there be further suits to come? This is up to Meredith's family and supporters but our legal watchers in NYC think yes, there could be grounds.

Claiming poverty in such a situation is the first thing defendants' lawyers wiill advise them. The Knox-Mellases are not claiming poverty of course...

Oh. wait! How very suggestive!


Last edited by Fast Pete on Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:27 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 Oct 09, 2009 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Okay, a bit of comic relief:

Amanda's mom: 'We know she's innocent': KOMO

That's the title of the article, then you get Amanda's picture and then you get the story which is...NASA's firing a sattalite into the moon! I kind of wish that that's where they'd send Edda Mellas right now, I'm getting sick of her headlining each and every article.

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


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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Arghhhh, ENOUGH with the "sex game gone wrong" sound bite caption to describe the vicious murder of Meredith Kercher! It wrongly suggests that Meredith in some way participated in this, and that she put herself in harm's way! SHE DIDN'T! NEW FLASH: NO "GAME" FOR MEREDITH THAT NIGHT! st-))

MEDIA, STOP AND DESIST with this untrue characterization of the crime. If it's insulting to me, it must be absolutely repugnant for Meredith's family and friends to hear that repeated over and over!

And then...we have to listen to Edda dissing the DNA analysis. (Note to Moderators: Is there a YAWN emoticon?)
It's that FFFFFFFFoolish Foreign Fellini Forensic ITALIAN DNA analysis.

Yet another of Edda's digs against Italy:
"I've been told (BY WHOM, Edda?????) that IN ITALY, Just because you're innocent, doesn't mean you will be found innocent." huh-)

Ohhhhhhh.... Those Italians and their primitive--- and did we mention barbaric--- justice system!

Note to Edda: The more you read about the justice system in Italy, the more you'll understand it. You'll realize how the system In Italy bends over backwards to protect the rights of defendants. Don't take my word for it, do a little research on the subject.

But, hey, I guess it's always easier to make cheap shots against Italy than to take a long, hard look at one's wayward daughter. ss-)

Interesting just HOW Amanda expressed to Edda that she's been feeling" this HUGE WEIGHT ON HER CHEST." Edda adding that this heaviness is because Amanda "knows that "they" can judge her innocent or guilty" Hmmmmm.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but HINT HINT!! Edda,
ya know maybe Amanda AND YOU should REALLLLLLLLLLLY listen to this revealing "somatic signal." PAGING DR. FREUD!!!

Maybe that HUGE WEIGHT on her chest is actually the crushing weight of GUILT bearing down on her heart and soul, or should I say..."Anema e Core ?"

Perhaps this means there's actually something Amanda. . . "needs to get off her chest?" angel-)


Last edited by The 411 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From the L‘unione Sarda.it:

'An impartial expert on DNA traces found on the hook of bra of Meredith Kercher on a knife and described as the murder weapon was sought today by defending Raffaele Sollecito to the Court of Assizes of Perugia.
Lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori have also put forward the demand for new medical-legal investigation to determine how "precise" time of death of the victim. On the hook of the bra forensic matched the DNA of Sollecito mixed with that of Kercher. The blade of the kitchen knife seized from the house of the couple have been isolated DNA profiles instead of Amanda Knox near the handle, and the victim, just behind the tip. Respect to the hook of bra lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, a reminder of the defenders, asked that the report be checked whether the repertoire of procedures have been correctly applied. "We would like to know - said the lawyer - if you can actually be considered a genuine one track on a hook recovered 45 days after the finding, and not where it had been found." Sollecito's defense has also asked that the report address whether it was sufficient for examining the amount of biological material found on the knife. Bongiorno's lawyer has also requested further information on the compatibility of the new wounds on the neck of Kercher and their compatibility with the knife seized. He also requested a report audiometry to determine whether the neighboring Nara bedside, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, you can hear the sound of footsteps around the house of the crime, as alleged by the woman and determine how many decibels would be the cry the victim in order to be heard at that distance. Finally asked an expert to ascertain the causes of corruption Solleicito PC, Knox and Kercher. '
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

More:

Quote:
An impartial expert on DNA traces found on the hook of bra of Meredith Kercher on a knife and described as the murder weapon was sought today by defending Raffaele Sollecito to the Court of Assizes of Perugia. Lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori have also put forward the demand for new medical-legal investigation to determine how "precise" time of death of the victim. On the hook of the bra forensic matched the DNA of Sollecito mixed with that of Kercher. The blade of the kitchen knife seized from the house of the couple have been isolated DNA profiles instead of Amanda Knox near the handle, and the victim, just behind the tip. Respect to the hook of bra lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, a reminder of the defenders, asked that the report be checked whether the repertoire of procedures have been correctly applied. "We would like to know - said the lawyer - if you can actually be considered a genuine one track on a hook recovered 45 days after the finding, and not where it was found." Sollecito's defense has also asked that the report address whether it was sufficient for examining the amount of biological material found on the knife. Bongiorno's lawyer has also requested further information on the compatibility of the new wounds on the neck of Kercher and their compatibility with the knife seized. He also requested a report audiometry to determine whether the neighboring Nara bedside, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, you can hear the sound of footsteps around the house of the crime, as alleged by the woman and determine how many decibels would be the cry the victim in order to be heard at that distance. Finally asked an expert to ascertain the causes of corruption Solleicito PC, Knox and Kercher.

KNOX DEFENSE "REPORT ON THE KNIFE" An expert on the traces of DNA found on knife identified as the murder weapon has been requested by the defense of Amanda Knox. In particular, the legal revision would occur if there was an accidental contamination of the specimen and if the amount of biological material was sufficient for analysis. The lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, one of the defenders of Knox, has also requested a report on the footprints of bare feet are in the house of the crime and sull'orma shoe on the pillow found in the body of Mez is allocated to a woman. Also requested a new examination of the damaged pc Sollecito, Knox and Kercher.


Google translation of this story from Leggo Online
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Gads, it's going to be like going through the trial all over again. A sort of pre-appeal appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Is this tactical? As in, they're hoping to delay a verdict until after Rudy's appeal?
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
Nicki said:

Hi Jhansigirl,
All the police involved in the interrogation have appeared in court and testified that there was no abuse.It will be interesting to see who the judges will believe.

BTW ,for an investigation to start,Knox should have filed a complaint but she hasn't done it so far. I think the Perugia police are too busy catching criminals to bother about a few slandering articles appearing on minor foreign press, and I guess this is why they are not saying nor doing anything...basically, they couldn't care less about these uninfluent characters who seem to have nothing better to do than endlessy repeat a bunch of predjudice-filled, ignorant and xenophobic lies.


Thanks Nicki. I find it deplorable that Knox/Mellas continue to tell such barefaced lies.

BTW, were any fingerprints found on the AK's table lamp that was found in Meredith's room?
If there were no prints surely this would be very suspicious?

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

they keep haranguing about an impartial analysis. what will they do if the impartial analysis agrees with the prosecution?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Okay, Komo have finally worked out they put the wrong story to the wrong headline:

Amanda's mom: 'We know she's innocent': KOMO

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


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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From TGCOM:

'The Court of Assizes of Perugia has retired to closed session to decide on claims of expertise made by defenders of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox of new DNA tests on the hook of the bra of the victim Meredith Kercher on a knife and possible murder weapon. The president Giancarlo Massei announced that the decision will require about two hours. Prosecutors objected to the expert reports requested by the defense.'
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:24 pm   Post subject: Request Denied   

DLW wrote:
From TGCOM:

'The Court of Assizes of Perugia has retired to closed session to decide on claims of expertise made by defenders of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox of new DNA tests on the hook of the bra of the victim Meredith Kercher on a knife and possible murder weapon. The president Giancarlo Massei announced that the decision will require about two hours. Prosecutors objected to the expert reports requested by the defense.'


Hmmm - 2 hours. I think these requests are going to be denied. Let them take it up in the appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

FBN wrote:
Hmmm - 2 hours. I think these requests are going to be denied. Let them take it up in the appeal.


Well, basically, they are requesting a super-expert on every single piece of forensic evidence...the clasp, the knife, the footprints, the computer, the wounds to Meredith, the TOD...the LOT! My guess is that they are asking for all, in the hope they will get 'some' (ask high, you at least may receive 'something'). But, this requires a multiple of 'super-experts', not simply one, as they are each covered by different fields of expertise and each of them could find one way or another. And if they find the other way, the defence is truly screwed...they're going for shit or bust here.

The reason I think, is that they feel they can't afford the same standard of defence in the appeal as in the first degree trial...so therefore, if it goes to second degree they'll lose. So, they are throwing everything into the pot now. They've got balls, I'll give them that.

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


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

Offline cyyates


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am

Posts: 64

Location: U.S. Nebraska

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

One hour and counting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

AGI
The Court Says NO!
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

thx, Jools!
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Sorry I'm having a very slow conection today. I post the AGI in Italian for now.

The Court of Assizes: No need for anymore tests, court will resume 20 November when Manuela Comodi will start closing arguments.

(AGI) - Perugia, 9 ott. - Per la corte d'Assise di Perugia "non si ravvisa la necessita' di disporre ulteriori perizie" nell'ambito del processo che vede imputati Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito per l'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher. La Corte, quindi al termine di circa due ore di camera di consiglio ha respinto le richieste avanzate nel pomeriggio dalle difese e ha dichiarato chiusa l'istruttoria.
Ammessi, invece, i documenti prodotti dalle parti, ad esclusione della sentenza di condanna di Rudy Guede (il giovane ivoriano gia' condannato a 30 anni con rito abbreviato per l'omicidio di Meredith. Il processo e' stato quindi rinviato al 20 e 21 novembre prossimo quando iniziera' la requisitoria dei pubblici ministeri, Manuela Comodi e Giuliano Mignini. A seguire, quindi, le difese e le parti civili. La sentenza per Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito potrebbe arrivare i primi giorni di dicembre.
Sorry forgot the link.
http://www.agi.it/ultime-notizie-page/2 ... ve_perizie


Last edited by Jools on Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Thanks Jools :)

Could we have a link to that article?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Google translation of the article posted by Jools:

(AGI) - Perugia, October 9 - For the Court of Assizes of Perugia "does not see a need 'to have additional expertise" in the trial against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. The Court, then after about two hours of deliberations has rejected demands by the defenses in the afternoon and declared the proceedings closed.
Admitted, however, the documents produced by the parties, excluding the conviction of Rudy Guede (the young Ivorian already 'sentenced to 30 years with abbreviated rite for the murder of Meredith. The process and' was then postponed to 20 and 21 November this year when he starts' the indictment prosecutors, Manuela Comfortable and Giuliano Mignini. Following, then, the defense and the civil parties. The sentence for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could reach the first days of December.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Game Over

_________________
"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: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

superperizie

Mez, riprende il processo
Chiesta superperizia sul Dna

Riprende il processo per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher a carico di Raffaele Sollecito e di Amanda Knox. I due giovani, che si proclamano innocenti, sono entrambi presenti in aula. La difesa del giovane pugliese ha contestato l'orario di arrivo della polizia sul luogo del delitto, e richiesto una superperizia sul Dna, confermata anche dai legali di Amanda.


And a lot more: translation to follow.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:57 pm   Post subject: game over indeed   

Michael wrote:
The reason I think, is that they feel they can't afford the same standard of defence in the appeal as in the first degree trial...so therefore, if it goes to second degree they'll lose. So, they are throwing everything into the pot now. They've got balls, I'll give them that.


Since Preston's book went straight to the bargain basement, you're probably right.

I can't wait for Linda Byron's direct-from-Perugia report on KING5 tonight. Just one question: How can someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that she knows absolutely nothing about the case go to Perugia for today's closed door ruling and, not speaking the language among other things, do anything but make a fool of herself?

I guess she just couldn't let Kathi Goertzen upstage her as the "local Seattle news expert" on the case. Perhaps she can compare notes with Elizabeth Vargus of ABC's 20/20 who also went to Perugia at this time for a scoop and they can agree on a common story over wine and dinner with Mr. Knox at La Rosetta - something like "Amanda Knox Again Denied Her Rights." Candace ought to be with them - what happened?


Last edited by Fly by Night on Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

here's the link from Jool's article

http://www.agi.it/ultime-notizie-page/200910092131-cro-rom1122-meredith_corte_respinge_richieste_nuove_perizie
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

It's worse for them then that that. They've got even bigger problems in the appeal then that. Certain problems their lawyers have considered (hence the shit or bust appeal) and I'm SURE Marriott has considered it...

The Kerchers.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   



Thanks Mojo :)

_________________
"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: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
"Game Over"

Yes, the judges seem to have made up their minds.
No way they would reject the DNA results without another expert.
Even Cicero could not deliver a closing argument to achieve that.

So on first degree the pair will be convicted, I bet.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
Michael wrote:
"Game Over"

Yes, the judges seem to have made up their minds.
No way they would reject the DNA results without another expert.
Even Cicero could not deliver a closing argument to achieve that.

So on first degree the pair will be convicted, I bet.


And the second, because of what they will face...what nobody has considered...

_________________
"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: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From tgcom
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 2622.shtml

The judges noted that "the consultants brought to the attention of the Court a plurality of elements against which sees no need for further evidence."
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Translation of Jool's reference:

MEREDITH: COURT TURNS DOWN REQUESTS FOR NEW EXPERT INVESTIGATIONS

AGI Perugia October 9th, 2009.

The Court of the Assizes of Perugia "does not recognize the need to order any more expert reports" in the ambit of the trial in which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito are accused of the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher. Therefore at the end of about two hours of deliberations the court refused the requests put forward by the defence parties during the afternoon and declared the investigations closed.

On the other hand, documents produced by the parties were admitted, excluding the verdict condemning Rudy Guede (the young Ivorian already condemned to 30 years by fast-track trail for the murder of Meredith). The trial was therefore adjourned until November 20th and 21st when the summing up by the PMs Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini will begin. The defence and the civil claimants will then follow. The verdict for AK and Rs could arrive in the first days of December.


AGI
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Thanks very much for that Tiziano :)

_________________
"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: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Translation of Jool's reference:

MEREDITH: COURT TURNS DOWN REQUESTS FOR NEW EXPERT INVESTIGATIONS

AGI Perugia October 9th, 2009.

The Court of the Assizes of Perugia "does not recognize the need to order any more expert reports" in the ambit of the trial in which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito are accused of the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher. Therefore at the end of about two hours of deliberations the court refused the requests put forward by the defence parties during the afternoon and declared the investigations closed.

On the other hand, documents produced by the parties were admitted, excluding the verdict condemning Rudy Guede (the young Ivorian already condemned to 30 years by fast-track trail for the murder of Meredith). The trial was therefore adjourned until November 20th and 21st when the summing up by the PMs Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini will begin. The defence and the civil claimants will then follow. The verdict for AK and Rs could arrive in the first days of December.


AGI


Bravo Tiziano! wor-))
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

First Anglo article on the proceedings: SEATTLE TIMES

_________________
"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 rach


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:54 pm

Posts: 12

Location: new york

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Forgive me if this seems a silly question, but this decision to not allow the extra review by further experts, it was made by the jury hearing the case? ...consisting of the 2 judges and the laypersons, yes? the decision was not made by the presiding judge Massei (I believe that's his name) but was made by the jurists? Just want to be sure --
The date set for the start of closing arguments is November 20th...the day after Rudy's appeal begins..hmmmm Seems fate to me, well if Rudy grows a pair and tells the true story of that horrible night... p-))

it won't be long now Mr. and Mrs. Kercher cu-))
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From Nick Pisa:

‘After two hours consulting with the jury, Judge Giancarlo Massei ruled that he was rejecting the requests for a review.
He then set out a calendar for the summing up and sentence requests and said that he would retire to consider sentence and verdict on December 4.
As the judge read out his decision Knox, who earlier had been laughing and joking with guards, closed her eyes and looked upwards.
Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears as the decision would seem to indicate the court has already made up its mind.’

http://tinyurl.com/yffuet8
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Here is photo from today's session. According to daylife.com this is AK's uncle Mickey Knox. As Wilkens in the food blog used to try and find obscure meanings for the Italian names of those involved in the case, I wonder what he would make of this one. Mickey Knox sharing his name with a character from the film "Natural Born Killers". m-))


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Nick Pisa wrote:

"As the judge read out his decision Knox, who earlier had been laughing and joking with guards, closed her eyes and looked upwards.

Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears as the decision would seem to indicate the court has already made up its mind"

It seems that it has finally dawned on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito that they will be found guilty.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

rach wrote:
Forgive me if this seems a silly question, but this decision to not allow the extra review by further experts, it was made by the jury hearing the case? ...consisting of the 2 judges and the laypersons, yes? the decision was not made by the presiding judge Massei (I believe that's his name) but was made by the jurists? Just want to be sure --
The date set for the start of closing arguments is November 20th...the day after Rudy's appeal begins..hmmmm Seems fate to me, well if Rudy grows a pair and tells the true story of that horrible night... p-))

it won't be long now Mr. and Mrs. Kercher cu-))


Hi Rach. You seem a little confused :) Okay, it's not like our common law system where judge and jury are seperate...in the civil law (Italian) system, judge and jury are one. In effect, there is no jury, they are all judges, where the professional permanent judges (two in this case) play the role of 'chairmen' if you like among the judicial group. They are judges...there is no jury. The judges are the jury. In effect, it is like our system but with the jury and judges combined into one entity.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Nick Pisa wrote:

"As the judge read out his decision Knox, who earlier had been laughing and joking with guards, closed her eyes and looked upwards.

Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears as the decision would seem to indicate the court has already made up its mind"

It seems that it has finally dawned on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito that they will be found guilty.


I don't like to repeat myself, but...

Game Over

_________________
"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 rach


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:54 pm

Posts: 12

Location: new york

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Thanks Michael for clearing that up th-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The Smog:

Candace Dempsey wrote:
Posted by Candace Dempsey at 10/9/09 12:59 p.m.

The court has refused to provide a super-witness.
We will proceed to closing arguments.

Perugia, 21:31
MEREDITH: CORTE RESPINGE RICHIESTE NUOVE PERIZIE

Per la corte d'Assise di Perugia "non si ravvisa la necessita' di disporre ulteriori perizie" nell'ambito del processo che vede imputati Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito per l'omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher. La Corte, quindi al termine di circa due ore di camera di consiglio ha respinto le richieste avanzate nel pomeriggio dalle difese e ha dichiarato chiusa l'istruttoria.



THE SMOG


Oh come on Candace, tell them what it REALLY means.

_________________
"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 petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Game Over

Or as we say here: Aus die Maus!

But wait, wait, wait, the german "Bild" sees the defense jubilate because of Amandas imminent release (a natural consequence of their fantastic work) link. A masterpiece of journalism by Kerstin Becker pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject: THIS SUMS IT ALL UP   

Jools wrote:
From tgcom
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 2622.shtml

The judges noted that "the consultants brought to the attention of the Court a plurality of elements against which sees no need for further evidence."


Thanks Jools, that line pretty much sums things up.

A million dollars later for the Knox-Mellas families, I think it's clear that they haven't gotten the expected payback for such a handsome sum (a lot of other persons and organisations, however, sure have dipped into that pasta).

Maybe it's time for them and the entourages of the RS clan to do a reality check.

I personally feel a sense of relief and satisfaction (not that I know exactly what the judicial decision will be for each of the charges against each of these two suspects). It's a feeling similar to when you've been away on a long trip, and you finally initiate the last leg (I know that there are a number of levels of appeal ahead of us, whatever this decision is). Like when you're packing your suitcase for that last leg, thinking about finally getting back home.

In a sense, I think that even Amanda and Raffaele should feel some relief now, because if there is ever an opportunity to unfetter themselves from the legal strategy straightjacket of spending the evening together, smoking dope, gutting bloody fish and making love, it's now. Throw the million dollars overboard, now's the time to start talking straight.

I don't really care if it's now before this legal decision, or in their appeals. However, I would hope that for some respect to the Kerchers that it was sooner rather than later.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

the game may be over, Michael, but i expect the shenanigans to begin. the FOA wailing and gnashing of teeth and the sollecitos calling in any and all favors they may think they have......and then, of course, there's rudy to be heard. i wonder what he'll have to say. his lawyer must think he has some tactical advantage. i await the next developments. the fat lady hasn't sung yet, imho.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: THIS SUMS IT ALL UP   

Kermit wrote:
Jools wrote:
From tgcom
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 2622.shtml

The judges noted that "the consultants brought to the attention of the Court a plurality of elements against which sees no need for further evidence."


Thanks Jools, that line pretty much sums things up.

A million dollars later for the Knox-Mellas families, I think it's clear that they haven't gotten the expected payback for such a handsome sum (a lot of other persons and organisations, however, sure have dipped into that pasta).

Maybe it's time for them and the entourages of the RS clan to do a reality check.

I personally feel a sense of relief and satisfaction (not that I know exactly what the judicial decision will be for each of the charges against each of these two suspects). It's a feeling similar to when you've been away on a long trip, and you finally initiate the last leg (I know that there are a number of levels of appeal ahead of us, whatever this decision is). Like when you're packing your suitcase for that last leg, thinking about finally getting back home.

In a sense, I think that even Amanda and Raffaele should feel some relief now, because if there is ever an opportunity to unfetter themselves from the legal strategy straightjacket of spending the evening together, smoking dope, gutting bloody fish and making love, it's now. Throw the million dollars overboard, now's the time to start talking straight.

I don't really care if it's now before this legal decision, or in their appeals. However, I would hope that for some respect to the Kerchers that it was sooner rather than later.


Yes, that is a succinct summation. Even Frank Sfarzo noted that nearly every defense expert fell apart under cross-examination, so this should come as no real surprise.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

mojo wrote:
the game may be over, Michael, but i expect the shenanigans to begin. the FOA wailing and gnashing of teeth and the sollecitos calling in any and all favors they may think they have......and then, of course, there's rudy to be heard. i wonder what he'll have to say. his lawyer must think he has some tactical advantage. i await the next developments. the fat lady hasn't sung yet, imho.


Indeed Mojo...you know the score, that's exactly how it's going to go :)

But, there will be a spanner in the works...

_________________
"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 mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:

But, there will be a spanner in the works...


just the one?
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

superperizie

Mez, riprende il processo
Chiesta superperizia sul Dna

Riprende il processo per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher a carico di Raffaele Sollecito e di Amanda Knox. I due giovani, che si proclamano innocenti, sono entrambi presenti in aula. La difesa del giovane pugliese ha contestato l'orario di arrivo della polizia sul luogo del delitto, e richiesto una superperizia sul Dna, confermata anche dai legali di Amanda.



re: The trial of RS and AK for the murder of Meredith Kercher resumes.

As events have over taken this report, here is a summary of main points. BTW, they weren't asking for much!!




1. Luca Maori claims that the Postal Police arrived at 13.00 - 13.02 not at 12.48 on November 2nd, 2007 ("anomalous behaviour" of RS on that day therefore no longer an issue). Defence request to produce CD of film of parking CCTV already in court documentation agreed to by PM Manuela Comodi.

2. Bongiorno & Maori request impartial expert report on DNA on bra clasp, DNA on knife blade and on exact time of death of MK.

3. Bongiorno asks for new enquiry on compatibility of wounds and knife from Sollecito's flat, audio tests to ascertain possibility of hearing footsteps and scream inside Nara Capezzali's apartment.

4. Investigation of causes of damage to PCs belonging to RS, AK & MK.

5. Defence for Knox also requests investigation on knife, in particular whether there was accidental contamination and whether there was sufficient DNA to permit an analysis.

6. Dalla Vedova also asks for report on bare footprints on floor and on female shoe print on pillow. Also requests new examination of damaged PCs of RS, AK & MK.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Wot, they didn't want the bloody footprint on the bathmat examined again? ;-)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 - Daggers in their smiles   

Jools wrote:
AGI
The Court Says NO!

Wow, very impressive and speedy decision cl-). So the closing arguments will be heard in parallel with Rudy’s appeal. A “head-to head” contest with no winners, so to speak. Who will be the one to put the cat among the pigeons now? What is your prediction, Michael? ;)

By the way, no smiles in court today. I wonder why?

Maybe, because

“Where we are / There’s daggers in men’s smiles”...

“False face must hide what the false heart doth know.”

Behavior in general: “Look like the innocent flower, / But be the serpent under it.”

Attachment:
Amanda Knox in court - Oct.9, 2009.jpg

Amanda Knox seemed more humble and looked subdued as she entered the courtroom today. The stakes were indeed high.

Attachment:
Amanda Knox looking subdued.jpg

“But now I’m cabin’d, cribb'd, confin’d, bound in / To saucy doubts and fears”...

(All quotes are from Shakespeare's Macbeth)


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

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Game Over


cl-) cl-) cl-)

It's mul-)

So all that mop-) and hump-) and d-)) and beer-) and tou-) and p-)) and cu-)) , AK's bu-), RS's co-) and his nin-) (no knife emoticon) fixation without a single sor-) did them no good.

Mellas and Knoxes stop bricks-) and h-)) and start p-))


wg-)) Amanda

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
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 Oct 09, 2009 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Guermantes wrote:
Wow, very impressive and speedy decision cl-). So the closing arguments will be heard in parallel with Rudy’s appeal. A “head-to head” contest with no winners, so to speak. Who will be the one to put the cat among the pigeons now? What is your prediction, Michael?


Hi Guermantes :) Well, since you ask...I think Rudy's appeal will open on the 18th and be adjourned...I really don't see this head to head between trials taking place. As for who will speak first? None. We will get no layout of truth from any of them. All of them have everything to lose by telling the truth and moreover, they have been used to clinging to the life raft of denial for two years now. To switch to the truth means letting go of all they've known and doing so doesn't offer shallower waters. Their families haven't helped in that either. They won't let go. That's my opinion. Time may prove me wrong and I really hope it does.

_________________
"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 teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I saw this on another report.
What does this mean?

http://perugianshock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... l#comments

I'm so dense. Is it a joke? Thanks in advance!


Last edited by teacher on Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Here is one of Andrea Vogt's best reporting from court:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411007_knox09.html
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

teacher wrote:
I saw this on another report.
What does this mean?

http://perugianshock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... l#comments

I'm so dense. Is it a joke? Thanks in advance!



Teacher, how did you find this? :)

Quote:
How real life it convert me to become honest man
Hello,

Frank said: New blog, and I now start to tell truth, have stopped pay that why.
Please discuss in civil way.

This is what Mr Frank ought to have said or done, I don't know which, but this blog is a reaction to his awful, and actually, cruel blog, that he has used in such a weird way, nobody understood the guy. Still, e is yet another person who added to the damage and for that I will curse him until the day I die.


God bless Meredith Kercher forever and forever.

So many tears.
POSTED BY FRANCO UNEMPLOYED AT 09:10



Whenever you think there are no turns in this case left...

_________________
"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: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Actually, once the appeals process ends, and the two of them are facing a long, long stretch in prison, I think the truth will start to emerge.
For now sticking to the lies is in their own interest - who knows, maybe by some miracle they might yet be believed somehow, and might end up walking free.
Not a realistic hope, but hope dies hard.
But once all the legal avenues of escape have closed, it might become to their greater benefit to talk.

Amanda's family, even with their profit-taking behaviors all in place, can only realize so much financial benefit.
And there are their own needs to be met.
Eventually that cottage industry will shut down.
So, while in the short-term, playing the wronged innocent seems like the best choice to Amanda, I don't think that will remain the case.
From what I've read about the Italian penal system, they do not look kindly on a refusal to take responsibility for what a person has done.
If Amanda wants to take advantage of whatever give that system has, she'll have to play by their rules.
Once she's inside that systerm, looking at thirty years of imprisonment, she may reconsider what constitutes her own best interest.

Raphael too may have been hoping that somehow the water flowing uphill would wash the whole thing away, but it doesn't look as if that is going to happen.
And while he may keep quiet now, because that's what his family wants, he will be the one serving time.
And he too may decide at some point to put his own prospects for bettering his conditions in jail ahead of his family's concerns for their name.
Especially since no one much seems to believe his stories anyway.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Andrea Vogt wrote:

The Kercher family's attorney, Francesco Maresca of Florence, argued, however, that the court already had plenty of material to review. "We all know that in all trials of this nature there are different analyses of forensic evidence made by the various expert witnesses," he said. "The court must now consider the seriousness and integrity of the experts' testimony."

Candace Dempsey translated:
Here's some information on today's proceedings. Mr. Marcesca has made an unfortunate remark: we must not judge if the scientific experts erred.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
teacher wrote:
I saw this on another report.
What does this mean?

http://perugianshock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... l#comments

I'm so dense. Is it a joke? Thanks in advance!



Teacher, how did you find this? :)

Quote:
How real life it convert me to become honest man
Hello,

Frank said: New blog, and I now start to tell truth, have stopped pay that why.
Please discuss in civil way.

This is what Mr Frank ought to have said or done, I don't know which, but this blog is a reaction to his awful, and actually, cruel blog, that he has used in such a weird way, nobody understood the guy. Still, e is yet another person who added to the damage and for that I will curse him until the day I die.


God bless Meredith Kercher forever and forever.

So many tears.
POSTED BY FRANCO UNEMPLOYED AT 09:10



Whenever you think there are no turns in this case left...



It looks to me as if this is a parody. Frank's PS blog is still standing. No new entry on today's proceedings; comments still disabled for the previous entry. So far, four people have commented on the first post of the "new" Perugia Shock blog.

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

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Thank goodness! Let the closing arguments begin! I hope they do not delay Rudy's appeal! These FOAKers are becoming absolutely vicious! They are posting on the ABQ Examiner's blog using Kermit and Michael.........We're now conspiracy theorists...........I truly hope for justice for Meredith but, I will also be happy to see Candace and FOAKers get flushed down the pipe.......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
teacher wrote:
I saw this on another report.
What does this mean?

http://perugianshock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... l#comments

I'm so dense. Is it a joke? Thanks in advance!



Teacher, how did you find this? :)

Quote:
How real life it convert me to become honest man
Hello,

Frank said: New blog, and I now start to tell truth, have stopped pay that why.
Please discuss in civil way.

This is what Mr Frank ought to have said or done, I don't know which, but this blog is a reaction to his awful, and actually, cruel blog, that he has used in such a weird way, nobody understood the guy. Still, e is yet another person who added to the damage and for that I will curse him until the day I die.


God bless Meredith Kercher forever and forever.

So many tears.
POSTED BY FRANCO UNEMPLOYED AT 09:10



Whenever you think there are no turns in this case left...



It looks to me as if this is a parody. Frank's PS blog is still standing. No new entry on today's proceedings; comments still disabled for the previous entry. So far, four people have commented on the first post of the "new" Perugia Shock blog.


It's gotta be a joke. Frank doesn't have that much decency to call upon IMHO. I wonder what he makes of today's news...heh heh heh...

Sense endgame approaching. It feels good...

I read Edda's 'heartbreaking and moving' interview about how skint they are and what a strain it has all been and it did occur to me what a tragedy this is for those other kids of hers. It's a difficult one, how far you sacrifice for one child to the detriment of the others. Difficult call. But those other girls lives are blighted, not just by their parents' (no doubt) impending bankruptcy but by association. I do believe AK is going to go down for this. They have a whole 30 years of denial to go through. They will never believe it. They'll just wait.

Do Italian prisoners get out after serving 2.5 seconds of their life terms, like in the UK? Anyone?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skep wrote:
It looks to me as if this is a parody. Frank's PS blog is still standing. No new entry on today's proceedings; comments still disabled for the previous entry. So far, four people have commented on the first post of the "new" Perugia Shock blog.


Of course it is.

Somehow, I don't think Frank will see the funny side...

Which makes it all the more amusing :)

_________________
"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 Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Barbie Nadeau at the Daily Beast

www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories ... and-alone/
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 Oct 10, 2009 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

THE bARD wrote:
It's gotta be a joke. Frank doesn't have that much decency to call upon IMHO. I wonder what he makes of today's news...heh heh heh...

Sense endgame approaching. It feels good...

I read Edda's 'heartbreaking and moving' interview about how skint they are and what a strain it has all been and it did occur to me what a tragedy this is for those other kids of hers. It's a difficult one, how far you sacrifice for one child to the detriment of the others. Difficult call. But those other girls lives are blighted, not just by their parents' (no doubt) impending bankruptcy but by association. I do believe AK is going to go down for this. They have a whole 30 years of denial to go through. They will never believe it. They'll just wait.

Do Italian prisoners get out after serving 2.5 seconds of their life terms, like in the UK? Anyone?


Hi Bard :) It is a joke, but somehow I suspect the articles and comments appearing on the spoof site will be more intelligent and accurate then those on Frank's. Time will tell, but that's my hunch.

As for Edda, she's still in emotional blackmail territory...going from where she was at the beginning - 'look, I'm crying on camera, feel sorry for me' to 'Look, we're broke, feel sorry for us'. It's a case of 'same shit, different day'.

_________________
"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: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

OT (not entirely)

After Obama post-modern Nobel prize (for a peace to come),
a remind about Italy and justice, for the future

TIMES articles, abput Berlusconi and the Constitutionsl Court
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865202.ece

Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865410.ece


Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865094.ece


an analysis piece (too optimistic imho):
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865508.ece
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Sorry,
wrong command ;)

TIMES articles

1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865202.ece
2. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865410.ece

3. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865094.ece

analysis piece (too optimistic imho):

4. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6865508.ece
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The Smog:

Quote:
Posted by sirius02 at 10/9/09 5:01 p.m.

TD,

I agree with your statement regarding Rudy's future testimony. It should have no relevance to AK's and RS's trial. In fact, since he did not testify, there was no chance of a cross examination by defense attorneys who would have ripped him apart with his multiple stories. If his statements during the appeals trial are used against the defendant, it will represent a huge miscarriage of justice.



THE SMOG

Good point. But let me ask, did Rudy or his lawyers have the chance to cross examine Amanda and Raffaele or challenge their lawyers when they were trying to pin the whole crime on Rudy in their trial? Did you make a fuss about that? No? then why the fuss when it's the other way around? Again...clearly there are particular rules for certain (white) folks and another set for others (the black folks).

_________________
"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 teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael, if you are still wanting to know where I found that link, it was posted in the comments section of the Newsweek article by Nadeau.

Here is the comment time in case you want to go look at it.

Posted By: Doc John @ 10/09/2009 12:58:35 PM
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Bess wrote:

I've read this article and it seems to me that Barbie Latza Nadeau has a complete different impression than I do. If Judge Massei ruled against the super-expert, I understand that the evidence is conclusive enough to make a decision. After all I've read, I believe there is no doubt that the prosecution had a strong case and the defence was weak. I might be wrong, but that was clearly my impression. Lots of accusations of behalf of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and no proof for anything. A weak defence in my point of view.

Quote:
The denial of an independent review does not necessarily mean the judge assumes guilt. But it is a clear sign that he wants to wind this trial up as soon as possible.

I don't know how his decision against a super-expert can possibly be evaluated like that. Where is there any indication that he wants to 'wind this trial up as soon as possible'? I understand his decision was made because he didn't need a super-expert, not to save time!


Quote:
Defense lawyers did not show disappointment. “It is positive,” said Luca Maori, attorney for Sollecito, who cried in the courtroom upon hearing the news. “It means the judge wants to wrap up this case as soon as possible. It is not necessarily bad news.”

I wonder why would Raffaele Sollecito cry in court? He must have been so happy to get his request denied, or what? Difficult to believe. The only reason he cried is because he thinks that the 'twist-the-facts-and-dispute-the-evidence-game' is over. Bad for him. Why does he know that? Because his lawyers possibly made very clear to him that the super-expert was his last remaining hope to get a not-guilty verdict. If Luca Maori thinks it is a good sign her request was denied, I wonder why she even filed a request?


Quote:
What this means for Knox and Sollecito is anyone’s guess. The two are charged with sexual assault, murder, staging a crime, and theft. Knox is charged additionally with false accusation for accusing Patrick Lumumba of Kercher’s murder. They could be convicted of any or all of those crimes. They face life in prison. But in Italy, convictions are automatically appealed and those close to this case have suggested they have a good chance at winning an appeal.

I just can't see it. Who said they would have a good change at winning an appeal? Never heard or read that someone made a remark about that.

I find Barbie Nadeau's conclusions hard to swallow.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:33 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

teacher wrote:
Michael, if you are still wanting to know where I found that link, it was posted in the comments section of the Newsweek article by Nadeau.

Here is the comment time in case you want to go look at it.

Posted By: Doc John @ 10/09/2009 12:58:35 PM


When I read the faux bad English of the inaugural entry, I thought immediately of TLC, aka Doc John. Well done!

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:35 am   Post subject: Edda, Edda, Edda...   

Tara wrote:
More with Edda Mellas on THE EARLY SHOW.

Edda states "True Justice" for Amanda will probably come in the appeal process.

Excuse me Edda, but don't you mean TRUE JUSTICE FOR MEREDITH KERCHER? The lack of compassion for the real victim is appalling. sp-))


That is a really bizzare interview. Apart from the stated assumption that this case hinges entirely on "raising a reasonable doubt", Edda herself offers the following expert observations:

"In Italy just because you're innocent you're not found innocent, normally - true justice isn't found until the appeal process"

"The evidence shows Amanda was not involved"

"The DNA is terrible and wouldn't be allowed in any US court - it doesn't hold up to any standards and does not point to Amanda at all"


Last edited by Fly by Night on Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Nell wrote:
Quote:
What this means for Knox and Sollecito is anyone’s guess. The two are charged with sexual assault, murder, staging a crime, and theft. Knox is charged additionally with false accusation for accusing Patrick Lumumba of Kercher’s murder. They could be convicted of any or all of those crimes. They face life in prison. But in Italy, convictions are automatically appealed and those close to this case have suggested they have a good chance at winning an appeal.

I just can't see it. Who said they would have a good change at winning an appeal? Never heard or read that someone made a remark about that.

I find Barbie Nadeau's conclusions hard to swallow.


Andrea Vogt expresses it differently in her last article:
Quote:
Nonetheless many court observers expressed surprise at the fact that the jury chose to not review even a single element of the controversial forensic evidence. For Knox, however, the complete rejection of a third-party review could have a silver lining -- effectively positioning her better for an eventual appeal.


Could! Could be or maybe not. In my opinion Andrea's assumption is correct and Barbie's is not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: Edda, Edda, Edda...   

Fly by Night wrote:
Tara wrote:
More with Edda Mellas on THE EARLY SHOW.

Edda states "True Justice" for Amanda will probably come in the appeal process.

Excuse me Edda, but don't you mean TRUE JUSTICE FOR MEREDITH KERCHER? The lack of compassion for the real victim is appalling. sp-))


That is a really bizzare interview. Apart from the stated assumption that this case hinges entirely on "raising a reasonable doubt", Edda herself offers the following expert observations:

"In Italy just because you're innocent you're not found innocent, normally - true justice isn't found until the appeal process"

"The evidence shows Amanda was not involved"

"The DNA is terrible and wouldn't be allowed in any US court - it doesn't hold up to any standards and does not point to Amanda at all"


Not only does the video not load with my connection - I am almost happy I don't have to watch it! Sounds like same old, same old. "The DNA is terrible and wouldn't be allowed in any US court - it doesn't hold up to any standards and does not point to Amanda at all" - That is outrages. Edda Mellas delicate reporting as usual.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"The wheels of justice turn exceedingly slow, yet they grind exceedingly fine."

Yes, fine. The jury decided today that they have more than enough evidence NOW to convict the two lovebirds. Protocol prevents the jury from saying so.... but actions speak louder than words. The jury needs no more "impartial expert" evidence precisely because the police scientific evidence is itself impartial and expert.

"Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears as the decision would seem to indicate the court has already made up its mind". (Nick Pisa in Perugia, SkyNews)

Some sleepless nights, more tears of self-pity, now for Amanda and Raffaele. Justice shall have her way. Rest in peace Meredith.


//////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:24 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

After hiding out for a few days, the real Frank has a new post up. Talk about trying to find a silver lining in every storm cloud.

Watched ABC’s Nightline tonight. That was a real treat. Elizabeth Vargas interviewed those who know Amanda best. Yes; Kurt, Edna, Deanna, Ashley, and Elaine. They even showed a glance of the family dogs. They didn’t talk to Chris, although they had him in one scene lugging Edna’s luggage around at an airport.
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:35 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

In the grand scheme of things it is not right...But I am happy!!!

Love to the Kerchers!
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:16 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears "

If he is innocent he should have taken the stand. It's that simple.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:45 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears "

If he is innocent he should have taken the stand. It's that simple.


If Raffaele Sollecito was innocent, he would have had one credible alibi and told the truth. If he was innocent, his DNA wouldn't have been on a tiny piece of Meredith's underwear and his bloody footprint wouldn't have been on the blue bathmat.

Judging by the reactions of Knox and Sollecito to the news that there wouldn't be an independent review of the forensic evidence, it seems that they and their lawyers both fully expected one.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:46 am   Post subject: HUIDA HACIA DELANTE   

At this point I'm most interested in the detail of Massei's verdict report, which I hope will be produced in as detailed and structured and explained a manner as in Rudy's short-track trial report written by Judge Micheli.

At the earliest, I guess we won't see it until the end of the year.

It is in such a document where we will encounter the relationships and the weight assigned to the most significant evidence. On the discussion boards we talk alot about evidence which seems important to us (and it probably is quite important). However, I'm sure that Massei will find importance as well in some of the subtler evidence, as part of the overall story.

Yes, Raffaele's tears are not the tears of the brave and strong. And Amanda's closed eyes aren't the eyes of a soul-searching person.

The Entourage has many people with experience in finance. "Return-On-Investment" is an old finance concept. Of course, the return can come in many categories .... in this case: freedom for a suspect or reduction of a potential jail term, public family image, suspect's public image, financial stability, high moral ground, etc. For all the effort and money spent going down the particular road they have followed, the results have not provided any significant "return" in any of those categories, and in fact have probably given negative results.

Somebody / some persons made some bad investment decisions.

In Spanish there's a good expression: "huida hacia delante", literally, escaping forward (down the same road). The sense is that if you apply certain efforts to resolve a situation, they'll only push you further into that same situation.

Well, The Entourage is helping Amanda huir hacia delante.

Curt, Edda, why don't you pay Marriott's last bill and start thinking about a different road?
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

No wonder the pair looked unhappy.
The only way I can read the decision is that it means that all their lawyers' efforts to confuse the forensic evidence didn't manage to muddy the waters.
They had their opportunity - and they used it - to draw attention to every conceivable flaw, and then some.
But the whole sideshow evidentally was not enough that the evidence needs any further explication.
I can see no silver lining here for the defence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:07 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Nick Pisa seems to think that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be found guilty:

"As the judge read out his decision Knox, who earlier had been laughing and joking with guards, closed her eyes and looked upwards.
Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears as the decision would seem to indicate the court has already made up its mind over their guilt." (Nick Pisa, The Daily Mail).
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:50 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
There will be no super expert. So he decided the court of assizes, after two hours of deliberations. The judges apparently believe that he had gutted out all the problems of the yellow of the death of Meredith. Everything like a script. The hearing yesterday was formally dedicated to the application of a range of expertise, but in essence was a further, final attack against the hypothesis accusation. The studies requested, under Article 507, focused on the DNA (especially on the hook of the bra, recovered after 46 days at the scene and seized the knife in Sollecito's house). All also to highlight those that would be the anomalies of police activities, beginning with the Scientific. The blade of the knife the defense argued that the biological substance was too low (in English "too low") to provide scientific results. "For eight months Raffaele Sollecito - recalled a passage in Maori - remained in prison because the imprint of a shoe found at the murder scene had been given to Nike's footwear. Then it was shown that the shoes belonged to the accused Rudy Guede . An expert was called for ( "By choosing a college expert preferably formed with the greatest Italian experts in the field" - stated the Bongiorno) also determine the time of the death of me, the compatibility of the knife seized with the wounds on the body of poor victim and to understand, if possible, if the injuries may have been inflicted by a single killer or a group of assassins. Then she was asked - again call on the defense - a skill audiometry to test the credibility of the story Nara Capezzali who claims to have heard in the night, a scream come from the hamlet of via della Pergola 7 (as it were the cry of Poor Meredith suffered the neck with a knife. Finally a report was sought to ascertain the causes that led to shock the hard drives of computers of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Among the documents requested, also to bring forward chat in the process of Rudy Guede. "The chat between the text and then-fugitive James Benedetti Rudy Guede, 19 November 2007 - has motivated the lawyer Maori - done in the presence of police, clarifies a number of issues between including the fact that the assailant described dall'ivoriano is "dark brown hair" (and therefore could not be Raffaele Sollecito) and that the same Ivorian talks about breaking the window of Romanelli and until then the newspapers talked of mistakenly breaking the window of his room Mez. She knew because he was present. "The defense of Knox has asked to hear a prisoner who has sent several letters to the president of the court given the role of instigator of the murder house raids. Requests are both the prosecutor objected, both supporters of the civil parties. And if Bongiorno had stressed that the requests were "the least we could ask," the prosecutor replied in a very determined and with that Mignini with comfort. "The material collected during the hearing of oral argument is more than enough. There is no need to obtain new evidence, "argued Mignini. and Dr. Handy:" None of the claims is supported by the need discriminating element at the base of a request under Article 507 ". And the coroner's report?" It 'was carried out with the probative by highly qualified "


Google translation of this story in the CU by Elio Clero Bertoldi
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Dates:

Quote:
...the Court has fixed the indictment of MP for 20 and 21 November, that the civil parties on 27 and 28 November and the defensive speeches on 30 and 31 and to follow every day until 4 December. The sentence 'then scheduled for that date or the next day...


From a google translation of this story by ASCA
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: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:10 pm   Post subject: Different worlds, different readerships   

In Andrea Vogt’s report ([ SeatlePI ]) about the court’s refusal to grant a request for a definitive review of the forensic evidence, she pointed out that

The judge was careful to note that the jury's decision did not indicate a presumption of guilt and left open the possibility that the court could call for additional review of evidence after closing arguments and before a verdict.

Aside from the usual English-language practice of the word jury being used, understandably, as the nearest English equivalent to the concept of the judicial collegium constituting the Bench of the Court of Assizes (her intended audience is not a legal one, after all), that paragraph is jarringly out of tune with the one following:

Nonetheless many court observers expressed surprise at the fact that the jury chose to not review even a single element of the controversial forensic evidence.


I must have been too long in EncyclopediaLand (capital ResearchCity, just south of Lookitup), because that sentence, to me, read like this:

Nonetheless many court observers [how many? two? three? more? (vague generality)] expressed surprise at the fact that the jury chose [how? why? on a whim, was it? (implies non-rationality, emotionalism)] to not review even a single element [not even just one? even a little one? (implied obstinancy)] of the controversial [ who says it is controversial? the loudest megaphone? Foghorn Leghorn? (sensationalism, emotionalism)] forensic evidence.


The weasel words just stood out a tad too much when contrasted to the preceding paragraph.

Perhaps something like this was meant to be described (and this is pure conjecture):

Nonetheless, both sets of accuseds’ supporters had been hoping (hoping beyond hope?) and wishing (wishing with all their might?) that the court would grant access to a second opinion on the evidence, and were disappointed when it didn’t see a need to.


But that makes it transparent that the topic of the sentence is obvious and, indeed, does not require to be specially reported: of course supporters of the accused will be disappointed when their requests are denied. Likewise, when things go well, supporters will be glad – e.g., like what happened when Lumumba was released and absolved of all charges. Of course they were happy. The sun rises, the sun sets. It’s not news (usually).

Note: journalists losing a bet also count as belonging to the “many court observers expressed surprise” group :) caveat lector – reader beware!.

What are weasel words? They are “words and phrases that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication ([ Wikipedia ]); “Ambiguous or quibbling speech” ([ The Phrase Finder ]).

Like its fellow weasel-words—some, few, often, seems, likely, moremany serves writers who haven't found the data to support their argument. A light splash of weasel-words in a news story is acceptable if only because journalism is not an exact science and deadlines must be observed.

“Weasel-Words Rip My Flesh! Spotting a bogus trend story on Page One of today's New York Times” by Jack Shafer, where he asks, “How many "many's" are too many for one news story?”[ Slate ] 20 September 2005


Andrea Vogt is a journalist.

Fair enough.

She’s a good one and, when all is said and done, has been doing quite well, given all pressures, temptations and deadlines, and so on.
It’s just that I’ve been in OtherSpace too long and had to change mental gears when reading her article while having fish for dinner.


And, also, the bit about being patted on the back could be construed by someone unable to read emotions in others as an “assault”, and therefore being under “pressure”:
Knox glanced worriedly at her lawyers, who patted her on the back and insisted confidently after the hearing that the outcome was not unexpected

But that’s by the bye (and possibly a potential point for appeal, perhaps?).
Top Profile 

Offline mylady007


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am

Posts: 50

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Maybe now someone will speak up. Maybe once all hope of freedom is lost - someone will want to free their conscience.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Dates:

Quote:
...the Court has fixed the indictment of MP for 20 and 21 November, that the civil parties on 27 and 28 November and the defensive speeches on 30 and 31 and to follow every day until 4 December. The sentence 'then scheduled for that date or the next day...


From a google translation of this story by ASCA

I am not Italian but I think even they don't have 31 days in November :)
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
It's worse for them then that that. They've got even bigger problems in the appeal then that. Certain problems their lawyers have considered (hence the shit or bust appeal) and I'm SURE Marriott has considered it...

The Kerchers.
,

Hi Michael, what do you mean?

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's worse for them then that that. They've got even bigger problems in the appeal then that. Certain problems their lawyers have considered (hence the shit or bust appeal) and I'm SURE Marriott has considered it...

The Kerchers.
,

Hi Michael, what do you mean?


I know what Michael means.

The Kerchers have remained silent throughout this process, they have said they will wait for the decision of the court.

But we can get an inkling of their feelings from the statements made, and the court stance taken, by their attorney Maresca.

A guilty verdict will let them off the leash.


Last edited by Brian S. on Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:24 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: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's worse for them then that that. They've got even bigger problems in the appeal then that. Certain problems their lawyers have considered (hence the shit or bust appeal) and I'm SURE Marriott has considered it...

The Kerchers.
,

Hi Michael, what do you mean?



Hi Jhansigirl,

What I mean is this. And I don't want to pre-empt the Kerchers here "but" - For two years now, the Kerchers have kept more or less completely silent, despite desperate media attempts to get regular interviews. The media hates voids, so this has caused them to fill that void by courting the Knox/Mellas family instead. The Kerchers have kept silent in order to allow justice to take its course and to retain dignity and decorum. If Knox and Sollecito are convicted they can then break that silence and take the stage. They will never be as vocal as the Knox's were but the fact they are the family of the victim means they have the moral power, the fact they've kept quiet for so long has raised their dignity and respect for them to astronmical levels, plus the media are depserate to hear from them...That's power! Moreover, the media and public alike are sick of the Knox/Mellas family, we've heard from them non-stop for two years ...they've become 'cheap'. Therefore, when the Kerchers finally break their silence it will have tremendous power and the Knox's will just be swept away into oblivion. In short, the Knox's power to dominate and con the public and media and influence trial/appeal proceedings, which they've wielded like a weapon, will be completely nullified in a stroke and from that point they'll be impotent, Marriott or no Marriott. Do you see where I'm coming from?

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: Different worlds, different readerships   

Catnip wrote:
Nonetheless many court observers [how many? two? three? more? (vague generality)] expressed surprise at the fact that the jury chose [how? why? on a whim, was it? (implies non-rationality, emotionalism)] to not review even a single element [not even just one? even a little one? (implied obstinancy)] of the controversial [ who says it is controversial? the loudest megaphone? Foghorn Leghorn? (sensationalism, emotionalism)] forensic evidence.


Hi Catnip,

At times, Andrea Vogt has given the impression that the trial has been an evenly fought contest and the verdict could go either way. I completely disagree on both counts. It is crystal clear that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of murdering Meredith. It seems that the two judges and the six members of the jury agree.

The simple truth is the DNA on the blade of the knife sequestered from Sollecito's apartment is a match to Meredith's DNA. If there had been more DNA to perform a second DNA test, the result would have been exactly the same. As Dr. Stefanoni pointed out, one DNA test can be enough to positively identify someone's DNA.

The statistical probability of the double DNA knife and Meredith's tiny bra clasp being contaminated by Meredith's and Sollecito's DNA must be millions to one. You don't have to be a forensic expert to understand that.

The defence's forensic experts merely stated at the trial that contamination was theoretically possible. They didn't prove that contamination had occurred. Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it doe not exist. It's also worth bearing in my mind that there has been no contamination in Dr. Stefanoni laboratory for at least the last seven years.

Besides, the forensic evidence will not be viewed in isolation from the rest of the evidence. The fact that Knox and Sollecito lied through their teeth from the very beginning will make the judges and jury more inclined to believe Dr. Stefanoni rather than some mercenary forensic experts.

I also think that Andrea Vogt underestimates just how damning the circumstantial evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is. If Knox and Sollecito were innocent all they had to do was tell the truth and have a credible alibi. Knox and Sollecito both lied repeatedly and quite deliberately before 5 November. There is only one plausible explanation for these lies: they were involved in Meredith's murder.

Knox and Sollecito further implicated themselves by claiming they couldn't remember very much about night Meredith was murdered because they were suffering cannabis-induced amnesia. Firstly, short-term use of cannabis doesn't cause people to forget whole chunks of an evening. Secondly, it was very telling that they couldn't remember very much about what they were doing the time Meredith was attacked and murdered. Their versions of what they could remember didn't even match up.

When you add their highly unusual and suspicious mobile phone activity on the night of the murder to the equation, the circumstantial evidence looks even more damning.

I'm surprised that Andrea Vogt and Anne Wise thought there would be an independent review of the forensic evidence. It seems the American press corps was absolutely certain that there would be an independent forensic review.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

IL MESSAGGERO
By ITALO CARMIGNANI AND VANNA UGOLINI.

The trial for the Kercher murder/ The Court rejected all claims by the defense of Amanda and Raffaele.

Meredith, does not require ‘superperizie’

President Massei: What has been acquired for the knife and bra clasp is sufficient.

PERUGIA- With a low voice, but firm, the President of the Court standing in the silence of a courtroom of bright neon, Giancarlo Massei, closes all roads of the defenses in the loudest process ever passed through these parts, the one for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Massei does so with almost an hour in advance of the deadline announced at around eight in the evening and shows a point of no return in the process. Not only because now the ball is on the prosecution indictment, even that will start only in a month, but for that firm determination to clear any doubt, even the most legitimate. For judges in fact “the consultants brought to the attention of the Court a plurality of elements against which sees no need for further evidence”.

A tough decision, discussed with the tears of Raffaele Sollecito, the ‘barese’ boyfriend of Amanda Knox, accused together with the American from Seattle of the crime. And while he weeps with his defenders next to Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori who all afternoon had explained the need for further investigation on the scientific evidence, her, Amanda, (assisted by lawyer Luciano Ghirga) who yesterday received the courtroom visit of her uncle, Mickey Knox, looks around in amazement.

Nothing further on investigation, then.
Regarding Raffaele's DNA on the hook of Meredith’s bra, which for defense was deposited in an accidental way after a series of surveys conducted by the scientific without excessive caution. Or even that amount less than minimum of Amanda Knox DNA on the handle from the kitchen knife with Mez's DNA on the blade, which for the American’s defense is so low in substance it can not constitute an all round evidence.
Knife and hook, just to mention the most discussed and perhaps the most decisive. The defense had attacked in many parts of the accusatory stage supporting a doubt based on the method used for the investigations. Massei returned full confidence, not to the defense accusation, but as to what is already acquired and established. Uncertainties included. In a month the indictment, the first of December the ruling.
-----
Tears and sighs, in courtroom silent falls. Raffaele’s wet eyes, Amanda’s lost stare. And Francesco Sollecito sends SMS.

The rejection of a series of evaluations, means that the court has a clear idea of what has been discussed in hearing debates but last night the decision weighed almost as a guilty verdict.

Upon the words of Judge Giancarlo Massei, President of the Court of Assizes, Raffaele Sollecito bowed his head, became red, his eyes moist and the effort to hold back tears. Amanda, however, looked around, to meet the eyes of her defenders (yesterday from America the only family was the uncle, Micky, her father’s brother) then she narrowed her eyes, momentarily, as if she had lost the strength to look ahead.

Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele's father remains aloof and immediately sent a text message home to explain that all requests for expert opinions were rejected. Does not cross eyes with his son, will greet him in the waiting room away from TV cameras and photo cameras.

All defense lawyers hoped, that the court, in at least some, among the flurry of requests for evaluations and super-evaluation requests, it would grant at least some. Instead, the commitment of the defenses was lost. Though after the sense of defeat, is the awareness that now the countdown to the verdict has begun, now that all of the arrows have been launched and what's done is done, revealing the capacity of reaction from the lawyers and the neutral reading of what in fact happened:
“This decision (said lawyer Luca Maori) means only that the court has a clear idea that what we brought to the trial made them formed a precise conviction, and that’s why they don’t require other elements to decide. Considering the work we did this can be considered favorable”.

“The fact remains (said the lawyer Maria Del Grosso for Knox) however in their hands will be an official document that says that DNA found on the knife, from which the genetic profile of Meredith was extracted, was not in sufficient quantity to be able to establish it. Let's see how they address this point.”

What is certain is that family members, even in the wake of what happened in Garlasco, where the expert advice requested by the court are going in favor of the only accused, thought that the court would grant some more leeway. “Better to wait two months than to reach a decision with all these doubts” said Curt Knox.
The court evidently did not. Nor is it a matter of time since, however, the discussion was postponed to November 20 without being required by any party so long to prepare.
The ruling is expected by the first week of December.
http://tinyurl.com/ylrefld


Last edited by Jools on Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Ah :idea: , the penny drops..

Thank you Michael and Brian S.

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
The Court rejected all claims by the defense of Amanda and Raffaele.
Meredith, does not require ‘superperizie’
President Massei: What has been acquired for the knife and bra clasp is sufficient.


Despite the millions for Marriott and minions, and despite Papa Sollecito's Political Pull and Pals............Water continues to roll *downhill*


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From Il Messaggero there is an interview with a US judge, Thomas Moorhead who is on holiday in Perugia and yesterday was sitting in court in the public area. (sorry no time to translate, have to go out now, will try later if no one has done the translation yet)

Quote:
"IN VACANZA A PERUGIA IL GIUDICE THOMAS MOORHEAD DA IERI E’ SEDUTO IN AULA TRA IL PUBBLICO."
di LUIGI FOGLIETTI
'E’ arrivato dal Colorado anche per seguire il processo ad Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito e, in corte d’Assise si é seduto sulla prima fila di sedie destinate al pubblico. Si chiama R.Thomas Moorhead ed é un giudice della Corte Distrettuale di Eagle. Nella sua carriera da magistrato iniziata venticinque anni fa con sette da pubblico ministero e undici da giudice ha avuto a che fare anche con casi di omicidio. Nei due più recenti gli imputati sono risultati colpevoli e lui dopo il pronunciamento della giuria ha condannato i due assassini all’ergastolo. Non va dimenticato che in Colorado é in vigore la pena di morte con iniezione letale.
Giudice Moorhead, prima udienza alla quale assiste?
«Prima udienza per questo processo, ma prima udienza in assoluto in un tribunale italiano».
Che impressioni ne ha tratto?«C’é molto rispetto tra i rappresentanti delle parti, ma non molto dissimile da quello che accadrebbe negli Stati Uniti anche se a prima vista sembrerebbe che le procedure qui siano molto articolate, molto complesse e tanto rituali. Certo é che quello che colpisce molto é la scenografia, tutti togati e anche i luoghi tutti molto antichi, da noi le aule sono molto diverse».
Questo processo celebrato in America avrebbe avuto gli stessi tempi?
«Prima di tutto per un crimine di questa natura non si sarebbe fatto un processo insieme. Il conseguente processo civile, infatti, da noi non potrebbe iniziare fino a che tutte le parti penali non siano concluse».
Prima di venire in Italia aveva seguito il processo?
«Si attraverso lo speciale della Cbs, gli articoli del Newsweek e del New York Times, ma più da cittadino che da magistrato».
S’é fatto una idea di quello che é accaduto?
«In un certo senso, abbastanza in generale, ho colto l’atmosfera del tribunale, i comportamenti delle parti, con le difficoltà legate alla scarsa conoscenza della lingua italiana».
E dei due imputati?
«Non ho ancora una opinione non ho sufficienti elementi per potere esprimere un giudizio».
Questo é un processo indiziario negli Stati Uniti come si svolgerebbe?
«In America prove indiziarie e prove effettive valgono tutte».
Da voi tra magistratura e organi di polizia c’è rapporto stretto di collaborazione?
«Generalmente parlando sì»."


(My translation)

From Colorado arrived to follow the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and, in Court of Assizes, sat on the front row of chairs available for the public. His name is R. Thomas Moorhead and is a judge of the District Court of Eagle. In his career as a magistrate, began twenty-five years ago with seven years as a prosecutor and eleven as a judge has had to deal with cases of murder. In the last two most recent, the suspects were found guilty and him after the verdict of the jury convicted the two killers to life imprisonment. Not to forget that Colorado has in effect the death penalty by lethal injection.

Judge Moorhead, is this the first hearing you attend?
“First time for this process, even absolutely first hearing ever in an Italian court”.

What impression did you draw?
“There is a lot of respect between representatives of the parties, but not much dissimilar to what would happen in the United States even though at first glance it would seem that the procedures here are very articulate, very complex and so customary. Certainly what is very striking is the scenery, all gowned and also the place, everything very old, the court rooms we have are very different”.

This trial if held in America would have taken the same time?
“First of all for a crime of this nature, a together trial would not have been done. The ensuing civil trial, in fact, could not start until all the criminal parts had concluded”.

Before coming to Italy, had you followed the process?
“Yes, through the CBS special, the articles in Newsweek and The New York Times, but more as an individual citizen than a magistrate”.

Do you have an idea on what happened?
“In a sense, quite generally, I caught the atmosphere of the court, the conduct of the parties, with the difficulties associated with the poor knowledge of Italian.”

And of the two defendants?
“I still don’t have an opinion, I don’t have sufficient evidence to be able to express an opinion”.

This is a circumstantial process in the United States how would it be done?
“In America circumstantial evidence and actual evidence are all valid”.

In your system, is there a close relationship of collaboration between the magistrate and police-body?
“Generally speaking yes”.


Last edited by Jools on Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Did y'all notice that Frank called his friend Chris's wife "Edna" twice in the above quote from his blog?!
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

teacher wrote:
Did y'all notice that Frank called his friend Chris's wife "Edna" twice in the above quote from his blog?!


i lol'ed. fairly indicative of the grasp of fact over there, doncha' think?
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:19 pm   Post subject: THE MID-ATLANTIC GOLF COURSE WILL BE NEXT   

I have to admit that I do get a little upset when I see Edda and Curt get on ABC, CBS and NBC (in addition to the magazines, etc.) and cry about how many millions they have spent on Dave Marriott, lawyers, and travelling.

No doubt they have spent a bundle. But why do they have to make the US public (the rest of the world doesn't care) dry their tears with stories of abject poverty, when they obviously continue to live their lives.

Here's Curt, last January, coming in third (with his brother-in-law) in a golf championship at the West Seattle Golf Club. Okay, it's not the Ryder Cup, but it's not the sort of image of someone who only has one shirt left.

((BTW, does Chris Mellas still have his fishing boat?))

Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 - Dr Handy   

Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
"The defense of Knox has asked to hear a prisoner who has sent several letters to the president of the court given the role of instigator of the murder house raids. Requests are both the prosecutor objected, both supporters of the civil parties. And if Bongiorno had stressed that the requests were "the least we could ask," the prosecutor replied in a very determined and with that Mignini with comfort. "The material collected during the hearing of oral argument is more than enough. There is no need to obtain new evidence, "argued Mignini. and Dr. Handy:" None of the claims is supported by the need discriminating element at the base of a request under Article 507 ". And the coroner's report?" It 'was carried out with the probative by highly qualified "


Google translation of this story in the CU by Elio Clero Bertoldi

Why would Knox’s defence team want to question a prisoner about the two break-ins at the cottage? To highlight potential problems in the police investigation and call the evidence handling “alarming”? I thought that theory - or, rather, legend, was shot full of holes long ago (Believe it or not, I'm still enjoying Kermit's powerpoint on the subject of break-ins :D).

And who is Dr. Handy? :)
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Dr. Handy is a google translate error. It is Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

max wrote:
Dr. Handy is a google translate error. It is Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor.

Thanks max. I thought Google was joking. I am used to Manuela Comodi's name being automatically translated as "Manuela Comfortable" :).
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

New article by Nick Pisa in the DAILY MAIL

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


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

Offline Bluetit


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:01 am

Posts: 39

Location: France

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Hello all.

I have just been catching up on the latest news, and I was struck by something. I would like to know what you think about it.
When I read the CBS News account a certain word simply jumped at me. Nobody else, however, seems to have commented on it. It's ACCIDENT. Here is the relevant quote :

<< It has been almost two years since 22-year-old Amanda Knox was imprisoned in Italy, accused with her ex-boyfriend of murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in a sex game ACCIDENT. >>

Now we have often (alas) read other so-called reports which seemed to imply that Meredith willingly engaged in some sort of kinky sexual game. But this is the first time (as far as I know – please correct me if I am wrong) any commentator has mentioned an ACCIDENT (presumably occurring during the supposed fun and games). Do I detect a whiff of a startingly new, second-line defence strategy ??? Perhaps the defence might now be planning for AK and RS to resort (if the worst comes to the worst) to that hoary cock-and-bull story – "we were just fooling about with the gun, and it accidentally went off" – except that this kind of "accident" is even less plausible with a knife (or several knives) and numerous injuries !
What do you think ?

P.S. Nick Pisa (Daily Mail) wrote :

<< Prosecutors have told the court that Meredith was killed by Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 25, in a BUNGLED sex game. >>

Might this too suggest that well-informed people in Perugia are gossiping about the likelihood of some kind of future "accident-while-fooling-around" defence ? By the way, I don't think there is the least danger of the Court being taken in by such nonsense, even if AK and RS were to blame most of (or all) the knife-thrusts on Rudy, the convenient sucker – as they would, obviously !
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?

_________________
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: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?

No I haven't seen it, the Italians reffered to what happened as rape and murder or sexual assault and murder.
Is mainly the Candy the Cook and her loonie friend from Geneve who seem to be obsessed with the 'erotic game' angle and we know why that is. m-))
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

New article by Linda Byron:

Linda Byron wrote:
What's next in Knox trial?


PERUGIA, Italy - Attorneys for Amanda Knox and her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito are disappointed that the judge denied their requests to have the court bring in special forensics experts.


In the United States, jury deliberations begin immediately following closing arguments but in Italy everything is scheduled. The prosecution delivers closing arguments on Nov. 20 and 21. Sollecito's attorneys get their opportunity on Nov. 28 and 30. Knox's attorneys won't get their chance until December 1 and 2.

Rebuttal arguments are scheduled for December 3. The jury won't begin its deliberations until Dec. 4 and they are expected to return a verdict by Dec. 6.

The lead prosecutor in the case says he is not surprised that the judge threw out the defense request for special experts and chose to move on to closing arguments.


In an interview today, Giuliano Mignini told me the case is a "puzzle" and one has to see the evidence altogether, while the defense has picked apart individual elements of the case. Mignini says he is convinced that Knox and Sollecito were responsible for the death of British exchange student Meredith Kercher along with Rudy Guede.


If Knox is convicted her case would automatically be reviewed by an appeals court, but a decision could take up to two years.


KING 5

_________________
"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: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

max wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Dates:

Quote:
...the Court has fixed the indictment of MP for 20 and 21 November, that the civil parties on 27 and 28 November and the defensive speeches on 30 and 31 and to follow every day until 4 December. The sentence 'then scheduled for that date or the next day...


From a google translation of this story by ASCA

I am not Italian but I think even they don't have 31 days in November :)

ASCA

TRANSLATION IN FULL OF BRIAN'S REFERENCE
MEREDITH: NO TO EXPERT REVIEW - SUMMING UP FIXED FOR 20-21 NOVEMBER

ASCA - PERUGIA OCTOBER 10TH, 2009
The request by the defence for RS and AK for the appointment of four expert reviews was denied by the Court of the Assizes (president Giancarlo Massei) which is trying the two young people for the murder with others of MK. After more than two hours deliberation the judges found that further expert opinions were unnecessary, those already in the body of evidence being sufficient and exhaustive. This was the line taken by PMs Mignini and Comodi, accepted by the court. The 42nd hearing, which began in the afternoon shortly after 4.00 PM, ended with the decision of the Court to refuse the requests for expert reviews a little before 9.00 PM.

Thus the evidential stage of the hearings being over, the Court has fixed November 20th and 21st for the summing up of the prosecution, the summing up of the civil plaintiffs for the 27th and 28th November and the defence addresses for November 30th and 31st (sic), to be followed by sittings every day until December 4th. Thus the verdict is expected on that date or on the day after, nonetheless after that of Rudy Guede's appeal, the hearing of which is set for November 18th; the Ivorian has already been condemned to 30 years by fast-track trial for murder with others of the English student Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: THE MID-ATLANTIC GOLF COURSE WILL BE NEXT   

Kermit wrote:
I have to admit that I do get a little upset when I see Edda and Curt get on ABC, CBS and NBC (in addition to the magazines, etc.) and cry about how many millions they have spent on Dave Marriott, lawyers, and travelling.

No doubt they have spent a bundle. But why do they have to make the US public (the rest of the world doesn't care) dry their tears with stories of abject poverty, when they obviously continue to live their lives.

Here's Curt, last January, coming in third (with his brother-in-law) in a golf championship at the West Seattle Golf Club. Okay, it's not the Ryder Cup, but it's not the sort of image of someone who only has one shirt left.

((BTW, does Chris Mellas still have his fishing boat?))


Do you mean that big UGLY blue and white piece of crap? Mua-)

Yes, it's actually being used to hold up their fence and I can't imagine it can be moved, frankly I don't know what the hell they are going to do. It looks as though the wheels of the trailer have outright collapsed under the thing.

Maybe they plan to auction it off on Craig's List or Ebay:

"Used ugly boat. Once used by murderess Amanda Knox while innertubing on party central, Lake Chelan. Matching UW foam beer holders included. You haul, as in condition."

I bet they think they are really living the good life. wh-)

And is that Curt Knox without an aloha shirt? I bet Curt Knox and Dan Norder hooked up in Hawaii - they both look as though they shop at the same Hilo Hattie's outlet.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?


I agree with Jules: in all my reading of Italian accounts of the proceedings, there is no reference to "games" or any such carryings on "gone wrong".
These circumlocutions are predominantly used in the American reporting. As Catnip, characterises them, they are nothing but weasel words, designed to slide away from the facts and mislead the reader.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:17 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?


I agree with Jules: in all my reading of Italian accounts of the proceedings, there is no reference to "games" or any such carryings on "gone wrong".
These circumlocutions are predominantly used in the American reporting. As Catnip, characterises them, they are nothing but weasel words, designed to slide away from the facts and mislead the reader.


The first time I heard the word "game" it was like fingers being dragged across a chalk board.

I researched the word and from everything I knew about the case it just didn't fit.
The only explanation I could come up with was some of that stinky FOAKer "spin shit" (sort of like corn shit only more swirly) got stuck on some Seattle based news story and "Oopla!" there you have it!

It has absolutely zero to do with a game because a game implies a willingness to play and we all know Meredith didn't want anything to do with any of them.
A more appropriate description would be "trick."

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: THE MID-ATLANTIC GOLF COURSE WILL BE NEXT   

Professor Snape wrote:
Kermit wrote:
I have to admit that I do get a little upset when I see Edda and Curt get on ABC, CBS and NBC (in addition to the magazines, etc.) and cry about how many millions they have spent on Dave Marriott, lawyers, and travelling.

No doubt they have spent a bundle. But why do they have to make the US public (the rest of the world doesn't care) dry their tears with stories of abject poverty, when they obviously continue to live their lives.

Here's Curt, last January, coming in third (with his brother-in-law) in a golf championship at the West Seattle Golf Club. Okay, it's not the Ryder Cup, but it's not the sort of image of someone who only has one shirt left.

((BTW, does Chris Mellas still have his fishing boat?))


Do you mean that big UGLY blue and white piece of crap? Mua-)

Yes, it's actually being used to hold up their fence and I can't imagine it can be moved, frankly I don't know what the hell they are going to do. It looks as though the wheels of the trailer have outright collapsed under the thing.

Maybe they plan to auction it off on Craig's List or Ebay:

"Used ugly boat. Once used by murderess Amanda Knox while innertubing on party central, Lake Chelan. Matching UW foam beer holders included. You haul, as in condition."

I bet they think they are really living the good life. wh-)

And is that Curt Knox without an aloha shirt? I bet Curt Knox and Dan Norder hooked up in Hawaii - they both look as though they shop at the same Hilo Hattie's outlet.



Snape, I love your posts!!! You're nuts. (But in a good way..!)

The golf thing is a really interesting find. I don't know about the US, but over here it is quite a wealthy person's sport because it cost a lot to join a golf club. I don't see how they can plead poverty if he is a member of the golf club? Could he have just been invited as a guest maybe? Why do I get a horrible, flesh-creeping feeling that this family are using a book or film spin off as collateral on the money they are spending. Particularly on PR of course. Why do I have the feeling they are NOT broke, but cooking up some kind of ...horrible....uggh...plan to make money out of this. SURELY not. Just to pay bills instead. They would not be holding it together so well if they are as desperate as they make out. They would not be well enough to play golf matches, let alone win them.

Like I said before, it's the other kids I feel sorry for. They've done nothing to anyone - aside from an ill-judged moment in front of murder scene, when they were being 'parented' by cheap tabloid journalists. I don't blame their lack of judgement on anything other than their young age and lack of guidance from a decent role model. In other interviews they were respectful and very, very young and naive. I pity them. Whoops! There goes my inheritance. And my education. Oh and my house too! But hey, Amanda says she's innocent, so we gotta believe her...

Yes, I have never bought the down to the last penny line from the Knox camp. I smell a rat I tell you...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

circumstance

the cat ...i believe the cats story wasn't admitted as evidence ... much blood on the lower floor the two story house cat bleeding lots of blood a cat having bled all over the bottom floor (cat blood) the damnation the absolute certainty ... the involvment of the cat the cats ear cut as a demonstration of power by the protaganist amanda knox mandy who was crazy waving knives around prepeard to use it ... the albanian witness (reported before the discovery of the murder) had reported had met mandy soll. wild in the street waving knves around the idea of knives the possibility of their use

harry potter was a novel mandy probably read was a popular novel in europe at the time a novel which mandy probably read and meredith probably hated i wanted to say that i think that the novel "harry potter" was probably thrown into the room here die there with your harry potter i think she threw it into the room thinking .... i think it is a factor because i think that the prosecution or the police or the quo there in italy knew they had their case and that is why so much evidence has been witheld they have their case but they don't want to completely crucify the defendant ... maybe they should meet the civil case but lets not go too far ... they knew and she framed herself ... lets not tell the whole tale lets not tell the facts and lets not ever say what happened because there has to be some level of dignity left even to the criminals ... just my idea ... i think the cat was cut by amanda "a demo "harry potter" was not to kerchers taste the fact the stupid book was in the room was something to do with amanda
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

thrown into the room by amanda "theres your harry potter too"
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Professor Snape wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?


I agree with Jules: in all my reading of Italian accounts of the proceedings, there is no reference to "games" or any such carryings on "gone wrong".
These circumlocutions are predominantly used in the American reporting. As Catnip, characterises them, they are nothing but weasel words, designed to slide away from the facts and mislead the reader.


The first time I heard the word "game" it was like fingers being dragged across a chalk board.

I researched the word and from everything I knew about the case it just didn't fit.
The only explanation I could come up with was some of that stinky FOAKer "spin shit" (sort of like corn shit only more swirly) got stuck on some Seattle based news story and "Oopla!" there you have it!

It has absolutely zero to do with a game because a game implies a willingness to play and we all know Meredith didn't want anything to do with any of them.
A more appropriate description would be "trick."



TOTALLY agree with this. It is a nasty, subtle semantic trick, a dripping of poison into the ear of the public at an almost subconscious level. Well done for spotting it and bringing it to attention. Game indeed. Maybe people just don't GET what an decent, intelligent, hard-working English girl is like. A threesome? With that? She could probably hardly bear to share the same house with Amanda, given her habits, let alone exchange bodily fluids with her. The suggestion is preposterous. We know she had a new boyfriend. She was a respectable and somewhat demure middle-class educated girl. Why would she need to look for two (three?) simultaneous sexual partners? Sex game 'gone wrong'. Oh I HATE the implication. It defiles Meredith, and she has no opportunity to defend herself or her honour.

As if. AS IF....

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?


I agree with Jules: in all my reading of Italian accounts of the proceedings, there is no reference to "games" or any such carryings on "gone wrong".
These circumlocutions are predominantly used in the American reporting. As Catnip, characterises them, they are nothing but weasel words, designed to slide away from the facts and mislead the reader.


The first time I heard the word "game" it was like fingers being dragged across a chalk board.

I researched the word and from everything I knew about the case it just didn't fit.
The only explanation I could come up with was some of that stinky FOAKer "spin shit" (sort of like corn shit only more swirly) got stuck on some Seattle based news story and "Oopla!" there you have it!

It has absolutely zero to do with a game because a game implies a willingness to play and we all know Meredith didn't want anything to do with any of them.
A more appropriate description would be "trick."



TOTALLY agree with this. It is a nasty, subtle semantic trick, a dripping of poison into the ear of the public at an almost subconscious level. Well done for spotting it and bringing it to attention. Game indeed. Maybe people just don't GET what an decent, intelligent, hard-working English girl is like. A threesome? With that? She could probably hardly bear to share the same house with Amanda, given her habits, let alone exchange bodily fluids with her. The suggestion is preposterous. We know she had a new boyfriend. She was a respectable and somewhat demure middle-class educated girl. Why would she need to look for two (three?) simultaneous sexual partners? Sex game 'gone wrong'. Oh I HATE the implication. It defiles Meredith, and she has no opportunity to defend herself or her honour.

As if. AS IF....


I wouldn't like to say that all middle class, hard working, educated English girls wouldn't get involved in threesomes/foursomes, but we sure as hell know that Meredith wouldn't.

Evidence given by Filomena and Laura stated that Meredith criticised Amanda to her face(on the night they had the discussions about the rent??) for two timing DJ.

Can anyone see a possible motive in here? Trick or treat?
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

A couple things i have in mind to say about these latest developments. I will just scatter bits of thoughts.

The decision to refuse a further experts exam of evidence could be regarded – in itself – theoretically as neutral.
In fact, this looks like a final blow to the defences because in this particular case, we realize how the requests were merely expression of defensive difficulties or attempts to bring at least some water to their own boat.

To set the reasoning, what has to be said is there is a danger to be mislead when “superperizia” is translated as “independent” expert review. The word “independent” in particular, but also “review”, are maybe not fully correct. A superperizia would be “independent” from defence and accusation for sure, but its independency does not carry any legal meaning: it doesn’t mean “neutral” nor “just” nor “unbiased” nor else. It is just another expert review. Only the court is “neutral” in their assessments, any other opinion is always regarded as a party, maybe a third and appointed, but a partial source.

Therefore, there is an intrinsic danger - and also an intrinsic wrong in the court’s point of view - when a defendant asks for a further expert exam just on the ground that this would be “independent”. It may sound as an admission that the arguments brought by the defence’s experts are not entirely convincing (“I wasn’t able to contest directly the accusation’s theory, so please call another expert and just listen what somebody else says”). The calling for “third” scientific examinations is admitted by the law strictly bind to some requirements in the code (for example the independent tests must be necessary for the court not just useful to one or the parties), and there is an obvious reason for this. An independent test would give results that, in this case, could only be aligned to one or the other side. The main effect of an independent expert report would be the confirmation of one of some of the already proposed theories, bringing in no new hypothesis.

Thus, it is obvious that a request for another expert’s analysis tends to be not a way to search for information, but rather an attempt to attack the judges’ power and independency, as a last resource defensive strategy. An independent expert resulting not aligned on the accusation theories on *any* of the five subjects would provide some space for the defence – desperately running out of material – so they could try to “use” in some way any difference in alignment between the “second” and the “third” expert not only in the first trial, but maybe in the future in the whole case history to keep and feed doubts about the court’s decision in further contexts. The present court perceives de- legitimizing or weakening content as the final aim of this ultimate riddle of requests.

The several requested expert exam could be also looked at one by one. Some of them are – if considered alone – not necessarily nonsense: the audiometric test from Nara’s apartment for example could possibly have provided some information on the case. But the conclusive part of the trial is a sensitive segment in which this requests doesn’t have the same meaning any more: the fact is that the audiometric test was an ordinary scientific test that the defence could have had performed during the trial, and their choice not to do it makes it different. Experts exams are allowed as normal debate, but in this case we have a discharged exam which is proposed only after the closing of forensic debate, only after all cards have been seen. The other requested independent reviews are, at least some of them, explicit intents to shift the questions from the murder case to other topics like: the police work, or other people’s fault or lies other: collateral or in limine topics (“ascertain the cause of hard disk damage of computers”, “if the collecting of the bra clasp was properly” etc.). The request to determine exactly the kind of material and DNA profiles on the bra clasp, interesting for us readers, includes a potential risk of use by Raf’s defence against Amanda. The compatibility of the knife with the wound and the DNA trace: a ludicrous number of experts have said whatever was possible to say about this item, and we don’t even know if, and how, the prosecution is going to bring this piece of evidence in their arguments. Some of these requests, considered now could even have the effect of prolonging the trial causing a probable a release of the accused in the meanwhile.

To conclude, the decision not to consider any of those is not surprising (to me). In fact, all what could have been possibly said about DNA findings was already said. You won’t expect anything new to be said on the knife’s DNA of about “how compatible” it is with the wounds.

Sorry for this boring post, I just wanted to clarify my thoughts giving an overall look to this point.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
The several requested expert exam could be also looked at one by one. Some of them are – if considered alone – not necessarily nonsense: the audiometric test from Nara’s apartment for example could possibly have provided some information on the case. But the conclusive part of the trial is a sensitive segment in which this requests doesn’t have the same meaning any more: the fact is that the audiometric test was an ordinary scientific test that the defence could have had performed during the trial, and their choice not to do it makes it different. Experts exams are allowed as normal debate, but in this case we have a discharged exam which is proposed only after the closing of forensic debate, only after all cards have been seen.



This is a very good point. These tests could have been performed by defense experts long ago. I have read elsewhere that Sra Nara has double glazing on her windows, which is not true judging from the footage in the first CBS 48 Hours segment. The pseudo test (of just the sort that the defense is asking for this late in the game) performed by Paul Ciolino from another apartment in the building have been extensively discussed here over time. One of the many flaws in his test is that he chose to have it conducted from an apartment that does have double glazing, unlike Nara's.

In any case, your post was not at all boring. Thanks for provided necessary detail that makes it much easier to interpret Friday's decision. A few paragraphs of explanation and fact are much more worthwhile than the opinions of people observing the trial with a vested interest.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:26 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Bluetit,
You are right to point out the use of these terms, both of which suggest a game gone wrong. It would be interesting to see if an equivalent shift in terminology has occurred in Italian. Anybody know?


I agree with Jules: in all my reading of Italian accounts of the proceedings, there is no reference to "games" or any such carryings on "gone wrong".
These circumlocutions are predominantly used in the American reporting. As Catnip, characterises them, they are nothing but weasel words, designed to slide away from the facts and mislead the reader.


The first time I heard the word "game" it was like fingers being dragged across a chalk board.

I researched the word and from everything I knew about the case it just didn't fit.
The only explanation I could come up with was some of that stinky FOAKer "spin shit" (sort of like corn shit only more swirly) got stuck on some Seattle based news story and "Oopla!" there you have it!

It has absolutely zero to do with a game because a game implies a willingness to play and we all know Meredith didn't want anything to do with any of them.
A more appropriate description would be "trick."



TOTALLY agree with this. It is a nasty, subtle semantic trick, a dripping of poison into the ear of the public at an almost subconscious level. Well done for spotting it and bringing it to attention. Game indeed. Maybe people just don't GET what an decent, intelligent, hard-working English girl is like. A threesome? With that? She could probably hardly bear to share the same house with Amanda, given her habits, let alone exchange bodily fluids with her. The suggestion is preposterous. We know she had a new boyfriend. She was a respectable and somewhat demure middle-class educated girl. Why would she need to look for two (three?) simultaneous sexual partners? Sex game 'gone wrong'. Oh I HATE the implication. It defiles Meredith, and she has no opportunity to defend herself or her honour.

As if. AS IF....


I wouldn't like to say that all middle class, hard working, educated English girls wouldn't get involved in threesomes/foursomes, but we sure as hell know that Meredith wouldn't.

Evidence given by Filomena and Laura stated that Meredith criticised Amanda to her face(on the night they had the discussions about the rent??) for two timing DJ.

Can anyone see a possible motive in here? Trick or treat?


I have always believed trick or treat played a role in what happened that night. And that whatever trick was being played, Meredith Kercher wanted no part in it.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:19 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:37 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The devaluation of the victim by the press implying some form of consensual activity isn’t just limited to the Meredith Kercher case, look how many times the Roman Polanski case includes the term “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” rather than drugging and raping a child which is in fact what happened. Blaming the victim for putting themselves in danger is common currency in the press reporting of sex crimes and very often a defence tactic in a court case.

Given the failure of the defence to have the evidence reviewed, would this have any bearing on how the automatic appeal will play out, does anyone have a theory on what direction the defence will take.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:46 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
A couple things I have in mind to say about these latest developments. I will just scatter bits of thoughts.


Yummi, this was by no means a "boring" post. What you discuss is most interesting, particularly when recent posts have touched on the deliberate obfuscation and at times downright distortion of meaning indulged in by those who weasel-word their way through court reporting.
The concept of a superperizia is hard to translate into English, where the most common meaning of "super" these days immediately implies being "better than", "superior to", "above". It is complicated even further when the Italian original refers to the new expert opinion in Latin as super partes, ie "above the parties", in this case, leaving one to choose between leaving the quote in Latin, and using the English "impartial".
The on-line Garzanti Italian - English dictionary gives the following:
GARZANTI - superperizia s.f. report of the court-appointed expert (as supervisor of other experts' reports).
GARZANTI is not at all correct here, as my understanding is that the judge is the peritum peritorum, the expert of all experts, who will weigh up all the evidence and make the ultimate decision. The report of the court-appointed superperito is therefore NOT one which adjudicates or judges other expert reports; it is a new report, a review, which will be used by the court along with other expert advice and weighed up accordingly.
So the translator who seeks to be traduttore, non traditore (=translator, not traitor) is faced with a dilemma!
Therefore, I have translated superperizia as expert report, expert review, and at times added "independent" when the original contains this concept as well. Of course, in an ideal world, one would hope that all scientific experts were "independent" and "impartial"!
For those who are interested, I found an article by Licia Gambarelii of the University of Parma on the question of science in court. The URL is below; the article is in English.
scienceincourt


BTW Yummi: Knowing the regard in which you hold a certain gentleman (a regard similar to mine!), I have avoided the temptaton to get into a debate on primus super pares versus primus inter pares!!


Last edited by Tiziano on Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:58 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I have always believed trick or treat played a role in what happened that night. And that whatever trick was being played, Meredith Kercher wanted no part in it.


We'll never find out what really happened in that night unless one of them starts spilling
the beans.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:55 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brogan wrote:
The devaluation of the victim by the press implying some form of consensual activity isn’t just limited to the Meredith Kercher case, look how many times the Roman Polanski case includes the term “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” rather than drugging and raping a child which is in fact what happened. Blaming the victim for putting themselves in danger is common currency in the press reporting of sex crimes and very often a defence tactic in a court case.

Given the failure of the defence to have the evidence reviewed, would this have any bearing on how the automatic appeal will play out, does anyone have a theory on what direction the defence will take.



What? "drugging and raping a child which is in fact happened?" -- Brogan, do you know what happened? I happened to read the police-documents, you can read them as well, its all on the net, and although I cannot defend Mr. Polanski, no way I want to defend him, there was no drugging and no rape there -- sorry -- there is a much better and more precise term for that in the literature: 'grooming' -- I am just trying to be precise here.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Brogan wrote:
The devaluation of the victim by the press implying some form of consensual activity isn’t just limited to the Meredith Kercher case, look how many times the Roman Polanski case includes the term “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” rather than drugging and raping a child which is in fact what happened. Blaming the victim for putting themselves in danger is common currency in the press reporting of sex crimes and very often a defence tactic in a court case.

Given the failure of the defence to have the evidence reviewed, would this have any bearing on how the automatic appeal will play out, does anyone have a theory on what direction the defence will take.



What? "drugging and raping a child which is in fact happened?" -- Brogan, do you know what happened? I happened to read the police-documents, you can read them as well, its all on the net, and although I cannot defend Mr. Polanski, no way I want to defend him, there was no drugging and no rape there -- sorry -- there is a much better and more precise term for that in the literature: 'grooming' -- I am just trying to be precise here.


Hungarian, it was definitely statuary rape, as Polansky had sexual relations with the girl, who was under age (13 y/o from memory); furthermore, from what I read from the court document, Polanski gave her a tablet of some drug along with alcohol (champagne). Have you read the girl's statement?
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:29 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
Brogan wrote:
The devaluation of the victim by the press implying some form of consensual activity isn’t just limited to the Meredith Kercher case, look how many times the Roman Polanski case includes the term “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” rather than drugging and raping a child which is in fact what happened. Blaming the victim for putting themselves in danger is common currency in the press reporting of sex crimes and very often a defence tactic in a court case.

Given the failure of the defence to have the evidence reviewed, would this have any bearing on how the automatic appeal will play out, does anyone have a theory on what direction the defence will take.



What? "drugging and raping a child which is in fact happened?" -- Brogan, do you know what happened? I happened to read the police-documents, you can read them as well, its all on the net, and although I cannot defend Mr. Polanski, no way I want to defend him, there was no drugging and no rape there -- sorry -- there is a much better and more precise term for that in the literature: 'grooming' -- I am just trying to be precise here.


Hungarian, it was definitely statuary rape, as Polansky had sexual relations with the girl, who was under age (13 y/o from memory); furthermore, from what I read from the court document, Polanski gave her a tablet of some drug along with alcohol (champagne). Have you read the girl's statement?



I have read it, but not now -- I have to read it again -- Polanski played the photographer -- and it was several days before he advanced -- and champagne, yes, I remember -- the drug no -- I shall read it again --


EDIT TO ADD: I am sorry for the inaccuracies from my part, but I mean the "seduction" or better "grooming", that is, the actual thing what Polanski did (what I find disgusting though) and which I beleive can be named legally rape, is not so easily captured in these words. But that is the language of law. Again sorry Brogan for the misunderstanding. I am interested in the details, not the slogans, but it doesn't mean that your terming wasn't precise.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:14 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
Hungarian wrote:
Brogan wrote:
The devaluation of the victim by the press implying some form of consensual activity isn’t just limited to the Meredith Kercher case, look how many times the Roman Polanski case includes the term “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” rather than drugging and raping a child which is in fact what happened. Blaming the victim for putting themselves in danger is common currency in the press reporting of sex crimes and very often a defence tactic in a court case.

Given the failure of the defence to have the evidence reviewed, would this have any bearing on how the automatic appeal will play out, does anyone have a theory on what direction the defence will take.



What? "drugging and raping a child which is in fact happened?" -- Brogan, do you know what happened? I happened to read the police-documents, you can read them as well, its all on the net, and although I cannot defend Mr. Polanski, no way I want to defend him, there was no drugging and no rape there -- sorry -- there is a much better and more precise term for that in the literature: 'grooming' -- I am just trying to be precise here.


Hungarian, it was definitely statuary rape, as Polansky had sexual relations with the girl, who was under age (13 y/o from memory); furthermore, from what I read from the court document, Polanski gave her a tablet of some drug along with alcohol (champagne). Have you read the girl's statement?



I have read it, but not now -- I have to read it again -- Polanski played the photographer -- and it was several days before he advanced -- and champagne, yes, I remember -- the drug no -- I shall read it again --


EDIT TO ADD: I am sorry for the inaccuracies from my part, but I mean the "seduction" or better "grooming", that is, the actual thing what Polanski did (what I find disgusting though) and which I beleive can be named legally rape, is not so easily captured in these words. But that is the language of law. Again sorry Brogan for the misunderstanding. I am interested in the details, not the slogans, but it doesn't mean that your terming wasn't precise.


I have actually read the trial transcript, Polanski ( 44yrs) gave Samantha Gailey ( 13yrs) a combination of Champagne and Quaaludes (a seditive) she clearly stated that she said no during all aspects of the assault. The key for me is that not onlydid he used drugs, both alcohol and a seditive, and mostly because she said no. Polanski disagrees with this because like most sex offenders claiming consent is the back bone of his defence.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:21 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Another incongruity, Filomena's window.

On Amanda's Myspace page, where she calls herself Foxy Knoxy, she lists rock climbing as one of her interests (it is listed ahead of writing). I've heard her described as a rock climber in some news reports too. And yet if she had any knowledge of this sport she would have known that a person cannot climb from the ground, up the wall, and into Filomena's window. It could be that she and Raffaele were just "not thinking" when they staged the burglary.....but I sense that she is no more adept at rock climbing than, say, writing.

And it's a glaring omission in the defense that they could find NO ONE capable of demonstrating such a COMPLETED climb. (Climbing part way up don't count.) It left a giant hole in their "Lone Wolf" theory. About as credible as Santa coming down the chimney Christmas Eve.
//////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:21 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

When Sollecito’s family tried to influenced and derailed the investigation, the representatives of offended party in a probable libel suit are the SAP, (Sindacato Autonomo di Polizia) The Independent Police Union.

This is how the SAP views the Court’s decision for ‘no’ further expert of experts evaluations.

Massimo Montatevi, national spokesman for SAP: “The validity of the evaluations in the ‘mordiate’ (Jools:gripping) trial, that the defense of the accused have tried in every way to challenge, confirms the correctness of the work of the Perugia flying squad, the scientific police and the same enquiry prosecutors. As the Police Union, we are following closely the process for some time and, while not wanting to get into evaluate it, we have always judged as unacceptable the attacks, the threats and pressures to the investigators. We therefore reaffirm the determination to defend in every branch the reputation and professionalism of colleagues who have devoted months of intense commitment to this sensitive investigation.”
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=21
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Jools wrote:
When Sollecito’s family tried to influenced and derailed the investigation, the representatives of offended party in a probable libel suit are the SAP, (Sindacato Autonomo di Polizia) The Independent Police Union.

This is how the SAP views the Court’s decision for ‘no’ further expert of experts evaluations.

Massimo Montatevi, national spokesman for SAP: “The validity of the evaluations in the ‘mordiate’ (Jools:gripping) trial, that the defense of the accused have tried in every way to challenge, confirms the correctness of the work of the Perugia flying squad, the scientific police and the same enquiry prosecutors. As the Police Union, we are following closely the process for some time and, while not wanting to get into evaluate it, we have always judged as unacceptable the attacks, the threats and pressures to the investigators. We therefore reaffirm the determination to defend in every branch the reputation and professionalism of colleagues who have devoted months of intense commitment to this sensitive investigation.”
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=21


th-) Jools

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Hungarian, it was definitely statuary rape, as Polansky had sexual relations with the girl, who was under age (13 y/o from memory); furthermore, from what I read from the court document, Polanski gave her a tablet of some drug along with alcohol (champagne). Have you read the girl's statement?

It was not just statuary rape, which implies consent, it was rape full stop.

Here is a link to relevant testimony:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib12.html
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 - Dr Handy   

guermantes wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
"The defense of Knox has asked to hear a prisoner who has sent several letters to the president of the court given the role of instigator of the murder house raids. Requests are both the prosecutor objected, both supporters of the civil parties. And if Bongiorno had stressed that the requests were "the least we could ask," the prosecutor replied in a very determined and with that Mignini with comfort. "The material collected during the hearing of oral argument is more than enough. There is no need to obtain new evidence, "argued Mignini. and Dr. Handy:" None of the claims is supported by the need discriminating element at the base of a request under Article 507 ". And the coroner's report?" It 'was carried out with the probative by highly qualified "


Google translation of this story in the CU by Elio Clero Bertoldi

Why would Knox’s defence team want to question a prisoner about the two break-ins at the cottage? To highlight potential problems in the police investigation and call the evidence handling “alarming”? I thought that theory - or, rather, legend, was shot full of holes long ago (Believe it or not, I'm still enjoying Kermit's powerpoint on the subject of break-ins :D).

And who is Dr. Handy? :)



Hi Guermantes,

The way I see it, was there had been nothing preventing the defence putting the fellow on their list of witnesses and calling him to give evidence during the trial. To request a review into him after the time for calling witnesses had been and gone was just playing games as far as I can see. I feel they knew the court would reject their request for that but wanted to make the request at the end for the sake of innuendo to be left hanging. I think dito for the sound test on Nara's apartment. As someone has pointed out, they could have made that test themselves during the course of the investigation, but didn't actually do so because any such test could work against them if thr results proved the opposite of what they wanted...therefore, they decided to make the request at the end when they knew it would be denied and therefore couldn't possibly harm them, but at the same time would create innuendo, an element of doubt on the veracity of the witness Nara.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

max wrote:
Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.


I'm not so sure this claim by the defense is correct.

It's certainly true that for the first week or so all the papers were claiming it was Meredith's window which was broken, but I believe this misconception was gradually corrected following Judge Matteini's report produced on the 9th November:

Extracts from the official judge's report on the murder of Meredith Kercher, obtained by the Telegraph

The complete report was 19 pages long and was the first official description of the events and discoveries made at the cottage.

I'll try and find out a bit more when I have some time. Maybe a Google translation???
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
max wrote:
Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.


I'm not so sure this claim by the defense is correct.

It's certainly true that for the first week or so all the papers were claiming it was Meredith's window which was broken, but I believe this misconception was gradually corrected following Judge Matteini's report produced on the 9th November:

Extracts from the official judge's report on the murder of Meredith Kercher, obtained by the Telegraph

The complete report was 19 pages long and was the first official description of the events and discoveries made at the cottage.

I'll try and find out a bit more when I have some time. Maybe a Google translation???



I actually have the PDF of Matteini's full 19 page report loaded up here as an attachment: JUDGE'S REPORT FROM THE FIRST HEARING

Although, I'm afraid it's in Italian. However, reported extracts from various sources, in English, are in the same post.

_________________
"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: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

By the way, just a quick note, Linda Byron's article for King 5 that I posted earlier: What's next in Knox trial?

I think Linda deserves some praise here and I just wanted to give her some. For a long time it's been a common complaint of ours that most of the American reporting hitherto, with a very few exceptions (Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau and Ann Wise) has been very unbalanced in their reporting. I want to give Linda some credit, as she has put in the obligatory quote from the Knox Clan, but she has also gone out of her way to get something from the prosecution, in this case a quote from Mignini himself and her article overall didn't have a slant to either side. So, kudos to her for that. Let's hope it marks a sea change in US reporting on this case, which aside from the aforementioned examples, has been pretty dire up to now.

_________________
"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 max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
max wrote:
Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.


I'm not so sure this claim by the defense is correct.

It's certainly true that for the first week or so all the papers were claiming it was Meredith's window which was broken, but I believe this misconception was gradually corrected following Judge Matteini's report produced on the 9th November:

Thanks. I also think if this was certain then they would have brought it up before. I guess it is one of those things they wanted to leave open to cause some doubt.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Question for Yummi -

Hi Yummi. As Amanda and Raffaele have opted to be tried together in this trial, does it also mean they must be tried together in the second degree, or do they have the option of seperate second degree trials if they wish them?

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
Hi Yummi. As Amanda and Raffaele have opted to be tried together in this trial, does it also mean they must be tried together in the second degree, or do they have the option of seperate second degree trials if they wish them?


No they don't have this "option". The trial (1st -2nd degree) is considered as one case. Trials are separated by judges' decision only on court's needs, like when there are important practical problems of organization. Like Mills and Berlusconi: separate trials for one case of corruption because one of the two defendant cases had more difficult legal issues and time issues than the other.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Another question for Yummi:

If (when!) they are found guilty, will sentence be passed immediately? Or will there be further representations and arguments from their lawyers in mitigation before sentence is passed? If so, will this mean more weeks of delay before the trial is finalized, even after the judgment?

Thanks!
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
Brian S. wrote:
max wrote:
Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.


I'm not so sure this claim by the defense is correct.

It's certainly true that for the first week or so all the papers were claiming it was Meredith's window which was broken, but I believe this misconception was gradually corrected following Judge Matteini's report produced on the 9th November:

Extracts from the official judge's report on the murder of Meredith Kercher, obtained by the Telegraph



The defence's claim is not supported by facts.
It is not true papers didn't speak about Filomena's window. Although some reporter made the mistake, some other did not, this from the very beginning.
I am surprised by this defence claim because the information is false.
We can easily check some of the "right" reports of the time explicitly mentioning Filomena's broken window (long before nov 19):


7 november
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

9 november
http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/ricordo_confuso_lha_uccisa_pat/09-11-2007/articolo-id=219274-page=0-comments=1

This article quotes entire bits of the original transcript from the first Amanda's report as it was redacted with the help of the interpreter (nov 2):

"Per prima ho aperto la porta della camera di Filomena, che è la prima camera più vicina all’ingresso, e insieme a Raffaele abbiamo constatato che la finestra a due ante era aperta e il vetro era rotto... Spaventata ho pensato che poteva essere entrato un ladro, e quindi ho dato una rapida occhiata per verificare che fosse tutto in ordine..."

(btw this nov2 report yet appears full of contradictions, especially when crossed with Raffaele's report)

12 november
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSez ... girata.asp
explained in details room is broken in Filomena’s room.

These are only examples. If you google in the news archive you finde there are several paper articles speaking about Filomena's broken window since 8-9 of November 2007.


EDIT: Michael - Fixed broken url.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Hi Yummi. As Amanda and Raffaele have opted to be tried together in this trial, does it also mean they must be tried together in the second degree, or do they have the option of seperate second degree trials if they wish them?


No they don't have this "option". The trial (1st -2nd degree) is considered as one case. Trials are separated by judges' decision only on court's needs, like when there are important practical problems of organization. Like Mills and Berlusconi: separate trials for one case of corruption because one of the two defendant cases had more difficult legal issues and time issues than the other.


Thanks Yummi :)

_________________
"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 Oct 11, 2009 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
If (when!) they are found guilty, will sentence be passed immediately? Or will there be further representations and arguments from their lawyers in mitigation before sentence is passed? If so, will this mean more weeks of delay before the trial is finalized, even after the judgment?


No, the verdict (I mean the penalty) is comunicated immediately.
While instead we will have to wait up to three month to have the motivations the sentence (in the Italian the word "sentence" indicates the written motivations, not to the penalty). The verdict on legal grounds and passing of the penalty is what is called dispositivo ("disposal" or "decision"), and it is what is read in court. It is orally comunicated to the public like the proclamation of a bill, it is not "told" to the defendants. The written motivation - the "sentence" or the "full sentence" - instead is only written and issued by the chancellery of the House of Justice, it can be made of hundreds of pages (or thousands: Andreotti's mafia sencence was 5200 pages long).
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

max wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
max wrote:
Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.


I'm not so sure this claim by the defense is correct.

It's certainly true that for the first week or so all the papers were claiming it was Meredith's window which was broken, but I believe this misconception was gradually corrected following Judge Matteini's report produced on the 9th November:

Thanks. I also think if this was certain then they would have brought it up before. I guess it is one of those things they wanted to leave open to cause some doubt.


Guede's Skype conversation with his friend Giacomo Benedetti took place on the 19th November as per judge Micheli's report page 20.

Filomena's broken window was being reported by the Italian press on the 7th. November, possibly even earlier.

Here is just one (there are many more) article from Tgcom dated the 7th where Filomena's window is mentioned as the article last paragraph is quoting from Sollecito's statement: "Lei ha aperto la porta con le chiavi e sono entrato. Ho notato che la porta di Filomena era spalancata con dei vetri per terra e la camera tutta in disordine".
"She (Knox) opened the -main- door with the keys and I entered. I noticed that the door to Filomena's room was wide open with the glass window over the floor and the room in a mess".
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 6917.shtml

Oops! I see Yummi replied to this already. I should've refresh the page.:)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From the Nov 9 Corriere linked by Yummi:
"quindi uscivo di casa dicendo al mio ragazzo che dovevo andare a lavorare."

That is:
"then I left the house telling my boyfriend that I must go to work."


So it was not only Raffaele who said that Amanda left Raffaele's place.
Amanda also stated it very clearly.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
If (when!) they are found guilty, will sentence be passed immediately? Or will there be further representations and arguments from their lawyers in mitigation before sentence is passed? If so, will this mean more weeks of delay before the trial is finalized, even after the judgment?


No, the verdict (I mean the penalty) is comunicated immediately.
While instead we will have to wait up to three month to have the motivations the sentence (in the Italian the word "sentence" indicates the written motivations, not to the penalty). The verdict on legal grounds and passing of the penalty is what is called dispositivo ("disposal" or "decision"), and it is what is read in court. It is orally comunicated to the public like the proclamation of a bill, it is not "told" to the defendants. The written motivation - the "sentence" or the "full sentence" - instead is only written and issued by the chancellery of the House of Justice, it can be made of hundreds of pages (or thousands: Andreotti's mafia sencence was 5200 pages long).

Many thanks! :D
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"No, the verdict (I mean the penalty) is comunicated immediately."

30 years like Rudy?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"No, the verdict (I mean the penalty) is comunicated immediately."

30 years like Rudy?


No Bolint, 'Life'...if they are found guilty of the sexually aggravated murder charge. Rudy only got 30 years because he took the fast track trial.

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Hungarian wrote:
Brogan wrote:
The devaluation of the victim by the press implying some form of consensual activity isn’t just limited to the Meredith Kercher case, look how many times the Roman Polanski case includes the term “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” rather than drugging and raping a child which is in fact what happened. Blaming the victim for putting themselves in danger is common currency in the press reporting of sex crimes and very often a defence tactic in a court case.

Given the failure of the defence to have the evidence reviewed, would this have any bearing on how the automatic appeal will play out, does anyone have a theory on what direction the defence will take.



What? "drugging and raping a child which is in fact happened?" -- Brogan, do you know what happened? I happened to read the police-documents, you can read them as well, its all on the net, and although I cannot defend Mr. Polanski, no way I want to defend him, there was no drugging and no rape there -- sorry -- there is a much better and more precise term for that in the literature: 'grooming' -- I am just trying to be precise here.


OT, but kinda on topic too. Polanski is a paedophile and that's all there is to it in my mind. Can a child of thirteen 'consent' to sex with a man old enough to be her father (grandfather?!). I think not. So, whatever the law says, to me that is rape whether he drugged her or not. It ticks me off when people will not call a spade a spade as it muddies the water. Someone can be talented, brilliant and extraordinary BUT ALSO deeply flawed psychologically, morally confused and yes, a child molester. I thought this with the recent Michael Jackson funeral - much as I adored him and admired his work - the level of adulation glossed over the deeply worrying aspects of his life involving children. Let's just call it, is what I think.

'Mis-naming' things is deeply damaging to victims IMHO. Like the 'sex game gone wrong' which so misrepresents Meredith. (Incidently, I did not mean to imply EVERY middle-class, hard-working English girl would eschew this activity - each to his own - but like you said Brian, we know that Meredith was quite a moral and 'proper' young woman, which make the misrepresentation all the more irritating!) So let's just call a grotesque murder a grotesque murder, a child molester a child molester, Rudy a rapist and wait to see what Amanda and Rafaelle get when the jury return. We know the labels Meredith had, and there was not a single bad one in there. Hard-working, caring, beautiful, a dutiful daughter, a lively, cheerful young woman at the very start of her life.

Sorry for the rant. It is now over...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

max wrote:
"Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting."

There is no transcript, but here are some audio parts of it:
http://www.lastampa.it/multimedia/multi ... 3208&tipo=

This short video however contains the part about the window:
http://www.ganges.com/Omicidio_Meredith ... _v5155200/

"Hanno detto che c'era un vetro rotto. Quando io e Meredith ci siamo visti non era rotto e anche quando sono andato via"
(They said that there was a broken window. When I and Meredith looked around it was not broken, nor when I left.)

So he doesn't speak specifically about Filomena's room, though it is clear that it is not Meredith's.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I've just found an Italian memorial site for Meredith, where students posted their tribute to her memory. Very moving a post from an Italian Erasmus student in Leeds who had met her.
For those of you who are interested:
http://it.respectance.com/Meredith_Kercher/memorial

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

And it's therefore also clear that he didn't say that the window was broken when he was there, like they are saying he did in the Kitchen.

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
And it's therefore also clear that he didn't say that the window was broken when he was there, like they are saying he did in the Kitchen.

Hi Michael,
see my post on the other thread. Any Italian speaker can hear what Rudy says to his friend Giacomo. Of course, you've got to be able to understand Italian... ;)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Brian S. wrote:
max wrote:
Is there a full transcript available of the Rudy Skype conversation? It is new to me that he knew about the broken window in Filomena's room before it was in the papers. Interesting.


I'm not so sure this claim by the defense is correct.

It's certainly true that for the first week or so all the papers were claiming it was Meredith's window which was broken, but I believe this misconception was gradually corrected following Judge Matteini's report produced on the 9th November:

Extracts from the official judge's report on the murder of Meredith Kercher, obtained by the Telegraph



The defence's claim is not supported by facts.
It is not true papers didn't speak about Filomena's window. Although some reporter made the mistake, some other did not, this from the very beginning.
I am surprised by this defence claim because the information is false.
We can easily check some of the "right" reports of the time explicitly mentioning Filomena's broken window (long before nov 19):


7 november
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

9 november
http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/ricordo_confuso_lha_uccisa_pat/09-11-2007/articolo-id=219274-page=0-comments=1

This article quotes entire bits of the original transcript from the first Amanda's report as it was redacted with the help of the interpreter (nov 2):

"Per prima ho aperto la porta della camera di Filomena, che è la prima camera più vicina all’ingresso, e insieme a Raffaele abbiamo constatato che la finestra a due ante era aperta e il vetro era rotto... Spaventata ho pensato che poteva essere entrato un ladro, e quindi ho dato una rapida occhiata per verificare che fosse tutto in ordine..."

(btw this nov2 report yet appears full of contradictions, especially when crossed with Raffaele's report)

12 november
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSez ... girata.asp
explained in details room is broken in Filomena’s room.

These are only examples. If you google in the news archive you finde there are several paper articles speaking about Filomena's broken window since 8-9 of November 2007.


EDIT: Michael - Fixed broken url.



I may have missed something here. When and where did the defense make the claim that Rudy knew about the broken window before it was disclosed in news reports? Is this an official claim that has been made recently by AK's lawyers, or one that has recently been disseminated by unofficial supporters via informal channels?

_________________
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: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"When and where did the defense make the claim that Rudy knew about the broken window before it was disclosed in news reports? Is this an official claim that has been made recently by AK's lawyers,"

It was the RS defense on the last day (Luca Maori).

Corriere dell'Umbria:
"Tra le richieste documentali, avanzate anche quella di far entrare nel processo la chat di Rudy Guede. "La chat tra il teste Giacomo Benedetti e l'allora latitante Rudy Guede, del 19 novembre 2007 - ha motivato l’avvocato Maori - fatta alla presenza della polizia giudiziaria, chiarisce una serie di aspetti tra i quali il fatto che l'aggressore descritto dall'ivoriano è di "capelli bruno scuri" (e dunque non poteva essere Raffaele Sollecito) e che lo stesso ivoriano parla della rottura della finestra della Romanelli mentre fino a quel momento i giornali avevano parlato erroneamente della rottura della finestra della stanza di Mez. Lo sapeva perché lui era presente"."


Last edited by bolint on Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

May I ask a question of Yummi, also?

Yummi, if you please, how often is a request like this from the defense rejected by the court? Do these requests more often get granted or rejected?

Thank you in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"When and where did the defense make the claim that Rudy knew about the broken window before it was disclosed in news reports? Is this an official claim that has been made recently by AK's lawyers,"

It was the RS defense on the last day (Luca Maori).


Thanks, Bolint. Was this said to reporters or in the courtroom?

_________________
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: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"Was this said to reporters or in the courtroom?"

It was part of a set of documental evidence admitted on the last day but was not discussed in detail by the court. (I put the relevant quotation into my previous post)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

This recorded chat between Rudy and Benedetti was not admitted in Rudy's trial, because it was not recorded by an authorized police personnel. It was only recorded on a computer in the police station where the Skype was used.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Luca Moari, Rudy and Skype.

Why has RS defense done this?

Surely the court won't be taken in by this con?

It was the last evidence submitted in written/recorded form with no possibility for the prosecution to rebut it.

Is RS defense that desperate they resort to what amounts to perjury?

As reported, what Luca Moari said about the the press not printing it was Filomena's window before the 19th is an outright lie.

They were busy correcting the misinformation that it was Meredith's window for over 10 days before Rudy made that call.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Earlier I linked this case shortly after the discovery of a murder.
A pair of students, he now proposes her in the jail and both want to pursue their medical studies. The little problem is they killed and chopped a man.
http://www.bucharestherald.com/dailyeve ... s-pressure
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"When and where did the defense make the claim that Rudy knew about the broken window before it was disclosed in news reports? Is this an official claim that has been made recently by AK's lawyers,"

It was the RS defense on the last day (Luca Maori).

Corriere dell'Umbria:
"Tra le richieste documentali, avanzate anche quella di far entrare nel processo la chat di Rudy Guede. "La chat tra il teste Giacomo Benedetti e l'allora latitante Rudy Guede, del 19 novembre 2007 - ha motivato l’avvocato Maori - fatta alla presenza della polizia giudiziaria, chiarisce una serie di aspetti tra i quali il fatto che l'aggressore descritto dall'ivoriano è di "capelli bruno scuri" (e dunque non poteva essere Raffaele Sollecito) e che lo stesso ivoriano parla della rottura della finestra della Romanelli mentre fino a quel momento i giornali avevano parlato erroneamente della rottura della finestra della stanza di Mez. Lo sapeva perché lui era presente"."


Rudy doesn't say so! He starts saying "his hair was not blond" (nobody asked him), then he continues : "it was brown, but not dark, in between chestnut and blond". I just listened to the tape.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Corriere dell'Umbria:
" e dunque non poteva essere Raffaele Sollecito"


So, who was it? An alien? A member of the free masons, like somebody posted here one month
ago?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

martin wrote:
nicki wrote:
Corriere dell'Umbria:
" e dunque non poteva essere Raffaele Sollecito"


So, who was it? An alien? A member of the free masons, like somebody posted here one month
ago?

Since "money makes water flow uphill", I honestly hope that Rudy doesn't indicate a phantom culprit that has long escaped to Venezuela (?) or to any other country were there is no extradiction... sh-))

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Luca Moari, Rudy and Skype.

Why has RS defense done this?

Surely the court won't be taken in by this con?

It was the last evidence submitted in written/recorded form with no possibility for the prosecution to rebut it.

Is RS defense that desperate they resort to what amounts to perjury?

As reported, what Luca Moari said about the the press not printing it was Filomena's window before the 19th is an outright lie.

They were busy correcting the misinformation that it was Meredith's window for over 10 days before Rudy made that call.



Well, the reason is quite simple Brian. It's a 'two way' con. In essence, the defence are making a case to two different galleries, one being the bench and the other the public, and not saying the stuff they are saying to one gallery (the public) to the other gallery (the bench). Hence they are getting away with what amounts to perjury or in other cases defamation, since that stuff is only being said to the public. The window stuff they've said to the public but I don't think they've said this in court. Other good examples are like in Rudy's trial where Raffaele's defence lawyers came out onto the steps and claimed the prosecutor was alleging a 'Satanic ritual' when in fact he'd said no such thing, or coming out to the public in this trial and saying the police messed around with Raffaele's computer on the 5th Nov while he was being questioned, when in the court room they never outright accused the police, only implied it. Or for example, the defence expert who claimed Rudy's footprint was in Filomena's room to Oggi magazine but never mentioned it in court (because it doesn't exist). They play these games a lot. The fact is, the lawyers are bound not to lie in court, but the same restraint doesn't apply to what they say to the public. They can lie to the public as much as they like.

But, by playing this crap to the public gallery, they are also playing it to the judges indirectly, without risking themselves by saying it in the court room where they may find themselves in serious trouble, since they are quite aware the judges may hear of it by reading the press reports. It's a means of insidiously trying to influence the judges from outside the court room.

However, don't worry, I'm sure the two professional judges have seen all this before and are wise to their games.

_________________
"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: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

nicki wrote:
martin wrote:
nicki wrote:
Corriere dell'Umbria:
" e dunque non poteva essere Raffaele Sollecito"


So, who was it? An alien? A member of the free masons, like somebody posted here one month
ago?

Since "money makes water flow uphill", I honestly hope that Rudy doesn't indicate a phantom culprit that has long escaped to Venezuela (?) or to any other country were there is no extradiction... sh-))

Never fear! Nobody would believe him. Besides, there were no traces of a "phantom culprit"
in the house.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Luca Moari, Rudy and Skype.

Why has RS defense done this?

Surely the court won't be taken in by this con?

It was the last evidence submitted in written/recorded form with no possibility for the prosecution to rebut it.

Is RS defense that desperate they resort to what amounts to perjury?

As reported, what Luca Moari said about the the press not printing it was Filomena's window before the 19th is an outright lie.

They were busy correcting the misinformation that it was Meredith's window for over 10 days before Rudy made that call.



Well, the reason is quite simple Brian. It's a 'two way' con. In essence, the defence are making a case to two different galleries, one being the bench and the other the public, and not saying the stuff they are saying to one gallery (the public) to the other gallery (the bench). Hence they are getting away with what amounts to perjury or in other cases defamation, since that stuff is only being said to the public. The window stuff they've said to the public but I don't think they've said this in court. Other good examples are like in Rudy's trial where Raffaele's defence lawyers came out onto the steps and claimed the prosecutor was alleging a 'Satanic ritual' when in fact he'd said no such thing, or coming out to the public in this trial and saying the police messed around with Raffaele's computer on the 5th Nov while he was being questioned, when in the court room they never outright accused the police, only implied it. Or for example, the defence expert who claimed Rudy's footprint was in Filomena's room to Oggi magazine but never mentioned it in court (because it doesn't exist). They play these games a lot. The fact is, the lawyers are bound not to lie in court, but the same restraint doesn't apply to what they say to the public. They can lie to the public as much as they like.

But, by playing this crap to the public gallery, they are also playing it to the judges indirectly, without risking themselves by saying it in the court room where they may find themselves in serious trouble, since they are quite aware the judges may hear of it by reading the press reports. It's a means of insidiously trying to influence the judges from outside the court room.

However, don't worry, I'm sure the two professional judges have seen all this before and are wise to their games.


The three biggest newspapers in Italy - all with national coverage:

Corriere della Sera.
La Repubblica.
La Stampa.

Yummi posted links to stories in Corriere and La Stampa, dated the 7th and the 9th, stating the broken window was Filomina's.

I don't suppose for a minute that La Repubblica was far behind, or even if it was behind.

Although we don't have access to old stories from the Perugia locals, the CU and Il Giornale, I don't believe for a minute that they weren't as tuned into this as the big guys because this was all happening on their patch.

It's desperation, Michael.

RS defence did put this forward as evidence???
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Luca Moari, Rudy and Skype.

Why has RS defense done this?

Surely the court won't be taken in by this con?

It was the last evidence submitted in written/recorded form with no possibility for the prosecution to rebut it.

Is RS defense that desperate they resort to what amounts to perjury?

As reported, what Luca Moari said about the the press not printing it was Filomena's window before the 19th is an outright lie.

They were busy correcting the misinformation that it was Meredith's window for over 10 days before Rudy made that call.



Well, the reason is quite simple Brian. It's a 'two way' con. In essence, the defence are making a case to two different galleries, one being the bench and the other the public, and not saying the stuff they are saying to one gallery (the public) to the other gallery (the bench). Hence they are getting away with what amounts to perjury or in other cases defamation, since that stuff is only being said to the public. The window stuff they've said to the public but I don't think they've said this in court. Other good examples are like in Rudy's trial where Raffaele's defence lawyers came out onto the steps and claimed the prosecutor was alleging a 'Satanic ritual' when in fact he'd said no such thing, or coming out to the public in this trial and saying the police messed around with Raffaele's computer on the 5th Nov while he was being questioned, when in the court room they never outright accused the police, only implied it. Or for example, the defence expert who claimed Rudy's footprint was in Filomena's room to Oggi magazine but never mentioned it in court (because it doesn't exist). They play these games a lot. The fact is, the lawyers are bound not to lie in court, but the same restraint doesn't apply to what they say to the public. They can lie to the public as much as they like.

But, by playing this crap to the public gallery, they are also playing it to the judges indirectly, without risking themselves by saying it in the court room where they may find themselves in serious trouble, since they are quite aware the judges may hear of it by reading the press reports. It's a means of insidiously trying to influence the judges from outside the court room.

However, don't worry, I'm sure the two professional judges have seen all this before and are wise to their games.


The three biggest newspapers in Italy - all with national coverage:

Corriere della Sera.
La Repubblica.
La Stampa.

Yummi posted links to stories in Corriere and La Stampa, dated the 7th and the 9th, stating the broken window was Filomina's.

I don't suppose for a minute that La Repubblica was far behind, or even if it was behind.

Although we don't have access to old stories from the Perugia locals, the CU and Il Giornale, I don't believe for a minute that they weren't as tuned into this as the big guys because this was all happening on their patch.

It's desperation, Michael.

RS defence did put this forward as evidence???


Well Brian, as you said, while we can't check the locals it certainly was correctly reported in the nationals at an early date. Now, if you're on the run for murder in a foreign country, what are going to be the first papers (and easiest) to check for news of the case? What are going to come up first in any google search? The nationals.

We know Rudy had checked out the news, he must have, since he was aware of Amanda's and Raffaele's arrest (although Raffaele's actual name wasn't on the tip of his tongue at that time). And of course, anyone on the run for murder is going to check, they're going to want to know what is going on.

Raffaele's defence didn't put this (Rudy and the window) forward as evidence....they slipped it to the judges right at the very end when it couldn't be contested and when they hoped the judges might not notice they were being slipped a pill. But this isn't the first trick of this kind they've pulled. Do you recall the testimony of Christian that was deemed so much nonsense by Micheli that he dismissed it out of hand in Rudy's trial? Well, the defence got around that fact of history in this trial by producing Christian's initial statement in the court room (subsequently ruled as pap by Micheli) without actually producing Christian himself so he could testify on the stand (let alone be cross examined), all under the claim that they couldn't find him. Of course, nobody had looked for him but them (the prosecution wouldn't have been interested), so, you can guarantee they never looked that hard...not at all in fact. And thus, they got Christian's original statement into the process via the back door.

I agree it's desperation. The defence has very little actual substance, but they're full of tricks!

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Luca Moari, Rudy and Skype.

Why has RS defense done this?

Surely the court won't be taken in by this con?

It was the last evidence submitted in written/recorded form with no possibility for the prosecution to rebut it.

Is RS defense that desperate they resort to what amounts to perjury?

As reported, what Luca Moari said about the the press not printing it was Filomena's window before the 19th is an outright lie.

They were busy correcting the misinformation that it was Meredith's window for over 10 days before Rudy made that call.



Well, the reason is quite simple Brian. It's a 'two way' con. In essence, the defence are making a case to two different galleries, one being the bench and the other the public, and not saying the stuff they are saying to one gallery (the public) to the other gallery (the bench). Hence they are getting away with what amounts to perjury or in other cases defamation, since that stuff is only being said to the public. The window stuff they've said to the public but I don't think they've said this in court. Other good examples are like in Rudy's trial where Raffaele's defence lawyers came out onto the steps and claimed the prosecutor was alleging a 'Satanic ritual' when in fact he'd said no such thing, or coming out to the public in this trial and saying the police messed around with Raffaele's computer on the 5th Nov while he was being questioned, when in the court room they never outright accused the police, only implied it. Or for example, the defence expert who claimed Rudy's footprint was in Filomena's room to Oggi magazine but never mentioned it in court (because it doesn't exist). They play these games a lot. The fact is, the lawyers are bound not to lie in court, but the same restraint doesn't apply to what they say to the public. They can lie to the public as much as they like.

But, by playing this crap to the public gallery, they are also playing it to the judges indirectly, without risking themselves by saying it in the court room where they may find themselves in serious trouble, since they are quite aware the judges may hear of it by reading the press reports. It's a means of insidiously trying to influence the judges from outside the court room.

However, don't worry, I'm sure the two professional judges have seen all this before and are wise to their games.


The three biggest newspapers in Italy - all with national coverage:

Corriere della Sera.
La Repubblica.
La Stampa.

Yummi posted links to stories in Corriere and La Stampa, dated the 7th and the 9th, stating the broken window was Filomina's.

I don't suppose for a minute that La Repubblica was far behind, or even if it was behind.

Although we don't have access to old stories from the Perugia locals, the CU and Il Giornale, I don't believe for a minute that they weren't as tuned into this as the big guys because this was all happening on their patch.

It's desperation, Michael.

RS defence did put this forward as evidence???


Well Brian, as you said, while we can't check the locals it certainly was correctly reported in the nationals at an early date. Now, if you're on the run for murder in a foreign country, what are going to be the first papers (and easiest) to check for news of the case? What are going to come up first in any google search? The nationals.

We know Rudy had checked out the news, he must have, since he was aware of Amanda's and Raffaele's arrest (although Raffaele's actual name wasn't on the tip of his tongue at that time). And of course, anyone on the run for murder is going to check, they're going to want to know what is going on.

Raffaele's defence didn't put this (Rudy and the window) forward as evidence....they slipped it to the judges right at the very end when it couldn't be contested and when they hoped the judges might not notice they were being slipped a pill...

I agree it's desperation. The defence has very little actual substance, but they're full of tricks!

Michael,
All the judges have to do it's listen to the skype conversation, Rudy was reading out to his friend about the washer machine and the wet clothes. Obviously the guy was checking the papers from an internet cafe. The Corriere, Repubblica, Nazione, Gionale etc all had the latest updates about the murder in real time. Defense must be truly desperate.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Nicki wrote:
Michael,
All the judges have to do it's listen to the skype conversation, Rudy was reading out to his friend about the washer machine and the wet clothes. Obviously the guy was checking the papers from an internet cafe. The Corriere, Repubblica, Nazione, Gionale etc all had the latest updates about the murder in real time. Defense must be truly desperate.


Hi Nicki. Well, let's see how far it gets them. I think Judge Massei gave a very good indication of how impressed he was with their games in the last hearing by denying all their requests. They can play their games, but they won't get them anywhere. I only hope it wasn't an "edited" copy of the Skype tapes that they handed over.

I'm surprised that the prosecution and Maresca didn't object more strongly, but still, I can't see the defence getting any mileage out of this latest stunt.

_________________
"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 Oct 11, 2009 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"When and where did the defense make the claim that Rudy knew about the broken window before it was disclosed in news reports? Is this an official claim that has been made recently by AK's lawyers,"

It was the RS defense on the last day (Luca Maori).

Corriere dell'Umbria:
"Tra le richieste documentali, avanzate anche quella di far entrare nel processo la chat di Rudy Guede. "La chat tra il teste Giacomo Benedetti e l'allora latitante Rudy Guede, del 19 novembre 2007 - ha motivato l’avvocato Maori - fatta alla presenza della polizia giudiziaria, chiarisce una serie di aspetti tra i quali il fatto che l'aggressore descritto dall'ivoriano è di "capelli bruno scuri" (e dunque non poteva essere Raffaele Sollecito) e che lo stesso ivoriano parla della rottura della finestra della Romanelli mentre fino a quel momento i giornali avevano parlato erroneamente della rottura della finestra della stanza di Mez. Lo sapeva perché lui era presente"."


The way I understand it wanting the Skype and also Messenger chat...
Is that because Guede's sentencing report (Micheli's conclusions) was not to be part of AK/RS trial and it would have meant that neither the Skype chat would be part of it unless requested by the defense.
Both defenses want the Skype because Guede more or less denies that either Knox or Sollecito were there. Luca Maori when requesting the Skype chat, had to explained motivations (and maybe embroiderer a bit) to Massei as to why the defense believes this chat is important for his client, therefore this Court would grant them to have the Skype added to this trial files.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Thanks Jools,

But Rudy denying (or at least not admitting to) their presence does not exonerate them. Guede, had he committed the crime with Amanda and Raffaele, would have had good reason not to mention their involvement in the beginning. They weren't mentioning him and all the time he didn't mention them it could stay that way. That suited him. It was against his interests to directly accuse them. I'm hoping the court will recognise that. My concern, is since the defence slipped that in at the last minute and therefore denied the prosecution the chance to point this out, this may not be realised by the judges. But then, I suppose that's why the defence waited until the last minute to do this, precisely to try and pull a fast one.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Jools:
Quote:
The way I understand it wanting the Skype and also Messenger chat...
Is that because Guede's sentencing report (Micheli's conclusions) was not to be part of AK/RS trial and it would have meant that neither the Skype chat would be part of it unless requested by the defense.
Both defenses want the Skype because Guede more or less denies that either Knox or Sollecito were there. Luca Maori when requesting the Skype chat, had to explained motivations (and maybe embroiderer a bit) to Massei as to why the defense believes this chat is important for his client, therefore this Court would grant them to have the Skype added to this trial files.


Anyone up for a transcript/translation of Rudy's Skype?????
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Jools:
Quote:
The way I understand it wanting the Skype and also Messenger chat...
Is that because Guede's sentencing report (Micheli's conclusions) was not to be part of AK/RS trial and it would have meant that neither the Skype chat would be part of it unless requested by the defense.
Both defenses want the Skype because Guede more or less denies that either Knox or Sollecito were there. Luca Maori when requesting the Skype chat, had to explained motivations (and maybe embroiderer a bit) to Massei as to why the defense believes this chat is important for his client, therefore this Court would grant them to have the Skype added to this trial files.


Anyone up for a transcript/translation of Rudy's Skype?????


I could do it but I need a link to the text and/or the recording.
I found a link to La Stampa multimedia, but it doesn't work.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

try this one

http://www.lastampa.it/multimedia/multi ... tipo=#mpos
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Thanks Jools,

But Rudy denying (or at least not admitting to) their presence does not exonerate them. Guede, had he committed the crime with Amanda and Raffaele, would have had good reason not to mention their involvement in the beginning. They weren't mentioning him and all the time he didn't mention them it could stay that way. That suited him. It was against his interests to directly accuse them. I'm hoping the court will recognise that. My concern, is since the defence slipped that in at the last minute and therefore denied the prosecution the chance to point this out, this may not be realised by the judges. But then, I suppose that's why the defence waited until the last minute to do this, precisely to try and pull a fast one.

In the skype conversation (part 9 and 10), Rudy clearly states that if the wet clothes were in the washers-quoting from a paper- only Amanda or Raffaele could have done it. I think the judges are smarter than that.

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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Rudy also says that the window was NOT broken when he left,thus clearly indicating a staging. So are we supposed to believe Rudy only when he says-first version-that Amanda wasn't there? Selectively picking whatever truth is most useful? Again, I believe the judges are smarter than that!

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

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

This is off topic, but can anyone guess, if Amanda and Raf did an elaborate clean up (as evidenced by the bathroom pics after luminol was applied), why did they not clean all the blood off the sink and bidet, not to mention remove the bathmat with an obvious footprint? Or at least throw it in the washing machine with the other clothes.
Top Profile 

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

satorimoon wrote:
This is off topic, but can anyone guess, if Amanda and Raf did an elaborate clean up (as evidenced by the bathroom pics after luminol was applied), why did they not clean all the blood off the sink and bidet, not to mention remove the bathmat with an obvious footprint? Or at least throw it in the washing machine with the other clothes.


Because the postal police interrupted them in the middle of the cleanup.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The only audio I have been able to listen to is this one.
Rudy Guede's words: "...."
Commentator: (.....)

RudyGuede

"It was said by her friends that she was tired and that she was going home. However that wasn't true; we were going to see each other."
(Rudy Guede speaks in perfect Italian with his friend from Perugia in the Internet conversation on November 19th last year when Rudy was in Germany.
He tells how he met Meredith on the day of Halloween and how they were to meet again on the evening of November 1st. And he remembers one detail.)
"They said that there was a broken window; when Meredith and I saw each other it wasn't broken; it was intact. Also, when I went away it was intact.
And I tried and she was willing too, but we didn't do anything because she didn't have a condom and I didn't either."
(Rudy tells how he went to the bathroom and heard a very loud noise.)
"I came out and I saw this fellow. As I had my pants down and came out of the bathroom in a hurry, I fell over and this bloke ran away, went out the door, understand?"
(Rudy will give another version to the magistrate on December 7th. In that house on that evening, he says, there were at least three people. He denies however, that as well as the murderer Amanda and Raffaele were there. However, he confides to his friend.)
"They said that [ .....unclear words ..... several ... the girl's ...clothes .... put in the washing machine .... wet] well if this really happened, it was Amanda or Raffaele who did it. Because when I went off she was dressed."
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:19 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

‘This is off topic, but can anyone guess, if Amanda and Raf did an elaborate clean up (as evidenced by the bathroom pics after luminol was applied), why did they not clean all the blood off the sink and bidet, not to mention remove the bathmat with an obvious footprint? Or at least throw it in the washing machine with the other clothes.’

I suspect they wanted to leave a very small amount of blood in the bathroom. They probably figured that the killer would do a little cleanup in the bathroom, and leave some traces behind since it was right there. A little blood left behind would be alright (not Amanda’s) since it would be enough to cause Amanda to think something was a little strange, but not enough to cause her not to take a shower. If she was worried that the cops might find a latent footprint of hers in blood she would have a ready excuse. The bathmat had no easy solutions. They probably hoped that that the foot print would be attributed to the killer (someone else), maybe try to smear it by doing a bathmat shuffle. A killer has just about two choices: Tell the police (no one); or try to get away with it by any means. Clean up/ stage/alibi’s to make it look like somebody else did it (the twins), or get away quickly (Rudy).
The early arrival of the postal police put a monkey wrench into everything No last minute tidy up , and the crime scene (cottage) would essentially frozen in time for the investigators.

Note: Tiziano, your translation work is extremely helpful.
Top Profile 

Offline sbman


Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:12 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:33 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I know I shouldn't but I'm anticipating already the reaction when the verdict comes of certain members of the US media who've disgraced themselves with this episode. In particular that fraud at the NYT Timothy Egan will have two options with a guilty verdict:

A campaigning vigorously and continuously on her behalf and proclaiming a gross miscarriage of justice
or
B apologizing to his readers for shooting his mouth off before doing any worthwhile research

Well which will it be?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

sbman wrote:
I know I shouldn't but I'm anticipating already the reaction when the verdict comes of certain members of the US media who've disgraced themselves with this episode. In particular that fraud at the NYT Timothy Egan will have two options with a guilty verdict:

A campaigning vigorously and continuously on her behalf and proclaiming a gross miscarriage of justice
or
B apologizing to his readers for shooting his mouth off before doing any worthwhile research

Well which will it be?


If he follows in the footsteps of his mentor and role model Doug Preston, he will probably choose option A: never apologize; never admit to having made a mistake! I am convinced that Doug Preston not only saw a lucrative opportunity; he was also unable to back down once he had shared his insight with us. His insight, for those who may have forgotten, was that all one had to do was look at a photo of Raffaele Sollecito to determine his innocence.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Thanks Jools,

But Rudy denying (or at least not admitting to) their presence does not exonerate them. Guede, had he committed the crime with Amanda and Raffaele, would have had good reason not to mention their involvement in the beginning. They weren't mentioning him and all the time he didn't mention them it could stay that way. That suited him. It was against his interests to directly accuse them. I'm hoping the court will recognise that. My concern, is since the defence slipped that in at the last minute and therefore denied the prosecution the chance to point this out, this may not be realised by the judges. But then, I suppose that's why the defence waited until the last minute to do this, precisely to try and pull a fast one.

Hi Michael,

I agree it does not exonerate them, how can it? He is part of the group accused of killing Meredith. IMO the purpose of this request by RS defense, is more to do with trying to establish ‘the lone wolf’ and the ‘consensual sex’ theory more than anything else, or at least, a chance for this jury to hear from one ‘already sentenced’ suspect, admitting to being in the house, having ‘consensual petting’ with the victim on the night of the murder.

Guede refusal to testified on AK/RS trial meant, that these judges have no RG direct testimony admitting all of the above unless the Skype is added to the current files.

I really don’t understand why the prosecution should object now for these chats to be added nor I believe the prosecution were denied the chance to object. It’s something that they brought themselves to the pre-trial, surely for the prosecution, if it was important then it could be just as important now.

Remember that we don’t know what’s in the full conversation, the prosecution obviously do, there is bound to be a lot more in those chats than what we read, it lasted 3 hours! It was first started by Messenger instant messaging, then continued by Skype and as far as I’m aware there is only been little excerpts of it published.

IMO from the prosecution point of view the chats help to establish that Guede met Knox and smoked dope together at the cottage, so is not as if they ‘only knew of each other’ as the defense claimed, but actually met each other on a few occasions. Also some other things he says in that chat, could help prosecution, or lets say not damage the accusation, i.e.; description of the guy holding the knife, definitely Italian, did not have a Perugian accent, implying he was from the south, slightly shorter than him, the colour of his hair, yes he does say ‘bruno’, (brown) but then a bit after when pressed on this point by his friend, RG repeats that it was brown, not light blonde, but chestnut brown as in dark blond and the fact that when he escape the victim was fully dressed, describes what Meredith was wearing, the window in Filomena’s room was not broken, clothes in the washing machine could only be Amanda and Raffaele, Meredith’s money missing, on his way to the bathroom hears doorbell, hears Meredith asking ‘who is it?’ then opening the door while he perceives from what he could hear that it was one of the flatmates, so he continued with his business bathroom, iPod, till he hears a very loud scream and sees and fights the Italian guy…

Both defenses have not attempted any other route besides the DNA contamination and Rudy Guede as the lone killer strategy. Nor have they considered any of the pre-trial conclusions, where they where told by judge Micheli why most of their theories didn’t hold. In fact, they have not moved an inch from day one, despite their theories not being credible to those who matter, the judges. Their clients still at the same situation they were 2 years ago. No wonder defense and FOA are pessimistic about the outcome of this trial and feel the need to prepare the accused for a guilty verdict while hoping that all will be sorted in their favour at the Appeals Court.
Top Profile 

Offline 007


Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:26 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: who is amanda knox?   

Quote:
007 « Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:46 am » Unless you live in Texas and your governor was GW Bush. Lot's of folks were put to death down there on circumstantial evidence... So sad.
007 « Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:45 am » Circumstantial evidence does not generally meet the requirements for conviction in Capital cases such as this.


I would also like to say the following regarding this comment made in the chat room: Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife in the US. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. He was not convicted in Texas but in California. So it seems they have 'monkey-trials' in the US too and there it was allowed to use common sense, I cannot see why the Italians should be reproached for using common sense.

There is no doubt that most of the evidence couldn't be contested and disproved successfully like Frank Sfarzo and his equals try to make the public believe. The conflicting statements of both defendants are only the icing of the cake.[/quote]

007 Here: Regarding Scott Peterson case - Victim's decomposed body was recovered in water not far from Berkeley Marina, where Peterson claimed to have taken his small boat in the days following his wife's disappearance. He said he went fishing, but the weather and the boat were not compatible for that purpose. He was followed by LEO's and arrested at the Mexican border with a briefcase full of cash, a beard and his hair color changed. His behavior and attempted flight, in combination with the location of victim's corpse, did lead the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that Scott murdered his wife w. extenuating circumstances, given that she was pregnant.

I have no problems with the Peterson conviction... I do wonder why he didn't just walk away and file for divorce, if he hated her or the idea of becoming a parent so much.

Also, I never said that a guilty verdict in the Kercher case would be an injustice, given the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. I do however know of several individuals who were put to death in Texas, where in most other US states their appeal process would have been far more robust. Once you kill the convicted, there's no chance for review/appeal. That was all I was trying to say when I posted that day...

With regard to Preston, I read his book. I thought it was well written. I think he had every right to call into question Mignini's history and methods, given the way he and Mario Spezi were treated by Mignini when they dared to do their own MOF investigations.

Like me, perhaps Preston saw a 'rush to judgement' and a possible 'railroad job', mainly because it was Mignini who came up with the 'Sex Game Gone Wrong' theory within hours or perhaps days of the autopsy findings. If any of you had ever met AK, you would know that this 'sex-game' theory of his was so far off the mark given her age, personality and demeanor, that his accusations really seemed to be the work of a 'conspiracy theorist' or at least, an unethical person who made up a scenario to fit his own interpretation of the facts.

It has been almost 2 years since this whole thing started and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then...
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

For picking uo the topic about Rudy's trial, maybe it is useful too know that, in the Italian system, definitive sentences (so-called passed in giudicato) - which means a sentence that is declared vaalid after all appeals - are considered evidence by the law. I am talking about a definitive sentence from a Trial X (case against defendant A which contaiins a finding about a person B) which would become an evidence in a Trial Y (case against the defendant B).

This mechanism is typical of civil law, probably doesn't have an equivalent in common law in the criminal field. But just imagine its application. If an appeal court this time writes a second sentence on Rudy, a long written report in which the final finding is the description of the case in which Rudy couldn't act alone (a kind of "second Micheli's report") and becomes definitive, this report would be taken the same value of a witness report in the case against Amanda's and Raffaele. The same mechanism is valid in Rudy's trial by what is witten in Amanda's and Raffaele's sentence.
If Micheli's report becomes definitive it will become a damning evidence against the two, entering a set in which whatever "lack of evidence" the defences are playing with, this evidence will be genuine unless proven otherwise. A sentence in Rudy's trial could indeed be nailing for them.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

007 wrote:

"With regard to Preston, I read his book. I thought it was well written. I think he had every right to call into question Mignini's history and methods, given the way he and Mario Spezi were treated by Mignini when they dared to do their own MOF investigations."

Nobody has ever claimed that Doug Preston is not a good writer. It is his profession, and his specialty is fiction, though he has written non-fiction for magazines and such. Your synopsis of the ongoing issue between Mignini and Preston/Spezi is pretty simplistic and could have been written by Preston himself. I keep asking for someone, anyone, even Preston, to come up with the goods on Mignini and his past, all to no avail. Other than the story involving Preston AS TOLD BY PRESTON, no one has produced a thing. I have three major reservations about Preston's work in this case: (a) He has no source other than Spezi himself, and it is possible that Spezi has manipulated him. In any case, it is worth considering. (b) The Monster of Florence case and the horrific tragedy involving Meredith Kercher are entirely unrelated except for the fact that the prosecutor in both (or at least for part of the complex MOF case, as has been explained over and over and over) is one and the same person. (c) Preston's afterword, which he devotes specifically to the pending Meredith Kercher case, is riddled with mistakes. One of the most flagrant is his description of the interrogation; another is the verbatim conversation with a journalist he supposedly had about Mignini. I have heard from more than one reliable source that this conversation never took place as far as the journalist is concerned.

I also have a fourth criticism, though Preston is not entirely to blame. Too many lazy and ill-informed journalists and would-be writers have based their reporting/writing about this case entirely on Preston's book. If he aggressively courted these people to get them to write or make television shows based on his claims, then he shares some of the blame.


007 wrote: "Like me, perhaps Preston saw a 'rush to judgement' and a possible 'railroad job', mainly because it was Mignini who came up with the 'Sex Game Gone Wrong' theory within hours or perhaps days of the autopsy findings. If any of you had ever met AK, you would know that this 'sex-game' theory of his was so far off the mark given her age, personality and demeanor, that his accusations really seemed to be the work of a 'conspiracy theorist' or at least, an unethical person who made up a scenario to fit his own interpretation of the facts."

I don't know when Mignini came up with his theory about what happened, or if your description captures it at all. We have discussed the reasons many are uncomfortable with that particular rendering many times. However, I see no reason to think that Mignini rushed to judgement (what is the evidence of that?) or that, as one popular theory has it, he stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong. Personally, I think Preston may be the one who rushed to judgement (he could tell by merelylooking at a photo that Raffaele was not the killer and he came up with his theory without looking at any evidence whatsoever) and who wants to save face now. It is at least possible.

As far as knowing or meeting one of the suspects having an impact on how one views (or closes one's eyes to) evidence or theories, this is certainly true. It happens time and again when someone with no history is suspected of having murdered someone. But I honestly don't think that there is any connection - any logical connection - between knowing a suspect and arguing that the prosecutor is unethical or given to flights of fancy. These are two separate things, and you can't argue backwards from knowing someone personally to knowing what motivates someone else. Mignini did not know AK or RS or RG from Adam when he was charged with investigating this case.

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

007 said
Like me, perhaps Preston saw a 'rush to judgement' and a possible 'railroad job', mainly because it was Mignini who came up with the 'Sex Game Gone Wrong' theory within hours or perhaps days of the autopsy findings. If any of you had ever met AK, you would know that this 'sex-game' theory of his was so far off the mark given her age, personality and demeanor, that his accusations really seemed to be the work of a 'conspiracy theorist' or at least, an unethical person who made up a scenario to fit his own interpretation of the facts.

I don't think anyone takes the sex game theory too seriously, except the FOAK, because they can decry it with little opposition. If you think about it, it's almost the kindest interpretation that could be made of the scene and the evidence. I don't suppose Amanda's suppporters would have preferred an interpretation that would be nearer the truth.....
Top Profile 

Offline sbman


Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:12 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
sbman wrote:
I know I shouldn't but I'm anticipating already the reaction when the verdict comes of certain members of the US media who've disgraced themselves with this episode. In particular that fraud at the NYT Timothy Egan will have two options with a guilty verdict:

A campaigning vigorously and continuously on her behalf and proclaiming a gross miscarriage of justice
or
B apologizing to his readers for shooting his mouth off before doing any worthwhile research

Well which will it be?


If he follows in the footsteps of his mentor and role model Doug Preston, he will probably choose option A: never apologize; never admit to having made a mistake! I am convinced that Doug Preston not only saw a lucrative opportunity; he was also unable to back down once he had shared his insight with us. His insight, for those who may have forgotten, was that all one had to do was look at a photo of Raffaele Sollecito to determine his innocence.


I think he's not boneheaded enough for A (despite being from Seattle and having a college daughter recently spend a year abroad in Italy he really has no dog in this race) and not courageous enough for B. No doubt he'd prefer the third alternative of ignoring his mistake and hoping it'll quietly fade away but NYT readers and editors (a fine paper otherwise) need to be reminded of the incompetence that calls into question all his previous columns.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

007,

The actual charge is 'Concorso di omicidio e violenza sessuale'= Complicity of murder and sexual violence.
Top Profile 

Offline 007


Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:26 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I know exactly what you're getting at, Bucketoftea. I'm more inclined to believe that RG, RS, and at least one other male assailant attacked MK. I'm inclined to believe AK must have let one or all of them in. I'm inclined to believe the part of AK's statement in which she says she's in the kitchen covering her ears when the rape/murder happens. I don't want to believe that AK could have had her hands on the victim in any way, shape or form, at any time. The tough part for me to figure out is why, even if she was stoned/drunk to near unconsciousness, would she make no attempt to flee that gruesome scene? Surely she must have realized such a pack of crazed wolves could turn on her as well... She was in decent enough shape to probably outrun any of them, given a modest head-start. I don't buy the line that RG acted alone either...

Edit: PS: Jools, Where did you get that picture of Chris and the laptop? Who is the guy on his right?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:55 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Hi 007
(call me bucket)
It doesn't make sense, does it? She didn't run because she knew she was not in danger. She didn't help Meredith because she was complicit.
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:36 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I think she planned the whole thing, rape or attack. With her boyfriend. She went into the kitchen at some time when things got difficult and then went back and finished Meredith's murder. She couldn't stand not being in the mix.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:06 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Jools wrote:
"Both defenses have not attempted any other route besides the DNA contamination and Rudy Guede as the lone killer strategy. Nor have they considered any of the pre-trial conclusions, where they where told by judge Micheli why most of their theories didn’t hold. In fact, they have not moved an inch from day one, despite their theories not being credible to those who matter, the judges. Their clients still at the same situation they were 2 years ago."

Yes. They tried to discredit the DNA but failed to achieve that.
Use of Rudy's words is a double edged sword as he also accuses them in some of his versions, no wonder they were reluctant to build a strategy on it.
The lawyers turned to this "weapon" only when the others had failed.

(It reminds me of the battle of Lepanto:
"Even after the battle had clearly turned against the Turks, groups of Janissaries still kept fighting with all they had. It is said that at some point the Janissaries ran out of weapons and started throwing oranges and lemons at their Christian adversaries, leading to awkward scenes of laughter among the general misery of battle")
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:47 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I have read elsewhere that Sra Nara has double glazing on her windows, which is not true judging from the footage in the first CBS 48 Hours segment.


its double glazing, 70 meters away, etc.. per the Micheli report.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:31 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I have read elsewhere that Sra Nara has double glazing on her windows, which is not true judging from the footage in the first CBS 48 Hours segment.


its double glazing, 70 meters away, etc.. per the Micheli report.


I can't find the "double gazing" . Could you kindly provide the page?
Thanks

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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Slightly OT - Interesting article on why convicted killers & abusers never tell the whole story, even when faced with life imprisonment. Unfortunately, it does show how we'll never know the whole story. It's all about power apparently like food and anorexics. By holding onto the details, they get to maintain what little power they have left even when facing a 30 to life stretch. Fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8292395.stm
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Are there any pictures of Amanda and Raffey's reactions after the decision not to have special investigator examine evidence was announced in Court ??
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

007 wrote:
Edit: PS: Jools, Where did you get that picture of Chris and the laptop? Who is the guy on his right?


The guy sharing a stool with ‘M’ is his 007 in Perugia or better known by another of his incognito as Frank Sfarzo.

:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

nicki wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I have read elsewhere that Sra Nara has double glazing on her windows, which is not true judging from the footage in the first CBS 48 Hours segment.


its double glazing, 70 meters away, etc.. per the Micheli report.


I can't find the "double gazing" . Could you kindly provide the page?
Thanks



jfk 1191! If I may add: could you kindly provide the page?
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

AK's ear: in court last month and on 2/11/07.


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: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:11 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

I have noticed that quite a few people have been asking for translations. This is good. However, I've also noticed that some people have asked for the translation of a passage when a translation has already been provided by one of our resident translators. I just wanted to emphasise, that translating anything is not only a responsibility, but can be a lot of hard work, especially when it involves spending time examining bad handwriting or listening to audio recordings. Therefore, could members, before requesting a translation, or repeating a request for one, please check all previous recent posts to ensure one hasn't already been provided before making their request. I understand how they can sometimes be missed, especially when comments are coming thick and fast, but please take that extra little bit of time to check. You want to be looking out for posts from our resident translators (Tiziano, Catnip, Nicki) along for those who will post occasional translations (Jools, Bolint, Thoughtful, Yummi etc,). It must be a little soul destroying when they go to the time and effort of rendering a translation that's been requested and is then completely ignored.

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 DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

This from the NBC Today show from Monday. Curt Knox, the resident expert is no where in sight. Keith Miller says that the prosecution hasn’t provided a direct link between Knox and this crime. Nick Pisa says the recent judges decision is a severe blow to the defendants. Hillary Clinton who appears (not clear what was the question or what she was responding too) says ‘We don’t interfere in the judicial processes in other nations unless there is very good cause, We monitor and we see no other reason to do other than that.’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg03GZz1jyw
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"I can't find the "double gazing" . Could you kindly provide the page?"

page 57 top
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"I can't find the "double gazing" . Could you kindly provide the page?"

page 57 top

Thanks Bolint. So the cottage is 70 meters from Nara and notwhistanding the double gazing she could hear a piercing scream. I am not surprised, I also have double gazing and I can hear music and people partying in house next to mine (150 meters far)

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

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

DLW wrote:
This from the NBC Today show from Monday. ...we see no other reason to do other than that.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg03GZz1jyw

Thank you DLW! I wonder whether Hillary answers to a specific question on Amanda Knox here?

Btw the voice-over guy of NBC Today really starts to annoy me! I mean, how ignorant can someone be with a job like this? He must have done at least a dozen reports on the case and he still can't say Raffaeles name right? Oh, i get it: he only gets paid to speak, so he refuses to lend a ear, especially to somebody with a name like Nick Pizza... c-))
Top Profile 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
Slightly OT - Interesting article on why convicted killers & abusers never tell the whole story, even when faced with life imprisonment. Unfortunately, it does show how we'll never know the whole story. It's all about power apparently like food and anorexics. By holding onto the details, they get to maintain what little power they have left even when facing a 30 to life stretch. Fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8292395.stm


Fascinating article daisysteiner. Thanks so much for the link.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

007 wrote:

"It has been almost 2 years since this whole thing started and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then..."

Has that water flowed uphill or downhill?

_________________
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 Oct 14, 2009 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

OT but not really: I read an interesting article online recently, written by a writer named Cory Doctorow. The main subject of the article was whether or not e-books will eventually replace printed books and whether or not that is a good thing. Doctorow is among the few writers who have embraced the e-book phenomenon early on, and even makes his books fully downloadable from his website. Not only has this practice not killed the market for his books in paper form; it has actually sold more books. He also notes what most of today's professional writers are starting to figure out: that there is no such thing as bad publicity on the web. He cites one review of his book made by an anonymous critic/reader online:

Quote:
I am really not sure what kind of drugs critics are smoking, or what kind of payola may be involved. But regardless of what Entertainment Weekly says, whatever this newspaper or that magazine says, you shouldn't waste your money. Download it for free from Corey's (sic) site, read the first page, and look away in disgust -- this book is for people who think Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is great writing.


Doctorow responds:

Quote:
Back in the old days, this kind of thing would have really pissed me off. Axe-grinding, mouth-breathing yahoos, defaming my good name! My stars and mittens! But take a closer look at that damning passage:

Download it for free from Corey's site, read the first page

You see that? Hell, this guy is *working for me*! Someone accuses a writer I'm thinking of reading of paying off Entertainment Weekly to say nice things about his novel, "a surprisingly bad writer," no less, whose writing is "stiff, amateurish, and uninspired!" I wanna check that writer out. And I can. In one click. And then I can make up my own mind.

You don't get far in the arts without healthy doses of both ego and insecurity, and the downside of being able to google up all the things that people are saying about your book is that it can play right into your insecurities -- "all these people will have it in their minds not to bother with my book because they've read the negative interweb reviews!" But the flipside of that is the ego: "If only they'd give it a shot, they'd see how good it is." And the more scathing the review is, the more likely they are to give it a shot. Any press is good press, so long as they spell your URL right (and even if they spell your name wrong!).


It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the various people now positioning themselves with regard to this story.

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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Jumpy wrote:
I think she planned the whole thing, rape or attack. With her boyfriend. She went into the kitchen at some time when things got difficult and then went back and finished Meredith's murder. She couldn't stand not being in the mix.


I don't think it was planned as in sitting down and assigning roles and responsibilities etc. but I do think intent was there eating its way through the twisted mind of Amanda Knox. I do believe Knox's texts to Meredith on Halloween the day before the murder were an attempt to lure her to her death on that night. Knox had something in mind for her.
Knox was unsuccessful that night, Meredith simply doing the right thing and not wanting to spend any time with this awful person saved her.
How I wish she was not home alone the next night though when Knox saw her chance.
As far as being in the mix, Knox was and is the connective tissue linking this whole tragedy together.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline 007


Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:26 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
007 wrote:

"It has been almost 2 years since this whole thing started and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then..."

Has that water flowed uphill or downhill?


Downhill...

But what awaits downstream? That is the question.

My guess is more jail cell vistas for a while. The appeal process
might win them house-arrest in Italia for 2 years or so, but sooner or
later they'll end up going back to serve out their (plea-bargained?) sentences.
But will the KK/EM money last that long?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:36 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

007 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
007 wrote:

"It has been almost 2 years since this whole thing started and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then..."

Has that water flowed uphill or downhill?


Downhill...

But what awaits downstream? That is the question.

My guess is more jail cell vistas for a while. The appeal process
might win them house-arrest in Italia for 2 years or so, but sooner or
later they'll end up going back to serve out their (plea-bargained?) sentences.
But will the KK/EM money last that long?



If they are convicted of the sexually aggravated murder charge, I really can't see how they can be granted house arrest while they await their appeal. A charge or conviction for any violent sexual crime is an automatic remanding to custody. And of course, the flight risk issue is the same as it was before.

_________________
"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 mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:39 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

DeathFish, you nailed it, imo.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

I'm a little confused and was wondering if someone could help me out?

Rudy's pre-arrest conversations via Internet messenger/Skype: which conversations happened 'when' and by which medium? Because, it seems there are 'two' pre-arrest conversations (not including his email to the Telegraph Journalist):

1. Rudy originally claimed he wasn't at the cottage that night. When and with who and by what medium did that conversation happen?

2. Then there was another conversation (that started out via Internet messenger and then switched to Skype) where Rudy admitted to being at the cottage and talks about the window not being broken etc,.

Or, is it that both conversations were actually one and Rudy simply started off by saying he was not at the cottage to then admitting later in the same conversation that he actually was and went on to talking about the window and other stuff?

_________________
"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 daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Quote:
Hillary Clinton who appears (not clear what was the question or what she was responding too) says ‘We don’t interfere in the judicial processes in other nations unless there is very good cause, We monitor and we see no other reason to do other than that.’


:D I haven't been to the cooks blog today but what do you think Harry's reaction to Hillary's statement is? Is Clinton in the pay of Mignini too? He must be the richest man in the world eee-)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:09 pm   Post subject: Talking Italian   

Michael wrote:
It must be a little soul destroying when they go to the time and effort of rendering a translation that's been requested and is then completely ignored.


Michael,
Thanks for the sentiment.

I hold to the school that nothing is ever ignored. Not really.

Even if we are all:
“Silent, upon a peak in Darien.”


One day, Keats open'd and read Chapman’s Homer ([ link ]) . Today, I’ve just re-read Judge Matteini’s reasons for keeping the accused locked up inside (re-linked to recently, [ here ]). There’s a literary gem in the reasoning that I hadn’t noticed before. There are implications flowing from it, though, that might be fruitful to follow. And translations, like poems, don't mind a gentle polish now and then.


When that gorgeous girl-group Bananarama b-(( b-(( b-(( were writing the lyrics to their “Robert De Niro’s Waiting” hit song back in the 1980s, their producer asked them to add the line “Talking Italian” to make it more romantic ( [ Wikipedia ] ).

Likewise, in granting an application by the prosecution opposing bail, the GIP also made a reference to the romance of Italy; although (lawyers being lawyers), the love of long, sinuous phrases that spiral on forever without end may, for common folk, make that reference a trifle hard to find.


Civil and Criminal Tribunal of Perugia
Office of the Justice for Preliminary Investigations


Justice Dr Claudia Matteini

having examined the procedural documentation indicated in the epigraph, in the matter of:
– DIYA, Lumumba, called Patrick, born in Kindu (Zaire) on 5 May 1963, resident of Perugia
– KNOX, Amanda Marie, born in Washington (USA) on 9 July 1987, domiciled in Perugia
– SOLLECITO, Raffaele, born in Bari on 26 March 1984, resident of Giovinazzo, domiciled in Perugia

[all] investigated under writs for the crimes to which articles CPV 110-81, CP 609A, 575, 576(5) apply, [namely] for having in concert between themselves and with multiple executive actions arising from a shared criminal enterprise, with violence and menaces, constrained the British citizen Kercher, Meredith Susanna Cara, in generalised terms, to suffer sexual acts and for having killed her, by use of an instrument, sharp-pointed and bladed, upon the region of the neck, during the course of committing the felony of sexual violence,

– facts committed in Perugia during the course of the night of the 1st and 2nd November 2007,

having examined the petition submitted by the Prosecutor-in-Chief, Dr Giuliano Mignini, seeking affirmation of the arrests carried out in relation to the aforesaid by the Questura of Perugia, Mobile Squad Division, on 6 November 2007 in execution of the arrest warrant issued on 6 November 2007 by the same Prosecutor, Dr Giuliano Mignini,

[page 2] found that the arrest warrant was executed for the crimes it pertains to

that in fact there were specific elements conducive to holding that there was a potential flight risk

that the elements subsumed under article 384 of the CPP need not be such as to furnish direct evidence of planned flight, this last being in any case a future and uncertain occurrence (Cass. crim app I, 26 April 1994 n 1396),

that such danger in the instant case was real, effectible and non-imaginary, not being necessary on the other hand that it be a case of particularly intense danger, rather sustaining a level of probability confirming of flight (Cass. crim app I, 29 April 1991, Matina)

that the instant case involves an American ragazza (“young woman”) and a ragazzo (“young man”) from Zaire, the [both of] which would have had the means to distance themselves from the territory of the State for the purpose of removing themselves from the investigations,

that, as regards the Italian ragazzo, the same together with the aid of Knox, by means of a romantic bond, would have had the means to depart from Italy rendering
the ascertainment of facts more difficult,

that there are grave indices of culpability, hereinafter specified,

that the terms of the law were respected,

FOR THESE REASONS

Affirms the arrest executed in the matter of DIYA, Lumumba, called Patrick, KNOX, Amanda Marie, and SOLLECITO, Raffaele, as above summarised, by the Questura of Perugia, Mobile Squad Division, on 6 November 2007.


Having examined the petition submitted by the Public Prosecutor for an application for precautionary custody in prison regarding DIYA Lumumba, called Patrick, KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele, it is necessary in the first place to note that the essential requirements for the purposes of an application for a precautionary order are grave indices of culpability and precautionary exigencies, and it is exactly the [page 3] extremities of these two requirements that must be bolstered by the evidence-in-chief of the investigations for the purpose of legitimatizing its adoption.

Regarding grave indices of culpability, it is opportune to draw attention to the provisions to which article 273(1) of the CPP applies, which expressly provides that “no one shall be placed under a precautionary order if on their behalf there exist no sustainable grave indices of culpability”, inclusive in the latter are indices that, taken together, are such as to allow the drawing of a conclusion that, without reaching the level of certainty as required by a verdict, there be yet a high probability of sustaining the crime and of its attribution to the suspect, and such, in terms of quantum of gravity, as to withstand alternative interpretations (Cass. crim app III, 3-Dec-2003 n 306; Cass. crim 6-Nov-2002 n 37159).

Such a general principle is of the utmost importance in drawing a demarcation line between,

on the one side,

those indices that in any case allow the prosecution of investigations for the purposes of ascertaining and discovering confirmation of an investigatory hypothesis (which can be described as connoting the characteristic of sufficiency), and grave indices allowing an intervention, in such weighty a matter as the removal or limitation of personal liberty, imposed upon a particular subject [under the law], which are distinguishable from the former, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in postulating an objective precision in each individual index element, so as to build upon them towards a conclusion of high probability in the existence of a crime and of its attribution to that particular subject,

[and] on the other [side],

between said indices and those uncovering indicatory evidence that, instead of allowing the reaching of a conclusion with certainty, in addition to a requirement of gravity, must also satisfy the requirements of precision and concordance.

From which it can be seen that having a picture of grave indices, necessary and sufficient to apply a precautionary custodial measure against a particular subject, requires one or more elements that however are pivotal for basing a conclusion of qualified probability on the suspect’s responsibility (Cass. crim app IV, 4 July 2003 n 36610; Cass. crim app IV, 21 June 2005, n 30328).

[page 4] It must be specified, further, that, to verify that such a conclusion is effectively based on a picture of grave indices, it is necessary to ascertain whether said conclusion is capable of standing up to, according to the yardstick of common experience, any alternative explanations (Cass. crim app III, 3-Dec-2006, n 306).

Note that these general principles necessitate verifying the sustainability of the actual case by referring to the elements acquired up until this moment on the basis of investigations undertaken, and doing so requires stepping through all the developments [in the case] from the first event.

On the 2nd November 2007, at 12.35, personnel of the Polizia Postale of Perugia presented themselves in via della Pergola, number 7, for the purposes of contacting one Romanelli, Filomena, as regards that same morning Signora Lana, Elisabetta, having found on the grass of her garden facing her house situated in via Sperandio, number 5A, two cell phones of which one had the SIM card of the carrier, Vodaphone, relating to the number 348xxxxxxx, subscribed to by the said Romanelli; [upon] arrival at the place, the two field agents found, outside the edifice of via della Pergola number 7, two giovani (“young persons”, US: “kids”), identified as Knox, Amanda Marie, domiciled at that address, and Sollecito, Raffaele, the which [persons] made reference to being in expectation of the Carabinieri’s arrival, called by them themselves, whereby upon returning home that morning, they had become aware of a window with a broken pane and had suspicion of a burglary; in the meantime, they were joined at 13.00 by the aforementioned Romanelli, co-housemate of the said Knox, who verified that nothing had been transported out of the apartment.

During the course of an inspection, it was ascertained that the door to the room used by Meredith Kercher, another ragazza living in the apartment in question, had been locked with a key and it was decided in the end to break down the door, insofar as the said Romanelli considered it strange, both that it had been possible to remove both phones from her friend Kercher (the latter also having usage of the SIM card of the aforementioned subscriber), and also the fact that the door to her room was chiusa [here, “locked”]; the door, once opened, revealed an astonishing scene, insofar as the room was found in total disarray, …
etc etc


And so on.
The rest we know. This is a quarter of the way through. I’ll do the rest in another post.

The legal wording spirals along in long, slow, ever-constricting sentences, like a silken python.



Technical note:
In legal parlance, “residence” means your home or abode, and “domicile” means where you happen to be living at that moment (not necessarily your home); or, more technically, “domicile” is where you spent the night sleeping (for normal people) or dancing (for university students, as in clubs with names like Domus Delirii, “the House of Deliriums”). Though, when it comes to claiming you were domiciled at your boyfriend’s, sleeping there the whole night through, and yet there are physical signs at your rented apartment that you must have been up and awake there instead the whole time, and you are constrained to have to reluctantly admit that you smoked “a joint or two” and thereby forgot “heaps”, a different kind of delirium starts to creep into the picture, one that cannot be lovingly cleared by the dawn of a new day and the smile of a friend.

Psychological note for the budding scriptwriter (and/or novelist):
There is an inkling here in the legal reasoning to take notice of, an almost Shakespearean one, regarding the unfathomable subconscious in a behind-the-scenes wordplay, between one stregua (= “yardstick”, “measure”), as in “the stregua of common experience”, and one strega (=”witch”, “shrew”, “hag”, “old crone”, “bewitching sorceress”, etc), as in “the strega of an uncommon Halloween murder case”.

New York criminologist Pat Brown’s cold-case re-analysis of Cleopatra’s last moments (shown here on TV last night), concluded that it was unlikely Cleopatra’s death was suicide (as traditionally taught) but more likely to have been wilful murder. There’s a good précis of the 2004 documentary [ here ] and [ here ].

Pat Brown mentioned, amongst other things, that a murderer does not change their behaviour, that is, people do what seems to be logical to them at the time in the circumstances.

I’m beginning to think that psychology could be playing a deeper and more significant role in this case than I first thought. There is a common linking thread throughout, to paraphrase Fine, of people not being as adept as they think they are. Ironically, a bit like the Italian archery team at the Olympics missing out on the gold by the hair’s breadth of just one arrow, only not so emotionally extreme.

More to follow.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
"Rudy's pre-arrest conversations via Internet messenger/Skype: which conversations happened 'when' and by which medium?"


Micheli mentions three known contacts with Rudy before the arrest:

page 20 middle
On Nov 12 or 13 Mancini noticed that someone was online on Rudy's Messenger account. He sent a few messages without receiving a reply. A little after the last message in which he accused Rudy of again disappearing even from him Guede responded "I can't" on which he asked "What is it that you can't" and the other answered: "You know". Mancini answered "What should I know?" which he repeated twice without getting an answer.

page 43 top

On Nov 16 the police contacted Rudy's ex-schoolmate and friend Giacomo Benedetti and in a couple of days he undestood what was it about and on Nov 19 he noticed that Rudy was online in Messenger and there was a long conversation in which he could get him to decide to return to Italy. Benedetti testified that during that conversation Rudy told him he had nothing to do with the murder. In connection with the three arrested people Benedetti asked him if Amanda - understanding that Rudy had known her - or Lumumba could have been involved, and Rudy answered "not involved" with respect to the girl and a stronger "not involved a fuck" with respect to Lumumba. According to him an Italian young man was responsible and to the question if it could have been Sollecito he answered in vague terms more or less in phrases like "uh, I don't know, I think yes" repeating that "I think yes" several times when the question was posed again.

page 43 middle
At that point instead of writing him questions through chat Benedetti suggested him having voice contact through Skype and sent him money through money transfer to pay a place at an internet point ....



And that was the Skype conversation we talk about.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: Talking Italian   

Catnip wrote:
New York criminologist Pat Brown’s cold-case re-analysis of Cleopatra’s last moments (shown here on TV last night), concluded that it was unlikely Cleopatra’s death was suicide (as traditionally taught) but more likely to have been wilful murder. There’s a good précis of the 2004 documentary [ here ] and [ here ].

Pat Brown mentioned, amongst other things, that a murderer does not change their behaviour, that is, people do what seems to be logical to them at the time in the circumstances.

I don't have the time to go into this in detail, and this is a bit off-topic, anyway, but I can't help saying that this kind of analysis should be taken with a pinch of salt. It may provide good TV fodder, but any serious ancient historian would laugh off this kind of analysis. Most accounts were written decades or even centuries after the event, and shouldn't be taken as objective fact, but rather as highly colored and romanticized stories. The few contemporary accounts of her death give alternative methods of suicide, or just mention an asp without giving any details. We don't even know what particular species of snake was being referred to. In ancient literature it was a vague and general term. Basically, we simply don't know and can't know the precise details of what happened.

However, it appears that Cleopatra was worth far more to Octavian alive than dead, for propaganda purposes, and certainly no danger to him, so there is no reason to doubt that she committed suicide. Mark Antony committed suicide, as did Brutus, Cassius, and many others. It was a part of the culture of the times, and considered the honorable thing for a leader to do in defeat.

Suicide actually improved her reputation and gained her more respect in the Roman world.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
I'm a little confused and was wondering if someone could help me out?

Rudy's pre-arrest conversations via Internet messenger/Skype: which conversations happened 'when' and by which medium? Because, it seems there are 'two' pre-arrest conversations (not including his email to the Telegraph Journalist):

1. Rudy originally claimed he wasn't at the cottage that night. When and with who and by what medium did that conversation happen?

2. Then there was another conversation (that started out via Internet messenger and then switched to Skype) where Rudy admitted to being at the cottage and talks about the window not being broken etc,.

Or, is it that both conversations were actually one and Rudy simply started off by saying he was not at the cottage to then admitting later in the same conversation that he actually was and went on to talking about the window and other stuff?

Messenger/Skype with his friend Giacomo Benedetti is just one long conversation on November 19, never been published in full. The part when Guede says AK was not there I gather is in written form so must be the Messenger part. This is in Micheli’s report pg 43:

'During the course of this conversation, Guede said he had nothing to do with this murder; since three other persons were arrested, Benedetti asked him if it was Amanda –having understood that Rudi knew her- or Lumumba, the other (RG:“aveva scritto di no”) had written no, using for the girl the expression “non c’entra’’ and for the Congolese the reinforced one of “non c’entra un cazzo”. The one responsible, from what the suspect was saying, was an Italian young man, and to the question if it was Sollecito (who’s image was in all the papers and for sure accessible by internet) he responded in vague terms, more or less with a phrase “boh, non lo so, penso di si”.'

The quoted responses by RG in the report below are my best translation, perhaps one of our resident translators can check if is an accurate translation.

For Knox RG had written: no, doesn’t entered.
For Lumumba RG had written: doesn’t entered no shit.
For Sollecito RG responded: bah, don’t know, I believe yes.

There are more conversations between them, but are from prison visits where Guede gives further details on the other two suspects.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"Reasoned Brown: “It’s hard to believe that Octavian would ignore the fact that she wanted to commit suicide and just let her do it without having a guard to watch over her. It seems a little odd to me that someone usually so meticulous would be so careless. "

What guard? There is no record that Cleopatra has ever been captured by Octavian.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
"Reasoned Brown: “It’s hard to believe that Octavian would ignore the fact that she wanted to commit suicide and just let her do it without having a guard to watch over her. It seems a little odd to me that someone usually so meticulous would be so careless. "

What guard? There is no record that Cleopatra has ever been captured by Octavian.

Actually some ancient accounts, like that of Plutarch, do say that she was captured by Octavian. But royalty was royalty in those days, and someone of her rank would without any doubt have been allowed privacy, her own servants, etc. even in captivity.

Other royal prisoners taken by Rome in the 1st century BC were exiled to small Italian towns, along with their entire household and even a selection of their own artworks, furniture, etc. They were provided with an allowance by the Roman state to live, if not in royal style, then at least like wealthy aristocrats, and allowed to live out their lives quietly on condition that they didn't get involved in politics. This would almost certainly have been Cleopatra's fate after appearing in Octavian's triumph, but she was not prepared to accept that. "Non humilis mulier", not a humble woman, as Horace said.

After Cleopatra's death, her children by Mark Antony were brought up by Octavian's sister (and Antony's ex-wife!) and well treated. Cleopatra's daughter, Cleopatra Selene, later married King Juba of Mauretania and they ruled Mauretania, lived happily and had long lives by all accounts.

You have to like the names that Antony and Cleopatra gave their children: the eldest two were twins named Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene (helios=sun, selene=moon) and their younger son was called Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
Michael wrote:
"Rudy's pre-arrest conversations via Internet messenger/Skype: which conversations happened 'when' and by which medium?"


Micheli mentions three known contacts with Rudy before the arrest:

page 20 middle
On Nov 12 or 13 Mancini noticed that someone was online on Rudy's Messenger account. He sent a few messages without receiving a reply. A little after the last message in which he accused Rudy of again disappearing even from him Guede responded "I can't" on which he asked "What is it that you can't" and the other answered: "You know". Mancini answered "What should I know?" which he repeated twice without getting an answer.

page 43 top

On Nov 16 the police contacted Rudy's ex-schoolmate and friend Giacomo Benedetti and in a couple of days he undestood what was it about and on Nov 19 he noticed that Rudy was online in Messenger and there was a long conversation in which he could get him to decide to return to Italy. Benedetti testified that during that conversation Rudy told him he had nothing to do with the murder. In connection with the three arrested people Benedetti asked him if Amanda - understanding that Rudy had known her - or Lumumba could have been involved, and Rudy answered "not involved" with respect to the girl and a stronger "not involved a fuck" with respect to Lumumba. According to him an Italian young man was responsible and to the question if it could have been Sollecito he answered in vague terms more or less in phrases like "uh, I don't know, I think yes" repeating that "I think yes" several times when the question was posed again.

page 43 middle
At that point instead of writing him questions through chat Benedetti suggested him having voice contact through Skype and sent him money through money transfer to pay a place at an internet point ....



And that was the Skype conversation we talk about.



Thanks Bolint. It therefore remains a mystery then when it was that he said, if he ever did, that he wasn't actually there. The FOA have repetitively used Rudy's supposedly saying he was never there to emphasise his 'dishonest and bad character'. I do though think that he did at some point say that. It must have been via his conversation with the journalist with the Daily Telegraph. If I remember it rightly, the journalist was able to contact him via his Facebook or Myspace page and Rudy told him that he would return to Italy to prove his innocence. I'll see if I can dig it out, we may as well have the full set.

_________________
"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 Oct 14, 2009 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"Actually some ancient accounts, like that of Plutarch, do say that she was captured by Octavian"

Thanks, indeed.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

(( OT OT ))

A truly terrible case just come to a close in the UK: 'Hammer attack father-to-be jailed' - BBC


The BBC wrote:
An-ex nightclub bouncer has been jailed for 25 years for trying to murder his heavily pregnant partner and attempting to destroy their unborn baby.

Simon Morris, 37, had been having an affair and would have inherited money from Nerys Price's will, Mold Crown Court was told.

The prosecution said he had made the attack look like burglary gone wrong.



Ya, there seems to be a lot of that going on.


The BBC wrote:
Prosecutor Patrick Harrington QC said Morris then made it look as if an intruder had been responsible, but a random burglar would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from attacking a heavily pregnant woman.

When Ms Price woke up she asked Morris to call the police but remembered seeing sevens and nines on his phone as he tried to to dial 999, she told the jury.

"It appeared that he was trying to ring the police but was clearly missing the numbers," she said


Pregnant or not, it makes little sense a lone burglar murdering a lone woman who can do nothing to harm him.

And hmmm, oh no, not the messing around and slight of hand with phones and pretending to call the police again.


The BBC wrote:
"Ms Price, who now lives in Ruthin, Denbighshire, also told the court how, on her release from hospital, she began having doubts about Morris's "peculiar behaviour".

He was arrested eight days after the attack on 23 August, 2008.



This is starting to sound familiar.



The BBC wrote:
After the case, Morris's family said they would fight to clear his name, attacked the police investigation and claimed the real culprit was free.

"For Simon, obviously, we stand by him and stand by his innocence. He has been set up," said his brother Jonathon.

"The real offender should have been here today and found guilty, not Simon."


Hmm, now who is this sounding like?

_________________
"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 Oct 14, 2009 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

"when it was that he said, if he ever did, that he wasn't actually there."

I think it is indirectly concluded from Benedetti's account in which he says that (in the Nov 19 Messenger chat) Rudy wished to specify "that he had nothing to do with the murder".
(Il teste riferiva che nel corso di quella conversazione il GUEDE aveva tenuto a precisare di non avere nulla a che fare con l’omicidio)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
"If I remember it rightly, the journalist was able to contact him via his Facebook or Myspace page and Rudy told him that he would return to Italy to prove his innocence."

This is the Telegraph report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rough.html

An email is mentioned there but what we are interested in again refers to the Skype talk or Messenger chat with Benedetti:

Quote:
"Guede allegedly told his friend: "I was not there that night. If they found my fingerprints, it means I had left them there before. I had been in the house before, but not on the day of the killing.

"I knew Amanda and I knew Meredith, but I did not kill her.""
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
Michael wrote:
"If I remember it rightly, the journalist was able to contact him via his Facebook or Myspace page and Rudy told him that he would return to Italy to prove his innocence."

This is the Telegraph report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rough.html

An email is mentioned there but what we are interested in again refers to the Skype talk or Messenger chat with Benedetti:

Quote:
"Guede allegedly told his friend: "I was not there that night. If they found my fingerprints, it means I had left them there before. I had been in the house before, but not on the day of the killing.

"I knew Amanda and I knew Meredith, but I did not kill her.""


Thanks Bolint, that was the article I was trying to find. But then, Rudy couldn't have said that he wasn't there to Benedetti, because of Jool's translated excerpt (thanks Jools):

Jools wrote:
Messenger/Skype with his friend Giacomo Benedetti is just one long conversation on November 19, never been published in full. The part when Guede says AK was not there I gather is in written form so must be the Messenger part. This is in Micheli’s report pg 43:

'During the course of this conversation, Guede said he had nothing to do with this murder; since three other persons were arrested, Benedetti asked him if it was Amanda –having understood that Rudi knew her- or Lumumba, the other (RG:“aveva scritto di no”) had written no, using for the girl the expression “non c’entra’’ and for the Congolese the reinforced one of “non c’entra un cazzo”. The one responsible, from what the suspect was saying, was an Italian young man, and to the question if it was Sollecito (who’s image was in all the papers and for sure accessible by internet) he responded in vague terms, more or less with a phrase “boh, non lo so, penso di si”.'

The quoted responses by RG in the report below are my best translation, perhaps one of our resident translators can check if is an accurate translation.

For Knox RG had written: no, doesn’t entered.
For Lumumba RG had written: doesn’t entered no shit.
For Sollecito RG responded: bah, don’t know, I believe yes.


Now it appears that at no point does Micheli mention any conversation where Rudy Guede ever said he wasn't actually there that night. Therefore, can we conclude that Rudy never in fact did so? That the report that he did was a misreport?

_________________
"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 Oct 14, 2009 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
"Now it appears that at no point does Micheli mention any conversation where Rudy Guede ever said he wasn't actually there that night. Therefore, can we conclude that Rudy never in fact did so? That the report that he did was a misreport?"

Micheli does say: Rudy said in the Messenger chat that he has nothing to do with the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

bolint wrote:
Michael wrote:
"Now it appears that at no point does Micheli mention any conversation where Rudy Guede ever said he wasn't actually there that night. Therefore, can we conclude that Rudy never in fact did so? That the report that he did was a misreport?"

Micheli does say: Rudy said in the Messenger chat that he has nothing to do with the murder.



Sure, but there's a big difference between saying 'I had nothing to do with it' to saying 'I wasn't there'. Rudy still claims he had nothing to do with the murder, but he admits to being there.

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael wrote:
(( OT OT ))

A truly terrible case just come to a close in the UK: 'Hammer attack father-to-be jailed' - BBC


Hmm, now who is this sounding like?


Michael, I had exactly the same thoughts when I saw this. The extent to which someone can lie on the stand is staggering. Also the case of the doctor who tried to poison his pregnant lover to kill the baby recently. His defence? "I could not be sure the baby was mine". Oh, well that's alright then! Monstrous. And the woman perpetrator? You only have to look at the truly vile case in court at present concerning the nursery school worker caught photographing and abusing babies in her care. TWO other women also under arrest. It happens. It is disturbing. Very. But it is a reality and one we need to engage with, however unbelievable it seems. I was deeply touched by these photos for example:

http://www.lastampa.it/multimedia/multi ... tipo=#mpos

Photos of Amanda as a child, and as a baby. How could a little one so bright eyed and innocent end up as she has? One searches one's heart and soul asking how. And the care put into her by Edda (in the background there, but could be any mum). What a repayment. But I believe Amanda has lied and is implicated. And I believe she is finally beginning to pay for what she did. When that last request was denied - I think that's the first time Amanda began to realise she's not going home for a VERY long time. One does wonder when the facade is going to break.

Felt almost sorry for Edda looking at these pictures. They have tried very hard to give their little girl the best start in life. And that's no crime. One can't expect them not to defend something they have invested in so heavily...even if they are deeply deluded and doing it all wrong...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
(( OT OT ))

A truly terrible case just come to a close in the UK: 'Hammer attack father-to-be jailed' - BBC


Hmm, now who is this sounding like?


Michael, I had exactly the same thoughts when I saw this. The extent to which someone can lie on the stand is staggering. Also the case of the doctor who tried to poison his pregnant lover to kill the baby recently. His defence? "I could not be sure the baby was mine". Oh, well that's alright then! Monstrous. And the woman perpetrator? You only have to look at the truly vile case in court at present concerning the nursery school worker caught photographing and abusing babies in her care. TWO other women also under arrest. It happens. It is disturbing. Very. But it is a reality and one we need to engage with, however unbelievable it seems. I was deeply touched by these photos for example:

http://www.lastampa.it/multimedia/multi ... tipo=#mpos

Photos of Amanda as a child, and as a baby. How could a little one so bright eyed and innocent end up as she has? One searches one's heart and soul asking how. And the care put into her by Edda (in the background there, but could be any mum). What a repayment. But I believe Amanda has lied and is implicated. And I believe she is finally beginning to pay for what she did. When that last request was denied - I think that's the first time Amanda began to realise she's not going home for a VERY long time. One does wonder when the facade is going to break.

Felt almost sorry for Edda looking at these pictures. They have tried very hard to give their little girl the best start in life. And that's no crime. One can't expect them not to defend something they have invested in so heavily...even if they are deeply deluded and doing it all wrong...


Hi Bard. I know what you mean. I'm sure nearly all murderers looked cute as babies. That's a pragmatic and an emotional view. The philosophical, is one of corrupted potential. The potential for lead to be turned into gold, instead, for whatever reason, corrupted into something more base then lead. That is 'tragedy', in the real sense of the word. But then, one has to consider...while arguments of nature or nurture or circumstance come into play, at the end of the day the one truth is 'choice' and ultimately responsibility for choice lays firmly with the individual, even a corrupted one. We make our choices in the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. It's the one truth, the order in the sea of chaos. It's about going with or against the natural order. As a student of Shakespeare you'll know what I mean.

But, truth be told, I have mixed feelings about the shots of 'kiddie' Amanda. On the one hand, I feel sorrow..and regret -not for me, but for her, while on the other I feel a degree of anger and resentment. I don't like to be emotionally blackmailed and manipulated. That isn't Amanda's fault. She isn't behind the campaign. But all the same, it harms her. The excuses made on her behalf by others, combined with that, makes it even worse and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

"And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse
by the excuse."

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


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

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Michael, I liked your response to Bard. Bard, you sound like you have a big heart and a lot of empathy as you try to understand just how a young woman with potential and everything that her parents could provide could go so wrong. It is ultimately down to Knox's choice finally. I cannot blame her parents for her actions. I can find fault with how they have handled things since her confinement, however. But I won't bother with that. I don't know why people make bad decisions, I guess it is for a lot of reasons. We have all done it ourselves, especially in our youth. However, I do believe that things would not have gone so wrong so quickly without the drug use. And still, Knox is to be held accountable for that decision too. Since people have been bringing up Scott Peterson, I can't help but remember all of the cute photos on the news of his childhood, the stories about what a gifted sportsman he was, etc. He seemed to have it all. Except a conscience. Nature vs nuture ... I don't know. But I do know as a parent myself that parents must teach morality. From day one. Some parents are asleep at the wheel while parenting and only wake up after an accident. We will never know for sure what the effect of good vs bad parenting is. Some people have harsh childhoods and grow up determined to make a better life. Some people have priveledged childhoods and grow up happy and also build a fine life. Oh, I better quit now and leave this discussion to Miss Represented!

By the way, I so enjoy all the contributors here on PMF. I read daily although I post infrequently. Just a thank you to all who work so hard to get the facts and information out for people who are trying to understand how this could happen to lovely Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

From the Smog (sorry):

Turtle Dove wrote:
Posted by turtle dove at 10/14/09 3:01 p.m.

Here is a quote form the Google translation of the story I footnoted above:

Rudy says clearly: "Amanda was not there, the damn night." Claims to have had sex with Meredith (who invited him home), he went into the bathroom (the traces of his DNA on toilet paper, compatible with those of body fluids found on the victim's body), but had heard the voices of someone entering. When he came into the room she saw "a young Italian, brown, without glasses" who slaughtered Meredith. "We had a fight," he revealed in a story confused, "I also injured but can not remember exactly the face of that young man (the alleged killer, ndr)" and then I ran, I was afraid. It was not me who killed her. "



THE SMOG


How can Rudy possibly say anything "clearly" in a 'Google translation'?

_________________
"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 Oct 14, 2009 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Oct 9 -   

Jodyodyo wrote:
Michael, I liked your response to Bard. Bard, you sound like you have a big heart and a lot of empathy as you try to understand just how a young woman with potential and everything that her parents could provide could go so wrong...


Hi Jodyodyo, nice to see you. Pretty much everyone here has a big heart. None of us want to see anyone railroaded, as we are accused of elsewhere. The difference is, while Amanda's story is indeed tragic and I will take no pleasure at all in what happens to her, no matter what that may be, our hearts are in the right place, with the true victim Meredith Kercher, her family and her friends. That's where they should be. And no matter how tragic it may be for others, like Amanda, that tragedy is self inflicted and compounded even further by those that claim to support her. We don't bear that and neither should we. Our concern is simply with what is right and that is truth...and truth is justice. And that by definition is fair and right to all.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 27 [ 6513 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 27  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,914,496 Views