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 7:00 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:00 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 - Dec 31, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:11 am   Post subject: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 - Dec 31, 09   

XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 9 - Dec 31, 09






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

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)
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 Dec 09, 2009 11:25 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Why we shouldn’t scream ‘Italian job’ over Amanda Knox

By Gail Walker
Tuesday, 8 December 2009

BELFAST TELEGRAPH

_________________
"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 Dec 09, 2009 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Joann M. Weiner
Contributor
Shouldn't War Top Amanda Knox on Our Most-Read List?

Posted: 12/9/09


POLITICS DAILY

_________________
"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 Dec 09, 2009 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Excellent interview with Andrea Vogt here.

Quote

"Vinnie Politan discusses the Amanda Knox guilty verdict with freelance journalist Andrea Vogt. In Part 1/2 Vogt defends the much criticized Italian legal process. In Part 2/2 Politan and Vogt go over different interpretations of key evidence from the trial. Interview aired on Sirius XM 12/7/09."

Part One

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2u0cePKgNA

Part Two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuesmt-V ... re=related

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:


Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2






Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2


_________________
"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 Terence


Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:26 am

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I am reading a book titled "In the Minds of Murderers - The inside story of criminal profiling" by Paul Roland. One quote that immediately stood out was "The majority of criminals like nothing better than talking about themselves and basking in the recognition they imagine their crimes have earned." Out of the trio convicted, AK immediately stands out underpinning this statement and further confirms my opinion that she masterminded the murder and used two (unsuspecting?) people to help her pull it off. I suspect that this murder was not 'accidental'. It was well orchestrated. Afterwards, things went wrong for AK as she had not built contingency into the actions required to set the murder scene to get RG to take the fall alone. It is divine justice that someone completely independent from the trio set in motion actions that would lead the Postal Police to the discarded cellphones. It is also quite coincidental that MK was given an additional cellphone that was registered back to the murder scene. The surprise that this introduced into preventing an entire cleanup was crucial. More evidence would have been lost, had AK & RS had more time. I'm sure that they would not have eradicated everything, but their conviction would have been much more difficult. Fortunately, Gaia has a way of protecting the innocent. When Gaia doesn't get there in time, she finds a way of balancing out the negative energy...though it may take up to 26 years...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stevo


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:44 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Having just watched the 48hr, i am shocked at how someone who is under investigation for abusing his authority is still allowed to continue working on such life changing affairs! That would never happen in the U.K, also i never knew of the American writer who was close to being framed by the same person.

This verdict becomes more questionable by the day, surely some random womans blog! who claims to speak to a dead priest, was not used in the trial? That just makes a mockery of the whole process used to convict!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jetlagged


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:17 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Newspaper editors want to sell papers and select their stance accordingly. I just don’t understand why so many of them are so blindingly pro-Amanda. Surely their readers would welcome another opinion?

If I were the editor of a tabloid paper I’d run the following story:

***
AMANDA – WHY SHE IS AS GUILTY AS SIN Global Exclusive

The Filthy Rag today brings you exclusive coverage from behind the scenes of the court case that has captivated the world. We will show you how the jury was RIGHT to convict Foxy Knoxy and why the American press have got it WRONG to complain about the verdict. We present never–publicised-before evidence on pages 2-12 that will show once and for all that Amanda and Rafaelle are guilty. Here are some of the more important facts:

    Amanda LIED to the police not once or twice but several times as she continually changed her story after the murder.

    Rafaelle initially told police they were at a party that night, but later changed his story and told police he had earlier told them “a load of old BOLLOCKS

    Amanda claimed to have been at Rafaelle’s flat for the entire time on the night of the murder, but Rafaelle told police she was GONE for several hours.

    Rafaelle REFUSED to take the stand for fear of implicating himself and Amanda.

    Amanda accused a perfectly innocent man of the murder and WATCHED and did NOTHING as he was arrested and detained for two whole weeks.

    A BLOODY SHOE-PRINT that matched Amanda Knox was found in Meredith’s room.

    Forensic evidence suggests that Rafaelle and Amanda tried to CLEAN UP THE BLOOD in the cottage before police arrived. The clean up also included WIPING fingerprints. The only DNA not cleaned up was that from Rudy Guede.

    At first police thought it might be a burglary, but soon realised that the burglary had been STAGED.

    Local police SURPRISED Foxy and Raf mid-way through their clean up on the morning after the crime. Foxy and Raf claimed that they had found blood and already called the police, but phone records show that this was a LIE.

    Rafaelle’s DNA was found in only two places in the cottage: on a cigarette butt in the kitchen and on Meredith’s bra clasp. As DNA does not fly through the air it is hard to see where the SO-CALLED CONTAMINATION could have come from.

    One of the SUSPECTED MURDER WEAPONS, the one with Amanda’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s on the blade, was actually found in Rafaelle’s flat, a place that Meredith had never been. It had been SCOURED with bleach
*

...and so on. I’m a little nauseous after trying to imitate a tabloid writer, but the point I’m trying to make is that there is a fantastic story for any editor wanting to print the true facts of the case. If any tabloid editors want to lift this piece, please be my guest. Just leave me a message and we can talk about a free-lancing job OK?
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:58 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:


Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2






Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2






Thanks Michael

It makes such a refreshing change to hear a balanced view being broadcast. I like the way to interviewer poses questions that so many uninformed people are clearly thinking at the moment. Andrea does a great job of explaining the legal system. I learned a few things. Isn't it a shame that she is the only balanced voice coming out of the US at the moment - and she is balanced, not biased, I believe. She actually sat through the darned trial, so her opinion should be respected!

Well done Vinnie Politan on Sirius XM. He seems to be the only pundit brave enough to go against the flow...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Windfall, google 'Janet Chandler'. Some here see parallels to this case.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Stevo wrote:
Having just watched the 48hr, i am shocked at how someone who is under investigation for abusing his authority is still allowed to continue working on such life changing affairs! That would never happen in the U.K, also i never knew of the American writer who was close to being framed by the same person.

This verdict becomes more questionable by the day, surely some random womans blog! who claims to speak to a dead priest, was not used in the trial? That just makes a mockery of the whole process used to convict!


Stevo. First of all, the 48 hours show was nothing less then propaganda. IT was factually incorrect on many levels and designed to deceive. Indeed, Paul Ciolino who featured in it is a fill blown member of the FOA and...I will even go so far as saying Van Sant is also (in my opinion).

In regard to Mignini, what he is being charged with is no more then an administrative issue and is as the result of a fall out with another prosecutor from a different region (Florence). In other words, it's political. Mignini has already been tried and cleared of all charges. The Florentine prosecutor however appealed the verdict, so hence why it continues. You also cite Douglas Preston. Preston had nothing but good things to say about Mignini in his book until after the Knox case began and then added an afterword to his book attacking Mignini. This is because he and co-author Mario Spezi have both a serious axe to grind with Mignini and because there is serious money to be made in this...uncreased book sales. This really is a side issue to the Meredith Kercher case. But if it interests you, to have a deeper understanding, here's a reading list for you:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... -save-her/

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... spect.html

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic. ... 408#p20408

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7879293.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic. ... 394#p17394

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... /#comments


And also download and view Kermit's excellent Powerpoint: RAILROAD TO HELL

You may also want to download and view this one: EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY


Here, Preston himself admits his version of the MOF is probably no more true then anybody else's take:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/florence-murder/6


Further reading:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... r_mignini/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... ndermined/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _sideshow/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... uite_sane/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... ve_the_ca/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... enged_rep/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... o_misfire/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... y_popular/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... nd_her_po/

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... /#comments

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -Andrea Vogt   

Michael wrote:
Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:


Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2

Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2



Thank you Bard: what an excellent report by a really professional journalist.

Seattle PI deserve lots of Kudos for sourcing their news from someone of such high calibre who is "on the ground" AND WHO SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE!!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:


Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2






Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2






Thanks Michael

It makes such a refreshing change to hear a balanced view being broadcast. I like the way to interviewer poses questions that so many uninformed people are clearly thinking at the moment. Andrea does a great job of explaining the legal system. I learned a few things. Isn't it a shame that she is the only balanced voice coming out of the US at the moment - and she is balanced, not biased, I believe. She actually sat through the darned trial, so her opinion should be respected!

Well done Vinnie Politan on Sirius XM. He seems to be the only pundit brave enough to go against the flow...


Hi Bard. Barbie Nadeau's been doing a good job too :)

_________________
"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 mylady007


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am

Posts: 50

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael,

The new thread did it; i'm in. :)

Brian,

Sorry to hear you've been under the weather. Keep the fingers limber so you can keep posting. I scroll through the names on the posts and read those i've come to respect over the years. Thank you for all your logic.

---
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

mylady007 wrote:
Michael,

The new thread did it; i'm in. :)

Brian,

Sorry to hear you've been under the weather. Keep the fingers limber so you can keep posting. I scroll through the names on the posts and read those i've come to respect over the years. Thank you for all your logic.

---


Great to see you were able to make it!!! :)

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


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

Offline Stevo


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Stevo wrote:
Having just watched the 48hr, i am shocked at how someone who is under investigation for abusing his authority is still allowed to continue working on such life changing affairs! That would never happen in the U.K, also i never knew of the American writer who was close to being framed by the same person.

This verdict becomes more questionable by the day, surely some random womans blog! who claims to speak to a dead priest, was not used in the trial? That just makes a mockery of the whole process used to convict!


Srevo. First of all, the 48 hours show was nothing less then propaganda. IT was factually incorrect on many levels and designed to deceive. Indeed, Paul Ciolino who featured in it is a fill blown member of the FOA and...I will even go so far as saying Van Sant is also (in my opinion).

In regard to Mignini, what he is being charged with is no more then an administrative issue and is as the result of a fall out with another prosecutor from a different region (Florence). In other words, it's political. Mignini has already been tried and cleared of all charges. The Florentine prosecutor however appealed the verdict, so hence why it continues. You also cite Douglas Preston. Preston had nothing but good things to say about Mignini in his book until after the Knox case began and then added an afterword to his book attacking Mignini. This is because he and co-author Mario Spezi have both a serious axe to grind with Mignini and because there is serious money to be made in this...uncreased book sales. This really is a side issue to the Meredith Kercher case. But if it interests you, to have a deeper understanding, here's a reading list for you:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... -save-her/

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... spect.html

viewtopic.php?p=20408#p20408

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7879293.stm

And also download and view Kermit's excellent Powerpoint: RAILROAD TO HELL

You may also want to download and view this one: EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY


Cheers mate
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stevo


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:


Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2






Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2




Will be interesting to hear what RG says at his appeal on the 21st.
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 Dec 09, 2009 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Nothing ‘Third World’ about Italian justice
The abuse of the Perugia judge and court following Amanda Knox’s conviction is staggeringly ill-informed
By Robert Fox
LAST UPDATED DECEMBER 9, 2009


THE FIRST 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 BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Sorry to inject with lots of points at once. I had a baby girl (middle name Meredith) on Monday night so been a little busy!

I wanted to address the argument that Amanda had no motive to kill Meredith.

I work with children with emotional and behavioural problems. Many of them that don't get help, and even some that do, very disturbed and go on to commit violent acts with absolutely no motive. One child who sticks in my mind was a girl who seemed to be a normal eight year old who had started to torture animals. Other than this, she seemed to the rest of the world to be a pretty normal child. I won't go into details of what she did as, like many others here, I am an animal lover and it upsets me. Her parents had separated at a very delicate age, when she was just a toddler, and they brushed aside her actions as just a normal part of her development. The Knoxes remind me of this girl's parents - "Oh that's just what Katie/Amanda etc is like." It's utterly terrifying to me that parents do not 'check' any inappropriate behaviour and teach empathy when their children are young. Instead some overlook and ignore it, or in the worst cases, encourage it by telling that child that their crazy, violent impulses are just who they are.

I really hope that this trial, being so high profile, will make people take responsibility for what they teach their children and their children's actions.

I also hope that all three can be rehabilitated in prison. I don't believe any human is evil but many are capable of evil acts in the right circumstances.

Oh and I find it amusing that some of the less discerning American 'followers' of the US covering of this case are going to boycott Italian holidays and food. I just watched an episode of America's Next Top Model (I'm sorry - I love that show!) where an American girl stated that she only ate American food, "like pizza and pasta" .... hmmm.

I also find it quite ironic that the very people who are claiming that there was an anti-American sentiment in Italy are now creating that very sentiment. Self-fulfilling prophecy anyone ...?

A lot of the coverage of this case makes me glad that I live in Coulsdon - the Croydon Guardian never forget who the true victim was.

Get well soon Brian x
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

BellaDonna wrote:
Sorry to inject with lots of points at once. I had a baby girl (middle name Meredith) on Monday night so been a little busy!


Congratulations BellaDonna!!! And great choice of name :)

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -Bella Donna   

BellaDonna wrote:
Sorry to inject with lots of points at once. I had a baby girl (middle name Meredith) on Monday night so been a little busy!

I wanted to address the argument that Amanda had no motive to kill Meredith.

I work with children with emotional and behavioural problems. Many of them that don't get help, and even some that do, very disturbed and go on to commit violent acts with absolutely no motive. One child who sticks in my mind was a girl who seemed to be a normal eight year old who had started to torture animals. Other than this, she seemed to the rest of the world to be a pretty normal child. I won't go into details of what she did as, like many others here, I am an animal lover and it upsets me. Her parents had separated at a very delicate age, when she was just a toddler, and they brushed aside her actions as just a normal part of her development. The Knoxes remind me of this girl's parents - "Oh that's just what Katie/Amanda etc is like." It's utterly terrifying to me that parents do not 'check' any inappropriate behaviour and teach empathy when their children are young. Instead some overlook and ignore it, or in the worst cases, encourage it by telling that child that their crazy, violent impulses are just who they are.

I really hope that this trial, being so high profile, will make people take responsibility for what they teach their children and their children's actions.

I also hope that all three can be rehabilitated in prison. I don't believe any human is evil but many are capable of evil acts in the right circumstances.

Oh and I find it amusing that some of the less discerning American 'followers' of the US covering of this case are going to boycott Italian holidays and food. I just watched an episode of America's Next Top Model (I'm sorry - I love that show!) where an American girl stated that she only ate American food, "like pizza and pasta" .... hmmm.

I also find it quite ironic that the very people who are claiming that there was an anti-American sentiment in Italy are now creating that very sentiment. Self-fulfilling prophecy anyone ...?

A lot of the coverage of this case makes me glad that I live in Coulsdon - the Croydon Guardian never forget who the true victim was.

Get well soon Brian x

Stay there BD: "Suffer the little children ....and forbid them not ...." If we cannot put the children first, no matter where they are in the world, we are doomed.
Mother SMH
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From The Times, Amanda Knox: I have faith in Italian justice:

Quote:
Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of murdering her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia just over two years ago, has said from prison that her "rights were respected" during her trial and she believes she will be freed on appeal.

Knox, 22, said, "I still have faith in Italian justice", according to Walter Verini, a centre Left Parliamentary deputy who visited her in jail. Italian prisoners are entitled to visits from their lawyers, relatives and members of Parliament.

Knox's remarks are at odds with a wave of outspoken attacks on the trial and the Italian justice system as such from supporters in the United States.
Knox told Mr Verini "I have never ceased to believe in Italian justice" according to Corriere della Sera. "My rights have been repected, I believe so".

...

Mr Verini, who visited a number of inmates, said that when he arrived at Knox's cell she greeted him with a smile saying "Can I help you?" She thanked her parents and relatives for their support. Asked if she was aware of the reaction to her conviction in the United States she said she had seen and heard it on television. It had pleased her "humanly", she told Mr Verini, adding "but...".


Amanda having more common sense than her family - wonders will never cease! :)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

BellaDonna! Wonderful news!! Congratulations!! :) Does this mean you will occasionally be joining in late at night?lol
Top Profile 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Knox is sharing her cell with a 53-year-old woman from New Orleans who is serving a four-year sentence for drug dealing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9CFPFV80
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:
From The Times, Amanda Knox: I have faith in Italian justice:

Quote:
Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of murdering her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia just over two years ago, has said from prison that her "rights were respected" during her trial and she believes she will be freed on appeal.

Knox, 22, said, "I still have faith in Italian justice", according to Walter Verini, a centre Left Parliamentary deputy who visited her in jail. Italian prisoners are entitled to visits from their lawyers, relatives and members of Parliament.

Knox's remarks are at odds with a wave of outspoken attacks on the trial and the Italian justice system as such from supporters in the United States.
Knox told Mr Verini "I have never ceased to believe in Italian justice" according to Corriere della Sera. "My rights have been repected, I believe so".

Common sense certainly; seeing as she has to get along with Italians for a long time to come.



...

Mr Verini, who visited a number of inmates, said that when he arrived at Knox's cell she greeted him with a smile saying "Can I help you?" She thanked her parents and relatives for their support. Asked if she was aware of the reaction to her conviction in the United States she said she had seen and heard it on television. It had pleased her "humanly", she told Mr Verini, adding "but...".


Amanda having more common sense than her family - wonders will never cease! :)
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Will planet collide? Is a magnetic polar shift on the horizon? I'm scared.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Wendy Murphy. On Issues w/Jane Vallez-Mitchell 08Dec2009.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... vm.01.html
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

where did my reply go?

Common sense at the basic survival level at least...she has to get along with Italians for a longtime yet.
Top Profile 

Offline jason_01


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:15 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice. That means that the real killer needs to be prosecuted, not Knox and Sollecito. Rudy Guede, already convicted in this case, might be the killer. There is certainly a lot of evidence against him. There's also some evidence that another man killed her and Guede was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is, however, no evidence that Kercher or Sollecito had anything at all to do with it.

If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.

The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture. However the case takes it's darkest turn with the introduction of a corrupt prosecutor who blindly follows the lunatic ravings of a conspiracy theorist named Gabriella Carlizzi (Carlizzi thinks 9/11 was mastermined by the Cult of the Red Rose) and who has been indicted for tampering with evidence and has a frightening history of intimidating and prosecuting reporters who disagree with him.

That prosecutor is Giuliano Mignini, the same man who interrogated Amanda Knox. He remains the chief prosecutor in Perugia even under indictment and remains the prosecutor on the Kercher case.

The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial. It's just as insane as the Monster case. One American investigator, sent over by Dateline NBC, arrived in Italy assuming Knox and Sollecito did it. He left 100% certain they did not. According to him, what little DNA evidence has been found (such as the knife) is completely tainted by sloppy police work and the DNA is likely a result of contamination from other sources.


There is certainly some good evidence against Rudy Guede, who has been convicted but is appealing. He freely admits to having been present and to having had sex with Kercher.

However there is also another suspect who has never been investigated by Mignini. Read this article for details on that suspect: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo
Mignini threatened the reporter who broke this story with prosecution. She dropped the matter and after 24 hours of front page news, it completely disappeared from the Italian press and has been largely forgotten or assumed to be erroneous.

Maybe Guede did it, maybe this other guy did, but there is no reason at all to think that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it.
Source(s):
The Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi and other research I've done after reading that book.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
From The Times, Amanda Knox: I have faith in Italian justice:

Quote:
Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of murdering her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia just over two years ago, has said from prison that her "rights were respected" during her trial and she believes she will be freed on appeal.

Knox, 22, said, "I still have faith in Italian justice", according to Walter Verini, a centre Left Parliamentary deputy who visited her in jail. Italian prisoners are entitled to visits from their lawyers, relatives and members of Parliament.

Knox's remarks are at odds with a wave of outspoken attacks on the trial and the Italian justice system as such from supporters in the United States.
Knox told Mr Verini "I have never ceased to believe in Italian justice" according to Corriere della Sera. "My rights have been repected, I believe so".

Common sense certainly; seeing as she has to get along with Italians for a long time to come.



...

Mr Verini, who visited a number of inmates, said that when he arrived at Knox's cell she greeted him with a smile saying "Can I help you?" She thanked her parents and relatives for their support. Asked if she was aware of the reaction to her conviction in the United States she said she had seen and heard it on television. It had pleased her "humanly", she told Mr Verini, adding "but...".


Amanda having more common sense than her family - wonders will never cease! :)



Or maybe her lawyers told her so? Because I think she also mentionned something about them preparing her appeal in that same talk with Mr Verini. (But then the lawyers should have told AK's parents, too.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice. That means that the real killer needs to be prosecuted, not Knox and Sollecito. Rudy Guede, already convicted in this case, might be the killer. There is certainly a lot of evidence against him. There's also some evidence that another man killed her and Guede was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is, however, no evidence that Kercher or Sollecito had anything at all to do with it.

If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.

The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture. However the case takes it's darkest turn with the introduction of a corrupt prosecutor who blindly follows the lunatic ravings of a conspiracy theorist named Gabriella Carlizzi (Carlizzi thinks 9/11 was mastermined by the Cult of the Red Rose) and who has been indicted for tampering with evidence and has a frightening history of intimidating and prosecuting reporters who disagree with him.

That prosecutor is Giuliano Mignini, the same man who interrogated Amanda Knox. He remains the chief prosecutor in Perugia even under indictment and remains the prosecutor on the Kercher case.

The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial. It's just as insane as the Monster case. One American investigator, sent over by Dateline NBC, arrived in Italy assuming Knox and Sollecito did it. He left 100% certain they did not. According to him, what little DNA evidence has been found (such as the knife) is completely tainted by sloppy police work and the DNA is likely a result of contamination from other sources.


There is certainly some good evidence against Rudy Guede, who has been convicted but is appealing. He freely admits to having been present and to having had sex with Kercher.

However there is also another suspect who has never been investigated by Mignini. Read this article for details on that suspect: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo
Mignini threatened the reporter who broke this story with prosecution. She dropped the matter and after 24 hours of front page news, it completely disappeared from the Italian press and has been largely forgotten or assumed to be erroneous.

Maybe Guede did it, maybe this other guy did, but there is no reason at all to think that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it.
Source(s):
The Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi and other research I've done after reading that book.


Doug Preston actually said the other night on CNN that the evidence in this case was fabricated. In other words, he doesn't know what he's talking about. But from behind the scenes, and because of a grudge against one of the two prosecutors that he has largely exaggerated for profit, he has tried hard to shape the media narrative of this crime: American innocent abroad, framed by evil prosecutor. The US media has swallowed it, out of laziness in part, but that's about it. Oh, and a few people here and there. I suggest you look at Kermit's most recent ppt presentation. There you will see who -- Mignini or Preston -- is obsessed with satanic rituals and implausible murder plots. Hint: it isn't Mignini.

If you want to know more about why we think Doug Preston is a bad joke, you have two years worth of reading to do on this board. You will even find a brief appearance by Preston himself, with a comment copied and pasted from another blog.

By the way, the other suspect you mention is a red herring. Someone needs to tell Preston so he can edit his book. This is beginning to get ridiculous. His afterword contains numerous errors about this case. Some have been discussed here already. For most of us, it's a dead issue. But if he is your source, then you are in trouble.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda Knox counting on Italian appeals trial

SEATTLE PI

_________________
"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 Dec 09, 2009 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice. That means that the real killer needs to be prosecuted, not Knox and Sollecito. Rudy Guede, already convicted in this case, might be the killer. There is certainly a lot of evidence against him. There's also some evidence that another man killed her and Guede was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is, however, no evidence that Kercher or Sollecito had anything at all to do with it.

If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.

The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture. However the case takes it's darkest turn with the introduction of a corrupt prosecutor who blindly follows the lunatic ravings of a conspiracy theorist named Gabriella Carlizzi (Carlizzi thinks 9/11 was mastermined by the Cult of the Red Rose) and who has been indicted for tampering with evidence and has a frightening history of intimidating and prosecuting reporters who disagree with him.

That prosecutor is Giuliano Mignini, the same man who interrogated Amanda Knox. He remains the chief prosecutor in Perugia even under indictment and remains the prosecutor on the Kercher case.

The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial. It's just as insane as the Monster case. One American investigator, sent over by Dateline NBC, arrived in Italy assuming Knox and Sollecito did it. He left 100% certain they did not. According to him, what little DNA evidence has been found (such as the knife) is completely tainted by sloppy police work and the DNA is likely a result of contamination from other sources.


There is certainly some good evidence against Rudy Guede, who has been convicted but is appealing. He freely admits to having been present and to having had sex with Kercher.

However there is also another suspect who has never been investigated by Mignini. Read this article for details on that suspect: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo
Mignini threatened the reporter who broke this story with prosecution. She dropped the matter and after 24 hours of front page news, it completely disappeared from the Italian press and has been largely forgotten or assumed to be erroneous.

Maybe Guede did it, maybe this other guy did, but there is no reason at all to think that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it.
Source(s):
The Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi and other research I've done after reading that book.


Jason_01, I refer you to the reading list I submitted to Stevo in my post here: viewtopic.php?p=26282#p26282

Please do not post on this board again until you have read everything on that list.

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator Perugia Murder File)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).

_________________
"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 BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01, _02 and _05??


Last edited by BellaDonna on Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

:)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:

_________________
"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 macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I understand all the evidence, be it oral (mismatched alibis) footprints, dna or mixed blood and I can see peerfectly well why the verdict handed down was the correct verdict. I also understand that there have been discussions relating to this trial that have been conducted privately due to their sensitive nature. Everything points to more than one participant in MK's tragic end, but apart from Rudy, drifter, drug dealer etc etc who in my dubious mind might fit the profile of a murderer, I cannot comprehend how AK and RS can go from flatmate with several differences of opinion (none of which justify even the odd swearword) and recent virgin who barely knows MK to murderers.

I have read that dope was admitted to, and some drinking too. I've been drunk before, never done any drugs at all and still haven't felt like murdering anyone yet. Was the hash more than hash ? Cocaine, for example ? Can a combination of drugs and alcohol turn you into a murderer ? Can anyone help me here ? Surely you don't sit on a sofa somewhere with a clearish head after a few beers and decide to murder someone ?

I apologise if anything I've written here is insensitive or offensive to anyone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jason_01


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:15 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
I understand all the evidence, be it oral (mismatched alibis) footprints, dna or mixed blood and I can see peerfectly well why the verdict handed down was the correct verdict. I also understand that there have been discussions relating to this trial that have been conducted privately due to their sensitive nature. Everything points to more than one participant in MK's tragic end, but apart from Rudy, drifter, drug dealer etc etc who in my dubious mind might fit the profile of a murderer, I cannot comprehend how AK and RS can go from flatmate with several differences of opinion (none of which justify even the odd swearword) and recent virgin who barely knows MK to murderers.

I have read that dope was admitted to, and some drinking too. I've been drunk before, never done any drugs at all and still haven't felt like murdering anyone yet. Was the hash more than hash ? Cocaine, for example ? Can a combination of drugs and alcohol turn you into a murderer ? Can anyone help me here ? Surely you don't sit on a sofa somewhere with a clearish head after a few beers and decide to murder someone ?

I apologise if anything I've written here is insensitive or offensive to anyone.


We've all grappled with that one macca and the premeditation question is probably the most divisive issue remaining amongst the regular posters. I think a combination of drugs and mental disturbance is probably the answer but I know there are some here who see that as shrinking away from the evidence of pure evil.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Three things that I ought to report:

i) Finally spoke to a really very senior psychological profiler I know about AK. There view was that she is narcissistic, definitely, histrionic maybe but that pyscopathy couldn't be diagnosed without proper clinical interviews. The profiler is not a fan of ex ante allocation of that to anyone whether you go for the continuum theory or not. So I got schooled on the last as others said. There y'go! Honesty is the best policy

ii) Saw yesterday a reference to some of the court gossip that was going on at the trial (well used to this) and AK was referred to as The Bitch. Each to their own opinion on this. But apparently RS RG were referred to as 'The Cretins'. Raised a black-hearted chuckle from me in a bad context sigh

iii) Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?

iv) Saw this re the Film AK is supposed to be in which has been pulled from a film festival. I've lost the link so not sure where it was from.

Alessandro Riccini Ricci, director of the Batik Film Festival, said:"We have had a request from the Umbria regional council, the jail and Amanda Knox's lawyers who have all said that the screening would be inopportune.
"It is a shame because I have seen the film and she (Knox) is a magnetic actress. It shows her in a different light and not the Amanda Knox that we have grown used to over these past few months." <--- I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong mate, I'm pretty sure a lot of us have definitely been considering the actress.
"She is very, very good and we did ask the council and jail to reconsider but as they insisted that the film be dropped so it will not be shown - it may be screened next month we shall have to see.
"Amanda has a very strong presence on screen and recites Hamlet very well - even if we knew nothing of her background she would have been noted for her performance." <-- I did remember the Hamlet right. Abandoning this thread now for fear of entering into cod Shakespeare...

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language



I'd read something better than "The Monster of Florence" if you want it to improve.
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Interesting observations posted by SomeAlibi........so AK was an excellent actress in the film she appeared in, and I suppose those skills are transferable to the courtroom, or interogation room, etc etc. I find it interesting in respect to 'the Bitch' and the 'Cretins'......I can definitely see RG as a cretin since he does not seem to have any real role in life other than petty crime and survival. I can also see AK as having gone completely off the rails once out of the US. I'm assuming this is her first trip out of the USA (spectacular way to leave a memory) and she is off the leash.........as much sex, drink and drugs (don't forget the US drinking age is 21) as she likes without parental control, so easily moves into bitch role, and then there's Raf, missing cherry thanks to AK and she's introducing him to a whole new world he'd heard of but never touched, and therefore very easily influenced.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MikeMCSG,

how do you get to pure evil ? Blimey, it has never occurred to me to go out with a knife or any sort of weapon. Acual Bodily Harm is a crime, usually punishable with a fine, and can be casued by merely a handshake if a lawyer so wishes to interpret it that way. My point is, if you're planning something like grievous bodily harm, (ie still miles away from murder to teach someone a lesson), you are now in serious legal territory. How can something like this escalate to murder ? Are there drugs that will help get to this point without the perpetrators stopping to think about what they're doing ?

btw, I have been wafting between TJMK and PMF for some time, but never got around to registering until recently.
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 Dec 09, 2009 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


It is 'possible' in any and every case, but without evidence for it we cannot claim it and until any such evidence is produced we must accept the case as having been conducted properly, which is fully the situation with the Meredith Kercher case.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You need to read it all again then, because clearly something didn't sink in. And if you are coming from the angle that evidence has been fabricated, then I'm afraid this board is not for you. I don't know if you heard, but a guilty verdict was handed down on Friday against Knox and Sollecito, after what neutral observers (including the US State Department) agree was a fair and open trial. Time to move on to the next step.

I'm sure there are forum where the fabrication of evidence in this case is a hot topic. I think you would be better off joining one of those.

Thanks for stopping by.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
I can definitely see RG as a cretin since he does not seem to have any real role in life other than petty crime and survival.
o-((
, and then there's Raf, missing cherry thanks to AK and she's introducing him to a whole new world he'd heard of but never touched, and therefore very easily influenced.

:lol:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
MikeMCSG,

how do you get to pure evil ? Blimey, it has never occurred to me to go out with a knife or any sort of weapon. Acual Bodily Harm is a crime, usually punishable with a fine, and can be casued by merely a handshake if a lawyer so wishes to interpret it that way. My point is, if you're planning something like grievous bodily harm, (ie still miles away from murder to teach someone a lesson), you are now in serious legal territory. How can something like this escalate to murder ? Are there drugs that will help get to this point without the perpetrators stopping to think about what they're doing ?

btw, I have been wafting between TJMK and PMF for some time, but never got around to registering until recently.


How does anything ever escalate to murder? I am among those who don't believe there was anything more than a loose plan to "have some fun". Something went horribly wrong and then bad choices were made about how to deal with it. Not everyone shares that view.

In her closing rebuttal, co-prosecutor Comodi mentioned the fact that the "why" may never be known. Only the perpetrators of crime know why and they often don't even admit to the crime, let alone explain why or how it happened.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You're not related to nathan_05 are you? Or mulder_01? Was it _01? All these numbers...and yet very similar confusions...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi SomeAlibi, some cod-Shakespeare for you. The (as translated) line from AK’s poem:
“This life in which I float in the centre,
like a zero in the infinite series of positive and negative experiences.”
AK as the focus, suffering the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ as per the Hamlet she was familiar with. She paints herself as being acted on by events rather than shaping them. Hmmm.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Morning Skeptical,

did you follow the news about the trial in France? I have a friend in nantes, he only recently
heard about the case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
Interesting observations posted by SomeAlibi........so AK was an excellent actress in the film she appeared in, and I suppose those skills are transferable to the courtroom, or interogation room, etc etc. I find it interesting in respect to 'the Bitch' and the 'Cretins'......I can definitely see RG as a cretin since he does not seem to have any real role in life other than petty crime and survival. I can also see AK as having gone completely off the rails once out of the US. I'm assuming this is her first trip out of the USA (spectacular way to leave a memory) and she is off the leash.........as much sex, drink and drugs (don't forget the US drinking age is 21) as she likes without parental control, so easily moves into bitch role, and then there's Raf, missing cherry thanks to AK and she's introducing him to a whole new world he'd heard of but never touched, and therefore very easily influenced.


I believe Chris Mellas, in one of his appearances on this board, stated that Knox had been on some supervised trip abroad at some point. I can't remember if it was to Greece, Austria or Germany -- or somewhere else entirely. In fact, it may have been to South Korea. I'm not joking. I heard that from someone I know here in West Seattle, who married a woman whose daughter was on the same trip. I will have to verify this information. In other words, it could be wrong and I will rectify it if that is the case.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jason_01 and Stevo -

Here is another addition to your Mignini reading list: viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

(I've also now added it to the reading list I posted in this thread earlier).

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Quote:
Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?


I agree with you. This is relevant to the subject matter and has been made public. We may never be able to have a definitive answer on authorial intentions, but this kind of speculation is encouraged here and often leads to interesting insights. Anyone who takes exception can just skip over these posts or find a forum where such discussion is taboo. Nobody has to be here.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda Knox says she has no complaints about trial
Amanda Knox believes she received a fair trial for the murder of her British flat mate, Meredith Kercher, but is confident her 26-year prison sentence will be overturned on appeal.

By Nick Squires in Rome
Published: 2:58PM GMT 09 Dec 2009

THE TELEGRAPH

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I believe Chris Mellas, in one of his appearances on this board, stated that Knox had been on some supervised trip abroad at some point. I can't remember if it was to Greece, Austria or Germany -- or somewhere else entirely. In fact, it may have been to South Korea. I'm not joking. I heard that from someone I know here in West Seattle, who married a woman whose daughter was on the same trip. I will have to verify this information. In other words, it could be wrong and I will rectify it if that is the case.


Didn't her mother say that she has been to Japan to improve her language skills? I am confused
now, because it has been reported that she studies Chinese in prison.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I believe Chris Mellas, in one of his appearances on this board, stated that Knox had been on some supervised trip abroad at some point. I can't remember if it was to Greece, Austria or Germany -- or somewhere else entirely. In fact, it may have been to South Korea. I'm not joking. I heard that from someone I know here in West Seattle, who married a woman whose daughter was on the same trip. I will have to verify this information. In other words, it could be wrong and I will rectify it if that is the case.

I actually read that it was a trip to Japan. There was a story (last week?) with a photo of Amanda and some Japanese girls. I don't have the link, unfortunately.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.

_________________
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 Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I believe Chris Mellas, in one of his appearances on this board, stated that Knox had been on some supervised trip abroad at some point. I can't remember if it was to Greece, Austria or Germany -- or somewhere else entirely. In fact, it may have been to South Korea. I'm not joking. I heard that from someone I know here in West Seattle, who married a woman whose daughter was on the same trip. I will have to verify this information. In other words, it could be wrong and I will rectify it if that is the case.

I actually read that it was a trip to Japan. There was a story (last week?) with a photo of Amanda and some Japanese girls. I don't have the link, unfortunately.


You could be right. I'll ask the person who told me if we can't sort it out ourselves.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


This would save a lot of time. They are verrrrry dull...and all about fourteen years old from what I can discern...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi Skep, thanks for the reply........I suppose the difference between here first trip outside the US and this one is that the first one was supervised as opposed to this one, which the Police eventually felt it necessary to supervise.

I can only imagine what it must be like sit in a cell for 19 hours a day knowing you've only got 24 years to go. Mind you, rather that than what the poor Kerchers have been through in the last 2 years. It's bad enough when your parents die, but to have someone ripped from you mindlessly is beyond comprehension. I feel for them and hope that eventually they find some semblance of peace.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I believe Chris Mellas, in one of his appearances on this board, stated that Knox had been on some supervised trip abroad at some point. I can't remember if it was to Greece, Austria or Germany -- or somewhere else entirely. In fact, it may have been to South Korea. I'm not joking. I heard that from someone I know here in West Seattle, who married a woman whose daughter was on the same trip. I will have to verify this information. In other words, it could be wrong and I will rectify it if that is the case.


Didn't her mother say that she has been to Japan to improve her language skills? I am confused
now, because it has been reported that she studies Chinese in prison.


Some lists of the languages studied in prison include Chinese and some don't. It is hard to know exactly, and Edda Mellas is unfortunately not a stable source. I don't mean this as a criticism of Edda; I have just noticed that she changes her details often, probably because she talks a bit off the top of her head. I don't see it as an intention to deceive, just a vagueness about details and maybe a tendency to exaggerate. Janet Huff, her sister-in-law, shares this tendency. My mother is a bit this way. Fuzzy on the details but fervent in her beliefs.

_________________
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 Dec 09, 2009 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


This would save a lot of time. They are verrrrry dull...and all about fourteen years old from what I can discern...


And is there anything worse in human development than this age? I think not, unless it is 15, 16 or 17.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
Hi Skep, thanks for the reply........I suppose the difference between here first trip outside the US and this one is that the first one was supervised as opposed to this one, which the Police eventually felt it necessary to supervise.

I can only imagine what it must be like sit in a cell for 19 hours a day knowing you've only got 24 years to go. Mind you, rather that than what the poor Kerchers have been through in the last 2 years. It's bad enough when your parents die, but to have someone ripped from you mindlessly is beyond comprehension. I feel for them and hope that eventually they find some semblance of peace.


Hi Macca. In reality, she could be looking at serving only 12 years. With over two years served already, she could be getting out in under 10 years from 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 PureGrit


Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:04 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I am among those who don't believe there was anything more than a loose plan to "have some fun". Something went horribly wrong and then bad choices were made about how to deal with it.


One of the jury members was quoted as viewing the case similiar to a "drunk driving case", so it appears that the jury had this impression as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
Hi Skep, thanks for the reply........I suppose the difference between here first trip outside the US and this one is that the first one was supervised as opposed to this one, which the Police eventually felt it necessary to supervise.

I can only imagine what it must be like sit in a cell for 19 hours a day knowing you've only got 24 years to go. Mind you, rather that than what the poor Kerchers have been through in the last 2 years. It's bad enough when your parents die, but to have someone ripped from you mindlessly is beyond comprehension. I feel for them and hope that eventually they find some semblance of peace.


From what I understand, there is a good chance that the actual prison time will be less. How much less will depend on how well the lawyers handle the appeal process. In addition, and in no way do I mean to suggest that prison is a destination of choice, it sounds as if some amenities are available, as are distractions and learning opportunities. Life, no matter where you are, is what you make of it. Meredith Kercher was unfortunately robbed of the opportunity to finish making hers.

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

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I nominate Mulder_0? Calling a Co-Administrator ignorant in their first post was a good effort :)
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael,

I actually thought it was 15 years (total) but 10 to go is still a long time; who knows what you'll come out like too, after 69,350 hours in a cell (roughly). Institutionalised, hopefully and a tad more responsible.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Some lists of the languages studied in prison include Chinese and some don't.

If she's now working in the prison laundry and studying Chinese... then I guess she will be well qualified to work in Chinese laundry when she gets out.

;)
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yes, Janet Huff got confused about the details of the case recently I noticed. Instead of stating that Amanda requested that she be allowed to make a voluntary statement, which she wrote herself and gave to the interpreter as, in her words, a 'gift', Janet stated that the Italian police 'typed something out for her to sign', and in fact prior to this 'tortured' her. She could do with some Ginkgo Biloba...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

GreenWyvern wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Some lists of the languages studied in prison include Chinese and some don't.

If she's now working in the prison laundry and studying Chinese... then I guess she will be well qualified to work in Chinese laundry when she gets out.

;)


No tickee, no washee.:)

_________________
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 Dec 09, 2009 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nowo wrote:
I nominate Mulder_0? Calling a Co-Administrator ignorant in their first post was a good effort :)


Yes, Mulder_01 is the inspiration for the whole prize thing. So maybe we should call it the Mulder Prize instead. That was an auspicious début!

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
nowo wrote:
I nominate Mulder_0? Calling a Co-Administrator ignorant in their first post was a good effort :)


Yes, Mulder_01 is the inspiration for the whole prize thing. So maybe we should call it the Mulder Prize instead. That was an auspicious début!



I nominate nathan_05 for referring my learned friends to a Yahoo 'Best Answer'

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PureGrit wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I am among those who don't believe there was anything more than a loose plan to "have some fun". Something went horribly wrong and then bad choices were made about how to deal with it.


One of the jury members was quoted as viewing the case similiar to a "drunk driving case", so it appears that the jury had this impression as well.



I think some of the evidence supports the notion of something that spiraled out of control due to altered perceptions and judgement.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

macca wrote:
Michael,

I actually thought it was 15 years (total) but 10 to go is still a long time; who knows what you'll come out like too, after 69,350 hours in a cell (roughly). Institutionalised, hopefully and a tad more responsible.


Well, I was offering the 'bare minimum' time she could end up serving, as the sentence currently stands. It probably will be a little bit more then that, but even before she is released she'll be able to have day releases out of prison, have home release and even work outside of prison. And of course, she still may get her sentence decreased even further on appeal.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
nowo wrote:
I nominate Mulder_0? Calling a Co-Administrator ignorant in their first post was a good effort :)


Yes, Mulder_01 is the inspiration for the whole prize thing. So maybe we should call it the Mulder Prize instead. That was an auspicious début!



I nominate nathan_05 for referring my learned friends to a Yahoo 'Best Answer'



I missed that one. And the runner-up is.... nathan_05!

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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

This would save a lot of time. They are verrrrry dull...and all about fourteen years old from what I can discern...


And is there anything worse in human development than this age? I think not, unless it is 15, 16 or 17.[/quote]

Have to violently disagree there Skep. :) That (1979 in my case) was the happiest time of my life, old enough to dip into and make sense of the adult world without bearing any of its responsibilities and before the tyranny of hormones really got to work. Of course from the other end of the telescope I might have been an irritating precocious prick and maybe that's what you're meaning !

To go back to Macca I think Amanda is naturally optimistic and isn't going to suffer that much this side of the appeal (I can see why in small doses she could be likeable). That is unless Raff squeals and closes down her options.


Last edited by MikeMCSG on Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lilly


Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:16 pm

Posts: 101

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox says she has no complaints about trial
Amanda Knox believes she received a fair trial for the murder of her British flat mate, Meredith Kercher, but is confident her 26-year prison sentence will be overturned on appeal.

By Nick Squires in Rome
Published: 2:58PM GMT 09 Dec 2009

THE TELEGRAPH


And this makes sense...how?

"A fair trial" means the outcome was also fair. Unless Amanda is still under the delusion that she's just misunderstood. Or perhaps she's coming to terms with the fact that she's fairly convicted for a horrific crime she committed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
nowo wrote:
I nominate Mulder_0? Calling a Co-Administrator ignorant in their first post was a good effort :)


Yes, Mulder_01 is the inspiration for the whole prize thing. So maybe we should call it the Mulder Prize instead. That was an auspicious début!



I nominate nathan_05 for referring my learned friends to a Yahoo 'Best Answer'



I missed that one. And the runner-up is.... nathan_05!


Ah, nathan_05 is someone you banned Skep, who promptly registered under another name and TOLD us all he had just been banned (see thread passim, last night, some godforsaken hour) and how unfair it all was. And then posted, not one but TWO Yahoo Best Answers for our consideration. One he considered particularly salient as it was written by someone who 'lived right near Knox' and didn't think she could be a killer because (all together now!) she didn't look like one; the other best answer quoted heavily from Doug Preston. I told him it was past his bedtime.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Telegraph 12/4/09

Mrs Mellas, 47, said: "She had been to Japan and Europe, so it wasn't like she had never been abroad before. And we were in email contact all the time. I think if she had gone off the deep end we would have stopped hearing from her. We're not saying she was perfect but she never deteriorated."
Top Profile 

Offline lilly


Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:16 pm

Posts: 101

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

This would save a lot of time. They are verrrrry dull...and all about fourteen years old from what I can discern...


And is there anything worse in human development than this age? I think not, unless it is 15, 16 or 17.

Have to violently disagree there Skep. :) That (1979 in my case) was the happiest time of my life, old enough to dip into and make sense of the adult world without bearing any of its responsibilities and before the tyranny of hormones really got to work. Of course from the other end of the telescope I might have been an irritating precocious prick and maybe that's what you're meaning !

To go back to Macca I think Amanda is naturally optimistic in nature and isn't going to suffer that much this side of the appeal (I can see why in small doses she could be likeable). That is unless Raff squeals and closes down her options.



===
I don't see how Raff can squeal, as he appears to be trying to convince himself that he was not there, even in the face of the evidence. He hasn't bothered to invest much in a story to explain himself though, I guess he is just very weak, already mentally ill in some way and just shut down.

Maybe he will have therapy in prison and it will help him open up - even if that's just to save himself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lilly wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

This would save a lot of time. They are verrrrry dull...and all about fourteen years old from what I can discern...


And is there anything worse in human development than this age? I think not, unless it is 15, 16 or 17.

Have to violently disagree there Skep. :) That (1979 in my case) was the happiest time of my life, old enough to dip into and make sense of the adult world without bearing any of its responsibilities and before the tyranny of hormones really got to work. Of course from the other end of the telescope I might have been an irritating precocious prick and maybe that's what you're meaning !

To go back to Macca I think Amanda is naturally optimistic in nature and isn't going to suffer that much this side of the appeal (I can see why in small doses she could be likeable). That is unless Raff squeals and closes down her options.



===
I don't see how Raff can squeal, as he appears to be trying to convince himself that he was not there, even in the face of the evidence. He hasn't bothered to invest much in a story to explain himself though, I guess he is just very weak, already mentally ill in some way and just shut down.

Maybe he will have therapy in prison and it will help him open up - even if that's just to save himself.



To Mike -- I don't doubt that 14 is a happy time for many. But I have met few 14-year olds who are a delight to be around. I'm speaking as an adult. When I was 14, the only people I wanted to be around were other 14-year olds. I'm sure we were insufferable to others.

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Greetings to all who visit here

First time input here; By way of background; I have spent well over 200 hours on this website examining all presentations; coupled and unknown hours on other related sites over the past year or so. Being a EU citizen (Ireland) and fortunate to live in the US of A and achieve a university education I believe I have an insight to both cultures The issues of the evidence and trial submissions are well documented and available to those who go to the trouble to seek them out. If you wish to be informed on this complex case than you have a duty to take the time and inform yourself; and not rely on fourth hand information. Although I have been content in the past to observe the happenings of events as played in the international media in conjunction with the “pro” and “con “ presentations; and make my own evaluation based on informed information, there is an elephant in the room that has not apparently been regarded in this process.
RS:

Thoughts

On a personal note I believe that if I were presented for a crime that I didn’t commit: I would shout and scream my innocence “from the rafters” every single day that I was “dragged “into court. I would never let a single opportunity pass where I would not attempt to impress my complete and total innocence upon the Jurors. Wild horses would not succeed in shutting me up.
In comparison I cannot believe that a “totally innocent RS” has chosen to say (uncontested) absolutely nothing about his innocence in the very forum that is determining his future. Am I in a minority that cannot see any sense or logic in this stance?
In terms of family support I would shake any so accused family member by their lapels and tell them to voice (ROAR) by their innocence at every available opportunity.

Conclusions

I really don’t know what exactly happened in the house on that tragic event.
I am equally pleased that I do not sit on the jury panel to hand down a judgement
I believe based on the evidence presented that there was a culpable involvement by RG, AK & RS in the sad murder of Meredith Kercher.

Exit

Thanks for all measured and qualified contributors to this tragic event.
It goes a long way to understanding why this unfortunate girl, Meredith, did not get the opportunity to fulfil what was likely to be an enriched and bountiful life.

.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lilly wrote:
I don't see how Raff can squeal, as he appears to be trying to convince himself that he was not there, even in the face of the evidence. He hasn't bothered to invest much in a story to explain himself though, I guess he is just very weak, already mentally ill in some way and just shut down.

Maybe he will have therapy in prison and it will help him open up - even if that's just to save himself.


It appears he is heavily sedated at the moment. It's going to take some time before they can do any work with him.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:23 pm   Post subject: no potato peeler   

re: kermit

The knife confirmed to have DNA of Meredith Kercher on the blade and the DNA of AK on the handle:

"34cm = one third of a meter
34cm = 13,4 inches (more than a foot)

This is no potato peeler"

From FBN's paraphrasing of Kokomani's testimony:

"They got to their feet and Raffaele came towards me saying nothing. I felt threatened but I did not suspect he was armed, so as he approached the car door I opened it and punched him in the face causing his glasses to fall to the ground. Raffaele then had difficulty seeing but the young woman was yelling, “Did you do it?” I figured they intended to attack me so, not knowing what else to do, I took some olives that I had in the car and threw a handful at Amanda. She then took out a big knife from her large green bag, held it in front of her with both hands raising it threateningly, shouting in Italian, 'Come here, come here, I'll show you!'

I got back in my car and, with the window down, yelled back, “Fuck off – I’m an Albanian and I’m not afraid of you” and started to drive off. Looking back over my shoulder, Raffaele taunted me by saying “Where are you going? What can a girl do to you?” but Amanda was carrying a 30cms long, 3cms wide knife and their eyes were wild. This, and the fact that they were acting very strangely, frightened me greatly. In fact, Amanda was looking around to see if any cars were coming and signaled Raffaele to hide as a car approached."

AK was photographed outside the house with a large green bag slung around her shoulder the next day straight after the body was discovered (has been posted here). Sans knife - obviously - but at that point Solleceto could have still been carrying a knife.

re: "what's wrong with amanda" speculation from here (narcissistic, histrionic) - RS has a "knife fetish".

Such a large knife is harder to transport anonymously (hence the large green bag) or dispose of. Soll. cleaned it quite thoroughly with bleach - scrubbed it. Then he put it back in his kitchen drawer and tried to forget about it.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:52 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lilly wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:

To go back to Macca I think Amanda is naturally optimistic in nature and isn't going to suffer that much this side of the appeal (I can see why in small doses she could be likeable). That is unless Raff squeals and closes down her options.



===
I don't see how Raff can squeal, as he appears to be trying to convince himself that he was not there, even in the face of the evidence. He hasn't bothered to invest much in a story to explain himself though, I guess he is just very weak, already mentally ill in some way and just shut down.

Maybe he will have therapy in prison and it will help him open up - even if that's just to save himself.


That's all true lilly but it will have occurred to his lawyers that in his case the evidence could support a lesser charge -no fingerprints on the weapon, no DNA on Meredith's person, the bra was removed after death (not saying I believe this line of attack btw) and his family seem more cynical and realistic than the Knoxes. If they think there's a better chance of say 10years,out in 5
than total acquittal they might well persuade him to go for it.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Welcome Hammerite!

Hammerite wrote:

Quote:
On a personal note I believe that if I were presented for a crime that I didn’t commit: I would shout and scream my innocence “from the rafters” every single day that I was “dragged “into court. I would never let a single opportunity pass where I would not attempt to impress my complete and total innocence upon the Jurors. Wild horses would not succeed in shutting me up.
In comparison I cannot believe that a “totally innocent RS” has chosen to say (uncontested) absolutely nothing about his innocence in the very forum that is determining his future. Am I in a minority that cannot see any sense or logic in this stance?
In terms of family support I would shake any so accused family member by their lapels and tell them to voice (ROAR) by their innocence at every available opportunity.


Sollecito's tactical decision not to risk cross-questioning hurt him, as did his aloof approach to the trial. Whether or not this speaks to guilt is harder to ascertain of course. And reports of his attitude now raise speculative questions. He is depressed and despondant (perhaps understandable), and basically passive: What? I'm still here? You mean it didn't work? I felt throughout the trial that he was waiting to see how things would go for AK before commiting himself to anything. His behavior tallied with the profile put forth by the prosecution, to some extent indirectly and perhaps inadvertantly confirmed by his own star lawyer, who focused on Amélie and kind of ignored Raffaele.

_________________
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 Dec 09, 2009 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Shirley wrote:
Telegraph 12/4/09

Mrs Mellas, 47, said: "She had been to Japan and Europe, so it wasn't like she had never been abroad before. And we were in email contact all the time. I think if she had gone off the deep end we would have stopped hearing from her. We're not saying she was perfect but she never deteriorated."



Thanks, Shirley. I guess she is glossing over the three-day internship in Germany from which Knox disappeared. I think that would have been a red flag for many.

_________________
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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


Skep, you are way too funny today sun-) can't find the dancing banana
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Here ya go Buck! :D

b-((
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

woo hoo, thanks, Shirley!!
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I think the Moderators and others have struck just the right note(s) one way and another with the party crashers, actually. Well done.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


Skep, you are way too funny today sun-) can't find the dancing banana


I find that laughter is the best way to deal with troll invasions.

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

Offline lilly


Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:16 pm

Posts: 101

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Welcome Hammerite!

Hammerite wrote:

Quote:
On a personal note I believe that if I were presented for a crime that I didn’t commit: I would shout and scream my innocence “from the rafters” every single day that I was “dragged “into court. I would never let a single opportunity pass where I would not attempt to impress my complete and total innocence upon the Jurors. Wild horses would not succeed in shutting me up.
In comparison I cannot believe that a “totally innocent RS” has chosen to say (uncontested) absolutely nothing about his innocence in the very forum that is determining his future. Am I in a minority that cannot see any sense or logic in this stance?
In terms of family support I would shake any so accused family member by their lapels and tell them to voice (ROAR) by their innocence at every available opportunity.


Sollecito's tactical decision not to risk cross-questioning hurt him, as did his aloof approach to the trial. Whether or not this speaks to guilt is harder to ascertain of course. And reports of his attitude now raise speculative questions. He is depressed and despondant (perhaps understandable), and basically passive: What? I'm still here? You mean it didn't work? I felt throughout the trial that he was waiting to see how things would go for AK before commiting himself to anything. His behavior tallied with the profile put forth by the prosecution, to some extent indirectly and perhaps inadvertantly confirmed by his own star lawyer, who focused on Amélie and kind of ignored Raffaele.


The "relationship" between Raff and Amanda in the courtroom - he is passive and "where am I?", she is dominant, dominating the proceedings or trying to - appears to echo or reflect how their relationship was, and what their personalities are. Raff must have had some severe issues before he was arrested - he was taking a lot of drugs, his weirdo interests, seeking extreme experiences - these must have led in some way to his involvement in the crime.

So he's a heavily sedated wreck now -- perhaps in denial, a weak character who lived in a fantasy world and Amanda was the catalyst that helped him unleash what had been a passive fantasy before -- who knows how he will come to terms with what he has done, but perhaps now he is out of the courtroom and out of sight of Amanda, he will be able to slowly come to terms with things, and then he might start to talk.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Dec 8 "Porta a Porta" on RAI (two hours in Italian) dedicated to the case.
http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/me ... 7.html?p=0

Participating among others Old Sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Three things that I ought to report:

i) Finally spoke to a really very senior psychological profiler I know about AK. There view was that she is narcissistic, definitely, histrionic maybe but that pyscopathy couldn't be diagnosed without proper clinical interviews. The profiler is not a fan of ex ante allocation of that to anyone whether you go for the continuum theory or not. So I got schooled on the last as others said. There y'go! Honesty is the best policy

ii) Saw yesterday a reference to some of the court gossip that was going on at the trial (well used to this) and AK was referred to as The Bitch. Each to their own opinion on this. But apparently RS RG were referred to as 'The Cretins'. Raised a black-hearted chuckle from me in a bad context sigh

iii) Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?

iv) Saw this re the Film AK is supposed to be in which has been pulled from a film festival. I've lost the link so not sure where it was from.

Alessandro Riccini Ricci, director of the Batik Film Festival, said:"We have had a request from the Umbria regional council, the jail and Amanda Knox's lawyers who have all said that the screening would be inopportune.
"It is a shame because I have seen the film and she (Knox) is a magnetic actress. It shows her in a different light and not the Amanda Knox that we have grown used to over past few months." <--- I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong mate, I'm pretty sure a lot of us have definitely been considering the actress.
"She is very, very good and we did ask the council and jail to reconsider but as they insisted that the film be dropped so it will not be shown - it may be screened next month we shall have to see.
"Amanda has a very strong presence on screen and recites Hamlet very well - even if we knew nothing of her background she would have been noted for her performance." <-- I did remember the Hamlet right. Abandoning this thread now for fear of entering into cod Shakespeare...




I would suggest there is a big difference between extrapolating from forensics, signs of activity on a computer, mobile phone records, etc. on the one hand and making often laughably wild claims of insight into AK's state of mind by "reading" her behaviour in court (heavily mediated via TV, newspapers, internet, blogs, etc.) on the other.

Having said that, the prosecutors certainly had a field day coming up with different motives, scenarios, even dialogue for AK during the court hearings, so I guess it's just continuing that trend...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I think the Moderators and others have struck just the right note(s) one way and another with the party crashers, actually. Well done.


We don't want the Thought Police to turn up and arrest everyone, or cite us for rock-thowing or something.

Thanks for the support. There is a method to these invasions, which always follow milestone events in this case or major statements. But as I said yesterday, it is time for zero tolerance. I take particular exception when a newcomer immediately trashes the board, admonishes the board for the views expressed by some people, or judges the acceptability of our subject matter upon arrival. If this were the real world, this would be a collegial party or gathering. People who walk into an event like this in progress and don't bother to test the waters before diving in are like party crashers. I don't know about you, but in my house they get tossed if they are not polite to the regular guests.

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hello Sceptical,
I could acknowledge the advantages of presenting the “Prove it “ strategy in the absence of the possibility of other participations; however the inclusion of two other potential participants should determine to need to demonstrate ones innocence in view of the process whereby the jurors are obliged to give there opinion based on the available (and by inference the available but not supplied) information.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bibi


Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:26 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hello everyone,

Got up this morning and checked the board and found out I caused an uproar again. I apologize. I sincerely do not intend to be inflammatory. And I definitely am not a troll. I agree with the verdict. And I have read most of the material presented in this board and TJMK. I guess my real problem is that I am unconsciously comparing this case to the Casey Anthony case in the US. These two cases are the only ones I have been following closely. The Casey Anthony case is SO different, because there is a law in Florida that requires all the case information to be made public. Yes really. There are pages and pages of actual police documents available online for interested persons to peruse.

So the lack of concrete info in the MK trial frustrates me in comparison. I am truly just an interested person looking for the true "scoop". And I am sorry if I offended anyone with my earlier posts. I actually tried real hard to be polite, but I guess I failed. Sorry again,

Bibi
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jason_01


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:15 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You're not related to nathan_05 are you? Or mulder_01? Was it _01? All these numbers...and yet very similar confusions...


No, i don`t releted to these peoples. I was wondering what is wrong with these names but Skeptical Bystander post help me to understand.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


Please let me explain the number. I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them.

Michael wrote:
It is 'possible' in any and every case, but without evidence for it we cannot claim it and until any such evidence is produced we must accept the case as having been conducted properly, which is fully the situation with the Meredith Kercher case.


I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hammerite,

do you support WHU ? If so, I post on WHO as Virginiaham.

In response to your post on how you would react if innocent, surely you and your friend from the evening of the murder would have precisely matching alibis ? These two couldn't get it right after a combined total of 6 attempts. If you'd just lost your cherry (RS) and had a cosy, romantic little evening with your new girlfriend which involved plenty of cuddling (as was claimed by one of them, RS I think) I'm absolutely certain you'd remember it........no matter what you took.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bibi wrote:
Hello everyone,

Got up this morning and checked the board and found out I caused an uproar again. I apologize. I sincerely do not intend to be inflammatory. And I definitely am not a troll. I agree with the verdict. And I have read most of the material presented in this board and TJMK. I guess my real problem is that I am unconsciously comparing this case to the Casey Anthony case in the US. These two cases are the only ones I have been following closely. The Casey Anthony case is SO different, because there is a law in Florida that requires all the case information to be made public. Yes really. There are pages and pages of actual police documents available online for interested persons to peruse.

So the lack of concrete info in the MK trial frustrates me in comparison. I am truly just an interested person looking for the true "scoop". And I am sorry if I offended anyone with my earlier posts. I actually tried real hard to be polite, but I guess I failed. Sorry again,

Bibi


Hi Bibi,
Your apology is appreciated. I don't see you as a troll, but I think it is important to avoid making blanket statements about the board. I think you see why. A lot of the information in this trial that went into the decision will be made available in the sentencing report. I actually like the fact that this report will come out in due time. It means that those writing it will have time to be thoughtful and weigh their words.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jason_01 wrote:
I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?


Don't you think it would be a bit rough to sequester a jury for 11 months?

Also, the whole principle of sequestering juries is not a universal legal imperative. It may be the culture to do so within our legal systems, but just because that isn't the case in other legal systems it doesn't mean that we are right and they are wrong. Also, they do have multiple checks and balances in place that our systems do 'not' have. In short, you are comparing apples with oranges.

_________________
"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 IRONSIDE


Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jason 01..I see that you are online . I have not posted very much but have read this forum which is the most respected I have ever found. The posters are polite and Michael takes his time in explaining about the case and points,that some of us may have missed. The British press chose not to report on this case until now. The reporting is sloppy and incorrect . The aim seems to be to taint the Italian Justice System and forget that there is a victim. Meredith Kercher.Thanks to this forum I have been able to watch the trial and see that Justice has been served.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You're not related to nathan_05 are you? Or mulder_01? Was it _01? All these numbers...and yet very similar confusions...


No, i don`t releted to these peoples. I was wondering what is wrong with these names but Skeptical Bystander post help me to understand.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


Please let me explain the number. I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them.

Michael wrote:
It is 'possible' in any and every case, but without evidence for it we cannot claim it and until any such evidence is produced we must accept the case as having been conducted properly, which is fully the situation with the Meredith Kercher case.


I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?


Judges are never sequestered during trials as far as I know. As for jurors, in many cases they are not even in the US. Many criticize sequestration as outmoded. In the US, it leads to some really bad jury selection. How many of our best and brightest can afford to be sequestered for long periods?

In this case, the jurors are helped by two professional judges and I think it makes a huge difference. Also, presumably they have access to all coverage, not just coverage you might think of as possibly prejudicial. Think of the mountains and mountains of "Innocent American" coverage they might have been exposed to. The FOA decided to translate all of its propaganda into Italian, presumably to get someone's attention. In the end, I suspect they sorted the wheat from the chaff, as we all do when we have decisions to make.

I wish I had been a juror only because I would have had all the evidence, right there in front of me. Next to it, the second-hand media reports would fade into oblivion.

_________________
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 Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

windfall wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Three things that I ought to report:

i) Finally spoke to a really very senior psychological profiler I know about AK. There view was that she is narcissistic, definitely, histrionic maybe but that pyscopathy couldn't be diagnosed without proper clinical interviews. The profiler is not a fan of ex ante allocation of that to anyone whether you go for the continuum theory or not. So I got schooled on the last as others said. There y'go! Honesty is the best policy

ii) Saw yesterday a reference to some of the court gossip that was going on at the trial (well used to this) and AK was referred to as The Bitch. Each to their own opinion on this. But apparently RS RG were referred to as 'The Cretins'. Raised a black-hearted chuckle from me in a bad context sigh

iii) Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?

iv) Saw this re the Film AK is supposed to be in which has been pulled from a film festival. I've lost the link so not sure where it was from.

Alessandro Riccini Ricci, director of the Batik Film Festival, said:"We have had a request from the Umbria regional council, the jail and Amanda Knox's lawyers who have all said that the screening would be inopportune.
"It is a shame because I have seen the film and she (Knox) is a magnetic actress. It shows her in a different light and not the Amanda Knox that we have grown used to over past few months." <--- I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong mate, I'm pretty sure a lot of us have definitely been considering the actress.
"She is very, very good and we did ask the council and jail to reconsider but as they insisted that the film be dropped so it will not be shown - it may be screened next month we shall have to see.
"Amanda has a very strong presence on screen and recites Hamlet very well - even if we knew nothing of her background she would have been noted for her performance." <-- I did remember the Hamlet right. Abandoning this thread now for fear of entering into cod Shakespeare...




I would suggest there is a big difference between extrapolating from forensics, signs of activity on a computer, mobile phone records, etc. on the one hand and making often laughably wild claims of insight into AK's state of mind by "reading" her behaviour in court (heavily mediated via TV, newspapers, internet, blogs, etc.) on the other.

Having said that, the prosecutors certainly had a field day coming up with different motives, scenarios, even dialogue for AK during the court hearings, so I guess it's just continuing that trend...


I doubt anyone disputes your suggestion. There was plenty of stuff to extrapolate from. Had the prosecutors only made up dialogues, they would not have been taken seriously.

And if people here want to speculate on the meaning of behavior, they are free to do that. People do it all the time. It helps people understand things.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Jason_01 wrote:
I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?


Don't you think it would be a bit rough to sequester a jury for 11 months?

Also, the whole principle of sequestering juries is not a universal legal imperative. It may be the culture to do so within our legal systems, but just because that isn't the case in other legal systems it doesn't mean that we are right and they are wrong. Also, they do have multiple checks and balances in place that our systems do 'not' have. In short, you are comparing apples with oranges.


Yes, and according to Andrea in that radio interview there are checks and balances in place with the jury. They have to swear under oath not to be influenced by outside sources (so presumably not seek out newspaper coverage etc) also the case can actually be thrown out if a jury member makes reference to material that is not presented during the trial - so if they read stuff in the paper and brought it into the deliberations they could have to whole thing called as a mis-trial. And indeed 11 months would be a long time to be sequestered!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

There still seems to be significant differing statements from usually credible contributors on this Board, and also elsewhere about whether the verdict was unanimous or not.

I personally eagerly await the full written report from Court that will clear up these misconceptions.

In the meantime, I cite as source, the Andrea Vogt interview with Vinnie Politan:

She states that in a post verdict interview, one of the jurors stated that:
All jurors unanimously agreed that they thought Amanda and Raffie were guilty.
The jurors were not in unanimous agreement only about whether the defendants should receive a life sentence, or something less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2u0cePKgNA

Again, I may not have Ms Vogt's (or the responding juror's) exact words, but I have definitely conveyed their intent.

Best regards to our ever so efficient (and entertaining) Moderators and Administrators.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Jason_01 wrote:
I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?


Don't you think it would be a bit rough to sequester a jury for 11 months?

Also, the whole principle of sequestering juries is not a universal legal imperative. It may be the culture to do so within our legal systems, but just because that isn't the case in other legal systems it doesn't mean that we are right and they are wrong. Also, they do have multiple checks and balances in place that our systems do 'not' have. In short, you are comparing apples with oranges.


Yes, and according to Andrea in that radio interview there are checks and balances in place with the jury. They have to swear under oath not to be influenced by outside sources (so presumably not seek out newspaper coverage etc) also the case can actually be thrown out if a jury member makes reference to material that is not presented during the trial - so if they read stuff in the paper and brought it into the deliberations they could have to whole thing called as a mis-trial. And indeed 11 months would be a long time to be sequestered!


Indeed. It's supposed to be the accused who are in jail, not the jury :)

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Somehow I think Rafaelle is highly underestimated (and Amanda overestimated). Lets not forget he is several years older than Amanda (and Rudy). I think his lawyers did a very good job by turning the attention away from him, and take advantage of the Knox hype. RS got the lowest sentence of all 3. Rudy indicated that RS was the killer with Amanda outside.
Top Profile 

Offline PureGrit


Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:04 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

An old story from Slate on sequestering juries in the US.

"Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore."

http://www.slate.com/id/2091241/

Really doesn't seem any different from what happens in Italy in practice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PureGrit wrote:
An old story from Slate on sequestering juries in the US.

"Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore."

http://www.slate.com/id/2091241/

Really doesn't seem any different from what happens in Italy in practice.


It's too bad Maria Cantwell didn't read this before she made her statement last week.

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Three things that I ought to report:

i) Finally spoke to a really very senior psychological profiler I know about AK. There view was that she is narcissistic, definitely, histrionic maybe but that pyscopathy couldn't be diagnosed without proper clinical interviews. The profiler is not a fan of ex ante allocation of that to anyone whether you go for the continuum theory or not. So I got schooled on the last as others said. There y'go! Honesty is the best policy

ii) Saw yesterday a reference to some of the court gossip that was going on at the trial (well used to this) and AK was referred to as The Bitch. Each to their own opinion on this. But apparently RS RG were referred to as 'The Cretins'. Raised a black-hearted chuckle from me in a bad context sigh

iii) Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?

iv) Saw this re the Film AK is supposed to be in which has been pulled from a film festival. I've lost the link so not sure where it was from.

Alessandro Riccini Ricci, director of the Batik Film Festival, said:"We have had a request from the Umbria regional council, the jail and Amanda Knox's lawyers who have all said that the screening would be inopportune.
"It is a shame because I have seen the film and she (Knox) is a magnetic actress. It shows her in a different light and not the Amanda Knox that we have grown used to over past few months." <--- I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong mate, I'm pretty sure a lot of us have definitely been considering the actress.
"She is very, very good and we did ask the council and jail to reconsider but as they insisted that the film be dropped so it will not be shown - it may be screened next month we shall have to see.
"Amanda has a very strong presence on screen and recites Hamlet very well - even if we knew nothing of her background she would have been noted for her performance." <-- I did remember the Hamlet right. Abandoning this thread now for fear of entering into cod Shakespeare...




I would suggest there is a big difference between extrapolating from forensics, signs of activity on a computer, mobile phone records, etc. on the one hand and making often laughably wild claims of insight into AK's state of mind by "reading" her behaviour in court (heavily mediated via TV, newspapers, internet, blogs, etc.) on the other.

Having said that, the prosecutors certainly had a field day coming up with different motives, scenarios, even dialogue for AK during the court hearings, so I guess it's just continuing that trend...


I doubt anyone disputes your suggestion. There was plenty of stuff to extrapolate from. Had the prosecutors only made up dialogues, they would not have been taken seriously.

And if people here want to speculate on the meaning of behavior, they are free to do that. People do it all the time. It helps people understand things.


Quite right. And of course there was far more than just wild speculation to go on, as you say. Nevertheless, it's worth reflecting on the qualitative difference between (say) forensics and the other kinds of extrapolation. Note that the newspapers inevitably have far more fun with lurid stories of what AK might have said to Meredith than they do with more tedious, but more concrete elements of the case. If reporters then are less attentive to the harder evidence, which is understandably frustrating, it is at least partly the fault of the prosecutors, and their own willingness to pander to the foxy Knoxy hoopla.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jason_01


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:15 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Judges are never sequestered during trials as far as I know. As for jurors, in many cases they are not even in the US. Many criticize sequestration as outmoded. In the US, it leads to some really bad jury selection. How many of our best and brightest can afford to be sequestered for long periods?

In this case, the jurors are helped by two professional judges and I think it makes a huge difference. Also, presumably they have access to all coverage, not just coverage you might think of as possibly prejudicial. Think of the mountains and mountains of "Innocent American" coverage they might have been exposed to. The FOA decided to translate all of its propaganda into Italian, presumably to get someone's attention. In the end, I suspect they sorted the wheat from the chaff, as we all do when we have decisions to make.


Hmm .. i guess you are right about that. If the US don`t sequestered judges during trials than they can`t criticize it. The problem is that the italian press was biased about this case (like US). But on the other hand media is always biased. Its written by people anyway. I don`t consider the fact that it is near impossible to isolate people for 11 month.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I have just read Peter Popham's article in The Independent. I am speechless. This used to be a respectable paper. The only good thing about it now is the excellent Johan Hari, whom I admire hugely. I am NEVER buying or reading that paper again. The article is the worst piece of journalism I have seen in many a long year. I will read Johan Hari via his own site. Ye gods what is happening to the press over this case. They have all gone mad.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline vagrant


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:23 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You're not related to nathan_05 are you? Or mulder_01? Was it _01? All these numbers...and yet very similar confusions...


No, i don`t releted to these peoples. I was wondering what is wrong with these names but Skeptical Bystander post help me to understand.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


Please let me explain the number. I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them.

Michael wrote:
It is 'possible' in any and every case, but without evidence for it we cannot claim it and until any such evidence is produced we must accept the case as having been conducted properly, which is fully the situation with the Meredith Kercher case.


I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?



"I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language"

I'm curious Jason, since when ?

Just an observation... your first post is full of quite good and complex sentence construction and grammar. Your later one's aren't. Were they your own words ??
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
macca wrote:
Interesting observations posted by SomeAlibi........so AK was an excellent actress in the film she appeared in, and I suppose those skills are transferable to the courtroom, or interogation room, etc etc. I find it interesting in respect to 'the Bitch' and the 'Cretins'......I can definitely see RG as a cretin since he does not seem to have any real role in life other than petty crime and survival. I can also see AK as having gone completely off the rails once out of the US. I'm assuming this is her first trip out of the USA (spectacular way to leave a memory) and she is off the leash.........as much sex, drink and drugs (don't forget the US drinking age is 21) as she likes without parental control, so easily moves into bitch role, and then there's Raf, missing cherry thanks to AK and she's introducing him to a whole new world he'd heard of but never touched, and therefore very easily influenced.


I believe Chris Mellas, in one of his appearances on this board, stated that Knox had been on some supervised trip abroad at some point. I can't remember if it was to Greece, Austria or Germany -- or somewhere else entirely. In fact, it may have been to South Korea. I'm not joking. I heard that from someone I know here in West Seattle, who married a woman whose daughter was on the same trip. I will have to verify this information. In other words, it could be wrong and I will rectify it if that is the case.

Hi Skep,

This photo apparently is from when AK participated in a student exchange program and spent a few weeks living with a family in Japan.


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Bolint already posted the link.
I re-post it now, I watched it yesterday night. It is at the moment the most exhaustive presentaion of the case in a tv debate.
Maybe those who don't speak Italian can catch something of the different the point views. Each guest has its issue to put. Pay attention to the most informative guest, the director of Giornale dell' Umbria.

http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-a51a91af-4889-4afb-9cbf-9dbbbcc41457.html?p=0
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

windfall wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Three things that I ought to report:

i) Finally spoke to a really very senior psychological profiler I know about AK. There view was that she is narcissistic, definitely, histrionic maybe but that pyscopathy couldn't be diagnosed without proper clinical interviews. The profiler is not a fan of ex ante allocation of that to anyone whether you go for the continuum theory or not. So I got schooled on the last as others said. There y'go! Honesty is the best policy

ii) Saw yesterday a reference to some of the court gossip that was going on at the trial (well used to this) and AK was referred to as The Bitch. Each to their own opinion on this. But apparently RS RG were referred to as 'The Cretins'. Raised a black-hearted chuckle from me in a bad context sigh

iii) Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?

iv) Saw this re the Film AK is supposed to be in which has been pulled from a film festival. I've lost the link so not sure where it was from.

Alessandro Riccini Ricci, director of the Batik Film Festival, said:"We have had a request from the Umbria regional council, the jail and Amanda Knox's lawyers who have all said that the screening would be inopportune.
"It is a shame because I have seen the film and she (Knox) is a magnetic actress. It shows her in a different light and not the Amanda Knox that we have grown used to over past few months." <--- I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong mate, I'm pretty sure a lot of us have definitely been considering the actress.
"She is very, very good and we did ask the council and jail to reconsider but as they insisted that the film be dropped so it will not be shown - it may be screened next month we shall have to see.
"Amanda has a very strong presence on screen and recites Hamlet very well - even if we knew nothing of her background she would have been noted for her performance." <-- I did remember the Hamlet right. Abandoning this thread now for fear of entering into cod Shakespeare...




I would suggest there is a big difference between extrapolating from forensics, signs of activity on a computer, mobile phone records, etc. on the one hand and making often laughably wild claims of insight into AK's state of mind by "reading" her behaviour in court (heavily mediated via TV, newspapers, internet, blogs, etc.) on the other.

Having said that, the prosecutors certainly had a field day coming up with different motives, scenarios, even dialogue for AK during the court hearings, so I guess it's just continuing that trend...


I doubt anyone disputes your suggestion. There was plenty of stuff to extrapolate from. Had the prosecutors only made up dialogues, they would not have been taken seriously.

And if people here want to speculate on the meaning of behavior, they are free to do that. People do it all the time. It helps people understand things.


Quite right. And of course there was far more than just wild speculation to go on, as you say. Nevertheless, it's worth reflecting on the qualitative difference between (say) forensics and the other kinds of extrapolation. Note that the newspapers inevitably have far more fun with lurid stories of what AK might have said to Meredith than they do with more tedious, but more concrete elements of the case. If reporters then are less attentive to the harder evidence, which is understandably frustrating, it is at least partly the fault of the prosecutors, and their own willingness to pander to the foxy Knoxy hoopla.


I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't see evidence of the prosecutors pandering to the Foxy Knoxy hoopla for one thing. Or rather, the only evidence offered is via the media, which therefore makes it problematic. In much the same way, one of the prosecutors was wildly demonized, and some elements of the media have had a field day with that. Indeed, the only person more demonized than Mignini is probably Amanda Knox, and at least she has had the benefit of massive press coverage painting her as The American Innocent Abroad. Incidentally, I learned yesterday from a professor of media and communications history and theory that the US press has a long history of painting clean-cut young women as angels. It is a complex issue. People want to understand, and stories (narrative) are how we understand. But stories involve characters, and the notion of characters can quickly become one of character.

I guess what I'm saying is that this case and the media coverage it has gotten are very complex things, with many competing and contradictory layers. As humans, we can only sift through it all and hope that our need to impose a particular narrative doesn't blind us to important truths.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda Knox Says Her Murder Trial Was 'Correct'
Amanda Knox Expected to be Home for Christmas, Not Convicted of Murder
By ANN WISE
PERUGIA, Italy Dec. 9, 2009

ABC NEWS

_________________
"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 Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:19 pm   Post subject: DO YOU CRY IN THE RAIN???   

jason_01 wrote:
The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice. That means that the real killer needs to be prosecuted, not Knox and Sollecito.

Three persons - including Sollecito and his ex-girlfriend - have already been convicted by two judges and a jury. The Kerchers have expressed their satisfaction with the trial. It has become a disgusting signature of the Friends of Amanda over the last few days to tell the world what they think the Kerchers should be feeling.

jason_01 wrote:
The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

Preston has published comments stating that he doubts his and Spezi's theory is correct: "People have often asked me if the Monster of Florence will ever be found. I once believed that Spezi and I could find the truth; now I am not so certain .... Spezi and I used to laugh at their elaborate theories, but ours may not be much better." The Atlantic - JulyAugust 2006, before Meredith's murder

jason_01 wrote:
"The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial."

As Michael has commented, the afterward contains factual errors, if not falsehoods. Feel free to correct yourself.

jason_01 wrote:
He freely admits to having been present and to having had sex with Kercher.

Rudy is not to be believed, but even still, you shouldn't misquote him as stating he had sex. It reminds me of when Kelly13 - one of the original members of the Friends of Amanda - accused him of having a criminal record. By the way, another FOA trademark is referring to Meredith as "Kercher".

jason_01 wrote:
However there is also another suspect who has never been investigated by Mignini.

I believe that's one of the falsehoods in Preston's book. Yes, that incident was investigated, and you do a disservice to the truth by bringing it up. You should refrain from regurgitating Preston's/your words without contrasting them for their veracity.

jason_01 wrote:
there is no reason at all to think that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it.

You have to either be quite naive, blind or simply with an agenda to make that statement. There's ample hard and circumstantial evidence to have justified the trial, and, clearly the judges and jury found that the evidence was sufficient to convict Raffaele and his ex-girlfriend for murder, along with Rudy in his separate fast-track trial.

Your talking points only serve to demonstrate to honest newcomers here that FOA must be desperate if it has to dispatch posters to the corners of the blogging world like ours to parley the same old reheated meatloaf which nobody dares taste, not even covered in ketchup.

*_01, get back to where you once belonged.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

vagrant wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You're not related to nathan_05 are you? Or mulder_01? Was it _01? All these numbers...and yet very similar confusions...


No, i don`t releted to these peoples. I was wondering what is wrong with these names but Skeptical Bystander post help me to understand.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Michael wrote:
PMF has now reached over 700 members (705 and counting).


Are about 500 of them usernames ending in _01??


:lol:


I was thinking we could institute a troll of the day contest. We could set up a thread where drive-by trolls can deposit their very best little wad of venom and then disappear into the night (or day). The only thing is, once their little wad is discovered they are banned (username, email and IP). This won't make return deposit trips impossible, just a lot more time-consuming and difficult. But the great advantage is that all the little wads of venom would be in one place. We could select our favorite each day and award posthumous prizes. We could call it the Minotaur Prize.


Please let me explain the number. I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them.

Michael wrote:
It is 'possible' in any and every case, but without evidence for it we cannot claim it and until any such evidence is produced we must accept the case as having been conducted properly, which is fully the situation with the Meredith Kercher case.


I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?



"I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language"

I'm curious Jason, since when ?

Just an observation... your first post is full of quite good and complex sentence construction and grammar. Your later one's aren't. Were they your own words ??



Thanks for pointing this out, Vagrant. I hate to be the bad guy all the time. Jason, either you posted some talking point you picked up somewhere without proper attribution or your later claim to be a non-native speaker is false.

That is the kind of offense that gets one voted off the board. So maybe it is time for you to move on. Thanks for stopping by.

_________________
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 Dec 09, 2009 6:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

There is a new post up at TJMK. It might be called Take A Letter Maria, but it isn't. It is, however, an open letter to Maria Cantwell from a group of concerned constituents from Washington State.

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:34 pm   Post subject: HABLAS BIEN MI IDIOMA ... said Captain Smith to Pocahontas   

vagrant - about Jason - wrote:
Just an observation... your first post is full of quite good and complex sentence construction and grammar. Your later one's aren't. Were they your own words ??


Hi Vagrant! Your observation I'm sure was made by everyone else here.

Let's compare Doug_01's, errrh, Jason's first post promoting the Preston book about an unrelated case ....:

"If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.
The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.
The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture.
The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial.
"

.... to his later posts:

"I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them."

Reminds me of a Russian (Soviet-era) spy I once met (seriously) who wore a trenchcoat, a fedora, and read a newspaper in hotel lobbies, even on a hot, sunny day. HE must have been a graduate of the Daisyhill Detective Academy!!!! ((just to clarify, he had obviously been assigned to follow our tourist group, and kept showing up in different cities, on the same trains, etc. ... we kept pointing him out and even saying "hi", to such a point that the Intourist guide assigned to the group (who was probably also a spy!) made a point that we wouldn't be bumping into Boris any more ... and we didn't!.))


Last edited by Kermit on Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Stevo wrote:
Having just watched the 48hr, i am shocked at how someone who is under investigation for abusing his authority is still allowed to continue working on such life changing affairs! That would never happen in the U.K, also i never knew of the American writer who was close to being framed by the same person.

This verdict becomes more questionable by the day, surely some random womans blog! who claims to speak to a dead priest, was not used in the trial? That just makes a mockery of the whole process used to convict!


Hi Stevo,

If you want to be taken seriously on this board, don't use any of them the CBS documentaries as a source of information. Apart from being ridiculously biased, all the documentaries have been riddled with factual errors.

1. Mignini has already been cleared of the charges of abuse of office by a court in Florence.

"But Mr Mignini said it was true that although a Florence prosecutor had brought proceedings against him, another court had already "declared non-existent" the charges of abuse of office." (BBC).

The Florence prosecutor appealed against the verdict. The charge against Mignini is politically motivated and frivolous.

2. Mignini hasn't tried to frame Doug Preston.

3. The claims on CBS that Mignini consulted with Gabriella Carlizzi, the "psychic medium" blogger are false.

"But Mr Mignini said he was "not friendly" with Mrs Carlizzi, and did not share her views, even to the point of having her arrested in 2005.

"I have said these things many times to American journalists," he said. "But there are none so deaf as those who will not hear."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.

They were unanimously found guilty of murder.

19 separate judges thought there was a strong case against them.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From Michael’s link to the Ann Wise article:

‘The appeal process won't begin until March 5 when the trial judge releases his full opinion on the verdict and the sentence in the case. Knox's lawyers could file their appeal in June or July with the first hearing possibly scheduled between September and October.
Luciano Ghirga, one of Knox's lawyers, said his research indicated that about one in three cases are reversed on appeal. ‘

Just curious how Ghirga comes up with a 33% reversal on appeals. Seems rather optimistic for this case, compared to other numbers we’ve seen before. Unless he is also taking into account reductions in sentence.


Last edited by DLW on Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jason_01


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:15 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out, Vagrant. I hate to be the bad guy all the time. Jason, either you posted some talking point you picked up somewhere without proper attribution or your later claim to be a non-native speaker is false.

That is the kind of offense that gets one voted off the board. So maybe it is time for you to move on. Thanks for stopping by.


I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution. I wrote my startpost in one or two hours. Before posting an english friend correct the grammar to be sure everyone can read it. That`s it.

Like i said you are right. If the US don`t sequestered judges during trials than they can`t criticize it. The problem is that the italian press was biased about this case (like US). But on the other hand media is always biased. Its written by people anyway. I don`t consider the fact that it is near impossible to isolate people for 11 month.

This board changed my mind about this case and im thankfull for that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out, Vagrant. I hate to be the bad guy all the time. Jason, either you posted some talking point you picked up somewhere without proper attribution or your later claim to be a non-native speaker is false.

That is the kind of offense that gets one voted off the board. So maybe it is time for you to move on. Thanks for stopping by.


I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution. I wrote my startpost in one or two hours. Before posting an english friend correct the grammar to be sure everyone can read it. That`s it.

Like i said you are right. If the US don`t sequestered judges during trials than they can`t criticize it. The problem is that the italian press was biased about this case (like US). But on the other hand media is always biased. Its written by people anyway. I don`t consider the fact that it is near impossible to isolate people for 11 month.

This board changed my mind about this case and im thankfull for that.


Give me a break! Goodbye, Jason. It was nice of you to stop by. We are polite and kind to a fault, but not stupid.

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

Offline vagrant


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:23 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out, Vagrant. I hate to be the bad guy all the time. Jason, either you posted some talking point you picked up somewhere without proper attribution or your later claim to be a non-native speaker is false.

That is the kind of offense that gets one voted off the board. So maybe it is time for you to move on. Thanks for stopping by.


I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution. I wrote my startpost in one or two hours. Before posting an english friend correct the grammar to be sure everyone can read it. That`s it.

Like i said you are right. If the US don`t sequestered judges during trials than they can`t criticize it. The problem is that the italian press was biased about this case (like US). But on the other hand media is always biased. Its written by people anyway. I don`t consider the fact that it is near impossible to isolate people for 11 month.

This board changed my mind about this case and im thankfull for that.




Gotta love google...

Do these words sound familiar ??
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 759AA7gSOq
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stevo


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I have noticed several posts regarding the use of cannabis on the night!

Let me just say, i have friends who use skunk on a daily basis, it is illegal yes! but believe me now, it will have played NO PART in the actions that night. Skunk in no way puts you in that state of mind, its more likely to have been the drink rather than the joints smoked that evening.

The Drug fuelled label attached to the case is just ridiculous, ask any who smokes weed.

P.s Thanks to the creator of this forum, you have been more than helpful towards me over the last few days! th-)


Last edited by Stevo on Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

vagrant wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out, Vagrant. I hate to be the bad guy all the time. Jason, either you posted some talking point you picked up somewhere without proper attribution or your later claim to be a non-native speaker is false.

That is the kind of offense that gets one voted off the board. So maybe it is time for you to move on. Thanks for stopping by.


I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution. I wrote my startpost in one or two hours. Before posting an english friend correct the grammar to be sure everyone can read it. That`s it.

Like i said you are right. If the US don`t sequestered judges during trials than they can`t criticize it. The problem is that the italian press was biased about this case (like US). But on the other hand media is always biased. Its written by people anyway. I don`t consider the fact that it is near impossible to isolate people for 11 month.

This board changed my mind about this case and im thankfull for that.




Gotta love google...

Do these words sound familiar ??
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 759AA7gSOq



Jason has been given his parting gift and has asked me to thank you all for selecting him as your troll of the day. Here's what he said: "I am honored to have been chosen for this prestigious award, especially knowing how many vie for it." Then he added: "Yahoo! Thanks you verry much I am sory for my pore english."

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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:53 pm   Post subject: THERE IS REDEMPTION IF YOU TRY ....   

jason_01 wrote:
I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution ... This board changed my mind about this case and im thankfull for that.

Then why peddle the Preston book using incorrect talking points, and promoting Preston's vehemently anti-Mignini line which nobody, nobody makes reference to, except for the Friends of Amanda and associates?

If you want to be thankful, first of all ensure that your posts aren't cut and pasted from FOA talking points.

Personally, it's neither here nor there for me, but, if you say "The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice", I would add that in addition to getting some justice already, through the Italian judicial processes which did not give the Kercher family reason to doubt its correctness, the Kerchers (and Meredith's friends) deserve respect. And every time someone repeats FOA half and whole lies, you can imagine that a lot of persons get hurt.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

awww, sweeet!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

windfall wrote:
awww, sweeet!


sorry, forgot to quote - that was a response to Jason's farewell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

To be fair, it’s not only the American media/FoA anymore who express doubts over the case and verdict.

a British lawyer in the Times:

This is a young woman preparing to spend the next 26 years behind bars, whose case, had it been brought in Britain, would never have reached court. If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit.


“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.” Those are words spoken by the “she-devil” Knox to Kercher on the night of the crime — only they weren’t. Instead, they are the fanciful imaginings of an Italian prosecutor, speculating before the jury about the words Knox may have uttered to Kercher. Try imagining a British barrister saying this in an Old Bailey trial. British judges don’t use gavels, but if they did, one would be thrown at counsel’s head for so preposterous a piece of subliminal advertising.



From The Times
December 8, 2009
Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.


I would disagree with such an assessment. And I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?

Thanks to those pointing me in the direction of other cases which have something in common... though there are still quite striking differences, too.

It may be too easy to protest, how could two nice middle class kids do such a thing? - But on the other hand it is important not to discount such issues as social class and privilege, education, etc. Casual violence in more deprived social contexts is common. It tends to be much less so in
AK/RS-type circles.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:02 pm   Post subject: DEPRESSION SETS IN   

vagrant wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution. I wrote my startpost in one or two hours. Before posting an english friend correct the grammar to be sure everyone can read it. That`s it.

Gotta love google...

Do these words sound familiar ??
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 759AA7gSOq

Vagrant!!

Now I'm really down!!!! I honestly believed Doug_01 errrhh, Jason when he said that he wrote his big first post in 2 hours, then had a friend check it. So, the truth is that he just cut and pasted it.

I'd bet that's how he got his passing marks on term papers at the Daisyhill Detective Academy.
v-))
Top Profile 

Offline vagrant


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:23 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: DEPRESSION SETS IN   

Kermit wrote:
vagrant wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I don`t posted some talking point without proper attribution. I wrote my startpost in one or two hours. Before posting an english friend correct the grammar to be sure everyone can read it. That`s it.

Gotta love google...

Do these words sound familiar ??
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 759AA7gSOq

Vagrant!!

Now I'm really down!!!! I honestly believed Doug_01 errrhh, Jason when he said that he wrote his big first post in 2 hours, then had a friend check it. So, the truth is that he just cut and pasted it.

I'd bet that's how he got his passing marks on term papers at the Daisyhill Detective Academy.
v-))



It gets better... the person attrbuted to the original set of words, one Joe Finkle, is apparently a legendary poster on Yahoo Answers (UK & Ireland) with 5317 answers (and no less than 2030 of them voted "best answer") on topics ranging from Law and Ethics to Baseball.

...but I digress.... sorry...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Tiziano wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=180&start=6500

Delitto di Perugia: Hillary Clinton risponde, Raffaele Sollecito trasferito a Sabbione di Terni
pubblicato: martedì 08 dicembre 2009
da Daniele Particelli in: Delitto di Perugia
Tues 08/12/09
Main points of report:
H. CLINTON:
"We have had no indication that Italian law was not respected. The Italian government authorised our consular staff to attend the trial. As well, we have been able to visit AK periodically and will continue to play this rôle of checking and support."

In the meanwhile Arline Kercher - Merdith's mother - has spoken out criticising Knox's family.

ARLINE KERCHER:
"The news that they were going to appeal was already quite difficult and now this ... I do not know where they want to get by involving people in high office. In the days I spent in court it seemed a normal trial. We did not get any special treatment either, so I don't understand how there can be an anti-American element."

LUCA MAORI: (about Sollecito, who is reported to be in shock)
"He's ill, he has lost the sense of time and space. He keeps asking "When am I getting out? When can I go away?" In brief, he can't understand how this could have happened, and he doesn't know what is going to happen now. He is afraid about his future and we have tried to reassure him.. I had a long meeting with the prison head who was very helpful."

http://static.blogo.it/crimeblog/Sollec ... vembre.jpg


It sounds like Raffaele should be transferred to a psychiatric prison for assessment.
Top Profile 

Offline withnail


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:19 pm

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:16 pm   Post subject: Interview with Andrea Vogt   

My first post here and I fear i'll get everything wrong. I'd like to say thanks to the people who contribute to this board for providing such detailed information.

I just listened to the two youtube links where Andrea Vogt is interviewed by Vinnie Politan.

Ms Vogt clearly displays a detailed understanding of the Italian Justice System and this case. I find Vinnie's responses( can I say grunts) to Andrea annoying and quite condescending, particularly when he hears something he does not agree with.

With regards to the homeless man who testified in this case, why is it that his position in life is used to dicredit anything he has to say? If for instance, he was able to put AK and RS somewhere else his status would have been elevated to that of a god!

I have been following this case ever since Meredith was killed and used to read the cess pit, as it is described here. I lost all respect for it when it became obvious it was not impartial or objective. I think that forum also dismissed the homeless man as a witness and at that point I stopped reading it.

If my understanding is correct, why didn't RS take the stand. If he was truly innocent, wouldn't he relish the opportunity to clear his name? Why does Vinnie make no mention of this or the countless other inconsistencies provided by AK and RS?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

windfall wrote:
I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?


Well, they are very different contexts, yes I agree. But this was a crime committed by more than one person - three in fact, which constitutes a gang in my mind, or at least a gang mentality. And the crime involved drink and drugs, so not so different really. Read Miss Represented on the issue of group violence.

I will leave your point about socio-economic background for someone else!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.


I would disagree with such an assessment. And I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?

Thanks to those pointing me in the direction of other cases which have something in common... though there are still quite striking differences, too.

It may be too easy to protest, how could two nice middle class kids do such a thing? - But on the other hand it is important not to discount such issues as social class and privilege, education, etc. Casual violence in more deprived social contexts is common. It tends to be much less so in
AK/RS-type circles.


AK/RS-type circles? Like the seventh circle in Dante's Inferno?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:

Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2
Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2


Finally some clarification of all the complaints that the jury was reading the news and so on throughout the trial. It's just like in Canada. Juries are rarely sequestered, but they are told not to read the news or discuss the case ... and they are trusted to do exactly that. It has been portrayed in the US media forever that the jury can read the news and can discuss the case ... which just isn't true.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Shirley wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.


I would disagree with such an assessment. And I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?

Thanks to those pointing me in the direction of other cases which have something in common... though there are still quite striking differences, too.

It may be too easy to protest, how could two nice middle class kids do such a thing? - But on the other hand it is important not to discount such issues as social class and privilege, education, etc. Casual violence in more deprived social contexts is common. It tends to be much less so in
AK/RS-type circles.


AK/RS-type circles? Like the seventh circle in Dante's Inferno?


Nice one! And by the way, I also think the "pure evil" line is a copout.

Will try and respond to other responses to my posts later. Too many children to put to bed right now....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Shirley wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.


I would disagree with such an assessment. And I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?

Thanks to those pointing me in the direction of other cases which have something in common... though there are still quite striking differences, too.

It may be too easy to protest, how could two nice middle class kids do such a thing? - But on the other hand it is important not to discount such issues as social class and privilege, education, etc. Casual violence in more deprived social contexts is common. It tends to be much less so in
AK/RS-type circles.


AK/RS-type circles? Like the seventh circle in Dante's Inferno?


There are actually plenty of counter-examples in the annals of crime. In this case, however, I would say that the socio-economic background of the two recently convicted suspects actually may have played in their favor, though it proves nothing with regard to their guilt or innocence.
Prejudices about the criminal mind, genetic predisposition to violence and socio-economic drivers run very deep in our culture.
It is truly amazing how engrained these ideas are. Many people believe, for example, that domestic violence is more prevalent in the lower social strata, even though this is simply not true. Or that people only steal because they need money. Or that only rapists tend to be uneducated males, or males from underprivileged backgrounds where criminality is assumed to be part of the picture. Michael Skokel, anyone? How about murder? Remember the recent Craigslist case? That guy was a medical student.
In the nineteenth century, scientists believed that men were smarter than women because their brains were bigger. Brain size was calculated by filling skulls with mustard seeds. The theory ran into problems when it started to look like big dark-skinned men were smarter than white men based on the same reasoning and calculations. Oops! Back to the drawing board to find another way to justify a preconceived idea.

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

Offline Stevo


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
To be fair, it’s not only the American media/FoA anymore who express doubts over the case and verdict.

a British lawyer in the Times:

This is a young woman preparing to spend the next 26 years behind bars, whose case, had it been brought in Britain, would never have reached court. If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit.


“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.” Those are words spoken by the “she-devil” Knox to Kercher on the night of the crime — only they weren’t. Instead, they are the fanciful imaginings of an Italian prosecutor, speculating before the jury about the words Knox may have uttered to Kercher. Try imagining a British barrister saying this in an Old Bailey trial. British judges don’t use gavels, but if they did, one would be thrown at counsel’s head for so preposterous a piece of subliminal advertising.



From The Times
December 8, 2009
Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?


If this horrific pointless slaying happened in the (uk)! I would like to think that our detectives/forensics/justice/cps/courts would have dealt with it with more clarification, and give Meredith's family a finger to point.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Withnail wonders (in his initial post to us)
Quote:
If my understanding is correct, why didn't RS take the stand.
If he was truly innocent, wouldn't he relish the opportunity to clear his name?

^^^^^^^^^^^

Although this interesting question has been proffered, discussed, dissected, and intelligently answered by several excellent posters here in the past, I will try an appeal to your sense of logic

Couple opening things (premises) to consider: (Again, overall intent, and not verbatim)

1)Raffie has changed his alibi, especially as it pertains to Amanda's whereabouts with him during the time the murder ocurred at least 4 times.
2)Raffie in his first revision said everything previous from him was rubbish.
3)Raffie then said he was lying because of Amanda
4)In his next to last revision, the amount of time Amanda was absent was revised by him downward from "several hours" to "a while", and now I am not sure now she even left.
5)Finally he repeatedly answers almost everything by inserting a plea of confusion or lack of memory skills or drug induced deterioration of accuracy.

Here's the ultimate appeal to your primary logic.

If you were a highly skilled defense attorney would you want to allow this individual (your client) with these personality defects, and this track record to be open for a full examination of pertinent questions by highly skilled Prosecutors...for several hours or even days ??

Welcome to the board, and hope your curiosity prompts you to examine all the excellent factual testimony etc so helpfully provided as summaries here

IMHO, Raffie would have been his own worst witness on the stand
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: Interview with Andrea Vogt   

withnail wrote:
My first post here and I fear i'll get everything wrong. I'd like to say thanks to the people who contribute to this board for providing such detailed information.

I just listened to the two youtube links where Andrea Vogt is interviewed by Vinnie Politan.

Ms Vogt clearly displays a detailed understanding of the Italian Justice System and this case. I find Vinnie's responses( can I say grunts) to Andrea annoying and quite condescending, particularly when he hears something he does not agree with.

With regards to the homeless man who testified in this case, why is it that his position in life is used to dicredit anything he has to say? If for instance, he was able to put AK and RS somewhere else his status would have been elevated to that of a god!

I have been following this case ever since Meredith was killed and used to read the cess pit, as it is described here. I lost all respect for it when it became obvious it was not impartial or objective. I think that forum also dismissed the homeless man as a witness and at that point I stopped reading it.

If my understanding is correct, why didn't RS take the stand. If he was truly innocent, wouldn't he relish the opportunity to clear his name? Why does Vinnie make no mention of this or the countless other inconsistencies provided by AK and RS?


Welcome to PMF withnail :) Actually, in regard to Mr Curatolo the homeless man, this isn't the first murder he's given testimony on the stand about. It is clear that the courts don't show him the same prejudice that others have.

_________________
"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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Just saw a report on FOXNews that Amanda is now saying she has complete faith in the Italian justice system. She was not shown. Just her statement read.

The Amanda Knox PR team is a sham, IMO. I don't know how much they are being paid, but anything is too much.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?


Well, they are very different contexts, yes I agree. But this was a crime committed by more than one person - three in fact, which constitutes a gang in my mind, or at least a gang mentality. And the crime involved drink and drugs, so not so different really. Read Miss Represented on the issue of group violence.

I will leave your point about socio-economic background for someone else!

I agree with The Bard. A mob mentality can develop, even with as few as two people, and especially with three or more. I haven't studied this as Miss R. has, but I have looked at certain cases. It seems the everyday inhibitions we all carry around can somehow get short-circuited in a group (mob) situation.

The other issue windfall brought up was whether cases like this where a woman was the 'ring-leader,' so to speak, in a brutal attack on another woman. They are not that common, but they exist. For example:

In 1965, Sylvia Likens, a 16-year-old girl, was murdered over several weeks by a group led by a 35-year-old mother of seven children named Gertrude Baniszewski. Sylvia and her younger sister Jenny, a polio victim, had been left in Gertrude's care as their parents made the carny circuit. Several of Gertrude's own children (including 3 girls) and several neighbor boys joined in the torture and abuse, that led eventually to Sylvia's death.

Karla Homolka clearly 'enjoyed' and participated in the sexual assault and murder of several girls and women over several years with husband Paul Bernardo. (1991-92)

Janet Chandler's gang-rape and murder were facilitated by and participated in by Laurie Swank, her supposed 'friend' and roommate. (1979)

Lori Drew, a Missouri housewife, led a group of young women/girls (including her own daughter) to tease and torment Megan Meier online (on MySpace) by first convincing her (Megan) that a cute young boy was interested in her, and then abruptly ending the 'relationship' by having a bunch of myspace 'friends' join in the taunting, resulting in Meier's suicide. (1996)

In all of the above cases, there was both the element of 'mob mentality' as well as a woman playing a leading or prominent role in the physical (or psychological, in the case of Drew) assault.

One would hope someone is studying these phenomena. In my layperson's mind, it is probably related to deep-seated sexual shame in the perpetrator. It does seem the most evil thing in the world.


Last edited by Earthling on Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Jason_01 wrote:
I respect your point of view. There are some good arguments. But the jury of six civilians and two judges is not sequestered and has access to news media coverage of the case. Why?


Don't you think it would be a bit rough to sequester a jury for 11 months?

Also, the whole principle of sequestering juries is not a universal legal imperative. It may be the culture to do so within our legal systems, but just because that isn't the case in other legal systems it doesn't mean that we are right and they are wrong. Also, they do have multiple checks and balances in place that our systems do 'not' have. In short, you are comparing apples with oranges.


It is my guess that it's simply a practical matter. They already acknowledge that people can't necessarily walk away from their work by only meeting a couple of days a week, so it must have been decided a long time ago that jurors must be trusted by their pledge. I don't see any problem with that, especially where jurors are expected to be educated. I think it probably works very well, and they do have the counsel of the magistrates. I think it's just part of the hysteria.

All the OJ jurors must have seen the low-speed Bronco chase but they acquitted him anyway. :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Just wanted to point out the screaming irony of arguments that defend Amanda claiming she couldn't have done it, evidence aside, because she lacked a motive.
Though, of course, when motives actually appear-jealousy, stolen cash, lost job, personal conflict between the roommates, these are all discounted.

But then to turn about and claim the evidence in the case was manufactured.
Without ever coming up with a theory for what motive a HOST of people would have had for framing her.
The police, numerous forensic workers, the ear witness, Comodi, the Albanian, the prosecutor, the people working for the cell phone companies..... who else?
Even if Magnini were the twisted evil genius behind this campaign to pointlessly imprison Amanda (And Raphaele, who I guess becomes an honorary American) -- even if he were somehow engaged in framing Amanda, ho many other people would have to be in on the plot?
And what could their possible motive be for such behavior?

The only coherent one I've come across is having arrested her for being sexy, they needed to "save face."
Funny that they didn't need to save face after arresting Lumumba.

Why should doubts about Amanda's motive count so highly, but not the lack of motive for pretty much an entire city.

Oh, I fogot.
They are anti-American.
(How many other American students are there in Perugia??)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jetlagged wrote:
Newspaper editors want to sell papers and select their stance accordingly. I just don’t understand why so many of them are so blindingly pro-Amanda. Surely their readers would welcome another opinion?

If I were the editor of a tabloid paper I’d run the following story:

***
AMANDA – WHY SHE IS AS GUILTY AS SIN Global Exclusive

The Filthy Rag today brings you exclusive coverage from behind the scenes of the court case that has captivated the world. We will show you how the jury was RIGHT to convict Foxy Knoxy and why the American press have got it WRONG to complain about the verdict. We present never–publicised-before evidence on pages 2-12 that will show once and for all that Amanda and Rafaelle are guilty. Here are some of the more important facts:

    Amanda LIED to the police not once or twice but several times as she continually changed her story after the murder.

    Rafaelle initially told police they were at a party that night, but later changed his story and told police he had earlier told them “a load of old BOLLOCKS

    Amanda claimed to have been at Rafaelle’s flat for the entire time on the night of the murder, but Rafaelle told police she was GONE for several hours.

    Rafaelle REFUSED to take the stand for fear of implicating himself and Amanda.

    Amanda accused a perfectly innocent man of the murder and WATCHED and did NOTHING as he was arrested and detained for two whole weeks.

    A BLOODY SHOE-PRINT that matched Amanda Knox was found in Meredith’s room.

    Forensic evidence suggests that Rafaelle and Amanda tried to CLEAN UP THE BLOOD in the cottage before police arrived. The clean up also included WIPING fingerprints. The only DNA not cleaned up was that from Rudy Guede.

    At first police thought it might be a burglary, but soon realised that the burglary had been STAGED.

    Local police SURPRISED Foxy and Raf mid-way through their clean up on the morning after the crime. Foxy and Raf claimed that they had found blood and already called the police, but phone records show that this was a LIE.

    Rafaelle’s DNA was found in only two places in the cottage: on a cigarette butt in the kitchen and on Meredith’s bra clasp. As DNA does not fly through the air it is hard to see where the SO-CALLED CONTAMINATION could have come from.

    One of the SUSPECTED MURDER WEAPONS, the one with Amanda’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s on the blade, was actually found in Rafaelle’s flat, a place that Meredith had never been. It had been SCOURED with bleach
*

...and so on. I’m a little nauseous after trying to imitate a tabloid writer, but the point I’m trying to make is that there is a fantastic story for any editor wanting to print the true facts of the case. If any tabloid editors want to lift this piece, please be my guest. Just leave me a message and we can talk about a free-lancing job OK?

Good job, jetlagged, I'm impressed!!!

I'd take you up on it, if I owned a tabloid!!! LOL pp-( tt-) dm-) b-(( :P wor-)) cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Just wanted to point out the screaming irony of arguments that defend Amanda claiming she couldn't have done it, evidence aside, because she lacked a motive.
Though, of course, when motives actually appear-jealousy, stolen cash, lost job, personal conflict between the roommates, these are all discounted.

But then to turn about and claim the evidence in the case was manufactured.
Without ever coming up with a theory for what motive a HOST of people would have had for framing her.
The police, numerous forensic workers, the ear witness, Comodi, the Albanian, the prosecutor, the people working for the cell phone companies..... who else?
Even if Magnini were the twisted evil genius behind this campaign to pointlessly imprison Amanda (And Raphaele, who I guess becomes an honorary American) -- even if he were somehow engaged in framing Amanda, ho many other people would have to be in on the plot?
And what could their possible motive be for such behavior?

The only coherent one I've come across is having arrested her for being sexy, they needed to "save face."
Funny that they didn't need to save face after arresting Lumumba.

Why should doubts about Amanda's motive count so highly, but not the lack of motive for pretty much an entire city.

Oh, I fogot.
They are anti-American.
(How many other American students are there in Perugia??)



Exactly! Very nicely put, lauowolf! The fact that this tactic worked with the media is so frustrating. How many news organizations does Murdoch own??? ;)
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

So if AK is happy with the judicial process, what are her family going to say? She's lying? Deluded? They beat it out of her?
Chaos and confusion!
Top Profile 

Offline SLSinLA


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:06 am

Posts: 4

Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jean Pierre Orlewicz "Thrill Kill Murder" Michigan 2008 trial. (below Jurorthirteen copy)
Jean Pierre Orlewicz was charged with first-degree murder, felony murder and mutilation of a dead body in the death of Daniel Sorensen, a 26-year-old River Rouge man who died Nov. 7, 2007.

His partner in crime, Alexander Letkemann eventually turned on his cohort and pleaded to second-degree murder and disinterment and mutilation of a dead body. His sentence is set for April 23, 2008.

Sorenson was lured to Orlewicz's grandfather's garage, where a tarp and cleaning supplies had be gathered. As he walked through the garage door Orlewicz stabbed him over and over as his friend Alexander Letkemann watched and supported his actions.

Orlewicz then removed his head, and took a blowtorch to Daniel's hands and feet in an attempt to hide Daniel's identity. The torso was dumped at a construction site and set afire. His head was dropped into a local river. His torso was discovered the following day. His head was recovered a few days later, from the river.

Personal observations from watching/video blogging on the trial. Both defendants were wide eyed teenagers - nobody could believe they would do this. The second kid (Alexander Letkemann) literally a day (maybe wrong on the length) before the trial flipped & ratted out JPO (Jean Pierre Orlewicz). There were a couple of other teenage kids involved and/or had knowledge of the coverup or planned event and did nada.

Father of JPO when he took the stand chewed gum on the stand....until the judge asked him to throw it out! (Why would you knowingly go on the witness stand to testify for your son's life to be spared for a trial that is being broadcast on TV life chewing gum???) Just any interesting bid of trivial memory bursting from my mind. Brutal brutal murder - slashed throat of victim, mutiliated body, deposed of it - came off as wide eye innocent. The convicted murderer JPO (Jean Pierre Orlewicz) was considerably smaller in built to the victim Daniel Sorensen. Motive in this trial by prosecution was to do a murder - know how it felt, hence label Thrill Kill. Defense tried to do the "video game defense" (one of the first such defense theories presented in USA). Some bone chilling taped jail phone conversations with parents were played in court. Where JPO literally screamed/barked at his parents "FU...not going to meet the grim reaper for this...my worthless attorney kick his ass". It was chilling to have this baritone voice played in court as this wide eyed accused boy sat there in court. I captured the video for that conversation when I was doing video blogging & it was chilling!

Orlewicz’s father said he didn't know his son drank alcohol, used drugs or carried a gun.

**source for some of this copy above: http://www.jurorthirteen.com/GeneralCat ... fault.aspx

Summary from moi

Many parallels to poor Meredith's murder in that it the murderer was a young adult with no previous history of violence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

BellaDonna, I agreed with everything you said, and urge readers to scroll back up and read it if missed.

But mostly I wanted to say Congratulations on the new baby girl!!

And to reiterate the "Get Well" to Brian, whom I never knew because I just came here, but I've heard so much about!!!

BellaDonna wrote:
Sorry to inject with lots of points at once. I had a baby girl (middle name Meredith) on Monday night so been a little busy!
[snip]
Get well soon Brian x
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SLSinLA wrote:
Jean Pierre Orlewicz "Thrill Kill Murder" Michigan 2008 trial. (below Jurorthirteen copy)
Jean Pierre Orlewicz was charged with first-degree murder, felony murder and mutilation of a dead body in the death of Daniel Sorensen, a 26-year-old River Rouge man who died Nov. 7, 2007.

His partner in crime, Alexander Letkemann eventually turned on his cohort and pleaded to second-degree murder and disinterment and mutilation of a dead body. His sentence is set for April 23, 2008.

Sorenson was lured to Orlewicz's grandfather's garage, where a tarp and cleaning supplies had be gathered. As he walked through the garage door Orlewicz stabbed him over and over as his friend Alexander Letkemann watched and supported his actions.

Orlewicz then removed his head, and took a blowtorch to Daniel's hands and feet in an attempt to hide Daniel's identity. The torso was dumped at a construction site and set afire. His head was dropped into a local river. His torso was discovered the following day. His head was recovered a few days later, from the river.

Personal observations from watching/video blogging on the trial. Both defendants were wide eyed teenagers - nobody could believe they would do this. The second kid (Alexander Letkemann) literally a day (maybe wrong on the length) before the trial flipped & ratted out JPO (Jean Pierre Orlewicz). There were a couple of other teenage kids involved and/or had knowledge of the coverup or planned event and did nada.

Father of JPO when he took the stand chewed gum on the stand....until the judge asked him to throw it out! (Why would you knowingly go on the witness stand to testify for your son's life to be spared for a trial that is being broadcast on TV life chewing gum???) Just any interesting bid of trivial memory bursting from my mind. Brutal brutal murder - slashed throat of victim, mutiliated body, deposed of it - came off as wide eye innocent. The convicted murderer JPO (Jean Pierre Orlewicz) was considerably smaller in built to the victim Daniel Sorensen. Motive in this trial by prosecution was to do a murder - know how it felt, hence label Thrill Kill. Defense tried to do the "video game defense" (one of the first such defense theories presented in USA). Some bone chilling taped jail phone conversations with parents were played in court. Where JPO literally screamed/barked at his parents "FU...not going to meet the grim reaper for this...my worthless attorney kick his ass". It was chilling to have this baritone voice played in court as this wide eyed accused boy sat there in court. I captured the video for that conversation when I was doing video blogging & it was chilling!

Orlewicz’s father said he didn't know his son drank alcohol, used drugs or carried a gun.

**source for some of this copy above: http://www.jurorthirteen.com/GeneralCat ... fault.aspx

Summary from moi

Many parallels to poor Meredith's murder in that it the murderer was a young adult with no previous history of violence.



This is a very interesting case. One of the key witnesses was a kid who was supposed to have been the lookout for them. When I read about the jailhouse tapes, I was reminded of Sollecito vowing to run over one of the female investigators after his release. He said he would just drive away afterwards, as if nothing had happened.

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

Offline Friend


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:48 am

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -Andrea Vogt   

Tiziano wrote:
Michael wrote:
Just embedding the videos The Bard linked:


Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 1/2

Amanda Knox Verdict -- It was a fair trial 2/2



Thank you Bard: what an excellent report by a really professional journalist.

Seattle PI deserve lots of Kudos for sourcing their news from someone of such high calibre who is "on the ground" AND WHO SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE!!


Let's not go crazy...they also let Candace Dempsey blog there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

What really gets on my wick is the mantra that there is no trace of Knox in the room!
Apart from the obvious that any sane human being (and experienced murder squad and forensic detectives) can see what do these people want?
A video of the crime itself?
In my opinion, the mantra of no 'trace of Knox' becomes a moot point when the same people, if presented with the facts that Knox was in the room, they will say - of course there is, she lived there!
These people want jam on it methinks - and are exposing themselves for what they are as time wears on.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?


Well, they are very different contexts, yes I agree. But this was a crime committed by more than one person - three in fact, which constitutes a gang in my mind, or at least a gang mentality. And the crime involved drink and drugs, so not so different really. Read Miss Represented on the issue of group violence.

I will leave your point about socio-economic background for someone else!



In fact, I find it much more comprehensible how a gang of under educated rough kids kick someone senseless, even kills them in the streets, fueled up on mindless amounts of cheap alcohol than what happened to MK. The deep evil conducted here is far harder to understand imho.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline withnail


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:19 pm

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
Withnail wonders (in his initial post to us)
Quote:
If my understanding is correct, why didn't RS take the stand.
If he was truly innocent, wouldn't he relish the opportunity to clear his name?

^^^^^^^^^^^

Although this interesting question has been proffered, discussed, dissected, and intelligently answered by several excellent posters here in the past, I will try an appeal to your sense of logic

Couple opening things (premises) to consider: (Again, overall intent, and not verbatim)

1)Raffie has changed his alibi, especially as it pertains to Amanda's whereabouts with him during the time the murder ocurred at least 4 times.
2)Raffie in his first revision said everything previous from him was rubbish.
3)Raffie then said he was lying because of Amanda
4)In his next to last revision, the amount of time Amanda was absent was revised by him downward from "several hours" to "a while", and now I am not sure now she even left.
5)Finally he repeatedly answers almost everything by inserting a plea of confusion or lack of memory skills or drug induced deterioration of accuracy.

Here's the ultimate appeal to your primary logic.

If you were a highly skilled defense attorney would you want to allow this individual (your client) with these personality defects, and this track record to be open for a full examination of pertinent questions by highly skilled Prosecutors...for several hours or even days ??

Welcome to the board, and hope your curiosity prompts you to examine all the excellent factual testimony etc so helpfully provided as summaries here

IMHO, Raffie would have been his own worst witness on the stand


Thank you for your reply.

I do understand why RS did not take the stand. My point was about the interview between Vinnie and Andrea, where he selectively discredits the prosecution's case but does not question the contradictions that arise from the suspects or even question why RS didn't take the stand.

The thing that is erased in this style of dishonest reporting is that Meredith and her family were the victims.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SLSinLA wrote:
Jean Pierre Orlewicz "Thrill Kill Murder" Michigan 2008 trial. (below Jurorthirteen copy)
Jean Pierre Orlewicz was charged with first-degree murder, felony murder and mutilation of a dead body in the death of Daniel Sorensen, a 26-year-old River Rouge man who died Nov. 7, 2007.



Sound familiar???

Earlier in the day, his father, William Orlewicz, took the stand today and described his son as compassionate and non-violent, adding he had never been in a fight in his life.

"It seems so far out of character that it's hard to believe," said William Orlewicz about the allegations...His friends seemed like average kids,” William Orlewicz said. “They were into music and their cars. They seemed to be normal teenagers.”

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SLSinLA


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:06 am

Posts: 4

Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SLSinLA wrote:
Jean Pierre Orlewicz "Thrill Kill Murder" Michigan 2008 trial. (below Jurorthirteen copy)
Jean Pierre Orlewicz was charged with first-degree murder, felony murder and mutilation of a dead body in the death of Daniel Sorensen, a 26-year-old River Rouge man who died Nov. 7, 2007.

His partner in crime, Alexander Letkemann eventually turned on his cohort and pleaded to second-degree murder and disinterment and mutilation of a dead body. His sentence is set for April 23, 2008.

Sorenson was lured to Orlewicz's grandfather's garage, where a tarp and cleaning supplies had be gathered. As he walked through the garage door Orlewicz stabbed him over and over as his friend Alexander Letkemann watched and supported his actions.

Orlewicz then removed his head, and took a blowtorch to Daniel's hands and feet in an attempt to hide Daniel's identity. The torso was dumped at a construction site and set afire. His head was dropped into a local river. His torso was discovered the following day. His head was recovered a few days later, from the river.

Personal observations from watching/video blogging on the trial. Both defendants were wide eyed teenagers - nobody could believe they would do this. The second kid (Alexander Letkemann) literally a day (maybe wrong on the length) before the trial flipped & ratted out JPO (Jean Pierre Orlewicz). There were a couple of other teenage kids involved and/or had knowledge of the coverup or planned event and did nada.

Father of JPO when he took the stand chewed gum on the stand....until the judge asked him to throw it out! (Why would you knowingly go on the witness stand to testify for your son's life to be spared for a trial that is being broadcast on TV life chewing gum???) Just any interesting bid of trivial memory bursting from my mind. Brutal brutal murder - slashed throat of victim, mutiliated body, deposed of it - came off as wide eye innocent. The convicted murderer JPO (Jean Pierre Orlewicz) was considerably smaller in built to the victim Daniel Sorensen. Motive in this trial by prosecution was to do a murder - know how it felt, hence label Thrill Kill. Defense tried to do the "video game defense" (one of the first such defense theories presented in USA). Some bone chilling taped jail phone conversations with parents were played in court. Where JPO literally screamed/barked at his parents "FU...not going to meet the grim reaper for this...my worthless attorney kick his ass". It was chilling to have this baritone voice played in court as this wide eyed accused boy sat there in court. I captured the video for that conversation when I was doing video blogging & it was chilling!

Orlewicz’s father said he didn't know his son drank alcohol, used drugs or carried a gun.

**source for some of this copy above: http://www.jurorthirteen.com/GeneralCat ... fault.aspx

Summary from moi

Many parallels to poor Meredith's murder in that it the murderer was a young adult with no previous history of violence.



Unbelievable case - example of "we really don't know who or why kids kill" (for my cynical mind).

I've been lurking on this site - enjoy the deligence to facts by poster.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

BellaDonna wrote:
Sorry to inject with lots of points at once. I had a baby girl (middle name Meredith) on Monday night so been a little busy!

I wanted to address the argument that Amanda had no motive to kill Meredith.

I work with children with emotional and behavioural problems. Many of them that don't get help, and even some that do, very disturbed and go on to commit violent acts with absolutely no motive. One child who sticks in my mind was a girl who seemed to be a normal eight year old who had started to torture animals. Other than this, she seemed to the rest of the world to be a pretty normal child. I won't go into details of what she did as, like many others here, I am an animal lover and it upsets me. Her parents had separated at a very delicate age, when she was just a toddler, and they brushed aside her actions as just a normal part of her development. The Knoxes remind me of this girl's parents - "Oh that's just what Katie/Amanda etc is like." It's utterly terrifying to me that parents do not 'check' any inappropriate behaviour and teach empathy when their children are young. Instead some overlook and ignore it, or in the worst cases, encourage it by telling that child that their crazy, violent impulses are just who they are.

I really hope that this trial, being so high profile, will make people take responsibility for what they teach their children and their children's actions.

I also hope that all three can be rehabilitated in prison. I don't believe any human is evil but many are capable of evil acts in the right circumstances.

Oh and I find it amusing that some of the less discerning American 'followers' of the US covering of this case are going to boycott Italian holidays and food. I just watched an episode of America's Next Top Model (I'm sorry - I love that show!) where an American girl stated that she only ate American food, "like pizza and pasta" .... hmmm.

I also find it quite ironic that the very people who are claiming that there was an anti-American sentiment in Italy are now creating that very sentiment. Self-fulfilling prophecy anyone ...?

A lot of the coverage of this case makes me glad that I live in Coulsdon - the Croydon Guardian never forget who the true victim was.

Get well soon Brian x

Hi Bella,
Congrats on your baby!

I would like to address the 2nd line in your post regarding motive.
I am attaching a pic of Merediths sister Stephanie (I hope it uploads as I am in Dubai airport now on my way to blighty for Xmas) and to illustrate a point, one can see what a beautiful woman she is.
Meredith of course is blessed by the same beauty and I think to a mad narcissist like Amanda Knox, would be perceived as a threat.
I would like to emphasize the word 'mad'.


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

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
What really gets on my wick is the mantra that there is no trace of Knox in the room!
Apart from the obvious that any sane human being (and experienced murder squad and forensic detectives) can see what do these people want?
A video of the crime itself?
In my opinion, the mantra of no 'trace of Knox' becomes a moot point when the same people, if presented with the facts that Knox was in the room, they will say - of course there is, she lived there!
These people want jam on it methinks - and are exposing themselves for what they are as time wears on.


Hi DF!!! I agree with your take on the arguments. As time goes on though all of the screaming from the FOA just serves to make people confused about the facts. This, then leads them to check some facts out online. Once they learn the facts of the trial it backfires in their faces. I am looking forward to the FOA critique of the sentencing report to come this spring. (Did you say March, Nicki?) Meanwhile, I'd be happy if knox could not "receive" people like the f@#$ing queen of capanne.


Last edited by jodyodyo on Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:49 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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)

_________________
"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 Dec 09, 2009 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?


Well, they are very different contexts, yes I agree. But this was a crime committed by more than one person - three in fact, which constitutes a gang in my mind, or at least a gang mentality. And the crime involved drink and drugs, so not so different really. Read Miss Represented on the issue of group violence.

I will leave your point about socio-economic background for someone else!



In fact, I find it much more comprehensible how a gang of under educated rough kids kick someone senseless, even kills them in the streets, fueled up on mindless amounts of chealcohol than what happened to MK. The deep evil conducted here is far harder to understand imho.


I am not sure I really buy into the notion of evil tbh. For me this was not a thrill kill either. I think it was just a situation that got horribly out of hand. I don't think Amanda is evil, or Rafaelle, or Rudy. I think they took drugs, got way out of their depth and then had to try and get out of a situation that was impossible to get out of. It is more than possible that had they not all met on that night they would have gone on to live blameless lives. We cannot know. Even Rudy, who had started a fledgling criminal career might have pulled out of it as so many young men do eventually. He is certainly the only one of them who has expressed the slightest remorse about what happened. Maybe it is my humanist upbringing, I just don't subscribe to the notion of 'evil'. There is human wickedness for sure, and that is what prompted the bullying of Meredith in the first place.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Shirley wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.


I would disagree with such an assessment. And I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?

Thanks to those pointing me in the direction of other cases which have something in common... though there are still quite striking differences, too.

It may be too easy to protest, how could two nice middle class kids do such a thing? - But on the other hand it is important not to discount such issues as social class and privilege, education, etc. Casual violence in more deprived social contexts is common. It tends to be much less so in
AK/RS-type circles.


AK/RS-type circles? Like the seventh circle in Dante's Inferno?


There are actually plenty of counter-examples in the annals of crime. In this case, however, I would say that the socio-economic background of the two recently convicted suspects actually may have played in their favor, though it proves nothing with regard to their guilt or innocence.
Prejudices about the criminal mind, genetic predisposition to violence and socio-economic drivers run very deep in our culture.
It is truly amazing how engrained these ideas are. Many people believe, for example, that domestic violence is more prevalent in the lower social strata, even though this is simply not true. Or that people only steal because they need money. Or that only rapists tend to be uneducated males, or males from underprivileged backgrounds where criminality is assumed to be part of the picture. Michael Skokel, anyone? How about murder? Remember the recent Craigslist case? That guy was a medical student.
In the nineteenth century, scientists believed that men were smarter than women because their brains were bigger. Brain size was calculated by filling skulls with mustard seeds. The theory ran into problems when it started to look like big dark-skinned men were smarter than white men a based on the same reasoning and calculations. Oops! Back to the drawing board to find another way to justify a preconceived idea.


I made no connection between genetics and crime, and to imply that I did is a little cheap, frankly. There is also a difference between saying crime is determined by socio-economic factors (which is not what I said) and recognising that there are links between certain kinds of crime and social deprivation (if this was not the case, one would not find the majority of homicides being committed in only a very few districts of London, for example. Furthermore, to recognise the fact that over half of those homicides in 2007-8 involved ethnic minorities and immigrants is not to make any kind of judgement about race and crime in "genetic" terms).

My chief point was that a gang of drunken, drugged youths kicking a stranger to death was not commensurate with the killing of Meredith Kercher, and nothing I have read in reply has made me want to reassess that assertion, so far. On the other hand, I take the point about certain elements of mob violence possibly coming into play in the actions of RG, RS and AK.

The specific examples others have posted are intriguing and I am grateful for the pointers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jason_01 wrote:
The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice. That means that the real killer needs to be prosecuted, not Knox and Sollecito. Rudy Guede, already convicted in this case, might be the killer. There is certainly a lot of evidence against him. There's also some evidence that another man killed her and Guede was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is, however, no evidence that Kercher or Sollecito had anything at all to do with it.

If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.

The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture. However the case takes it's darkest turn with the introduction of a corrupt prosecutor who blindly follows the lunatic ravings of a conspiracy theorist named Gabriella Carlizzi (Carlizzi thinks 9/11 was mastermined by the Cult of the Red Rose) and who has been indicted for tampering with evidence and has a frightening history of intimidating and prosecuting reporters who disagree with him.

That prosecutor is Giuliano Mignini, the same man who interrogated Amanda Knox. He remains the chief prosecutor in Perugia even under indictment and remains the prosecutor on the Kercher case.

The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial. It's just as insane as the Monster case. One American investigator, sent over by Dateline NBC, arrived in Italy assuming Knox and Sollecito did it. He left 100% certain they did not. According to him, what little DNA evidence has been found (such as the knife) is completely tainted by sloppy police work and the DNA is likely a result of contamination from other sources.


There is certainly some good evidence against Rudy Guede, who has been convicted but is appealing. He freely admits to having been present and to having had sex with Kercher.

However there is also another suspect who has never been investigated by Mignini. Read this article for details on that suspect: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo
Mignini threatened the reporter who broke this story with prosecution. She dropped the matter and after 24 hours of front page news, it completely disappeared from the Italian press and has been largely forgotten or assumed to be erroneous.

Maybe Guede did it, maybe this other guy did, but there is no reason at all to think that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it.
Source(s):
The Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi and other research I've done after reading that book.


Does anyone else suspect that this and earlier posts smacks of free advertising for Doug Preston's book and FOA?

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bricks-)

It just hit me like a ton of bricks what the latest PR move is all about. The Knox team is playing like they are an angelic choir to get Amanda's sentence served in the US.

Seems like a pattern in that Family....... "I lied before when calling the Italian Justice system names, but now I'm telling the truth. I promise"
Top Profile 

Offline coolbeach


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:17 pm

Posts: 43

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I thought this article was relatively good. I especially liked this quote - seems to tell it like it is regarding the media spin in USA.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/ama ... 666&page=1

"Television networks, newspapers and internet sites in America are convinced that Amanda is innocent," contined Severgnini. "Why? We don't know. Did they follow all of the hearings in the trial? Did they evaluate the evidence? Did they listen to the witnesses who, what's more, testified in Italian? No, obviously: they just decided, and that's it."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Sorry to repeat my query, but it appeard in the previous thread and there were no replies to it -

Quote:
I have to admit, I am confused about when Guede was arrested in Milan for breaking into a school, and just how many run ins with the police he might have had before Meredith's murder. Then there's this in the Daily Mail -

Quote:
Disturbingly, police failed to act against Guede, despite having clear evidence of him committing break-ins or burglaries – some of them armed with a knife – at least three times in the weeks leading to Meredith’s murder.

On September 27, 2007 – five weeks before the killing – Perugia bar tender Cristian Tramantano heard a noise downstairs in his home and found Guede wandering around with a large knife.

Tramantano recognised Guede from his work in a nightclub. There was a confrontation between the two, ending when Guede ran away.

On four occasions, Tramantano went to Perugia’s central police station to report the break-in, identify Guede as the culprit and to detail how the intruder was armed and threatened him. On each occasion, he was ignored and police refused to log his complaint.

The following weekend, there was a break-in at an English-speaking nursery school in Milan in which
€2,000 and a digital camera were stolen. The school owner, Maria Antoinette Salvadori del Prato, reported it to her local police station.

Three weeks later, on Saturday, October 27 – one week before the murder – Mrs Prato arrived at the school early in the morning with a locksmith to replace the front door, only to be confronted by Guede standing in the main school entrance.

Police were called and Guede questioned. A stolen laptop, digital camera and a ten-inch kitchen knife were found in his backpack.

But instead of being arrested and charged, Guede was merely escorted to Milan central railway station and placed on a train back to Perugia.

In the interim, on the weekend of October 13, there had been a break-in at the office of lawyers Paolo Brocchi and Luigi Palazzoli in which a first-floor window was smashed – similar to the break-in at Meredith’s house.

A computer and other items were stolen. They were later found in Guede’s possession but he was neither arrested nor charged.

This series of crimes and the absence of police action has led several of Knox’s defence team to believe that Guede was very likely a police informant being protected by someone within the force. If, as one associate of the defence team says, that is the case then it must be investigated, as that failure to act left Guede free to murder Meredith.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0Z8boKZTg

Would be grateful for a reply... th-)


Please tell me if any or all of this is true. I have not come across so many "incidents" before.
Top Profile 

Offline NoamChomsky


Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 11:05 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Is it OK to ask one question which I believe hasn't come up before? Hopefully that's cool.

Why didn't Amanda, when faced with tough questioning by Italians, just refuse to answer questions until the American Consul or a representative turned up?
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Just noticed this in the Seattle PI "911" Section:

GROUP TELLS CANTWELL TO BUTT OUT OF KNOX CASE

Comment section OPEN.

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

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thanks to THE SLOG on the Stranger and Charles Mudede:

THE SLOG

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

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Max wrote:
"Somehow I think Rafaelle is highly underestimated (and Amanda overestimated). Lets not forget he is several years older than Amanda (and Rudy). I think his lawyers did a very good job by turning the attention away from him, and take advantage of the Knox hype. RS got the lowest sentence of all 3. Rudy indicated that RS was the killer with Amanda outside."

Totally agree Max. Knox actually did herself no favours by talking, Sollecito and his lawyers I think played it not badly. It was easy for them to see early on that Knox would just continue to spin an obviously tangled web, and that it would benefit them to let her do all the talking (given, of course that they have nothing positive to say).

Somebody else above also said that Sollecito's family are more realistic and skeptical than Knox's, and I think this is definitely reflected in the two characters. While Knox is self-obsessed to the point of being stupidly un-self-aware and naive, Sollecito actually seems more clued up in some cases (where for example he admits that he was telling a load of old rubbish because Amanda asked him to; he did not persist in telling an obviously ridiculous and blatant lie in the way Knox has on many occasions.)

I do wonder if Sollecito's role was greater than prosecution alleged. Just because he has a different personal style, she is louder and all me me me whereas he is quieter and more subtle, does not mean to say that he did not influence her greatly. He was the one with the knife and manga fetishes.

Guede's testimony and Knox's first 'lumumba' confession have some things in common, I wonder which bits of them might be true?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
So if AK is happy with the judicial process, what are her family going to say? She's lying? Deluded? They beat it out of her?
Chaos and confusion!


In the the Marie Pace story she tells a fictional story where she tries to express the details and the form of a confession, starting with "maybe it's just an apology" and ending wiht "forgive me" - maybe owed to herself and her own life, overlapping, but on a sincere drift. In her final statement she looked to the prosecutor and said she was thankfull at tleast for their effort to bring light and they were trying to do their job - even if "they don't understand" - if that time neither I felt in the framework of that tense speech no deceptive tone in the comment, this absence of feeling tricked has no value, but I also felt something like an instant of her being embarassed and with a humble attitude towards the prosecution which she didn't show during her testimony. After her sentencing the first thing she said to her lawyers, was non requested reassurance, on Ghirga's visit "I am not kidding you" - a first time she openly talks of the fact her lawyers may belive she is guilty. She asked to understand - this time - what was the actual evidence for the court. But she cuts the media uprising incensed by her family by letting everybody know that everything was correct.
To me the meaning of all this tends to look simple. I simply feel Amanda - for what narcissistic or self-control youthful problems she might have - after all is a moral person, or feels like be one, more than her parents and her supporters. She was found guilty of all charges but partially forgiven, she wants her life and her freedom and her family but she is really afraid of wearing the "mask" of a murderer, she is supported by everyone (also by people in prison), but now she probably whishes to be also believed on something and be more sincere with people in her environment. She is in dissonance with her "supporters" on some of her feelings and moral grounds.
Top Profile 

Offline PureGrit


Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:04 pm

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

NoamChomsky wrote:
Is it OK to ask one question which I believe hasn't come up before? Hopefully that's cool.

Why didn't Amanda, when faced with tough questioning by Italians, just refuse to answer questions until the American Consul or a representative turned up?


I'm going to guess it's for the same reason people don't lawyer up in the US or elsewhere. They want to look helpful and they assume asking for a lawyer makes them look guilty. Plus they figure that they don't need one to talk themself out of the situation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: HABLAS BIEN MI IDIOMA ... said Captain Smith to Pocahontas   

Kermit wrote:
vagrant - about Jason - wrote:
Just an observation... your first post is full of quite good and complex sentence construction and grammar. Your later one's aren't. Were they your own words ??


Hi Vagrant! Your observation I'm sure was made by everyone else here.

Let's compare Doug_01's, errrh, Jason's first post promoting the Preston book about an unrelated case ....:

"If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.
The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.
The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture.
The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial.
"

.... to his later posts:

"I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them."

Reminds me of a Russian (Soviet-era) spy I once met (seriously) who wore a trenchcoat, a fedora, and read a newspaper in hotel lobbies, even on a hot, sunny day. HE must have been a graduate of the Daisyhill Detective Academy!!!! ((just to clarify, he had obviously been assigned to follow our tourist group, and kept showing up in different cities, on the same trains, etc. ... we kept pointing him out and even saying "hi", to such a point that the Intourist guide assigned to the group (who was probably also a spy!) made a point that we wouldn't be bumping into Boris any more ... and we didn't!.))


DOH!

Should have known that Kermit would have seen this first. w-((

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)

True. Thanks th-) for posting this, Michael. I was about to post the original on patriotledger.com, that someone (capealadin?) had referred us to via the JaneVMitchell interview on CNN.com.

I like especially how she (Murphy) highlights how the two judicial systems are different: American = adversarial, Italian = inquisitorial (and not like in the Inquisition, LOL):

Quote:
The Italian legal system is indeed different than the American system, but it isn't necessarily worse. We think we have the "best legal system in the world" but we really don't - though there are features of our system that are truly superior - like the right to remain silent, and the exclusionary rule that forbids use of evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional rights. The Italian legal system has similar kinds of rules to ensure the fairness of the process, but they're not as generous.

Nevertheless, the Italian system is more likely to reach a "just" verdict if "justice" means getting at the truth.

This is because the Italian legal system is inquisitorial - which means it's designed to uncover facts. The American legal system is adversarial - which means it's designed to pit adversaries against each other for the purpose of producing a winner.

Adversarial legal systems inspire an "anything goes" attitude that can lead to shenanigans that distort rather than elucidate the truth. Think O.J. Simpson.

Finally, some balance in the dreck. cl-) Wendy!!!!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
So if AK is happy with the judicial process, what are her family going to say? She's lying? Deluded? They beat it out of her?
Chaos and confusion!


In the the Marie Pace story she tells a fictional story where she tries to express the details and the form of a confession, starting with "maybe it's just an apology" and ending wiht "forgive me" - maybe owed to herself and her own life, overlapping, but on a sincere drift. In her final statement she looked to the prosecutor and said she was thankfull at tleast for their effort to bring light and they were trying to do their job - even if "they don't understand" - if that time neither I felt in the framework of that tense speech no deceptive tone in the comment, this absence of feeling tricked has no value, but I also felt something like an instant of her being embarassed and with a humble attitude towards the prosecution which she didn't show during her testimony. After her sentencing the first thing she said to her lawyers, was non requested reassurance, on Ghirga's visit "I am not kidding you" - a first time she openly talks of the fact her lawyers may belive she is guilty. She asked to understand - this time - what was the actual evidence for the court. But she cuts the media uprising incensed by her family by letting everybody know that everything was correct.
To me the meaning of all this tends to look simple. I simply feel Amanda - for what narcissistic or self-control youthful problems she might have - after all is a moral person, or feels like be one, more than her parents and her supporters. She was found guilty of all charges but partially forgiven, she wants her life and her freedom and her family but she is really afraid of wearing the "mask" of a murderer, she is supported by everyone (also by people in prison), but now she probably whishes to be also believed on something and be more sincere with people in her environment. She is in dissonance with her "supporters" on some of her feelings and moral grounds.


Perhaps her conversion to religion in prison is real and not just another mask. I have been thinking about how she phrased her "mask" statement: I don't want the mask of the assassin forced on me BY someone else. Is this a mistake, a Freudian slip, or what? It seems to suggest that what she objects to is that someone else (not her) is putting the mask on her. I don't quite know how to explain it, but it is strange. I do come away feeling that she is not what her family and friends say; she is not what the prosecution says; she is not what the UK tabloids say; she is not Amélie of Seattle. She is looking for a self-definition. And if she did something bad, it was not her either.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
I don't believe gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking a stranger to death is at all commensurate with the crime committed in this case. Gang violence is a completely different kettle of fish from what we are dealing with here, surely?


Well, they are very different contexts, yes I agree. But this was a crime committed by more than one person - three in fact, which constitutes a gang in my mind, or at least a gang mentality. And the crime involved drink and drugs, so not so different really. Read Miss Represented on the issue of group violence.

I will leave your point about socio-economic background for someone else!



In fact, I find it much more comprehensible how a gang of under educated rough kids kick someone senseless, even kills them in the streets, fueled up on mindless amounts of chealcohol than what happened to MK. The deep evil conducted here is far harder to understand imho.


I am not sure I really buy into the notion of evil tbh. For me this was not a thrill kill either. I think it was just a situation that got horribly out of hand. I don't think Amanda is evil, or Rafaelle, or Rudy. I think they took drugs, got way out of their depth and then had to try and get out of a situation that was impossible to get out of. It is more than possible that had they not all met on that night they would have gone on to live blameless lives. We cannot know. Even Rudy, who had started a fledgling criminal career might have pulled out of it as so many young men do eventually. He is certainly the only one of them who has expressed the slightest remorse about what happened. Maybe it is my humanist upbringing, I just don't subscribe to the notion of 'evil'. There is human wickedness for sure, and that is what prompted the bullying of Meredith in the first place.


I agree with your first point. I meant the evil that came about in the sense that MK's young life was ended rather than they were evil attackers if you see the distinction. As to it not being a thrill kill, I'm also more inclined to agree with the things-get-out-of-hand theory than the alternative. On the other hand, knives were transported there (probably 3 is my view - the main knife from RS's flat, the smaller knife and I suspect the perennially armed RG) and the testimony of the Albanian I find rather chilling. It only being a haze of course sounds unlikely given the bad relations between AK and MK over AK's behaviour, the issue of the job and the money. It always started out as something meant to upset and scare not be a funny-ha-ha haze.

Ruede's dairy entry where he makes a special mention of 'swearing that it is true' that MK saying "that whore of a doper" just rings true to me. It's an incongruous detail to include really since RG says it is him and MK talking on their own - why would you swear it was true?It led me to think - what happens if there was a confrontation to a "haze" (as obviously there would have been) or just a confrontation that kicked it all off? I believe that as well as defending herself, MK may well have let rip at AK over the money etc. It's not hard to see the girls having a blazing argument and MK says that phrase to AK, causing AK to boil over and draw a knife to "teach her a lesson". I don't find it at all hard to imagine AK starting prodding her with her knife causing some smaller puncture wounds in a total rage and for that to have been where the line was stepped over. She then eggs on the 'cretins' to teach MK a lesson and both, stoned, maybe drunk and in thrall to AK get caught up.

Rudy sure tells a lot of lies but when he says "and I swear this is true", I feel it probably is. He can't tell us the truth about what happened in that diary but it feels like maybe he is trying to relay something that actually did happen. In that extra note "I swear this is true", I suspect he is really telling the truth because there's no logical point in emphasising it if its just part of a made up story.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
observer wrote:
I think it was windfall from the previous thread who wrote -

Quote:
Finally, one of the things that still perplexes me most about the case: does anyone know of a scenario like this one having happened before? I am sure it must have done, some day, somewhere. But female vs. female homicide is rare; aggravated by a sexual assault, it is even less common. The only recent case that comes to my mind is Karla Homolka, and there were massive complicating factors there in terms of Karla being abused by her husband and partner in crime.


Was just reading about Lisa Healey here -
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... llers.html

Two teenage girls tortured and killed an old lady and then dumped her body in a rubbish bag, laughing the while.


It perplexes me that in this day and age anyone can seriously be surprised when this sort of thing happens. The papers are FULL of senseless acts of repulsive violence committed by people with no history of violence whatsoever. Gangs of drugged and drunken youths kicking people to death in the streets, two boys this week convicted of throwing a pregnant woman in a canal to try and drown her because the 'father' thought a baby would 'get in the way of his music career'...the list of violent assaults is seemingly endless. Just read the papers. I don't know what makes this case quite so astonishing to people. Senseless violence is just that. Senseless. Common. Not out of the ordinary. It happens. Girls do it too.


There was a mob factor in this offence. It is still uncertain how many witnesses there were. Drugs and sex within the mob also had a role. Meredith Kercher may have taken objection to a "party" that at least AK/RS/RG had instigated in the house. She was called 'boring' 'uncool' by AK for trying to stop the train that AK was on. AK had a lot of friends but only male friends. Meredith Kercher had reached out to Knox (initially) and tried to stabilise her. The advice and observations that Meredith Kercher had related to AK about her behaviour were taken as slights when AK went out of control. We know about the role of the mob in societies that communicate in a shared sense of values that is not of that of functional society. It's something else something unnatural.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
PureGrit wrote:
An old story from Slate on sequestering juries in the US.

"Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore."

http://www.slate.com/id/2091241/

Really doesn't seem any different from what happens in Italy in practice.


It's too bad Maria Cantwell didn't read this before she made her statement last week.

How embarassing for her! She pretends to tell other countries how to run their justice system but she doesn't even know what's going on with her own. Some politician... cl-)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
The relatives of Meredith Kercher deserve justice. That means that the real killer needs to be prosecuted, not Knox and Sollecito. Rudy Guede, already convicted in this case, might be the killer. There is certainly a lot of evidence against him. There's also some evidence that another man killed her and Guede was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is, however, no evidence that Kercher or Sollecito had anything at all to do with it.

If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.

The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture. However the case takes it's darkest turn with the introduction of a corrupt prosecutor who blindly follows the lunatic ravings of a conspiracy theorist named Gabriella Carlizzi (Carlizzi thinks 9/11 was mastermined by the Cult of the Red Rose) and who has been indicted for tampering with evidence and has a frightening history of intimidating and prosecuting reporters who disagree with him.

That prosecutor is Giuliano Mignini, the same man who interrogated Amanda Knox. He remains the chief prosecutor in Perugia even under indictment and remains the prosecutor on the Kercher case.

The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial. It's just as insane as the Monster case. One American investigator, sent over by Dateline NBC, arrived in Italy assuming Knox and Sollecito did it. He left 100% certain they did not. According to him, what little DNA evidence has been found (such as the knife) is completely tainted by sloppy police work and the DNA is likely a result of contamination from other sources.


There is certainly some good evidence against Rudy Guede, who has been convicted but is appealing. He freely admits to having been present and to having had sex with Kercher.

However there is also another suspect who has never been investigated by Mignini. Read this article for details on that suspect: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo
Mignini threatened the reporter who broke this story with prosecution. She dropped the matter and after 24 hours of front page news, it completely disappeared from the Italian press and has been largely forgotten or assumed to be erroneous.

Maybe Guede did it, maybe this other guy did, but there is no reason at all to think that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it.
Source(s):
The Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi and other research I've done after reading that book.


Does anyone else suspect that this and earlier posts smacks of free advertising for Doug Preston's book and FOA?


Free advertising here, but perhaps Doug or his publisher pay these posters a penny or two each time they plug the book.

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

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: HABLAS BIEN MI IDIOMA ... said Captain Smith to Pocahontas   

jhansigirl wrote:
Kermit wrote:
vagrant - about Jason - wrote:
Just an observation... your first post is full of quite good and complex sentence construction and grammar. Your later one's aren't. Were they your own words ??


Hi Vagrant! Your observation I'm sure was made by everyone else here.

Let's compare Doug_01's, errrh, Jason's first post promoting the Preston book about an unrelated case ....:

"If you're interested in getting a good understanding of this case and, more generally, the system that's causing Knox and Sollecito to be railroaded, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi. Be sure to read the new version with the afterward that details the Kercher case up through the start of the trial.
The book outlines the history of a bungled investigation into the worst serial killer in Italian History, likely a man still living free in the outskirts of Florence. They interview him in the book.

The book is an effort to understand why the investigation went in every direction but the right one and it comes down largely to internal politics among the officials, combined with a conspiratorial culture.
The book ends with a new afterward that details the Kercher case, going up through the start of the trial.
"

.... to his later posts:

"I use it in boards because my usernames are often already assignet. (Try another username ...) Maybe i don`t do this anymore if trolls usernames ending with numbers here on this board because i don`t want to related to them."

Reminds me of a Russian (Soviet-era) spy I once met (seriously) who wore a trenchcoat, a fedora, and read a newspaper in hotel lobbies, even on a hot, sunny day. HE must have been a graduate of the Daisyhill Detective Academy!!!! ((just to clarify, he had obviously been assigned to follow our tourist group, and kept showing up in different cities, on the same trains, etc. ... we kept pointing him out and even saying "hi", to such a point that the Intourist guide assigned to the group (who was probably also a spy!) made a point that we wouldn't be bumping into Boris any more ... and we didn't!.))


DOH!

Should have known that Kermit would have seen this first. w-((



Yes, I noticed too, it was a very striking and sudden descent into ham acting and unconvincing accent wasn't it? I nota speaka good eenglish, I know nooothing... wh-)


Last edited by juliet on Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
jason_01 wrote:
I forgot to tell, english isn`t my native language

Thank you. I have read this and appreciate it. But we don`t know know if the evidences in this case wasn`t fabricated. Because we wasn`t there at the investigations in this case. Investigators can manipualte evidences. At least this is possible.


You're not related to nathan_05 are you? Or mulder_01? Was it _01? All these numbers...and yet very similar confusions...

They also seem to spell "which" as "wich", and use those backward apostrophes: "we don`t" (instead of the more usual "don't")...
oop-) Now I've given away how we recognize our xxxxx_0n's, oh well........
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

windfall wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Three things that I ought to report:

i) Finally spoke to a really very senior psychological profiler I know about AK. There view was that she is narcissistic, definitely, histrionic maybe but that pyscopathy couldn't be diagnosed without proper clinical interviews. The profiler is not a fan of ex ante allocation of that to anyone whether you go for the continuum theory or not. So I got schooled on the last as others said. There y'go! Honesty is the best policy

ii) Saw yesterday a reference to some of the court gossip that was going on at the trial (well used to this) and AK was referred to as The Bitch. Each to their own opinion on this. But apparently RS RG were referred to as 'The Cretins'. Raised a black-hearted chuckle from me in a bad context sigh

iii) Not sure about the female writer perspective on the poem - the person the writer is talking to is wearing their hair loose i.e. the writer is talking to a woman who has her leg between the female writer's and is called my love etc? If it is AK to AK then the how beautifuls and my loves are definitely taking her narcissism to the next stage.... And why not analyse (with appropriate disclaimers a poem by a creative writing student) where they are taught repeatedly to use metaphor and allegory when the subject matter is quite clearly exactly what we are talking about. I am sure we are closer to aspects the truth in the diaries, letters and poems than anything else that has come out. Don't see anyone objecting to theories on the whereabouts of people, their alibis or the forensics. Would that be cod forensics or cod analysis?

iv) Saw this re the Film AK is supposed to be in which has been pulled from a film festival. I've lost the link so not sure where it was from.

Alessandro Riccini Ricci, director of the Batik Film Festival, said:"We have had a request from the Umbria regional council, the jail and Amanda Knox's lawyers who have all said that the screening would be inopportune.
"It is a shame because I have seen the film and she (Knox) is a magnetic actress. It shows her in a different light and not the Amanda Knox that we have grown used to over past few months." <--- I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong mate, I'm pretty sure a lot of us have definitely been considering the actress.
"She is very, very good and we did ask the council and jail to reconsider but as they insisted that the film be dropped so it will not be shown - it may be screened next month we shall have to see.
"Amanda has a very strong presence on screen and recites Hamlet very well - even if we knew nothing of her background she would have been noted for her performance." <-- I did remember the Hamlet right. Abandoning this thread now for fear of entering into cod Shakespeare...




I would suggest there is a big difference between extrapolating from forensics, signs of activity on a computer, mobile phone records, etc. on the one hand and making often laughably wild claims of insight into AK's state of mind by "reading" her behaviour in court (heavily mediated via TV, newspapers, internet, blogs, etc.) on the other.

Having said that, the prosecutors certainly had a field day coming up with different motives, scenarios, even dialogue for AK during the court hearings, so I guess it's just continuing that trend...


Well a hugely significant part of psychoanalysis obviously comes from how people express themselves and I expect we couldn't even count the number of murderers, cheats and liars who have been caught out directly because of giving clues away in the the things they said or wrote. And again, clearly AK is writing about the subject matter of herself, MK, the flat, probably RS and perhaps even RG in the poem. You're never going to get closer to hearing her express something - even eliptically - about what really happened. My point was a theory about this writing from lay people on the board is no worse than a lay theory on forensics etc.

Perhaps this just comes down to what background you are from. I'm all arts based in the my 16-18 yr old study range (UK 'A' levels) before transferring to social sciences, philosophy and then eventually in post-grad becoming a lawyer. I do poems and speech and waffly things. On the other hand many of my friends are through and through in the sciences. I can pick apart prose or poems for hours. To my friends, if I say "Shall I compare thee to a summer's rose...", they are more likely to say "But that's impossible - you're a biped and you *don't* photosynthesise!"

Each to their own :D

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)


How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Quote:
Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)


How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?


Isn't it obvious? I wrote that just to upset you Lancelotti :)

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
I don't want the mask of the assassin forced on me BY someone else. Is this a mistake, a Freudian slip, or what?


It was a sentence, formulated in a, well, just newly created Italian, because of its unusual structure, which remained fix in my memory. Yes it is utterly strange.
I felt its strangeness as a person who worked in theatre. The immediate dissonance is because the "mask of the assassin" doesn't exist, the assassin is, in all ways you can imagine archetyp visually on the scene, a person who wears a human mask, who looks like a human but he is not, he is a void. The assassin is an inner quality of charachter, like a void, behind the mask, and never a mask. We have the mask of folly or madness, the mask of goodness, the mask of friendship, of furor, of love, but the mask of the assassin doesn't exist. You cannot do that on the scene. The assassin is an anonymous charachter/quality, confused among any human, expressed by no human trait nor quality.

This is why I rested with her Italian pharsing in mind. She says she doesn't want a mask. She doesn't want to be a charachter. I think most innocent in her position would make a point to express in the clearest way what they have not done, a simple "I am not an assassin.. I did not do this". Amanda says she doesn't want to have a "false" identity. I don't think her claim is indicating "guilt" neither it is immoral. I think there is something sincere but her focus on the "look" on the "appearence" of an assassin - or of a kind of murderer, a picture forced by somebody else - is also strange.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Quote:
Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)


How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?


You have a conclusion that leads you to reject any such suggestions and cast them as factual errors. It's a perfectly circular and pointless argument. The difference is 19 judges opined on the evidence and admissability of it and a jury having heard nearly a year's worth of evidence for hundreds and hundreds of hours with access to first hand testimony convicted one of its own countrymen and an American of the crime believing those to be facts. Only that jury has had the input and time to consider the totality of the case and accept or reject things as facts beyond reasonable doubt. Every single man and woman outside of that jury is in a very significantly inferior position to judge the facts of this case.

I came up with a phrase today that I hope is original (if it's not, someone correct me) but I dubbed it the AK Aphorism in honour of the FOA and indeed any of us on the other side that are led by our conclusions to warp our interpretation of the facts: "Nothing is ever so simple that simply believing makes it so".

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Quote:
Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)


How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?


You have a conclusion that leads you to reject any such suggestions and cast them as factual errors. It's a perfectly circular and pointless argument. The difference is 19 judges opined on the evidence and admissability of it and a jury having heard nearly a year's worth of evidence for hundreds and hundreds of hours with access to first hand testimony convicted one of its own countrymen and an American of the crime believing those to be facts. Only that jury has had the input and time to consider the totality of the case and accept or reject things as facts beyond reasonable doubt. Every single man and woman outside of that jury is in a very significantly inferior position to judge the facts of this case.

I came up with a phrase today that I hope is original (if it's not, someone correct me) but I dubbed it the AK Aphorism in honour of the FOA and indeed any of us on the other side that are led by our conclusions to warp our interpretation of the facts: "Nothing is ever so simple that simply believing makes it so".


Not only does Lancelotti engage in pointless circular logic, which we have come to expect, but the article is far from being full of factual errors. I spotted one, which I believe is a sort of typo (Knox when Kercher is clearly meant). Perhaps Lancelotti objects to the statement that Knox and Guede were friends. If so, all I can say is it is far more accurate than to state that she did not know him, as friends and family did for months.
In any case, I found her analysis of the US reaction to be interesting and well-reasoned.

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

Offline coolbeach


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:17 pm

Posts: 43

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I don't want the mask of the assassin forced on me BY someone else. Is this a mistake, a Freudian slip, or what?


It was a sentence, formulated in a, well, just newly created Italian, because of its unusual structure, which remained fix in my memory. Yes it is utterly strange.
I felt its strangeness as a person who worked in theatre. The immediate dissonance is because the "mask of the assassin" doesn't exist, the assassin is, in all ways you can imagine archetyp visually on the scene, a person who wears a human mask, who looks like a human but he is not, he is a void. The assassin is an inner quality of charachter, like a void, behind the mask, and never a mask. We have the mask of folly or madness, the mask of goodness, the mask of friendship, of furor, of love, but the mask of the assassin doesn't exist. You cannot do that on the scene. The assassin is an anonymous charachter/quality, confused among any human, expressed by no human trait nor quality.

This is why I rested with her Italian pharsing in mind. She says she doesn't want a mask. She doesn't want to be a charachter. I think most innocent in her position would make a point to express in the clearest way what they have not done, a simple "I am not an assassin.. I did not do this". Amanda says she doesn't want to have a "false" identity. I don't think her claim is indicating "guilt" neither it is immoral. I think there is something sincere but her focus on the "look" on the "appearence" of an assassin - or of a kind of murderer, a picture forced by somebody else - is also strange.



I also thought the mask comment was a little weird or not right - not declaring she is innocent but speaking of a mask - like she was acting a part in a play or something. Kind of odd to me. I know if I was in her place i would be screaming I was innocent(as I would have done thru the whole trial) and not referencing a mask. Especially the word "by". That really struck me as odd.

It almost reminded me of an old twilight zone episode - where there is one pretty girl and she is in the hospital and everyone else has a pig face and she is labeled as ugly when really everyone else around here is abnormal/ugly. And they are trying to make her one of them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Interesting "insights" on the cook smog since the verdict. I'm loath to even acknowledge its existence, but it is one of a few places where there is some inkling of how the FOA will conduct their appeal. It's interesting to see that doublespeak is alive and well - e.g. this dialogue between "tom denning" and "sept79":


Posted by tom denning at 12/9/09 12:25 p.m.

Since the conviction, Amanda's parents have been maligning the Italian administration of justice on every major US network.

Yet, just today, Amanda herself announces that she "got a fair trial" and "had faith" the Italian system.

What are we to make of this 'divergence'?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by sept79 at 12/9/09 1:30 p.m.

Amanda and her lawyers have to stay above the fray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by tom denning at 12/9/09 1:58 p.m.

Above the "fray"?

If it were in Amanda's interests to not malign the Italian system, why would her parents do the opposite?

Curt, Edda & their handlers are creating the "fray" which becomes an obstacle for Amanda and her lawyers.

I cannot, for the life of me, discern a coherent approach.


A telling point, and before such a telling point will be removed by Pol Pot (aka Candy), I thought I'd capture it here.


As an aside, she is puffing up another blogger who happened to name-drop her in a piece he's writing (ironically titled Eleven Reasons I Wouldn’t Take $1 Million To Write a Book About the Amanda Knox Case)...

I think this part of her puff-piece should be preserved forever:

By the way, my book is totally different than my blog. So far I've used only a few sentences from the blog and those were quotes. So it will not be possible to get the same information online.
.

Personally I will be very impressed if her book is not like her blog. That would suggest truthfulness, not manipulating facts that you don't agree with, and allowing contrary points of view. I'll believe it when I see it, which reduces to - I'll never see it. I'm not into contributing towards blood money.

_________________
Paul


Last edited by justlooking on Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline LucyJ


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:11 pm

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Good evening all.
I doubt any of you will remember me, but I made a small number of posts a long while ago. Thank you to all of you who have made so many thoughtful, thought-provoking posts over the past year.

A couple of things I wanted to say, if you will indulge me:

Frst, that, from what I know of the case, I believe the verdict was the correct one - it was also the verdict I was expecting.

Like the previous poster, Yummi, I was intrigued by AK's choice of words in her closing appeal about the "mask of an assassin". Was this the planned title for a book she was planning on writing after her imagined aquittal and subseqent release? Was AK aware of the etymological roots of the word "assassin" - from the Arabic Ashashin "taker of hashish"? Wouldn't it more normally refer to the killing of a public figure? Bizzare and utterly unconvincing. Why did she never utter the simple phrase "I didn't do it"?

As for AK's demeanour in court.... my theory is that her smirks and smiles in the early months were because she was certain she'd be aquitted. Why? Because RG's conviction demonstrated to her that the prosecution were a long way from the truth of what actually happened. (I don't mean to say that RG should not have been convicted, merely that AK knew the grounds for his conviction - the scenario envisioned by Mignini - to be false. Therefore, if he (Mignini) hadn't figured out what really happened, then just maybe she would get away with it). Just a theory to thow into the mix, but this is what occurred to me seeing her apparently smug manner, certainly in the early days.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From Il Messaggero (yesterday) RG reaction plus short interview by the Sollecito family.

Rudy Guede hopes that "there’re also Patrick Lumumba and his family" among the people that Hillary Clinton said she was willing to hear about regarding the American girl.

Nicodemo Gentile, Guede’s defense visited him in Viterbo prison: Rudy, had no reaction to the sentence given to Knox and Sollecito 26 and 25 years, but he is “disappointed” because the judges decided to hold good the charge of sexual violence, crime which all three accused were charged by the prosecution but the accusation really has the Ivorian as the one who physically committed it.
“However, he is certainly aware that his is a separate trial that takes place in front of different judges.”
====================
By: Luigi Foglietti.

Vanessa Sollecito: "My brother shocked, he asked me "when will you come to get me?"

“We will work respecting the laws of our country, we are not interested in controversies and we will not take into consideration other’s scenarios”

The media interest that had been sparked around the process first still has not died down, then the ruling, which saw Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox sentenced respectively to twenty-five and twenty-six years, more aggravated circumstances for her, for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
But the strong attention aroused also much controversy on the sentence not seen consistent with the accusation, which for some should have been life imprisonment, or if not recognize the adequacy, even the acquittal.

In this mood Vanessa Sollecito, Raffaele's sister, returned to Rome where she works, but left her heart in Perugia where her brother is locked up in Capanne prison.

Dr. Vanessa Sollecito, what do you think of the controversy that accuses the Perugia Court of anti-Americanism, controversy that broke out in the United States after the ruling that sent to prison Raffaele and Amanda?
"Let’s give politics the space that politics deserves, we are Italians we live in Italy, we must and we want to deal with our system, at least us the Sollecito family will not take part in scenarios by others."

Now what do you intend to do?
"We await the filing of the sentence and will work on it for the appeal respecting the laws of our country."

Is there a weak point in the work that led to this decision?
"There was a lack of depth in not wanting to have the impartial expert repeatedly requested, and that it was not granted. We should not forget that this is a trial for the death of a very young girl, so it should have been necessary to go further so the court could arrive at the truth. "

But for you the truth is clear?
"For us, the truth is that Raffaele is alien to the facts”

When did you last see Raffaele?
"Today (Monday) and I found him in a disturbing condition. Speaks little, is lost, little presence of himself, confused."
Has he realized the sentence?
"He still does not realize what happened or rather asks with insistence 'what am I doing here, when do we go home, when do you come to take me'."

Papà Francesco how are you?
"Combative as ever, but emotionally terrified.”

Now, after the trial are you all back to work?
"We're all back to our lives, but with the mind and heart fixedly turned to Raffaele.”
Il Messaggero


Last edited by Jools on Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I don't want the mask of the assassin forced on me BY someone else. Is this a mistake, a Freudian slip, or what?


It was a sentence, formulated in a, well, just newly created Italian, because of its unusual structure, which remained fix in my memory. Yes it is utterly strange.
I felt its strangeness as a person who worked in theatre. The immediate dissonance is because the "mask of the assassin" doesn't exist, the assassin is, in all ways you can imagine archetyp visually on the scene, a person who wears a human mask, who looks like a human but he is not, he is a void. The assassin is an inner quality of charachter, like a void, behind the mask, and never a mask. We have the mask of folly or madness, the mask of goodness, the mask of friendship, of furor, of love, but the mask of the assassin doesn't exist. You cannot do that on the scene. The assassin is an anonymous charachter/quality, confused among any human, expressed by no human trait nor quality.

This is why I rested with her Italian pharsing in mind. She says she doesn't want a mask. She doesn't want to be a charachter. I think most innocent in her position would make a point to express in the clearest way what they have not done, a simple "I am not an assassin.. I did not do this". Amanda says she doesn't want to have a "false" identity. I don't think her claim is indicating "guilt" neither it is immoral. I think there is something sincere but her focus on the "look" on the "appearence" of an assassin - or of a kind of murderer, a picture forced by somebody else - is also strange.


Hi Yummi, this also struck me as a very odd expression. I wonder if it might be that Knox feels the prosecution got some of the details of the reconstruction wrong (it is unlikely they got everything absolutely spot on), that she feels she is being given more of the blame than she is due among the threesome, or painted to be more of bloodthirsty murderer than she feels she is, and that she in fact was a girl caught up in a murder but not an actual murderer, hence her concern not to have a murderer's mask put on her.

It is a very strange image, it seems all back to front. She is really the one putting a mask on of course, and by not speaking the truth, she can only continue to wear it. :evil:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda making the recent published statements of the fairness of her trial would, IMO, completely rule out any paid interviews by the Knox/Mellas Traveling Revue.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael: It worked. I am all upset now!

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Not only does Lancelotti engage in pointless circular logic, which we have come to expect, but the article is far from being full of factual errors. I spotted one, which I believe is a sort of typo (Knox when Kercher is clearly meant). Perhaps Lancelotti objects to the statement that Knox and Guede were friends. If so, all I can say is it is far more accurate than to state that she did not know him, as friends and family did for months.
In any case, I found her analysis of the US reaction to be interesting and well-reasoned.

uhm....no!

to point out just one error, a fundamental one as well: "DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim."

If it were true, it would make all the difference. If there had been blood on the knife, you could safely come to the conclusion "she did it, end of story!". But there wasn't. And no, DNA is not the same as blood!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Justlooking preserves Candy forever:

"By the way, my book is totally different than my blog. So far I've used only a few sentences from the blog and those were quotes. So it will not be possible to get the same information online."

Google translation: I know my blog is pretty awful and you have probably heard that as well. Don't worry! My book has photos. Buy my book. Please!

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

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

A quick run through some Google searches on terms like young girls, murder, bullying, murderess and the like.

1. Two young girls in Perth murdered a friend, "to see what it was like."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6639027.stm

2. Judith Ann Neelley, part of a serial-murdering couple, "Eighteen-year-old Judith Neelley lured teenagers to a horrible death, but only after they had been raped and tortured. It was the consensus of those who listened to the various witnesses that Judith was the brains behind the most serious of the couple's offenses. It was she who had persuaded Alvin to participate with her in the brutal crimes, not the other way around."
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... index.html

3. Young couple, both girls, killed their roommate to prove their love. "Prosecutor David Dempster told the West Australian supreme court that the pair had killed Stacey, whom they had known for three days, because she had been "so f*****g annoying" after moving in with them in late December 2006."
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Lesbian- ... 3714057.jp

4. Chloe Davis murdered most of her family. The description of her calmness, and her father's descriptions of her are chillingly familiar reading.
http://incoldblogger.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ed_09.html

5. A group of bullying teens-seven girls and one boy-tortured and murdered a fellow student.

In the course of just tracking down random cases, some of which I had remembered, I found this site:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... two/3.html

After the stories of about half a dozen murderous couples I found this interesting passage:

"Each couple involved a male and female who together lured and savaged innocent victims, including children. While no formal studies have been done on the kind of chemistry that happens between two people that sets off a rape or killing spree, many experts believe that under other circumstances and with another man, the female might not have been as sadistic or cold-blooded. (Yet in some cases, the female was the dominant or encouraging partner.)

Back to the study that former FBI Special Agent Roy Hazelwood did. He found that most of the women who get involved with these sadistic males are from backgrounds that included physical and sexual abuse. Once merged with their sadistic partners, they become unable to form their own identities because "the sadistic fantasy of the male becomes an organizing principle in the behavior of the women." From his interviews, he concludes that couples like Karla and Paul are not like the team killers, Bonnie and Clyde.

"Let's take Bonnie and Clyde," he says. "Wives and girlfriends of sexual sadists are quite different. I interviewed twenty women, and four of them had participated in the murder of another person. You can't excuse that. They are legally, morally, and ethically responsible for what they've done. But I believe the man had reshaped their sexual norms." After having spoken to these women, he viewed them as compliant accomplices with weak self-esteem who were isolated and made to believe that the male in their lives was the center of the universe. They had to do what he wanted or their world would fall apart.

Yet those psychiatrists who have evaluated some of these women believe that even without the male, they had the potential for aggression or cunning against others. It was also difficult to confirm the details of their self-reports. Maybe they were abused, maybe they weren't. There is certainly no evidence of that for Karla Homolka, or Bonnie Parker. That means it may not be just team chemistry. It could be about a shared ability to harm others and a willingness to witness and participate in it without trying to stop it.

In fact, if not for certain women, the lives of some men might not have been so violent."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael: It worked. I am all upset now!

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Not only does Lancelotti engage in pointless circular logic, which we have come to expect, but the article is far from being full of factual errors. I spotted one, which I believe is a sort of typo (Knox when Kercher is clearly meant). Perhaps Lancelotti objects to the statement that Knox and Guede were friends. If so, all I can say is it is far more accurate than to state that she did not know him, as friends and family did for months.
In any case, I found her analysis of the US reaction to be interesting and well-reasoned.

uhm....no!

to point out just one error, a fundamental one as well: "DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim."

If it were true, it would make all the difference. If there had been blood on the knife, you could safely come to the conclusion "she did it, end of story!". But there wasn't. And no, DNA is not the same as blood!


That was the error I referred to. And though I know DNA is not the same as blood, I also know that the victim's DNA on the blade is significant, as are all the Knox/Kercher mixes around the cottage. I'm sorry, uhm, you find her analysis uninteresting and not well-reasoned. But it doesn't surprise me.

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

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

oops missed links on the group attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Reena_Virk
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT   

Lancelotti wrote:
to point out just one error, a fundamental one as well: "DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim."

If it were true, it would make all the difference. If there had been blood on the knife, you could safely come to the conclusion "she did it, end of story!". But there wasn't. And no, DNA is not the same as blood!

Are you saying that it is impossible that that DNA came from Meredith's blood?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Does it matter if the DNA on the knife wasn't blood? Would it be better if it was flesh, sinue or bone DNA? None of Meredith's DNA should have been on that knife...period! Whatever the DNA on the knife it all points back to one truth...some arsehole stuck it into Meredith, so please, let's not piss about with semantics like whether the DNA was from blood or some other biological origin.

_________________
"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 juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael: It worked. I am all upset now!

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Not only does Lancelotti engage in pointless circular logic, which we have come to expect, but the article is far from being full of factual errors. I spotted one, which I believe is a sort of typo (Knox when Kercher is clearly meant). Perhaps Lancelotti objects to the statement that Knox and Guede were friends. If so, all I can say is it is far more accurate than to state that she did not know him, as friends and family did for months.
In any case, I found her analysis of the US reaction to be interesting and well-reasoned.

uhm....no!

to point out just one error, a fundamental one as well: "DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim."

If it were true, it would make all the difference. If there had been blood on the knife, you could safely come to the conclusion "she did it, end of story!". But there wasn't. And no, DNA is not the same as blood!


In my view the double dna knife was in any case one of the least important pieces of evidence in the case against knox. Of much more importance are:

- the staging, which points very strongly to her

- the many many instances of her lying and changing stories

- the evidence of kokomani

- the evidence of the vagrant in the piazza overlooking the cottage (can't remember his name)

I think one of the reasons that knox supporters always want to come back to the knife is that they know that they can dispute this in various ways, and there is a mountain of other evidence they don't want to talk about!
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 Dec 09, 2009 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Juliet wrote:
- the evidence of the vagrant in the piazza overlooking the cottage (can't remember his name)


Antonio Curatolo.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

juliet wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I don't want the mask of the assassin forced on me BY someone else. Is this a mistake, a Freudian slip, or what?


It was a sentence, formulated in a, well, just newly created Italian, because of its unusual structure, which remained fix in my memory. Yes it is utterly strange.
I felt its strangeness as a person who worked in theatre. The immediate dissonance is because the "mask of the assassin" doesn't exist, the assassin is, in all ways you can imagine archetyp visually on the scene, a person who wears a human mask, who looks like a human but he is not, he is a void. The assassin is an inner quality of charachter, like a void, behind the mask, and never a mask. We have the mask of folly or madness, the mask of goodness, the mask of friendship, of furor, of love, but the mask of the assassin doesn't exist. You cannot do that on the scene. The assassin is an anonymous charachter/quality, confused among any human, expressed by no human trait nor quality.

This is why I rested with her Italian pharsing in mind. She says she doesn't want a mask. She doesn't want to be a charachter. I think most innocent in her position would make a point to express in the clearest way what they have not done, a simple "I am not an assassin.. I did not do this". Amanda says she doesn't want to have a "false" identity. I don't think her claim is indicating "guilt" neither it is immoral. I think there is something sincere but her focus on the "look" on the "appearence" of an assassin - or of a kind of murderer, a picture forced by somebody else - is also strange.


Hi Yummi, this also struck me as a very odd expression. I wonder if it might be that Knox feels the prosecution got some of the details of the reconstruction wrong (it is unlikely they got everything absolutely spot on), that she feels she is being given more of the blame than she is due among the threesome, or painted to be more of bloodthirsty murderer than she feels she is, and that she in fact was a girl caught up in a murder but not an actual murderer, hence her concern not to have a murderer's mask put on her.

It is a very strange image, it seems all back to front. She is really the one putting a mask on of course, and by not speaking the truth, she can only continue to wear it. :evil:


In the prison film that Knox participated in, she recited the Hamlet soliliquy. Many of Shakespeare's plays are about masks and mistaken identity, but the notion of the mask is closely associated with this tragedy in particular. And Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, has killed Hamlet's father and married his mother. He is an assassin. (Whoever noted the meaning of the word assassin, from the Arabic word for smoker of hashish - great observation!).

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

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

You know, as the youngest in my own family, I know that older siblings never really see you as an adult and all.
But Sollecito's sister here:

When did you last see Raffaele?
"Today (Monday) and I found him in a disturbing condition. Speaks little, is lost, little presence of himself, confused."
Has he realized the sentence?
"He still does not realize what happened or rather asks with insistence 'what am I doing here, when do we go home, when do you come to take me'."

Makes him sound about eight years old.

Is this a play for sympathy, do they really see him as this infantile, or is he in need of some serious psychiatric attention?
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 Dec 09, 2009 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Does it matter if the DNA on the knife wasn't blood? Would it be better if it was flesh, sinue or bone DNA? None of Meredith's DNA should have been on that knife...period! Whatever the DNA on the knife it all points back to one truth...some arsehole stuck it into Meredith, so please, let's not piss about with semantics like whether the DNA was from blood or some other biological origin.



I just want to quickly say that that post wasn't targeted at Kermit, it just happened to follow Kermit's on the board.

_________________
"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 jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Quote:
Murphy: `Foxy Knoxy:' Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?
By Wendy Murphy/GateHouse News Service
Posted Dec 09, 2009 @ 03:17 PM

THE MILFORD DAILY NEWS


(a must read)


How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?


Isn't it obvious? I wrote that just to upset you Lancelotti :)


Michael, naughty naughty nnn-))
cl-) Mua-)

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

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Juliet wrote:
- the evidence of the vagrant in the piazza overlooking the cottage (can't remember his name)


Antonio Curatolo.


Thank you Michael, yes Curatolo. :) His evidence was very important too. He saw behaviour that was linked to the murder and cannot be explained otherwise. So did Kokomani.

The dna is of course important, but I sometimes feel that as in the oj simpson case, the defense forces want to blind everyone with a whirlwind dispute over dna evidence, when actually other types of evidence actually hold the case up alone, and what they want to do is distract you from that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT   

Kermit wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
to point out just one error, a fundamental one as well: "DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim."

If it were true, it would make all the difference. If there had been blood on the knife, you could safely come to the conclusion "she did it, end of story!". But there wasn't. And no, DNA is not the same as blood!

Are you saying that it is impossible that that DNA came from Meredith's blood?


Of course it is not impossible, as Lancelotti probably realizes. Vagrant makes a really good point, though. First we heard for months and months that the knife had been "thrown out", then that it "would be" thrown out. It was not thrown out. Nor is it the only piece of evidence. But it remains the most contestable piece of evidence. Now they are hanging onto it for dear life -- in the hopes that others will believe it is the only item in the prosecution's 10,000 page file other than cartwheels, undies and a pink rabbit.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
You know, as the youngest in my own family, I know that older siblings never really see you as an adult and all.
But Sollecito's sister here:

When did you last see Raffaele?
"Today (Monday) and I found him in a disturbing condition. Speaks little, is lost, little presence of himself, confused."
Has he realized the sentence?
"He still does not realize what happened or rather asks with insistence 'what am I doing here, when do we go home, when do you come to take me'."

Makes him sound about eight years old.

Is this a play for sympathy, do they really see him as this infantile, or is he in need of some serious psychiatric attention?


It sounds to me he is in the midst of a mental breakdown. I have suspected for some time that this is a risk for him and that he has been sedated. I can think of no other reason for his complete lack of reaction to the verdict. Maybe this will be a turning point for him. He is in shock and his mind is trying to dissociate himself from pain by not taking in what is happening. I imagine he is in a somewhat infantile state, in the sense that he has regressed into a state of powerlessness and denial. The good thing about this is that he may be more easily persuaded to speak about what really happened. Amanda should be worried. I am sure he will get very good care in prison. The Italians seem incredibly enlightened in their treatment of prisoners. Apparently Amanda is almost blithe. She thanks her public for their outcry (according to reports) but says it is not really helping her. She is back to her writing already. She was speaking to Italian MP Walter Verini from her cell:

"'She told me that she was getting on well with the other inmates in the jail and that she had had no problems with anyone. She said she was mixing well and was taking part in acting, dancing and singing classes.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0ZEewpTNm

So that's all right then...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
You know, as the youngest in my own family, I know that older siblings never really see you as an adult and all.
But Sollecito's sister here:

When did you last see Raffaele?
"Today (Monday) and I found him in a disturbing condition. Speaks little, is lost, little presence of himself, confused."
Has he realized the sentence?
"He still does not realize what happened or rather asks with insistence 'what am I doing here, when do we go home, when do you come to take me'."

Makes him sound about eight years old.

Is this a play for sympathy, do they really see him as this infantile, or is he in need of some serious psychiatric attention?


Hi Lauowolf. No, I think it's simply a 'tactic' and Raffaele's defence have kept that up throughout the trial (look at poor weak little Raffaele, he's weak, too weak and timid to even testify...how can he possibly commit murder?)

I think he'd probably get further by imitating the Immortal Captain Black Adder and sticking a pair of underpants on his head, some pencils up his nose and while saying 'wibble'.


_________________
"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: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

"I think he'd probably get further by imitating the Immortal Captain Black Adder and sticking a pair of underpants on his head, some pencils up his nose and while saying 'wibble'."

Remind me not to hire you as a defense attorney, should I need one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Not but that I wouldn't look utterly fetching with my knickers on my head, enough to soften even the harshest juror....
The pencils, not so much so.
(Always loved history)
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 Dec 09, 2009 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
"I think he'd probably get further by imitating the Immortal Captain Black Adder and sticking a pair of underpants on his head, some pencils up his nose and while saying 'wibble'."

Remind me not to hire you as a defense attorney, should I need one.



Don't get me started :)






_________________
"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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

They (Amanda's visitor/spokespeople) make it sound as though she is in high school vying for "Most Popular" or homecoming queen.

Anybody else here remember the Goldie Hawn movie Private Benjamin? It is a comedy where a berieved, spoiled brat American 'Princess' joins the army, thinking it is like Club Med or La Costa.

One hilarious scene her parents come to get her. The bitch of a drill Sgt assures them Judy was very popular and well liked.

Anyway..... this scene always comes to mind when I hear Edda Mellas talk about how popular Amanda is in jail. Completely delusional.
Top Profile 

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
You know, as the youngest in my own family, I know that older siblings never really see you as an adult and all.
But Sollecito's sister here:

When did you last see Raffaele?
"Today (Monday) and I found him in a disturbing condition. Speaks little, is lost, little presence of himself, confused."
Has he realized the sentence?
"He still does not realize what happened or rather asks with insistence 'what am I doing here, when do we go home, when do you come to take me'."

Makes him sound about eight years old.

Is this a play for sympathy, do they really see him as this infantile, or is he in need of some serious psychiatric attention?


Hi Lauowolf. No, I think it's simply a 'tactic' and Raffaele's defence have kept that up throughout the trial (look at poor weak little Raffaele, he's weak, too weak and timid to even testify...how can he possibly commit murder?)



:lol: And they so overdid this weak Raffaele bit that when Sollecito actually came out and spoke at the end this was one of the things he was concerned to put right, that he was not Amanda's lapdag, doing all her bidding. This surprised me really, I thought that was the image they were safer with, but maybe it was an important matter of pride.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

ELEMENTARY LOGIC

Lancelotti wrote: "How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?'

Lancelotti, you've mastered logic to the same degree you've mastered this murder case. Embarrassing. And sad. In logic, when the premises are true, the conclusion will be true too. ("Truth is PRESERVED in a valid argument.") But "when the basic premises are false" the conclusion can go either way. And logic is not concerned with whether a conclusion is useful.
Thought you should know. But your not knowing explains a lot.


//////////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Does it matter if the DNA on the knife wasn't blood?

it does matter, yes.

here is an interesting article written by Alexander Kekule, institute director and professor of microbiology in Halle.
Alexander Kekule
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

She Didn't Do It
From What I Know of Her, I Know Amanda Knox Didn't Kill Meredith Kercher—and It's Obvious Who Did
by MADISON PAXTON
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/she- ... id=2929730
(Apologies if this has been posted already)
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

fine wrote:
ELEMENTARY LOGIC

Lancelotti wrote: "How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?'

Lancelotti, you've mastered logic to the same degree you've mastered this murder case. Embarrassing. And sad. In logic, when the premises are true, the conclusion will be true too. ("Truth is PRESERVED in a valid argument.") But "when the basic premises are false" the conclusion can go either way. And logic is not concerned with whether a conclusion is useful.
Thought you should know. But your not knowing explains a lot.


//////////


yes, fine!

and that's why I said: "When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless"

I didn't say the conclusion has to be false! In fact, it can be correct...if you are lucky.
Top Profile 

Offline Geologist


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Posts: 83

Location: Leeds and Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Kermit wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
to point out just one error, a fundamental one as well: "DNA on the handle of the knife that killed the victim matched Knox - and blood on blade matched the victim."

If it were true, it would make all the difference. If there had been blood on the knife, you could safely come to the conclusion "she did it, end of story!". But there wasn't. And no, DNA is not the same as blood!

Are you saying that it is impossible that that DNA came from Meredith's blood?


Of course it is not impossible, as Lancelotti probably realizes. Vagrant makes a really good point, though. First we heard for months and months that the knife had been "thrown out", then that it "would be" thrown out. It was not thrown out. Nor is it the only piece of evidence. But it remains the most contestable piece of evidence. Now they are hanging onto it for dear life -- in the hopes that others will believe it is the only item in the prosecution's 10,000 page file other than cartwheels, undies and a pink rabbit.


Classic diversionary tactic, make everyone look in one direction while you run in the other.

It's a tactic conspiracy theory nuts often try and use - 9/11 or JFK are prime examples where confusion reigned on those days and this is used by nuts to obfuscate the truth.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
fine wrote:
ELEMENTARY LOGIC

Lancelotti wrote: "How can it be a “must read” when the text is full of factual errors? When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless. Or is it just the conclusion that matters? As long as we agree with it, it's alright?'

Lancelotti, you've mastered logic to the same degree you've mastered this murder case. Embarrassing. And sad. In logic, when the premises are true, the conclusion will be true too. ("Truth is PRESERVED in a valid argument.") But "when the basic premises are false" the conclusion can go either way. And logic is not concerned with whether a conclusion is useful.
Thought you should know. But your not knowing explains a lot.


//////////


yes, fine!

and that's why I said: "When the basic premises are false, the conclusion derived from those false premises will necessarily be incorrect/useless"

I didn't say the conclusion has to be false! In fact, it can be correct...if you are lucky.


necessarily incorrect = necessarily not correct
correct is roughly the same as true, which is the opposite of false
so you are really just engaging in semantic nonsense and time-wasting

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Does it matter if the DNA on the knife wasn't blood?

it does matter, yes.

here is an interesting article written by Alexander Kekule, institute director and professor of microbiology in Halle.
Alexander Kekule


Thanks Lancelotti...but aside from the fact I don't speak German (my fault, I should learn new languages) blood is not the only substance in the human body and in fact blood cells are the most easy to damage (say by scrubbing those on a knife with bleach for example). The body contains all sorts of things other then blood, all containing their own genetic material. When you stab someone, the blade is going to come into contact with many of those different cells.

But, we are also missing an important point. It isn't only about what 'was' on the knife, but also what wasn't...for example, the DNA of anybody 'else'. Were contamination a factor, multiple fragments of DNA should be on that blade, yet only Meredith's is there, while low rfu, an all the same clean non-noisy sample. That should not exist in 'Contamination Land'.

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Latest from the Cook:
"Here's an excellent blog by Jim Thompson who would not like to be me. Tell me about it! My book, Murder In Italy, is coming out in the spring, by the way, and can be pre-ordered on Amazon. It will surprise many because I am standing back and looking at the events as a reporter, and I have tried to construct a true narrative, as best anyone can. And, hey, Jon Krakauer is one of my biggest idols, so I'm happy to be compared with him--if only in terms of abuse directed at a writer.
By the way, my book is totally different than my blog. "
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

necessarily incorrect = necessarily not correct
correct is roughly the same as true, which is the opposite of false
so you are really just engaging in semantic nonsense and time-wasting


incorrect/useless

either or
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jools wrote:
Latest from the Cook:
"Here's an excellent blog by Jim Thompson who would not like to be me. Tell me about it! My book, Murder In Italy, is coming out in the spring, by the way, and can be pre-ordered on Amazon. It will surprise many because I am standing back and looking at the events as a reporter, and I have tried to construct a true narrative, as best anyone can. And, hey, Jon Krakauer is one of my biggest idols, so I'm happy to be compared with him--if only in terms of abuse directed at a writer.
By the way, my book is totally different than my blog. "


She forgot to mention she was an Award Winning Author!!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

She Didn't Do It
From What I Know of Her, I Know Amanda Knox Didn't Kill Meredith Kercher—and It's Obvious Who Did
by MADISON PAXTON
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/she- ... id=2929730

Poor Madison.
I guess logical thinking is not a large part of the UW curriculum.
(They've already got Guide, found the murderer -- common meme, completely illogical.)
If her screed showed any familiarity with primary documents, rather than only secondary FOA sources, then it might be worth reading.
But as a research paper, this would be a B-, or an incomplete.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Does it matter if the DNA on the knife wasn't blood?

it does matter, yes.

here is an interesting article written by Alexander Kekule, institute director and professor of microbiology in Halle.
Alexander Kekule


Thanks Lancelotti...but aside from the fact I don't speak German (my fault, I should learn new languages) blood is not the only substance in the human body and in fact blood cells are the most easy to damage (say by scrubbing those on a knife with bleach for example).


maybe you can understand this translation of the last paragraphs.

All this would hardly have been sufficient for a verdict of guilty – if there had not been three tiny DNA traces. Sollecito’s hereditary material was on a bra clasp of the victim, which had obviously separated when opened by force. And in Sollecito’s flat the investigators found a kitchen knife, on which a DNA trace of the victim at the blade and a DNA trace were proven by Knox at the grasp. “A mistake is so well impossible actually with „the genetic fingerprint. Not the actual genes are examined in the DNA (they are rather similar with all humans), but the useless sections between them (satellite DNA). Because it does not carry an heiress formation, the satellite DNA is arbitrarily often copied with the emergence by egg and sperm cells schlampig and. Result are repetitive ranges of the DNA, whose repetition sample for each humans is unique. The danger of mistake is smaller than with the fingerprint. But the forensische DNA analysis has also their malice. While a genuine fingerprint proves the fact that the associated person touched a thing, DNA traces can have developed in various kind. In the Italian murder case the DNA trace at the bra clasp could come also from a skin cell, which lost being before days in the flat. The DNA trace at the knife blade could have been transferred by the hands by Amanda Knox, with the victim the together-lived and the knife of their friend for cooking used. This trace would have more conclusive force, if additionally blood remainders were found. All three condemned appointment inserted. Then the DNA traces must be again evaluated, because also for ice-cold angels the innocence assumption is valid. As the mother of the victim said correctly: „At the end of the daily it concerns only the proofs, nothing else counts. “ The author is a director of institute and professor for medical microbiology in resounds.


Last edited by Lancelotti on Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I don't understand why Meredith's cells on the blade would be somehow more innocent for not being blood.
The only tale given to explain their presence is Rafaelle's story of pricking Meredith while cooking.
That tale might explain blood cells, but tissue?
I don't see how any other tissue could become deeply embedded in a knife by a simple pricking.
Not that the story is believable, or has been substantiated....

And I don't see how the simple error of blood for other tissue on the knife in anyway undercuts the major points of the article by Murphy.
Her argument is clear, simple, and devastating.
This point is on the level of saying a mispelling of blood for blod would invalidate a statement - desperate, and silly, arguments for a case that has nothing better to offer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline NoamChomsky


Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 11:05 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Is it possible that the Perugia Division of the Italian Police could assist in other long-running controversial cases, such as the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa?

I only ask because the crime-solving ability of the Squadra Mobile seems to be nothing short of miraculous. Literally everything they touch proves to be a source of damning DNA evidence!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

juliet wrote:
Michael wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
You know, as the youngest in my own family, I know that older siblings never really see you as an adult and all.
But Sollecito's sister here:

When did you last see Raffaele?
"Today (Monday) and I found him in a disturbing condition. Speaks little, is lost, little presence of himself, confused."
Has he realized the sentence?
"He still does not realize what happened or rather asks with insistence 'what am I doing here, when do we go home, when do you come to take me'."

Makes him sound about eight years old.

Is this a play for sympathy, do they really see him as this infantile, or is he in need of some serious psychiatric attention?


Hi Lauowolf. No, I think it's simply a 'tactic' and Raffaele's defence have kept that up throughout the trial (look at poor weak little Raffaele, he's weak, too weak and timid to even testify...how can he possibly commit murder?)



:lol: And they so overdid this weak Raffaele bit that when Sollecito actually came out and spoke at the end this was one of the things he was concerned to put right, that he was not Amanda's lapdag, doing all her bidding. This surprised me really, I thought that was the image they were safer with, but maybe it was an important matter of pride.


Hi Juliet. Typically, he couldn't help himself and had to retrieve his balls. He'd had to sit through days of emasculation...he held up well, but everyone has their snapping point ;)

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

necessarily incorrect = necessarily not correct
correct is roughly the same as true, which is the opposite of false
so you are really just engaging in semantic nonsense and time-wasting


incorrect/useless

either or



further demonstration of my comment

not that any was needed

plus, this formulation x/xx also means both - ever see the movie victor/victoria?

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
I don't understand why Meredith's cells on the blade would be somehow more innocent for not being blood.
The only tale given to explain their presence is Rafaelle's story of pricking Meredith while cooking.
That tale might explain blood cells, but tissue?
I don't see how any other tissue could become deeply embedded in a knife by a simple pricking.
Not that the story is believable, or has been substantiated....

And I don't see how the simple error of blood for other tissue on the knife in anyway undercuts the major points of the article by Murphy.
Her argument is clear, simple, and devastating.
This point is on the level of saying a mispelling of blood for blod would invalidate a statement - desperate, and silly, arguments for a case that has nothing better to offer.


This is exactly what is going on here. It is like the semantic game-playing.

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

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

"The DNA trace at the knife blade could have been transferred by the hands by Amanda Knox, with the victim the together-lived and the knife of their friend for cooking used"

So Amanda, handling the blade of the knife, would be able to force tissue cells of Meredith's -- that for some reason are on Amanda's hands -- deeply into a scratch on that blade?????
And this a knife in Raphaele's apartment.

Maybe I lack imagination, but I really cannot come up with a way that could happen.


It sounds as if this German expert has taken his information from Amanda's well-placed German family.
You know, the one's with enough local pull to get her the Bundestag job she blew off.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
I don't understand why Meredith's cells on the blade would be somehow more innocent for not being blood.
The only tale given to explain their presence is Rafaelle's story of pricking Meredith while cooking.
That tale might explain blood cells, but tissue?
I don't see how any other tissue could become deeply embedded in a knife by a simple pricking.
Not that the story is believable, or has been substantiated....

And I don't see how the simple error of blood for other tissue on the knife in anyway undercuts the major points of the article by Murphy.
Her argument is clear, simple, and devastating.
This point is on the level of saying a mispelling of blood for blod would invalidate a statement - desperate, and silly, arguments for a case that has nothing better to offer.


This is exactly what is going on here. It is like the semantic game-playing.


'Sophistry' is a just as accurate a description for it, but is more concise. And we have a rule about 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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti,
why, while you are often so zealous in pointing out any factual inaccuracy in many articles/reports, do you overlook any criticisms on factual mistakes that are possibly wrong structural elements, like this:

" Das alles hätte für einen Schuldspruch kaum genügt – wenn da nicht noch drei winzige DNA-Spuren wären. "

Warum nimmst du diese Satz ohne kritik? The problem of the reasoning in this articla iss that has a narrow logical basis, it tend to depend only on this assumption, it can stand, but it stands like an upside down bottle. It depends on only one proposition. It this is overturned, also the logical value of other assumption changes. What happens if the assumption is false?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
"The DNA trace at the knife blade could have been transferred by the hands by Amanda Knox, with the victim the together-lived and the knife of their friend for cooking used"

So Amanda, handling the blade of the knife, would be able to force tissue cells of Meredith's -- that for some reason are on Amanda's hands -- deeply into a scratch on that blade?????
And this a knife in Raphaele's apartment.

Maybe I lack imagination, but I really cannot come up with a way that could happen.


It sounds as if this German expert has taken his information from Amanda's well-placed German family.
You know, the one's with enough local pull to get her the Bundestag job she blew off.


I have an idea: Amanda, after rubbing Meredith vigorously for several minutes to effect a transfer of DNA, put on a pair of loose-fitting gloves and then went to Raffaele's house, whereupon she opened the kitchen drawer and began fondling the nearest knife, transferring some of Meredith's DNA onto the blade of the knife.

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

An illustration. From false premises we can draw a true---"and useful"---conclusion.

Premise 1. Lancelotti is a logical genius.

Premise 2. Logical geniuses are always annoying.

_______________________

Conclusion. Lancelotti is annoying.



////////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline NoamChomsky


Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 11:05 pm

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
"The DNA trace at the knife blade could have been transferred by the hands by Amanda Knox, with the victim the together-lived and the knife of their friend for cooking used"

So Amanda, handling the blade of the knife, would be able to force tissue cells of Meredith's -- that for some reason are on Amanda's hands -- deeply into a scratch on that blade?????
And this a knife in Raphaele's apartment.

Maybe I lack imagination, but I really cannot come up with a way that could happen.


It sounds as if this German expert has taken his information from Amanda's well-placed German family.
You know, the one's with enough local pull to get her the Bundestag job she blew off.


I think the bra clasp and the knife DNA evidence are faked.

Have you been to Italy before? I have, several times, and I think it's not unreasonable to describe the place as Third World. It's a deeply corrupt country where the locals think nothing of robbing or cheating any foreigners who happen by.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

fine wrote:
An illustration. From false premises we can draw a true---"and useful"---conclusion.

Premise 1. Lancelotti is a logical genius.

Premise 2. Logical geniuses are always annoying.

_______________________

Conclusion. Lancelotti is annoying.



////////


Indeed, premise one looks pretty flaky/flimsy to me. Note to the reader: In this instance, flaky/flimsy means both flaky and flimsy.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

NoamChomsky wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
"The DNA trace at the knife blade could have been transferred by the hands by Amanda Knox, with the victim the together-lived and the knife of their friend for cooking used"

So Amanda, handling the blade of the knife, would be able to force tissue cells of Meredith's -- that for some reason are on Amanda's hands -- deeply into a scratch on that blade?????
And this a knife in Raphaele's apartment.

Maybe I lack imagination, but I really cannot come up with a way that could happen.


It sounds as if this German expert has taken his information from Amanda's well-placed German family.
You know, the one's with enough local pull to get her the Bundestag job she blew off.


I think the bra clasp and the knife DNA evidence are faked.

Have you been to Italy before? I have, several times, and I think it's not unreasonable to describe the place as Third World. It's a deeply corrupt country where the locals think nothing of robbing or cheating any foreigners who happen by.


These are deeply offensive statements, and not just to the many Italians who post on this board. You need to apologize now or leave the board for good. But you won't get your parting gift until tomorrow. Only one per day.

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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Lancelotti,
why, while you are often so zealous in pointing out any factual inaccuracy in many articles/reports, do you overlook any criticisms on factual mistakes that are possibly wrong structural elements, like this:

" Das alles hätte für einen Schuldspruch kaum genügt – wenn da nicht noch drei winzige DNA-Spuren wären. "


that's his opinion/assessment, what don't you agree with?
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

fine wrote:
An illustration. From false premises we can draw a true---"and useful"---conclusion.

Premise 1. Lancelotti is a logical genius.

Premise 2. Logical geniuses are always annoying.

_______________________

Conclusion. Lancelotti is annoying.



////////


kindergarten?
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,914,533 Views