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


Last visit was: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:27 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:27 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 12 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:34 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
"well you know Amanda has her ups and downs" bullshit ... and what about her speech days before the verdict stating that they expected a guilty verdict?


Did you listen to the interview, Jester? Edda says it's not true Amanda did cartwheels in the police station.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:

Fiona, you seem to lean heavily on the understanding/compassionate point of view toward those who commit murder. While I understand this comment to Machine: "But do not rely on "Anger's Freeing Power" as a long term strategy for dealing with grief: it is very useful in the short term; but it does not live side by side with peace. And this grief is not yours: Meredith's family must make their own path."; I would add that short term anger vented in healthy ways - i.e. creation of this site/posts on TJMK/etc. - are extremely valuable. No one can take on the grief or anger of any other person (not possible), because everyone has their own path. Anger that leads to dialogue isn't something that I would consider problematic - unlike anger that leads to murder as we have seen with AK.


I agree, and I said as much. "It is useful in the short term"

Quote:
And dittany1 has an excellent question for Fiona. Would you be okay with one of the 3 criminals marrying one of your children?

The reason I thought it was an excellent question is because we all have a line that we draw. All of us. Could you be as compassionate as you are toward these criminals and still embrace a connection with one of them with one of your own kids? Maybe yes, maybe no. Not right and not wrong. Just different lines drawn in the sand of what each of us could/would be open and accepting of.

My line is drawn very tight and narrow. This works for me and my life.


I do not know. As I said, I do not know what these people can or will become. There is no doubt that I would be worried if any one of them came to live next door, or married into my family. But that "instinct" is not to be relied on: it is a starting point and it is hard to overcome. Doesn't mean we should not try. There are many who have committed horrific crimes and who have changed utterly; Jimmy Boyle comes to mind and also Mary Bell (whom I mentioned before).

The question is too broad. Is that fear reasonable without any indication that the person has truly faced what they have done? Yes. In that case I think none of us would be able to deal well with the situations put to me. Is it reasonable if there is evidence of that kind of change? No. Caution is reasonable and I think most of us would take a lot of convincing: but a blanket decision that change can never happen or not enough?that is understandable, but I do not think it is reasonable.

Let me put it back to you the other way. If one of your children got to know and love one of these three people what would you do? Would you shut the door on your child if they would not end the relationship? I think not. It is easy to understand a desire to avoid that situation: and throwing away the key is tempting for that reason alone. But we cannot make a safe world and we cannot choose our children's partners. There are many who make relationships that are violent and abusive, where there is no knowledge of that in advance. Every parent fears that outcome, I think.

In the end we have to trust that we have given our children enough security and knowledge and self worth to make good decisions for themselves: and let go. If they then chose one of these three people (and I do not mean in the context of some rebellious phase in adolescence, because none of them will be in their twenties when they are released and I am assuming an age appropriate relationship) that is some indication of change in itself: at least I would hope so. If there was real change, then both your child and the one they chose would expect your reaction: would work to show that change, and to reassure you. And if you want to protect and to care then you would have no choice but to really look at that person as they are. You would have to do it in the teeth of just such reactions as these and there would be no shortage of that from outside either. But they will be released and it is very likely that someone's parent will face this sometime. So the question is an excellent one: but it is not all one way.

Quote:
I personally do not believe that true justice is served until there is a strong attempt at balancing the scales. Obviously, in this life, there will never be a complete balancing of the scales in this case, as a precious life has been violently taken. But the attempt to balance the scales in my opinion, starts with the expression of truth.


I agree with that.

Quote:
Without that, I believe in punishment.


I am not sure what you mean by that. Punishment as a route to truth? Punishment as an end in itself?

Quote:
In my mind, if someone continues to lie about her role in killing another human being, be it lying for 10 years, 20 years, or for life, no amount of punishment will encourage some people to talk. And if no amount of punishment will do that, then I do believe that these murderers should not have the privilege of a life of freedom. Ever.


I am not following your argument here, though I am trying, and the fault is probably mine. I cannot understand the work that "if" is doing in your first sentence. It is a conditional. The sense I get from it is that if a person continues to lie then punishment will not serve to get to the truth. But surely if a person tells the truth punishment will not serve to get to the truth either. It seems to me that there is no causal connection between punishment and truth, at least as you have expressed your position. And if that is what you are saying I agree with it: but I have the sense I am missing something.

Quote:
This is not an eye for an eye revenge mentality. An eye for an eye would be administering the death penalty.


I did say that in my exploration of what it means to make the "punishment fit the crime". And I agree that this is not "an eye for an eye". But I do not know what it is really.

Quote:
Fiona, you also ask a question as to whether we should continue to see AK as a pariah, especially when she is released from prison. After all that I have seen, when AK is released, I have no doubt there will be a "hero's" welcome home party for the girl that was "unjustly imprisoned in a horrible foreign country", with parades, fanfare and the like.


That is perhaps true: I do not know, because I hope that her family will also change. At present, from the interviews we have seen and heard I have no doubt that is exactly what would happen if she were released tomorrow. Her family seem to be in total denial, and if she was released there would be no reason for that to change. But that is not going to happen. They too will be in a different position when the circus moves on. It is certainly possible that they will never face the truth: if they do not then it will remain difficult for Knox herself to do it, for all the reasons already discussed. But when there are no interviews, no crusade, no fame, nothing but ordinary life and visits to her in jail, then they too may be capable of reflection: or some of them might. Cognitive dissonance and denial are powerful things and it is possible that they are irretrievably delusional: but it is not certain.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:

I should have been clearer, lol. What I meant was, I wish the interviewer had quizzed her about why she kept quiet about Lumumba being framed after her daughter told her.



I think this has been over-emphasised. It's important to remember that Edda (in contrast to her daughter) did not know whether Lumumba was innocent or not. He was just a name that Amanda first said committed the murder and then said didn't. Edda was not in a position to know which version was true and then had the problem of making herself understood when she didn't know the language. So she took the easier course of letting the police sort it out for themselves. Not particularly praiseworthy but to elevate her to co-villainess in the Lumumba affair is ludicrously unfair.
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
By the way, if you listen to the BBC interview, you'll notice Sollicito is pronounced SO leh CHI to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm


I don't really like relying on BBC pronunciations, not after Angela Rippon wh-) :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:

The lone wolf theory came to a dead stop when Raffaele's lawyer acknowledged that there was more than one assailant in her closing arguments.


I completely missed that: do you have a link handy? If not I can search :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
The Machine wrote:

That isn't the Christian belief at all. The Bible doesn't say that all people are good. In fact, it says the complete opposite. It doesn't say that all people have salvation either.


All right. Don't quote me on the Bible. It's been a while since I read that book.


Lol Jester!

_________________
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 23, 2009 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
Jester wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:

The lone wolf theory came to a dead stop when Raffaele's lawyer acknowledged that there was more than one assailant in her closing arguments.


I completely missed that: do you have a link handy? If not I can search :)


It's Jester's point rather than mine,Fiona. Maresca in any case had publicly said "all three were responsible" even before the main trial began so Borngiorno's (sorry if that's misspelt) concession was in no sense a tipping-point for the Kerchers.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From Elio Clerio Bertoldi, CU.

I will not translate the full article as there is nothing new apart from this last excerpt:

Latest rumor launched by a national television channel: that Rudy has confessed to a well-known Perugian priest of everything that happened in the cottage in Via della pergola. However, if it is true, if indeed there was a confession, everything will remain within the secrecy of the confessional.
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=21
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:21 pm   Post subject: Who he?   

Pronounce it "Rudy Hermann Güde".

Italian doesn't have the umlaut, so "ü" = "ue" (one sound) when written, like in the old days.
Some Italian reporters give his name the German pronunciation (as much as they can :) ).

In American TV English, it would be something like "GERH-de" (California) or "GURH-de" (Texas), probably without trilling the "r", mostly.

As for BBC pronunciation, their ambit is English: they say Paris, Rome and Leghorn, Milan and Moscow; not Paris (à la français!, of course :) ), Roma and Livorno, Milano and Moskva. No "Mamma mias!" and hand-waving from them!


---
OT completely, but a macabre coincidence (for the psychologists):

Companies like Güde - Die Messer Franz Güde GmbH in Solingen (see the URL - guede-solingen - for spelling without umlauts) makes things not unrelated to what was found in Sollecito's place:

Quote:
"The ultimative bread knife "Franz Güde". Franz Güde developed the scalloped edge in the Thirties. Forged out of one piece, ...
[Franz]

[etc etc {warning - don't read the rest of the blurb; it is out of place with the current tone of recent posts: however, I can see one doctor's son who would absolutely adore that blurb} ]

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Jester wrote:
"well you know Amanda has her ups and downs" bullshit ... and what about her speech days before the verdict stating that they expected a guilty verdict?


Did you listen to the interview, Jester? Edda says it's not true Amanda did cartwheels in the police station.


I was just looking for Bremner's comment where she said she was a friend of the Knox family through their neighbour the judge, and the cartwheels were nothing more than the antics of a "restless teenager". Are the Knox/Mellas spouses deep sixing Bremner after her somewhat intoxicated appearance a couple of weeks ago ... where she was saying "I'm a lawyur" but "I can't go to Italy because I have to work, and I might get arrested" and "I'm a lawyar", eh.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Found it

"Bremner goes on to criticize the character assassination the media have directed at Knox since the beginning of the trial, which she believes gives the defense an uphill battle in front of a jury that is unsequestered and thus exposed to the often explosive stories in the press. Accounts of Knox doing splits and cartwheels as she awaited questioning by the police are a distortion of the behavior of a teenager exhibiting restlessness, Bremner argues, and depictions of a hypersexualized relationship with her "on-again, off-again" boyfriend Sollecito have been overly dramatized. "They met at a [classical] music concert and had been dating for two weeks when this happened," she says. "It's hard to be 'on-again, off-again' in two weeks."

Her list goes on. It was reported that Knox went out to buy lingerie and had an explicit conversation about sex with Sollecito as the investigation first got under way. "That house was a crime scene," Bremner explains, "so she couldn't go back in and didn't have any clothes. And the person who supposedly reported that this conversation had been overheard didn't even speak English, and their conversation was in English."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... z0aVwcOwTk
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Leodmaeg wrote:
Jester wrote:
By the way, if you listen to the BBC interview, you'll notice Sollicito is pronounced SO leh CHI to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm


I don't really like relying on BBC pronunciations, not after Angela Rippon wh-) :lol:


That is the problem. The media says one thing ... well, actually, all the media pronounce words however they want ... whatever works for the moment. Someone that lives in Switzerland probably knows better.

so - LEH - chi `toe
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:

I was just looking for Bremner's comment where she said she was a friend of the Knox family through their neighbour the judge, and the cartwheels were nothing more than the antics of a "restless teenager". Are the Knox/Mellas spouses deep sixing Bremner after her somewhat intoxicated appearance a couple of weeks ago ... where she was saying "I'm a lawyur" but "I can't go to Italy because I have to work, and I might get arrested" and "I'm a lawyar", eh.


In the previously linked BBC interview, Edda is very careful to say that others with who she is not affiliated have kindly set up pro-Amanda websites. I've noticed this in most interviews she does.

I don't understand why Edda wants to distance herself from them. She stuff anyway. For example, Edda says very clearly the polices hit Amanda quite a bit.

Where's Curt?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:

It's Jester's point rather than mine,Fiona.


Yes, I said that Raffaele's lawyers closing arguments contradicted the single assailant theory.

Does someone want a link? It was in the translations of the closing arguments.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I don't think she wants to distance herself from them: I think it is like her account of all the lovely things said in court. She wishes to give the impression that many people have independently come to the conclusion that there is a monstrous miscarriage of justice. She wants us to believe that her PR firm and the family are not orchestrating the support
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Jester wrote:

I was just looking for Bremner's comment where she said she was a friend of the Knox family through their neighbour the judge, and the cartwheels were nothing more than the antics of a "restless teenager". Are the Knox/Mellas spouses deep sixing Bremner after her somewhat intoxicated appearance a couple of weeks ago ... where she was saying "I'm a lawyur" but "I can't go to Italy because I have to work, and I might get arrested" and "I'm a lawyar", eh.


In the previously linked BBC interview, Edda is very careful to say that others with who she is not affiliated have kindly set up pro-Amanda websites. I've noticed this in most interviews she does.

I don't understand why Edda wants to distance herself from them. She stuff anyway. For example, Edda says very clearly the polices hit Amanda quite a bit.

Where's Curt?


Sure, the family is trying to play both sides of the coin, double edged sword ... they want the websites to continue doing what they've done, but they want it to appear as though Amanda has nothing to do with it. Deception.
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 23, 2009 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Del wrote:
Michael, obviously the government couldn't let these people go if the victims families felt they had suffered enough already. I think the question "would you like to have Guede as your neighbor" hits on the point, society has to be protected it's not just about helping the victim's family grieving process. I think the motive was unclear so the whole idea that they got caught up in drugs, alcohol, and a sex game makes them seem less likely to commit these acts again. Personally I disagree, the amount of violence that they inflicted on Meredith tells a different story in my mind.


On the question of whether I'd have Guede as my neighbour. I think it's a rather pointless question and I don't mean that disrespectfully. I'll explain. Would it make any difference to the answer to that question if Guede had served 16 years? Would it be different if he'd served 26 years? Would it be different if he'd served 36 years or life? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how long he'd served I think few would 'choose' to have him as a neighbour. Does that mean therefore on that basis alone we should lock him up and throw away the key forever or even execute him? I don't think so. There are a lot of people I wouldn't 'choose' have move next door to me, many of whom aren't actually criminals. But that's one of the compromises we have to live with by opting to live in society. The only way around that is to 'opt out' of society by generating enough wealth so we can afford a home with enough land around it so we don't have any neighbours, or move to a remote area or even become hermits. As soon as we choose (or are forced by circumstance) to live amongst others, with neighbours, with society, then we have to tolerate certain things...people we don't like very much moving in next door to us, or walking our street or frequenting our haunts. Other things come with that package, like free speech enabling people to say things that may offend us for example.

On a personal level, I wouldn't 'like' Guede or any of the others to move next to me, but it wouldn't be through fear. I don't believe my safety would be in danger. I really don't think any of them will kill again. Most murderers don't. Others may feel differently. But whatever we 'feel' should not be a deciding factor for how long someone should serve in prison. For someone to be retained in jail through fear for public safety that fear has to be justified by some sort of evidence (the prisoners behaviour in jail for example...are they giving any indications that they are still dangerous?). But that's the point of the system, to evaluate prisoners before they are released. I will give another example. I wouldn't 'choose' to have a neighbour who had previously served two years for burglary either. So what, does that mean they should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives? Executed? And that's not even a silly question...it wasn't 'that' long ago in our past that people would be strung up on the gallows for stealing a loaf of bread or picking a pocket or stealing a horse or sheep.

But essentially, what I'm saying is the question of 'would I choose to have him live next to me' is not and should not be a factor in either my view or the state's view of how long he should serve.

And on the whole matter of justice. It's a balancing act that must take into account the requirements of the crime, the victims, the state, the public and the convicted. It can therefore only ever be a 'compromise' and the nature of compromise is that 'nobody' gets everything they want. And as members of society we have to compromise almost every day, so we should be well used to it. If we can't tolerate that anymore, then we should opt out of society. But the one thing we can't opt out of is humanity.

_________________
"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 Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

If you have a link, Jester, that would be great. I can search but I don't have time now: I have to find out about the car park clock next because there is a new post at jref saying that there is evidence from that that Sollecito called the police before the postal police arrived. This is never ending :(
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 23, 2009 12:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Happy Birthday Mike!!! mul-) band-)

_________________
"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 Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
I don't think she wants to distance herself from them: I think it is like her account of all the lovely things said in court. She wishes to give the impression that many people have independently come to the conclusion that there is a monstrous miscarriage of justice. She wants us to believe that her PR firm and the family are not orchestrating the support


Pretty soon we'll be hearing about a book from the Knox/Mellas spouse family documenting how to get your daughter out of an Italian (ancient culture) prison ... Tragedy of the Century (never mind that it's not even 2010 and there are 90 years left in the century).
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
I don't think she wants to distance herself from them: I think it is like her account of all the lovely things said in court. She wishes to give the impression that many people have independently come to the conclusion that there is a monstrous miscarriage of justice. She wants us to believe that her PR firm and the family are not orchestrating the support


What support? Edda says there's support. Senator Cantwell is a politician. She will go with the flow of her constituents. On the message boards, there does not seem to bee a lot of support fron Amanda's home State of Washington.

In the spring, my cat and I will be ready for a road trip. Maybe we'll drive over that direction. Get a feel for the dynamic. Right now all I have to go on is the blogs.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

@ Michael: Thank you for that post: it gets to the heart of part of what I am trying to say and it does so much more concisely and clearly than I can manage
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Jester wrote:
"well you know Amanda has her ups and downs" bullshit ... and what about her speech days before the verdict stating that they expected a guilty verdict?


Did you listen to the interview, Jester? Edda says it's not true Amanda did cartwheels in the police station.

Did you listen to the interview, Jester? Edda says it's not true Amanda did cartwheels in the police station.[/quote]

Edda Mellas can't even agreed the lie with her current husband. On the BBC Radio five interview, she says: knife DNA too low to test, there was only one cell found!

According to current husband Chris Mellas, the number of cells found on the knife were 10!
So what was it ONE or TEN CELLS? mop-)

*Re: Murder of Meredith Kercher
cmellas on Wed 24 Jun 2009, 11:12 am

Well...here I am. I have not logged onto here or anywhere else for that matter in quite some time. You get sick of seeing people say things like "my gut says she's guilty" or making assumptions of guilt based on "facts" which are not true, especially when they have been disproven in court. One thing I have seen a lot is "bloody footprints of Amanda...wow, she must be guilty!" This was one of those "facts" leaked by the prosecution. In court, they had to disclose that the luminol revealed prints in the hallway were in fact tested and the results were? "no biological material found". The prints simply show her walking from her room to the shower, and past Merediths door to another roommates bedroom.
The knife! What about the knife?! Well...
Amanda's DNA was found on the handle, and since she used it to make dinner, and she washed it? It is not surprizing.
As for the supposed DNA on the blade? Well...
The quantification of the material said to be found in a scratch on the blade was LESS THAN 10 cells worth. The equation used to quantify the material does not go any lower than 10 cells so thats the closest you can get to the actual measurement.
http://tinyurl.com/n5crgg
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

They can never say why there would be dna from Meredith on the knife. She could wash all of Raffaele's dna off the knife, but not 10 cells of Meredith who had never been to Raffaele's apartment.

Now, I'm waiting for the report from AK/RS's trial.

Maybe Rudy will sing.
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:
Emerald wrote:

Yes, they spoke about PL. Edda Mellas once again blamed the police, accusing them of striking Amanda.


I should have been clearer, lol. What I meant was, I wish the interviewer had quizzed her about why she kept quiet about Lumumba being framed after her daughter told her.

tom_ch wrote:
Jester wrote:

Gwae-dey (emphasis on second syllable) ... it's a bit like 'gwee-day'.
So - leh - chi (chee) - toe (emphasis on first and third syllable)

But I'm not Italian.

Sorry, wrong.

Gway-day (emphasis on FIRST syllable)
So - leh - chi (as in itch) - toe (emphasis on SECOND syllable)

Tom


Thanks very much. It's been puzzling me a great deal so very much appreciated.

By the way, if you listen to the BBC interview, you'll notice Sollicito is pronounced SO leh CHI to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

That's because English people don't know how to pronounce Italian names correctly. They can't even pronounce "Sofia Loren" correctly (correct accent is on the first syllable, not the second)! (I watch a lot of Italian TV)

Minimal coverage in Switzerland that I've noticed.

Tom
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 23, 2009 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Here is the judgment from Guede's second degree, as translated by Tiziano:



THE COURT OF THE ASSIZES OF PERUGIA AT A HEARING IN CHAMBERS
HAS PUBLISHED THROUGH A READING OF THE PURVIEW OF THE SENTENCE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT:
WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 443, 605, 599 OF THE CODE OF PENAL PROCEDURE,
IN PARTIAL EMENDATION OF THE JUDGEMENT HANDED DOWN ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2008,
BY THE GUP OF THE LAW COURT OF PERUGIA, IN THE MATTER OF RUDY HERMANN GUEDE,
APPEALED AGAINST BY THE FORMER, PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED THE REDUCTION OF GENERAL
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, EQUIVALENT TO THE CONTESTED AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, REDUCES THE SENTENCE OF THE APPELLANT TO 16 YEARS
INCARCERATION.
IT CONFIRMS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTESTED SENTENCE. IT CONDEMNS THE
THE APPELLANT TO PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF THE DEFENCE OF THE CIVIL
COMPLAINANT ALDALIA TATTANELLI , WHICH IT LIQUIDATES IN TOTAL AS 1,500 EUROS;
OF THOSE OF THE CIVIL COMPLAINANTS JOHN LESLIE KERCHER, ARLINE CAROL KERCHER,
JOHN ASHLEY KERCHER, LYLE KERCHER, WHICH IT LIQUIDATES IN TOTAL AS 8,000 EUROS
EACH, AS WELL AS THAT OF THE DEFENCE OF STEPHANIE ARLINE KERCHER, WHICH IT LIQUIDATES IN TOTAL
AS 5000 EUROS.

IT ASSIGNS THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AS THE LIMIT FOR THE LODGING OF THE MOTIVATIONS
FOR THIS JUDGEMENT.








To comment on the judgement. It appears the compensation for the Kerchers has been reduced to a paltry 8,000 euros each. And for reasons I don't understand, Stephanie Kercher seems to have been awarded only 5,000 euros. This also now means by default, on appeal Amanda and Raffaele's compensation sentence will be reduced to the same figure. Now I'm perplexed.

_________________
"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 Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I think it refers to expenses, Michael. I am reading it as an award of expenses incurred as a result of this appeal: not as anything to do with the compensation nor with the expenses of any other hearing

Could easily be wrong
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Can I suggest that people email Victoria Derbyshire - victoria@bbc.co.uk to ask for a counter-balancing piece to address some of the factual inaccuracies and untruths that were put forth by Edda in that piece. I did:


Excerpt (having first complimented on interviewer's tone etc) : There is a huge worldwide campaign of misinformation and media briefing being run by the Knoxs to try to create the appearance of a miscarriage of justice. I was uncomfortable to hear some of those untruths being put forward on the BBC. For balance and to counter some of these factual and deliberate misstatements, can I suggest that you contact www.truejustice.org (True Justice for Meredith Kercher) and http://perugiamurderfile.org. These are both extremely rational and highly detailed websites which focus on making sure the truth of what happened to Meredith is respected and known. A balancing piece interviewing one of the founders of those sites would give some interesting counterpoints to the misinformation which was put forth in this piece and create the balance that the BBC is rightly famed for. Many thanks.

_________________
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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
I think it refers to expenses, Michael. I am reading it as an award of expenses incurred as a result of this appeal: not as anything to do with the compensation nor with the expenses of any other hearing

Could easily be wrong


Hi Fiona. Ahh, you could be right. I hope so!!! But surely the compensation would also be confirmed in the judgement? So, if you are right, that's missing.

_________________
"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 23, 2009 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
That's because English people don't know how to pronounce Italian names correctly. They can't even pronounce "Sofia Loren" correctly (correct accent is on the first syllable, not the second)! (I watch a lot of Italian TV)

Minimal coverage in Switzerland that I've noticed.

Tom


Well, right back at cha.

Europeans and most Americans don't know how to pronounce "y'all" correctly, either. So there!

fen-)


sur-)
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi requested:
Quote:
Can I suggest that people email Victoria Derbyshire - victoria@bbc.co.uk to ask for a counter-balancing piece to address some of the factual inaccuracies and untruths that were put forth by Edda in that piece. I did:


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sent to BBC today by stint7:

Your recent interview with Ms Mellas was the most objective I have heard .

In contrast to US giants of CNN,CBS, ABC,and NBC you actually posed some non "softball", penetrating, fact seeking questions.
Thank You.

However, your politeness and courtesy to your guest did allow Edda to keep repeating her Marriott managed media mantras, *many* of which not only directly contradict evidence from the trial, but are often ludicrous enough to insult the common intelligence of even a shallowly informed listener.
I will gladly provide examples of these if you wish.

Overall, I, along with I am sure many of the sophisticated, well informed listeners of BBC, would have appreciated even more a few follow up questions from you to some of Edda's more obviously outlandish proclamations, although I can certainly understand the reluctance to do so.

In her almost daily US interviews, her highly paid PR representatives not only prohibit any contrary interviews aired, but often in fact actually script the soft questions that are asked Edda, giving her another endless opportunity to throw out these same well toned 'talking points'.

Your effort was certainly a breath of fresh air.

Again, thanks

Signature block


Last edited by stint7 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline dittany1


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:29 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
On the question of whether I'd have Guede as my neighbour. I think it's a rather pointless question and I don't mean that disrespectfully. I'll explain. Would it make any difference to the answer to that question if Guede had served 16 years? Would it be different if he'd served 26 years? Would it be different if he'd served 36 years or life? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how long he'd served I think few would 'choose' to have him as a neighbour. Does that mean therefore on that basis alone we should lock him up and throw away the key forever or even execute him? I don't think so. There are a lot of people I wouldn't 'choose' have move next door to me, many of whom aren't actually criminals. But that's one of the compromises we have to live with by opting to live in society. The only way around that is to 'opt out' of society by generating enough wealth so we can afford a home with enough land around it so we don't have any neighbours, or move to a remote area or even become hermits. As soon as we choose (or are forced by circumstance) to live amongst others, with neighbours, with society, then we have to tolerate certain things...people we don't like very much moving in next door to us, or walking our street or frequenting our haunts. Other things come with that package, like free speech enabling people to say things that may offend us for example.

On a personal level, I wouldn't 'like' Guede or any of the others to move next to me, but it wouldn't be through fear. I don't believe my safety would be in danger. I really don't think any of them will kill again. Most murderers don't. Others may feel differently. But whatever we 'feel' should not be a deciding factor for how long someone should serve in prison. For someone to be retained in jail through fear for public safety that fear has to be justified by some sort of evidence (the prisoners behaviour in jail for example...are they giving any indications that they are still dangerous?). But that's the point of the system, to evaluate prisoners before they are released. I will give another example. I wouldn't 'choose' to have a neighbour who had previously served two years for burglary either. So what, does that mean they should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives? Executed? And that's not even a silly question...it wasn't 'that' long ago in our past that people would be strung up on the gallows for stealing a loaf of bread or picking a pocket or stealing a horse or sheep.


The reason I asked Fiona that question is because she's female. It was a young woman who Guede, Knox and Sollecito raped and murdered. I also asked the question of the children or member of family, because sometimes when someone thinks they themselves are safe, they will think differently about other people close to them.

You wouldn't be in any physical danger from him, in the same way a woman might be because you're a man. The point is that it's not a hypothetical. At some point someone is going to be a neighbour of these people. If we wouldn't want it for ourselves, why would we inflict it on anybody else, particularly those more vulnerable than ourselves? Prison is there in part to protect the public, that's one of its functions. Sadly at the moment many violent criminals are let out and go on to reoffend again. There have been a number of women killed and raped by men who should never have been let out on the streets because of their previous crimes. Past behaviour is a strong indicator of future behaviour. The judges in this case certainly thought so, which is why the defendants weren't allowed bail, because they thought there was a good chance they'd do it again.

As for them becoming less dangerous with age - I would much rather be living next door to a 60 year old Guede than one in his mid-thirties. I'm not a criminologist, but I think there is a pretty strong link between age and crime. So if keeping them in prison long enough so they stop being a danger to the public is what is required, that's what needs to happen.

Also, I really don't think you can compare these three living next door to someone compared to a burglar living next door to someone. What's the worst that can happen with a burglar? On the other hand it was a "neighbour" that these three targeted - someone they knew. Look what they did to her.
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 23, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

dittany1 wrote:
The reason I asked Fiona that question is because she's female. It was a young woman who Guede, Knox and Sollecito raped and murdered. I also asked the question of the children or member of family, because sometimes when someone thinks they themselves are safe, they will think differently about other people close to them.

You wouldn't be in any physical danger from him, in the same way a woman might be obviously because you're a man.



Maybe. But the main points of my post still apply, regardless of my or anyone's gender. In essence, you can't lock someone up for life or execute them simply on the basis that someone somewhere may be fearful of living next to them. If while in prison the individual presents themselves as being a continuing danger, then that is a different matter, they should remain in jail until such time as that no longer exists. But, in any case, justice cannot be decided on the basis of 'fear'.

Quote:
At some point someone is going to be a neighbour of these people.


This is true. But that fact isn't changed by whether the convicted serve 16 years or 26 years. Whatever the duration, at some point in the future they will be a neighbour to 'someone'. I therefore don't see why that fact should have a bearing on the sentence duration as no matter the duration the fact isn't changed. The only thing that would be changed is the 'when'.

Quote:
As for them becoming less dangerous with age - I would much rather be living next door to a 60 year old Guede than one in his mid-thirties. I'm not a criminologist, but I think there is a pretty strong link between age and crime. So if keeping them in prison long enough so they stop being a danger to the public is what is required, that's what needs to happen.


Indeed. But the purpose of putting people in prison is not with the aim, as an actual defined strategy, to put them in there so long that by the time they are let out they are too old to offend again. It also completely undermines the concept of rehabilitation.

Quote:
many violent criminals are let out and go on to reoffend again. There have been a number of women killed and raped by men who should never have been let out on the streets. Past behaviour is a strong indicator of future behaviour


Maybe this wouldn't happen if the penal system in question had 1) a 'proper' rehabilitation system instead of punishment regime in place and 2) had a proper system in place to 'evaluate' and 'identify' those offenders that continued to present a danger to the public combined with the proper legal powers to retain them in prison until such time as that danger was judged to no longer exist and 3) suitable restrictions and monitoring of their movements and activities in place after their release with a legal mechanism in place where they could quickly be re-jailed should they break those restrictions or display dangerous behaviour.

Quote:
Also, I really don't think you can compare these three living next door to someone compared to a burglar living next door to someone. What's the worst that can happen with a burglar? On the other hand it was a "neighbour" that these three targeted - someone they knew. Look what they did to her.


Well, I'd still really rather not have my house burgled! And I would fear it. And fear is fear.

_________________
"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 piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Here is the judgment from Guede's second degree, as translated by Tiziano:



THE COURT OF THE ASSIZES OF PERUGIA AT A HEARING IN CHAMBERS
HAS PUBLISHED THROUGH A READING OF THE PURVIEW OF THE SENTENCE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT:
WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 443, 605, 599 OF THE CODE OF PENAL PROCEDURE,
IN PARTIAL EMENDATION OF THE JUDGEMENT HANDED DOWN ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2008,
BY THE GUP OF THE LAW COURT OF PERUGIA, IN THE MATTER OF RUDY HERMANN GUEDE,
APPEALED AGAINST BY THE FORMER, PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED THE REDUCTION OF GENERAL
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, EQUIVALENT TO THE CONTESTED AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, REDUCES THE SENTENCE OF THE APPELLANT TO 16 YEARS
INCARCERATION.
(key phrase):
IT CONFIRMS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTESTED SENTENCE.
IT CONDEMNS THE
THE APPELLANT TO PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF THE DEFENCE OF THE CIVIL
COMPLAINANT ALDALIA TATTANELLI , WHICH IT LIQUIDATES IN TOTAL AS 1,500 EUROS;
OF THOSE OF THE CIVIL COMPLAINANTS JOHN LESLIE KERCHER, ARLINE CAROL KERCHER,
JOHN ASHLEY KERCHER, LYLE KERCHER, WHICH IT LIQUIDATES IN TOTAL AS 8,000 EUROS
EACH, AS WELL AS THAT OF THE DEFENCE OF STEPHANIE ARLINE KERCHER, WHICH IT LIQUIDATES IN TOTAL
AS 5000 EUROS.

IT ASSIGNS THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AS THE LIMIT FOR THE LODGING OF THE MOTIVATIONS
FOR THIS JUDGEMENT.








To comment on the judgement. It appears the compensation for the Kerchers has been reduced to a paltry 8,000 euros each. And for reasons I don't understand, Stephanie Kercher seems to have been awarded only 5,000 euros. This also now means by default, on appeal Amanda and Raffaele's compensation sentence will be reduced to the same figure. Now I'm perplexed.


Go to the bottom of the Micheli Report on Guede and you will find this:

CONDANNA
G. R. H.

- al risarcimento dei danni subiti dalla parte civile costituita T. A., da liquidarsi in separato giudizio, nonché al pagamento delle relative spese processuali, che liquida in € 2.800,00 per onorari e spese documentate, oltre a spese generali, IVA ed accessori;

- al risarcimento dei danni subiti dalle parti civili costituite K. J. L., A. K. C. M., K. J. A., K. L., che liquida in via equitativa nella misura di € 2.000.000,00 ciascuno per K. J. L. e A. K. C. M., e nella misura di € 1.500.000,00 ciascuno per K. J. A. e K. L., nonché al pagamento delle relative spese processuali, che liquida complessivamente in € 30.000,00 per onorari, oltre a spese generali, IVA ed accessori;

- al risarcimento dei danni subiti dalla parte civile costituita K. S. A. L., che liquida in via equitativa nella misura di € 1.500.000,00, nonché al pagamento delle relative spese processuali, che liquida in € 18.000,00 per onorari, oltre a spese generali, IVA ed accessori;

visti gli artt. 442, 530 comma 2 c.p.p.

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

google translation:

CONVICTION
G. R. H.

- Compensation for damage suffered by the plaintiff constituted T. A., to be settled in a separate court, and the payment of related costs, which liquid € 2800.00 for fees and expenses documented, as well as overheads, VAT and accessories;

- Compensation for damage suffered by the plaintiffs constituted K. J. L. A. K. C. M. K. J. A. K. L., to clear in the discretion of the extent of € 2,000,000.00 each for K. J. L. and A. K. C. M., and the extent of € 1,500,000.00 each for K. J. A. and K. L., and payment of related costs, which overall liquidity in € 30,000.00 for fees, as well as overheads, VAT and accessories;

- Compensation for damage suffered by the plaintiff constituted K. S. A. L., to clear in the discretion of the extent of € 1,500,000.00 and to pay related costs, that clears € 18,000.00 in respect of fees, plus overhead costs, VAT and accessories;
Popular Articles. 442, 530 paragraph 2 c.p.p.

I hope this helps :?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

About the BBC interview:

I have come to expect Edda Mellas to tell the same old lies (no evidence! no cartwheels!) over and over again, but her insinuation that the Kerchers don't know anything and that they have somehow allowed an innocent person to go to prison is just too much to bear. I followed the discussion here about Edda and her tears in silence, because it is a delicate subject that always leads to disagreement.

But what kind of person -- mother, father, human being -- would stoop this low? Was she hoping the Kerchers were listening or not caring if they were?

You can play fast and loose with the facts, and tell outright lies, but the truth will catch up with you eventually. Has Edda simply forgotten that the Kerchers had a lawyer representing them in the courtroom and keeping them briefed? Has she forgotten that they had access to the same case materials she has seen? Has she forgotten that, based on these briefings and the case material, they publicly expressed their satisfaction at the verdict that was reached? Or does she simply tune out whatever information is not convenient?

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

Offline malcolm


Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am

Posts: 239

Location: Tokyo, Japan

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Beans wrote: "If the figure 1.79 meters for Rudy's height is correct, that would make him approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall, not the super tall guy that some have implied."

If my memory is correct, Rudy is 1.80m, which would make him about 6 feet tall. He is very thin, which possibly makes him seem taller. He is often described as "tall and thin", but that is pretty meaningless when you think about it. Amanda Knox is "short", but what does that mean?

If Guede is 6 feet tall, then I would consider him to be "above average" in height, but not tall. And certainly not tall for a basketball player. I also seem to remember he was a point guard.

180 cm would be 5' 11". I'm 181 cm, but that is still under 5' 11 1/2". I also recall he was a point guard, which he would have to be since he is too short for any other position (think Allen Iverson). He's taller than average (at least, in Italy or America), but not exceptional. His feet are also around my size, too (28 cm, size 11 US); I guess we could share clothes.


Last edited by malcolm on Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I think Michael's right on this one. If you felt intimidated by the proximity of a released Rudy Guede you'd either move or learn to live with it- you can't control the world beyond your front gate. I have knowingly let a convicted killer into my house -he'd killed his girlfriend in a jealous rage (not sure if he got murder or manslaughter; this was years before I knew him) then found God in prison. It was a while before I learned his backstory and I was surprised by how little it affected my attitude towards him. Guede is actually the one of the three I'd be least concerned to live near.
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 23, 2009 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Piktor wrote:
Go to the bottom of the Micheli Report on Guede and you will find this:


Thanks Piktor. But that judgement is meaningless unless the appeal judge has upheld Micheli's compensation ruling. Remember, only the rulings from the appeal now apply, not the rulings from Guede's first degree, those have all been wiped. We therefore need confirmation of the ruling on the compensation.

_________________
"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 23, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Jester wrote:

I was just looking for Bremner's comment where she said she was a friend of the Knox family through their neighbour the judge, and the cartwheels were nothing more than the antics of a "restless teenager". Are the Knox/Mellas spouses deep sixing Bremner after her somewhat intoxicated appearance a couple of weeks ago ... where she was saying "I'm a lawyur" but "I can't go to Italy because I have to work, and I might get arrested" and "I'm a lawyar", eh.


In the previously linked BBC interview, Edda is very careful to say that others with who she is not affiliated have kindly set up pro-Amanda websites. I've noticed this in most interviews she does.

I don't understand why Edda wants to distance herself from them. She stuff anyway. For example, Edda says very clearly the polices hit Amanda quite a bit.

Where's Curt?


Sure, the family is trying to play both sides of the coin, double edged sword ... they want the websites to continue doing what they've done, but they want it to appear as though Amanda has nothing to do with it. Deception.


As Kermit's latest ppt demonstrates, the Amanda Defense Fund website and the FOA website were set up with the same host on the same day. As I pointed out here several days ago, when a donation is made to the defense fund, which accepts paypal, the email address given in the transaction details is Christina Hagge. She is Edda Mellas's sister -- both were born with the name Huff.

Anne Bremner is a friend of Mike Heavey, who lives in Arbor Heights, which is the neighborhood where both the Knox and Mellas families live. Tom Wright, one of the main and most active members of the FOA and a filmmaker, is the father of Sarah Wright, who was a classmate of Amanda Knox's at Seattle Prep. I have talked to at least two parents with kids at Seattle Prep who have gotten their information about this case from the FOA press kit, and who not surprisingly talk about Mignini as if he were some kind of devil.

The decision to establish an apparent distance between the websites and recruitment efforts and the family was a deliberate one. Indeed, as Bremner herself has said, the local support group can say things the family is not allowed to say or things that could adversely impact the Knox/Mellas brand image if associated with one of them.

Marriott promises to achieve results no matter what it takes. He makes campaign donations to various politicians (good business practice, right?), knows when to collect payback, and knows how to market and sell a product (the innocence product) to the media. His outstanding bill must be enormous by now. He has no chance of being paid unless someone in the family hits the jackpot with a huge book deal or two. Another option would be for him to write a book for PR professionals. He could call it Making a Killing. What? That title is already taken? Never mind. We'll get our best people on the task of finding something really catchy.

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Piktor wrote:
Go to the bottom of the Micheli Report on Guede and you will find this:


Thanks Piktor. But that judgement is meaningless unless the appeal judge has upheld Micheli's compensation ruling. Remember, only the rulings from the appeal now apply, not the rulings from Guede's first degree, those have all been wiped. We therefore need confirmation of the ruling on the compensation.


The appeal judge writes "IT CONFIRMS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTESTED SENTENCE."

Wouldn't "the rest of the contested sentence" be the Micheli contested sentence?

Before that phrase, the appeal judge writes:

THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT:
WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 443, 605, 599 OF THE CODE OF PENAL PROCEDURE,
IN PARTIAL EMENDATION OF THE JUDGEMENT HANDED DOWN ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2008

"Partial amendation" means the rest of the judgement stands...no?

Where's Yummi when we need him! p-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
About the BBC interview:

I have come to expect Edda Mellas to tell the same old lies (no evidence! no cartwheels!) over and over again, but her insinuation that the Kerchers don't know anything and that they have somehow allowed an innocent person to go to prison is just too much to bear. I followed the discussion here about Edda and her tears in silence, because it is a delicate subject that always leads to disagreement.

But what kind of person -- mother, father, human being -- would stoop this low? Was she hoping the Kerchers were listening or not caring if they were?

You can play fast and loose with the facts, and tell outright lies, but the truth will catch up with you eventually. Has Edda simply forgotten that the Kerchers had a lawyer representing them in the courtroom and keeping them briefed? Has she forgotten that they had access to the same case materials she has seen? Has she forgotten that, based on these briefings and the case material, they publicly expressed their satisfaction at the verdict that was reached? Or does she simply tune out whatever information is not convenient?


Aswell as all the delusion and aswell as all the total denial, the attitude of Edda Mellas stinks, basically.
She is showing the world what a nasty piece of work she actually is.
I mentioned earlier that when the presenter brought the Kercher family into the interview, her initial response was to say "I don't want to judge people".
I'm sorry?
Was she being asked to judge the Kerchers?
Does this mean she regards the Kerchers are to be judged as if they are at fault of something here?
The answer to this question is yes (in her mind). The Kerchers are at fault for her poor daughters plight.
It is actually jawdropping and yet another attack on the family of the victim from this woman.
The Amanda the victim scenario is still very much alive in Mellas land.
She does tune out whenever indisputable facts or inconvenient information is made apparent - it is classic behaviour of someone living in denial.
I have said from day one - in my opinion Edda Mellas is responsible and indeed the driving force behind ALL the lies, misinformation and spin we hear and see in the media.
They may have hired the Marriot PR company but I would bet my last penny that they are just being used as a vehicle under the direction of Edda Mellas.
Only Edda Mellas knows what her daughter said to her in the first phonecall that morning, the one her daughter testified at her trial as not being able to remember making.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DF2K wrote:
"I mentioned earlier that when the presenter brought the Kercher family into the interview, her initial response was to say "I don't want to judge people".
I'm sorry?
Was she being asked to judge the Kerchers?"

She certainly lost no time in passing judgement on them, did she? Faulting them for not being in the courtroom and for being satisfied with the judgement against Knox, Guede and Sollecito. Her attitude toward this family is despicable. In return, their attitude toward the three people convicted of torturing and murdering their daughter has been one of compassion and restraint. They are inspiring people.

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

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Essentially this entire Knox/Mellas fiasco has now degenerated into two seperate scenarios. The European version involves something vaguely close to the truth where whilst proclaiming her innocence (as many recently found guilty tend to) AK is also stating that the trial was fair and she has nothing to complain about other than the outcome.

The 'other' version is a considerably cynical beast which revolves around many hangers on(Preston/Marriott/Bremner/Dempsey) plus the Knox/Mellas clan rubbishing everything to do with the trial/judges/prosecutors/Italian Police/court cat etc in an attempt to either make money for themselves/pay debts/scream blue murder/whinge or just be obnoxious.
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 23, 2009 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Piktor wrote:
"Partial amendation" means the rest of the judgement stands...no?


Well, I would hope it does.

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


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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
About the BBC interview:

I have come to expect Edda Mellas to tell the same old lies (no evidence! no cartwheels!) over and over again, but her insinuation that the Kerchers don't know anything and that they have somehow allowed an innocent person to go to prison is just too much to bear. I followed the discussion here about Edda and her tears in silence, because it is a delicate subject that always leads to disagreement.

But what kind of person -- mother, father, human being -- would stoop this low? Was she hoping the Kerchers were listening or not caring if they were?

You can play fast and loose with the facts, and tell outright lies, but the truth will catch up with you eventually. Has Edda simply forgotten that the Kerchers had a lawyer representing them in the courtroom and keeping them briefed? Has she forgotten that they had access to the same case materials she has seen? Has she forgotten that, based on these briefings and the case material, they publicly expressed their satisfaction at the verdict that was reached? Or does she simply tune out whatever information is not convenient?


Aswell as all the delusion and aswell as all the total denial, the attitude of Edda Mellas stinks, basically.
She is showing the world what a nasty piece of work she actually is.
I mentioned earlier that when the presenter brought the Kercher family into the interview, her initial response was to say "I don't want to judge people".
I'm sorry?
Was she being asked to judge the Kerchers?
Does this mean she regards the Kerchers are to be judged as if they are at fault of something here?
The answer to this question is yes (in her mind). The Kerchers are at fault for her poor daughters plight.
It is actually jawdropping and yet another attack on the family of the victim from this woman.
The Amanda the victim scenario is still very much alive in Mellas land.
She does tune out whenever indisputable facts or inconvenient information is made apparent - it is classic behaviour of someone living in denial.
I have said from day one - in my opinion Edda Mellas is responsible and indeed the driving force behind ALL the lies, misinformation and spin we hear and see in the media.
They may have hired the Marriot PR company but I would bet my last penny that they are just being used as a vehicle under the direction of Edda Mellas.
Only Edda Mellas knows what her daughter said to her in the first phonecall that morning, the one her daughter testified at her trial as not being able to remember making.



I am starting to feel sorry for Amanda to have parents like hers. If she's clever she'll take therapy while being in jail. Or is this required somehow as part of the rehabilitation, does anyone know?


Last edited by Ava on Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Michael wrote:
Piktor wrote:
Go to the bottom of the Micheli Report on Guede and you will find this:


Thanks Piktor. But that judgement is meaningless unless the appeal judge has upheld Micheli's compensation ruling. Remember, only the rulings from the appeal now apply, not the rulings from Guede's first degree, those have all been wiped. We therefore need confirmation of the ruling on the compensation.


The appeal judge writes "IT CONFIRMS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTESTED SENTENCE."

Wouldn't "the rest of the contested sentence" be the Micheli contested sentence?

Before that phrase, the appeal judge writes:

THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT:
WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 443, 605, 599 OF THE CODE OF PENAL PROCEDURE,
IN PARTIAL EMENDATION OF THE JUDGEMENT HANDED DOWN ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2008

"Partial amendation" means the rest of the judgement stands...no?


The dispositivo clearly states that everything stands as per the previous sentence, except for the application of the mitigating circumstances. I understand that the English version may be a bit confusing, but the Italian text is very clear.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Nicki wrote:
The dispositivo clearly states that everything stands as per the previous sentence, except for the application of the mitigating circumstances. I understand that the English version may be a bit confusing, but the Italian text is very clear.


Thanks Nicki. I am relieved :)

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


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
You can play fast and loose with the facts, and tell outright lies, but the truth will catch up with you eventually. Has Edda simply forgotten that the Kerchers had a lawyer representing them in the courtroom and keeping them briefed? Has she forgotten that they had access to the same case materials she has seen? Has she forgotten that, based on these briefings and the case material, they publicly expressed their satisfaction at the verdict that was reached? Or does she simply tune out whatever information is not convenient?


I'm sure she hasn't forgotten that or the comments Mrs Kercher made a few days later about Amanda's "excesses"; I'm guessing that is partly why she is coming closer to criticising them. I'm not sure she has no feeling for them at all but clearly thinks they should be satisfied with Guede in the slammer.

It's pretty sad really. I'm sure the Kerchers themselves had initial doubts that Meredith could have been killed by her eccentric flatmate but they've engaged with the evidence whereas Edda just runs away from it.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael,

I wuz right!!! co-)

Thanks, Nicki. ;)
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 23, 2009 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Michael,

I wuz right!!! co-)

Thanks, Nicki. ;)


Yes you were :)

_________________
"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 Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Happy B-Day, Mike and Anne!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I have said from day one - in my opinion Edda Mellas is responsible and indeed the driving force behind ALL the lies, misinformation and spin we hear and see in the media.
They may have hired the Marriot PR company but I would bet my last penny that they are just being used as a vehicle under the direction of Edda Mellas.
Only Edda Mellas knows what her daughter said to her in the first phonecall that morning, the one her daughter testified at her trial as not being able to remember making.


If Edda has not been successful in buying Amanda's freedom through gross manipulation media reporting, she has succeeded in creating a nice little cottage industry for her family handling donations, gifts, and letters of support for Amanda. But continued success for the business, or "cult" perhaps, depends on the continual spreading of "the word" and Edda has appointed herself as spokesperson and high-priestess for the effort. Grandma, cousin, siblings and auntie are all depending on her to keep the ball rolling. Amanda being found guilty is not that relevant and actually important to the cause of martyrdom. With any luck, Marriott will be successful in helping Edda keep the effort alive and in the black for at least a couple of years.
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
piktor wrote:
BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will be available for six more days)


Very interesting. the longer Edda Mellas speaks the loonier she sounds. The interviewer told EM the phone calls and e-mails received during the interview were overwhelmingly negative about allowing the Mother of the murder so much air time. EM assured the interviewer the sites set up by people insupport of the Family were only receiving positive replies. Duh!


What infuriates me about these interviews w/Edda is that she is mostly allowed to spew her bile unchallenged. I understand that not every journalist will have followed the case as closely as we have, but it's as if the only preparation done is to read the FOA-talking points and maybe ask ONE slightly probing question for which she already has a canned answer.

WHY does no one ask about the LYING Amanda did right at the very start of the case-- LONG before she ever spoke to a policeman? She LIED to Filomena about having called the police and she LIED again in her email to friends/family. She NEVER called the police and Rafaelle only did AFTER they were already there.

WHY does no one ask about the fact that only ONE of Amanda's fingerprints was found in the WHOLE HOUSE, including her room? WHO does she think cleaned the whole house?

WHY does no one ask about the story Rafaelle gives about 'pricking' Meredith when they were 'cooking'? If the double-DNA knife isn't significant, WHY did he come out with this story? Dis Edda ask Amanda about this supposed meal?

I knew listening to Edda repeat her lies would make me angry, but I'm starting to get really irritated with the journalists who never make the effort to come up with some valid questions for the convicted murderer's mother.
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Let us assume that there are ten different culpability codes 1-10, corresponding to prison time 21-30 years (let us ignore life sentence for simplicity). Let us assume that the probability of being sentenced to any of the culpability codes is an even distribution. Let us assume that none of the defendants committed a crime outside the legal scope of the above culpability codes, that no sentence reduction is associated with telling the truth as such (no deals) and that the defendants only incentive is to minimize prison time.

Any defendant that is guilty of a crime corresponding to a culpability code of 6 or above will not confess since that means he/she will get 26 years or more, while the expected prison time of lying is 25.5 years, even if the probability of being acquitted is estimated to be 0%.

If a defendant is guilty of a crime corresponding to a culpability code of 5 or less, he/she will confess only if his/her culpability code is low enough and/or the estimated probability of being acquitted is low enough.

If Guede, say, is guilty of a crime corresponding to culpability code 3, that means he will get 23 years of prison time if he tells the truth. If he believes there is a 25% chance of being acquitted, the expected prison time of lying is 19.125 years; therefore he will not tell the truth. In fact, he must believe that the probability of being acquitted is less than 10% in order to tell the truth.

This is assuming the last round of appeals and that both prosecution and defense appeal. If only the defense appeals, it means that Guede’s expected prison time of lying is 22.5 even if he estimates the probability of being acquitted to be 0%; hence he will not confess.

In real life, the situation is of course a lot more complex. People tend to be risk averse, moved by social expectations, act impulsively etc. But what this thought experiment tells me is that, given the Italian penal code, the defendants’ likely culpability and current sentences, there is, from a rational point of view, a very low likelihood that any of the defendants will crack the silence.

Perhaps sentence reduction for confessions (deals) is a good thing. Personally, I imagine that peace of mind for those affected by the crime comes partly from having the case settled and closed and, in this case, not having to deal with the Knox family victimizing themselves and Amanda until hell freezes over.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chives


Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:02 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Why don't the BBC-reporters ask THe Kerschers how closely they followed the trial? They seem to be very bright: the father is a journalist and the brother said that all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele wasn't even presented at the trial. I bet they have read all the 10000 pages of evidence!
Edda's attitude is somewhat condescending towards them besides being odious.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Can I suggest that people email Victoria Derbyshire - victoria@bbc.co.uk to ask for a counter-balancing piece to address some of the factual inaccuracies and untruths that were put forth by Edda in that piece. I did:


Excerpt (having first complimented on interviewer's tone etc) : There is a huge worldwide campaign of misinformation and media briefing being run by the Knoxs to try to create the appearance of a miscarriage of justice. I was uncomfortable to hear some of those untruths being put forward on the BBC. For balance and to counter some of these factual and deliberate misstatements, can I suggest that you contact http://www.truejustice.org (True Justice for Meredith Kercher) and http://perugiamurderfile.org. These are both extremely rational and highly detailed websites which focus on making sure the truth of what happened to Meredith is respected and known. A balancing piece interviewing one of the founders of those sites would give some interesting counterpoints to the misinformation which was put forth in this piece and create the balance that the BBC is rightly famed for. Many thanks.


Excellent suggestion SA. After forcing myself to listen to the interview last night, I too felt compelled to write to Ms Derbyshire. I think it is a good idea for all of us to keep up with our letter writing in response to the lies being propagated by the family and their pr machine. It takes little effort on our part to email someone and perhaps pass along links. I know that many people have expressed a willingness to contribute something for the Kerchers. I think that this effort (following up with journalists, etc) is as important if not more so than sending a check for a memorial. I'd like to thank everyone who provides links for articles or interviews because I typically follow up with an email if I feel that the truth has been swept to the side or completely obliterated by someone like Edda.

Happy Holidays to all of you and I wish you all a wonderful new year!
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 23, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

chives wrote:
Why don't the BBC-reporters ask THe Kerschers how closely they followed the trial? They seem to be very bright: the father is a journalist and the brother said that all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele wasn't even presented at the trial. I bet they have read all the 10000 pages of evidence!
Edda's attitude is somewhat condescending towards them besides being odious.


Thanks for reminding me of that. Because in fact it's the Kerchers who Candace Dempsey is calling liars. This from the Cook's main post:

Candace Dempsey wrote:
A new round of fake Amanda Knox stories flooded the press shortly after the verdict in the Amanda Knox/Raffaele trial of the century. Once the former lovers were convicted of murder and sexual assault, we heard that Amanda thought her trial was "fair," that she'd written a new story about a drug-fueled sex game (shades of the prosecution theory), and most amusingly, that the public didn't hear all of the prosecution case.



THE SMOG

Well, the ONLY source for the public not hearing all the prosecution case is the Kerchers from their press conference. Therefore, it is the Kerchers whom Candace is in fact calling liars and 'amusing'.

It would also appear Candace has 'accidentally' forgotten that in addition, some of the hearings during the prosecution phase of the trial were held behind closed doors, due to an accepted request by the Kerchers. So that data and the arguments that went with them wasn't public either. And incidentally, the closed hearing days also makes a mockery of Candace's claim that her precious Frank Sfarzo was in the court room for every single hearing day of the trial.

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


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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Family prepares to spend Christmas without Amanda Knox

KING5

(My only question is...is there any chance 'we' can spend Christmas without the Knox family? Why don't the media just give them their own column and have done with?!)

Maybe they could just give them their own reality TV show and be done with it. LOL.

Although it's not funny. A beautiful young girl's life has been cut short, and as Vincent Bugliosi might say, even now, because of Knox, Sollecito, and Guede "a precious human being is decomposing in her grave."

As Bugliosi might further say, these folks have "elevated audacity to symphonic and operatic levels."

I sure wish some of the outrage that met OJ Simpson after his trial would rub off onto the Knox/Mellas Merry (Morbid) Band.

I could barely listen to the latest Edda "interview" -- an "interview" in name only because they never seem to ask probing questions, they just accept her prefabricated lies. I think Edda's lies have reached their "sell-by date," as Skep would say, and my patience for even listening to her has come to an end.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Bea wrote:
Emerald wrote:
piktor wrote:
BBC Radio5 interview with Edda Mellas:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

(will not be available after Dec. 27)


Very interesting. the longer Edda Mellas speaks the loonier she sounds. The interviewer told EM the phone calls and e-mails received during the interview were overwhelmingly negative about allowing the Mother of the murder so much air time. EM assured the interviewer the sites set up by people insupport of the Family were only receiving positive replies. Duh!


What infuriates me about these interviews w/Edda is that she is mostly allowed to spew her bile unchallenged. I understand that not every journalist will have followed the case as closely as we have, but it's as if the only preparation done is to read the FOA-talking points and maybe ask ONE slightly probing question for which she already has a canned answer.

WHY does no one ask about the LYING Amanda did right at the very start of the case-- LONG before she ever spoke to a policeman? She LIED to Filomena about having called the police and she LIED again in her email to friends/family. She NEVER called the police and Rafaelle only did AFTER they were already there.

WHY does no one ask about the fact that only ONE of Amanda's fingerprints was found in the WHOLE HOUSE, including her room? WHO does she think cleaned the whole house?

WHY does no one ask about the story Rafaelle gives about 'pricking' Meredith when they were 'cooking'? If the double-DNA knife isn't significant, WHY did he come out with this story? Dis Edda ask Amanda about this supposed meal?

I knew listening to Edda repeat her lies would make me angry, but I'm starting to get really irritated with the journalists who never make the effort to come up with some valid questions for the convicted murderer's mother.


*Edited to set the date for interview 'expiration date'.*
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 23, 2009 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

A warm welcome to all our new posters and members!!!

I also want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas!!!






















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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Bea wrote:
WHY does no one ask about the story Rafaelle gives about 'pricking' Meredith when they were 'cooking'? If the double-DNA knife isn't significant, WHY did he come out with this story? Dis Edda ask Amanda about this supposed meal?


Hi Bea,

Raffaele Sollecito told this story on two separate occasions. He clearly knew that Meredith's DNA was on the blade.

Amanda Knox told her mother she was concerned about the knife found at Sollecito's apartment. Edda Mellas told her not to worry about it. Any responsible parent would have been seriously concerned about the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade and would not dismiss it so glibly.

It's very telling that Edda Mellas didn't tell Amanda Knox to tell the truth, but to revert to her original story about being at Sollecito's apartment. It seems Edda is prepared to whatever do it takes to secure Amanda Knox's release from prison: hire two expensive lawyers and PR firm, lie repeatedly to the media, encourage her daughter to tell the most convenient story as opposed to the truth and bully and attempt to silence journalists who don't toe the official FOA party line.

I'm led to believe that Edda Mellas, like her husband, has a vicious temper. I wonder if Amanda Knox grew up believing it was acceptable to fly into blind rage. What other unsavory behaviour did Edda and Chris Mellas model whilst bringing up their daughters?
Top Profile 

Offline amatsleuth


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:03 pm

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

To those of you who keep expressing frustration and disbelief at the Knox family's behavior...what is is that you expect to change going forward? Do you expect Amanda or her mother to change their stripes at this point? To recognize their shortcomings or "see the light?" To demonstrate sincere rather than feigned empathy to others outside their own family?

You can't do a make-over on these people's personalities after a lifetime of whatever family pathology has been at work. Moreover, people like Amanda do not WANT to change. They restlessly seek new situations where they can continue to manipulate others for self-gratification.

My prediction is that Amanda will announce that she wants to spend her prison time studying so that when she is freed, she can become a psychiatrist or lawyer. I'd be willing to bet on it.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
piktor wrote:
Listen to Edda Mellas interview on Dec. 22 to BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfl4g#p005qbqm

Mella's blithe disregard for the investigation and passing remarks on Meredith's family is interesting to hear.


No surprise here.
Mellas is totally delusional and living in total denial.
She also lied through her teeth, I must have missed all the 'lovely' things about Amanda Knox that people testified in court.
Perhaps she was referring to Madison Paxton or Amanda's auntie or someone.

I thought it quite telling regarding what Mellas thinks of the Kerchers when asked by the interviewer - "I don't want to judge people" Mellas says.
She obviously looks down on the Kercher family with disdain because they too believe her perfect daughter is guilty of their daughters murder and they don't buy into the PR spin or defence argument - they believe the prosecution - "What did they tell them?"
A thoroughly odious woman.

Just reading this last line of yours, DF2K, I just had a thought as to what that great observer of human beings, especially female, Miss Jane Austen, would have done with Edda Mellas.

I am not creative enough (or at least I don't feel so right at the moment) to come up with some exemplar dialog.
Top Profile 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thanks for the dialogue Fiona. It has been an interesting read this morning.

The exchange between Michael and dittany1, you both make really good points regarding your own perspectives.

I don't know if this was a rhetorical question, but Fiona asks: "Let me put it back to you the other way. If one of your children got to know and love one of these three people what would you do? Would you shut the door on your child if they would not end the relationship? I think not."

I know exactly what I would do. First, I would have very, very long and extensive conversations with my child. And if in the end, the partner would still deny his/her involvement in the murder, I would make it really clear that my child was welcome in our home but her partner was not. However, this would never happen because I have taught both of my children to uphold the truth and to value it and they live their lives like this.

However, on the other hand, if the murderer climbed out of their cage of self-denial, looked at themselves in the mirror, expressed truth, became rehabilitated to the point of understanding the ramifications of their actions, expressed sincere remorse to the family of the victim, did everything in their life they could to "correct" the pain and suffering their actions have caused - then and only then, would I have a sit down and ask my own questions, get to know this person and be open to the possibility of accepting this person in my child's life.

In answer to your previous post, yes, I mean punishment as a means to an end. However, for some people, I believe punishment can help illicit truth.

While people can change, (and I agree with the person who said they don't believe these 3 would kill again), I have zero belief that any of these 3 will be rehabilitated. I define rehabilitation as learning, growing, and becoming a better person.

A precious life has been taken, and as I see it, NOTHING positive has come from this whole thing. I vaguely remember (and I don't want to put words in the Kercher family's mouths) that the Kercher's hoped the murderers would find God or something like that (through their lawyer's statement).

With so much energy going into denial by all 3 (in cahoots to boot), with the small AK army in the US, and the Sollecito clan, it would be near impossible for either of these 3 to become rehabilitated.

I had a glimmer of hope with RG.

Time will tell. I guess miracles can happen.
Top Profile 

Offline Del


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
On the question of whether I'd have Guede as my neighbour. I think it's a rather pointless question and I don't mean that disrespectfully. I'll explain. Would it make any difference to the answer to that question if Guede had served 16 years? Would it be different if he'd served 26 years? Would it be different if he'd served 36 years or life? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how long he'd served I think few would 'choose' to have him as a neighbour. Does that mean therefore on that basis alone we should lock him up and throw away the key forever or even execute him? I don't think so. There are a lot of people I wouldn't 'choose' have move next door to me, many of whom aren't actually criminals. But that's one of the compromises we have to live with by opting to live in society. The only way around that is to 'opt out' of society by generating enough wealth so we can afford a home with enough land around it so we don't have any neighbours, or move to a remote area or even become hermits. As soon as we choose (or are forced by circumstance) to live amongst others, with neighbours, with society, then we have to tolerate certain things...people we don't like very much moving in next door to us, or walking our street or frequenting our haunts. Other things come with that package, like free speech enabling people to say things that may offend us for example.

On a personal level, I wouldn't 'like' Guede or any of the others to move next to me, but it wouldn't be through fear. I don't believe my safety would be in danger. I really don't think any of them will kill again. Most murderers don't. Others may feel differently. But whatever we 'feel' should not be a deciding factor for how long someone should serve in prison. For someone to be retained in jail through fear for public safety that fear has to be justified by some sort of evidence (the prisoners behaviour in jail for example...are they giving any indications that they are still dangerous?). But that's the point of the system, to evaluate prisoners before they are released. I will give another example. I wouldn't 'choose' to have a neighbour who had previously served two years for burglary either. So what, does that mean they should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives? Executed? And that's not even a silly question...it wasn't 'that' long ago in our past that people would be strung up on the gallows for stealing a loaf of bread or picking a pocket or stealing a horse or sheep.

But essentially, what I'm saying is the question of 'would I choose to have him live next to me' is not and should not be a factor in either my view or the state's view of how long he should serve.

And on the whole matter of justice. It's a balancing act that must take into account the requirements of the crime, the victims, the state, the public and the convicted. It can therefore only ever be a 'compromise' and the nature of compromise is that 'nobody' gets everything they want. And as members of society we have to compromise almost every day, so we should be well used to it. If we can't tolerate that anymore, then we should opt out of society. But the one thing we can't opt out of is humanity.


If you weren't afraid of Rudy as a neighbor then why would you mind him being your neighbor? You can even have your daughter date him, after all nothing to fear here. He's served his time so there is nothing to fear.

Of course you would fear him! Don't kid yourself! However you would hope there would be a big difference between a 30 year old Guede and a 40 year old and even if there wasn't at least that was ten more years people were safe. I see Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda as inevitably cruel people. If it wasn't Meredith there would have been other people who would have suffered under their wrath. I believe this because of the wounds on Meredith and the way these people acted after the murder. They didn't care. Eventually they will act on this cruelty and disregard for others given enough time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

amatsleuth wrote:

My prediction is that Amanda will announce that she wants to spend her prison time studying so that when she is freed, she can become a psychiatrist or lawyer. I'd be willing to bet on it.



Yes, a psychiatrist or lawyer to help those falsely accused and unfairly imprisoned.

posting.php?mode=edit&f=1&p=29130# (I can't seem to get the puke emote icon on here)
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 23, 2009 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
If you weren't afraid of Rudy as a neighbor then why would you mind him being your neighbor? You can even have your daughter date him, after all nothing to fear here. He's served his time so there is nothing to fear.


'Fear' in not the only reason for not wanting someone as a neighbour. I wouldn't 'like' or 'choose' to have him as my neighbour, but I wouldn't be concerned if he was.

Quote:
Of course you would fear him! Don't kid yourself! However you would hope there would be a big difference between a 30 year old Guede and a 40 year old and even if there wasn't at least that was ten more years people were safe. I see Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda as inevitably cruel people. If it wasn't Meredith there would have been other people who would have suffered under their wrath. I believe this because of the wounds on Meredith and the way these people acted after the murder. They didn't care. Eventually they will act on this cruelty and disregard for others given enough time.


I wouldn't be afraid of him. Besides being able to handle myself, I really don't think he would present a danger. In any case, the argument you are offering here (murderers should be put in prison until they're old) is a general universal argument since it applies to all murderers in all legal systems in the World and that's a subject that's beyond the remit of this forum. The real question is, is it justice in the context of the Italian legal system (in comparison to other murderers who have committed similar crimes in Italy) and is it justice for the Kerchers and is it actually justice for Rudy?

_________________
"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 23, 2009 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Bea wrote:
WHY does no one ask about the story Rafaelle gives about 'pricking' Meredith when they were 'cooking'? If the double-DNA knife isn't significant, WHY did he come out with this story? Dis Edda ask Amanda about this supposed meal?


Hi Bea,

Raffaele Sollecito told this story on two separate occasions. He clearly knew that Meredith's DNA was on the blade.

Amanda Knox told her mother she was concerned about the knife found at Sollecito's apartment. Edda Mellas told her not to worry about it. Any responsible parent would have been seriously concerned about the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade and would not dismiss it so glibly.

It's very telling that Edda Mellas didn't tell Amanda Knox to tell the truth, but to revert to her original story about being at Sollecito's apartment. It seems Edda is prepared to whatever do it takes to secure Amanda Knox's release from prison: hire two expensive lawyers and PR firm, lie repeatedly to the media, encourage her daughter to tell the most convenient story as opposed to the truth and bully and attempt to silence journalists who don't toe the official FOA party line.

I'm led to believe that Edda Mellas, like her husband, has a vicious temper. I wonder if Amanda Knox grew up believing it was acceptable to fly into blind rage. What other unsavory behaviour did Edda and Chris Mellas model whilst bringing up their daughters?


Is it possible that this whole PR campaign effort can be construed as 'perverting the course of justice' ?

Surely they cannot continue to do what they're doing with impunity?

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

amatsleuth wrote:
To those of you who keep expressing frustration and disbelief at the Knox family's behavior...what is is that you expect to change going forward? Do you expect Amanda or her mother to change their stripes at this point? To recognize their shortcomings or "see the light?" To demonstrate sincere rather than feigned empathy to others outside their own family?

You can't do a make-over on these people's personalities after a lifetime of whatever family pathology has been at work. Moreover, people like Amanda do not WANT to change. They restlessly seek new situations where they can continue to manipulate others for self-gratification.

My prediction is that Amanda will announce that she wants to spend her prison time studying so that when she is freed, she can become a psychiatrist or lawyer. I'd be willing to bet on it.


You are absolutely right, of course.
As for what Knox will become, only time will tell.

In the meantime, button at the eclectic chapbook blog has another interesting post on the latest development. Speaking of change or lack thereof, I doubt Candace or Frank will ever change. They will remain the narcissistic yet dull people they have always been. Maybe the best solution is to ignore them, like everyone else seems to have. I don't know how many of you read button. She comments on this case and provides links, but she is also interested in other things. She isn't so vain that she requires fans to leave comments; in fact, she doesn't allow comments at all. But her insights are always thought-provoking.

Here she is on the appeal decision:

Quote:
Good news for Guede is bad news for Knox . . .

Rudy Guede's conviction for acting in concert with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the homicide of Leeds University Erasmus student Meredith Kercher has been upheld.

The butchered body of the convivial Eurasian college gal was found in her blood-drenched bedroom after a large knife had been brutally thrust deep into her neck in November 2007. Kercher was known to have studied personal self-defense skills at which she was proficient and could not have been restrained by only one attacker. The three defendants were stoned on mind-altering drugs during the time period in which the crime occurred.

But all was not lost for Guede in this appeal; there was also some good news for Rudy Guede as well as some bad news for Amanda Knox.

Guede's prison term was reduced to 16 years. It appears the judges attributed a lesser role to Guede in terms of his involvement in the crime, which means, conversely, that they attributed a higher level of involvement to Knox and her lover, Sollecito.

Some clarification in detail for these decisions is expected in about 90 days with the court's written treatise on their judgement.

For those of us who have been following the case, there was some disappointment because Guede did not make any further disclosures about the circumstances of the crime.

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

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
Maybe they could just give them their own reality TV show and be done with it. LOL.



That was funny.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:

Oh, okay. So the 1/3 is always applied to the end total and the mitigation is always deducted from the prior total before the the 1/3 is applied and only comes into play for a sentence below 30 years. That's simple...but as you say, the rest is rather complicated. So, simply, Micheli was activating a mechanism in order to counter another mechanism that would have given Rudy an unduly, in his view, lenient sentence.

Therefore, the circumstance that must have forced the appeal judges to counter Micheli's mechanism must have been the fact that Raffaele and Amanda were afforded such generous mitigation (25 and 26 years as opposed to life). They could not then justly deny Rudy mitigation thereby forcing the sentence below thirty years and by default, activating the 1/3 reduction mechanism. Therefore, Guede's fast track gamble only paid off because of Raffaele and Amanda getting such a good deal in their trial and would have failed had they been given a sentence above thirty years, for then Guede's final sentence of 30 years would have been in line with theirs!


That's interesting. So Rudy banked on the fact that his co-defendants were a rich Bari coast son of a doctor (only a doctor, according to unemployed Curt Knox), and an American floozy. Good call on his part. Now, is he going to act indignant until the final appeal, acting as though the reduction means the courts will continue to reduce the sentence?

I have a question: Why did Rudy receive his 1/3 off NOW when he didn't before? In other words:

First, why did he NOT receive it in the first trial? (I know someone has said, but I forget)

Second, why did he receive it NOW? Do the prior circumstances no longer apply?

Another question: Why did Rudy not receive mitigating circumstances credit (the 6 years off from 30 down to 24 yrs) in the first trial? Why is he receiving that now? Is it merely to match the sentences of the other two? It seems like it is.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

:?:
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Can I suggest that people email Victoria Derbyshire - victoria@bbc.co.uk to ask for a counter-balancing piece to address some of the factual inaccuracies and untruths that were put forth by Edda in that piece. I did:


Excerpt (having first complimented on interviewer's tone etc) : There is a huge worldwide campaign of misinformation and media briefing being run by the Knoxs to try to create the appearance of a miscarriage of justice. I was uncomfortable to hear some of those untruths being put forward on the BBC. For balance and to counter some of these factual and deliberate misstatements, can I suggest that you contact http://www.truejustice.org (True Justice for Meredith Kercher) and http://perugiamurderfile.org. These are both extremely rational and highly detailed websites which focus on making sure the truth of what happened to Meredith is respected and known. A balancing piece interviewing one of the founders of those sites would give some interesting counterpoints to the misinformation which was put forth in this piece and create the balance that the BBC is rightly famed for. Many thanks.


Excellent suggestion SA. After forcing myself to listen to the interview last night, I too felt compelled to write to Ms Derbyshire. I think it is a good idea for all of us to keep up with our letter writing in response to the lies being propagated by the family and their pr machine. It takes little effort on our part to email someone and perhaps pass along links. I know that many people have expressed a willingness to contribute something for the Kerchers. I think that this effort (following up with journalists, etc) is as important if not more so than sending a check for a memorial. I'd like to thank everyone who provides links for articles or interviews because I typically follow up with an email if I feel that the truth has been swept to the side or completely obliterated by someone like Edda.

Happy Holidays to all of you and I wish you all a wonderful new year!



It really is. Understanding the facts of this case takes a lot of effort. The Knoxs understand the potential power of a concerted media campaign. It's only if people write these emails that those journalists are going to get a balancing perspective about what really happened that night. If we don't do it no-one will - this is up to us. We all know what the ultimate worst case scenario that could come out of our inaction. Make with those keyboards people...

_________________
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 amatsleuth


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:03 pm

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

This is a bit off-topic, but winding up a record year for shamelessness, it's good for a chuckle

http://www.slate.com/id/2239386?nav=wp
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 23, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:

Oh, okay. So the 1/3 is always applied to the end total and the mitigation is always deducted from the prior total before the the 1/3 is applied and only comes into play for a sentence below 30 years. That's simple...but as you say, the rest is rather complicated. So, simply, Micheli was activating a mechanism in order to counter another mechanism that would have given Rudy an unduly, in his view, lenient sentence.

Therefore, the circumstance that must have forced the appeal judges to counter Micheli's mechanism must have been the fact that Raffaele and Amanda were afforded such generous mitigation (25 and 26 years as opposed to life). They could not then justly deny Rudy mitigation thereby forcing the sentence below thirty years and by default, activating the 1/3 reduction mechanism. Therefore, Guede's fast track gamble only paid off because of Raffaele and Amanda getting such a good deal in their trial and would have failed had they been given a sentence above thirty years, for then Guede's final sentence of 30 years would have been in line with theirs!


That's interesting. So Rudy banked on the fact that his co-defendants were a rich Bari coast son of a doctor (only a doctor, according to unemployed Curt Knox), and an American floozy. Good call on his part. Now, is he going to act indignant until the final appeal, acting as though the reduction means the courts will continue to reduce the sentence?

I have a question: Why did Rudy receive his 1/3 off NOW when he didn't before? In other words:

First, why did he NOT receive it in the first trial? (I know someone has said, but I forget)

Second, why did he receive it NOW? Do the prior circumstances no longer apply?

Another question: Why did Rudy not receive mitigating circumstances credit (the 6 years off from 30 down to 24 yrs) in the first trial? Why is he receiving that now? Is it merely to match the sentences of the other two? It seems like it is.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

:?:



Hi Earthling. The 1/3 discount of sentence only comes into play for sentences under 30 years. Rudy's sentence was 30 years so he didn't get the 1/3 disciount. Judge Micheli decided that Rudy was being deliberately deceptive (lying) and non co-operative, so he punished him for that by not granting him mitigation (hence why his sentence was 30 years). The appeal trial granted him the the mitigation which took his sentence to 24 years. As this was under 30 years, it also had the effect of then putting the 1/3 discount into play taking it down to 16. Micheli deliberately didn't grant mitigation because he knew that would be the result and he judged that would cause the final sentence to be far too lenient for Rudy's position.

_________________
"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 PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

amatsleuth wrote:
To those of you who keep expressing frustration and disbelief at the Knox family's behavior...what is is that you expect to change going forward? Do you expect Amanda or her mother to change their stripes at this point? To recognize their shortcomings or "see the light?" To demonstrate sincere rather than feigned empathy to others outside their own family?

You can't do a make-over on these people's personalities after a lifetime of whatever family pathology has been at work. Moreover, people like Amanda do not WANT to change. They restlessly seek new situations where they can continue to manipulate others for self-gratification.

My prediction is that Amanda will announce that she wants to spend her prison time studying so that when she is freed, she can become a psychiatrist or lawyer. I'd be willing to bet on it.


I beg to disagree with the view that the whole Knox family is suffering from some kind of pathology. I do think it is very likely Amanda Knox is suffering from a sociopathic personality disorder; a lot of her reported and documented behavior would support that theory. However, it is a common misconception that such a disorder is the result of bad family conditions. It appears, in fact, that there are defects in the emotional centra in the brain of subjects diagnosed with sociopathic personality disorders. Such defects may well be genetic or appear during fetal development.

One may accuse the Knox family of being over-zealous and tactless in the defense of their daughter but to suggest that Amanda Knox is just a product of her sick family I think is taking it too far. Even though we feel with the victim's family, the view is surely not as objective if your own daughter is involved - I cannot say that I would not be in denial if my own child was accused of something so horrific; it would be a traumatic experience that would take a long time to accept. Again, I am not saying the Knox family is behaving gracefully or even that they have a sound family dynamic, but I think it is over the line to blame them for Amanda's actions.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Can I suggest that people email Victoria Derbyshire - victoria@bbc.co.uk to ask for a counter-balancing piece to address some of the factual inaccuracies and untruths that were put forth by Edda in that piece. I did:


Excerpt (having first complimented on interviewer's tone etc) : There is a huge worldwide campaign of misinformation and media briefing being run by the Knoxs to try to create the appearance of a miscarriage of justice. I was uncomfortable to hear some of those untruths being put forward on the BBC. For balance and to counter some of these factual and deliberate misstatements, can I suggest that you contact http://www.truejustice.org (True Justice for Meredith Kercher) and http://perugiamurderfile.org. These are both extremely rational and highly detailed websites which focus on making sure the truth of what happened to Meredith is respected and known. A balancing piece interviewing one of the founders of those sites would give some interesting counterpoints to the misinformation which was put forth in this piece and create the balance that the BBC is rightly famed for. Many thanks.


Good idea! I just sent an email to Victoria Derbyshire, too. It feels good to do something, the last hours have felt heavy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

What am I missing in that I fail to understand why so many reporters, commentators, bloggers, and even posters here keep whining about the derivation, implication, unequality and incompatibility of the sentences given to Rudy, Raffie, and Amanda.

From all I have read so far about how the sentences were applied, seems very straightforward:

all 3 were convicted in the death of Meredith, and all eventually/equally got the same 24 years:
Raffie and Amanda each got one more year for staging the break in
Amanda got another extra year for false accusation of Mr Lumumba
Rudy was granted the 1/3 off his sentence in exchange for submitting to fast track

Automatic Arithmetic and complete compliance with Italian guidelines:
Raffie 24 plus 1 = 25
Amanda 24 plus 2 = 26
Rudy 24 minus 1/3 (8) = 16

Why would this result cause all the speculation about joy, sorrow, optimism, pessimism, predictions for subsequent appeals, and "what it means" , etccccc ??

Am I too simplistic and unsophisticated ???


Last edited by stint7 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline amatsleuth


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:03 pm

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Pointblank,

My point wasn't regarding whether or to what degree the family caused Amanda's sociopathy. It was simply to point out the uselessness of hoping/expecting these people to change their respective personality-based routines. In other words, it was an appeal to the readers here to re-examine their own expectations.
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
What am I missing in that I fail to understand why so many reporters, commentators, bloggers, and even posters here keep whining about the derivation, implication, unequality and incompatibility of the sentences given to Rudy, Raffie, and Amanda.

From all I have read so far about how the sentences were applied, seems very straightforward:

all 3 were convicted in the death of Meredith, and all eventually/equally got the same 24 years:
Raffie and Amanda each got one more year for staging the break in
Amanda got another extra year for false accusation of Mr Lumumba
Rudy was granted the 1/3 off his sentence in exchange for submitting to fast track

Automatic Arithmetic and complete compliance with Italian guidelines:
Raffie 24 plus 1 = 25
Amanda 24 plus 2 = 26
Rudy 24 minus 1/3 (8) = 16

Am I too simplistic and unsophisticated ???


I agree with you completly although I personally find the fast-track reduction somewhat suspect from an ethical point of view.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

d-)) Yay-) da-))
Happy Birthday to Anne and Mike!

And a very Merry Christmas and/or Holy Days to everyone. mul-)


I am sad that the Kerchers will always have Meredith missing at Christmas and every day. To me, that says it all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

amatsleuth wrote:
Pointblank,

My point wasn't regarding whether or to what degree the family caused Amanda's sociopathy. It was simply to point out the uselessness of hoping/expecting these people to change their respective personality-based routines. In other words, it was an appeal to the readers here to re-examine their own expectations.


Ok, I guess my post was a catch-all kind of post, since I have seen that view (that the family is responsible for raising the little monster) voiced numerous times. As for the Knox'es altering their behavior, I agree, one should not hold any high expectations... Only thing that would prompt a change, as I see it, is a confession and that seems highly unlikely.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank wrote:
amatsleuth wrote:
To those of you who keep expressing frustration and disbelief at the Knox family's behavior...what is is that you expect to change going forward? Do you expect Amanda or her mother to change their stripes at this point? To recognize their shortcomings or "see the light?" To demonstrate sincere rather than feigned empathy to others outside their own family?

You can't do a make-over on these people's personalities after a lifetime of whatever family pathology has been at work. Moreover, people like Amanda do not WANT to change. They restlessly seek new situations where they can continue to manipulate others for self-gratification.

My prediction is that Amanda will announce that she wants to spend her prison time studying so that when she is freed, she can become a psychiatrist or lawyer. I'd be willing to bet on it.


I beg to disagree with the view that the whole Knox family is suffering from some kind of pathology. I do think it is very likely Amanda Knox is suffering from a sociopathic personality disorder; a lot of her reported and documented behavior would support that theory. However, it is a common misconception that such a disorder is the result of bad family conditions. It appears, in fact, that there are defects in the emotional centra in the brain of subjects diagnosed with sociopathic personality disorders. Such defects may well be genetic or appear during fetal development.

One may accuse the Knox family of being over-zealous and tactless in the defense of their daughter but to suggest that Amanda Knox is just a product of her sick family I think is taking it too far. Even though we feel with the victim's family, the view is surely not as objective if your own daughter is involved - I cannot say that I would not be in denial if my own child was accused of something so horrific; it would be a traumatic experience that would take a long time to accept. Again, I am not saying the Knox family is behaving gracefully or even that they have a sound family dynamic, but I think it is over the line to blame them for Amanda's actions.


I think it is accurate to say that the family cannot be blamed for AKs actions. Adults make their own choices, and some make choices in opposition to their parental raising, and some make choices similar to their parental raising. They are still choices and parents are not to blame.

However, I personally believe that many members of AKs family are displaying some sort of pathology (no I'm not a psychiatrist but I am in the medical/healthcare field). Perhaps, initially, I too may have opted for denial if my own child were accused (I don't know). However, I think the pathological aspect of this family's behaviour has to do with the intensity, relentlessness and chronic rigidity of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. I think that this is more than inconsiderate behaviour. I believe it is abnormal behaviour.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Leodmaeg wrote:

I should have been clearer, lol. What I meant was, I wish the interviewer had quizzed her about why she kept quiet about Lumumba being framed after her daughter told her.



I think this has been over-emphasised. It's important to remember that Edda (in contrast to her daughter) did not know whether Lumumba was innocent or not. He was just a name that Amanda first said committed the murder and then said didn't. Edda was not in a position to know which version was true and then had the problem of making herself understood when she didn't know the language. So she took the easier course of letting the police sort it out for themselves. Not particularly praiseworthy but to elevate her to co-villainess in the Lumumba affair is ludicrously unfair.

Thank you Mike! I completely agree. There are enough sins to lay at Edda's gate without throwing this in. If she had gone on with trying to convict a clearly innocent man, over a long period of time, that would be another thing. But she was in a strange country, a strange situation, etc. For all she knew, Lumumba was guilty and Amanda's later private refutation that he was guilty, was some sort of effort to protect him.

I guess the difference is, I can assign her actions to a combination of ignorance, panic, and fear for her daughter, and an inability to know the real truth at that point. I would not blame her for doing something not perfect in those circumstances.

All I know is, I don't really find this all that blame-worthy. Anyway, it relates to her actions within a two-week time frame. Her actions within the past two YEARS, however, are a different story. Her lies have reached their sell-by date (TM Skep), and I for one have had enough.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

PointBlank opines:
Quote:
..... I personally find the fast-track reduction somewhat suspect from an ethical point of view.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would without reservation accept possible ethical lapses.

But would you accept as an explanation of, and certainly not justification for, the reduction that the Italialian fast track procedure is quite analogous to the US Plea Bargain procedure??
If you save us all the time, trouble, and expense of a full trial, we will reward you with a lighter sentence??


Last edited by stint7 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling observes about Edda's silence on False Patrick Accusation:
Quote:
There are enough sins to lay at Edda's gate without throwing this in. If she had gone on with trying to convict a clearly innocent man, over a long period of time, that would be another thing. But she was in a strange country, a strange situation, etc. For all she knew, Lumumba was guilty and Amanda's later private refutation that he was guilty, was some sort of effort to protect him.

I guess the difference is, I can assign her actions to a combination of ignorance, panic, and fear for her daughter, and an inability to know the real truth at that point. I would not blame her for doing something not perfect in those circumstances.

All I know is, I don't really find this all that blame-worthy

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well presented, adequately justified, and probably shared by others.

But In My Humble Opinion, definitely a ...........S...T...R..E...T...C...H


Last edited by stint7 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
PointBlank wrote:
amatsleuth wrote:
To those of you who keep expressing frustration and disbelief at the Knox family's behavior...what is is that you expect to change going forward? Do you expect Amanda or her mother to change their stripes at this point? To recognize their shortcomings or "see the light?" To demonstrate sincere rather than feigned empathy to others outside their own family?

You can't do a make-over on these people's personalities after a lifetime of whatever family pathology has been at work. Moreover, people like Amanda do not WANT to change. They restlessly seek new situations where they can continue to manipulate others for self-gratification.

My prediction is that Amanda will announce that she wants to spend her prison time studying so that when she is freed, she can become a psychiatrist or lawyer. I'd be willing to bet on it.


I beg to disagree with the view that the whole Knox family is suffering from some kind of pathology. I do think it is very likely Amanda Knox is suffering from a sociopathic personality disorder; a lot of her reported and documented behavior would support that theory. However, it is a common misconception that such a disorder is the result of bad family conditions. It appears, in fact, that there are defects in the emotional centra in the brain of subjects diagnosed with sociopathic personality disorders. Such defects may well be genetic or appear during fetal development.

One may accuse the Knox family of being over-zealous and tactless in the defense of their daughter but to suggest that Amanda Knox is just a product of her sick family I think is taking it too far. Even though we feel with the victim's family, the view is surely not as objective if your own daughter is involved - I cannot say that I would not be in denial if my own child was accused of something so horrific; it would be a traumatic experience that would take a long time to accept. Again, I am not saying the Knox family is behaving gracefully or even that they have a sound family dynamic, but I think it is over the line to blame them for Amanda's actions.


I think it is accurate to say that the family cannot be blamed for AKs actions. Adults make their own choices, and some make choices in opposition to their parental raising, and some make choices similar to their parental raising. They are still choices and parents are not to blame.

However, I personally believe that many members of AKs family are displaying some sort of pathology (no I'm not a psychiatrist but I am in the medical/healthcare field). Perhaps, initially, I too may have opted for denial if my own child were accused (I don't know). However, I think the pathological aspect of this family's behaviour has to do with the intensity, relentlessness and chronic rigidity of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. I think that this is more than inconsiderate behaviour. I believe it is abnormal behaviour.


I remain skeptical. I think one is on thin ice if one starts to attribute pathologies to people who so to speak refuse to see the evidence. So van Sant is also mentally disturbed? Lisa Bloom? Whatever legal experts etc that CBS managed to find? I think there is enough evidence to rest on logical rationale without venturing in that area, which I think one should approach carefully.

But I agree there are certain aspects of their behavior which can and should be criticized and which probably did not help Amanda, such as an overly strong sense of entitlement and bull dozer attitude.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline amatsleuth


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:03 pm

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
PointBlank opines:

Quote:
..... I personally find the fast-track reduction somewhat suspect from an ethical point of view..


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would wothout reservation accept possible ethical lapsesBut would you accept as an explanation of, and certainly not justification for, the reduction that the Italialian fast track procedure is quite analogous to the US Plea Bargain procedure??
If you save us all the time, trouble, and expense of a full trial, we will reward you with a lighter sentence??


The law is an ass!

(Dickens, of course)
Top Profile 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
PointBlank opines:
Quote:
..... I personally find the fast-track reduction somewhat suspect from an ethical point of view.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would wothout reservation accept possible ethical lapses.

But would you accept as an explanation of, and certainly not justification for, the reduction that the Italialian fast track procedure is quite analogous to the US Plea Bargain procedure??
If you save us all the time, trouble, and expense of a full trial, we will reward you with a lighter sentence??


I think you are right, it seems analogous, but I am not educated enough in the details of the law to say anything more. As a principle, however, I would rather see sentence reduction used for the sake of getting at the truth, i.e. rewarding confession as part of human redemption as well as to help settle matters for the victims, rather than as an instrument to cut time and save money.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline amatsleuth


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:03 pm

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The law is about as good as the political system is for sorting out things in a logical, "ethical" way. Go have a drink with a judge or an experienced trial lawyer---in any country---and ask them to rate the court system in this regard. Better yet, read Bleak House, or go spend a day or two in city court.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint
PointBlank opines:
Quote:
..... I personally find the fast-track reduction somewhat suspect from an ethical point of view.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would without reservation accept possible ethical lapses.

But would you accept as an explanation of, and certainly not justification for, the reduction that the Italialian fast track procedure is quite analogous to the US Plea Bargain procedure??
If you save us all the time, trouble, and expense of a full trial, we will reward you with a lighter sentence??


It may seem like splitting hairs, but I see one quite significant difference between these to systems.
In the Italian fast track system the criminal receives a consideration at sentencing only.
Rudy has been convicted of the crimes of which he was accused.
There hasn't been a re-writing of his offense because of his willingness to receive a more streamlined trial.
In the US system, the nature of the crime committed is altered in order to bribe a defendant to plead guilty to lesser accusation.
I find the US system extremely questionable, since I feel that at the very least we owe a victim the truest account of what happened that we can achieve.
In fact, thinking about what justice would consist of - which I think is in all our minds at this time, I think for me it would be establishing the truth and requiring the perpetrators to face it, and carry it about with them for the rest of their lives.
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 23, 2009 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
People tend to be risk averse, moved by social expectations, act impulsively etc. But what this thought experiment tells me is that, given the Italian penal code, the defendants’ likely culpability and current sentences, there is, from a rational point of view, a very low likelihood that any of the defendants will crack the silence.


Those discussion about the features of legal systems are interesting because thy lead to consider endless differences. It is in fact a matter of whole systems, with their own consistence, not about one simple aspect to be considered alone.

I have partially the same critic to move against the Italian system, it is a system that encourages too much defendants to lie, but this is not as true, as pervasive, as stated above. It may be true sometimes, but may also be not in several cases.

One first thing I consider is that - as in this case - some exthenuating circumstance was given to the three convicted because of other reasons different from their confession, but some other defendants actually can manage to obtain some advantage through confession. Something else to say is that codes of culpability are not in fixed in a provided range, for example voluntary murder bears a minimum of 21 years, aggravated murder has a usual minimum of 24 years, but those happen to be just starting indication, there is a range on which they are allowd great variations.

Another very important element to consider is that in this system a case doesn't end with the verdict. This is a completely different story from common law justice in which, one that a verdict is reached, the judges' job is over. here the judges' work continues. A convicted is submitted to the opinion of courts and judges for the whole lenght of his/her sentence. Freedoms and benefits of prisoners are a matter for judges, not for prisons' administrations. A person who is deemed a liar, an unreliable one, will still be considered dangerous thus 'pay' for his/her behaviour *after* the verdict (in this case, as we saw, they paid for their lies also *before* the trial, as they were kept in prison being still innocent). So the official sentence may not change, but the *real* time in fact might change if they are believed to be unreliable.

Anyway it is generally true that the Italian system looks for finding the 'truth' rather than estabilish guilt, but it does not seek for the defendant to tell the truth. The concept of truth in the Italian system is something that - almost by definition - cannot be told by the defendant but is 'estabilished', like a kind of doctrinal study, in which the 'rulings' consist.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:

‘Raffie and Amanda each got one more year for staging the break in
Amanda got another extra year for false accusation of Mr Lumumba
Rudy was granted the 1/3 off his sentence in exchange for submitting to fast track
Automatic Arithmetic and complete compliance with Italian guidelines:
Raffie 24 plus 1 = 25
Amanda 24 plus 2 = 26
Rudy 24 minus 1/3 (8) = 16
Why would this result cause all the speculation about joy, sorrow, optimism, pessimism, predictions for subsequent appeals, and "what it means" , etccccc ??
Am I too simplistic and unsophisticated ???’


No stint7 your not being too simplistic and unsophisticated. In fact it’s painfully straightforward. All we need now are the new numbers for Raffaele and Amanda’s after their Appeals court . Then with those new numbers we could recalculate Rudy’s final sentence after his 2nd appeal. As they said in school , just plug in the numbers and crank.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
Earthling observes about Edda's silence on False Patrick Accusation:
Quote:
There are enough sins to lay at Edda's gate without throwing this in. If she had gone on with trying to convict a clearly innocent man, over a long period of time, that would be another thing. But she was in a strange country, a strange situation, etc. For all she knew, Lumumba was guilty and Amanda's later private refutation that he was guilty, was some sort of effort to protect him.

I guess the difference is, I can assign her actions to a combination of ignorance, panic, and fear for her daughter, and an inability to know the real truth at that point. I would not blame her for doing something not perfect in those circumstances.


I do not buy the Knox-Mellas 'innocents abroad' tableaux.

The stench of a cover-up and misdirecting to create investigative chaos reeks of guilt. The defamation suit against them confirms this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
stint
PointBlank opines:
Quote:
..... I personally find the fast-track reduction somewhat suspect from an ethical point of view.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would without reservation accept possible ethical lapses.

But would you accept as an explanation of, and certainly not justification for, the reduction that the Italialian fast track procedure is quite analogous to the US Plea Bargain procedure??
If you save us all the time, trouble, and expense of a full trial, we will reward you with a lighter sentence??


It may seem like splitting hairs, but I see one quite significant difference between these to systems.
In the Italian fast track system the criminal receives a consideration at sentencing only.
Rudy has been convicted of the crimes of which he was accused.
There hasn't been a re-writing of his offense because of his willingness to receive a more streamlined trial.
In the US system, the nature of the crime committed is altered in order to bribe a defendant to plead guilty to lesser accusation.
I find the US system extremely questionable, since I feel that at the very least we owe a victim the truest account of what happened that we can achieve.
In fact, thinking about what justice would consist of - which I think is in all our minds at this time, I think for me it would be establishing the truth and requiring the perpetrators to face it, and carry it about with them for the rest of their lives.


I agree that the difference is significant; as you say, in one case you alter the proceedings, in the other the offense. However, I object to the economic motivation behind them both, which does seem to be analogous. Amen to your last paragraph - it is enormously important for justice, from both humane and disciplinary perspectives. There is too much focus on number of years in prison.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
People tend to be risk averse, moved by social expectations, act impulsively etc. But what this thought experiment tells me is that, given the Italian penal code, the defendants’ likely culpability and current sentences, there is, from a rational point of view, a very low likelihood that any of the defendants will crack the silence.


Those discussion about the features of legal systems are interesting because thy lead to consider endless differences. It is in fact a matter of whole systems, with their own consistence, not about one simple aspect to be considered alone.

I have partially the same critic to move against the Italian system, it is a system that encourages too much defendants to lie, but this is not as true, as pervasive, as stated above. It may be true sometimes, but may also be not in several cases.

One first thing I consider is that - as in this case - some exthenuating circumstance was given to the three convicted because of other reasons different from their confession, but some other defendants actually can manage to obtain some advantage through confession. Something else to say is that codes of culpability are not in fixed in a provided range, for example voluntary murder bears a minimum of 21 years, aggravated murder has a usual minimum of 24 years, but those happen to be just starting indication, there is a range on which they are allowd great variations.

Another very important element to consider is that in this system a case doesn't end with the verdict. This is a completely different story from common law justice in which, one that a verdict is reached, the judges' job is over. here the judges' work continues. A convicted is submitted to the opinion of courts and judges for the whole lenght of his/her sentence. Freedoms and benefits of prisoners are a matter for judges, not for prisons' administrations. A person who is deemed a liar, an unreliable one, will still be considered dangerous thus 'pay' for his/her behaviour *after* the verdict (in this case, as we saw, they paid for their lies also *before* the trial, as they were kept in prison being still innocent). So the official sentence may not change, but the *real* time in fact might change if they are believed to be unreliable.

Anyway it is generally true that the Italian system looks for finding the 'truth' rather than estabilish guilt, but it does not seek for the defendant to tell the truth. The concept of truth in the Italian system is something that - almost by definition - cannot be told by the defendant but is 'estabilished', like a kind of doctrinal study, in which the 'rulings' consist.


I wouldn't be too harsh on it. What percentage of convicted murderers lie in their trials when having pleaded not guilty? Very nearly 100%! That's not trying to be asinine, it's a recognition of fact. You plead guilty or you plead not guilty. If you plead not guilty, you either did it or you didn't do it and the court decides. For all those who plead not guilty, leaving aside the small instances of miscarriage of justice (still very small by percentage), then all of the others in the 98%+ range lied in their trial. The Italian system doesn't encourage that more than any other system as I can see it. Defendants lie because they are trying to get away with their crimes. By contrast, the plea bargain system is rather offensive to someone from my background because it may, from time to time, cause innocent and particularly weak people to cop a verdict because of the huge disparity in sentence if they fight something and it goes against them. Mentally weak and scared people may take that route. It's a fraught moral case. With the fast track, the evidence is still up for consideration, it doesn't involve that ex ante admission under pressure. Yes there's a leap of faith to some extent but it's a different consideration.

The only other comment I'd make is that I don't believe a properly constituted parole board is a worse option than a judge considered parole hearing necessarily. The judges will probably be greater intellects statistically speaking but for all of that, they are extremely busy and the parole board has its job to do and may pragmatically have a greater and more thoughtful consideration of the convicted's behaviour in prison. I would say it's all down to who you get on the day. I don't necessarily see one as better than the other if they are done right.

_________________
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 PointBlank


Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Another very important element to consider is that in this system a case doesn't end with the verdict. This is a completely different story from common law justice in which, one that a verdict is reached, the judges' job is over. here the judges' work continues. A convicted is submitted to the opinion of courts and judges for the whole lenght of his/her sentence. Freedoms and benefits of prisoners are a matter for judges, not for prisons' administrations. A person who is deemed a liar, an unreliable one, will still be considered dangerous thus 'pay' for his/her behaviour *after* the verdict (in this case, as we saw, they paid for their lies also *before* the trial, as they were kept in prison being still innocent). So the official sentence may not change, but the *real* time in fact might change if they are believed to be unreliable..


Interesting, that changes the outlook a bit. I would guess it leads to a tendency for criminals to confess while serving their sentence rather than to confess before being handed the sentence? Is this correct?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

[NB: I'm fairly extensively editing my initial response to Michael below to try to tease out the various factors separately. -Earthling.]

Michael wrote:
Earthling wrote:
I have a question: Why did Rudy receive his 1/3 off NOW when he didn't before? In other words:

First, why did he NOT receive it in the first trial? (I know someone has said, but I forget)

Second, why did he receive it NOW? Do the prior circumstances no longer apply?

Another question: Why did Rudy not receive mitigating circumstances credit (the 6 years off from 30 down to 24 yrs) in the first trial? Why is he receiving that now? Is it merely to match the sentences of the other two? It seems like it is.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

:?:



Hi Earthling. The 1/3 discount of sentence only comes into play for sentences under 30 years. Rudy's sentence was 30 years so he didn't get the 1/3 disciount.

Actually, I thought Rudy DID get the 1/3 discount in the sense that he was sentenced to Life, but they reduced it to 30 years.

Michael wrote:
Judge Micheli decided that Rudy was being deliberately deceptive (lying) and non co-operative, so he punished him for that by not granting him mitigation (hence why his sentence was 30 years). The appeal trial granted him the the mitigation which took his sentence to 24 years.

So my next question is, why did the appeal trial judge grant him the mitigation?

1) Was it because the appeal judge thought he was being less deceptive and less non-cooperative?

2) Was it because the appeal judge was more lenient than Micheli?

3) Was it because the other two defendants DID get mitigation, so to be fair Rudy had to be given mitigation? (although I doubt Micheli would have agreed, right? therefore this reason has to combine with reason #2)

Michael wrote:
As this was under 30 years, it also had the effect of then putting the 1/3 discount into play taking it down to 16.

Like I said above, I believe if what I've read is correct, they DID apply the 1/3 discount in the first trial, down from LIFE to 30 years.

Michael wrote:
Micheli deliberately didn't grant mitigation because he knew that would be the result and he judged that would cause the final sentence to be far too lenient for Rudy's position.


Yeah, I get it that Micheli's a hard nut.

So any help on the above questions is appreciated in advance. Was it the judge being more lenient? the other defendants' sentences? or was Rudy judged to be more open and honest for some reason that I can't fathom?

If an Italian who has some feel for this could help out here too, I'd appreciate it. (I guess I should read Commissario Montalbano's post about this on TJMK, but I haven't gotten "around to it yet." My bad. I probably will, and soon.)

[corrected for Comm. Montalbano to be name of author of post on TJMK.]


Last edited by Earthling on Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:37 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I know nothing about this but wiki has this to say

Quote:
Fast-track trial
The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[19] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.
It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.
Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.
The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.


Might not be reliable but that seems to explain it to me. The effect of the fast track reduction on a life sentence is to make that sentence 30 years and that seems to be fixed. But with mitigation he was not sentenced to life and so the 1/3 reduction now applies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline juliet


Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi all. There has been a lot of talk about Edda Mellas, that I have been following with interest. I do understand the criticisms of her actions, but I feel that she is not on trial here, she is not the one who has committed murder, and in her position she should be viewed as having little of relevance to say in the debate.

I personally do not take much notice of what she says, because I assume that she will naturally be biased, as the mother of the convicted girl. She understandably is motivated by a fight for survival for her and her daughter and a way out of the never-ending pain and nightmare she has found herself in.

What I find more reprehensible is the complicity of the media in her agenda, and their inability to put some straight facts to her in order to get to a more objective view of the case. This does amaze me, especially when they are confronted with the fact that the majority of the public believe the verdict is sound.

On a connected point, there was a discussion of justice earlier, and whose view really mattered in this. Some said the view of the Kerchers mattered above all. I would like to differ on this.

I agree that those closely related to the victim should, one hopes, feel a sense of justice of the outcome of the court proceedings. And of course their interests should be taken into account in the whole proceedings, as I am sure they have been.

But surely, the law is there to serve a particular society? The Italian community here is a 'victim', it is their law and rules that have been broken. Perugia citizens do not wish killers amongst them, and italians in general do not wish killers to go scot-free. The law is there to protect the society as a whole.

While the Kerchers might have conducted themselves with great wisdom and measure in this case, one could not wish generally the state to mould its judgements to the wishes of the victims relatives. A grieving relative might naturally feel a great amount of anger and wish an eye for an eye, while this, as Fiona points out in her post earlier might not in the interests of society as a whole.

I feel that in recent years too much emphasis has been placed on the 'personal' at the behest of the media, who like to push personal interest stories. Often, imo, in criminal cases this encourages the 'revenge' type of comments that you see in the British media 'they should throw away the key' and 'I hope he rots in prison' etc. I am paraphrasing but you know what I mean.

Now I feel the Kerchers have managed to very wisely avoid all of this. They have not let themselves be puppets of the media, and they seem to me to have taken a very perceptive, measured and diginified stance.

But my point, that applies to the Knox-Mellas family and the Kerchers, is that they are parties in this case who could naturally be expected to have a unique point of view.

On one side, the media should treat Edda Mellas as a biased party, and should not let her take over their supposedly objective reporting as she has done. On the other side the state needs to treat the Kerchers as a uniquely affected party. In my mind justice cannot be served specifically for them, because the concept of justice exists within a society, and needs to serve that society as a whole.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From Il Messaggero:

Smiles from Guede’s only four friends.

Sollecito’s lawyer: Time for truth.

Raffaele’s sister surprise: " My thoughts are for poor Meredith”

Perugia- Just four of his (RG) friends smile, after a few minutes in the courtroom where a new sentence pulverized an older one of just ten months ago. One friend, Michele, comes from France, the other, Giacomo is from Perugia. They do the chorus with their eyes and voices, "For the right judgment, we’ll wait for the Supreme Court." Four friends, no more for Rudy Hermann Guede, accused in the murder of Meredith Kercher, he has just been blessed with a cut of 14 years in prison. Because the Ivory Coast native, who arrived in Italy at the age of six, doesn’t have anyone else. His mother disappeared when he was still a little boy, his father a builder's labourer only follows him from a distance and he’s never been seen in the courtroom. Measured smiles, just hints of a happiness never lived, of an uphill life which goes side by side with the harsh comments aimed at the young man considered one eternal liar.

From thirty to sixteen years for him, against the twenty-five for Raffaele Sollecito and twenty-six for Amanda Knox, his alleged accomplices. Suddenly shots and tensions were raised. To begin is Raffaele Sollecito’s sister, Vanessa: “My first thought was for poor Meredith.” The position of the Sollecitos has always been clear: in the scene of the crime and practically on Mez was only the Ivorian’s DNA. Even now, despite almost ten years less in prison given to Rudy than her brother, thanks to the choice of fast-track trial, Vanessa has no doubts: "We would still choose the traditional trial. We needed the time to bring out the new elements that we had found”, referring to expert evaluation of the shoe print first attributed to Raffaele, and then to Rudy and other new elements brought to the trial debate. To Vanessa Sollecito echoes Luca Maori, Sollecito's lawyer: “Rudy has been rewarded by the Court of Appeals. Time to tell the truth and say who was with him in the house where Meredith Kercher was killed." Even harder goes also Raffaele’s father, Francesco: for them, as repeatedly been stressed by the lawyers, there is only one murderer and now he’s had a big reduction of the punishment. "He is the only one who knows what happened in there." Now, "he will never speak again. No longer convenient for him.”

From the American Knox clan comes a distant voice: we think only of Amanda, she is in prison, innocent. Amanda's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, hints instead a smile and lets it be known: "I'm glad for that poor boy."

Manuela Comodi, the prosecutor who in Rudy’s first trial requested life in prison because it regarded him guilty of complicity in the murder and rape, now explains: "The adversarial system has held up solidly once again and the sentence imposed on appeal for Rudy Guede only apparently lower, because of the fast-track trial, than that imposed at first degree for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to me seems right. Now we will see the motivations.”
As Rudy exits court lowering his head and the soul of turmoil goes down in the courtroom. He continues to whisper: "I am innocent."
Il Messaggero


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
[NB: I'm fairly extensively editing my initial response to Michael below to try to tease out the various factors separately. -Earthling.]

Michael wrote:
Earthling wrote:
I have a question: Why did Rudy receive his 1/3 off NOW when he didn't before? In other words:

First, why did he NOT receive it in the first trial? (I know someone has said, but I forget)

Second, why did he receive it NOW? Do the prior circumstances no longer apply?

Another question: Why did Rudy not receive mitigating circumstances credit (the 6 years off from 30 down to 24 yrs) in the first trial? Why is he receiving that now? Is it merely to match the sentences of the other two? It seems like it is.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

:?:



Hi Earthling. The 1/3 discount of sentence only comes into play for sentences under 30 years. Rudy's sentence was 30 years so he didn't get the 1/3 disciount.

Actually, I thought Rudy DID get the 1/3 discount in the sense that he was sentenced to Life, but they reduced it to 30 years.

Michael wrote:
Judge Micheli decided that Rudy was being deliberately deceptive (lying) and non co-operative, so he punished him for that by not granting him mitigation (hence why his sentence was 30 years). The appeal trial granted him the the mitigation which took his sentence to 24 years.

So my next question is, why did the appeal trial judge grant him the mitigation?

1) Was it because the appeal judge thought he was being less deceptive and less non-cooperative?

2) Was it because the appeal judge was more lenient than Micheli?

3) Was it because the other two defendants DID get mitigation, so to be fair Rudy had to be given mitigation? (although I doubt Micheli would have agreed, right? therefore this reason has to combine with reason #2)

Michael wrote:
As this was under 30 years, it also had the effect of then putting the 1/3 discount into play taking it down to 16.

Like I said above, I believe if what I've read is correct, they DID apply the 1/3 discount in the first trial, down from LIFE to 30 years.

Michael wrote:
Micheli deliberately didn't grant mitigation because he knew that would be the result and he judged that would cause the final sentence to be far too lenient for Rudy's position.


Yeah, I get it that Micheli's a hard nut.

So any help on the above questions is appreciated in advance. Was it the judge being more lenient? the other defendants' sentences? or was Rudy judged to be more open and honest for some reason that I can't fathom?

If an Italian who has some feel for this could help out here too, I'd appreciate it. (I guess I should read Yummi's post about this on TJMK, but I haven't gotten "around to it yet." My bad. I probably will, and soon.)

Hi Earthling,
The judges just granted Rudy the same mitigating circumstances that were given to AK and RS, namely young age and no previous criminal records.Rudy was not judged more open or honest, the judges just applied the law.Guess Rudy's attorneys were smart to seek a fast track trial, after all.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Just an example of the sort of scum that support Amanda Knox and the kind of man Frank is for rubbing shoulders with these people and allowing posts like these:



Michael from Switzerland wrote:
Anonymous said...
A very sad day for Italy. Finally the proof that Guede was working for the Perugian police as an informant and the proof that the Italian justice system is a pure joke.

I am in fact happy about this verdict. The Kercher family deserves it for going after Amanda and Raffaele with their lawyer. So, in the end they will realize that in fact they didn't got justice for Meredith, but achieved the opposite with their campaign.

Oh, but I forgot that Kerchers are only going after the money and they give a shit about justice for Meredith.

Michael from Switzerland

December 23, 2009 1:07 PM



FRANK'S CESS PIT

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


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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:34 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jools wrote:
As Rudy exits court lowering his head and the soul of turmoil goes down in the courtroom. He continues to whisper: "I am innocent."

Isn't Giacomo the one who tricked him with the Skype call? I guess they are still friends :)
What a horrible picture by the way.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 - True Justice!   

Michael wrote:
Just an example of the sort of scum that support Amanda Knox and the kind of man Frank is for rubbing shoulders with these people and allowing posts like these:



Michael from Switzerland wrote:
Anonymous said...
A very sad day for Italy. Finally the proof that Guede was working for the Perugian police as an informant and the proof that the Italian justice system is a pure joke.

I am in fact happy about this verdict. The Kercher family deserves it for going after Amanda and Raffaele with their lawyer. So, in the end they will realize that in fact they didn't got justice for Meredith, but achieved the opposite with their campaign.

Oh, but I forgot that Kerchers are only going after the money and they give a shit about justice for Meredith.

Michael from Switzerland

December 23, 2009 1:07 PM



FRANK'S CESS PIT


Well, well, well! Who is the pernicious moron hiding behind the façade of Michael from Switzerland!

Doesn't he know that the Kerchers will be indeed "fortunate" to see a cent of this money?

The court award is destined to scoop up any financial benefits that RHG may attempt to obtain by telling/writing/selling/filming has story.

On this Christmas Eve at 14.45 OZ TIME my granddaughter & I are busy in the kitchen: I leave it to others to expand on my comment and to support the cause of JUSTICE FOR MEREDITH & THE KERCHER FAMILY.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The BBC interview with Edda, conducted by Victoria Derbyshire, is still available. www.bbc.co.uk

It's refreshing to see some relevant questions asked, instead of the usual "dog and pony" shows concocted by Marriott, Inc and broadcast in the U.S. (Wiki: "The term has come to mean any type of presentation or display that is somewhat pathetically contrived... put on for purposes of gaining approval for a program, policy, etc.")

After listening, I observe that .....

1. I'd feel safer having Amanda, Raffaele, or Rudy as a neighbor than Edda Mellas. (Hell, I'd rather live as flatmates with ALL THREE than this woman.) The manner in which she willingly ---and serially---mutilates facts, before an international audience, suggests she could do the SAME to me, in private, should she think it served her interests.

2. Even if Amanda is innocent (per impossible), the Italian court has ---in convicting her---given her a priceless PRIZE.....virtual freedom from the amoral, and immoral, influence of the Knox/Mellas clan, beginning with her mother's milk. As others here have mentioned, hearing Edda cannot but arouse a sense of pity for Amanda. NATURE and NURTURE doubly poisoned Amanda's soul. May jail be the antidote.

/////////

And a warm Merry Christmas! to all the forum members. This site is a celebration of peace on earth and good will. Rest in Peace Meredith.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Hi Earthling,
The judges just granted Rudy the same mitigating circumstances that were given to AK and RS, namely young age and no previous criminal records.Rudy was not judged more open or honest, the judges just applied the law.

Thanks for confirming that Rudy wasn't judged more open or honest.

And I get it -- he got the mitigations in this, the Second trial (my emphasis). My question, however, is WHY the judge gave him the mitigations in the Second trial but not in the First, whereas AK and RS DID get mitigations in their First trial?

I just don't get the reason for the discrepancy there.

Is it just the leniency of the judges in Rudy's two trials were different? If Rudy had had the judge for his Second trial in his First trial, would he have gotten mitigation?

So I'm not asking DID they get mitigation -- I have realized they got mitigation from the moment I heard the new sentence, OK? -- I'm just asking about the WHY, and no one seems to be able to answer my question about WHY the difference between the Knox/Sollecito application of mitigation in the First, and the lack of application of mitigation in the First for Rudy. :?
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I honestly couldn't listen past the first few minutes to her BBC interview. But I do find interesting a quiet little story that seems to indicate Knox may not have fully believed she'd "be home before christmas" as the trial came to a close, according to the prison chaplin. Of course, one has to question the reliability of his report, but still..

http://www.repubblica.it/ultimora/crona ... io/3739016

google translation of last sentence
For much of the process and the attitude of Amanda 'was optimistic', said the priest, but as she approached the closed session had begun to fear that the process could result in a conviction.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hi Earthling,
The judges just granted Rudy the same mitigating circumstances that were given to AK and RS, namely young age and no previous criminal records.Rudy was not judged more open or honest, the judges just applied the law.

Thanks for confirming that Rudy wasn't judged more open or honest.

And I get it -- he got the mitigations in this, the Second trial (my emphasis). My question, however, is WHY the judge gave him the mitigations in the Second trial but not in the First, whereas AK and RS DID get mitigations in their First trial?

I just don't get the reason for the discrepancy there.

Is it just the leniency of the judges in Rudy's two trials were different? If Rudy had had the judge for his Second trial in his First trial, would he have gotten mitigation?

So I'm not asking DID they get mitigation -- I have realized they got mitigation from the moment I heard the new sentence, OK? -- I'm just asking about the WHY, and no one seems to be able to answer my question about WHY the difference between the Knox/Sollecito application of mitigation in the First, and the lack of application of mitigation in the First for Rudy. :?

We will have to wait for the report of the judge for the exact why. I think you already gave part of the answer yourself. The appeal judge was more lenient then the first one. Of course, something important happened since his first trial. The rest of the group (AK+RS) got the migration discount. Then why did they get it and Rudy at first not? Different judge and better lawyers I would say. They were represented better than Rudy at first, and then Rudy took advantage of that on his appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

max wrote:
Earthling wrote:
So I'm not asking DID they get mitigation -- I have realized they got mitigation from the moment I heard the new sentence, OK? -- I'm just asking about the WHY, and no one seems to be able to answer my question about WHY the difference between the Knox/Sollecito application of mitigation in the First, and the lack of application of mitigation in the First for Rudy. :?

We will have to wait for the report of the judge for the exact why. I think you already gave part of the answer yourself. The appeal judge was more lenient then the first one. Of course, something important happened since his first trial. The rest of the group (AK+RS) got the migration discount. Then why did they get it and Rudy at first not? Different judge and better lawyers I would say. They were represented better than Rudy at first, and then Rudy took advantage of that on his appeal.

Thanks, max and Nicki. Yep, after I posted this, I was thinking this was the only answer I could get at the moment -- that we'll probably just have to wait for the judge's sentencing report to find out the exact reasons. Others have said as much here, but I just forgot I guess. oop-)

I guess the two comparisons I'm making (or questions that I'm asking) are:

1) Comparing Rudy's first and second trials -- why the difference in sentencing? The sentence seems to have been reduced 2 stair steps: From Life* to 24 years (skipping the 30-year mark).

2) Comparing Rudy's first and AK/Soll's first trials -- why the difference in sentencing? Once again, there were 2 stair steps' difference: Life* for Rudy, but 24 years (skipping the 30-year mark) for AK/RS.

(*My understanding is that Rudy got Life in his first trial, but it was reduced to 30 years due to the fast-track trial. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I could understand the reduction in ONE stair-step between the two trials being compared -- but why the TWO stair-step reduction in both comparisons? That's what I don't get, and what I'm hoping the judges' sentencing reports (for both Rudy and AK/RS) will clear up.

Frankly, I would have preferred 30-year sentences for all three. (See below.)

++++++++++
Personal commentary on the sentences: I appreciated all the discussions today on justice, retribution, rehabilitation, parole, length of sentences, etc. For my part, as far as length of sentences go, I would've liked to see ALL 3 defendants get 30-year sentences, especially considering (if what I've read is true) that they will probably be released after serving half their sentences. Somehow, 15 years for a brutal murder like this seems reasonable and just; 12-13 just doesn't. I can't put my finger on exactly why. It just seems like the dozen years will fly by. That's the length of a long job stay, or a stint in the army. 15 years, on the other hand, is a solid chunk of a life -- one-sixth, at least, probably more like 20%. It doesn't seem like too much to pay for this horrific crime.

It also gives more time for the magnitude of their crimes to sink in, and for some remorse, regret, and rehabilitation to possibly start taking effect. Possibly. Hopefully.

Just some thoughts of a cold, late winter's night.

And Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!


Last edited by Earthling on Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
max wrote:
Earthling wrote:
So I'm not asking DID they get mitigation -- I have realized they got mitigation from the moment I heard the new sentence, OK? -- I'm just asking about the WHY, and no one seems to be able to answer my question about WHY the difference between the Knox/Sollecito application of mitigation in the First, and the lack of application of mitigation in the First for Rudy. :?

1) Comparing Rudy's first and second trials -- why the difference in sentencing? The sentence seems to have been reduced 2 stair steps: From Life* to 24 years (skipping the 30-year mark).

Yummi made a post on the previous page about how according to Italian law Rudy could not get the full 1/3 fast track reduction at first because his sentence was 30 years. You only seem to get 1/3 off when your sentence is below 30 years. How much (if any) his fast track reduction was when he got 30 years, I don't know. But this is an explanation for the large reduction he got now from 30 to 16 years. The mitigation got him under the 30 years and then also the full 1/3 fast track went off. So it is not so much a 2 step reduction but more a huge reduction due to the way the Italian system works.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:35 am   Post subject: Season's Greetings   

Warm wishes to the Kercher family, Skep, Michael and all my pals. Merry Christmas. r-((

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline franzine


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:56 pm

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hi Earthling,
The judges just granted Rudy the same mitigating circumstances that were given to AK and RS, namely young age and no previous criminal records.Rudy was not judged more open or honest, the judges just applied the law.

Thanks for confirming that Rudy wasn't judged more open or honest.

And I get it -- he got the mitigations in this, the Second trial (my emphasis). My question, however, is WHY the judge gave him the mitigations in the Second trial but not in the First, whereas AK and RS DID get mitigations in their First trial?

I just don't get the reason for the discrepancy there.

Is it just the leniency of the judges in Rudy's two trials were different? If Rudy had had the judge for his Second trial in his First trial, would he have gotten mitigation?

So I'm not asking DID they get mitigation -- I have realized they got mitigation from the moment I heard the new sentence, OK? -- I'm just asking about the WHY, and no one seems to be able to answer my question about WHY the difference between the Knox/Sollecito application of mitigation in the First, and the lack of application of mitigation in the First for Rudy. :?


I get what you are saying here. It is a tricky question. I think it comes down to the fact that part of this process is subjective. The jurors spent a lot of time in front of Amanda and Raffaele and they obviously felt the impact their sentence would have on the lives of these two. They've made numerous statements regarding this - all of the women were crying, etc. Rudy probably didn't get that chance to make such an impression in a fast track trial. And (of course I am guessing here) but perhaps the Italian system understands that there's some level of subjectivity involved and it uses the three degrees of trials to generally make adjustments so that sentences are deemed fair.
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 24, 2009 9:16 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Italian reaction to the trial of American Amanda Knox


EXAMINER

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

franzine wrote:
Earthling wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hi Earthling,
The judges just granted Rudy the same mitigating circumstances that were given to AK and RS, namely young age and no previous criminal records.Rudy was not judged more open or honest, the judges just applied the law.

Thanks for confirming that Rudy wasn't judged more open or honest.

And I get it -- he got the mitigations in this, the Second trial (my emphasis). My question, however, is WHY the judge gave him the mitigations in the Second trial but not in the First, whereas AK and RS DID get mitigations in their First trial?

I just don't get the reason for the discrepancy there.

Is it just the leniency of the judges in Rudy's two trials were different? If Rudy had had the judge for his Second trial in his First trial, would he have gotten mitigation?

So I'm not asking DID they get mitigation -- I have realized they got mitigation from the moment I heard the new sentence, OK? -- I'm just asking about the WHY, and no one seems to be able to answer my question about WHY the difference between the Knox/Sollecito application of mitigation in the First, and the lack of application of mitigation in the First for Rudy. :?


I get what you are saying here. It is a tricky question. I think it comes down to the fact that part of this process is subjective. The jurors spent a lot of time in front of Amanda and Raffaele and they obviously felt the impact their sentence would have on the lives of these two. They've made numerous statements regarding this - all of the women were crying, etc. Rudy probably didn't get that chance to make such an impression in a fast track trial. And (of course I am guessing here) but perhaps the Italian system understands that there's some level of subjectivity involved and it uses the three degrees of trials to generally make adjustments so that sentences are deemed fair.



Yes and we mustn't also forget the emotional appeals they made to the judges, like Amanda's lawer in tears when making closing statements and pleading with the judges to 'save Amanda's life'. Yummi at the time said that this tactic was very good for getting sentence reductions and that would probably happen. The emotive stuff didn't get a chance to get into Rudy's first degree as the whole thing was so brief.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:23 am   Post subject: Re: Season's Greetings   

Professor Snape wrote:
Warm wishes to the Kercher family, Skep, Michael and all my pals. Merry Christmas. r-((



And a Merry Christmas to you as well Snape :) hugz-)

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


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

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: Season's Greetings   

¡¡ MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !!

Sorry, I haven't been about much. In spite of what
Goofy says about my state of employment, I have
been busy with work.

My Christmas wish is for peace and justice to all,
especially the Kerchers ...


... and may the purveyors of lies and pain not
benefit from their evil vocation.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Juliet wrote:
On a connected point, there was a discussion of justice earlier, and whose view really mattered in this. Some said the view of the Kerchers mattered above all. I would like to differ on this.

I agree that those closely related to the victim should, one hopes, feel a sense of justice of the outcome of the court proceedings. And of course their interests should be taken into account in the whole proceedings, as I am sure they have been.

But surely, the law is there to serve a particular society? The Italian community here is a 'victim', it is their law and rules that have been broken. Perugia citizens do not wish killers amongst them, and italians in general do not wish killers to go scot-free. The law is there to protect the society as a whole.

While the Kerchers might have conducted themselves with great wisdom and measure in this case, one could not wish generally the state to mould its judgements to the wishes of the victims relatives. A grieving relative might naturally feel a great amount of anger and wish an eye for an eye, while this, as Fiona points out in her post earlier might not in the interests of society as a whole.



Hi Juliet. Yes, I agree with you that in society the victims do not matter above all (although they matter more in the Italian system since unlike in ours, the victims are included as a dynamic part of the process as well as having full access to the evidence victims in other systems don't). I should clarify...the view of the Kerchers matters above all from the perspective of PMF (and TJMK) , since our main ethos has always been 'truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family'. PMF has always been a pro-victim site. And I would also add, the Kerchers have always proven themselves deserving of that. At no time have they shown themselves to be vengeful or so clouded by emotion as to be blinded to the facts. Society is also of course important. But society hasn't been sitting in that court room every hearing (or having a lawyer doing so for them and reporting back each time) or had full access to all of the evidence.

But, I will close by disagreeing with you here. Societies 'view' doesn't matter more then that of the Kerchers, it is the view of the Kerchers that matters most as it is they that have been offended against the most and for the other reasons above...having been a 'part' of the process they are in a better position then society to judge and have a 'view'.

Where perhaps you are right and perhaps this is what you were really angling for...is it's the 'interests' of society that has priority (not its view) although that's outside of the PMF remit, but on that I would agree with you. The primary role of justice should be to serve justice for 'society', but I don't think that also means their 'view' has primary importance at all, especially when most people in society don't even have a view as they are not at all interested in the trial. Yet all the same, their interests have been served.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: Season's Greetings   

Kermit wrote:
¡¡ MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !!

Sorry, I haven't been about much. In spite of what
Goofy says about my state of employment, I have
been busy with work.

My Christmas wish is for peace and justice to all,
especially the Kerchers ...


... and may the purveyors of lies and pain not
benefit from their evil vocation.



Hi Kermit and Merry Christmas to you!!! Amen to your sentiments. And I will also add, don't worry about Goofy...he's down and out!



_________________
"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: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:37 am   Post subject: Re: Season's Greetings   

Kermit wrote:
¡¡ MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !!

Sorry, I haven't been about much. In spite of what
Goofy says about my state of employment, I have
been busy with work.

My Christmas wish is for peace and justice to all,
especially the Kerchers ...


... and may the purveyors of lies and pain not
benefit from their evil vocation.


I am sorry to have been too busy with family and friends to translate anything of the wash-up from Rudy' appeal judgement.

To all of you across the seas, my very best wishes for a Joyous & Safe Christmas and a Happy and Secure New Year from Tiziano in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, where it is already 9.30PM on The Night Before Christmas.

To the Kercher Family, special greetings of Peace and Goodwill.
May your lovely girl Meredith REST IN PEACE.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Counterfactual News Flash!!!.........."KITSUNETSUKI KNOXI"

With the nickname Foxy Knoxy--- which she flaunted--- lucky she didn't murder in Japan, where they have a peculiar superstition.........


Kitsunetsuki

Kitsunetsuki (狐憑き or 狐付き; also written kitsune-tsuki) literally means the state of being possessed by a fox. The victim is always a young woman, whom the fox enters beneath her fingernails or through her breasts.[27] In some cases, the victims' facial expressions are said to change in such a way that they resemble those of a fox. Read more en.wikipedia.org

//////////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Merry Christmas and best wishes for a peaceful and successful 2010 to all!

To the Kercher family a heartfelt wish for joy and comfort.

Be Well!
Julia
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

2009 is drawing to a close with justice in place for Meredith. Let us hope 2010 brings to an end any uncertainty still left open as to the future. Time to reflect for me on my good luck and ability to spend a precious time with family and friends.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you all.

_________________
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 Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:29 pm   Post subject: Merry Christmas one and all   

To all, the Board and its readers,

who, in infinite variety, by

  • nurturing the heart and emotional core, finding and making links and connections,
  • tending to the patterns of logical thinking, highlighting geometries of reasoning and signposting the paths through the thickets
  • and, by example and guidance, keeping the spirit of a beautiful young soul alive

I can only say,

Thank you.

It is almost midnight now over here, so I bid you all

A Merry Christmas

and enjoyable and safe holidays wherever you are.



P.S. It wasn't until I went for a walk in the Botanic Gardens earlier today
(it is high summer here now: cicadas, and cockatoos, and flying foxes, and very, very hot),
that I realised that the phrase used in referring to a person, to say that their soul is "full of light"
is actually a very beautiful thought.


Three Gifts:


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

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

As well, I wish you all a Merry Christmas. I'm a day away in this time zone.

I also wish the Kercher family peace, comfort, and that the next year brings for them, a road that is smoother and less bumpy. May God always bless them, keep watch over them and surround them in God's peace.

PS Catnip your pictures are exquisite. You must live in a very beautiful and warm place. Here, it's 15 below with lots of snow on the mountains and ski slopes.

PSS Michael, your response to Juliet - the parts where you both agree and disagree as well as the clarity between point of view and priority - I couldn't have said it better myself.

Have a great 2010 everyone!
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
And I get it -- he got the mitigations in this, the Second trial (my emphasis). My question, however, is WHY the judge gave him the mitigations in the Second trial but not in the First, whereas AK and RS DID get mitigations in their First trial?


This reason for change must be written in the judges' motivation, which is to be published.
We can guess something although looking at least in two directions. One fact is that the extenuatong circumstances were given to the other two accused, as you noticed. It is anywaay very frequent a reduction of sentences in the appeal trial, because appeal courts look more carefully for mitigation circumstances as their specific task, while the attorneys are also more prepared in seeking mitigation since they already have the previous judges' motivation to work on.
But besides the subjective eelement there is also a numeric factor. The first degree judgement in the abbreviated trial has one judge (the G.U.P.) but the appeal court has eight judges. They decide by majority on the guilt/innocence, but the judges voting 'guilty' must then be unanimous on the weight of the penalty. So one judge who wants mitigating circumstances out of eight would be sufficient. This makes mitigation more likely, being more unlikely that all judges decide unanimpusly to for the toughest line. One Micheli rasoning occurs frequently, while eight at the same time is a less predictable scenario.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
And I get it -- he got the mitigations in this, the Second trial (my emphasis). My question, however, is WHY the judge gave him the mitigations in the Second trial but not in the First, whereas AK and RS DID get mitigations in their First trial?


This reason for change must be written in the judges' motivation, which is to be published.
We can guess something although looking at least in two directions. One fact is that the extenuatong circumstances were given to the other two accused, as you noticed. It is anywaay very frequent a reduction of sentences in the appeal trial, because appeal courts look more carefully for mitigation circumstances as their specific task, while the attorneys are also more prepared in seeking mitigation since they already have the previous judges' motivation to work on.
But besides the subjective eelement there is also a numeric factor. The first degree judgement in the abbreviated trial has one judge (the G.U.P.) but the appeal court has eight judges. They decide by majority on the guilt/innocence, but the judges voting 'guilty' must then be unanimous on the weight of the penalty. So one judge who wants mitigating circumstances out of eight would be sufficient. This makes mitigation more likely, being more unlikely that all judges decide unanimpusly to for the toughest line. One Micheli rasoning occurs frequently, while eight at the same time is a less predictable scenario.


Thanks for that information Yummi, I didn't know that. This displays very well (despite cries from other quarters) just how much the Italian system is weighted in favour of the accused. It requires a majority vote among judges to convict, while only a minority vote is required to provide mitigation.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From the Smog:

The Cook wrote:
Posted by Candace Dempsey at 12/23/09 11:59 p.m.

Rudy will be out before Amanda & Raffaele. Justice?



THE SMOG


Of course it is Candace. While some may consider 16 years as too short, the fact is he should serve a 'shorter' amount of time then Raffaele and Amanda because he has been convicted of less crimes then they. He has been convicted of sexual murder, while they have been convicted of the same but in addition, the illegal transportation of a knife, fabrication of a crime and in Amanda's case, criminal slander. In fact, Rudy was actually sentenced to not such a different figure as they (24 years) where they only got 1 and 2 more years respectively, even though Raffaele had been convicted for 2 extra crimes and Amanda 3. They got off very lightly indeed. And still you complain.

_________________
"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 DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Candace Dempsey aiming to profit from the murder of Meredith Kercher. Disgusting?

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: Merry Christmas one and all   

Catnip wrote:

P.S. It wasn't until I went for a walk in the Botanic Gardens earlier today
(it is high summer here now: cicadas, and cockatoos, and flying foxes, and very, very hot),
that I realised that the phrase used in referring to a person, to say that their soul is "full of light" is actually a very beautiful thought.


Three Gifts:


Thank you for those lovely pictures-- most welcome as here we are still socked under gobs of snow with more predicted. th-)
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Candace Dempsey aiming to profit from the murder of Meredith Kercher. Disgusting?



VERY.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Merry Christmas to everyone, and warm thoughts to the Kercher family

hugz-)

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL



Mermaid

wood carving by yours truly


Last edited by piktor on Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Juliet wrote:
On a connected point, there was a discussion of justice earlier, and whose view really mattered in this. Some said the view of the Kerchers mattered above all. I would like to differ on this.

I agree that those closely related to the victim should, one hopes, feel a sense of justice of the outcome of the court proceedings. And of course their interests should be taken into account in the whole proceedings, as I am sure they have been.

But surely, the law is there to serve a particular society? The Italian community here is a 'victim', it is their law and rules that have been broken. Perugia citizens do not wish killers amongst them, and italians in general do not wish killers to go scot-free. The law is there to protect the society as a whole.

While the Kerchers might have conducted themselves with great wisdom and measure in this case, one could not wish generally the state to mould its judgements to the wishes of the victims relatives. A grieving relative might naturally feel a great amount of anger and wish an eye for an eye, while this, as Fiona points out in her post earlier might not in the interests of society as a whole.



Hi Juliet. Yes, I agree with you that in society the victims do not matter above all (although they matter more in the Italian system since unlike in ours, the victims are included as a dynamic part of the process as well as having full access to the evidence victims in other systems don't). I should clarify...the view of the Kerchers matters above all from the perspective of PMF (and TJMK) , since our main ethos has always been 'truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family'. PMF has always been a pro-victim site. And I would also add, the Kerchers have always proven themselves deserving of that. At no time have they shown themselves to be vengeful or so clouded by emotion as to be blinded to the facts. Society is also of course important. But society hasn't been sitting in that court room every hearing (or having a lawyer doing so for them and reporting back each time) or had full access to all of the evidence.

But, I will close by disagreeing with you here. Societies 'view' doesn't matter more then that of the Kerchers, it is the view of the Kerchers that matters most as it is they that have been offended against the most and for the other reasons above...having been a 'part' of the process they are in a better position then society to judge and have a 'view'.

Where perhaps you are right and perhaps this is what you were really angling for...is it's the 'interests' of society that has priority (not its view) although that's outside of the PMF remit, but on that I would agree with you. The primary role of justice should be to serve justice for 'society', but I don't think that also means their 'view' has primary importance at all, especially when most people in society don't even have a view as they are not at all interested in the trial. Yet all the same, their interests have been served.


It is important to clarify that our emphasis on the Kerchers' being satisfied with the verdict refers to Edda Mellas's misleading statement that they had not attended the trial itself and therefore were not in a position to "judge". What Edda omits to say is that they had access to a 10,000 page case file and a lawyer, who represented them in the courtroom and briefed them on what happened during the trial. If they are satisfied with the verdict, it is because they feel it was warranted based on the evidence.

The rules are made by societies and are applicable to all members of that society and anyone who is on its soil. Of course, every society has the right to expect people to conform to its laws and has the right and even the obligation to punish those who don't, after a fair trial that respects due process. Indeed, this is one reason why the well-publicized criticisms of the society and its system of justice from the family and friends of one of the accused were out of line. They sounded at times as if they wanted to change the system because it is somehow "unfair" to one particular person.


Merry Christmas to everyone!

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

Offline Rhonda


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:23 pm

Posts: 44

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

That is beautiful, Piktor! You are very talented.

Happy Holidays to All and May 2010 Bring to Each of You Many Delights!
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I send my very Best Christmas Wishes to You!
We are having a White Christmas here for the first time in a decade.

It has been fun bouncing ideas off you crime buffs this year about the inner workings of the Metropath.
I was disappointed to see the recent drastic reduction in RG's sentence, and that he still dishonors himself by lies.

Take time to be glad this holiday, and give thanks for the family and friends that you have.
My best Christmas present this year is that my Dad made it to Christmas and still has no pain.
I will enjoy spending time with him this week. He is facing his sentence with honor and dignity.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Wow, Piktor: that is an amazing piece of work. I am very impressed indeed

And thanks also to Catnip for the beautiful flower pictures: flower are missed at this time of year so they were most welcome

I wish all of you a happy time during the holidays and a happy and prosperous New Year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL


wood carving by yours truly


Gorgeous work! Truly lovely. Another nice reminder of the beauty in the world.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thank you for sharing your lovely work, Piktor :)

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Happy Christmas Everyone on PMF!

Have a great day and a peaceful 2010


Here is a picture of Mungo. Just because.

The Bard


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

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fiona wrote:
Wow, Piktor: that is an amazing piece of work. I am very impressed indeed

+1!

Happy holidays to all!

And may the new year bring some answers!

Tom
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 24, 2009 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

(( OT OT ))

I'm hearing on the news that someone has knocked the Pope over.

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


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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
(( OT OT ))

I'm hearing on the news that someone has knocked the Pope over.



Apparently it was a 'mentally disturbed woman'. Edda?

Does this mean the Pontiff will have to wait until he is granted another private audience with Bambi?

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Bard wrote:
Happy Christmas Everyone on PMF!

Have a great day and a peaceful 2010


Here is a picture of Mungo. Just because.

The Bard

How do I add a picture of my rabbit? (currently freezing out in the snow)?

Tom


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


Last edited by tom_ch on Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Happy Christmas Everyone on PMF!

Have a great day and a peaceful 2010


Here is a picture of Mungo. Just because.

The Bard

How do I add a picture of my rabbit? (currently freezing out in the snow)?

Tom


You can add it by uploading it as an attachment :)

_________________
"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 tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Happy Christmas Everyone on PMF!

Have a great day and a peaceful 2010


Here is a picture of Mungo. Just because.

The Bard

How do I add a picture of my rabbit? (currently freezing out in the snow)?

Tom


You can add it by uploading it as an attachment :)

Thanks, done!

Tom
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 24, 2009 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
Thanks, done!

Tom



I don't see 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 tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

So cute! Love rabbits but, deathly allergic! beautiful carving piktor! I have to say that imo, children are still a product of their environment. that being said, I find the whole Knox/Mellas clan narcissistic and despicable. I think when you bring children up in that environment (broken home first, always going to court for child support, etc, etc) and then placing a significant burden on a child (pushing them to be perfect), you will end up with an unhappy child who will rebel. I for one believe that Edda made Amanda feel like the "golden child" and that she had to meet so many of Edda's expectations that she actually started to believe she was without fault. Obviously Amanda is used to manipulating her family and has been very successful at it. They have failed to even consider one piece of the evidence. I cannot believe for one moment that they do not have their doubts. Obviously the whole family has that "entitled" vision of themselves.
I would just like to add that I doubt Edda would ever do any interviews with the "hard questions" thrown at her as Marriott has stated that the family will not do interviews with journalists who are not sympathetic to their plight. After all this, that family has not one shred of decency to not even utter condolences to the Kercher's.
My only hope is that their sentences are not reduced during appeal. If they are innocent, then let them prove it or provide the answers needed to even consider a reduction in sentence. Whatever happens, they have all been convicted of murder, they are convicted murderers. That will stay with them for life. So, even though I feel justice might be thwarted with a lower sentence, they will never, ever escape this title they have been given. The Knox/Mellas clan have made sure that America will never forget that Amanda is a convicted murderer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
A warm welcome to all our new posters and members!!!

I also want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas!!!

























I'm not 'new', but Happy Festive Season to you and all, too.





Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   



Last edited by Jester on Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Ava wrote:
I am starting to feel sorry for Amanda to have parents like hers. If she's clever she'll take therapy while being in jail. Or is this required somehow as part of the rehabilitation, does anyone know?


I can't help but wonder if Amanda's siblings are learning the lesson to take responsibility for their own actions? Or learning that if they do whatever they want (including killing) will achieve International noteriety for themselves and the Family?

If Edda, Curt and the other Family members make $$$ off this by selling photos and stories, Amanda's siblings are learning crime pays.

The media needs to stop glorifying these people. Curt and Edda's la_) is an egregious criminal. Either step up and take responsibility or hold Amanda accountable for her actions. There is no middle ground.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   








I did not know Meredith Kercher, but suspect she would appreciate the festive smilies. These are for you, lovely lady.


Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

For those with a touch of Irish

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1nxmt ... york_music
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:54 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Mom?
I think someone could have been in my house...


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

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I do not believe that smoking pot prevents someone from remembering what they did the night before. The "confusion" is nothing more than a lie.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Of course it is Jester.
She admitted under questioning in court that this was the first time in her life she had ever been confused like this.
It just so happens (and there are many, many 'just so happens' in this sorry affair) that Amanda Knox became confused and couldn't remember what she had done the night before for the first time in her life - that this period of confusion matches perfectly with Merediths time of death.

It is one thing to forget you have done something, like leaving the gas fire on in the house after you have left for example, but a person - even a heavy dope smoker - does not forget an entire evening and becomes 'confused' when asked about it.

Top and bottom of it - yes, she is lying.

The corrections on this image are evidence of lying in my opinion.
This period is obviously crucial to her and what she really does know.

After the corrections we have:

I BELIEVE we relaxed.
PERHAPS I checked my email.
PERHAPS I read or studied.
PERHAPS I made love to Raffaele.
In fact I THINK I DID...

What is she playing at here?
She says perhaps she did then in the same line states that she did?

Lies, damned lies...

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

If Amanda is not sure (per the handwritten account) what she did that night, how can she be so sure she had no part in the heinous crimes? Very detailed until it gets to the part about the crime timeline.

As long as the interviewers don't ask the real and tough questions, the delusion will continue. This Italian justice seems adament about not releasing prisoners who are not rehabilitated. I like that.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi, All. Wishing everyone a wonderful happy holiday. Just after i stopped perusing the site for awhile (grandson's birthday, and mine etc) read about Donald Trumpet's worthless two cents worth. Really, the hairdo and pout have to go. Such a lot happening. My question is: Will Rudi be able to get a further reduction After the appeal if he tells all, or must he spill BEFORE the final appeal?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Thanks, done!

Tom



I don't see it :(

I edited the post and added it.

Here's another, from summer (notice the lack of ice in this one):


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

Offline Johnnie


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:35 am

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Merry Christmas, all ye PMF'ers!
I appreciate looking at all the of warm and fuzzy images today! Thanks, everyone!
Hey, Bard: I think Mungo's got some serious competition with Tom's bunny for cuteness. Is Tom's bunny a boy or girl?

Stunning work, Piktor! Bravo!

To the Kerchers:
You've lived through the worst despair, grief, pain, you've carried the heaviest burden.

It's been a long, brutally difficult road, one we can just barely fathom. My hope is that you know how much you're thought of today by countless people on this list, and all over the world, each and every day. We all pray that this Christmas you feel some measure of comfort and peace. May your hearts be warmed by memories of beautiful Meredith's life. May you cherish the memories of her. Today and every day may you feel her presence, her very spirit, her love.

Peace to all this Christmas Day
from
The 411
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:26 pm   Post subject: TO GREGGY, TO BRIAN S., and others...   

Greggy wrote:


My best Christmas present this year is that my Dad made it to Christmas and still has no pain.
I will enjoy spending time with him this week. He is facing his sentence with honor and dignity.


I think your message got lost in the shuffle.
Sounds like your Dad is very ill, perhaps cancer?
Grateful that he's been spared pain. THAT's
a huge blessing, indeed. Also a blessing for you and Dad to have each other and spend time together. I've decided the theme for the day is "warm and fuzzy," and that's what I'm wishing for you and your Dad today. Remember to stay in the moment.

Wishing your father, and Brian S., and everyone who has pain or illness much comfort and peace today~~

(((Happy Healthful Holiday Hug of Hope))) to y'all from
The 411
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Happy Xmas everyone. It's been a long haul for a lot people on here no doubt, but obviously nothing compared to how it must feel for Meredith's family this Christmas. Hopefully they can have some peace at last after the sentencing, though it will never make up for Meredith not being with them today.

The guilty ones are now safely locked up. No doubt about that.

Their "supporters" can spit and hiss as much as they like, but to quote old Shakey " it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" .





_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Did you know in winter you live so well, just like in spring?

A strange and contradictory feeling of surprise, for longing and deprivation mixed with happiness, the one expressed by this song about cold winter, separation, walls and freedom. A walk made only of a few steps, interrupted by an invalicable fence. A mystery about freedom and the meaning of things.
Alexanderplatz is a 1982 song, in Italian, but really from a heart of Europe.
Apparently OT, I don't know why this comes now to my mind now for Christmas on this blog.

Alexanderplatz
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

People. Ya gotta love 'em.

More spirit of Christmas, but from 9 months ago in Belgium train station.
www.youtube.com

/////
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dehgriff


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:11 am

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi all. I'm new to this site, so be gentle :). This case has facinated me recently and I've been absorbing the wealth of informtation on sites like this. To be clear, my current belief is that all 3 are guilty, although exactly who did what is not, and perhaps will never clear.

Anyhow, I have some questions, which if anyone is obliging I'd love some answers, or discussion on..

1) The mop
a) Is there any evidence that this was forensically tested, and if so, why did it not reveal anything? Was is thought to have been used in the house? I'd have thought a recent 'mopping' would be obvious, as opposed to a sponging or some other type of cleaning.
b) Why was the mop found outside with RS and AK? If they mopped inside with it, why take it outside?
c) Isn't the 'leak' at RS's flat story easy to check on, forensically. Surely the pipe or whatever would show evidence of leakage?

2) The knife
a) This was a knife from, and belonging to RS's appartment, right?
b) If this was used in the murder, they must have brought it with them. Doesn't this indicate premeditation? If so, why have they been judged not to have premeditated the crime?
c) It seems odd to bring such a large kitchen knife, doesn't it?
d) Why bring a large kitched knife at all. Didn't RS always carry a pocket knife or something, and surely the flat had knives in it that could be used.
e) How can DNA be retrieved from a blade that has been scrubbed with bleach?
f) At what point did they meet up with Rudy, and presumably show him they had brought a big knife, and asked would he like to join in... who exactly instigated the crime by the way?

3) Clothing
a) There must have been a lot of blood on RS and AK's clothes. Why was none found? Did they dump their clothes? Did witnesses identify clothing they had on? Was there clear evidence that they had washed their clothes?
b) What about Rudy's clothing? Didn't he go on that night to a club or something? If so, where & when did he change his clothes?

4) Keys
a) How many keys were there to Meredith's room?
b) Can it be & was it locked from the 'outside'. I assume so.
c) Where is the key that was used to lock the door? Was it on a bunch with other keys, e.g. of Meredith's.
d) Why has the key not been found?

5) The bloody footprint on the bathroom mat.
By what scenario did that get there? How does one trample around so much blood between one room to another? Meridith's room had a lot of blood, but it was mainly focussed in one half of the room. The clean-up must have been truely extensive. I realise this question is agnositic of the culprit, it's just that I'd have thought this must be revealing of what went on both on the night and in the clean-up.

6) What the hell happened that night?
I mean, it seems virtually unbelievable that AK or RS would intend, pre-meditated, to commit murder that night, since there was no motive to do so. Therefore, one must conclude that something went terribly, terribly wrong. But this is odd too. I can envisage crimes like burglaries, where someone get's shot, or stabbed, e.g. because they resist, but this crime was clearly a sustained and escalating attack. If it was done jointly by 3 people, why didn't one of them try and stop it? Perhaps it crossed a line, at which point all 3 decided that they couldn't leave Meredith alive to talk. Chilling. Maybe this is a case of a group feeding off each, i.e. alone, none of them would have done it, but as a group... is there a psychological term for this?

That'll do for now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:13 am   Post subject: Back on board   

EXCITING
Yummi wrote:

Lancelotti wrote:

for the full context, look here


I won't look. I already know all real figures. What I would like to see is a non hypocrite use of things. It is your burden to argue your points. You have to decide if the context fits the case.
Mon 21 Dec [ link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page Page 10



Hypocrisy is deep in the personality.

On the one hand, there is excitement and exhilaration in posting on a public forum because there is a strong possibility of being able to influence the outcome. On the other hand, there comes across a fear and temerity of being caught, of being found out about something. One influence pulls towards interesting ideas and long explanations; the other influence seeks to minimise contact, like a quarantine or rubber gloves, and produces very short, terse and cryptic posts (if any), revealing as little as possible.

The end result of these two contrary influences is posts that are an average 4-6 words long, and I never end up understanding what is trying to be said (or, at best, whether I am excluded because the conversation is with someone other than me). Perhaps I am too slow on the pick-up.

I predict that the hypocrisy will remain, and that I will continue to not learn much from such a teacher.

As they say, wisdom comes before the first lesson, by choosing the correct professor.




IN THE STYLE OF
Talking about learning:

Imitating someone more experienced is a good way to develop and improve one’s skills.
Arts students use that technique. Writers, too.

The Bard mentioned a possible link between Amanda’s use of the phrase “the mask” and its prior usage by her prison priest.

The Bard wrote:
I was struck by the comments about the mask...and the smiling. It was the priest's fault all along: …
– Sat 19 Dec [ link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 9



Likewise, I hypothesize that there could be a link between the writing style in Saint Maria Riposi-in-Pace’s prize-winning narrative piece, and journalist Sarzanini’s style as used in her book about the case. She (Sarzanini) uses “you” and builds up an intimate conversational mood, built up in layers like a painting.

As an example, here is a paragraph, picked at random:

You didn’t give much thought to this question [from a chap’s blog: “Do I continue until I drop or project Erasmus?”]. Whenever the situation arose, you always decided to go. Staying in a foreign country is an exhilarating experience. The unexpected (day-to-day) problems seem far away, almost as if they don’t exist. It’s not really like that, but at least you ’re fooling yourself, by increasing the distance. You distract yourself with discos, beer and joints. And when you engage the brain, you focus on each detail, even the ones that seemed insignificant to you. You look backwards, putting the pieces of your existence together, and you feel almost privileged because – thanks to Dad – you’ve always done what you’ve wanted, because you’ve always been travelling round the world without the problem of having to find the money to look after yourself.

– Fiorenza Sarzanini, Amanda e gli altri (“Amanda and company”), Bompiani 2008, page 102, in the chapter “Raffaele”






AT HOME WITH THE MORONS
When war movies and TV spy series were all the fashion, German vocabulary easily entered the good-natured larking about and games of the Australian school playground: “Schnell! Schnell!”, “Jawol!”, “Gesundheit!”, and Ziegfried always telling Shtarker, in a fit of pique: “(East German accent) Ziss iz KAOS! We do not {insert current joke} here!” (They were so hilarious.)

Combined with the Three Stooges always calling each other “knuckleheads” and so on, it is quite easy to imagine that a traditionally “mild” insult like Dummkopf (which can also be a term of affection, says Hutschi over at [ Word Reference Forum ] 11th April 2009), would be used in German-heritage families and translated as “moron” when speaking in (non-German) US-land, and used very freely whenever the occasion needed it.

Combined with the social phenomenon of women being the verbal protectors – as revealed by The Chaser’s War on Everything (where one of the Chaser guys (male) went to various Main Streets, Somewhere-villes, with a microphone, ostensibly asking questions about the topic of the day, but ending up complimenting the male interviewee’s very nice buttocks, the interviewee’s wife, picking up the intention of this, would invariably start screeching invectives and obscenities, just like a Fox presenter, in order to protect her manly “investment”) –

It is not so surprising, then, that a response like the following pops up all too easily:


The Bard wrote:
Quote to me from Janet Huff on You Tube site. Classy bird! I didn't know she was janlizzie!!! Whoops! I come face to face with my nemesis. Should I mention the torture comment do you think?

"Hey moron, I am her Aunt. I know more about this case than some schmuck who has only read the tabliods. Don't bother spewing your stupidity at me further. I won't bother trying to correct those who just WANT to hate Amanda no matter what, you are beyond helping. No matter what is said to you, you will not beleive it because you have it set in your head to have her be guilty despite all evidence to the contrary. Grasp the fact that not everything you read on the internet is complete or factual."

– Tue 15 Dec [ link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 5





STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH
Jester wrote:
Des, I think in reading this [=refers to one of the digests] you will find the answer for why some opinions are more widely held ... they're straight from the prosecutor.

– Sun 20 Dec [ link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 9


Jester,
You may have unwittingly found the way to tell the difference between whether people have been getting their information from CBS or from RAI.


Interestingly, OT, opinions are shareable and inheritable, and so come “straight” from somewhere.

Saying that I got (one of) my ideas from the prosecution seems, at first glance, a plausible and valid claim to make.

In fact, it could also be said, equally validly, that the prosecution got their opinion from me. (And the defence got their position from my alternative opinion(s).)

On the other hand (forgetting about opinions for the moment), if there is a piece of evidence, “A”, and other pieces “B” and “C”, if I put them together and get conclusion “X”, and someone else puts them together and also gets conclusion “X”, then I do not have grounds for suing that other person for breach of copyright. The conclusion is not “mine” to own or exercise dominion over.

Archaeologists and palaeontologists have to separate opinions from conclusions all the time.

Lawyers are trained to come up with six different simultaneous interpretations between waking up and breakfast. It is second nature to them. Take any of the lawyers, swap them with any of the other lawyers, and that party’s legal argument will be unchanged. The only difference (if any) would be minor points of eloquence and presentation, not of substance.






D’OH!
Narrative is the easiest way for people to understand what happened, and to put all the little pieces of the puzzle into a context.

One of the strongest contenders for a narrative in this case is the D’oh! version. There were two minds involved (or rather, two states of mind) who did not see eye to eye, so to speak.

For a history of D’oh!, see [ Wikipedia ] and [ The Simpsons Archive ] Homer says "D'oh!"


SomeAlibi wrote:

…for there to be a suggestion --> rebuttal type of logic tree. … searchable … through an easy look-up….

– Fri 18 Dec [ link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 8



I like the idea of logic trees. Climbing them is such good exercise for the mind.

Also, this is an expandable idea.

For example, the phone logic tree might go something like this (x=real; y=imagined), traversing the sequence of events:

x-x: phones are thrown away
x-x-x: distance thrown from road, direction and landing location are objective facts:
x-x-x-x: infer: suggests the intention may have been to throw them into the Bulagaio ravine, but the attempt was unsuccessful: not enough strength: – D’oh!
x-x-x-y: (imagined conversation): “Did you throw the phones away?” “Yep!”

x-x: phones are rung the following day
x-x-x: a few seconds is not enough time to respond:
x-x-x-x: infer: suspect knew victim was dead – possible D’oh!
x-x-x-x: counter-inference: suspect was expecting victim to use call-back?
x-x-x-y: (imagined conversation): “Did you switch them both off?” “No.” – D’oh!


x-x-x: neighbours at house down the road heard a ring
x-x-x-x: (real conversation): “Does anyone know someone called Amanda?” “No.”
x-x-x-x-y: (imagined conversation): Down the road: “Let’s call her back.”
Ring ring
At via della Pergola: “Yikes! She alive! Aiee!” (jumps in fright, visions of zombies or worse) – possible D’oh!, if overheard by Postal Police



Or this imagined one, traversing the logical implications:

Speaker: There is no evidence to support the theft charge.
Speaker: There is evidence that the supposed burglary was a fake and was staged.
Whisper at one end of accuseds’ table: Does that include the emptied purse placed on the bedsheet?
Other end of accuseds’ table: D’oh!



We shall have to wait until the reasons for the ruling are handed down.




hikergirl99 wrote:

PS Catnip your pictures are exquisite. You must live in a very beautiful and warm place. Here, it's 15 below with lots of snow on the mountains and ski slopes.

[ link ]


Hikergirl99,
Snow must be interesting. All that crystalline purity.
I’ve never seen snow in the hand or underfoot.
Here in Sydney it’s almost subtropical.
With the occasional nocturnal visitor looking for a treat.


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:45 am   Post subject: Questions   

dehgriff wrote:
Anyhow, I have some questions, which if anyone is obliging I'd love some answers, or discussion on..
....That'll do for now.


Hi dehgriff,

Welcome to the forum!

It's a big ask!
Everyone's asleep now, but I'm sure answers and responses will be forthcoming when they wake up.

I'd like to add to your list, if I may:
Statements:
(a) Why did the three's "explanations" keep changing to match new evidence as it was revealed?
(b) Why can't Amanda and Raffaele agree on what they say happened that night?
(c) What was the point of claiming "Patrick did it!" and then later trying to explain that claim?
(d) Why make phone calls at all?
(e) Why tell the police emergency call centre something about a "locked door"?
(f) Why say you were on the computer when you weren't?
(g) Why go quiet on the phone front and yet ignore the homeless person in piazza Grimana who has seen both of you separately before on other days?
(h) Why attack/threaten Kokomani at all?
(i) Why deny knowing Rudy?
(j) Why mention details that turn out to be red herrings?
And so on.

Those are just off the top of my head.
I shall have a proper think about the witness testimony and statements (they can more powerful than the forensics, in some senses, when fitting the pieces together).

And then there's the BIG rock.


Thanks, dehgriff.
Your questioning has helped me in planning how I can organise the information (and also help with the context of the translations).

Much appreciated! :)
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi. I am one of these who believe that Knox isn't the one who killed. Yeah, i know, it's not the best place for me(:P), however, you guys, are the best. I found here great stuff, insights, pro articles(objective mostly), videos, but most of all - smart people. It's a pleasure to be able to get up in the morning and read your opinions on the case. I've done that for the past few months straight, so i decided to write something. As you can see my english isn't that great but i'll try my best ,i promise i won't be a pain in the a.s, and i really hope that nobody will call me a troll beacuse i'm not sure that Knox is guilty.

First of all i wanted to say something about Edda Mellas. You guys tend to criticize her, using some strong words, but i guess unless you're in the same situation, you never know what's going on with her and it's not good to judge her. She's doing everything to save her child. No matter if she's guilty or innocent. I just can understand these kind of beahviours and to be honest i'm really surprised that some of you are having such a hard time to deal with it. Yup, some of you say that she's telling lies infront of public-on radios and tv, and i guess you are right, but i would do the same, really. However, i would do thatonly if i would be 100% sure that my kid was innocent. Do you think that the same goes for Mellas?

As for Knox. Is there a really solid proof/evidence that she was the killer? I'm not being ignorant, i just couldn't find anything like that. Was circumstantial evidence the base for sentencing her to jail for 26 years? I know all about the knife, the witness, the odd behaviour, but i believe that this is simply not enough.Is there anything that is linking here to the room? Oh yeah, and i also know about the infamous bra clasp.

I mean, how can anyone kill and not left behind some traces? Guede did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

A knife found in RS's home did not have RS's dna on it. Only Amanda's and Meredith's.

The mixture of Meredith's dna and Amanda's blood in the bathroom found in key areas.

Amanda's footprint under the victim.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
A knife found in RS's home did not have RS's dna on it. Only Amanda's and Meredith's.

The mixture of Meredith's dna and Amanda's blood in the bathroom found in key areas.

Amanda's footprint under the victim.


Amanda's blood? I didn't know that. Do you know where it came from? I know she had some scratch on the neck, but i heard it wasn't even big enough to bleed.

Footprint...is it 100% confirmed that it is in fact her footprint?

The knife. They think that it is a murder weapon, yet there is no blood. Only dna and some really small pieces, right?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:

Amanda's blood? I didn't know that. Do you know where it came from? I know she had some scratch on the neck, but i heard it wasn't even big enough to bleed.

Footprint...is it 100% confirmed that it is in fact her footprint?

The knife. They think that it is a murder weapon, yet there is no blood. Only dna and some really small pieces, right?


Oops! Mea culpa. Merediths blood, Amanda's dna.

I lost all sympathy for Edda Mellas and Curt Knox when they said the only way they would offer sympathy to the Kercher Family was if Amanda was found not guilty. In a recent interview, Edda blamed the kerchers for Amanda's plight.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

dehgriff wrote:
Hi all. I'm new to this site, so be gentle :). This case has facinated me recently and I've been absorbing the wealth of informtation on sites like this. To be clear, my current belief is that all 3 are guilty, although exactly who did what is not, and perhaps will never clear.

Anyhow, I have some questions, which if anyone is obliging I'd love some answers, or discussion on..

1) The mop
a) Is there any evidence that this was forensically tested, and if so, why did it not reveal anything? Was is thought to have been used in the house? I'd have thought a recent 'mopping' would be obvious, as opposed to a sponging or some other type of cleaning.
b) Why was the mop found outside with RS and AK? If they mopped inside with it, why take it outside?
c) Isn't the 'leak' at RS's flat story easy to check on, forensically. Surely the pipe or whatever would show evidence of leakage?

2) The knife
a) This was a knife from, and belonging to RS's appartment, right?
b) If this was used in the murder, they must have brought it with them. Doesn't this indicate premeditation? If so, why have they been judged not to have premeditated the crime?
c) It seems odd to bring such a large kitchen knife, doesn't it?
d) Why bring a large kitched knife at all. Didn't RS always carry a pocket knife or something, and surely the flat had knives in it that could be used.
e) How can DNA be retrieved from a blade that has been scrubbed with bleach?
f) At what point did they meet up with Rudy, and presumably show him they had brought a big knife, and asked would he like to join in... who exactly instigated the crime by the way?

3) Clothing
a) There must have been a lot of blood on RS and AK's clothes. Why was none found? Did they dump their clothes? Did witnesses identify clothing they had on? Was there clear evidence that they had washed their clothes?
b) What about Rudy's clothing? Didn't he go on that night to a club or something? If so, where & when did he change his clothes?

4) Keys
a) How many keys were there to Meredith's room?
b) Can it be & was it locked from the 'outside'. I assume so.
c) Where is the key that was used to lock the door? Was it on a bunch with other keys, e.g. of Meredith's.
d) Why has the key not been found?

5) The bloody footprint on the bathroom mat.
By what scenario did that get there? How does one trample around so much blood between one room to another? Meridith's room had a lot of blood, but it was mainly focussed in one half of the room. The clean-up must have been truely extensive. I realise this question is agnositic of the culprit, it's just that I'd have thought this must be revealing of what went on both on the night and in the clean-up.

6) What the hell happened that night?
I mean, it seems virtually unbelievable that AK or RS would intend, pre-meditated, to commit murder that night, since there was no motive to do so. Therefore, one must conclude that something went terribly, terribly wrong. But this is odd too. I can envisage crimes like burglaries, where someone get's shot, or stabbed, e.g. because they resist, but this crime was clearly a sustained and escalating attack. If it was done jointly by 3 people, why didn't one of them try and stop it? Perhaps it crossed a line, at which point all 3 decided that they couldn't leave Meredith alive to talk. Chilling. Maybe this is a case of a group feeding off each, i.e. alone, none of them would have done it, but as a group... is there a psychological term for this?

That'll do for now.



Hi dehgriff and welcome to PMF. Well, I wull initially say two things. You will find that most of your questions have been asked, discussed and answered with either a straight fact or the best answers available, in the past discussion threads at various points on this site. The second thing, is it might be better to pose your questions with just for or five per post, since the answers to some would be quite long and a post with so many questions would take a minor essay to answer.

In any case I'll try and answer a few. The mop would have been tested, but if blood had been found on it it would only have been trace amounts (since it would have been rinsed out several times). Since blood and DNA can't be dated, any such residue found on the mop would have little value as evidence. How do the police demonstrate that the mop was used to clean up after the mureder, rather then say having been used a few days before to mop up a nose bleed for example? How would they show any DNA wasn't picked up from day-to-day general cleaning of the cottage? As it stands, no evidence regarding the mop was presented in the trial. But for the above reasons, that doesn't necessarily mean their weren't any traces. The only reason to present something as evidence is of it can be connected to the actual evidence.

The keys were doubtless used to lock Mereduth's door from outside and then they were disposed of. It is likely they were disposed of in a way so they couldn't be found/retried, probably on some way like dropped down a drain or thrown far into the wasteland behind the cottage. There was no spare key. This is probably thje real reason Amanda and Raffaele tried to break down meredith's door...they suddenly remembered they'd left Amanda's lamp in Mereith's room and there was no way to retrieve the keys.

_________________
"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 donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
donnie wrote:

Amanda's blood? I didn't know that. Do you know where it came from? I know she had some scratch on the neck, but i heard it wasn't even big enough to bleed.

Footprint...is it 100% confirmed that it is in fact her footprint?

The knife. They think that it is a murder weapon, yet there is no blood. Only dna and some really small pieces, right?


Oops! Mea culpa. Merediths blood, Amanda's dna.

I lost all sympathy for Edda Mellas and Curt Knox when they said the only way they would offer sympathy to the Kercher Family was if Amanda was found not guilty. In a recent interview, Edda blamed the kerchers for Amanda's plight.


Stefanoni testified today that Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the kitchen knife the prosecution believes is the murder weapon. This knife was found in Sollecito's house. She said Kerches's DNA was on the blade. Stefanoni said, however, that the DNA in these samples was not from blood.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
I mean, how can anyone kill and not left behind some traces? Guede did.


Hi Donnie,

Evidence placing Amanda Knox in Meredith's room on the night of the murder:

1. The double DNA knife not only places Amanda Knox in Meredith's room, but also indicates that she inflicted the fatal wound

2. The woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith's body matched Amanda Knox's foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith's foot size. This debunks the myth that Rudy Guede acted alone and clearly places Amanda Knox inside Meredith's room when Meredith was killed.

3. Raffaele Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra. This seems to prove she also handled Meredith's bra.

Apparently, Vincenzo Pascali, Sollecito's chief forensic consultant, also found Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra.

4. Amanda Knox's reading lamp was found in Meredith's room. This is further evidence that Amanda Knox was in Meredith's room on the night of the murder.

5. Amanda Knox's footprints were set in Meredith's blood in different parts of the cottage, which clearly indicates that she had stepped in Meredith's blood in the Meredith's room and then tracked the blood around the house.

6. Amanda Knox's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom, which clearly indicates that her hands had come into with Meredith's blood in Meredith's room and then touched different fittings and the box of Q Tips cotton swabs in the bathroom.

Furthermore, Amanda Knox admitted on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and she voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder on 6 November 2007.

Evidence placing Raffaele Sollecito in Meredith's room on the night of the murder:

1. An abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA was found on Merediht's bra clasp.

2. Raffaele Sollecito's footprints were set in Meredith's blood in different parts of the cottage, which clearly indicates that he had stepped in Meredith's blood in the Meredith's room and then tracked the blood around the house.

3. The double DNA knife, which is compatible with the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck, was found in Sollecito's apartment. This is further evidence of his involvement in his Meredith's murder.

Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede both claimed that Raffaele Sollecito was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
First of all i wanted to say something about Edda Mellas. You guys tend to criticize her, using some strong words, but i guess unless you're in the same situation, you never know what's going on with her and it's not good to judge her. She's doing everything to save her child. No matter if she's guilty or innocent. I just can understand these kind of beahviours and to be honest i'm really surprised that some of you are having such a hard time to deal with it. Yup, some of you say that she's telling lies infront of public-on radios and tv, and i guess you are right, but i would do the same, really. However, i would do thatonly if i would be 100% sure that my kid was innocent. Do you think that the same goes for Mellas?


Welcome to PMF donnie. I think few here actually believes that Edda truly believes her daughter to be 100 % innocent. Regarding the lies from Edda and the rest of the family. If one is truly innocent, one seeks the truth for if one is innocent it's the truth that will prove that innocence and it is also the truth that will give you credibility and earn the trust of the audience you are trying to engage with in order to establish that innocence. If someone is truly innocent, lies are not only not required, they are the enemy of your cause and what you are attempting to achieve...the freedom of the one you believe to be innocent. One may be able to forgive one or two white lies over the course of a couple years, but when it's lie after lie one has to ask, if your daughter is really innocent and you truly believe that, then WHY the need for all those lies? The only logical answer I can come to, is that Edda Mellas doesn't believe her daughter to be innocent, but simply wants her back at all costs despite 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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Welcome to PMF donnie. I think few here actually believes that Edda truly believes her daughter to be 100 % innocent. Regarding the lies from Edda and the rest of the family. If one is truly innocent, one seeks the truth for if one is innocent it's the truth that will prove that innocence and it is also the truth that will give you credibility and earn the trust of the audience you are trying to engage with in order to establish that innocence. If someone is truly innocent, lies are not only not required, they are the enemy of your cause and what you are attempting to achieve...the freedom of the one you believe to be innocent. One may be able to forgive one or two white lies over the course of a couple years, but when it's lie after lie one has to ask, if your daughter is really innocent and you truly believe that, then WHY the need for all those lies? The only logical answer I can come to, is that Edda Mellas doesn't believe her daughter to be innocent, but simply wants her back at all costs despite that.


I agree. The simplest things they lie about. Amanda has stated she did cartwheels in the police station. Edda Mellas did a recent lengthy interview stating emphatically it was a lie. Things proven, not refuted by defense. Edda Mellas testified that she knew Patrick was not guilty, but did not tell Police because of not speaking Italian. If Amanda only confessed to that because of police brutality in the interrogation, why did EM not tell the truth?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:

Hi Donnie,

Evidence placing Amanda Knox in Meredith's room on the night of the murder:




It was the confessions of Amanda that I could not get past. They included details the investigators had not released. It was Amanda leading the investigators with her confessions, not the investigators leading the answers of Amanda.

I'm still not convinced Raffaele was involved in more than the coverup.

Amanda is guilty guilty guilty as far as I'm concerned.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

News report from italy yesterday, amanda "doesn't know why" guede's sentence was reduced because "he never told the truth" (as reported through Knox's mother):

Google translation of snippit from la repubblica article:
"I do not understand why they reduced the penalty to Rudy. He never told the truth. He continues to accuse even have nothing to do with the death of Meredith. He knows that night I was gone. I do not know what happened in that house. I never tire of repeating"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
donnie wrote:
I mean, how can anyone kill and not left behind some traces? Guede did.


5. Amanda Knox's footprints were set in Meredith's blood in different parts of the cottage, which clearly indicates that she had stepped in Meredith's blood in the Meredith's room and then tracked the blood around the house.



If you're referring to the luminol footprints, I don't believe they were able to test for blood, not having enough substance to test. However i do believe the technician did testify that in his/her professional opinion (presumably based on experience with luminol tests) that the substance was blood. I think another significant point is the blood found in the bedroom that had the 'break-in', since Guede's footprints in blood lead directly out the front door.

As for not leaving behind some traces, I just saw a forensics show last night where some kid was shot in his trailer and the could find no forensics traces in the trailer to help them. They eventually tracked down the killer through a DNA test on a dogs hair found in a toolbox or something like that owned by the suspect. It does happen.

I believe someone here recently stated they were familiar with PCR testing, so perhaps they can assist in this next comment; from what I've seen, dna analysis from substances containing multiple DNA contributions is difficult; my interpretation is that you don't get separate nice statements showing the full dna from each individual contribution; rather there is a great deal of analysis that has to happen to determine the contributory DNA strands. My thought then is what happens when there are more then 2, where the third contribution may be very minimal compared to the other two? Obviously the largest contribution comes from the victim; and its inarguable that another big part of the mix is Guede's blood from the cuts on his hand. So, between the two of those, you're then left to looking for skin and hair trace DNA from Knox & Sollecito who displayed no open wounds, only a potential scrape on Knox's neck. My intepretation from what I've read that this is tantamount to finding one needle of a certain size in a haystack made of two other sized needles.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Rhonda, th-) - Fiona, th-) - Bea, th-) - bucketoftea, th-)


Your kind words are warm encouragement that humbles me. I, in turn, admire you for your worthy contributions on this forum.
Attachment:
sunflowers for you.jpg

-Yours truly painted this in oil


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

pataz1 wrote:
News report from italy yesterday, amanda "doesn't know why" guede's sentence was reduced because "he never told the truth" (as reported through Knox's mother):

Google translation of snippit from la repubblica article:
"I do not understand why they reduced the penalty to Rudy. He never told the truth. He continues to accuse even have nothing to do with the death of Meredith. He knows that night I was gone. I do not know what happened in that house. I never tire of repeating"


This should play especially well in the US media markets. 'Fast track' trial reduction in sentence is not a concept the reporters will want to understand and convey.

Amanda Knox Family wasted mucho $$$ on the longer trial process. Fast track would have yielded the same verdict from the same set of evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL



Mermaid

wood carving by yours truly


One word: wow!

_________________
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 piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The 'warm/umido' WASHING MACHINE at the flat was a topic some days ago. Here's Truejustice's Feb. 6-7 witness for the prosecution accounts:

    -''The communication police noticed that there was a washing machine in operation and they could hear the noise of the centrifuge. Soon after, the mobile-squad police found that the machine had finished its work a few minutes earlier, and the clothes were still warm.''

    -''Filomena testified that the washing machine was still warm when she returned to the cottage and that it contained some of Meredith’s clothes.''

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _february/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

One word: wow!


Much appreciated, SomeAlibi :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Hi Donnie,

Evidence placing Amanda Knox in Meredith's room on the night of the murder:




It was the confessions of Amanda that I could not get past. They included details the investigators had not released. It was Amanda leading the investigators with her confessions, not the investigators leading the answers of Amanda.

I'm still not convinced Raffaele was involved in more than the coverup.

Amanda is guilty guilty guilty as far as I'm concerned.


Emerald - for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK. Certainly there is no way that AK could have restrained Meredith on her own for RG to carry out the sexual assault. That's why there are three people involved and RS it the third.

_________________
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 SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Rhonda, th-) - Fiona, th-) - Bea, th-) - bucketoftea, th-)


Your kind words are warm encouragement that humbles me. I, in turn, admire you for your worthy contributions on this forum.
Attachment:
sunflowers for you.jpg

-Yours truly painted this in oil


Double wow!! Really.

_________________
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 lamaha


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

OT:
wood carving and oil painting fantastic! You are very gifted, piktor.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Emerald - for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK. Certainly there is no way that AK could have restrained Meredith on her own for RG to carry out the sexual assault. That's why there are three people involved and RS it the third.



There were photos floating around of Amanda mummy wrapped, holding a cleaver.

If Amanda had wrapped herself like that for the attack on Meredith, it may be possible there was no skin exposed for Meredith to scratch. According to Kokomani, the trio was covered from head to toe.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he had a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.
Kokomani also stated that he heard Knox (who was covering her face with a scarf, just like the store owner testified in court) issuing an order to the other two to cover their faces, and not let anyone see them.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!


Meredith was stabbed before she was killed. Once that starts, there is no way that the victim isn't struggling with all their might. 3 people.

_________________
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 DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.


As a former student myself (albeit a long time ago now) I would hardly describe myself then as a galloping gourmet.
Maybe I would do the odd round of toast.
I wasn't unlike most of my contemporaries in that I used to survive on takeaways or the dining hall at the uni.
To me the notion that Knox and Sollecito in the 6 days they spent with each other were cooking all the time is nonsense and more bullshit lies to paint a false picture of their lifestyle and justify their contact with the sharp knives found in their possession.
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!


Meredith was stabbed before she was killed. Once that starts, there is no way that the victim isn't struggling with all their might. 3 people.



We don't even know if RG had a knife. Someone had a knife, and evidence suggests that at least two of the attackers did.

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

Offline lamaha


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hello again; I have a question which I hope one of you oldies can help me with.
It's about Amanda's lamp, which I understand was locked into Meredith's room, and apparently forgotten there. If they had left the lamp there by accident, surely it woul dhave fingerprints on it? I can't imagine them cleaning it and then forgetting to remove it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie



It is a big deal because, together with the smiling and kissing buying lingerie, doing cartwheels in the police station and the cold words used to the flat mates when they were worrying whether Meredith had suffered, it shows emotionally dead behaviour of two of the three convicted killers. The extreme oddity of this behaviour and the total lack of empathy after the death was a significant contributor to the circumstantial parts of the evidence against them.

_________________
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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

pataz1 wrote:
News report from italy yesterday, amanda "doesn't know why" guede's sentence was reduced because "he never told the truth" (as reported through Knox's mother):

Google translation of snippit from la repubblica article:
"I do not understand why they reduced the penalty to Rudy. He never told the truth. He continues to accuse even have nothing to do with the death of Meredith. He knows that night I was gone. I do not know what happened in that house. I never tire of repeating"



As opposed to whom?

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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie


It isn't that big of a deal?
Well that is your opinion Donnie.
My opinion (and that of many other people) is that it was rather cold behaviour considering most of the student population of Perugia attended.
Ah, shit happens - lets go for a pizza.
My housemate was found dead with her throatcut in the room next to mine but I could murder a pizza.

So what would your 'plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event' be?

The fact is they ARE attached to this horrible crime so therefore their actions and behaviour is very relevant in this context.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!


You don't restrain someone with a Knife Lancelotti, you restrain them with your hands (sexually assault them with those too) and how many pairs of hands did Rudy have exactly...two...three? Meredith fought back and tried to hold off the knife, as shown by the very shallow cuts to her hand, but the fact they are few and shallow shows she didn't have her hands free for long, as well as the fact there are none on her right hand, that arm was held the whole way through. Someone was RESTRAINING her, both arms. She was being held, threatened and tortured with at least one knife and being sexually assaulted at the same time...one person CANNOT do 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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Emerald wrote:
A knife found in RS's home did not have RS's dna on it. Only Amanda's and Meredith's.

The mixture of Meredith's dna and Amanda's blood in the bathroom found in key areas.

Amanda's footprint under the victim.


Amanda's blood? I didn't know that. Do you know where it came from? I know she had some scratch on the neck, but i heard it wasn't even big enough to bleed.
Footprint...is it 100% confirmed that it is in fact her footprint?

The knife. They think that it is a murder weapon, yet there is no blood. Only dna and some really small pieces, right?


1. AK's blood: For months, her fan club floated stories about excessive bleeding from recently pierced ears.

2. Shoeprint: Her lawyers did not effectively contest this. So the answer is yes, it is her shoeprint. When people say there is no trace of AK in the murder room, they are inappropriately reducing the extent of the crime scene and forgetting about certain things. For example, the knife was presumably transported to and from the "reduced murder room" or the crime scene. It contains the victim's DNA as well as AK's. There is also the shoeprint. Incidentally, it isn't unheard of for perpetrators of murder to leave no traces.

3. Knife: As for the knife, this would not be the first time that a murder weapon contained no blood.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie



If you are right, does that prove them innocent of the murder of Meredith? Does it change any of the evidence against them? If not, then what's your point? And if they are guilty of her murder, as a trial has found, then perhaps their missing the memorial for a pizza 'is' a big deal? After all, who wants to go to the memorial of someone they'd just murdered?

_________________
"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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lamaha wrote:
Hello again; I have a question which I hope one of you oldies can help me with.
It's about Amanda's lamp, which I understand was locked into Meredith's room, and apparently forgotten there. If they had left the lamp there by accident, surely it woul dhave fingerprints on it? I can't imagine them cleaning it and then forgetting to remove it.


And if there were, what would it prove...that Amanda had on some occassion touched her own lamp? As it happens, neither Amanda's nor Raffaele's prints were on the lamp.

_________________
"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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie


It isn't that big of a deal?
Well that is your opinion Donnie.
My opinion (and that of many other people) is that it was rather cold behaviour considering most of the student population of Perugia attended.
Ah, shit happens - lets go for a pizza.
My housemate was found dead with her throatcut in the room next to mine but I could murder a pizza.

So what would your 'plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event' be?

The fact is they ARE attached to this horrible crime so therefore their actions and behaviour is very relevant in this context.



It is not proof of anything, but in light of repeated statements by AK to the effect that "Meredith was my friend" and so on, it does seem strange. Also, on the PI's AK defense reader blog, for months Candace Dempsey claimed that the reason AK did not attend this ceremony was that she was in the police station -- as was RS. In fact, this is not true. At the very least, we know that they chose not to go to the candleight ceremony. As for her presence later that evening in the police station, it was not at the behest of the police.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie



It is a big deal because, together with the smiling and kissing buying lingerie, doing cartwheels in the police station and the cold words used to the flat mates when they were worrying whether Meredith had suffered, it shows emotionally dead behaviour of two of the three convicted killers. The extreme oddity of this behaviour and the total lack of empathy after the death was a significant contributor to the circumstantial parts of the evidence against them.



An innocent excuse can be thought up for almost anything when it's taken out of context and viewed in isolation.

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


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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!


You don't restrain someone with a Knife Lancelotti, you restrain them with your hands (sexually assault them with those too) and how many pairs of hands did Rudy have exactly...two...three? Meredith fought back and tried to hold off the knife, as shown by the very shallow cuts to her hand, but the fact they are few and shallow shows she didn't have her hands free for long, as well as the fact there are none on her right hand, that arm was held the whole way through. Someone was RESTRAINING her, both arms. She was being held, threatened and tortured with at least one knife and being sexually assaulted at the same time...one person CANNOT do that.


She only fought back at the very end, I'd assume. She had a knife/two knives at her throat.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Hi. I am one of these who believe that Knox isn't the one who killed. Yeah, i know, it's not the best place for me(:P), however, you guys, are the best. I found here great stuff, insights, pro articles(objective mostly), videos, but most of all - smart people. It's a pleasure to be able to get up in the morning and read your opinions on the case. I've done that for the past few months straight, so i decided to write something. As you can see my english isn't that great but i'll try my best ,i promise i won't be a pain in the a.s, and i really hope that nobody will call me a troll beacuse i'm not sure that Knox is guilty.

First of all i wanted to say something about Edda Mellas. You guys tend to criticize her, using some strong words, but i guess unless you're in the same situation, you never know what's going on with her and it's not good to judge her. She's doing everything to save her child. No matter if she's guilty or innocent. I just can understand these kind of beahviours and to be honest i'm really surprised that some of you are having such a hard time to deal with it. Yup, some of you say that she's telling lies infront of public-on radios and tv, and i guess you are right, but i would do the same, really. However, i would do thatonly if i would be 100% sure that my kid was innocent. Do you think that the same goes for Mellas?

As for Knox. Is there a really solid proof/evidence that she was the killer? I'm not being ignorant, i just couldn't find anything like that. Was circumstantial evidence the base for sentencing her to jail for 26 years? I know all about the knife, the witness, the odd behaviour, but i believe that this is simply not enough.Is there anything that is linking here to the room? Oh yeah, and i also know about the infamous bra clasp.

I mean, how can anyone kill and not left behind some traces? Guede did.


Sorry, but this makes zero sense to me. If you are 100% convinced of someone's innocence then why would you need to lie? People don't lie for no reason. They lie because the truth puts them in a bad light. This is what got AK and RS into trouble in the first place. Their lies.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie


Not a big deal? huh-)

Maybe not a big deal if Amanda and her Family had not tried to portray her as a close dear and personal friend of Meredith. There would be no formal funeral, because Meredith was going home to UK. Amanda had no other acquaintances in Italy. If she did, where are they?

Amanda seems to display some very cold, callous and detached behavior. She even contacted a distraught Filomena about still being her room mate. BUT, Amanda could not be bothered with supporting her grieving friends?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!


You don't restrain someone with a Knife Lancelotti, you restrain them with your hands (sexually assault them with those too) and how many pairs of hands did Rudy have exactly...two...three? Meredith fought back and tried to hold off the knife, as shown by the very shallow cuts to her hand, but the fact they are few and shallow shows she didn't have her hands free for long, as well as the fact there are none on her right hand, that arm was held the whole way through. Someone was RESTRAINING her, both arms. She was being held, threatened and tortured with at least one knife and being sexually assaulted at the same time...one person CANNOT do that.


She only fought back at the very end, I'd assume. She had a knife/two knives at her throat.


Oh, she was comatose and suddenly woke up? It's about time 'you' woke up Lancelotti and stopped clutching at the ridiculous. And if she had two knives at her throat...more then one person was there!

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


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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
It isn't that big of a deal?
Well that is your opinion Donnie.
My opinion (and that of many other people) is that it was rather cold behaviour considering most of the student population of Perugia attended.
Ah, shit happens - lets go for a pizza.
My housemate was found dead with her throatcut in the room next to mine but I could murder a pizza.

So what would your 'plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event' be?

The fact is they ARE attached to this horrible crime so therefore their actions and behaviour is very relevant in this context.


We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.

BTW was she ever asked why she didn't go there after all? Since she said that Meredith was her friend.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.


We could imagine she was innocent...then we could imagine she was in shock...but for the spell to hold we'd have to keep imagining and imagining even more things. We could do that, but it's pointless because imagination is imagination, not reality, not fact, not the truth.

_________________
"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 donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yup, some of you say that she's telling lies infront of public-on radios and tv, and i guess you are right, but i would do the same, really. However, i would do thatonly if i would be 100% sure that my kid was innocent

Quote:
Sorry, but this makes zero sense to me. If you are 100% convinced of someone's innocence then why would you need to lie? People don't lie for no reason. They lie because the truth puts them in a bad light. This is what got AK and RS into trouble in the first place. Their lies.


It's not someone's innocence. It's my daughter's innocence. It's a mother-daughter relationship. I believe that any mother would do everything just to save her child. Simple as that. No one can understand that, unless you're in the same situation. A mother would hardly care for a light that she's putted in. She would just fight no matter what. So i kinda understand Mellas, i understand that she's lying or saying stuff that are completely messed up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
donnie wrote:
We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.


We could imagine she was innocent...then we could imagine she was in shock...but for the spell to hold we'd have to keep imagining and imagining even more things. We could do that, but it's pointless because imagination is imagination, not reality, not fact, not the truth.



Fair enough.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
It isn't that big of a deal?
Well that is your opinion Donnie.
My opinion (and that of many other people) is that it was rather cold behaviour considering most of the student population of Perugia attended.
Ah, shit happens - lets go for a pizza.
My housemate was found dead with her throatcut in the room next to mine but I could murder a pizza.

So what would your 'plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event' be?

The fact is they ARE attached to this horrible crime so therefore their actions and behaviour is very relevant in this context.


We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.

BTW was she ever asked why she didn't go there after all? Since she said that Meredith was her friend.



Occam's razor seems to have got pretty blunt carving up the Christmas turkey...

_________________
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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
for me the clincher is the lack of any skin or DNA under Meredith's fingernails. She couldn't have been pinned effectively enough by RG on his own to stop her being able to scratch either RG or AK.


He had a knife!


You don't restrain someone with a Knife Lancelotti, you restrain them with your hands (sexually assault them with those too) and how many pairs of hands did Rudy have exactly...two...three? Meredith fought back and tried to hold off the knife, as shown by the very shallow cuts to her hand, but the fact they are few and shallow shows she didn't have her hands free for long, as well as the fact there are none on her right hand, that arm was held the whole way through. Someone was RESTRAINING her, both arms. She was being held, threatened and tortured with at least one knife and being sexually assaulted at the same time...one person CANNOT do that.


She only fought back at the very end, I'd assume. She had a knife/two knives at her throat.


Oh, she was comatose and suddenly woke up? It's about time 'you' woke up Lancelotti and stopped clutching at the ridiculous.

clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?

Quote:
And if she had two knives at her throat...more then one person was there!

that's right. i am still not excluding this possibility.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
donnie wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
It isn't that big of a deal?
Well that is your opinion Donnie.
My opinion (and that of many other people) is that it was rather cold behaviour considering most of the student population of Perugia attended.
Ah, shit happens - lets go for a pizza.
My housemate was found dead with her throatcut in the room next to mine but I could murder a pizza.

So what would your 'plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event' be?

The fact is they ARE attached to this horrible crime so therefore their actions and behaviour is very relevant in this context.


We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.

BTW was she ever asked why she didn't go there after all? Since she said that Meredith was her friend.



Occam's razor seems to have got pretty blunt carving up the Christmas turkey...



: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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous 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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Yup, some of you say that she's telling lies infront of public-on radios and tv, and i guess you are right, but i would do the same, really. However, i would do thatonly if i would be 100% sure that my kid was innocent

Quote:
Sorry, but this makes zero sense to me. If you are 100% convinced of someone's innocence then why would you need to lie? People don't lie for no reason. They lie because the truth puts them in a bad light. This is what got AK and RS into trouble in the first place. Their lies.


It's not someone's innocence. It's my daughter's innocence. It's a mother-daughter relationship. I believe that any mother would do everything just to save her child. Simple as that. No one can understand that, unless you're in the same situation. A mother would hardly care for a light that she's putted in. She would just fight no matter what. So i kinda understand Mellas, i understand that she's lying or saying stuff that are completely messed up.



If you lie to prove anyone's innocence then it means that the person's innocence is very much in doubt. Since this case involves so much lying, that hardly seems to be the best way to go if you want to save a loved one. There are other ways to fight and other aims to pursue. It's a choice, in other words. We have many mothers here, and some have said they would not "do anything" to save a child who was guilty of murdering another person, also someone's child. As for not being able to understand something we have not experienced, I disagree. I am able to understand that murder is wrong, though I have never murdered anyone. I am able to understand that life as we know it is not possible on the moon, though I have never traveled there. And so on. Ad nauseam.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


Catnip provided a very subtle analysis of the style used consistently to obfuscate matters. It is classic Catnip, and worth a read.

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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
As for not being able to understand something we have not experienced, I disagree. I am able to understand that murder is wrong, though I have never murdered anyone. I am able to understand that life as we know it is not possible on the moon, though I have never traveled there. And so on. Ad nauseam.


But you won't be able to imagine this huge pain when your kid is in jail for something that she didn't do(of course according to Mellas).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
donnie wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
It isn't that big of a deal?
Well that is your opinion Donnie.
My opinion (and that of many other people) is that it was rather cold behaviour considering most of the student population of Perugia attended.
Ah, shit happens - lets go for a pizza.
My housemate was found dead with her throatcut in the room next to mine but I could murder a pizza.

So what would your 'plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event' be?

The fact is they ARE attached to this horrible crime so therefore their actions and behaviour is very relevant in this context.


We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.

BTW was she ever asked why she didn't go there after all? Since she said that Meredith was her friend.



Occam's razor seems to have got pretty blunt carving up the Christmas turkey...



:lol:



The sharpest razors are returning their Christmas gifts, skiing or just taking the day off. The blunt squad has been sent out to divide and conquer. That remind's me. I have some vegetable stock that needs tending to. I think I'll clean out my shed too.:)

_________________
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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Quote:
As for not being able to understand something we have not experienced, I disagree. I am able to understand that murder is wrong, though I have never murdered anyone. I am able to understand that life as we know it is not possible on the moon, though I have never traveled there. And so on. Ad nauseam.


But you won't be able to imagine this huge pain when your kid is in jail for something that she didn't do(of course according to Mellas).


donnie, get this...we don't give a damn. Whether we 'understand' WHY she's doing it or not, it makes her behaviour no less wrong...it is not an excuse!

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Quote:
As for not being able to understand something we have not experienced, I disagree. I am able to understand that murder is wrong, though I have never murdered anyone. I am able to understand that life as we know it is not possible on the moon, though I have never traveled there. And so on. Ad nauseam.


But you won't be able to imagine this huge pain when your kid is in jail for something that she didn't do(of course according to Mellas).


I am able to imagine far more than you give me credit for. I don't think it is worth pursuing this matter with you. Hint: According to Mellas is a critical issue. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your obsession with Amanda and Edda is really boring. And pretty pointless. You deny anyone's capacity to walk in someone else's shoes, and yet you have no problem walking in the shoes of innocent Amanda and her desperate Mom, willing to lie, cheat, steal or whatever it takes to "save" her daughter. Why should others not be able to put themselves in hypothetical shoes and come up with a different sense of what they would do?

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

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Kokomani, who told friends on the night of the murder what he had seen on Via del Pergola that same night, stated that Raffaele and Amanda threatened him with knives, he did not say that Rudy, who was known to him, had a knife.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..


So Rudy had one knife in one hand, the other knife in the other hand, and restrained Meredith by...
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..


No Lancelotti. Perhaps you can rattle off an example of another case where the victim sustained exactly the same injuries as Meredith (and had no forensic under her nails) and there was only one attacker?

_________________
"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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..



Classic Lancelotti! Truly classic! I think a haiku version is in order.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Quote:
As for not being able to understand something we have not experienced, I disagree. I am able to understand that murder is wrong, though I have never murdered anyone. I am able to understand that life as we know it is not possible on the moon, though I have never traveled there. And so on. Ad nauseam.


But you won't be able to imagine this huge pain when your kid is in jail for something that she didn't do(of course according to Mellas).



Except Edda doesn't believe Amanda is innocent. She claims she does, but it isn't true.

_________________
"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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..


So Rudy had one knife in one hand, the other knife in the other hand, and restrained Meredith by...


....soliciting the assistance of the two other people in the cottage, one of whom lived there, or sprouting several extra arms, just like that!

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.

BTW was she ever asked why she didn't go there after all? Since she said that Meredith was her friend.


Yeah. Amanda said she was hungry so she went with Raffaele to get pizza.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
donnie wrote:
We can imagine that she is innocent, then...she could be in a shock, she could be tired of all this stuff goin on, she simply didn't want to go there, where people cry and may ask her questions about finding Meredith. These are the reasons. I would be pissed off and even more shocked when i would be attending my friend's memorial and people would stare at me and ask questions and i would be scared to be in a crowd, cause my roommate got killed. You know it all depends on so many things.

BTW was she ever asked why she didn't go there after all? Since she said that Meredith was her friend.


Yeah. Amanda said she was hungry so she went with Raffaele to get pizza.


Hey, Donnie and Lancelotti! You are both welcome to continue channeling Amanda and Edda and feeling their pain. I find myself thinking more about the pain of Arline, John, Stephanie, Lyle and John Kercher on this Christmas weekend. It is their third Christmas without Meredith Kercher, who they will never spend Christmas with again. Perhaps there is some relief that the three people responsible for her brutal death have been found guilty after a fair trial, but I would imagine this relief is quite inadequate.

Anyway, I'm going to spend the rest of the weekend thnking about them. If you want to obsess about Amanda and Edda, maybe you could find someplace else to do it this weekend, out of respect for the memory of Meredith Kercher and the pain of her family. Thanks. As co-moderator of this board, I appreciate your cooperation.

_________________
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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..



A knife has excellent deterrence value while it is not being used. As any police officer or criminal lawyer will tell you, once someone has been stabbed or wounded with one, as we know happened pre-death with poor Meredith, the victim fights with all their might to escape the wounding instrument. Meredith couldn't escape or fight back, despite being trained in self-defence to the extent that not a jot of DNA was under her fingernails. The only way that is possible for reasons I have previously explained is for her to have been comprehensively restrained by two other people.

_________________
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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
Yup, some of you say that she's telling lies infront of public-on radios and tv, and i guess you are right, but i would do the same, really. However, i would do thatonly if i would be 100% sure that my kid was innocent

Quote:
Sorry, but this makes zero sense to me. If you are 100% convinced of someone's innocence then why would you need to lie? People don't lie for no reason. They lie because the truth puts them in a bad light. This is what got AK and RS into trouble in the first place. Their lies.


It's not someone's innocence. It's my daughter's innocence. It's a mother-daughter relationship. I believe that any mother would do everything just to save her child. Simple as that. No one can understand that, unless you're in the same situation. A mother would hardly care for a light that she's putted in. She would just fight no matter what. So i kinda understand Mellas, i understand that she's lying or saying stuff that are completely messed up.


Edda Mellas blamed Meredith Kerchers Family for Amanda's incarceration. Curt Knox has stated he would express sympathy to the Kercher Family as soon as Amanda is free.

Media hosts allow this. It is not helping the case of Amanda. It is only hurting the Family of the victim.

Amanda is not the victim as her Family wants us to believe.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

To Skeptical Bystander-Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours, he's/she's welcome to get the hell out of here, out of respect or whatever else that is. Who said i'm not thinking about Kercher's family? I'm not obssesed with Amadna or Edda. I'm just courios about this whole case and i've got different point of view. There's no need to be harsh or rude, especielly when you're a co-moderator. Not nice, dude, not nice.

I was just trying to udnerstand Mellas point of view, since i saw that some people on here got completely different opinion abput her actions. Is it really that bad? Did i do something wrong? I really don't think so and i didn't wan't to offend your feelings, so chill out, please.


Last edited by donnie on Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnue wrote:
Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours,


Neither is it the first time I've seen posters coming here calling people 'dude' and they have all, every last one, been bad news. It's sort of like a troll fingerprint.


Quote:
I was just trying to udnerstand Mellas point of view, since i saw that some people on here got completely different opinion abput her actions. Is it really that bad? Did i do something wrong? I really don't think so and i didn't wan't to offend your feelings, so chill out, please.


'Understand' her 'feelings' all you want, just do so somewhere else this weekend please.

_________________
"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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

donnie wrote:
To Skeptical Bystander-Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours, he's/she's welcome to get the hell out of here, out of respect or whatever else that is. Who said i'm not thinking about Kercher's family? I'm not obssesed with Amadna or Edda. I'm just courios about this whole case and i've got different point of view. There's no need to be harsh or rude, especielly when you're a co-moderator. Not nice, dude, not nice.

I was just trying to udnerstand Mellas point of view, since i saw that some people on here got completely different opinion abput her actions. Is it really that bad? Did i do something wrong? I really don't think so and i didn't wan't to offend your feelings, so chill out, please.


Dude, you seem not to get it. As co-moderator of this board, I am telling you to walk away from the keyboard with your Edda/Amanda fixation. We don't need it this weekend. If you continue to post having been asked not to, well, that's really rude. I'd have to ban you. Think about it, Dude. Nothing you have to say is so earth-shattering that it needs to be posted today. Take a break, out of respect. I won't ask you again. Thanks.

_________________
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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
donnue wrote:
Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours,


Neither is it the first time I've seen posters coming here calling people 'dude' and they have all, every last one, been bad news. It's sort of like a troll fingerprint.


Quote:
I was just trying to udnerstand Mellas point of view, since i saw that some people on here got completely different opinion abput her actions. Is it really that bad? Did i do something wrong? I really don't think so and i didn't wan't to offend your feelings, so chill out, please.


'Understand' her 'feelings' all you want, just do so somewhere else this weekend please.



Do you have access to ip addresses to check it's not the same dude, man? :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 Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
donnue wrote:
Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours,


Neither is it the first time I've seen posters coming here calling people 'dude' and they have all, every last one, been bad news. It's sort of like a troll fingerprint.


Quote:
I was just trying to udnerstand Mellas point of view, since i saw that some people on here got completely different opinion abput her actions. Is it really that bad? Did i do something wrong? I really don't think so and i didn't wan't to offend your feelings, so chill out, please.


'Understand' her 'feelings' all you want, just do so somewhere else this weekend please.



Do you have access to ip addresses to check it's not the same dude, man? :D


I, myself, would not be suprised if they all lead back to someone having the initals "D.P." :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
donnue wrote:
Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours,


Neither is it the first time I've seen posters coming here calling people 'dude' and they have all, every last one, been bad news. It's sort of like a troll fingerprint.


Quote:
I was just trying to udnerstand Mellas point of view, since i saw that some people on here got completely different opinion abput her actions. Is it really that bad? Did i do something wrong? I really don't think so and i didn't wan't to offend your feelings, so chill out, please.



'Understand' her 'feelings' all you want, just do so somewhere else this weekend please.



Do you have access to ip addresses to check it's not the same dude, man? :D


The Troll of the Day award is quite coveted, you know.
Our latest Troll of the Day has just sent me some tips on how to moderate the board. It seems that I, the Dude (or Il Duderino, if you're not into the whole brevity thing), just need to chill and be more objective. Words to live by! Peace out, suckers!:)

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
donnie wrote:
They went out for a pizza when the vigil for Meredith was being held for instance

It really isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of reasons to not attend this kind of event. We wouldn't even be making a big deal out of it if they weren't attached to this horrible crime.

I wanna thank you all for your warm welcome. I learned some new things and i really enjoy everything you guys write. Donnie



It is a big deal because, together with the smiling and kissing buying lingerie, doing cartwheels in the police station and the cold words used to the flat mates when they were worrying whether Meredith had suffered, it shows emotionally dead behaviour of two of the three convicted killers. The extreme oddity of this behaviour and the total lack of empathy after the death was a significant contributor to the circumstantial parts of the evidence against them.

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

It goes to the "Character Evidence" dossier of the accused.

Its use in court is legal and of equal weight before Italian law as all other evidence.

Here's an enlightening blog post at ''Miss Represented.net'':

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague."- Dr. Coline Covington.

(click on Knox photo to read the full Dr. Covington article) http://missrepresented.net/blog/?p=486

And this is a link to more Dr. Covington articles:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/author,56 ... -covington


Last edited by piktor on Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..



Classic Lancelotti! Truly classic! I think a haiku version is in order.



Physics and logic
very inconvenient
for Lancelotti

*cough* :)

_________________
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: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
clutching at the ridiculous? she surely wanted to survive. how is that ridiculous?


You know how Lancelotti. BY making silly suggestions like she went through the attack without struggling only to do so at the end. Anything, to avoid facing up to the fact she was being held. It's your intellectual gymnastics that's ridiculous Lancelotti.


have you ever followed other rape/murder cases? expecting a victim to put up some heroic fight with a knife at her throat...oh well..



Classic Lancelotti! Truly classic! I think a haiku version is in order.



Physics and logic
very inconvenient
for Lancelotti

*cough* :)


Haiku of the Day! Brilliant!

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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Here's some shots of the duo on their much reported underwear buying exercise.
One can see Knox is absolutely devastated by the death of her friend and being locked out of her house and left with no underwear.
I have 26 more.


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 Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thanks DF2K for those descriptive photos of Amanda and Raffaele's grief the day after Meredith (Amanda's good friend) was discovered brutally slain in their shared house.

There is Sollecito wearing his yellow scarf...2 days in a row! If I recall wasn't it around 50 degrees in Perugia?

We Seattle folks are wimps when it comes to chilly temperatures however, only speaking for myself, a scarf doesn't emerge until we're in the 30's.

Maybe he has some sort of hangup about his neck?


I hope everyone is enjoying a festive holiday season! b-((

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

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

piktor wrote:
Rhonda, th-) - Fiona, th-) - Bea, th-) - bucketoftea, th-)


Your kind words are warm encouragement that humbles me. I, in turn, admire you for your worthy contributions on this forum.
-Yours truly painted this in oil



And a talented painter too?? Wow!
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Tara wrote:
Thanks DF2K for those descriptive photos of Amanda and Raffaele's grief the day after Meredith (Amanda's good friend) was discovered brutally slain in their shared house.

There is Sollecito wearing his yellow scarf...2 days in a row! If I recall wasn't it around 50 degrees in Perugia?

We Seattle folks are wimps when it comes to chilly temperatures however, only speaking for myself, a scarf doesn't emerge until we're in the 30's.

Maybe he has some sort of hangup about his neck?


I hope everyone is enjoying a festive holiday season! b-((


Hi Tara,
Hope your Christmas has been nice and relaxing.
Regarding Sollecito's scarf, some people at the time did speculate over whether he had some kind of injury he was hiding with it.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Tara wrote:
Thanks DF2K for those descriptive photos of Amanda and Raffaele's grief the day after Meredith (Amanda's good friend) was discovered brutally slain in their shared house.

There is Sollecito wearing his yellow scarf...2 days in a row! If I recall wasn't it around 50 degrees in Perugia?

We Seattle folks are wimps when it comes to chilly temperatures however, only speaking for myself, a scarf doesn't emerge until we're in the 30's.

Maybe he has some sort of hangup about his neck?


I hope everyone is enjoying a festive holiday season! b-((


Hi Tara,
Hope your Christmas has been nice and relaxing.
Regarding Sollecito's scarf, some people at the time did speculate over whether he had some kind of injury he was hiding with it.



FWIW, I just saw that as part of his 'look' which is just slightly foppish. If there was an injury of any value, it would have been identified at the time of detention which was too soon for anything that needed actively hiding to have healed.

_________________
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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tom_ch wrote:
So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.


Hi Tom,

I've read nothing about Sollecito being into cooking. However, we do know he was into drugs, reading Manga magazines that featured murder and rape, and watching hard core pornography, featuring bestiality.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 12 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,446,065 Views