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: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:42 am
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:42 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.

It's hard to say. I guess I've been thinking about more frenzied attacks, and they always involve cuts to the victims hands. A threat of a knife, where the victim may believe that it is only used to subdue, could result in a victim not fighting back. However, given the number of injuries described, I highly doubt any healthy young woman would simply give in and let it happen. That makes no sense. After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.

There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.

I don't believe that one was in the kitchen. She knew too much about the crime scene to have stood in the kitchen. The other was in the bathroom most likely before the murder, as there was no blood in that bathroom. He was also at the crime scene, although we are to believe that he was so traumatized that he needed to go dancing rather than call for help. That puts all three of them in the bedroom at the time of the murder.

[Below is graphic descriptions]

I don't have time to do anything but a cursory search at the moment, but I know that Ronald Goldman (alleged [I have to say that, legally, I guess] victim of OJ Simpson) had many, many defensive wounds on his hands and arms. Here's the autopsy report (don't worry, no pictures, just text):

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas47.htm

Page down til you get to the Hands/Arms or "defensive wounds." There are many.

However, as far as I know, no DNA was under his fingernails.

It would seem that even ONE attacker with a knife can prevent fingernail DNA, but CAN'T prevent defensive wounds.

There's also the case of Suzanne Jovin, who was attacked with a knife, probably from behind, probably from one attacker. She had no knife defensive wounds (like Meredith) as far as I know, but the scenario is that it was a surprise attack, with the knife, in a frenzied fashion. It happened on a suburban street, so the perp had motivation to "get it over with" as soon as possible. In such a frenzied fashion, from behind, Suzanne had no chance to defend herself.

All of Suzanne's knife wounds were to the back of her head/neck, except, I think, her throat may have been slit in front (but from behind, if you know what I mean).

In her own home, with the "teasing" knife wounds to the front of her neck, AND the final wound to the front, Meredith was clearly attacked by 2-3 people, imho.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

on Friday morning journalists were kicked out of the courtroom while the jury watched graphic autopsy photos of Kercher after the crime. Testimony by the chief medical examiner Luca Lalli focused on whether or not Kercher had been sexually assaulted before her neck was slashed. Journalists were banned from the courtroom, but lawyers relayed much of the testimony afterward. They said that Lalli described cuts on her hands, indicating that he felt they were made as Kercher defended herself. He told the jury that there were 23 cuts, bruises and lesions on Kercher's body. Those inside the courtroom say he testified that while there was evidence of sexual activity, sexual assault was inconclusive. But he also testified that the bruises on her body implied that sexual intercourse was forced and violent. When asked, he also said that he believes that more than one person was involved in Kercher's murder, though on cross-examination admitted that it could have also been done by one assailant.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192370/page/1
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Dances a lot.

What this tells me is that all the defense could come up with to counter this expert is to force him to say it "could" have been one assailant. OJ could really be innocent, but it isn't very likely, is it?

Face it, Lance. Your Guinnevere is a convicted murderer. Hopefully, far away from all the enablers in her life, she will come to terms with what she did. Have you placed your order for a snippet of her hair?
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.


while I don't generally descend into the territory of arguing behavior, that is one point that I do tend to agree with- it is pretty irrational to go and take a shower when you just came home and found the door open, without first checking the rest of the house.

As a correction, she says Filomina's door was closed, Sollecito says it was open. That door being closed is critical to Knox's story of "well, it didn't really look bad until after the shower", since if the door was open it there's no way Knox would have missed a broken window, computer on the floor, and clothes all over the place. Knox's story was "well, i didn't really get horribly concerned until, like, totally after we cleaned the floor at Raf's and had breakfast". And for Sollecito's part his story is "yea, man, we were walking back to her place and she said I should totally check it out cause she was worried."

Of course, if they smoked first then when they woke up, its not that difficult a defense to say that she was out of touch with reality when she went in to take a shower, and it wasn't until later when they were coming down from the high that they started to be aware of the weirdness of the scene. But neither one ever stated smoking in the morning AFAIK.

I should point out that pot is not always pure, nor is it always high quality. Sometimes it is laced with other drugs, including the hallucinogenic variety. But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

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

pataz1 wrote:
But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.


Hi Pat,

The claim that pot smokers don't engage in violence is simply not true. It is a popular misconception.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Where did Guede sleep the night of the crime?
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
on Friday morning journalists were kicked out of the courtroom while the jury watched graphic autopsy photos of Kercher after the crime. Testimony by the chief medical examiner Luca Lalli focused on whether or not Kercher had been sexually assaulted before her neck was slashed. Journalists were banned from the courtroom, but lawyers relayed much of the testimony afterward. They said that Lalli described cuts on her hands, indicating that he felt they were made as Kercher defended herself. He told the jury that there were 23 cuts, bruises and lesions on Kercher's body. Those inside the courtroom say he testified that while there was evidence of sexual activity, sexual assault was inconclusive. But he also testified that the bruises on her body implied that sexual intercourse was forced and violent. When asked, he also said that he believes that more than one person was involved in Kercher's murder, though on cross-examination admitted that it could have also been done by one assailant.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192370/page/1

Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously? This lone wolf must have been an octopus. Besides, two knives were used in the attc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously? This lone wolf must have been an octopus. Besides, two knives were used in the attc.


Hi Martin,

The consensus amongst the forensic experts was that Meredith was attacked by several people. It should be noted that all the medical experts who actually examined Meredith's body thought there was more than one attacker.

"Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails". (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).

Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede both claimed that they and Raffaele Sollecito were at the cottage when Meredith was killed. Nara Capezzali heard several people running away after Meredith screamed. Antonio Curatolo saw Knox and Sollecito shortly after Meredith had been killed, arguing and watching the gate of the cottage.


Last edited by The Machine on Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

If you look at the reconstructions of the cottage, you will note that Amanda had to walk right past Filomena's door to get to her own room. She said the door was closed, Raff said it was open-- hence, as usual, their stories don't agree and you would think that the door being opened or closed would definitely be an obvious thing you couldn't miss.

The other thing odd about her "shower" is that after coming home to find the door open, not only did she strip off in her room and go naked from bedroom to shower to bedroom, she left the door open/unlocked so that whoever "was taking the trash out" could get back in!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

beans wrote:
If you look at the reconstructions of the cottage, you will note that Amanda had to walk right past Filomena's door to get to her own room. She said the door was closed, Raff said it was open-- hence, as usual, their stories don't agree and you would think that the door being opened or closed would definitely be an obvious thing you couldn't miss.


Hi Beans,

Andrea Vogt recently pointed out yet another example of Knox's and Sollecito's stories not matching up:

"Knox said on the stand that she took a shower in the bathroom even though she had seen some spots of blood, which had not particularly alarmed her.

Sollecito, however, told police in a recorded 911 call (in Italy, it's 118) played to jurors that there was "a pool of blood" in the bathroom." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.[/quote]

And since that's the case, you believe it was one person with two knives do you? huh-)

_________________
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: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Meredith's DNA was found on the knife sequestered from Raffaele Sollecito's apartment. This is irrefutable proof that two knives were used in the attack on Meredith.

Hekuran Kokomani stated that Knox and Sollecito both had knives. This was months before it was widely known that the police believed that two knives were used.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?



Bill's indisposed I'm afraid. He's fallen on harder times and last I saw 'im 'e said sumfin about people makin' 'is 'ead 'urt "wiv dem being *that* mental, right" and that 'e was goin' down the pub. For a long time.

_________________
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: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?


What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?


What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?



Ignoring the totally disputed nature of the injuries, dual stabbing attacks on someone scoring injuries in the same area? How many do you think there are of that? Put it this way, I've personally done many assault cases with 2 or more than 2 people using knives simultaneously injuring people in the same area. It's about as rare as damp sand on a beach. Do you even engage brain before you post this stuff?

_________________
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: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Earthling wrote:
In her own home, with the "teasing" knife wounds to the front of her neck, AND the final wound to the front, Meredith was clearly attacked by 2-3 people, imho.


The prosecution gave a chilling description of the attack that took into account all of the injuries; head slammed against the wall, hands on neck fiercely strangling and breaking a neck bone, intimidating knife wounds, and then finally - a scream and a final blow from a different knife. It's impossible to account for all of Meredith's injuries in a single-attacker scenario.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?


I hate to admit it, but you have a point. I believe Bill would have proclaimed there needed to be at least three attackers: one to intimidate, one to rape, and one angry enough to strangle and kill.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jools wrote:
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."

Knox, 22, is in jail in Perugia, Italy, where she is serving 26 years for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21.

The Mirror

Oh give me a break.
"Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off.""
uuuuuhh...
I guess she didn't ask mom first.
Could we try instead:
"She had lovely long hair, but she had it all cut off."

Edda can't make herself admit that Amanda, poor little waif, ever actually decides to do ANYTHING.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?


What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?



Ignoring the totally disputed nature of the injuries, dual stabbing attacks on someone scoring injuries in the same area? How many do you think there are of that? Put it this way, I've personally done many assault cases with 2 or more than 2 people using knives simultaneously injuring people in the same area. It's about as rare as damp sand on a beach. Do you even engage brain before you post this stuff?


You are very rude. anyway...
When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?


I hate to admit it, but you have a point. I believe Bill would have proclaimed there needed to be at least three attackers: one to intimidate, one to rape, and one angry enough to strangle and kill.

:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."


Probably not true, but in this case we do know that the blow from only one knife was responsible for Merediths death.
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?


What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?



Ignoring the totally disputed nature of the injuries, dual stabbing attacks on someone scoring injuries in the same area? How many do you think there are of that? Put it this way, I've personally done many assault cases with 2 or more than 2 people using knives simultaneously injuring people in the same area. It's about as rare as damp sand on a beach. Do you even engage brain before you post this stuff?


You are very rude. anyway...
When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."

Forgive me if senility is setting in, wasn't Torre an expert for the DEFENSE? Good thing he's an expert as I am sure history is about to send him to eternal damnation: do a search for stabbings+two different knives and see what you get...........Maybe SA's post seemed rude but, in light of all the evidence, I have to agree with Corrina when she calls you "Dancelotti". Differing points of view are wonderful things but, without supported evidence and proof that AK and RS were not involved, the convictions will stand. I would love to see our state department try to intervene. I would laugh like crazy when presented with proof, they would have their defining moment, turn tail and run.......as far away from this case as possible. No matter how much you dance around it, they were involved. They have yet to provide an alibi that explains not only the DNA found but the lack of DNA from someone who lived there. Please Lancelotti, enlighten me, show me your proof, not just 3 word sentences.......By the way, Forensics experts almost always say that a situation cannot be ruled out. However, they never get to voice their opinion of "but it cannot be ruled in".............
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously?

i don't know if that is possible, but i don't think that is what happened.


Quote:
Besides, two knives were used in the attc.

the kitchen knife didn't match all of the wounds and it didn't match the outline on the bed. that is why the prosecution had to introduce the more-than-one-knife theory.


Given the limited evidence we have seen, there was clearly more than one person in the cottage and in the room where Meredith Kercher was murdered - and, there was clearly more than one knife used. The defense teams tried to suggest that a smaller knife, compatible with the smaller knife wounds, could have been twisted around or repeatedly thrust to make a wound large enough to be compatible with the fatal wound. But the central problem for alternative theories remains that the double DNA knife is perfectly compatible with the fatal wound without any additional explanation. Shall I reference William of Ockham here?


What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?



Ignoring the totally disputed nature of the injuries, dual stabbing attacks on someone scoring injuries in the same area? How many do you think there are of that? Put it this way, I've personally done many assault cases with 2 or more than 2 people using knives simultaneously injuring people in the same area. It's about as rare as damp sand on a beach. Do you even engage brain before you post this stuff?


You are very rude. anyway...
When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."



As long as it's predicated on one person being there using two knives then yes that would be very unlikely. Since it was 3 people, 1, 2 or 3 of whom were using knives, it's utterly logical. It would join many thousands and probably tens of thousands of people who have been killed by 2 or more assailants each using a knife on someone. It's a feature of a huge amount of every non-shooting criminal death where gang members take someone and holding them against their will then go on to kill them. It's also a feature in an overwhelming number of 2+ person murders. What do you think happens in these situations - one person does the killing while the others stand around? No, what happens is that they all join in the assault.

_________________
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 nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
beans wrote:
If you look at the reconstructions of the cottage, you will note that Amanda had to walk right past Filomena's door to get to her own room. She said the door was closed, Raff said it was open-- hence, as usual, their stories don't agree and you would think that the door being opened or closed would definitely be an obvious thing you couldn't miss.


Hi Beans,

Andrea Vogt recently pointed out yet another example of Knox's and Sollecito's stories not matching up:

"Knox said on the stand that she took a shower in the bathroom even though she had seen some spots of blood, which had not particularly alarmed her.

Sollecito, however, told police in a recorded 911 call (in Italy, it's 118) played to jurors that there was "a pool of blood" in the bathroom." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

I have listened again to the phone call, and actually Sollecito didn't say there was a "pool of blood", but "there's is a lot of blood". He uses the expression un "mucchio" which literally means " a bunch". Sollecito's choice of words conveys the idea of much blood everywhere, whereas "a pool" of blood could be limited to one spot.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Great video from ViaDellaPergola in You Tube:

"false accusation by Knox"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyUh5y_8efE
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
When asked if there could have been two knives involved, a theory put forth by the prosecution when it had to admit that the smaller wounds could not have been made by the big kitchen knife, Torre replied, "It would be the first time in history that a murder was done with two knives."


I feel embarrassed for you that you don't possess the common sense to realise that Torre's claim is so obviously untrue. You have the naivety of a very young child.

The fact that you believed this ridiculous claim was true also shows how utterly desperate you are to believe anything and everything that the defence experts say in this case. It really is time you started thinking like an adult and not like a gullible child or a simpleton.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.


Hi Pat,

The claim that pot smokers don't engage in violence is simply not true. It is a popular misconception.


Yes, but its one of the rallying cries for those who defend Knox as being innocent, and if K/S admit to other drugs being in the mix, then the drugs actually become part of the motive instead of part of the defence.

The more I thought about it after my last post, the more the theory that they ingested more then pot makes sense in understanding their stories (whether the other drugs were deliberately or unknowingly ingested). If they were on an hallucinogen such as mushrooms then I could see the plausibility of Knox being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears during the murder. ( If i recall correctly mushrooms of the regular kind figure into their dinner story at some point in time, don't they?). There is also the potential for flash-back effects of hallucinogens, which would also put Knox's police station statements in a new light- through the drug-induced haze, she really couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't, and if was only her memory cooking up 'false images'. Sollecito's repentance in his prison diaries for taking drugs also takes on added significance. If they'd done a long-lasting drug like LSD (8 hours) then they might still be feeling those effects at noon the next day. Doing a harder drug on holiday is probably a common experience; Knox just unexpectedly got the evening off, and Friday was a holiday.

But there really isn't any benefit for their defence to admit doing harder drugs- their alibi for the evening takes a serious hit, since the influence of the drugs makes them less able to fully account for their actions that evening not more.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I can't understand why you think the two knife scenario is impossible lancelotti.
Are you aware that Sollecito had a knife fetish?
He carried a knife on his person AT ALL TIMES.
Would you say that possibly, over at Amanda's house that night he was carrying one of his knives?
He said of course, that he used them for carving his name on trees and such.

Curt Knox in a British TV documentary described all the knives in Sollecito's possession as 'art pieces' and that his knife and dagger collection was a harmless hobby, Curt saying he himself collects coins - inferring there is nothing wrong with a kid in his twenties to have a knife collection.

Here is a couple of shots from the trial of Knox when she was asked by her own defence whether she had seen this weapon before that the police had recovered from Sollecito's apartment.

I would like to say I am sorry in advance for not being as astute as other intellectually superior people and apologise to any people whose overly exercised sensibilities may be offended by the posting of these images.


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

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
this ridiculous claim


Carlo Torre is an interesting character. Asked if he can see the possibility of more than one aggressor, he said: "Sure there could have been someone else, if he was just a spectator." :D

and btw Maschine, I'll take 'childish' over hateful, aggressive lynch mob behaviour anytime ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
The Machine wrote:
this ridiculous claim


Carlo Torre is an interesting character. Asked if he can see the possibility of more than one aggressor, he said: "Sure there could have been someone else, if he was just a spectator." :D

and btw Maschine, I'll take 'childish' over hateful, aggressive lynch mob behaviour anytime ;)



Oh me too Lancelotti, I know that group that's desperate to lynch Rudy is really nasty and I'm glad you agree ;)

Or maybe I mistook you and you feel lynch mob behaviour is just fine, but only against 'certain' people?

As for Torre, you speak of him as though he has some sort of credibility either here, or in some other forum like...a court room. How many cases has he been on the winning side of in the last few years anyway? Pop quiz.

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


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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:


What does Mr Ockham say about the idea of two people, one with a big knife, one with a small knife, both of them stabbing the victim in the throat? Has he ever heard of a case like that?


Here's just one case: the murder of Peter Hoe (2006). Two brothers (David and Terry Reed) with TWO KNIVES were tried in the UK for his murder in 2007.
Their appeal earlier this year failed.
FYI, the knives broke (presumably when handled by the two brothers), resulting in plastic fragments of the two KNIVES being left at the crime scene.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

pataz1 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.


Hi Pat,

The claim that pot smokers don't engage in violence is simply not true. It is a popular misconception.


Yes, but its one of the rallying cries for those who defend Knox as being innocent, and if K/S admit to other drugs being in the mix, then the drugs actually become part of the motive instead of part of the defence.

The more I thought about it after my last post, the more the theory that they ingested more then pot makes sense in understanding their stories (whether the other drugs were deliberately or unknowingly ingested). If they were on an hallucinogen such as mushrooms then I could see the plausibility of Knox being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears during the murder. ( If i recall correctly mushrooms of the regular kind figure into their dinner story at some point in time, don't they?). There is also the potential for flash-back effects of hallucinogens, which would also put Knox's police station statements in a new light- through the drug-induced haze, she really couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't, and if was only her memory cooking up 'false images'. Sollecito's repentance in his prison diaries for taking drugs also takes on added significance. If they'd done a long-lasting drug like LSD (8 hours) then they might still be feeling those effects at noon the next day. Doing a harder drug on holiday is probably a common experience; Knox just unexpectedly got the evening off, and Friday was a holiday.

But there really isn't any benefit for their defence to admit doing harder drugs- their alibi for the evening takes a serious hit, since the influence of the drugs makes them less able to fully account for their actions that evening not more.

Pat



Hallucinogens are a possible for sure. For what it's worth (and no-one take this as a solid suggestion - it's more just one of a hundred hypotheticals), I've always put these following things together as a perfectly plausible possibility. Remember, I'm not saying it happened, it is just a theory that plugs a few holes for me and I'm further elucidating some already mentioned points;

AK is out there already and looking for wilder and wilder experiences. She's picking up men, screwing one on a train, sleeping with them (train-guy + RS at least) on first dates, suggesting to her flat mates that someone with herpes on their lip shows they are good at sex (I mean seriously *what*?!?!) and then not only snogs that guy at a nightclub but then unsurprisingly shows up at her trial with clear herpes on her lip.

She's used to dope, she's a big smoker - no new experiences to be had there. What can be next?

RS has prior reported experience with cocaine.

Elements of truth are always intertwined with the lies in an alibi; Rudy says there was an argument about a non-trivial amount of money.

Coke (powder not crack) is relatively much more expensive than dope.

Why exactly did, AK, RS and RG get hooked up that evening? Why? Dumb chance - sure definitely could be. Their knowledge of RG / contact with him still seems to be pretty low even by all sides accounts including the prosecution. Is it all just random chance they connect on this most serious of outcomes? Possibly, of course. But always seems a bit of a gap to me? Maybe there's a different reason....

Despite no prior convictions, RG has run ins with the police and is EXTREMELY widely reported immediately at the time as a minor drug peddler. Many articles claim 'police sources'. Again, may be wrong, but this was out there immediately. It came from somewhere. Don't get too focused on this, it's just a possible - read below;


We know the pre-meditated attack theory, the hazing-gone-wrong theory and others....

...but one of my other *possibles* is that AK and RS had decided to move to a new experience. They've had sex, they've smoked dope. AK wants to go further and the new boyfriend (like every young man EVER) wants to show off to his new girlfriend.... how? Well he has done some coke so he talks about how 'great' it is. It's the newer bigger experience for AK.... she is looking for the bigger thrill.... hell why not....

...so AK and RS go out there trying to score. They are not sure exactly where they are going to do that (see Kermit's windy progress trails?) and as opposed to scoring a lid of hash, they know Class A drugs and the type of money they may spend, they might need protection. But probably much more likely, RS is showing a bit of bravado to his girl-friend - "yeah honey, any ****s with us and they'll get this {the knife}".

In interview, AK and RS say they went into town that evening but can't remember for what. Let say then, well in fact they go off on their adventure to score some coke for the evening - for the new adventure - and they have a knife on them at this stage taken out of his flat - bravado mostly, a little protection possibly. Why the bigger kitchen knife? One for each of them - probably for AK in a jacket since RS is already carrying his on his own. See later witness testimony and two knife attack suggestion.

So they are the look-out. Where are they going to score? They aren't used to scoring coke in Perugia - this s not like getting a few buds off the boys downstairs. So they are wandering around on the look out. Who do they see hanging round the square who is a likely-lad who knows everyone? RG. AK knows him a bit but not much already but of course, he's the kind of guy who knows everyone. Just what you need. They walk up quietly and say "hey Rudy, we're looking for a bit of action.... coke you know...". Rudy, man of the world, bit hipper than these two students says casually "yeah maybe I can introduce you to someone". A conversation that happens god knows how many times a day in any city in the world. Beyond count. But they know each other a little and that's good enough for an introduction. So they go off to score.

They meet a "runner" for a dealer or a straight forward coke dealer (Perugia has serious Class A dealers and drug problems - syringes found on streets etc per the press articles - for all its beauty, this is a place with these guys firmly in place). The runner / dealer says "Show me your mobiles - turn them off". Both AK / RS turn the mobiles off to avoid tracking / location - another very dealer-aware usual practice. This is not CSI or the Wire - this is *exactly* what a dealer does in this situation with 'clients' whom he doesn't know. How do dealers get busted? Raids on houses or caught in the act. Therefore they are extremely careful about new people when arranging a deal. Turn the damn mobiles off hey? The student kids comply, no questions asked. It's just a big adventure right but the adrenaline is going. They are mixing with the badder lads. AK is probably a bit flushed with excitement and nerves and RS is too with asserting his experience etc.

The runner / dealer says "hundred and twenty euros" or something like that and it's more than they have them. They have some but not enough cash. The dealer isn't going to split the wrap. Classic technique, he says "ok if you're wasting my time" to force the sale but they say "no no, we're good for it". The dealer makes a big show but "reluctantly" says - "ok if Rudy says you're good for the rest, take it - I'll get it from Rudy, alright?". Rudy goes off as the trusted collector-in-place to get the rest of the cash. Again, an ultra-standard type of arrangement. Makes RG look a bit bigger, maybe makes him a little side cash, helps AK whom he likes, gets to go to MK's flat whom he likes. All makes sense.

The three depart for the house. They are a bit giddy from having done the deal and having the stuff with them and having not been caught. Typical post-scoring excitement. Young people, they are probably talking excitedly and walking fast.

They go back to the flat to find more money. Perhaps they intend to "borrow" MK's money which AK knows about from prior interaction. Who knows if she did? Perhaps they are just going to see if they can find *anyone's* money to borrow temporarily...

At the flat AK and RS do some lines in the kitchen - need a table, right? Maybe Rudy does too, maybe he doesn't.

What a totally different effect coke has over dope - wow. The manifestly different hyper state response to coke is now in place. The narcissistic AK is now hyper confident and all the aggression about the bar job, the deteriorating relationship with MK, is ready to come to the surface in a flash. She is utterly convinced she is right about anything and everything due to the effects of the coke. Anyone who has ever seen anyone on coke in an argument will know exactly what I am talking about. This is not anything to be messed with. It's hyper violent and nasty.

MK comes back and is approached for money or comes back to find her money missing and runs into the hyper wired assailants. An argument starts... we know the end.


I'm not saying it's true. Remember that before anyone goes off! But what makes sense about this scenario is it explains;

Why RS and AK are out "shopping" for stuff they can't remember. Why they are wandering around. Why they have a logical rather than co-incidental reason for being with Rudy. Why their mobiles get switched off simultaneously. Why AK's prison prize-winning story is painting a picture of a gathering where class A drugs are in use and people are seriously out of it. Why (for all the without doubt lying) there seems to be so much memory loss and confusion on the part of AK and RS.... they weren't a bit doped up - they were completely wired to the max and out of it; why they both look like they are on a major lack or sleep but very possibly also a major seratonin crash in pics the next day. Why an argument about money comes into Rudy's diary and alibi. Why the attack is so hyper aggressive and out of control.


What makes sense to me about this is it's a single scenario that ties together many loose(r) ends. I don't say it's true for an instant but it's one that explains the causation of many events that night. I will not invoke that bloke's name about why *that's* a good idea....

edit:typos

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:43 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Apologies for the length of post! Had to get it off my chest!

_________________
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 dehgriff


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:11 am

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Apologies for the length of post! Had to get it off my chest!


Don't apologise. Sounds damn convincing to me. The crime is so senseless, motiveless, and done by people (certainly in the case of Ak and RS) who don't seem like sadistic killer nutter types, that it just has to be drug fuelled.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

dehgriff wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apologies for the length of post! Had to get it off my chest!


Don't apologise. Sounds damn convincing to me. The crime is so senseless, motiveless, and done by people (certainly in the case of Ak and RS) who don't seem like sadistic killer nutter types, that it just has to be drug fuelled.



I'd spend time with Rudy over RS over AK for what it's worth. I think there's some extremely worrying personality traits on display here by AK and RS post the murder and those personalities came out, perhaps (almost by definition) in a horribly exaggerated way that night. I remember that a couple of members of the jury were in tears and there were comments that they personally didn't believe that they went in there to kill that night. But make no mistake - the conscious choices they made killed Meredith Kercher. Millions of class A users worldwide don't do what they did so it is absolutely no excuse. Whatever chemicals may have added that night, the three are solely responsible for her death.

_________________
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 dehgriff


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:11 am

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
dehgriff wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apologies for the length of post! Had to get it off my chest!


Don't apologise. Sounds damn convincing to me. The crime is so senseless, motiveless, and done by people (certainly in the case of Ak and RS) who don't seem like sadistic killer nutter types, that it just has to be drug fuelled.



I'd spend time with Rudy over RS over AK for what it's worth. I think there's some extremely worrying personality traits on display here by AK and RS post the murder and those personalities came out, perhaps (almost by definition) in a horribly exaggerated way that night. I remember that a couple of members of the jury were in tears and there were comments that they personally didn't believe that they went in there to kill that night. But make no mistake - the conscious choices they made killed Meredith Kercher. Millions of class A users worldwide don't do what they did so it is absolutely no excuse. Whatever chemicals may have added that night, the three are solely responsible for her death.


I agree with you. It's no excuse, and 'normal' people still wouldn't be capable of such a thing. It's still very odd that none of them has broken rank, and blamed the other two. If I'd been holding someone down and someone else had stabbed them, no matter whether I thought I'd encouraged or caused it I still be dropping them in it, and saying it wasn't me who did the deed. I still can't get my head round the psychology of what happened. They can't all have been so off their heads that none of them tried and stop it, or hold back. I've not yet read a scenario for what happened in that house that night that I've felt really states a plausible set of events and mindsets of the 3 whom I agree must all be involved.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

dehgriff wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
dehgriff wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Apologies for the length of post! Had to get it off my chest!


Don't apologise. Sounds damn convincing to me. The crime is so senseless, motiveless, and done by people (certainly in the case of Ak and RS) who don't seem like sadistic killer nutter types, that it just has to be drug fuelled.



I'd spend time with Rudy over RS over AK for what it's worth. I think there's some extremely worrying personality traits on display here by AK and RS post the murder and those personalities came out, perhaps (almost by definition) in a horribly exaggerated way that night. I remember that a couple of members of the jury were in tears and there were comments that they personally didn't believe that they went in there to kill that night. But make no mistake - the conscious choices they made killed Meredith Kercher. Millions of class A users worldwide don't do what they did so it is absolutely no excuse. Whatever chemicals may have added that night, the three are solely responsible for her death.


I agree with you. It's no excuse, and 'normal' people still wouldn't be capable of such a thing. It's still very odd that none of them has broken rank, and blamed the other two. If I'd been holding someone down and someone else had stabbed them, no matter whether I thought I'd encouraged or caused it I still be dropping them in it, and saying it wasn't me who did the deed. I still can't get my head round the psychology of what happened. They can't all have been so off their heads that none of them tried and stop it, or hold back. I've not yet read a scenario for what happened in that house that night that I've felt really states a plausible set of events and mindsets of the 3 whom I agree must all be involved.



There's no distinction as to who actually stabbed them versus the people who held them as it happened - they all are murderers by being active participants in that act so would cop for the same sentence either exactly or as near enough as makes no difference whatsoever. So no incentive to break rank and tell the truth unless you are entering a guilty plea which almost no-one does to a murder charge due to the enormity of the sentence they are facing.

_________________
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 Kip


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:30 pm

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:16 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The problem I have with a scenario where AK and RS ingested hallucinogens that clouded their memories about events of that night is that their memories were not clouded clear about the need to stage the scene to cast blame away from them and the need for a crime scene clean up to remove traces of them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I guess they did no toxicology tests when they brought them (AK/RS/RG) in?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Kip wrote:
The problem I have with a scenario where AK and RS ingested hallucinogens that clouded their memories about events of that night is that their memories were not clouded clear about the need to stage the scene to cast blame away from them and the need for a crime scene clean up to remove traces of them.



Hallucinogens are pretty long lasting - say roughly 3hrs++ for mushrooms and 8-12hrs++++ for a decent dose of lsd. I don't really buy the hallucinogens because of this and the general inability to string stuff together. Peak effects of cocaine hit you up relatively quickly at approximately 20 minutes and subsiding after a couple of hours - certainly long enough for them to calm down, realise they had to sort the flat out, come back to it and then work throughout the night on the clear up.

_________________
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 martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
The Machine wrote:
this ridiculous claim


Carlo Torre is an interesting character. Asked if he can see the possibility of more than one aggressor, he said: "Sure there could have been someone else, if he was just a spectator." :D

and btw Maschine, I'll take 'childish' over hateful, aggressive lynch mob behaviour anytime ;)


Lancelotti, i really don't want to pick on you, but let's try to use common sense:
* if RS was innocent, why did he keep his mouth shut during the trial, why did he admit to the police that he told them "un sacco di cazzate", why doesn't he have a credible alibi?

* if AK was innocent, why doesn't she have a credible alibi, why did she wrongly accuse PL,
why did she make up this ridiculous story about not being able to distinguish between her
"visions" of what might have happened and what really happened,......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:17 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Serendipity... I searched for a couple of hours yesterday for my favourite picture of Amanda talking to police investigators outside the house on the day after. I couldn't find it. Gave up. Today because of the above post, I searched "Amanda Knox Cocaine" on a whim and found the pic on the first click I did. Thanks, gods of fate :)

Here it is. Strictly for fans of reading things into pics which may or may not be there. Shortly before, here or thereafter, the police started to doubt her explanations and it deteriorated very fast. I love the expressions on the policemen's faces and the body language. Either they are very considerate or beginning to be rather doubtful already. AK's body language looks really rather unconvincing to me also. If I could subtitle it myself, I would call it "We four begin to smell a rat..."


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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Lancelotti, i really don't want to pick on you, but let's try to use common sense:
* if RS was innocent, why did he keep his mouth shut during the trial, why did he admit to the police that he told them "un sacco di cazzate", why doesn't he have a credible alibi?

Raffaele isn't taking my calls at the moment, so I can only speculate. But I think the problem is that he doesn't remember what he was doing that night.


Quote:
* if AK was innocent, why doesn't she have a credible alibi, why did she wrongly accuse PL,
why did she make up this ridiculous story about not being able to distinguish between her
"visions" of what might have happened and what really happened,......

because she is a silly girl!
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Kip wrote:
The problem I have with a scenario where AK and RS ingested hallucinogens that clouded their memories about events of that night is that their memories were not clouded clear about the need to stage the scene to cast blame away from them and the need for a crime scene clean up to remove traces of them.



Hallucinogens are pretty long lasting - say roughly 3hrs++ for mushrooms and 8-12hrs++++ for a decent dose of lsd. I don't really buy the hallucinogens because of this and the general inability to string stuff together. Peak effects of cocaine hit you up relatively quickly at approximately 20 minutes and subsiding after a couple of hours - certainly long enough for them to calm down, realise they had to sort the flat out, come back to it and then work throughout the night on the clear up.



I don't buy any of the memory loss story. AK and RS may have deeply buried the gruesome murder in the coffins of their minds, but the memory is still acid engraved there, and MK's eyes will stare through them until the day they die.

I suggest that memory loss was the most pragmatic thing AK and RS could come up with when they were surprised by the arrival of the phone police. They hadn't gotten their stories straight yet because they were still busy trying to cover up the blatant aspects of the murder. I think the original plan was to clean the house up enough so that you wouldn't know a murder had happened there, retire to RS's apartment and say they spent the whole weekend frolicking in bed. They started over-thinking the crime during the clean up process and decided at a late point to stage a phony break-in. The original plan was probably that one of her roommates would come home, find MK's door locked, be suspicious and call the police. I bet AK planned to not even answer the phone when her worried roommate called.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
Lancelotti, i really don't want to pick on you, but let's try to use common sense:
* if RS was innocent, why did he keep his mouth shut during the trial, why did he admit to the police that he told them "un sacco di cazzate", why doesn't he have a credible alibi?

Raffaele isn't taking my calls at the moment, so I can only speculate. But I think the problem is that he doesn't remember what he was doing that night.


Hello LanceLotti,

This may be stating the obvious but if he doesn’t remember what he was doing that night how can he assert that he did NOT do it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Hello LanceLotti,

This may be stating the obvious but if he doesn’t remember what he was doing that night how can he assert that he did NOT do it?


Oh, he does remember that he didn't leave his flat. And I'd think that if you killed someone, you'd certainly remember that, even if you don't remember if your father called at 8 or at 11 or not at all.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
because se is a silly girl!


I often find Lancelotti's statements provocative or insulting towards law and justice, preisely because they are the typical mafious comments. How did it happen? An accident. That person? A friend. Problem? Doesn't exist. No given or asked explanation. Everything is normal. The utter hypocricy, little words and silence of connivenza and omertà.

Look how things go straight instead. The main aspect that apologists like Lancelotti avoid to deal with is that facts and possibilitis are connected, the consistncy of things, which is the main and most important aspect to distinguish criminal patterns of thought from honesty.

The consistency issue is very obvious here in Lancelotti's 'explanation'. Look how the affirmations look like when put in a row. A 'silly girl' is a person who accuses an innocent person of murder, and keeps doing so on her own will in multiple occasion without leaving ambiguity, because she had to endure - for a short time in truth - a condition of pressure and stress.
So this means this 'silly' person could send an innocent person to death when under a condition of stress.
To say that Amanda accused Patrick of rape and murder because she is silly and irresponsible, is an argument that implicates that she could kill just because she is silly and irresponsible. On this ground, as you asume and emphasize that she is so irresponsible to make up a story and send easily a person to prison for life just because of her stress, why should I not think then consequently she is a dangerous person who might easily kill because of stress? And why do you asume she is not?
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

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

Lancelotti wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Hello LanceLotti,

This may be stating the obvious but if he doesn’t remember what he was doing that night how can he assert that he did NOT do it?


Oh, he does remember that he didn't leave his flat. And I'd think that if you killed someone, you'd certainly remember that, even if you don't remember if your father called at 8 or at 11 or not at all.


Hello LanceLotti,

If you expect a hypothesis to be accepted you must be able to prove it or at the very least it must be credible. You have fallen short on both counts here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
because se is a silly girl!


I often find Lancelotti's statements provocative or insulting towards law and justice, preisely because they are the typical mafious comments. How did it happen? An accident. That person? A friend. Problem? Doesn't exist. No given or asked explanation. Everything is normal. The utter hypocricy, little words and silence of connivenza and omertà.

Look how things go straight instead. The main aspect that apologists like Lancelotti avoid to deal with is that facts and possibilitis are connected, the consistncy of things, which is the main and most important aspect to distinguish criminal patterns of thought from honesty.

The consistency issue is very obvious here in Lancelotti's 'explanation'. Look how the affirmations look like when put in a row. A 'silly girl' is a person who accuses an innocent person of murder, and keeps doing so on her own will in multiple occasion without leaving ambiguity, because she had to endure - for a short time in truth - a condition of pressure and stress.
So this means this 'silly' person could send an innocent person to death when under a condition of stress.
To say that Amanda accused Patrick of rape and murder because she is silly and irresponsible, is an argument that implicates that she could kill just because she is silly and irresponsible. On this ground, as you asume and emphasize that she is so irresponsible to make up a story and send easily a person to prison for life just because of her stress, why should I not think then consequently she is a dangerous person who might easily kill because of stress? And why do you asume she is not?


yep, I thought you wouldn't understand it..

why did did she wrongly accuse PL? i didn't understand it at first either. especially the 'blocking the ears' part didn't fit in the context. she was sitting in the kitchen and blocked her ears not to hear her friend scream?? didn't make any sense in any scenario. it was only when i read the transcript of her testimony that everything fell into place.
i can look for it tomorrow, if somebody is interested....too tired now..
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
...because she is a silly girl!


Yet the Italian ILE and countless judges and legal representatives who have encountered Amanda Knox and the evidence against her over the past two years have categorically described her as cunning and calculating. Now you, Lancelotti, are the first to describe her as a “silly girl,” even though you are so far removed from any of the evidence or proceedings. I wish you well in your, as Amanda Knox would say, pure fantasy.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi I think you picked one of the pictures that is hanging on one of the wall’s of the police station, and one of my favorites. What I read into it is that the detectives are obviously working on a very serious criminal situation, and they are questioning Amanda who may have some helpful information on trying to solve the murder case. Notice the eye contact that the two closest detectives have , with their hands passively withdrawn. Listening intently, focused,and very professional. Amanda is using her hands to help explain something. The furthest detective away is bringing his hand to his head, seemingly trying to make sense of what this girl is saying.

Lancelotti. Yep good luck in finding Amanda’s own words in trying in clear up this silly girl comment. Remember the Cindy Lauper song , ‘girls just want to have fun.”
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
...because she is a silly girl!


Yet the Italian ILE and countless judges and legal representatives who have encountered Amanda Knox and the evidence against her over the past two years have categorically described her as cunning and calculating. Now you, Lancelotti, are the first to describe her as a “silly girl,” even though you are so far removed from any of the evidence or proceedings. I wish you well in your, as Amanda Knox would say, pure fantasy.


Hello Fly by Night

"...because she is a silly girl"

EUREKA!!!

That’s absolutely BRILLIANT.

Now if Lancelotti can only convince the lawyers for AK to be allowed to sit in with them during the appeal than she will be freed straight away.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Now, from a seller located in Seattle, the FREE KNOX Italian license plate on ebay auction. www.cgi.ebay.com

And this negative feedback comment left for the seller five months ago:
"Horrible. Bad customer service. Painful communication. Glacier slow shipping."

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

fine wrote:
Now, from a seller located in Seattle, the FREE KNOX Italian license plate on ebay auction. www.cgi.ebay.com

And this negative feedback comment left for the seller five months ago:
"Horrible. Bad customer service. Painful communication. Glacier slow shipping."

///


Hello fine,

Probably more interesting;

“Bid history: 0 bids”
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hammerite wrote:
fine wrote:
Now, from a seller located in Seattle, the FREE KNOX Italian license plate on ebay auction. www.cgi.ebay.com

And this negative feedback comment left for the seller five months ago:
"Horrible. Bad customer service. Painful communication. Glacier slow shipping."

///


Hello fine,

Probably more interesting;

“Bid history: 0 bids”

Perhaps it's time to put my prototype Amanda Knox Halloween costume on eBay... nin-)

How very proud the families must be with their killer-look-alike daughter reduced to a gruesome Halloween costume.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
because se is a silly girl!


I often find Lancelotti's statements provocative or insulting towards law and justice, preisely because they are the typical mafious comments. How did it happen? An accident. That person? A friend. Problem? Doesn't exist. No given or asked explanation. Everything is normal. The utter hypocricy, little words and silence of connivenza and omertà.

Look how things go straight instead. The main aspect that apologists like Lancelotti avoid to deal with is that facts and possibilitis are connected, the consistncy of things, which is the main and most important aspect to distinguish criminal patterns of thought from honesty.

The consistency issue is very obvious here in Lancelotti's 'explanation'. Look how the affirmations look like when put in a row. A 'silly girl' is a person who accuses an innocent person of murder, and keeps doing so on her own will in multiple occasion without leaving ambiguity, because she had to endure - for a short time in truth - a condition of pressure and stress.
So this means this 'silly' person could send an innocent person to death when under a condition of stress.
To say that Amanda accused Patrick of rape and murder because she is silly and irresponsible, is an argument that implicates that she could kill just because she is silly and irresponsible. On this ground, as you asume and emphasize that she is so irresponsible to make up a story and send easily a person to prison for life just because of her stress, why should I not think then consequently she is a dangerous person who might easily kill because of stress? And why do you asume she is not?


yep, I thought you wouldn't understand it..

why did did she wrongly accuse PL? i didn't understand it at first either. especially the 'blocking the ears' part didn't fit in the context. she was sitting in the kitchen and blocked her ears not to hear her friend scream?? didn't make any sense in any scenario. it was only when i read the transcript of her testimony that everything fell into place.
i can look for it tomorrow, if somebody is interested....too tired now..

I'm interested. Just for once I would like to see what you believe "fell into place" as I still feel that all of their bs stories are still just that. Imho, if none of them ever tells the truth, they can deny they were ever involved and wrongly convicted. They will never, ever forget their involvement in this crime. Meredith's screams will haunt them until the day they die.
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 30, 2009 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda Knox has stronger appeal rights in Italy than in U.S.

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 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 30, 2009 11:56 am   Post subject: Photos and Phones   

The title of the forth-coming book might be "High-Octane". (drag races, burn out, veering off track, oops, 'such a silly girl!", oopla!, giggle, lovey-dovey goo-goo eyes, questura, sitting in the lap, cartwheels yay!, what?, ummm, hey!, ow!, Patrick did it!, sobs)

The practicality of thinking of, then organising, then giving the cleanup a pretty good go, counterbalances the "silly girl" charge. There is probably a mathematical formula in a Code. Plus, can't imagine a boy doing all that hard (thinking) work.
It was a substantial attempt at domesticity, though (in an objective sense). Unfortunately, the house-cleaning chores were at the wrong end of the decision process (and night). That's were the liability lies.


SomeAlibi,

In the "And I can tell you this..." photo, the fellow at the bottom of the frame, with his hand on his scalp, is doing a classic Italian gesture which, in this context, could be taken to mean, he has just realized, "OMG! She's prevaricating. Poor Meredith!", consistent with a sincere and devout parent who has found out one daughter has just done the other one in { Imagine him in a social landscape where Guest students are automatically classified as "honorary daughters", as well as being members of the public, and, in all senses, people for whom a public officer would (naturally, I expect) feel a sense of duty towards and protection for. }

Of course, to be balanced, it cannot be ruled out 100%, however, that he is extremely tired, or just brushing the wind (or a fly) from his hair.

Or maybe he forgot to buy the sausages. Any scenario is entirely possible. :)


By the way, that reminds me, did we ever find out who the background voice on the emergency call was, the one who was saying "Such a pity!" in another conversation that was running in parallel in an echoey place?
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
I'm interested. Just for once I would like to see what you believe "fell into place" as I still feel that all of their bs stories are still just that. Imho, if none of them ever tells the truth, they can deny they were ever involved and wrongly convicted. They will never, ever forget their involvement in this crime. Meredith's screams will haunt them until the day they die.


“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
I'm interested. Just for once I would like to see what you believe "fell into place" as I still feel that all of their bs stories are still just that. Imho, if none of them ever tells the truth, they can deny they were ever involved and wrongly convicted. They will never, ever forget their involvement in this crime. Meredith's screams will haunt them until the day they die.


“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.


So what is it, Lancelotti, that fell into place for you?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Greggy wrote:
I don't buy any of the memory loss story.


Hi Greggy,

I don't believe for a second that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito coudn't remember very much about the time when Meredith was murdered. It's medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia.

I think the connection between Knox and Sollecito, and Guede was drugs. Although I haven't excluded the possibility that they might have taken a dangerous drug like crystal meth, I don't think it is the only scenario.

Some posters want to make what happened more palatable and the scenario of Knox, Sollecito and Guede being out of their heads on a dangerous drug allows them to do that. The problem I have with SomeAlibi's scenario is that it doesn't take into account that Knox and Sollecito clearly have serious personality defects.

Knox, Sollecito and Guede were all seen by a psychologists when they were in prison. A number of the judges who have been involved in the case thought that Knox and Sollecito were mentally unstable and dangerous.

Judge Claudia Matteini believed Knox and Sollecito were abnormal and enjoyed making her suffer:

"The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a ‘strange’ enjoyment of her suffering.

Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who - for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints - was subjected to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person."

Sollecito's bizarre obsession with knives, and his fondness for reading violent Manga comics, featuring murder and rape and watching seriously perverted pornography cannot be seen as harmless hobbies in the light of his role in Meredith's murder.

The Italian Supreme Court to Raffaele Sollecito:

“You are a flight risk because of the gravity of the charges. Your danger to society matches your weak character and your personality, which we can’t define in terms of harmless juvenile stereotypes, since the context includes the habitual use of drugs.”

The Italian Supreme Court to Amanda Knox:

“The restrictive measure cannot be denied due to the gravity of the crimes; your negative personality, which we have deducted from the investigation and from your behavior during investigation and court hearings.”

This report in The Daily Telegraph explains the reasons why Judge Massimo Riccarelli refused to grant Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito bail:

The American girl suspected of murdering British student Meredith Kercher is “crafty and cunning” and could reoffend, an Italian judge has said.

Amanda Knox, who calls herself Foxy Knoxy, is “unattached to reality” and her alleged role in the killing was “by no means secondary”, it was claimed.

Judge Massimo Riccarelli gave the damning characterisation of the 20-year-old in a report in which he outlined why he refused bail to her and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.

He said the “severity of the proof to hand legitimised the custodial measure applied to the pair who are accused of murder and sexual violence.”

Judge Riccarelli wrote, in the conclusion to a report released four days after the suspects’ bail bid was turned down, Knox was “privy of any refraining inhibitions and could reoffend.”

“From the reconstruction there is the concrete possibility of reoffending and the [alleged] role of Amanda Knox was by no means secondary,” he wrote.

The judge described her as “crafty and cunning” with a “multi-faced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated, one would say fatal capacity” to repeat her offence.

“To conclude I have to impose a custodial measure.” (Nick Pisa, The Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2007).

I re-read the witness statements from the people who were at the police station on 2 and 5 November 2007, and Amanda Knox's own writings. It's crystal clear that she is a very disturbed individual.

She was pulling silly faces, and laughing and joking with Sollecito whilst everybody else was deeply distressed and crying. Knox and Sollecito were also French-kissing and hugging each other.

Amy Frost testified:

“[Amanda] was in front of Raffaele. I remember that she stuck her tongue out at him, she made faces and then they’d laugh and kiss each other. In that moment I thought she was going crazy, that she was really crazy,”

One of the interpreters claimed:

“They hugged in the waiting-room of the police station, and they kissed as if they were at – I don’t like to say it, well almost as if they were at a party.”

How many times did Amanda Knox hit herself violently on the head when she was at the police station?

It seems she did it on a number of occasions. On 2 November when she was taken to have her fingerprints taken and on 5 November whilst Sollecito was being questioned.

Amanda Knox's behaviour at the police station was repeatedly bizarre. She was doing the splits and turning cartwheels on 5 November. On several occasions at the police station and the cottage she had shaking fits.

Edgardo Giobbi, the head of the national Violent Crimes Unit in Rome, said that he could hear Amanda Knox shouting from another room when Diya Lumumba’s name was brought up. He claimed that she was emotional, crying, acting rather impishly and then moving to desperation.

Perhaps, Amanda Knox was telling the truth when she claimed that they were drunk and asked Meredith to join them:

"I can’t remember if my friend Meredith was there or if she came later. We were all separate,” she said.

“He (Lumumba) wanted her (Meredith).

Yes we were in the house. We were drunk. We asked her to join us.

“Diya wanted her. Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams."
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi, accept my compliments and gratitude for sharing the picture of Amamda and the detectives.

The picture itself and all the insightful observations about body language were priceless.

Another thought as I look at Amanda, and particularly her hair.
Wasn't that picture taken sometime not too long after (according to her testimony)) she "took her shower" and "blow dried her hair" that morning ?

Just a non professional observation;
does her hair appear to have been washed and blow dried *recently* ?
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 30, 2009 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Norwich band makes Amanda Knox soundtrack
DAN GRIMMER
30 December 2009 12:57

A Norwich band have provided the soundtrack to a feature length documentary focusing on one of the biggest trials of 2009 - that of American student Amanda Knox.

NORWICH EVENING NEWS

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


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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.


quote:
At the flat AK and RS do some lines in the kitchen - need a table, right? Maybe Rudy does too, maybe he doesn't.


While I find coke very plausible (the effects you described, and I did see people on coke, also it is probabely the most common among the harder drugs), I wonder if the police wouldn't have found traces of it in the kitchen if they'd taken it there? As far as I know AK and RS didn't get to clean the kitchen floor/ table.

Also I think a drug like coke wouldn't rule out serious personality defects as The Machine mentions them above. Maybe it would even make them only fully come out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi, accept my compliments and gratitude for sharing the picture of Amamda and the detectives.

The picture itself and all the insightful observations about body language were priceless.

Another thought as I look at Amanda, and particularly her hair.
Wasn't that picture taken sometime not too long after (according to her testimony)) she "took her shower" and "blow dried her hair" that morning ?

Just a non professional observation;
does her hair appear to have been washed and blow dried *recently* ?



No, this doesn't look like freshly washed hair at all! (but I think we've had that before...)

Another thing that makes me wonder in this picture is her hands. She looks like she's explaining a lot, already defending herself, not simply telling what she saw and 'helping' the police. If I'd been at her place my body language would have been very different, more like: still under shock.
I know, it's just a picture, just an interpretation. Yet I think one is always kind of naked in front of a camera. It's very difficult to hide anything really important.


Last edited by Ava on Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Norwich band makes Amanda Knox soundtrack
DAN GRIMMER
30 December 2009 12:57

A Norwich band have provided the soundtrack to a feature length documentary focusing on one of the biggest trials of 2009 - that of American student Amanda Knox.

NORWICH EVENING NEWS


So Eye Films has changed the title of this "documentary" movie from MAKING A KILLING to THE TRIALS OF AMANDA KNOX. Estimated budget is $400,000. www.imdb.com

////


Last edited by fine on Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I keep wondering if we will ever find out what *really* happened in that cottage.

As has been pointed out by several astute commentators here, since all 3 convicted murderers share equally in responsibility and punishment, there is really little or no incentive *now* for any one of the three to "rat out" who actually was the 'holders', the 'watchers', and/or the 'doers'.

After the appeal process plays out, and the three are then faced with the Italian rehabilitative prison philosophy, I wonder if the incentive for one to confess might then become greater.

Would a confession then show remorse, contrition, acceptance of wrong doing, and intent to avoid repetition ? Would this satisfy the philosophy and then lessen the term required before parole for the individual stool pigeon ??
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Stint7,
These shots were taken the day Merediths body was discovered and the day Knox supposedly had her shower and did a bizarre sack race type thing (commonly known as the bathmat shuffle) with an obviously bloody bathmat.


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

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda is in classic liar pose here. She is placing the only thing she has between herself and the police: her hands. Note the fingertips are pointing directly at them as well, distancing herself as much as possible. The policeman with his hands in his pockets really is looking at her like he not only does not believe a word she says, but that he can't believe she takes him for such a fool.

Once again, Dancealotti has proof yet is too tired to look for it. Don't worry about any lynch mobs, DUDE. You've got enough rope, it's just a matter of time now. And look at the bright side. Time is all Guinnevere of Perugia has now. Ciao sucker!
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I'd noticed the hands in particular, too, Corrina. She's putting a spear-point between herself and the investigators, and at the same time protecting the truth by concealing the palms of her hands.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Corrina wrote:
Amanda is in classic liar pose here. She is placing the only thing she has between herself and the police: her hands. Note the fingertips are pointing directly at them as well, distancing herself as much as possible. The policeman with his hands in his pockets really is looking at her like he not only does not believe a word she says, but that he can't believe she takes him for such a fool.


I concur Corrina.
It is a classic crime scene shot and certainly tells a story.
The murder squad detectives are on to her almost immediately.These guys are experts in their field and are certainly very interested in this individual that they have just met.
I get the impression she is flying from the seat of her pants here - it looks like she is making it up as she goes along - and I read a bit of arrogance on her part too.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

fine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Norwich band makes Amanda Knox soundtrack
DAN GRIMMER
30 December 2009 12:57

A Norwich band have provided the soundtrack to a feature length documentary focusing on one of the biggest trials of 2009 - that of American student Amanda Knox.

NORWICH EVENING NEWS


So Eye Films has changed the title of this "documentary" movie from MAKING A KILLING to THE TRIALS OF AMANDA KNOX. Estimated budget is $400,000. www.imdb.com

////


And if the revised title didn't give it away, this quote from the article seals it:
"The filmmakers were granted intimate access to the Knox family and their friends from just after her arrest in 2007."

A $400K PR film, script by Marriot. (wish we had a *puke* emoticon)



edited to add: Interesting that the Knox/Mellas crowd were already thinking "movie" within days of her arrest. Sickening, sickening people.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Greggy wrote:
I don't buy any of the memory loss story.


Some posters want to make what happened more palatable and the scenario of Knox, Sollecito and Guede being out of their heads on a dangerous drug allows them to do that. The problem I have with SomeAlibi's scenario is that it doesn't take into account that Knox and Sollecito clearly have serious personality defects.


Machine - one sec! I honestly think that scenario I posted completely fits with those serious personality defects without doubt for me. In fact it's essential. Just under my long post I did write "I think there's some extremely worrying personality traits on display here by AK and RS post the murder and those personalities came out... in a horribly exaggerated way that night. "

My point in writing that was that all of those serious personality problems were there ticking like a time bomb. The narcissism, the total lack of empathy, the dedication to adventuring into further and further excess, the knife obsession etc etc. They lurk for several years but at some point, like all first time killers, some set of circumstances and stimulii make those dangerous personality problems go off like that bomb.

People with mental health issues are always told to stay the hell away from hallucinogens and power stimulant drugs like coke. Put that together with the dangerous personality types and you get the explosion that is so dangerous.

However as I then also went on to say, tens of millions of people have used coke world-wide and never descended to the depths of what they did that night. The fault remains with the personalities and extreme selfishness and disregard of the 3 murderers.

(Great documentary post of all those evidential references to the personality problems - that's a keeper)

_________________
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 stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Reference photo Deathfish posted above (3:54pm):

I found it interesting (although considering the source not completely credible) what Time Magazine had to say about the "groomed" Ms Napoleoni..........

Perugia's police murder-squad chief Monica Napoleoni often sits behind Comodi. She shows up for most court sessions — even though she is not required to appear — dressed like an undercover vice cop by U.S. standards. Her Morticia Addams hair, deep tan, deeper décolletage, hot-pink baby-doll tops, stylish white jeans, high wedgies and designer totes bring a whiff of the Via Veneto into the courtroom. Napoleoni has spent her career working the surprisingly mean streets of this ancient hill town, infested with battling gangs of Albanian and Moroccan drug dealers and a plague of prostitution from international human traffickers who find it a convenient trading post. Napoleoni is occasionally accompanied by another female homicide cop, Lorena Zugarini, who is built like an East German swimmer. It was Zugarini who kicked in one of the doors of the murder house.

According to Knox, these two women were among a group of both male and female cops who browbeat a false confession out of her in the middle of the night almost two years ago. They deny it.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 87,00.html


Last edited by stint7 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

In checking out The Neutrinos, one has to wonder if a band with a song entitled "Kiss Like Killers" is a good choice for a documentary about poor, misunderstood Amanda Knox. Though remembering how she signed off to her friends and family (Ciao Suckers! See, Dance? That was "just Amanda!"), perhaps it's fitting. When you click on "Friends" on Neutrinos web site, it changes to "Fuckers". Positively charming.

Oh Bea! But we DO have a puke emoticon. Here you are:

tu-))
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Corrina wrote:
In checking out The Neutrinos, one has to wonder if a band with a song entitled "Kiss Like Killers" is a good choice for a documentary about poor, misunderstood Amanda Knox. Though remembering how she signed off to her friends and family (Ciao Suckers! See, Dance? That was "just Amanda!"), perhaps it's fitting. When you click on "Friends" on Neutrinos web site, it changes to "Fuckers". Positively charming.

Oh Bea! But we DO have a puke emoticon. Here you are:

tu-))


Thanks, Corrina! Not sure how I missed it. (Maybe b/c I try to avoid looking at its left-hand neighbor? ;) )
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Ava wrote:

While I find coke very plausible (the effects you described, and I did see people on coke, also it is probabely the most common among the harder drugs), I wonder if the police wouldn't have found traces of it in the kitchen if they'd taken it there? As far as I know AK and RS didn't get to clean the kitchen floor/ table.


I see where you're coming from but they did have a very very big clean up and a line of coke is really rather tiny unlike the great trails of the stuff you see in films. It would have been prominent in their minds if it had existed (which I don't know as I say) because they'd know it was a major indicator of the night's events / number of people etc. It would have been the work of a only a few minutes to extremely comprehensively rub down that area with wet and dry cloths alternately for instance. They did a pretty good job everywhere else which must have taken a couple of hours at least and they've clearly managed to get rid of the materials that did that clean up...

_________________
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: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

stint7 wrote:
Reference photo Deathfish posted above (3:54pm):

I found it interesting (although considering the source not completely credible) what Time Magazine had to say about the "groomed" Ms Napoleoni..........

Perugia's police murder-squad chief Monica Napoleoni often sits behind Comodi. She shows up for most court sessions — even though she is not required to appear — dressed like an undercover vice cop by U.S. standards. Her Morticia Addams hair, deep tan, deeper décolletage, hot-pink baby-doll tops, stylish white jeans, high wedgies and designer totes bring a whiff of the Via Veneto into the courtroom. Napoleoni has spent her career working the surprisingly mean streets of this ancient hill town, infested with battling gangs of Albanian and Moroccan drug dealers and a plague of prostitution from international human traffickers who find it a convenient trading post. Napoleoni is occasionally accompanied by another female homicide cop, Lorena Zugarini, who is built like an East German swimmer. It was Zugarini who kicked in one of the doors of the murder house.

According to Knox, these two women were among a group of both male and female cops who browbeat a false confession out of her in the middle of the night almost two years ago. They deny it.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 87,00.html


I believe Monica Napoleoni is actually the boss of the Perugian homicide squad, maybe someone could back me up here.
I get the impression Amanda Knox was afraid of her due to not being able to use her female charms and flirt with another woman.
This is why I think she came up with the lie of being struck (from behind by a woman unknown to her) during questioning.
I find it very hard to believe.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Ava wrote:

While I find coke very plausible (the effects you described, and I did see people on coke, also it is probabely the most common among the harder drugs), I wonder if the police wouldn't have found traces of it in the kitchen if they'd taken it there? As far as I know AK and RS didn't get to clean the kitchen floor/ table.


I see where you're coming from but they did have a very very big clean up and a line of coke is really rather tiny unlike the great trails of the stuff you see in films. It would have been prominent in their minds if it had existed (which I don't know as I say) because they'd know it was a major indicator of the night's events / number of people etc. It would have been the work of a only a few minutes to extremely comprehensively rub down that area with wet and dry cloths alternately for instance. They did a pretty good job everywhere else which must have taken a couple of hours at least and they've clearly managed to get rid of the materials that did that clean up...



Hey, all it takes is a CD case, a credit card and a rolled up bill. Oopla! Quick clean up!
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Corrina wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Ava wrote:

While I find coke very plausible (the effects you described, and I did see people on coke, also it is probabely the most common among the harder drugs), I wonder if the police wouldn't have found traces of it in the kitchen if they'd taken it there? As far as I know AK and RS didn't get to clean the kitchen floor/ table.


I see where you're coming from but they did have a very very big clean up and a line of coke is really rather tiny unlike the great trails of the stuff you see in films. It would have been prominent in their minds if it had existed (which I don't know as I say) because they'd know it was a major indicator of the night's events / number of people etc. It would have been the work of a only a few minutes to extremely comprehensively rub down that area with wet and dry cloths alternately for instance. They did a pretty good job everywhere else which must have taken a couple of hours at least and they've clearly managed to get rid of the materials that did that clean up...



Hey, all it takes is a CD case, a credit card and a rolled up bill. Oopla! Quick clean up!



Yes, I guess they did do a good job in their clean-up then.
Just remembered a news story some years ago where the police found coke traces in the toilets of the Reichstag (where AK once walked in, read Harry Potter and walked out again). Of course the users hadn't cleaned up there, still I thought coke particles weren't so easy to keep together, and to detect unless you're part of the forensics.
But a single use probabely is pretty 'safe' after all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I've searched, but cannot find this information.

Where did Guede sleep after dancing that night of the murder?
Top Profile 

Offline grushka


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Greggy wrote:
I don't buy any of the memory loss story.


Some posters want to make what happened more palatable and the scenario of Knox, Sollecito and Guede being out of their heads on a dangerous drug allows them to do that. The problem I have with SomeAlibi's scenario is that it doesn't take into account that Knox and Sollecito clearly have serious personality defects.

My point in writing that was that all of those serious personality problems were there ticking like a time bomb. The narcissism, the total lack of empathy, the dedication to adventuring into further and further excess, the knife obsession etc etc. They lurk for several years but at some point, like all first time killers, some set of circumstances and stimulii make those dangerous personality problems go off like that bomb.


Think about this. Less than two months living in a NEW CITY in a NEW COUNTRY to her, Amanda Knox is bored enough to get involved in all the sensation and stimulus-seeking behavior that culminated in this terrible crime.

I mean, two months? Normal people are out walking, discovering, exploring, reading local papers in new cafes. Of course you're going to party with some new friends and have a romance or two. But to be restless after TWO months living in a new country? That is just pathological.
Top Profile 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi's scenario, to my mind, also forms a plausible explanation for AK & RS's behavior as described by Kokomani. I've always felt that that part of his story was like something out of a bad B movie, with AK & RS crouching in the darkness, then brandishing knives. What the heck were they doing out there? The first time I read Kokomani's statement, I immediately thought that they were likely wired on something at that point.

It's also plausible that this was their first time doing coke, as opposed to RG, who was not nearly as outre in his behavior & had the presence of mind to invent a pretext for speaking with Kokomani with the request to borrow his car to move some furniture in a few days.

An excess of coke can also make one claustrophobic & paranoid, which would be a possible explanation of why they'd left the apartment, though not the only one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject: new poster here   

Good day to everyone here. This is my first post on this site. I had vaguely been aware of the case until recently (I am a British woman who lives in the US) until recently on a general interest, feminist-leaning US-based blog I read a post about it, and was horrified by the xenophobic remarks about Italy on a supposedly progressive and intelligent site. The mindless defense of Amanda Knox because she had been the victim of sexism and "slutshaming" in the media, and the few posts refuting them which hinted at a media coverup by the Knox's PR machine, led me to read first the True Justice site, then this message board, and finally the Miss Represented blog, which I have read fairly comprehensively over the past few weeks. I would in no way call myself an expert, but I feel I have a handle on the key aspects and characters involved in Meredith's awful murder.

The scenario which most resonates with me is that Amanda Knox was compulsively, madly jealous of Meredith and her seemingly effortless popularity and social "success", and intensely rejected and hurt by Meredith's coolness (after Meredith had had time to become turned off by Knox's more unpleasant and unsettling traits), a hurt and rejection that were expressed as rage. What is interesting to me is that in many ways I identify with Knox, and feel that not only is she not so different from my own 20-ish-year-old self (I am 38 now and hopefully much improved as a human), but that her narcissistic/possibly sociopathic traits are actually quite common in people of her age and most people simply grow out of them and develop more empathy and become less self-centred over time. There is a reason that so many angsty teens are obsessed with the existentialists!

In that video of Amanda and her friends before she came to Italy, the one where she is close to the camera and talking about "one and a half shots" or whatever and laughing as if they are all just so witty and hilarious, they are exactly the kind of loud, brash, unfunny and extremely unsophisticated Americans that would make many Brits (who whatever our faults, so tend to have a more nuanced, ironic and self-deprecating take on life) cringe in horror and condescension. I can imagine Amanda and *that* sense of humor going down in the shared house like a lead balloon, and how Amanda (expecting to be the slightly glamorous implant from *gasp* the USA (sorry Americans can be very self important)) might have been so completely deflated by her inability to communicate with her roommates on their level in a way that made them like her, but that her narcissism would have turned that feeling of being deflated back on them, rather than looking at herself and what might have caused it.

I remember a moment, maybe in my late teens, when I read a book that resonated with me strongly to the point that I was compelled to write to the author because I felt that she KNEW me it was so uncanny, when suddenly the penny dropped and I had one of those moments that changes your life, when I realized that it wasn't that this author and I were two peas in a pod, but that human experiences are pretty universal and that I wasn't special or different, in among a world of grey, semi-dimensional bit players in the movie of my life. Perhaps Amanda would have simply grown up and become a lot nicer had this not happened. So I guess, I'm a believer in the perfect storm scenario? (although I think of it more as a perfect tragedy...I know I'm taking the word perfect out of context but it's hard to use it in relation to Meredith's murder).

The other subject on which I had a thought was the role of Rudy Guede, which seems so much less substantial than AK and RS and quite hard to explain, even for those (like Miss Represented) who obviously know a lot about the case. When I was AK's age I also had a very regular and substantial cannabis habit, and for a young person who is still overwhelmed with how COOL it is to smoke joints casually and habitually, your dealer has a dear place in your heart, and when you are in a new area especially you hold on to them and are VERY friendly with them, as well as being slightly intoxicated with the slight danger of hanging out with these shady characters when you are from such a nice middle class background. I would guess that if Guede was Amanda's and perhaps RS's regular dealer, they probably knew him quite well, spent long evenings getting stoned with him and talking about the meaning of life, you get the picture.

Anyway, sorry if this is all quite obvious and oft-discussed, but those were my initial thoughts, other than just utter horror that such banal things led to such a horrific end for poor Meredith. Thanks for reading if you got this far.
Top Profile 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

What makes sense to me about this is it's a single scenario that ties together many loose(r) ends. I don't say it's true for an instant but it's one that explains the causation of many events that night.


It makes a lot of sense to me, and if the money that Amanda had left was indeed the remains of Meredith's stolen rent money, then maybe the amount missing is about right to account for a single-serving wrap of coke or two (assuming that they had a little money already but that it wasn't enough).
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: new poster here   

modest_ex wrote:
Good day to everyone here.


And a good day to you too, modest ex! Wonderfully relevant observations.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: new poster here   

modest_ex wrote:
Good day to everyone here. This is my first post on this site. I had vaguely been aware of the case until recently (I am a British woman who lives in the US) until recently on a general interest, feminist-leaning US-based blog I read a post about it, and was horrified by the xenophobic remarks about Italy on a supposedly progressive and intelligent site. The mindless defense of Amanda Knox because she had been the victim of sexism and "slutshaming" in the media, and the few posts refuting them which hinted at a media coverup by the Knox's PR machine, led me to read first the True Justice site, then this message board, and finally the Miss Represented blog, which I have read fairly comprehensively over the past few weeks. I would in no way call myself an expert, but I feel I have a handle on the key aspects and characters involved in Meredith's awful murder.

The scenario which most resonates with me is that Amanda Knox was compulsively, madly jealous of Meredith and her seemingly effortless popularity and social "success", and intensely rejected and hurt by Meredith's coolness (after Meredith had had time to become turned off by Knox's more unpleasant and unsettling traits), a hurt and rejection that were expressed as rage. What is interesting to me is that in many ways I identify with Knox, and feel that not only is she not so different from my own 20-ish-year-old self (I am 38 now and hopefully much improved as a human), but that her narcissistic/possibly sociopathic traits are actually quite common in people of her age and most people simply grow out of them and develop more empathy and become less self-centred over time. There is a reason that so many angsty teens are obsessed with the existentialists!

In that video of Amanda and her friends before she came to Italy, the one where she is close to the camera and talking about "one and a half shots" or whatever and laughing as if they are all just so witty and hilarious, they are exactly the kind of loud, brash, unfunny and extremely unsophisticated Americans that would make many Brits (who whatever our faults, so tend to have a more nuanced, ironic and self-deprecating take on life) cringe in horror and condescension. I can imagine Amanda and *that* sense of humor going down in the shared house like a lead balloon, and how Amanda (expecting to be the slightly glamorous implant from *gasp* the USA (sorry Americans can be very self important)) might have been so completely deflated by her inability to communicate with her roommates on their level in a way that made them like her, but that her narcissism would have turned that feeling of being deflated back on them, rather than looking at herself and what might have caused it.

I remember a moment, maybe in my late teens, when I read a book that resonated with me strongly to the point that I was compelled to write to the author because I felt that she KNEW me it was so uncanny, when suddenly the penny dropped and I had one of those moments that changes your life, when I realized that it wasn't that this author and I were two peas in a pod, but that human experiences are pretty universal and that I wasn't special or different, in among a world of grey, semi-dimensional bit players in the movie of my life. Perhaps Amanda would have simply grown up and become a lot nicer had this not happened. So I guess, I'm a believer in the perfect storm scenario? (although I think of it more as a perfect tragedy...I know I'm taking the word perfect out of context but it's hard to use it in relation to Meredith's murder).

The other subject on which I had a thought was the role of Rudy Guede, which seems so much less substantial than AK and RS and quite hard to explain, even for those (like Miss Represented) who obviously know a lot about the case. When I was AK's age I also had a very regular and substantial cannabis habit, and for a young person who is still overwhelmed with how COOL it is to smoke joints casually and habitually, your dealer has a dear place in your heart, and when you are in a new area especially you hold on to them and are VERY friendly with them, as well as being slightly intoxicated with the slight danger of hanging out with these shady characters when you are from such a nice middle class background. I would guess that if Guede was Amanda's and perhaps RS's regular dealer, they probably knew him quite well, spent long evenings getting stoned with him and talking about the meaning of life, you get the picture.

Anyway, sorry if this is all quite obvious and oft-discussed, but those were my initial thoughts, other than just utter horror that such banal things led to such a horrific end for poor Meredith. Thanks for reading if you got this far.



Interesting post Modest, I appreciated it. With Rudy, there is something (and I find it hard to put my finger on it) that makes him appear somehow less involved. I think it's the fact of AK and RS being in a relationship adds to the horror of their role in it and Rudy seems outside of that. But then you remember it was Rudy's DNA found inside Meredith and no-one elses. That DNA together with evidence of specific physical bruising & lesions on the victim showing forced serious sexual assault and potentially rape or attempted rape reminds us all we need to know of the kind of guy Rudy is.

_________________
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 Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: new poster here   

modest_ex wrote:
Good day to everyone here. This is my first post on this site. I had vaguely been aware of the case until recently (I am a British woman who lives in the US) until recently on a general interest, feminist-leaning US-based blog I read a post about it, and was horrified by the xenophobic remarks about Italy on a supposedly progressive and intelligent site. The mindless defense of Amanda Knox because she had been the victim of sexism and "slutshaming" in the media, and the few posts refuting them which hinted at a media coverup by the Knox's PR machine, led me to read first the True Justice site, then this message board, and finally the Miss Represented blog, which I have read fairly comprehensively over the past few weeks. I would in no way call myself an expert, but I feel I have a handle on the key aspects and characters involved in Meredith's awful murder.

The scenario which most resonates with me is that Amanda Knox was compulsively, madly jealous of Meredith and her seemingly effortless popularity and social "success", and intensely rejected and hurt by Meredith's coolness (after Meredith had had time to become turned off by Knox's more unpleasant and unsettling traits), a hurt and rejection that were expressed as rage. What is interesting to me is that in many ways I identify with Knox, and feel that not only is she not so different from my own 20-ish-year-old self (I am 38 now and hopefully much improved as a human), but that her narcissistic/possibly sociopathic traits are actually quite common in people of her age and most people simply grow out of them and develop more empathy and become less self-centred over time. There is a reason that so many angsty teens are obsessed with the existentialists!

In that video of Amanda and her friends before she came to Italy, the one where she is close to the camera and talking about "one and a half shots" or whatever and laughing as if they are all just so witty and hilarious, they are exactly the kind of loud, brash, unfunny and extremely unsophisticated Americans that would make many Brits (who whatever our faults, so tend to have a more nuanced, ironic and self-deprecating take on life) cringe in horror and condescension. I can imagine Amanda and *that* sense of humor going down in the shared house like a lead balloon, and how Amanda (expecting to be the slightly glamorous implant from *gasp* the USA (sorry Americans can be very self important)) might have been so completely deflated by her inability to communicate with her roommates on their level in a way that made them like her, but that her narcissism would have turned that feeling of being deflated back on them, rather than looking at herself and what might have caused it.

I remember a moment, maybe in my late teens, when I read a book that resonated with me strongly to the point that I was compelled to write to the author because I felt that she KNEW me it was so uncanny, when suddenly the penny dropped and I had one of those moments that changes your life, when I realized that it wasn't that this author and I were two peas in a pod, but that human experiences are pretty universal and that I wasn't special or different, in among a world of grey, semi-dimensional bit players in the movie of my life. Perhaps Amanda would have simply grown up and become a lot nicer had this not happened. So I guess, I'm a believer in the perfect storm scenario? (although I think of it more as a perfect tragedy...I know I'm taking the word perfect out of context but it's hard to use it in relation to Meredith's murder).

The other subject on which I had a thought was the role of Rudy Guede, which seems so much less substantial than AK and RS and quite hard to explain, even for those (like Miss Represented) who obviously know a lot about the case. When I was AK's age I also had a very regular and substantial cannabis habit, and for a young person who is still overwhelmed with how COOL it is to smoke joints casually and habitually, your dealer has a dear place in your heart, and when you are in a new area especially you hold on to them and are VERY friendly with them, as well as being slightly intoxicated with the slight danger of hanging out with these shady characters when you are from such a nice middle class background. I would guess that if Guede was Amanda's and perhaps RS's regular dealer, they probably knew him quite well, spent long evenings getting stoned with him and talking about the meaning of life, you get the picture.

Anyway, sorry if this is all quite obvious and oft-discussed, but those were my initial thoughts, other than just utter horror that such banal things led to such a horrific end for poor Meredith. Thanks for reading if you got this far.


Welcome, modest ex! Would that all newcomers to the case were as "modest" and made the effort to read and research as you have. Brava!

I'm a newish poster here myself, though I have followed the case since day one. I think you'll find this forum very interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Corrina wrote:

Oh Bea! But we DO have a puke emoticon. Here you are:

tu-))


I was looking for that all over a couple of weeks ago and couldn't see it at all, lol.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
I'm interested. Just for once I would like to see what you believe "fell into place" as I still feel that all of their bs stories are still just that. Imho, if none of them ever tells the truth, they can deny they were ever involved and wrongly convicted. They will never, ever forget their involvement in this crime. Meredith's screams will haunt them until the day they die.


“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.


So what is it, Lancelotti, that fell into place for you?



Nothing :D . I spent a quiet hour or so at a dead workplace today having a look back at the 370-odd posts of Lancelotti. If you search for them and read through in order, it is quite an informative read. From the very first to the last it is a litany of made-for-the-defence challenges to everything. There's a little lip service to being 'more neutral' (than other posters) early on but if you read them in context, it is like having the PR agency / family here. There's no evaluation, a total absence of scepticism about anything, just rote challenging time and time again. Someone who has come with an agenda and is seeking to execute. It obviously speaks volumes about the moderators of PMF that that sort of thing is accepted. Now that's incredibly blindingly obvious but it's reading the posts in order that really gives you a sense of the scale of work being put it. Fortunately the search engine of this *fantastic* forum platform makes that easy. search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=lancelotti&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

_________________
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 DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:

‘I've searched, but cannot find this information.
Where did Guede sleep after dancing that night of the murder?’

Can’t help much. Rudy was seen dancing the night of the murder, and also the following evening. He was not seen after that in Perugia. He could have left by train the 2nd day after or longer until Amanda was arrested and split for Germany. His friends said they didn’t have contact (?) with him afterwards. Presumably he would have stayed at his apartment and kept out of contact. He would have no way of knowing for sure if the cops could have identified him or not. He knows he wasn’t careful, and just wanted the stay anonymous. Rudy said he was paranoid of being black. Probably really panicked after Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick were arrested. Only a matter of time before they identified the real black guy involved.. Rudy’s movements are a real mystery.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:51 pm   Post subject: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year.
Ah yes, there's a group of people bound to run into each other while house-hunting.
—Dante Chinni


After driving the streets of where Amanda Knox was raised IMHO if the family were to be called "Middle Class" they just barely got their foot in the door. But their wealth or lack thereof, is no benchmark for her wickedness. This, I believe, stems from a grave mental illness as so called "normal" kids could metabolize drugs within anticipated consequences. I would go so far as to say Raffaele was of the same dysfunctional mind - birds of a feather....

Amanda's instability is mental not financial - one only has to look at the absurd behavior within both of their families. Amanda Knox’s rage should have been being controlled by drugs and I don’t mean the illegal type – we know those only fueled her problems. Although Amanda was beyond the age of 18 I hold her family responsible for not providing the type of help she needed. If they could not convince her to seek help overseas they should have advised all schools she was associated with. I suspect waivers and disclaimers were falsely executed and her parents were aware of this. There is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. I believe Amanda’s parents had a social responsibility since they brought her into this world, raised her and were aware of her mental and social challenges. I would go so far as to also say her teachers should be held responsible. I don’t believe for one second her odd and unexplainable behavior went unnoticed. These are the people who are certifying she is of sound mind and body to travel abroad. Both her parents and physicians and her institutions failed to protect Meredith and they are nearly as guilty as AK – IMHO.


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

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
I'm interested. Just for once I would like to see what you believe "fell into place" as I still feel that all of their bs stories are still just that. Imho, if none of them ever tells the truth, they can deny they were ever involved and wrongly convicted. They will never, ever forget their involvement in this crime. Meredith's screams will haunt them until the day they die.


“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.


So what is it, Lancelotti, that fell into place for you?



Nothing :D . I spent a quiet hour or so at a dead workplace today having a look back at the 370-odd posts of Lancelotti. If you search for them and read through in order, it is quite an informative read. From the very first to the last it is a litany of made-for-the-defence challenges to everything. There's a little lip service to being 'more neutral' (than other posters) early on but if you read them in context, it is like having the PR agency / family here. There's no evaluation, a total absence of scepticism about anything, just rote challenging time and time again. Someone who has come with an agenda and is seeking to execute. It obviously speaks volumes about the moderators of PMF that that sort of thing is accepted. Now that's incredibly blindingly obvious but it's reading the posts in order that really gives you a sense of the scale of work being put it. Fortunately the search engine of this *fantastic* forum platform makes that easy. search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=lancelotti&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search


Hello SomeAlibi,

Like you I am perplexed by Lancelotti’s disrespectful technique on this site. It saddened me when serious contributors went to the trouble to write up detailed responses only to have them ignored and sidestepped with no serious attempt to engage in any meaningful way.

Conclusion; Lancelotti is taking this forum on a merry go round journey. Henceforth it is my intention to return the same level of respect and consideration that is given.

“garbage in = garbage out”
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

....which in turn made me think about Lancelotti's nick(name) / username in this forum. Some people use nicks to give a hint as to their approach or position. Skep's raises clear imagery for instance. I chose SomeAlibi having read AK and RS turning themselves in circles and changing their stories etc. It means both (sarcastically said) "wow that's some alibi you got there" and I also meant it in the sense of "I'll go with some alibi.....errr *any* alibi..... errr, please, can someone please help me out with whatever my flipping alibi is supposed to be?!".

So what of "Lancelotti"? Where does that come from I pondered? No doubt a banal explanation will follow but hell, it's the end of year and I've just read 370+ posts of this stuff. So a little creative analysis, I think is warrented.... Fans of not-reading-stuff-in look away now. Fans of a little tongue in cheek scenario examination at the quiet end of a year.... well... the following is what our American friends would call a 'roasting' - not a flame-out - so it should be taken with a large pinch of salt.....


Wow, I thought; is "Lancelotti" drawn from Lancelotti of Perugia 1522-1590, famous canonist of church law? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08774a.htm . Perhaps our modern Lancelotti (female rather than male by her own words) is the enshrining representative of The Church of Amanda angel-) committed to getting down the Law-of-Amanda in writing and for THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE DEFENCE FOR AMANDA (praise be) restated as often and frequently as possible?

Unfortunately the original Lancelotti's main work has been summarised as "a small and very simple didactic work" by some observers - that is, inclined to make small, very simple and overly-lecturing arguments to seek to make a point. Then, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia... "To his {Lancelotti's} great regret, neither {Pope} Paul IV who died in 1559, nor his successor Pius IV, gave authentic and official approbation to his work, published by Lancelotti at Perugia in 1563 as an entirely private venture". Which, for the modern Lancelotti, is a bit like going to Curt, Edda and Janet with a set of arguments which you think represent the best statement of the Law of The Church of Amanda and then getting told to go away. Erk :) . Probably not the *best* character to nick yourself after. Or....


...is it Lancelot, the famous knight of the Round Table fen-) . Noble - surely? Brave, bestest fighter, magnificent? Also unfortunately he caused the downfall of the Round Table, the death of King Arthur and through his infatuation and infidelity with Guinevere, caused the woman he was supposed to be supporting first to be condemned to death and then to live out the rest of her life incarcerated in a nunnery doing penitence for her sins. Which, as allegories go, is a rather good statement of where AK finds herself... right... about... now...


... or is it a rather smart arse conflation of one and two? Now I'm roasting, not being unkind, but if that was your 'smart' allusion, it would be a rather double losing streak wouldn't it? bricks-)


.... but then I thought, hell, SA!, well maybe you're just being too darn historic and analytical. What does modern google have to say about 'Lancelotti Knox'. Number one entry is the following and I promise it's worth a look - click first ;) - http://www.ipcprintservices.com/ourcust ... ockout.pdf . Even in the modern era, Sir Lancelot of Knox, as I like to imagine it, a small, tenacious, yappy little animal, running around the Beach of Logic, teeth sunk into a rapidly deflating Beachball-of-the-Case-for-the-Defence...


...cheers for the New Year ;) drin-)

_________________
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 Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
....So what of "Lancelotti"? Where does that come from I pondered? No doubt a banal explanation will follow but hell, it's the end of year and I've just read 370+ posts of this stuff. So a little creative analysis, I think is warrented.... Fans of not-reading-stuff-in look away now. Fans of a little tongue in cheek scenario examination at the quiet end of a year.... well... the following is what our American friends would call a 'roasting' - not a flame-out - so it should be taken with a large pinch of salt.....

Wow, I thought; is "Lancelotti" drawn from Lancelotti of Perugia 1522-1590, famous canonist of church law? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08774a.htm . Perhaps our modern Lancelotti (female rather than male by her own words) is the enshrining representative of The Church of Amanda angel-) committed to getting down the Law-of-Amanda in writing and for THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE DEFENCE FOR AMANDA (praise be) restated as often and frequently as possible?


Maybe they have the same hairdo and flat chest (As the famous roaster Steve Martin would say.) :roll:

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Professor Snape wrote:
After driving the streets of where Amanda Knox was raised IMHO if the family were to be called "Middle Class" they just barely got their foot in the door.


I think the definition of middle class is so elastic as to be meaningless. Especially across national boundaries. In the UK it could easily be used to mean "anyone with a white collar job" or "anyone who owns their own home rather than living in a council house", while in the US I find that it's used far more selectively to describe professionals or quasi-professionals, who in the UK would most likely be termed upper middle class.

I have heard AK termed "wealthy", which does seem to be inaccurate.

ps - thanks for the welcome. Sorry if my first post wasn't relevant to the discussion going on right now but everyone has to jump in somewhere! th-)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:55 pm   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

modest_ex wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
After driving the streets of where Amanda Knox was raised IMHO if the family were to be called "Middle Class" they just barely got their foot in the door.


I think the definition of middle class is so elastic as to be meaningless. Especially across national boundaries. In the UK it could easily be used to mean "anyone with a white collar job" or "anyone who owns their own home rather than living in a council house", while in the US I find that it's used far more selectively to describe professionals or quasi-professionals, who in the UK would most likely be termed upper middle class.

I have heard AK termed "wealthy", which does seem to be inaccurate.

ps - thanks for the welcome. Sorry if my first post wasn't relevant to the discussion going on right now but everyone has to jump in somewhere! th-)



Amanda's school-fees were not insubstantial, nor were her trips to Japan etc. I don't think they are foot-in-the-door. Dad was a VP of Maceys locally, dunno about mum. They weren't trailer-trash+ a couple of bucks - they had decent disposable without being rich - a fairly ordinary middle class I would have thought?

Somewhere they got the credit to go >$1m into debt *apparently*. Personally, pro bono, I don't buy that.

_________________
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 jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
on Friday morning journalists were kicked out of the courtroom while the jury watched graphic autopsy photos of Kercher after the crime. Testimony by the chief medical examiner Luca Lalli focused on whether or not Kercher had been sexually assaulted before her neck was slashed. Journalists were banned from the courtroom, but lawyers relayed much of the testimony afterward. They said that Lalli described cuts on her hands, indicating that he felt they were made as Kercher defended herself. He told the jury that there were 23 cuts, bruises and lesions on Kercher's body. Those inside the courtroom say he testified that while there was evidence of sexual activity, sexual assault was inconclusive. But he also testified that the bruises on her body implied that sexual intercourse was forced and violent. When asked, he also said that he believes that more than one person was involved in Kercher's murder, though on cross-examination admitted that it could have also been done by one assailant.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192370/page/1

Hi Lancelotti,
do you really believe that one person alone can restrain, hold down, stab and rape a victim
simultaneously? This lone wolf must have been an octopus. Besides, two knives were used in the attc.


Martin,
Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Read a little on the Anne Pressly murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Anne_Pressly

The double knife scenario was presented to the court, the defense argues this double-knife theory. For all the reasons mentioned previously, the mismatch of the bloody sheet, the wounds not matching, its the argument also, the large knife, to have made the fatal wound, would have had to only been inserted half way into the neck, which makes it difficult to believe.

I won't even bother explaining here, with the non-blood LCN DNA procedures not followed, and the fact the supposed pico-gram trace was found towards the center of the knife, not the tip.

There is also no blood trace seen at all, on this Kitchen Knife.

I suspect this Kitchen Knife will be a "main attraction" at the Appeal.
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 30, 2009 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

JFK wrote:
I won't even bother explaining here, with the non-blood LCN DNA procedures not followed, and the fact the supposed pico-gram trace was found towards the center of the knife, not the tip.


It wasn't the 'middle' of the knife JFK, it was very close to the tip, as in not 'on' the tip but right by it.

Quote:
The double knife scenario was presented to the court, the defense argues this double-knife theory. For all the reasons mentioned previously, the mismatch of the bloody sheet, the wounds not matching, its the argument also, the large knife, to have made the fatal wound, would have had to only been inserted half way into the neck, which makes it difficult to believe.


Why is only half way into the neck so difficult to believe? As for the evidence for two knives, don't forget Kokomani's testimony.

Quote:
Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Read a little on the Anne Pressly murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Anne_Pressly


Except the Anne Pressly case has only a very superficial similarity to this one.

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


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

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

SomeAlibi wrote:
modest_ex wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
After driving the streets of where Amanda Knox was raised IMHO if the family were to be called "Middle Class" they just barely got their foot in the door.

I think the definition of middle class is so elastic as to be meaningless. Especially across national boundaries. In the UK it could easily be used to mean "anyone with a white collar job" or "anyone who owns their own home rather than living in a council house", while in the US I find that it's used far more selectively to describe professionals or quasi-professionals, who in the UK would most likely be termed upper middle class.

I have heard AK termed "wealthy", which does seem to be inaccurate.
ps - thanks for the welcome. Sorry if my first post wasn't relevant to the discussion going on right now but everyone has to jump in somewhere! th-)

Amanda's school-fees were not insubstantial, nor were her trips to Japan etc. I don't think they are foot-in-the-door. Dad was a VP of Maceys locally, dunno about mum. They weren't trailer-trash+ a couple of bucks - they had decent disposable without being rich - a fairly ordinary middle class I would have thought?

Somewhere they got the credit to go >$1m into debt *apparently*. Personally, pro bono, I don't buy that.

"All Apologies" a tidbit from my hometown (OT comment, really NBD)
I know, it's not like they had dirt floors but she had the resources of two families pooled - twice the income of most and seemingly the only way to pull it off. I just get upset when people make her out as being a well-off, white, young, cute American girl. I think she only qualifies for three of the five.
Welcome SomeAlibi and Happy New Years to everyone except Lance-Romance and her stinky Troll buddies. dm-)

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Looking again at the picture that SomeAlibi posted earlier (3:54pm today)

I wonder if one of the (skeptical looking) Detectives from the picture was the recipient of the "flirtatious hip swivel".
This is the gesture that her defense Lawyer Vedova in possibly one of the longest stretches of imagination in the annals of courtroom history claimed biased the entire Investigative team against Amanda.

We hear so much about Cartwheels and Canoodling at Police Station as inappropriate, but little about the hip grinding stripper maneuver at the Murder scene.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... UXh2NECeYQ

PERUGIA, Italy — A flirtatious gesture by US student Amanda Knox caught an investigator's eye and changed the course of the probe into the 2007 sex murder of her housemate, a defence lawyer said Tuesday.

"Without the famous come-on... she wouldn't be here today" standing trial for the slaying of Briton Meredith Kercher, said Carlo Dalla Vedova.

Investigators say that the day after the gruesome murder of 21-year-old Kercher, Knox swivelled her hips suggestively while donning anti-contamination shoe-covers at the scene of the crime.

Presenting closing arguments just three days ahead of the expected verdict in the sensational trial, Dalla Vedova said the media frenzy it sparked had vilified Knox and invaded her privacy.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
...the wounds not matching


The double DNA knife matched the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck.

jfk1191 wrote:
There is also no blood trace seen at all, on this Kitchen Knife.


In case you didn't know, it's possible to wash blood off a knife. I don't understand why you think that this is significant.

jfk1191 wrote:
I suspect this Kitchen Knife will be a "main attraction" at the Appeal.


We were repeatedly told that the double DNA knife wouldn't be entered as evidence, but it was.

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni categorically stated that Meredith's DNA was on the blade at the trial. Dr. Renato Biondo provided independent confirmation that this forensic finding was accurate and reliable in 2008. Dr. Stefanoni and Dr. Biondo are two of the best DNA experts in Italy. All the Italian judges who have read the their reports and listened to their testimony have trusted their independent and expert opinions. I can't see that ever changing.

Raffaele Sollecito confirmed that Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife on two separate occasions when he falsely claimed that he had accidentally pricked Meredith's hand whilst cooking.

Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's sentences will be confirmed at the appeal. Their defence lawyers will never be able to provide an innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's multiple conflicting alibis and repeated lies.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
...the large knife, to have made the fatal wound, would have had to only been inserted half way into the neck, which makes it difficult to believe.


If necks were made of butter you might have a point.

jfk1191 wrote:
...I suspect this Kitchen Knife will be a "main attraction" at the Appeal.


That's too bad, because Knox would have been convicted even if the knife had been thrown out - there's too much evidence on the whole and because of the ongoing insistence that they were together that night, if Sollecito was at the scene of the murder then so was Knox. And Sollecito was, without a doubt, at the scene of the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.


Not at all. The accusation scenario is not "she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath". The scenario is the finding a large number of *consistent* elements. The "she is silly" is just "bla", one syllabe, one meaningless element. On one side you have an analysis, a collection of elements which happen to make the building of a sense, a shape, that is structured different from a casual finding. On the other had you have Lancelotti's answer which is non-strutured, the simplest, shortest and more casual answer but claims to be good always for any possible structured phenomenon. This is, as I said, utterly insulting to other people's intelligence. Coincidences are not the consequence of a banal, void content, they demand a sense.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.


Not at all. The accusation scenario is not "she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath". The scenario is the finding a large number of *consistent* elements. The "she is silly" is just "bla", one syllabe, one meaningless element. On one side you have an analysis, a collection of elements which happen to make the building of a sense, a shape, that is structured different from a casual finding. On the other had you have Lancelotti's answer which is non-strutured, the simplest, shortest and more casual answer but claims to be good always for any possible structured phenomenon. This is, as I said, utterly insulting to other people's intelligence. Coincidences are not the consequence of a banal, void content, they demand a sense.


Hello Yummi,

If I may put it to you in Anglo Saxon as opposed to the Queens English;

Lancelotti is “taking the piss”.

Best to direct your efforts where they will get a fair consideration.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kip


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:30 pm

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
JFK wrote:
I won't even bother explaining here, with the non-blood LCN DNA procedures not followed, and the fact the supposed pico-gram trace was found towards the center of the knife, not the tip.


It wasn't the 'middle' of the knife JFK, it was very close to the tip, as in not 'on' the tip but right by it.

Quote:
The double knife scenario was presented to the court, the defense argues this double-knife theory. For all the reasons mentioned previously, the mismatch of the bloody sheet, the wounds not matching, its the argument also, the large knife, to have made the fatal wound, would have had to only been inserted half way into the neck, which makes it difficult to believe.


Why is only half way into the neck so difficult to believe? As for the evidence for two knives, don't forget Kokomani's testimony.

Quote:
Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Read a little on the Anne Pressly murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Anne_Pressly


Except the Anne Pressly case has only a very superficial similarity to this one.


Anne Pressly fought back.

"She had fought her attacker and detectives recovered DNA from sperm, blood and his skin, taken from beneath Pressly's fingernails..."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6393888&page=2

One on one, it's possible to fight back.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Professor Snape wrote:
I believe Amanda’s parents had a social responsibility since they brought her into this world, raised her and were aware of her mental and social challenges. I would go so far as to also say her teachers should be held responsible. I don’t believe for one second her odd and unexplainable behavior went unnoticed. These are the people who are certifying she is of sound mind and body to travel abroad. Both her parents and physicians and her institutions failed to protect Meredith and they are nearly as guilty as AK – IMHO.


huh-)
Sorry, Snape, you lost me with this one. So are you saying that her teachers should be responsible for diagnosing dangerous traits in all of their students? I just cannot imagine how a teacher would do this. I assume you are talking about her college professors? Or are you including all of her teachers in the past? Professors and other teachers teach hundreds of students one class for maybe six months of the year. Besides coming up with a challenging curriculium, controlling the mob of students during class, correcting/grading papers they are now supposed to be educated in diagnosing psychiatric conditions? Sorry, but that is a leap too far for me. Students from high school and on to college are typical self-absorbed creatures at this time in their lives and could all I'm sure be diagnosed with some level of narcissism. ;) Teachers barely make a living doing what they do now. In fact, many need to hold additional jobs just to make ends meet. I don't see how it would be practical to require them to also be educated in psychological profiling. Not only that, but it seems like a dangerous sort of thing to give teachers that sort of power to label an individual. A label which would then effect the student's entire future. Many of Knox's traits were consistent with her using her "charms" to get her way. She was pretty good at "acting" normal. I really don't see how you could hold her teachers or professors as guilty as Knox. Sorry.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Amanda's school-fees were not insubstantial, nor were her trips to Japan etc. I don't think they are foot-in-the-door. Dad was a VP of Maceys locally, dunno about mum. They weren't trailer-trash+ a couple of bucks - they had decent disposable without being rich - a fairly ordinary middle class I would have thought?

Somewhere they got the credit to go >$1m into debt *apparently*. Personally, pro bono, I don't buy that.



Hi SomeAlibi - really enjoy your posts and also agreed very much with your view of how the events that fateful night may have unfolded. Regarding the school fees and trips, I think you will find that scholarships are available for these things to qualified students. It is not known whether or not the knox family actually paid the going rate for these things.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hammerite,
I think they all are.
Particularly Edda Mellas and the FOA.
What they expect people to regard as normal behaviour is really 'taking the piss' in my opinion and an insult to ones intelligence.
Whatever next from these people?
Amanda stabs people when she's stressed but that doesn't make her a murderer?
It's only dear old 'wacky' Amanda!
Amanda's like that!

Someone above mentioned the overshoes, I have to wear them at work everyday at some point and can't for the life of me think why, on donning a pair it would be appropriate to swivel ones hips and exclaim 'hoopla!'
I'm totally lost for ideas on that one...
It is even worse when you look at it in context - your housemate has been brutally murdered and you are doing this before entering the crimescene?
Sorry, it does not compute.
Same as being out enjoying a meal at a restaurant with your new housemates and suddenly at the table bursting out into loud song, shocking and embarrassing all present.
Oh, Amanda sings when she's stressed!
All I can say is it must have been a very stressful meal they were having that day.
Cartwheeling in the police waiting room -
It wasn't cartwheels! she was doing yoga! Amanda does yoga when she's stressed!
Knox seems to be stressed alot doesn't she?
If that is the case, why didn't she give any yoga demonstrations or at least a few bars of a couple of Beatles songs in court?
At the end of the day it is all nonsense.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:10 pm   Post subject: A Similar Case   

I do wonder if hard drugs were used in Meredith's murder as has been suggested by various posters. If RS was seeking "extreme sensations" the evening of Meredith's murder I would think that LSD would be his drug of choice. So out of curiosity I googled for murders carried out under the influence of LSD and found a long article in the St Petersburg (Florida) Times on the Vicki Robinson murder that took place in a suburb of Tampa, Florida in 1998. There are some striking similarities with the Perugia Murder. The attackers were two teenage men and a girl who devised a spontaneous plan to kill her mother, inflicted three major stab wounds with a knife after choking the victim and holding her down, and cleaned up the blood with paper towels and bleach. At the trial the girl was portrayed as an "innocent angel". Sound familiar?

So were AK/RS high on acid? I don't know, but it sure seems possible in light of this article.

In regards to Amanda's recent hair loss I found this remarkable desciption of what happened to one of the perpetrators around the time of the trial:

"Something was happening to Jon Whispel. His dark blond hair was falling out. Not just a few strands, but fistfuls. Eventually, Jon was taken to the jail's infirmary, and his hair was shaved to a crew cut. Still the round bald patches showed through, giving him a bizarre, spotted look. They were the size of silver dollars. It's the stress, they told him."

Here is the link to the 12-part series: http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/robinsonmurder/index.shtml
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

jodyodyo wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
I believe Amanda’s parents had a social responsibility since they brought her into this world, raised her and were aware of her mental and social challenges. I would go so far as to also say her teachers should be held responsible. I don’t believe for one second her odd and unexplainable behavior went unnoticed. These are the people who are certifying she is of sound mind and body to travel abroad. Both her parents and physicians and her institutions failed to protect Meredith and they are nearly as guilty as AK – IMHO.


huh-)
Sorry, Snape, you lost me with this one. So are you saying that her teachers should be responsible for diagnosing dangerous traits in all of their students? I just cannot imagine how a teacher would do this. I assume you are talking about her college professors? Or are you including all of her teachers in the past? Professors and other teachers teach hundreds of students one class for maybe six months of the year. Besides coming up with a challenging curriculium, controlling the mob of students during class, correcting/grading papers they are now supposed to be educated in diagnosing psychiatric conditions? Sorry, but that is a leap too far for me. Students from high school and on to college are typical self-absorbed creatures at this time in their lives and could all I'm sure be diagnosed with some level of narcissism. ;) Teachers barely make a living doing what they do now. In fact, many need to hold additional jobs just to make ends meet. I don't see how it would be practical to require them to also be educated in psychological profiling. Not only that, but it seems like a dangerous sort of thing to give teachers that sort of power to label an individual. A label which would then effect the student's entire future. Many of Knox's traits were consistent with her using her "charms" to get her way. She was pretty good at "acting" normal. I really don't see how you could hold her teachers or professors as guilty as Knox. Sorry.
Hi Jodiyodiodiodio! I understand what you are saying. I think at the University level a student’s teachers & advisors should be consulted before getting involved in an overseas study program. In addition to a student’s transcripts having been reviewed and I suppose the faculty would be interviewed for their comments prior the UW providing any type of sponsorship. I just can’t believe odd behavior was never noted nor reservations expressed. A teacher can be held responsible for such things as not reporting child abuse. I am not claiming to be an expert, simply giving my opinion. I believe teachers, just as parents, are responsible for the social welfare of their student or child. It is rare for a child to have a trained a professional as either a parent or teacher but we ALL have common sense and should use it. For parents that responsibility BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW ends at 18. By the spirit of the law and if they are a good parent, in my eyes, they support their child forever and that should include protecting society from THEM.

I bet the UW had to give her their rubber stamp to go abroad for ANY UW program. If that were the case I suspect the teachers would be consulted and they are trained professionals and human beings. In my mind they are responsible for teaching subjects they are experts in but it would be reckless of them to allow any student to go through life, unreported, of any outrageous behavior. It’s not against the law or reckless to act silly but if a student raises a teacher’s eyebrows it should be noted in their records. It helps to establish a pattern when it’s the case – such as her wild party. Normal students who study and do what is expected of them, such as Meredith, would not have such records in their files. I think the UW is responsible in this case as they acted in a manner representative of a healthy, well adjusted student which we all know she was not.

I don’t mean to attack teachers but I don’t think my point has anything to do with teachers barely making it. I would like to see the school offer the teachers at least some basic training in this vital area, I am certain you would agree. I hope this helps explain my thoughts. I’ll check back later, the beach calls…..

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: A Similar Case   

Rebel wrote:
I do wonder if hard drugs were used in Meredith's murder as has been suggested by various posters. If RS was seeking "extreme sensations" the evening of Meredith's murder I would think that LSD would be his drug of choice. So out of curiosity I googled for murders carried out under the influence of LSD and found a long article in the St Petersburg (Florida) Times on the Vicki Robinson murder that took place in a suburb of Tampa, Florida in 1998. There are some striking similarities with the Perugia Murder. The attackers were two teenage men and a girl who devised a spontaneous plan to kill her mother, inflicted three major stab wounds with a knife after choking the victim and holding her down, and cleaned up the blood with paper towels and bleach. At the trial the girl was portrayed as an "innocent angel". Sound familiar?

So were AK/RS high on acid? I don't know, but it sure seems possible in light of this article.

In regards to Amanda's recent hair loss I found this remarkable desciption of what happened to one of the perpetrators around the time of the trial:

"Something was happening to Jon Whispel. His dark blond hair was falling out. Not just a few strands, but fistfuls. Eventually, Jon was taken to the jail's infirmary, and his hair was shaved to a crew cut. Still the round bald patches showed through, giving him a bizarre, spotted look. They were the size of silver dollars. It's the stress, they told him."

Here is the link to the 12-part series: http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/robinsonmurder/index.shtml



eee-) The many, many parallels between the two cases are absolutely EERIE (even with just the cursory read I've given the linked page/articles so far.) Wow.

Wonder if a certain PR firm read up on the Vicki Robinson murder...
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda's hair would still show the drugs after all this time. It grows at a rate of @1/2"/month. According to Edda, it was more than the 8" since the crime. When they cut her hair, was it preserved? Or maybe that's why she cut it.

Of course, the drugs Brittney Spears was trying to hide would have appeared in the new growth.
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Amanda's hair would still show the drugs after all this time. It grows at a rate of @1/2"/month. According to Edda, it was more than the 8" since the crime. When they cut her hair, was it preserved? Or maybe that's why she cut it.


VERY interesting question, Emerald! Wonder if their hair was ever tested (RS grew his long early in the process too)? I also wonder if a single night's use of any drug would make enough impact on the hair to be testable or does it only pick up chronic/habitual use?

Any forensic experts out there who know about hair testing?? (I tried Googling to no avail.)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hammerite wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
I'm interested. Just for once I would like to see what you believe "fell into place" as I still feel that all of their bs stories are still just that. Imho, if none of them ever tells the truth, they can deny they were ever involved and wrongly convicted. They will never, ever forget their involvement in this crime. Meredith's screams will haunt them until the day they die.


“all of their bs stories are still just that”. I see! And that’s the problem. You can always say “she is silly” or alternatively “she is crazy, evil, perhaps a psychopath” and that’s that. No need for any explanation. Scenario doesn’t add up? No problem, it’s just bs, they are liars, psychopaths, probably on cocaine. Very convenient.


So what is it, Lancelotti, that fell into place for you?



Nothing :D . I spent a quiet hour or so at a dead workplace today having a look back at the 370-odd posts of Lancelotti. If you search for them and read through in order, it is quite an informative read. From the very first to the last it is a litany of made-for-the-defence challenges to everything. There's a little lip service to being 'more neutral' (than other posters) early on but if you read them in context, it is like having the PR agency / family here. There's no evaluation, a total absence of scepticism about anything, just rote challenging time and time again. Someone who has come with an agenda and is seeking to execute. It obviously speaks volumes about the moderators of PMF that that sort of thing is accepted. Now that's incredibly blindingly obvious but it's reading the posts in order that really gives you a sense of the scale of work being put it. Fortunately the search engine of this *fantastic* forum platform makes that easy. search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=lancelotti&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search


Hello SomeAlibi,

Like you I am perplexed by Lancelotti’s disrespectful technique on this site. It saddened me when serious contributors went to the trouble to write up detailed responses only to have them ignored and sidestepped with no serious attempt to engage in any meaningful way.

Conclusion; Lancelotti is taking this forum on a merry go round journey. Henceforth it is my intention to return the same level of respect and consideration that is given.

“garbage in = garbage out”


Lancelotti is not as clever as he/she thinks, not by a long shot. If only he/she could manage to talk/bullshit his/her way out, then he/she believes there is some hope for his/her two favorite innocentisti. No emotional involvement whatsoever, though. Nothing personal.

Posters, thanks for your patience in the face of not very funny, not very clever time wasting on the part of one person.

Happy New Year one and all.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda Knox Update: Billionaire Donald Trump Supports Convicted Killer
December 30, 2009 by Meg G.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

_________________
"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 31, 2009 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
...I suspect this Kitchen Knife will be a "main attraction" at the Appeal.

That's too bad, because Knox would have been convicted even if the knife had been thrown out - there's too much evidence on the whole and because of the ongoing insistence that they were together that night, if Sollecito was at the scene of the murder then so was Knox. And Sollecito was, without a doubt, at the scene of the murder.

I agree. Why nobody ever mentions knife evidence in Rudy's case?
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Thanks Skep, you too and to all on the board, Happy New Year! Dancelotti, I have given up. Instead of actually trying to prove your point about what fell into place, you just "danced" around with your usual bs. If you have a point to make, make it, otherwise, I am through wasting my time reading your posts. Yes, they are liars, that is factual, it has been proven. Would you like the link to all of their lies? I don't feel we need to list them as they have been covered time and time again.
Snape: I agree with you. In private institutions, the teachers tend to pay attention to students behavioral habits. I wonder if any of them ever voiced concern? I took my son to five sessions based on one teacher's opinion. At the end of the fifth session, the counselor told us he was "just a normal boy" and to take him home. Needless to say, I moved him out of that teacher's class.
As for the hair aspect, doesn't the root need to be attached to test for drugs? Technically, that would be the only part of the hair that is still "alive".........
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline grushka


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox Update: Billionaire Donald Trump Supports Convicted Killer
December 30, 2009 by Meg G.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT


Have you read this article?

Dear lord.

I think it was initially written in crayon.

Quote:
Amanda Knox's trial was a very high profile case. Many Americans watched just out of sheer curiosity of how different the two cultures' legal systems work. There are many that think that the young American did not have a fair trial.

Many watched as Amanda Knox's verdict was read not too long ago. Friends and family in the US were devastating when the Italian jury found her guilty of Kercher's murder. One thing about the Italian justice system that puzzled many is that the jury was not sequestered, so they heard and seen all the media hype and tabloid reports issued in connection with the case. In the US, this wouldn't happen as it would lead to an "unfair" trial.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Bea wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Amanda's hair would still show the drugs after all this time. It grows at a rate of @1/2"/month. According to Edda, it was more than the 8" since the crime. When they cut her hair, was it preserved? Or maybe that's why she cut it.


VERY interesting question, Emerald! Wonder if their hair was ever tested (RS grew his long early in the process too)? I also wonder if a single night's use of any drug would make enough impact on the hair to be testable or does it only pick up chronic/habitual use?

Any forensic experts out there who know about hair testing?? (I tried Googling to no avail.)



I think this is one for Yummi and perhaps Nicki. I always take wikipedia with a large pinch of sodium but the summary here is in line with my non-expert understanding. The status of the testing that was actually performed would be the real deal - were they tested, if so when, through saliva / hair / what.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_test

_________________
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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I think a legal investigation would not go much forward with a drug test in this case.
AK and RS were arrested 7 days after the murder. A saliva or blood test would be meaningless. Even at the time of the discovery of the body on nov 2nd, it was probably yet too late to find anything in a blood test. Only hair test could have some kind of response for some substances. But this is not sensitive to every drug, and legally meaningless because not datable. The search for thc from cannabis is meaningless because they admitted having smoked cannabis that evening, so we already know. A test for alcohol could be generally positive but not datable to that night nor quantifiable. Acids or other hallucinogens like ketamine have a very short life could be not detectable, also because they are often assumed in very small traces. It is worth to repeat that a hair test is usually meanningless because the assumption is not datable with precision, thus legally irrelevant.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:44 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From the Trump article

Quote:
The striking thing that is really troublesome about the whole situation is that the media had the power to influence the judge and jury. This is not fair, and that alone is grounds enough in the US for an appeal.


This is totally amazing statement. Nancy Grace, Greta Van Sustern, Jane Vallez-Mitchell and many more have made careers in US media of flapping ceaselessly about cases before they even are legal cases.

Quote:
One thing about the Italian justice system that puzzled many is that the jury was not sequestered, so they heard and seen all the media hype and tabloid reports issued in connection with the case. In the US, this wouldn't happen as it would lead to an "unfair" trial.


How many juries in the US are sequestered?
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Quote:
One thing about the Italian justice system that puzzled many is that the jury was not sequestered, so they heard and seen all the media hype and tabloid reports issued in connection with the case. In the US, this wouldn't happen as it would lead to an "unfair" trial.


just think a couple things.
imagine that the jury was sequestrated. A jury at most could be sequestrated during thec trial.
1. But how would this change the basic allegation that they could have read media reports before, during the twelve months of investigation and pre-trial.
2. Investigations in Italy have a public report by instructing judges. Trumps suggest to acquit everybody on this ground?
3. Italy has basically a civil law system. Which means, and would be enough to say once, a civil law process is essentially written. And there is no jury nor filters for the court. The principle of having all evidence introduced and discussed orally in court does not apply. Judges decide on what has been written. The defense has a right to have a piece of evidence discussed but not an obligation.
4. Sentences are motivated. if you think a verdict is unfounded, I expect you to make this claim on the motivations.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Professor Snape wrote:
jodyodyo wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
I believe Amanda’s parents had a social responsibility since they brought her into this world, raised her and were aware of her mental and social challenges. I would go so far as to also say her teachers should be held responsible. I don’t believe for one second her odd and unexplainable behavior went unnoticed. These are the people who are certifying she is of sound mind and body to travel abroad. Both her parents and physicians and her institutions failed to protect Meredith and they are nearly as guilty as AK – IMHO.


huh-)
Sorry, Snape, you lost me with this one. So are you saying that her teachers should be responsible for diagnosing dangerous traits in all of their students? I just cannot imagine how a teacher would do this. I assume you are talking about her college professors? Or are you including all of her teachers in the past? Professors and other teachers teach hundreds of students one class for maybe six months of the year. Besides coming up with a challenging curriculium, controlling the mob of students during class, correcting/grading papers they are now supposed to be educated in diagnosing psychiatric conditions? Sorry, but that is a leap too far for me. Students from high school and on to college are typical self-absorbed creatures at this time in their lives and could all I'm sure be diagnosed with some level of narcissism. ;) Teachers barely make a living doing what they do now. In fact, many need to hold additional jobs just to make ends meet. I don't see how it would be practical to require them to also be educated in psychological profiling. Not only that, but it seems like a dangerous sort of thing to give teachers that sort of power to label an individual. A label which would then effect the student's entire future. Many of Knox's traits were consistent with her using her "charms" to get her way. She was pretty good at "acting" normal. I really don't see how you could hold her teachers or professors as guilty as Knox. Sorry.
Hi Jodiyodiodiodio! I understand what you are saying. I think at the University level a student’s teachers & advisors should be consulted before getting involved in an overseas study program. In addition to a student’s transcripts having been reviewed and I suppose the faculty would be interviewed for their comments prior the UW providing any type of sponsorship. I just can’t believe odd behavior was never noted nor reservations expressed. A teacher can be held responsible for such things as not reporting child abuse. I am not claiming to be an expert, simply giving my opinion. I believe teachers, just as parents, are responsible for the social welfare of their student or child. It is rare for a child to have a trained a professional as either a parent or teacher but we ALL have common sense and should use it. For parents that responsibility BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW ends at 18. By the spirit of the law and if they are a good parent, in my eyes, they support their child forever and that should include protecting society from THEM.

I bet the UW had to give her their rubber stamp to go abroad for ANY UW program. If that were the case I suspect the teachers would be consulted and they are trained professionals and human beings. In my mind they are responsible for teaching subjects they are experts in but it would be reckless of them to allow any student to go through life, unreported, of any outrageous behavior. It’s not against the law or reckless to act silly but if a student raises a teacher’s eyebrows it should be noted in their records. It helps to establish a pattern when it’s the case – such as her wild party. Normal students who study and do what is expected of them, such as Meredith, would not have such records in their files. I think the UW is responsible in this case as they acted in a manner representative of a healthy, well adjusted student which we all know she was not.

I don’t mean to attack teachers but I don’t think my point has anything to do with teachers barely making it. I would like to see the school offer the teachers at least some basic training in this vital area, I am certain you would agree. I hope this helps explain my thoughts. I’ll check back later, the beach calls…..



I agree. IMHO, unfortunately there is nothing in AK, RS or RG's backgrounds that was a major flag of fact to the sheer, utter extremity of what subsequently happened even to close friends or family ex-ante (before the fact). Much less, something an academic could have spotted. Were they odd, yes. Did they have weird bits of their characters? Yes. Could anyone have anticipated this? I really believe, no way...

What did anyone know ex-ante about prior behaviour? A party with a caution received, an odd picture with a machine gun and distasteful comments about a nazi "background", a guy that looks like he's dressed for halloween as a freak (like a hundred thousand others), a youtube video referring to one and half shots and an asshole's comment in the back about 'jews'. Unpleasant without doubt, trashy without doubt, unintelligent, unempathetic, egoistic people - without doubt. The fact that they were murderers and sexual assailants from those indicators reasonably foreseeable? No way.

Not for anyone, let alone some poor academics who saw her almost never. None of these pictures or videos were in front of her tutors. They were in front of her friends and family. Did those show them to be murderers in waiting ex-ante? No, never in my opinion. Half an hour on the internet could throw up a nearly limitless number of people with massively more offensive views than these. It is only after the fact, ex-post, that they disturb us so much.

A common trauma of any murderer's family is how they just "couldn't possibly see it coming" and unfortunately it's true - it's generally, "normally", utterly unforeseeable.
The extremity of the action of a first time murderer or rapist is almost always beyond the possible understanding of any family members unless the prior behaviour of offenders is extremely overt. And that doesn't fit any of these three. We all wish there was authority that could see it coming. But no such crystal ball exists for even the close family, friends and then way-way-off at the bottom end of the scale, academics.

_________________
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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:17 am   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

jodyodyo wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

Amanda's school-fees were not insubstantial, nor were her trips to Japan etc. I don't think they are foot-in-the-door. Dad was a VP of Maceys locally, dunno about mum. They weren't trailer-trash+ a couple of bucks - they had decent disposable without being rich - a fairly ordinary middle class I would have thought?

Somewhere they got the credit to go >$1m into debt *apparently*. Personally, pro bono, I don't buy that.



Hi SomeAlibi - really enjoy your posts and also agreed very much with your view of how the events that fateful night may have unfolded. Regarding the school fees and trips, I think you will find that scholarships are available for these things to qualified students. It is not known whether or not the knox family actually paid the going rate for these things.



Noted Yody and thanks for the info. I would love to know the situation of Deanna and her younger sister versus AK re schooling and money. Would be interesting to know if they had parity for all the girls (and therefore could afford really quite a lot / had secured grants all round) or if not, of course, we could see Preferred Princess syndrome.

_________________
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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
One thing about the Italian justice system that puzzled many is that the jury was not sequestered, so they heard and seen all the media hype and tabloid reports issued in connection with the case. In the US, this wouldn't happen as it would lead to an "unfair" trial.


just think a couple things.
imagine that the jury was sequestrated. A jury at most could be sequestrated during thec trial.
1. But how would this change the basic allegation that they could have read media reports before, during the twelve months of investigation and pre-trial.
2. Investigations in Italy have a public report by instructing judges. Trumps suggest to acquit everybody on this ground?
3. Italy has basically a civil law system. Which means, and would be enough to say once, a civil law process is essentially written. And there is no jury nor filters for the court. The principle of having all evidence introduced and discussed orally in court does not apply. Judges decide on what has been written. The defense has a right to have a piece of evidence discussed but not an obligation.
4. Sentences are motivated. if you think a verdict is unfounded, I expect you to make this claim on the motivations.



Look, I'd seriously love to have a US lawyer's definitive input on this. It has been widely reported that US juries are not generally sequestered but what exactly does sequestering mean?

In the UK, no jury is stuck in a hotel night after night after night unable to see their family for months on end in a big trial (or little) and blocked from papers, tv and the internet. It only happens at the end of the trial when the jury is "out" for verdict. At the beginning of the trial, the judge reads them a severe warning about not taking into account any outside press, comment or influence. The judge prohibits them from talking to anyone about it and lays it cold on the line how serious it will be if they did. The judge says things like "only you will hear all the facts of the case and therefore there is no-one who has a view that could possibly be as informed as yours when all the evidence is considered". There are thinly veiled warnings of what could happen to a juror who breaks these rules.

But do they go home and watch TV, read the papers, surf the net? Of course they do!

Is anyone seriously telling me that the US sequesters jurors for up to a year in a Four Seasons Gulag without seeing friends or family or going home (and therefore having access to all the same) during a murder trial?!?!? Ok I'm ready to be informed.... but seriously?!?!?!

_________________
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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
jodyodyo wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
I believe Amanda’s parents had a social responsibility since they brought her into this world, raised her and were aware of her mental and social challenges. I would go so far as to also say her teachers should be held responsible. I don’t believe for one second her odd and unexplainable behavior went unnoticed. These are the people who are certifying she is of sound mind and body to travel abroad. Both her parents and physicians and her institutions failed to protect Meredith and they are nearly as guilty as AK – IMHO.


huh-)
Sorry, Snape, you lost me with this one. So are you saying that her teachers should be responsible for diagnosing dangerous traits in all of their students? I just cannot imagine how a teacher would do this. I assume you are talking about her college professors? Or are you including all of her teachers in the past? Professors and other teachers teach hundreds of students one class for maybe six months of the year. Besides coming up with a challenging curriculium, controlling the mob of students during class, correcting/grading papers they are now supposed to be educated in diagnosing psychiatric conditions? Sorry, but that is a leap too far for me. Students from high school and on to college are typical self-absorbed creatures at this time in their lives and could all I'm sure be diagnosed with some level of narcissism. ;) Teachers barely make a living doing what they do now. In fact, many need to hold additional jobs just to make ends meet. I don't see how it would be practical to require them to also be educated in psychological profiling. Not only that, but it seems like a dangerous sort of thing to give teachers that sort of power to label an individual. A label which would then effect the student's entire future. Many of Knox's traits were consistent with her using her "charms" to get her way. She was pretty good at "acting" normal. I really don't see how you could hold her teachers or professors as guilty as Knox. Sorry.
Hi Jodiyodiodiodio! I understand what you are saying. I think at the University level a student’s teachers & advisors should be consulted before getting involved in an overseas study program. In addition to a student’s transcripts having been reviewed and I suppose the faculty would be interviewed for their comments prior the UW providing any type of sponsorship. I just can’t believe odd behavior was never noted nor reservations expressed. A teacher can be held responsible for such things as not reporting child abuse. I am not claiming to be an expert, simply giving my opinion. I believe teachers, just as parents, are responsible for the social welfare of their student or child. It is rare for a child to have a trained a professional as either a parent or teacher but we ALL have common sense and should use it. For parents that responsibility BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW ends at 18. By the spirit of the law and if they are a good parent, in my eyes, they support their child forever and that should include protecting society from THEM.

I bet the UW had to give her their rubber stamp to go abroad for ANY UW program. If that were the case I suspect the teachers would be consulted and they are trained professionals and human beings. In my mind they are responsible for teaching subjects they are experts in but it would be reckless of them to allow any student to go through life, unreported, of any outrageous behavior. It’s not against the law or reckless to act silly but if a student raises a teacher’s eyebrows it should be noted in their records. It helps to establish a pattern when it’s the case – such as her wild party. Normal students who study and do what is expected of them, such as Meredith, would not have such records in their files. I think the UW is responsible in this case as they acted in a manner representative of a healthy, well adjusted student which we all know she was not.

I don’t mean to attack teachers but I don’t think my point has anything to do with teachers barely making it. I would like to see the school offer the teachers at least some basic training in this vital area, I am certain you would agree. I hope this helps explain my thoughts. I’ll check back later, the beach calls…..



I agree. IMHO, unfortunately there is nothing in AK, RS or RG's backgrounds that was a major flag of fact to the sheer, utter extremity of what subsequently happened even to close friends or family ex-ante (before the fact). Much less, something an academic could have spotted. Were they odd, yes. Did they have weird bits of their characters? Yes. Could anyone have anticipated this? I really believe, no way...

What did anyone know ex-ante about prior behaviour? A party with a caution received, an odd picture with a machine gun and distasteful comments about a nazi "background", a guy that looks like he's dressed for halloween as a freak (like a hundred thousand others), a youtube video referring to one and half shots and an asshole's comment in the back about 'jews'. Unpleasant without doubt, trashy without doubt, unintelligent, unempathetic, egoistic people - without doubt. The fact that they were murderers and sexual assailants from those indicators reasonably foreseeable? No way.

Not for anyone, let alone some poor academics who saw her almost never. None of these pictures or videos were in front of her tutors. They were in front of her friends and family. Did those show them to be murderers in waiting ex-ante? No, never in my opinion. Half an hour on the internet could throw up a nearly limitless number of people with massively more offensive views than these. It is only after the fact, ex-post, that they disturb us so much.

A common trauma of any murderer's family is how they just "couldn't possibly see it coming" and unfortunately it's true - it's generally, "normally", utterly unforeseeable.
The extremity of the action of a first time murderer or rapist is almost always beyond the possible understanding of any family members unless the prior behaviour of offenders is extremely overt. And that doesn't fit any of these three. We all wish there was authority that could see it coming. But no such crystal ball exists for even the close family, friends and then way-way-off at the bottom end of the scale, academics.


As a past and current UW student and a past UW teacher, I would say that it is quite difficult in a university setting for teachers to "see" students in this way, particularly undergrads and particularly those in the first two years of school. Class size can be quite large and even in small classes, the teacher may see students only a couple of hours a week. Lots of excellent students -- and lots of mediocre ones -- show no signs of "trouble". Teachers don't know who is on drugs and who is not, or what students do away from class.

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

When I was at University ( Liverpool JMU ) we had a mentor system for students which was aimed at picking up on students who were either struggling with the academic requirements or were experiencing personal issues. Quite a few of my fellow students were identified as having drug and alcohol issues ( I also worked for LJMU as a counselor as well as being a student). I'm sure they would have picked up any psychological or behavioral problems. Mind you the mentors were lecturers in psychology and social care/policy so they had the tools to spot any problems.
Top Profile 

Offline GameOver


Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:25 am

Posts: 42

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hello, everyone! This is my first time posting on this site but I have read through this site, TJMK, and most of Missrepresented's blog, not to mention several articles dating back to the beginning of this horrible tragedy. It was SomeAlibi's recent post which compelled me to 'speak' aka register with the site so that I could soon share my own hypotheses and step out of lurker mode ;P I have edited and re-edited this post because of my tendency to be verbose…so I apologize in advance if it is still a loooong read!
.
I have so many thoughts I’d like to share. But before I do, I'd like to provide a bit of a personal background as to where my own theories and viewpoints stem from. I am a 26 year old female American college graduate with an M.A. in French. I spent my senior year of university in Paris through my school's study abroad program (UC-Santa Barbara, a university which is notorious for its party scene and easy lifestyle). I spent yet another year in Paris one year after completing my Bachelor's degree to obtain my Masters degree through a private east coast university.

For the senior year study abroad program, every student had to go through an interview process, and during this interview show competency in the language (or eagerness to study it further), and account for their medical history, including psychological issues. The problem with identifying 'problem' students is due to many students' abilities to 'blend' when necessary, i.e.: around authority figures, teachers, etc be they sociopaths, 'young', or just learning how to play by the 'rules'. It is an acquired trait to know 'when to know what to say and where' that many college students hone and perfect in various social environments throughout their studies.(I say this cheekily!).

Many of my fellow American students abroad were prone to mischief while overseas, even more-so than at our home university, myself included. We all did things our parents would not have been happy to hear about, although, of course, what most students get up to certainly pales in comparison to this tragic case. The fact that the FOA, defense team, and their PR campaign’s fraudulent portrayal of a naïve Amelie-esque innocent was so profoundly dismissed restores my faith in humanity’s ability to reason.

For my graduate thesis I chose to study the media coverage of a young Muslim woman in the outskirts of Paris who was lured into a cave and trapped there, left to burn to death by her jilted boyfriend and his accomplice, out a jealous rage. I’ve read and studied true crime stories and authors for as long as I can remember. So I guess it is no surprise that this case is yet another which haunts me and pulls at my heart strings.

****

Now, getting back to SomeAlibi’s proposed theory, I believe the suggestion of the use of hard drugs during the commission of this crime is the absolute strongest hypothesis to date. Especially the possibility of cocaine and/or a combination of both cocaine and perhaps mushrooms or acid.

I’d wager that they were on a ‘binge’ and were both experienced users, while Rudy was not likely to have been able to sustain a similar level of use as it is considerably more expensive than marijuana. The effects of cocaine would explain quite a few of the events of that unfortunate evening, namely:
1) The agitated discussion overheard by Kokomani (sp?) as RS and AK kept peeking nervously over towards the cottage with their adrenaline racing and unaware of how obvious their nervous energy was and thereby attracting attention.
2) Rudy's overactive nervous system coupled with having eaten the kabob could have been the reason for his sudden need to relieve his bowels.

3) Their alleged hostile confrontation with Kokomani, wielding knives, which could have been fueled by the aggression which cocaine use can cause.

4) The frenzied cleaning of the cottage after the crime with
a)RS' mind racing as he tried to recall everything he could remember his sister mentioning in reference to crime scene cleanups.
b)Amanda trying to compile all that she had watched on CSI and other crime shows.(insert eye roll here) They probably felt very, very clever due to their 'elevated' feeling of superiority.

5) Heck, maybe even AK’s defensive body language outside the cottage in the noted picture and mannerisms with her hand; the frenetic, yet surprisingly detailed 80 second phone call to her mother; her blunt, callous remarks to Mez’s friends at the station (coming down;withdrawal); her inappropriate sexual behavior at the station (heightened arousal).

There are also a couple different aspects I’ve been mulling over that are related to the ‘aberrant mindset’ of those convicted and how certain external factors may have contributed: More specifically, an attention to the collaborative effects of culture shock; 'sex tourism', in so far as as it relates to promiscuous(and risky) behavior on holiday; dissociation/pseudo-identity, questioned sexuality, and a host of other aspects. I am definitely not looking to excuse the actions of the murderers in any sense. Rather, it is a testament to my own curious, inquisitive nature at answering the ‘why’ to a seemingly inexplicable murder. Furthermore,my interest lies in society's seemingly inherent difficulty in identifying a ticking time bomb before it goes off--- because it's dressed up in Abercrombie and Fitch, so to speak.

I hope that I have not gone too far off tangent! I appreciate all of the hard work that several posters have put in to making this (and TJMK, MissR) such a comprehensive, compassionate forum. If my thoughts are misplaced on this particular thread, please let me know. In closing, I'd like to add that I pray that Meredith's family is able to support one another and know that there are many people in this world who wish them only the best and many, many blessings.

I will add my proposed theory of the night of the murder in another post either here or in another thread if it would be more appropriate thereabouts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

GameOver wrote:
Hello, everyone! This is my first time posting on this site but I have read through this site, TJMK, and most of Missrepresented's blog, not to mention several articles dating back to the beginning of this horrible tragedy. It was SomeAlibi's recent post which compelled me to 'speak' aka register with the site so that I could soon share my own hypotheses and step out of lurker mode ;P I have edited and re-edited this post because of my tendency to be verbose…so I apologize in advance if it is still a loooong read!
.
I have so many thoughts I’d like to share. But before I do, I'd like to provide a bit of a personal background as to where my own theories and viewpoints stem from. I am a 26 year old female American college graduate with an M.A. in French. I spent my senior year of university in Paris through my school's study abroad program (UC-Santa Barbara, a university which is notorious for its party scene and easy lifestyle). I spent yet another year in Paris one year after completing my Bachelor's degree to obtain my Masters degree through a private east coast university.

For the senior year study abroad program, every student had to go through an interview process, and during this interview show competency in the language (or eagerness to study it further), and account for their medical history, including psychological issues. The problem with identifying 'problem' students is due to many students' abilities to 'blend' when necessary, i.e.: around authority figures, teachers, etc be they sociopaths, 'young', or just learning how to play by the 'rules'. It is an acquired trait to know 'when to know what to say and where' that many college students hone and perfect in various social environments throughout their studies.(I say this cheekily!).

Many of my fellow American students abroad were prone to mischief while overseas, even more-so than at our home university, myself included. We all did things our parents would not have been happy to hear about, although, of course, what most students get up to certainly pales in comparison to this tragic case. The fact that the FOA, defense team, and their PR campaign’s fraudulent portrayal of a naïve Amelie-esque innocent was so profoundly dismissed restores my faith in humanity’s ability to reason.

For my graduate thesis I chose to study the media coverage of a young Muslim woman in the outskirts of Paris who was lured into a cave and trapped there, left to burn to death by her jilted boyfriend and his accomplice, out a jealous rage. I’ve read and studied true crime stories and authors for as long as I can remember. So I guess it is no surprise that this case is yet another which haunts me and pulls at my heart strings.

****

Now, getting back to SomeAlibi’s proposed theory, I believe the suggestion of the use of hard drugs during the commission of this crime is the absolute strongest hypothesis to date. Especially the possibility of cocaine and/or a combination of both cocaine and perhaps mushrooms or acid.

I’d wager that they were on a ‘binge’ and were both experienced users, while Rudy was not likely to have been able to sustain a similar level of use as it is considerably more expensive than marijuana. The effects of cocaine would explain quite a few of the events of that unfortunate evening, namely:
1) The agitated discussion overheard by Kokomani (sp?) as RS and AK kept peeking nervously over towards the cottage with their adrenaline racing and unaware of how obvious their nervous energy was and thereby attracting attention.
2) Rudy's overactive nervous system coupled with having eaten the kabob could have been the reason for his sudden need to relieve his bowels.

3) Their alleged hostile confrontation with Kokomani, wielding knives, which could have been fueled by the aggression which cocaine use can cause.

4) The frenzied cleaning of the cottage after the crime with
a)RS' mind racing as he tried to recall everything he could remember his sister mentioning in reference to crime scene cleanups.
b)Amanda trying to compile all that she had watched on CSI and other crime shows.(insert eye roll here) They probably felt very, very clever due to their 'elevated' feeling of superiority.

5) Heck, maybe even AK’s defensive body language outside the cottage in the noted picture and mannerisms with her hand; the frenetic, yet surprisingly detailed 80 second phone call to her mother; her blunt, callous remarks to Mez’s friends at the station (coming down;withdrawal); her inappropriate sexual behavior at the station (heightened arousal).

There are also a couple different aspects I’ve been mulling over that are related to the ‘aberrant mindset’ of those convicted and how certain external factors may have contributed: More specifically, an attention to the collaborative effects of culture shock; 'sex tourism', in so far as as it relates to promiscuous(and risky) behavior on holiday; dissociation/pseudo-identity, questioned sexuality, and a host of other aspects. I am definitely not looking to excuse the actions of the murderers in any sense. Rather, it is a testament to my own curious, inquisitive nature at answering the ‘why’ to a seemingly inexplicable murder. Furthermore,my interest lies in society's seemingly inherent difficulty in identifying a ticking time bomb before it goes off--- because it's dressed up in Abercrombie and Fitch, so to speak.

I hope that I have not gone too far off tangent! I appreciate all of the hard work that several posters have put in to making this (and TJMK, MissR) such a comprehensive, compassionate forum. If my thoughts are misplaced on this particular thread, please let me know. In closing, I'd like to add that I pray that Meredith's family is able to support one another and know that there are many people in this world who wish them only the best and many, many blessings.

I will add my proposed theory of the night of the murder in another post either here or in another thread if it would be more appropriate thereabouts.



Gameover - Personally, I read your post and metaphorically placed my forehead in the assumed position on my desk - you just totally put me to shame with the consideration and insight of your first post here compared to mine... Verbose? I don't think so... As I read your post I was coincidentally listening to Prince's House Quake - "Shut up already! Damn!" . New Year's resolution - I'm going to do more of that given the quality of what's around here!

If I can post an add as an explanation of what I am doing talking here: I understand how a winning prosecution gets achieved. Why I am still here, trying to understand what happened is because the *why* of how it happened always bothers me. Usually we just deal in "did or didn't" for verdicts. I am naive enough that I want to understand why this stuff happened and that's why I am putting in the time here. Your post is a really great addition to the maybes of this situation - ouch! :)

_________________
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 Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hello Gameover,

Welcome!

I wish it was drugs that catalyzed this murder as you propose. Because that would mean that if we keep Amanda off of drugs after she gets out of prison, she will never commit another murder. Staying drug-free, she would never track down those of us who have posted terrible comments about her on blogs, like as if we were temporary co-stars in a Kill Bill sequel. I'm not scared of AK47, I swear.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:19 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Greggy wrote:
Hello Gameover,

Welcome!

I wish it was drugs that catalyzed this murder as you propose. Because that would mean that if we keep Amanda off of drugs after she gets out of prison, she will never commit another murder. Staying drug-free, she would never track down those of us who have posted terrible comments about her on blogs, like as if we were temporary co-stars in a Kill Bill sequel. I'm not scared of AK47, I swear.



Greggy - I don't know if you are kidding us on on ALL of that or not :) . A deeply messed up personality needs a catalyst to make the HUGE step to commit murder for the first time. That's what happened here without doubt, whatever that catalyst is - there was a very significant one. You don't go from being a non-murderer to a murderer without the intervening cause being a big deal. No matter what the underlying aberration of the personality it needs a strong push for something as extreme as murder. Cocaine and pyschedelics are hugely contra-indicated for people with mental issues. I don't know if they were a factor or not. The simple hypothesis is it ties up a fair few open questions.

As for AK out of prison, which you do have your tongue in cheek - number one she's not that bright, number two there's no way of linking comments to personal details, number three it ain't gonna happen for a LONG time even if it were (which it isn't here). And since it's Tarantino, let me say (sorry y'all) number four "Yeah, right" /pause to toot on a cheroot "Bring it." :)

_________________
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 GameOver


Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:25 am

Posts: 42

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

There were a few people wondering about the Knox family's finances and how she paid for her trip abroad. I believe it was noted on TJMK that her mother stated that she worked to help furnish her trip to Italy.

Global Cafe, if I am remembering correctly, was the coffee shop/bar (?) where she worked in Washington. Her blog mentions working at a coffee shop. Another interesting tidbit: This is also, according to several articles, where she voiced her " my people killed your people" comment to a Jewish co-worker on the day they met.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TheFatCent


Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:43 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Because it seems to be the current trend of the evening, I'll go ahead and come out of the shadows as a new-comer as well. As of late I've become enthralled with this case for reasons similarly and brilliantly articulated by GO ('GameOver'...which totally reminds me of that hilarious "Amanda Knox is Burning" youtube video).

GameOver wrote:
There are also a couple different aspects I’ve been mulling over that are related to the ‘aberrant mindset’ of those convicted and how certain external factors may have contributed: More specifically, an attention to the collaborative effects of culture shock; 'sex tourism', in so far as as it relates to promiscuous(and risky) behavior on holiday; dissociation/pseudo-identity, questioned sexuality, and a host of other aspects. I am definitely not looking to excuse the actions of the murderers in any sense. Rather, it is a testament to my own curious, inquisitive nature at answering the ‘why’ to a seemingly inexplicable murder. Furthermore,my interest lies in society's seemingly inherent difficulty in identifying a ticking time bomb before it goes off--- because it's dressed up in Abercrombie and Fitch, so to speak.
thereabouts.


Your mention of identifying a 'time bomb' reminds me of the WM3 (west memphis three) trials in which the prosecution of the three young men was also heavily based on character analysis. I think that the profile of a killer can never remain completely static, for the makings of a murderer are always dependent on millions and millions of differing variables---one of the many reasons why this case is so interesting, why the U.S. media had a hay day with their Foxy Knoxy. They just want Elizabeth Smart all over again, don't they.

As for the drug discussion, I think speculation can be granted given that any single clear motive seems to be missing. I was having a hard time with the media branding of the crime as "sex-crazed" and "drug-fueled" because these words were seriously so obtuse in referencing members of a generation that views both smoking weed and having sex as signs of normalcy and not deviance. Though I do think coke would be a more believable fire starter, as it is a drug that messes around with the already inflated ego and generally causes the body/mind to react in a hyper stimulated manner.

Also, talk of Amanda's possible book interests me (hah, i.e. Jim Carey's The Mask). Her poetic language is painfully intentional and too perfect for it not to at least attract some interested parties. I'm sure she's had her offers to write a memoir...and if this book comes out I'll take it on as my duty to re-shelve every single copy in the "Fiction" section at Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. Needless to say, I'd probably want to read it. But I wouldn't pay for it. However, I would be interested in reading a marginally non-bias account (for those of you who are familiar with the WM3 case, think Devil's Knot) of the case...does anyone know if this is in the making?

Like others, the thoughts I have here are often for Ms. Kercher and her family. As awful and tragic as her death was, I still think she'd be happy to see community forming in hopes of justice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:14 am   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
As a past and current UW student and a past UW teacher, I would say that it is quite difficult in a university setting for teachers to "see" students in this way, particularly undergrads and particularly those in the first two years of school. Class size can be quite large and even in small classes, the teacher may see students only a couple of hours a week. Lots of excellent students -- and lots of mediocre ones -- show no signs of "trouble". Teachers don't know who is on drugs and who is not, or what students do away from class.


But this is all changing for anyone involved in overseas studies programs. For example, the requirements for "qualification" have been recently beefed up at the University of Washington. As a reminder, we have no idea whatsoever as to what Amanda Knox's "medical" history actually may have been. Keep in mind that there are numerous students these days who take daily medications just to "cope" with things.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:21 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

GameOver wrote:
There were a few people wondering about the Knox family's finances and how she paid for her trip abroad. I believe it was noted on TJMK that her mother stated that she worked to help furnish her trip to Italy.


I believe she was trying to support her "overseas" study program on a budget of less than $5,000 US dollars. I think the idea was to do one semester of study and then simply "hang out" as long as she could.
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi SomeAlibi,

I was using the word "catalyst" in the way a biochemist would: as something that greatly speeds up a reaction. From my perspective, I wasn't commenting on the cause of the murder. I think drugs that induce aggressive behavior may have helped AK and RS commit the murder, but that these crutches were not the cause of the murder in any way. Until one of these creeps confess, we will always have the conundrum of wondering whether this murder was nearly spontaneous or expertly planned. I am of the opinion that AK completely planned the murder ahead of time, and perhaps did not even tell her accomplice RS and the patsy RG of her full intentions. But that is just an opinion, as good as anyone else's opinion, until we know what really happened.

In terms of anonymity on the web, I don't believe there will be any in the near future. Today's blog is tomorrow's historic archive. Besides, even though I have posted <100 time on this site and Miss Represented site about this case, I have posted enough about my personal and professional life to easily track me. People who write for a living can easily spot the grammatical and vocabulary fashions of other writers. Someone stuck in a progressive prison for 20+ years with computers more capable and databases more extensive than we can conceive of in this time period could find a lot of people they wanted to. I'm not scared of Ak47, I swear. But I am only sending a Greggy-hologram to the reunion party when she finally gets out of prison. Did you ever see the end of the prom scene in the movie "Carrie"? I'm still alarmed whenever I see Sissy Spacek at events and she didn't kill anyone, I think.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hi TheFatCent, and a warm welcome on your first post.
I think we all have been/are disturbed by the sex aspect of this case.
The satanic sex angle is still tacked onto this case at any given opportunity by the Knox/Mellas/FOA and picked up by various media organizations although this is not true and never has been true.
It is perfectly clear the murder had a sexual aspect (as in a sexual assault) and this is obvious when looking at the actual charges against the killers, the charges being registered lawfully and officially and there for all to see on public record.
The Knox/Mellas/FOA group will (by themselves and their proxies) still bang away at this as it is of course part and parcel of the sliming of PM Mignini.
The Knox/Mellas/FOA group even now continue to shout about 'trial by media' but as we all can see they are actually using the media themselves to still promote the satanic sex falsity.
It is total hypocrisy.
As for the drug angle, I remember a TV interview earlier on with Curt and Edda when they were asked if they knew their daughter was taking drugs.
There was a very long pregnant pause until Edda said no.
This interview obviously hadn't gone to script.
I myself do not go with the 'blissed out hippy' thing when it comes to cannabis these days (and yes I used to smoke it myself years ago), as skunkweed is far stronger than what our hippy friends used to smoke and there has been many reported cases of violence and pyschological episodes with people who have been heavily smoking skunkweed.
A friend of mine is a case to point, stoned out of his mind on skunk - he headbutted a solid oak panelled door and still now has a nasty scar on his forehead, and can't for the life of him figure out why he did it.
In my opinion its a combination of all things with Knox - narcissism, sociopathy, drugs (all of which her mother and friends say just isn't so, but more likely are not admitting this is true) and the one thing that Amanda Knox has actually conceded herself - she was 'intoxicated by freedom', a real wild child.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:04 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Greggy wrote:
In terms of anonymity on the web, I don't believe there will be any in the near future. Today's blog is tomorrow's historic archive.


This is nothing compared to the impact that RFID is going to have on your future. Today I bought a bottle of wine and they scanned my driver’s license for age verification. Tomorrow everything will simply be RFID. Furthermore, consider everything surrounding this murder case - the fact is, identity has become a commodity. If you don't already, in the future you will have more than one - each one just like a credit card. Amanda Knox clearly has more than one. We are able to do all kinds of things based solely upon who someone else thinks we are - i.e. simply because someone thinks Douglas Preston is a prestigious author he can get an appearance on a national television talk show.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Professor Snape, and others were discussing the possible screening, or lack of, that UW had in place for its students entering study abroad programs, wondering whether someone should have caught Amanda's instability....
My impression is that Amanda set up her overseas stint independently of UW.
That was yet another contrast with Meredith, who was there legitimately following a rigorous program of study, while Amanda was just taking language classes, that she may or may not have been eventually been given credit for by UW upon her return, but that were not part of any official UW study abroad program.
Perhaps someone else remembers more about this?

And as for professors screening their students for instability, they actually do a fair amount of this.
I believe the shooter at VA tech had been noticed and reported by a professor, but there wasn't any structure in place to deal with the problem.
And virtually everyone I know who teaches has some story of dealing with troubled students.
Most of these have a similar ending of the nothing-can-be-done-about-it file, through there are also a few restraining orders in place....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:43 am   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Fly by Night wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
As a past and current UW student and a past UW teacher, I would say that it is quite difficult in a university setting for teachers to "see" students in this way, particularly undergrads and particularly those in the first two years of school. Class size can be quite large and even in small classes, the teacher may see students only a couple of hours a week. Lots of excellent students -- and lots of mediocre ones -- show no signs of "trouble". Teachers don't know who is on drugs and who is not, or what students do away from class.


But this is all changing for anyone involved in overseas studies programs. For example, the requirements for "qualification" have been recently beefed up at the University of Washington. As a reminder, we have no idea whatsoever as to what Amanda Knox's "medical" history actually may have been. Keep in mind that there are numerous students these days who take daily medications just to "cope" with things.


Yes, and I think the UW has beefed up its medical disclosure requirement since November 2007.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Welcome new posters, GameOver and TheFatCent.
I have limited access until tomorrow, but I wanted to welcome both of you. Your comments are interesting and appreciated!

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

Offline GameOver


Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:25 am

Posts: 42

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

There is something to be said in regards to the possible dissociative effect of being a long term 'visitor' in a foreign country. As a study abroad alum, I and many of my peers can attest to the sentiment of feeling like being out of one's element can have a sort of transcending quality/ One feels like they are, in a sense, free to be and behave differently from their normative personal characteristics. Or, in a different sense, unleash the parts of themselves which beforehand would have necessitated caution or compartmentalization. It is not unlike the wild shenanigans of 'spring break' or short vacations even a few hours from home. But it obviously pervades more intensely when it is both extended (yet with a finite time limit) and very, very far from home.

A person can also realize the influence that their culture and its perceived status in the world begins to take on new meaning. As students in Paris, we were both embarassed and proud to be pegged as 'other' and we were aware of our privilege as precious students even when we bemoaned being stereotyped.And, though not to derail into a discussion about race and privilege, for Caucasian Americans, this was even more true. What I am getting at is that AK's pointing to an 'African' man was willful, calculated, and in no way a random happenstance. With this in mind, she was likely relying on her American identity as an obvious crutch to protect her. She can now only curse her narcissistic attitude towards her believed 'invincible' status as an
1)American
2)Caucasian
3)female
4) student

In the end, AK convinced (dissociated? deluded?) herself of her own bullsh** enough to continue holding on to this American dream she had- keeping up this farce for over two years- only to wind up in the same place she started: beneath her own self-imposed mask which will serve only to persist in sustaining the mental incarceration from which she is unable to free herself.


Last edited by GameOver on Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline GameOver


Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:25 am

Posts: 42

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Oh, and I have yet to see the "Knox is Burning" youtube video. I chose my screen name because of the movie Saw and the antagonist's references to time being up for those he considered to be morally repugnant.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:32 am   Post subject: Re: My Snapeism on "middle class" and mental instability   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
jodyodyo wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
I believe Amanda’s parents had a social responsibility since they brought her into this world, raised her and were aware of her mental and social challenges. I would go so far as to also say her teachers should be held responsible. I don’t believe for one second her odd and unexplainable behavior went unnoticed. These are the people who are certifying she is of sound mind and body to travel abroad. Both her parents and physicians and her institutions failed to protect Meredith and they are nearly as guilty as AK – IMHO.


huh-)
Sorry, Snape, you lost me with this one. So are you saying that her teachers should be responsible for diagnosing dangerous traits in all of their students? I just cannot imagine how a teacher would do this. I assume you are talking about her college professors? Or are you including all of her teachers in the past? Professors and other teachers teach hundreds of students one class for maybe six months of the year. Besides coming up with a challenging curriculium, controlling the mob of students during class, correcting/grading papers they are now supposed to be educated in diagnosing psychiatric conditions? Sorry, but that is a leap too far for me. Students from high school and on to college are typical self-absorbed creatures at this time in their lives and could all I'm sure be diagnosed with some level of narcissism. ;) Teachers barely make a living doing what they do now. In fact, many need to hold additional jobs just to make ends meet. I don't see how it would be practical to require them to also be educated in psychological profiling. Not only that, but it seems like a dangerous sort of thing to give teachers that sort of power to label an individual. A label which would then effect the student's entire future. Many of Knox's traits were consistent with her using her "charms" to get her way. She was pretty good at "acting" normal. I really don't see how you could hold her teachers or professors as guilty as Knox. Sorry.
Hi Jodiyodiodiodio! I understand what you are saying. I think at the University level a student’s teachers & advisors should be consulted before getting involved in an overseas study program. In addition to a student’s transcripts having been reviewed and I suppose the faculty would be interviewed for their comments prior the UW providing any type of sponsorship. I just can’t believe odd behavior was never noted nor reservations expressed. A teacher can be held responsible for such things as not reporting child abuse. I am not claiming to be an expert, simply giving my opinion. I believe teachers, just as parents, are responsible for the social welfare of their student or child. It is rare for a child to have a trained a professional as either a parent or teacher but we ALL have common sense and should use it. For parents that responsibility BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW ends at 18. By the spirit of the law and if they are a good parent, in my eyes, they support their child forever and that should include protecting society from THEM.

I bet the UW had to give her their rubber stamp to go abroad for ANY UW program. If that were the case I suspect the teachers would be consulted and they are trained professionals and human beings. In my mind they are responsible for teaching subjects they are experts in but it would be reckless of them to allow any student to go through life, unreported, of any outrageous behavior. It’s not against the law or reckless to act silly but if a student raises a teacher’s eyebrows it should be noted in their records. It helps to establish a pattern when it’s the case – such as her wild party. Normal students who study and do what is expected of them, such as Meredith, would not have such records in their files. I think the UW is responsible in this case as they acted in a manner representative of a healthy, well adjusted student which we all know she was not.

I don’t mean to attack teachers but I don’t think my point has anything to do with teachers barely making it. I would like to see the school offer the teachers at least some basic training in this vital area, I am certain you would agree. I hope this helps explain my thoughts. I’ll check back later, the beach calls…..



I agree. IMHO, unfortunately there is nothing in AK, RS or RG's backgrounds that was a major flag of fact to the sheer, utter extremity of what subsequently happened even to close friends or family ex-ante (before the fact). Much less, something an academic could have spotted. Were they odd, yes. Did they have weird bits of their characters? Yes. Could anyone have anticipated this? I really believe, no way...

What did anyone know ex-ante about prior behaviour? A party with a caution received, an odd picture with a machine gun and distasteful comments about a nazi "background", a guy that looks like he's dressed for halloween as a freak (like a hundred thousand others), a youtube video referring to one and half shots and an asshole's comment in the back about 'jews'. Unpleasant without doubt, trashy without doubt, unintelligent, unempathetic, egoistic people - without doubt. The fact that they were murderers and sexual assailants from those indicators reasonably foreseeable? No way.

Not for anyone, let alone some poor academics who saw her almost never. None of these pictures or videos were in front of her tutors. They were in front of her friends and family. Did those show them to be murderers in waiting ex-ante? No, never in my opinion. Half an hour on the internet could throw up a nearly limitless number of people with massively more offensive views than these. It is only after the fact, ex-post, that they disturb us so much.

A common trauma of any murderer's family is how they just "couldn't possibly see it coming" and unfortunately it's true - it's generally, "normally", utterly unforeseeable.
The extremity of the action of a first time murderer or rapist is almost always beyond the possible understanding of any family members unless the prior behaviour of offenders is extremely overt. And that doesn't fit any of these three. We all wish there was authority that could see it coming. But no such crystal ball exists for even the close family, friends and then way-way-off at the bottom end of the scale, academics.


As a past and current UW student and a past UW teacher, I would say that it is quite difficult in a university setting for teachers to "see" students in this way, particularly undergrads and particularly those in the first two years of school. Class size can be quite large and even in small classes, the teacher may see students only a couple of hours a week. Lots of excellent students -- and lots of mediocre ones -- show no signs of "trouble". Teachers don't know who is on drugs and who is not, or what students do away from class.

I hear you and I cannot claim nor do I know the details of Amanda Knox’s UW records but I tend to believe she obtained some sort of “release” and that is an act of responsibility they must accept (if they certified her). I do understand and agree her behavior would have had to be off the charts for the UW to decline her application and since I do not know what her records would reveal I cannot judge how right or wrong it was for the UW to back her. I don’t believe for one minute her record was void of any bad comments. Just because "everyone" drinks and drugs should not make it acceptable. I believe her parents were intimately aware of her behavior and track record. Would anything she may have done suggest she was a killer? Probably not. Masking her face and scaring the hell out of her roommates qualify? Certainly not. Was she just another mentally disturbed person who fell through the cracks? Most likely. Thanks for the comments. Greetings to the newbies.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:51 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox Update: Billionaire Donald Trump Supports Convicted Killer
December 30, 2009 by Meg G.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE AND SPECIAL MENTION TO THE BOOB OF 2009, D. TRUMP.


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

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Random thought on Jury sequestering.

Don’t know what the procedure is in the USA, whether it is
1) mandatory in all cases,
2) during the trial period,
3) during the jury deliberation period only or
4) both 2 and 3.

Comment:

In trials where sequestering is imposed (eg USA) it is logical to assume that the opposing legal teams will get their desired position out through the media before the trial commences. If the legal representatives are smart ( and they have some really smart ones ) they will media target the geographic area that the jury is drawn from. I imagine that it is nigh on impossible to select a jury on either side of the Atlantic that is 100% media sterile.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Tara wrote:
Jester wrote:
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.



Maybe you all have seen this youtube channel put together by one of the Amanda Knox supporters?

There is a six minute crime scene video just of the bathroom; how Amanda saw it when she came home to take a shower. How could she miss that bloody footprint? If I'm not mistaken, the outside part of the sink has a pinkish hue.

I certainly wouldn't take a shower in there had I just come home to an open front door, but the FOAK's want everyone to believe otherwise. Check it out.

Also, on this same youtuber's channel we have some actual crime scene video of the inside of Sollecito's apartment - it's a mess, and unfortunately no shots of his kitchen to further assess his culinary talents! sun-)

YOUTUBE


Thanks for the link to Raffaele's apt. I hadn't seen any footage of it. It looks like it's been tossed by police.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:37 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
Jester wrote:
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.

Yes, this is like a "duh" moment isn't it? Pretty much what made me doubt their innocence. Doubtful that many young women would even enter the home if the door was open as they would be afraid that someone was still in the house. In fact, someone left our front door open the other night and the first thing we did was to enter and check all the closets, etc.......Even with my husband and adult son in the house, my heart was still beating very fast and I was concerned someone may have come into the house. Amanda's story doesn't wash, period. If she was so concerned, she would have gone back to Raf's apt straight away and brought him back with her. But, she had nothing to fear if she was the perpetrator.

I think we're supposed to believe that sweet little Amanda was so naive and innocent (and a doper, restless, a bit of a party animal, rather free with the hook ups, an so on) that she didn't know there were people that did bad things. There is that odd comment in her myspace page where she remarks, after hitchhiking with her sister to an out of the way hotel, that they weren't attacked by the guy that gave them a ride. I could read into that the she was looking for a dangerous experience ... like a challenge.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Of course she would have ran back to the bedroom as soon as she heard the scream or the struggle. Just like Rudy said he ran to the bedroom when he heard the scream. They know exactly what happened there. I don't see why it can't be one person who was responsible for the final attack when Meredith was attacked from behind. Only one scream was heard and it seems to have gone very fast. Besides one knife was put aside for a reason. I don't believe they stood around to take a break after the killing. I think they ran away immediately. So the knife was put aside to restrain Meredith or to grab the other knife. Possible one person involved, maybe 2 or 3 but I am very doubtful about 3 at the final stage. This is just my opinion of course.


Her windpipe was crushed. I suspect that happened before the fatal stab wound. Therefore, the scream was not a result of being stabbed. I think the scream came before the crushed windpipe, and perhaps early in the attack ... perhaps at the beginning.

Does it really matter if one person ran away after the attack and murder? Which of the three do you think left?

The prosecution scenario stated that the scream occured during the first stab. I think they all ran away. Maybe Rudy a bit later than the others, but that is not really my point to defend a certain scenario. I know all 3 are involved and responsible for what happened, but for the final fatal attack I am just not sure.

I thought her wind pipe was crushed. I don't see how or why that would happen after she was fatally stabbed.

Windpipe: Trachea
Voice Box: Larynx

It seems to me that once the windpipe is crushed, there is no screaming. Not only might the larynx also be damaged, but there's no wind for screaming.

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Jester wrote:
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.


while I don't generally descend into the territory of arguing behavior, that is one point that I do tend to agree with- it is pretty irrational to go and take a shower when you just came home and found the door open, without first checking the rest of the house.

As a correction, she says Filomina's door was closed, Sollecito says it was open. That door being closed is critical to Knox's story of "well, it didn't really look bad until after the shower", since if the door was open it there's no way Knox would have missed a broken window, computer on the floor, and clothes all over the place. Knox's story was "well, i didn't really get horribly concerned until, like, totally after we cleaned the floor at Raf's and had breakfast". And for Sollecito's part his story is "yea, man, we were walking back to her place and she said I should totally check it out cause she was worried."

Of course, if they smoked first then when they woke up, its not that difficult a defense to say that she was out of touch with reality when she went in to take a shower, and it wasn't until later when they were coming down from the high that they started to be aware of the weirdness of the scene. But neither one ever stated smoking in the morning AFAIK.

I should point out that pot is not always pure, nor is it always high quality. Sometimes it is laced with other drugs, including the hallucinogenic variety. But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.

Pat

Quite so. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that Amanda was talking about Filomina when she mentioned the closed door. That means the door could have been open until Raffaele arrived, and was later closed by Filomina. I made an illustration of the 4 times, at least, that Amanda walked past Filomina's bedroom while "showering".

Most people, having found the scene at the cottage, would have entered the house, looked towards Laura's room, checked the large bathroom, then opened Filomina's door before heading down the hallway of the.

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:18 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Where did Guede sleep the night of the crime?


Didn't he party until 6:30 in the morning and then go home?
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 31, 2009 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Seattle PostGlobe - Top News: Dear Perugia: Here's a park. From Seattle, with love. (P.S. Sorry about the Amanda thing)
By Joe Copeland<noreply@www.seattlepostglobe.org>


CAPITOL HILL SEATTLE

_________________
"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 31, 2009 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Quite so. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that Amanda was talking about Filomina when she mentioned the closed door. That means the door could have been open until Raffaele arrived, and was later closed by Filomina. I made an illustration of the 4 times, at least, that Amanda walked past Filomina's bedroom while "showering".

Most people, having found the scene at the cottage, would have entered the house, looked towards Laura's room, checked the large bathroom, then opened Filomina's door before heading down the hallway of the.


Let's not also forget Filomena's broken wondow she'd have walked right by. You can't miss it walking to the front door of the house.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jools wrote:
Great video from ViaDellaPergola in You Tube:

"false accusation by Knox"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyUh5y_8efE


Excellent ... have Amanda's parents seen this? They seem confused about what really happened, but Amanda seems rather clear when asked short questions with yes or no answers.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:36 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

pataz1 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
But if they admit to mixing drugs then they lose the defense of 'pot smokers don't engage in violence'.


Hi Pat,

The claim that pot smokers don't engage in violence is simply not true. It is a popular misconception.


Yes, but its one of the rallying cries for those who defend Knox as being innocent, and if K/S admit to other drugs being in the mix, then the drugs actually become part of the motive instead of part of the defence.

The more I thought about it after my last post, the more the theory that they ingested more then pot makes sense in understanding their stories (whether the other drugs were deliberately or unknowingly ingested). If they were on an hallucinogen such as mushrooms then I could see the plausibility of Knox being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears during the murder. ( If i recall correctly mushrooms of the regular kind figure into their dinner story at some point in time, don't they?). There is also the potential for flash-back effects of hallucinogens, which would also put Knox's police station statements in a new light- through the drug-induced haze, she really couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't, and if was only her memory cooking up 'false images'. Sollecito's repentance in his prison diaries for taking drugs also takes on added significance. If they'd done a long-lasting drug like LSD (8 hours) then they might still be feeling those effects at noon the next day. Doing a harder drug on holiday is probably a common experience; Knox just unexpectedly got the evening off, and Friday was a holiday.

But there really isn't any benefit for their defence to admit doing harder drugs- their alibi for the evening takes a serious hit, since the influence of the drugs makes them less able to fully account for their actions that evening not more.

Pat

I wondered if they had done acid. Amanda was interested in experimenting with drugs, and it was a long weekend. Maybe acid ... and mushrooms is a definite possibility. I know about a mushroom party at a ranch way back in university days where people were lost in the forest, talking to trees.

Best for them to stick with pot, as it's believed to induce passive behavior.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Serendipity... I searched for a couple of hours yesterday for my favourite picture of Amanda talking to police investigators outside the house on the day after. I couldn't find it. Gave up. Today because of the above post, I searched "Amanda Knox Cocaine" on a whim and found the pic on the first click I did. Thanks, gods of fate :)

Here it is. Strictly for fans of reading things into pics which may or may not be there. Shortly before, here or thereafter, the police started to doubt her explanations and it deteriorated very fast. I love the expressions on the policemen's faces and the body language. Either they are very considerate or beginning to be rather doubtful already. AK's body language looks really rather unconvincing to me also. If I could subtitle it myself, I would call it "We four begin to smell a rat..."

Here you are ... I like it.


Last edited by Jester on Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DLW wrote:
SomeAlibi I think you picked one of the pictures that is hanging on one of the wall’s of the police station, and one of my favorites. What I read into it is that the detectives are obviously working on a very serious criminal situation, and they are questioning Amanda who may have some helpful information on trying to solve the murder case. Notice the eye contact that the two closest detectives have , with their hands passively withdrawn. Listening intently, focused,and very professional. Amanda is using her hands to help explain something. The furthest detective away is bringing his hand to his head, seemingly trying to make sense of what this girl is saying.

Lancelotti. Yep good luck in finding Amanda’s own words in trying in clear up this silly girl comment. Remember the Cindy Lauper song , ‘girls just want to have fun.”


Two of the detectives are holding their hands to their heads, the guy in the back does not appear to have an expression that goes along with Amanda grieving.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:02 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

For those on the other side of one of the oceans ... these are the standard poodle pups I've raised during the last 6 weeks ... wishing you a ...

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

GameOver wrote:
There is something to be said in regards to the possible dissociative effect of being a long term 'visitor' in a foreign country. As a study abroad alum, I and many of my peers can attest to the sentiment of feeling like being out of one's element can have a sort of transcending quality/ One feels like they are, in a sense, free to be and behave differently from their normative personal characteristics. Or, in a different sense, unleash the parts of themselves which beforehand would have necessitated caution or compartmentalization. It is not unlike the wild shenanigans of 'spring break' or short vacations even a few hours from home. But it obviously pervades more intensely when it is both extended (yet with a finite time limit) and very, very far from home.

A person can also realize the influence that their culture and its perceived status in the world begins to take on new meaning. As students in Paris, we were both embarassed and proud to be pegged as 'other' and we were aware of our privilege as precious students even when we bemoaned being stereotyped.And, though not to derail into a discussion about race and privilege, for Caucasian Americans, this was even more true. What I am getting at is that AK's pointing to an 'African' man was willful, calculated, and in no way a random happenstance. With this in mind, she was likely relying on her American identity as an obvious crutch to protect her. She can now only curse her narcissistic attitude towards her believed 'invincible' status as an
1)American
2)Caucasian
3)female
4) student

In the end, AK convinced (dissociated? deluded?) herself of her own bullsh** enough to continue holding on to this American dream she had- keeping up this farce for over two years- only to wind up in the same place she started: beneath her own self-imposed mask which will serve only to persist in sustaining the mental incarceration from which she is unable to free herself.

That's rather amusing, actually.

It'll be a humbling experience. When she is released, she will understand the difference between right and wrong, no matter what beliefs she held before she came to Perugia about that "ancient culture" (per Edda).

It's interesting that the streets of Perugia were filled with cheering students and locals when the verdict was released. Apparently not everyone sees things as Amanda does.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Hi TheFatCent, and a warm welcome on your first post.
I think we all have been/are disturbed by the sex aspect of this case.
The satanic sex angle is still tacked onto this case at any given opportunity by the Knox/Mellas/FOA and picked up by various media organizations although this is not true and never has been true.
It is perfectly clear the murder had a sexual aspect (as in a sexual assault) and this is obvious when looking at the actual charges against the killers, the charges being registered lawfully and officially and there for all to see on public record.
The Knox/Mellas/FOA group will (by themselves and their proxies) still bang away at this as it is of course part and parcel of the sliming of PM Mignini.
The Knox/Mellas/FOA group even now continue to shout about 'trial by media' but as we all can see they are actually using the media themselves to still promote the satanic sex falsity.
It is total hypocrisy.
As for the drug angle, I remember a TV interview earlier on with Curt and Edda when they were asked if they knew their daughter was taking drugs.
There was a very long pregnant pause until Edda said no.
This interview obviously hadn't gone to script.
I myself do not go with the 'blissed out hippy' thing when it comes to cannabis these days (and yes I used to smoke it myself years ago), as skunkweed is far stronger than what our hippy friends used to smoke and there has been many reported cases of violence and pyschological episodes with people who have been heavily smoking skunkweed.
A friend of mine is a case to point, stoned out of his mind on skunk - he headbutted a solid oak panelled door and still now has a nasty scar on his forehead, and can't for the life of him figure out why he did it.
In my opinion its a combination of all things with Knox - narcissism, sociopathy, drugs (all of which her mother and friends say just isn't so, but more likely are not admitting this is true) and the one thing that Amanda Knox has actually conceded herself - she was 'intoxicated by freedom', a real wild child.

Edda was faced with a very bad question. As a teacher, and an American citizen, she could not openly admit that she knew her daughter was a doper. It was in her best career interests, and those of her other daughter, to make it look like Amanda picked up the habit in liberal Europe.
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 31, 2009 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda Knox update: Report says convicted killer’s hair falling out due to stress
December 31, 4:12 AMCrime Examiner Cindy Adams

EXAMINER



Feature length documentary called ‘The Trials of Amanda Knox’ to debut in UK next week
December 31, 4:41 AMCrime Examiner Cindy Adams

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 Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Amanda did not have long hair, so who knows what Edda is talking about. Amanda got a hair cut ... below the shoulder to above the shoulder. So what. Her hair is falling out? It's probably the same as always, but it's falling on the floor around her, which is new, and she fears she's going bald. Normal hair loss is 100-125 hairs per day. (www.ahlc.org/causes-f.htm) I'm looking forward to learning that her hair is turning grey, and she's still not free and clear of this conviction.

Might it be on line after it's debut? Is this the two man British film crew that started with thinking Amanda was guilty, and then changed opinion?
Top Profile 

Offline Leodmaeg


User avatar


Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Posts: 30

Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Feature length documentary called ‘The Trials of Amanda Knox’ to debut in UK next week
December 31, 4:41 AMCrime Examiner Cindy Adams

EXAMINER




Yes, it's at 10pm on More4. If it is from the perspective of, and sympathetic to, the Knox family then I doubt I will watch it. http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=55638111
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Of course she would have ran back to the bedroom as soon as she heard the scream or the struggle. Just like Rudy said he ran to the bedroom when he heard the scream. They know exactly what happened there. I don't see why it can't be one person who was responsible for the final attack when Meredith was attacked from behind. Only one scream was heard and it seems to have gone very fast. Besides one knife was put aside for a reason. I don't believe they stood around to take a break after the killing. I think they ran away immediately. So the knife was put aside to restrain Meredith or to grab the other knife. Possible one person involved, maybe 2 or 3 but I am very doubtful about 3 at the final stage. This is just my opinion of course.


Her windpipe was crushed. I suspect that happened before the fatal stab wound. Therefore, the scream was not a result of being stabbed. I think the scream came before the crushed windpipe, and perhaps early in the attack ... perhaps at the beginning.

Does it really matter if one person ran away after the attack and murder? Which of the three do you think left?

The prosecution scenario stated that the scream occured during the first stab. I think they all ran away. Maybe Rudy a bit later than the others, but that is not really my point to defend a certain scenario. I know all 3 are involved and responsible for what happened, but for the final fatal attack I am just not sure.

I thought her wind pipe was crushed. I don't see how or why that would happen after she was fatally stabbed.

Windpipe: Trachea
Voice Box: Larynx

It seems to me that once the windpipe is crushed, there is no screaming. Not only might the larynx also be damaged, but there's no wind for screaming.




Poor Meredith has attacked with a knife three times to the throat because the strangulation had not achieved silence or death. If the windpipe had been crushed so that no scream and therefore no breath could pass through it, she would have been dead, therefore there would have been no reason to use the knife. If you want to kill someone with a knife, you generally stab them to the chest. The attack to the throat is either ritually sadistic, or more likely in my opinion, a panic reaction to a loud scream. Either way, clearly the strangulation did not work. QED.

_________________
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 Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Some of the knife injuries did not appear to be consistent with cause serious serious injury ... more along the lines of nicking.

Once the windpipe has been crushed, there would have been no scream. To suggest that the scream happened at the time of the fatal knife wound means that the windpipe was either crushed by the knife injury (not likely), or it happened after the fatal wound (also not likely). Therefore, the crushed windpipe happened earlier ... I've been wondering if a single assailant that attacked from behind could restrain a person, crunch their throat by kneeling on it, and ... so on. That only thing that makes sense with the crushed trachea is that the windpipe was also injured at the same time ... which is inconsistent with the prosecutor's theory.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I just wrote a lengthy post. Tried to submit. It logged out. Don't even know if this will post.

Exasperating!
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 31, 2009 1:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
I just wrote a lengthy post. Tried to submit. It logged out. Don't even know if this will post.

Exasperating!



Hi Emerald. Sorry to hear you're having issues. When that starts to happen, clear your browser cache (empty temporary Internet files and cookies) then close your browser and restart it. That should solve the problem. I would also advise writing your posts out on a text editor and then copy and paste into your post. That way, if your post gets eaten you still have the post in your text editor.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Amanda did not have long hair, so who knows what Edda is talking about. Amanda got a hair cut ... below the shoulder to above the shoulder. So what. Her hair is falling out? It's probably the same as always, but it's falling on the floor around her, which is new, and she fears she's going bald. Normal hair loss is 100-125 hairs per day. (http://www.ahlc.org/causes-f.htm) I'm looking forward to learning that her hair is turning grey, and she's still not free and clear of this conviction.

Might it be on line after it's debut? Is this the two man British film crew that started with thinking Amanda was guilty, and then changed opinion?


Cutting her hair will not keep it from falling out.

My friend, a cosmetologist, can tell if someone has done LSD in the past when pretesting hair for a chemical process. It leaves a metallic residue in the hair follicle which reacts with some solutions. She uses some excuse for not doing the requested process.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:

Hi Emerald. Sorry to hear you're having issues. When that starts to happen, clear your browser cache (empty temporary Internet files and cookies) then close your browser and restart it. That should solve the problem. I would also advise writing your posts out on a text editor and then copy and paste into your post. That way, if your post gets eaten you still have the post in your text editor.


My thought process is so abstract that I can't even recreate a post most of the time. Everybody else here is so analytical and organized.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I'll try .......


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amanda's story of RS placing her hand on the knife as she slept is partially correct. It was Amanda who placed the knife in RS's kitchen as HE slept.

Amanda was not with RS that complete night. The cleanup/staging was done (probably without Guede) before she returned to RS's home. Amanda returned the next day to not only shower, but to find out if the scene had been 'discovered'. When it didn't happen as prescribed, Amanda enlisted RS as the alibi 'discoverer'.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

But what about Raff's bloody footprint on the mat?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Amanda's story of RS placing her hand on the knife as she slept is partially correct. It was Amanda who placed the knife in RS's kitchen as HE slept.

Amanda was not with RS that complete night. The cleanup/staging was done (probably without Guede) before she returned to RS's home. Amanda returned the next day to not only shower, but to find out if the scene had been 'discovered'. When it didn't happen as prescribed, Amanda enlisted RS as the alibi 'discoverer'.


This scenario simply doesn't stand up to scruntiny.

Antonio Curatolo saw Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Piazza Grimana shortly after Meredith was murdered. Curatolo is considered by Judge Paolo Micheli as honest and reliable witness.

Raffaele Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom. The bloody footprint was clearly made shortly after Meredith was murdered and before her blood had dried, which means it is impossible that the bloody footprint was left the next day.

There was an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra. This shows that the clean up took place after he had removed Meredith's bra, and not before Amanda Knox returned to his apartment as you claim.

Judge Paolo Micheli said that both Knox and Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith's murder, which they could only have known if they had been present at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede both admitted that Rudy Guede was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

The knife that caused the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck was taken from and returned to Sollecito's kitchen. It's extremely unlikely this was done without his Sollecito knowing about it or his permission. The Italian Supreme Court argued that the knife was under his control at all times:

Supreme Court to Raffaele Sollecito:

"Even if your DNA is not on your kitchen knife, this cannot only be used against Amanda insofar as it has been certified that the knife came from your house and Meredith never went to your house. Therefore, until we have proof to the contrary, we are assuming that this knife was under your control at all times and that it was used at Meredith's house."

Raffaele Sollecito still doesn't have a credible alibi for the night of the murder despite three attempts. He lied repeatedly about what he was doing at his apartment on the night of the murder. The only logical explanation for all these lies is that he wasn't at his apartment.

Both Knox and Sollecito repeatedly claimed that they were together on the night of the murder. They turned off their mobile ohones at approximately the same time shortly before Meredith was murdered and turned them back on at again at 6.02am. There is forensic evidence placing both of them at the cottage when Meredith was killed, and two witnesses who claimed they saw them in the vicintity of the cottage that evening. Another witness, Gianfranco Lombardi, the car mechanic, testified that he saw a dark car parked outside the cottage. Sollecito has a black Audi A3.

The scenario that Sollecito wasn't involved in Meredith's murder, but was prepared to it cover up is ridiculous. Mignini's and Comodi's recreation of what they think happened is probably the closest we will ever come to the truth.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Well, phooey!

I wish my original post had not vanished.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

If you find it, we're waiting to read it :)
Top Profile 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The Machine wrote:
Both Knox and Sollecito repeatedly claimed that they were together on the night of the murder. They turned off their mobile ohones at approximately the same time shortly before Meredith was murdered and turned them back on at again at 6.02am.


I wonder what the cellphone pings show about their location(s) between 6.02am, and the Postal Police arriving at the cottage? If they turned off the phones the night before because they knew about triangulation pings (a level of cunning that may not be compatible with being out of their heads on skunk/coke/acid/shrooms), then presumably by the time they turned them back on they were done with the cleanup/staging, and were back at RS's apartment. I think it's as likely that they turned off their phones for some other reason (possibly in a do-not-disturb manner about to embark on a drug experience...).

I'm leaning towards the actual killing of Meredith not being premeditated, although I know that leaves the problem of the knife being brought there. Is it possible the knife was brought to the apartment in connection with Halloween, or that as others have suggested, the original loose plan was to carry out the bullying/hazing, the night before, hence all the texts? Do we know whether the roommates were also out of town the night before?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
Well, phooey!

I wish my original post had not vanished.


Hi Emerald,

You can always address the points I've made.

I forgot to mention the findings of the Violent Crimes Unit, who believe that Knox, Sollecito and Guede all took part in Meredith's murder, after analysing the crime scene and studying the autopsy reports.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

I want to hear ffrom Guede
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

modest_ex wrote:
I'm leaning towards the actual killing of Meredith not being premeditated, although I know that leaves the problem of the knife being brought there. Is it possible the knife was brought to the apartment in connection with Halloween, or that as others have suggested, the original loose plan was to carry out the bullying/hazing, the night before, hence all the texts? Do we know whether the roommates were also out of town the night before?


Hi modest_ex,

I don't know whether Meredith's murder was premeditated or not. Taking the knife from Sollecito's apartment and using it to stab Meredith's clearly shows intent to harm Meredith.

Meredith was tortured with the knife before she murdered. Judge Claudia Matteini pointed out that Meredith's killers derived some strange enjoyment from Meredith's suffering. This is hugely significant as it shows how utterly evil and sadistic Knox, Sollecito and Guede are. If they are capable of subjecting Meredith to such cruelty and violence, they are certainly capable of planning it.

I don't know whether the Italian housemates were out of town the night before. We do know that Amanda Knox sent Meredith a flurry of text messages, trying to meet up with her. In the light of what happened a day later, I don't think Amanda Knox's intentions were innocent.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Hi TheFatCent, and a warm welcome on your first post.
I think we all have been/are disturbed by the sex aspect of this case.
The satanic sex angle is still tacked onto this case at any given opportunity by the Knox/Mellas/FOA and picked up by various media organizations although this is not true and never has been true.
It is perfectly clear the murder had a sexual aspect (as in a sexual assault) and this is obvious when looking at the actual charges against the killers, the charges being registered lawfully and officially and there for all to see on public record.
The Knox/Mellas/FOA group will (by themselves and their proxies) still bang away at this as it is of course part and parcel of the sliming of PM Mignini.
The Knox/Mellas/FOA group even now continue to shout about 'trial by media' but as we all can see they are actually using the media themselves to still promote the satanic sex falsity.
It is total hypocrisy.
As for the drug angle, I remember a TV interview earlier on with Curt and Edda when they were asked if they knew their daughter was taking drugs.
There was a very long pregnant pause until Edda said no.
This interview obviously hadn't gone to script.
I myself do not go with the 'blissed out hippy' thing when it comes to cannabis these days (and yes I used to smoke it myself years ago), as skunkweed is far stronger than what our hippy friends used to smoke and there has been many reported cases of violence and pyschological episodes with people who have been heavily smoking skunkweed.
A friend of mine is a case to point, stoned out of his mind on skunk - he headbutted a solid oak panelled door and still now has a nasty scar on his forehead, and can't for the life of him figure out why he did it.
In my opinion its a combination of all things with Knox - narcissism, sociopathy, drugs (all of which her mother and friends say just isn't so, but more likely are not admitting this is true) and the one thing that Amanda Knox has actually conceded herself - she was 'intoxicated by freedom', a real wild child.

Edda was faced with a very bad question. As a teacher, and an American citizen, she could not openly admit that she knew her daughter was a doper. It was in her best career interests, and those of her other daughter, to make it look like Amanda picked up the habit in liberal Europe.



Indeed... bit of a shame it's stuffed by Amanda's myspace log where she refers to not having had a "smoke up" in Amsterdam and having "my first smoke up" (in Europe) following the train journey. Mind you, Edda said on the BBC that she'd never been in trouble too. Bzzzt... let me give you the Seattle crime number for the party your daughter was fined in court for eh???

_________________
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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

So much symbolism to finish an unpleasant chore for Amanda the writer. Closed doors (both bedrooms and the front door), turn on/off the phones, mop the floor, herself to be presentable for .........

Next phase was the 'discovery' of the crime.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

How were Meredith's phones found in the neighbor's garden?
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Is this true?
From Perugia, Italy: Guliano Mignini, the infamous Italian head prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, has troubles of his own, and CBS is running the headline: " Amanda Knox May be Joined in Jail by Guliano Mignini, the Prosecutor that Put her there"



The prosecutors in Mignini's abuse of prosecutorial office case have asked for a 10 month prison term for Mignini. Link to pictures of Guliano Mignini and Amanda Knox

Journalist Douglas Preston says he was harassed and threatened by Mignini, when he was working on the book, "The Monster of Florence", based on a string of murders in the area.


Preston has written widely and in scathing terms about Mignini, whom he describes as an old, classical Catholic, who listens to the channellings of spirits and demons obtained by a priest, and believes the hills of Perugia are filled with occult sexual activity.
It was speculated that Amanda Knox and her Italian lover, Raffaele Sollecito, picked the time around Halloween "when the spirits walk abroad" for their sex game turned murder.

PERUGIA, Italy (CBS) The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, Giuliano Mignini, will soon be back in court, but this time he will be on the other side of Italian justice as he faces charges of "abuse of office" and "abetting" in connection with another high profile murder case.

[. . . ]

Mignini was indicted in the summer of 2006 on charges of abusing his office in connection with the still unsolved "Monster of Florence" serial killer case - a decades old string of murders that targeted young lovers on starless summer nights in the hills of Florence. Italian investigators estimate 14 victims were killed by the same person between 1974 and 1985.



Mignini had quietly appeared in court on and off for his own trial since April 2008, while waging a highly publicized prosecution against Knox, an American student, who, with her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, was convicted of murdering Knox' British roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox received 26 years for the crime; Sollecito got 25.

Despite wide approval of the verdict in Italy, the Knox case remains controversial in the United States, where there is a perception that Mignini invented a wild "sex game gone wrong" theory of the crime that wasn't supported by physical evidence.



In Mignini's "abuse of office" case, Florence prosecutors have alleged that Mignini used his office to harass journalists who criticized his investigation of the Florence murders. They allege he illegal wiretapped journalists and opened bogus investigations against them.

Asked about the charges by CBS News producer Doug Longhini, Mignini brushed them off saying that they were politically motivated.

The case against Mignini was concluded Dec. 4. A verdict is expected sometime in January of 2010. The prosecutors have asked for 10 months in prison.
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 31, 2009 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Martin -

It's pure wishful thinking from the FOA and the Amandaphile US press.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Journalist Douglas Preston says he was harassed and threatened by Mignini, when he was working on the book, "The Monster of Florence", based on a string of murders in the area.


I wouldn't believe anything that Doug Preston says. His afterword in The Monster of Florence contains numerous factual errors. He also falsely claimed that stringers working for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer got their stories from the Italian press. There was only one stringer working for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Andrea Vogt and her articles and reports on the case have been excellent.

martin wrote:
Preston has written widely and in scathing terms about Mignini, whom he describes as an old, classical Catholic, who listens to the channellings of spirits and demons obtained by a priest, and believes the hills of Perugia are filled with occult sexual activity.


It is complete and utter nonsense that Mignini listens to the channellings of spirits and demons obtained by a priest.

Andrea Vogt and Mignini could and should sue Preston for his false and libellous claims.

CBS News have an appalling track record when it comes to getting facts wrong in this case, especially Peter Van Sant and Paul Ciolino. How these two incompetent, bungling fools have managed to have careers in the media is beyond me.

CBS Producer Joe Halderman was arrested and charged with blackmail a few weeks ago. If Halderman is found guilty he faces between 5 and 15 years in prison. I wonder if CBS News will make a documentary about Joe Halderman if he is found guilty.

Another CBS producer, Sara Ely Hulse, was ignorant of basic facts about the case and is a member of the Free Amanda Knox facebook group.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
Is this true?
From Perugia, Italy: Guliano Mignini, the infamous Italian head prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, has troubles of his own, and CBS is running the headline: " Amanda Knox May be Joined in Jail by Guliano Mignini, the Prosecutor that Put her there"



The prosecutors in Mignini's abuse of prosecutorial office case have asked for a 10 month prison term for Mignini. Link to pictures of Guliano Mignini and Amanda Knox

Journalist Douglas Preston says he was harassed and threatened by Mignini, when he was working on the book, "The Monster of Florence", based on a string of murders in the area.


Preston has written widely and in scathing terms about Mignini, whom he describes as an old, classical Catholic, who listens to the channellings of spirits and demons obtained by a priest, and believes the hills of Perugia are filled with occult sexual activity.
It was speculated that Amanda Knox and her Italian lover, Raffaele Sollecito, picked the time around Halloween "when the spirits walk abroad" for their sex game turned murder.

PERUGIA, Italy (CBS) The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, Giuliano Mignini, will soon be back in court, but this time he will be on the other side of Italian justice as he faces charges of "abuse of office" and "abetting" in connection with another high profile murder case.

[. . . ]

Mignini was indicted in the summer of 2006 on charges of abusing his office in connection with the still unsolved "Monster of Florence" serial killer case - a decades old string of murders that targeted young lovers on starless summer nights in the hills of Florence. Italian investigators estimate 14 victims were killed by the same person between 1974 and 1985.



Mignini had quietly appeared in court on and off for his own trial since April 2008, while waging a highly publicized prosecution against Knox, an American student, who, with her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, was convicted of murdering Knox' British roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox received 26 years for the crime; Sollecito got 25.

Despite wide approval of the verdict in Italy, the Knox case remains controversial in the United States, where there is a perception that Mignini invented a wild "sex game gone wrong" theory of the crime that wasn't supported by physical evidence.



In Mignini's "abuse of office" case, Florence prosecutors have alleged that Mignini used his office to harass journalists who criticized his investigation of the Florence murders. They allege he illegal wiretapped journalists and opened bogus investigations against them.

Asked about the charges by CBS News producer Doug Longhini, Mignini brushed them off saying that they were politically motivated.

The case against Mignini was concluded Dec. 4. A verdict is expected sometime in January of 2010. The prosecutors have asked for 10 months in prison.

For God's sake Martin,
Let's drop this senseless gossipy crap about Mignini. What about a New Year resolution such as: "I will not post any obviously twisted, biased, false information about the Perugia Murder case or its prosecutors"-and btw there are TWO prosecutors in this case, just in case you forgot- :lol:

Happy New Year to everyone and very special thoughts to the Kercher family, with all my heart

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

The evidence is the evidence no matter who presents it.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:42 pm   Post subject: OT Jester Jealousy   

Jester wrote:
For those on the other side of one of the oceans ... these are the standard poodle pups I've raised during the last 6 weeks ... wishing you a ...



Just in time for New Year's Eve..I'm sick with the flu! I really hope I don't have the pig-) flu!
But oooooooooooooo, I envy you, Jester! This puppy pictures proved to be very therapeutic! Are these furballs available for bedside visits of the ill and infirm?
I think cats make better bedmates when you're really sick. Purring is extremely medicinal. mike

Also, TO JOOLS: is that a Labradoodle you've got as your avatar?

Before I sink/slink back into my sick bed, HAPPY NEW YEAR, everyone! I suppose Tiziano's already seen the dawn of a New Decade...and I suppose The Seattlites would be among the last to ring in the New..can't think too clearly at the moment re: time zones..

Despite whatever pain/suffering/hardship/loss many of us have had this year... I suppose we all need to be mindful of the many blessings we've had--no matter how small...

While I can't claim that the Perugia verdict made me "happy"~ I do realize that the alternative scenario(Amanda/Raffaele found innocent, released from jail) would have been a nightmare, the repercussions too unfathomable to contemplate.

It's bad enough to read about Donald The Pompous Windbag Trump (and others) spouting off ignorantly...but to see the un-therapized unrepentant Amanda doing the talk show circuit, having book signings, portrayed as a martyr...

This post has consumed all my available energy. Going undercover (literally--under the duvet). Unfortunately, not for the purpose of ... hump-)

hugz-) Happy New Year! Happy New Decade!
from
Febrile 411
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Emerald wrote:
The evidence is the evidence no matter who presents it.

Amen, Emerald. What I am trying to say is that I've have it with these posts propagating falsities about one of the prosecutors. If you know the true story about the MOF you know that what Preston writes it's a whole bunch of crap.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
martin wrote:
Is this true?
From Perugia, Italy: Guliano Mignini, the infamous Italian head prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, has troubles of his own, and CBS is running the headline: " Amanda Knox May be Joined in Jail by Guliano Mignini, the Prosecutor that Put her there"



The prosecutors in Mignini's abuse of prosecutorial office case have asked for a 10 month prison term for Mignini. Link to pictures of Guliano Mignini and Amanda Knox

Journalist Douglas Preston says he was harassed and threatened by Mignini, when he was working on the book, "The Monster of Florence", based on a string of murders in the area.


Preston has written widely and in scathing terms about Mignini, whom he describes as an old, classical Catholic, who listens to the channellings of spirits and demons obtained by a priest, and believes the hills of Perugia are filled with occult sexual activity.
It was speculated that Amanda Knox and her Italian lover, Raffaele Sollecito, picked the time around Halloween "when the spirits walk abroad" for their sex game turned murder.

PERUGIA, Italy (CBS) The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, Giuliano Mignini, will soon be back in court, but this time he will be on the other side of Italian justice as he faces charges of "abuse of office" and "abetting" in connection with another high profile murder case.

[. . . ]

Mignini was indicted in the summer of 2006 on charges of abusing his office in connection with the still unsolved "Monster of Florence" serial killer case - a decades old string of murders that targeted young lovers on starless summer nights in the hills of Florence. Italian investigators estimate 14 victims were killed by the same person between 1974 and 1985.



Mignini had quietly appeared in court on and off for his own trial since April 2008, while waging a highly publicized prosecution against Knox, an American student, who, with her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, was convicted of murdering Knox' British roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox received 26 years for the crime; Sollecito got 25.

Despite wide approval of the verdict in Italy, the Knox case remains controversial in the United States, where there is a perception that Mignini invented a wild "sex game gone wrong" theory of the crime that wasn't supported by physical evidence.



In Mignini's "abuse of office" case, Florence prosecutors have alleged that Mignini used his office to harass journalists who criticized his investigation of the Florence murders. They allege he illegal wiretapped journalists and opened bogus investigations against them.

Asked about the charges by CBS News producer Doug Longhini, Mignini brushed them off saying that they were politically motivated.

The case against Mignini was concluded Dec. 4. A verdict is expected sometime in January of 2010. The prosecutors have asked for 10 months in prison.

For God's sake Martin,
Let's drop this senseless gossipy crap about Mignini. What about a New Year resolution such as: "I will not post any obviously twisted, biased, false information about the Perugia Murder case or its prosecutors"-and btw there are TWO prosecutors in this case, just in case you forgot- :lol:

Happy New Year to everyone and very special thoughts to the Kercher family, with all my heart

Relax, please. I googled "mignini" and found this article, copied and pasted it. I was confused because I never heard anything about a mignini trial.
I wish you a happy and successful new year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: OT Jester Jealousy   

The 411 wrote:
Jester wrote:
For those on the other side of one of the oceans ... these are the standard poodle pups I've raised during the last 6 weeks ... wishing you a ...



Just in time for New Year's Eve..I'm sick with the flu! I really hope I don't have the pig-) flu!
But oooooooooooooo, I envy you, Jester! This puppy pictures proved to be very therapeutic! Are these furballs available for bedside visits of the ill and infirm?
I think cats make better bedmates when you're really sick. Purring is extremely medicinal. mike

Also, TO JOOLS: is that a Labradoodle you've got as your avatar?

Before I sink/slink back into my sick bed, HAPPY NEW YEAR, everyone! I suppose Tiziano's already seen the dawn of a New Decade...and I suppose The Seattlites would be among the last to ring in the New..can't think too clearly at the moment re: time zones..

Despite whatever pain/suffering/hardship/loss many of us have had this year... I suppose we all need to be mindful of the many blessings we've had--no matter how small...

While I can't claim that the Perugia verdict made me "happy"~ I do realize that the alternative scenario(Amanda/Raffaele found innocent, released from jail) would have been a nightmare, the repercussions too unfathomable to contemplate.

It's bad enough to read about Donald The Pompous Windbag Trump (and others) spouting off ignorantly...but to see the un-therapized unrepentant Amanda doing the talk show circuit, having book signings, portrayed as a martyr...

This post has consumed all my available energy. Going undercover (literally--under the duvet). Unfortunately, not for the purpose of ... hump-)

hugz-) Happy New Year! Happy New Decade!
from
Febrile 411

HAPPY NEW YEAR 411! In order to get better, be a cat: sleep, eat what you like when you feel like, get attention only and when you need it, drink lots of fluids and rest curling up on your favorite chair...it WORKS!
GET WELL SOON - mike

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester wrote:
Some of the knife injuries did not appear to be consistent with cause serious serious injury ... more along the lines of nicking.

Once the windpipe has been crushed, there would have been no scream. To suggest that the scream happened at the time of the fatal knife wound means that the windpipe was either crushed by the knife injury (not likely), or it happened after the fatal wound (also not likely). Therefore, the crushed windpipe happened earlier ... I've been wondering if a single assailant that attacked from behind could restrain a person, crunch their throat by kneeling on it, and ... so on. That only thing that makes sense with the crushed trachea is that the windpipe was also injured at the same time ... which is inconsistent with the prosecutor's theory.


You've got it wrong. Meredith's hyoid bone was fractured. Due to its protected position at the very top front of the neck, above the trachea, the hyoid bone is not susceptible to easy fracture except in the case of severe manual strangulation by hand. The attempt at strangulation occurred before any stabbing took place as part of a series of violent actions against Meredith. It is highly unlikely that Meredith lost the ability to scream as a result of the strangulation attempt.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
nicki wrote:
martin wrote:
Is this true?
From Perugia, Italy: Guliano Mignini, the infamous Italian head prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, has troubles of his own, and CBS is running the headline: " Amanda Knox May be Joined in Jail by Guliano Mignini, the Prosecutor that Put her there"



The prosecutors in Mignini's abuse of prosecutorial office case have asked for a 10 month prison term for Mignini. Link to pictures of Guliano Mignini and Amanda Knox

Journalist Douglas Preston says he was harassed and threatened by Mignini, when he was working on the book, "The Monster of Florence", based on a string of murders in the area.


Preston has written widely and in scathing terms about Mignini, whom he describes as an old, classical Catholic, who listens to the channellings of spirits and demons obtained by a priest, and believes the hills of Perugia are filled with occult sexual activity.
It was speculated that Amanda Knox and her Italian lover, Raffaele Sollecito, picked the time around Halloween "when the spirits walk abroad" for their sex game turned murder.

PERUGIA, Italy (CBS) The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, Giuliano Mignini, will soon be back in court, but this time he will be on the other side of Italian justice as he faces charges of "abuse of office" and "abetting" in connection with another high profile murder case.

[. . . ]

Mignini was indicted in the summer of 2006 on charges of abusing his office in connection with the still unsolved "Monster of Florence" serial killer case - a decades old string of murders that targeted young lovers on starless summer nights in the hills of Florence. Italian investigators estimate 14 victims were killed by the same person between 1974 and 1985.



Mignini had quietly appeared in court on and off for his own trial since April 2008, while waging a highly publicized prosecution against Knox, an American student, who, with her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, was convicted of murdering Knox' British roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox received 26 years for the crime; Sollecito got 25.

Despite wide approval of the verdict in Italy, the Knox case remains controversial in the United States, where there is a perception that Mignini invented a wild "sex game gone wrong" theory of the crime that wasn't supported by physical evidence.



In Mignini's "abuse of office" case, Florence prosecutors have alleged that Mignini used his office to harass journalists who criticized his investigation of the Florence murders. They allege he illegal wiretapped journalists and opened bogus investigations against them.

Asked about the charges by CBS News producer Doug Longhini, Mignini brushed them off saying that they were politically motivated.

The case against Mignini was concluded Dec. 4. A verdict is expected sometime in January of 2010. The prosecutors have asked for 10 months in prison.

For God's sake Martin,
Let's drop this senseless gossipy crap about Mignini. What about a New Year resolution such as: "I will not post any obviously twisted, biased, false information about the Perugia Murder case or its prosecutors"-and btw there are TWO prosecutors in this case, just in case you forgot- :lol:

Happy New Year to everyone and very special thoughts to the Kercher family, with all my heart

Relax, please. I googled "mignini" and found this article, copied and pasted it. I was confused because I never heard anything about a mignini trial.
I wish you a happy and successful new year.

So you never heard about a "Mignini" trial uh? That's quite hard to believe, guess you haven't been following the case much Martin, that would explain it.
Happy New Year to you

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Bea wrote:
fine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Norwich band makes Amanda Knox soundtrack
DAN GRIMMER
30 December 2009 12:57

A Norwich band have provided the soundtrack to a feature length documentary focusing on one of the biggest trials of 2009 - that of American student Amanda Knox.

NORWICH EVENING NEWS


So Eye Films has changed the title of this "documentary" movie from MAKING A KILLING to THE TRIALS OF AMANDA KNOX. Estimated budget is $400,000. www.imdb.com

////


And if the revised title didn't give it away, this quote from the article seals it:
"The filmmakers were granted intimate access to the Knox family and their friends from just after her arrest in 2007."

A $400K PR film, script by Marriot. (wish we had a *puke* emoticon)



edited to add: Interesting that the Knox/Mellas crowd were already thinking "movie" within days of her arrest. Sickening, sickening people.


__________________

Yes, Bea, this "documentary" film could be an ALL TIME LOW, lower than the "dog and pony" shows in the USA. One of the producers is Bob Graham who wrote this during the trial a few months ago:

"Even before her trial began, the 22-year-old was condemned as a sexual predator and the epitome of wickedness by the media and an Italian legal system that disregarded every precept of being 'innocent until proven guilty' ". www.express.co.uk

And Madison Paxton, one of Amanda's friends in Seattle, was listed as a STAR in the movie. (Ew!)

Since some viewers of this movie will be familiar with the case, expect one of the commercial sponsors to be ROLAIDS.

//////////


Last edited by fine on Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Jester,

Cute puppies. Little furballs of mischief and energy. Love my sedate old cat.

Happy New Year


Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
[So you never heard about a "Mignini" trial uh? That's quite hard to believe, guess you haven't been following the case much Martin, that would explain it.
Happy New Year to you


Nicki, I read some time ago that a prosecutor accused him of bugging his office and that he was cleared of all charges and honestly, I was not so much interested because I didn't consider it being related to the Perugia case. When I read this article, I was confused, because I didn't know that a trial took place. I have to leave the computer now, good luck to everyone!
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 31, 2009 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Knox verdict means no 'Perugia' park in Seattle - for now

SEATTLE PI

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Michael wrote:
Knox verdict means no 'Perugia' park in Seattle - for now

SEATTLE PI

At this point, if I were a Perugia citizen I would only be glad to know that my hometown is no longer going to be associated to the murderer's hometown, if this is the response of Seattle to the lawful conviction of one of its residents, in a foreign land.

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

martin wrote:
When I read this article, I was confused, because I didn't know that a trial took place. I have to leave the computer now, good luck to everyone!


Raffaele? Is that you? Welcome to the board - please come back tomorrow!
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

From TJMK Site
(Tuesday, February 24, 2009/Stewarthome2000)

"The media have now repeated countless times that Amanda Knox was on a “study abroad program”.
In fact, as these things are defined, she was not. It is precisely that she was NOT on a study-abroad program that she was able to adopt a lifestyle that seems to have led her to where she is now.
To go on a study-abroad “program” means that you attend an organized and SUPERVISED curriculum and agenda, most often with peers, faculty and/or at the very least a local administrative staff person assigned to periodically look after the participants’ behavior and well-being.
In fact the University of Washington does not even have a study abroad “program” in Perugia. It merely suggests to UW students that the Universita per Stranieri is a possible destination and place for students to go on their own, and if asked helps out with some administration.
Knox took the “non-conformist” path to study abroad. I recall reading that she did not want to go on a program so as to not follow the group, so to speak. So she did study abroad, but cheaply, and outside an organized program by the University of Washington. She was basically in Perugia on her own."


Thought I'd seen that somewhere....
Amanda was not study-abroad student, merely a student who happened to be abroad.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
Knox verdict means no 'Perugia' park in Seattle - for now

SEATTLE PI

At this point, if I were a Perugia citizen I would only be glad to know that my hometown is no longer going to be associated to the murderer's hometown, if this is the response of Seattle to the lawful conviction of one of its residents, in a foreign land.


What? A phone-in campaign sponsored by the FOA postponed the naming of a Seattle city park? I thought they said they were going to do something way more dramatic; more along the lines of "The Battle In Seattle" with the tear gas, the breaking of Starbucks windows, the walking down freeways, and marching on City Hall and the Federal Building - you know, the kinds things that Seattle is famous for. What a bunch of imposters!
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Thought I'd seen that somewhere....
Amanda was not study-abroad student, merely a student who happened to be abroad.


No. Knox was officially participating in the most informal independent study-abroad program available to University of Washington students. Her rambling November 4, 2007 email, sent shortly before she was arrested, was directed to her UW advisor with everyone else in CC.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
Knox verdict means no 'Perugia' park in Seattle - for now

SEATTLE PI

At this point, if I were a Perugia citizen I would only be glad to know that my hometown is no longer going to be associated to the murderer's hometown, if this is the response of Seattle to the lawful conviction of one of its residents, in a foreign land.


What? A phone-in campaign sponsored by the FOA postponed the naming of a Seattle city park? I thought they said they were going to do something way more dramatic; more along the lines of "The Battle In Seattle" with the tear gas, the breaking of Starbucks windows, the walking down freeways, and marching on City Hall and the Federal Building - you know, the kinds things that Seattle is famous for. What a bunch of imposters!
I totally agree with you Nicki and unfortunately I feel the City of Seattle should abandon the idea even though the sister city gesture goes back to when the killer was still in training pants. Given the outrageous history of the FOAKERS it would escape them to be able to honor and respect such a vision. They would even have Harry & the Cook out there with spray cans tagging Foxy Knoxy on everything that didn’t move. Not to mention the drug dealers she would attract….

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Happy New Year everyone! :)
Top Profile 

Offline Kip


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:30 pm

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Many study abroad programs have minimal supervision. My son did a year abroad with UCLA's program. There was a UCLA liaison person who handled the initial 3-day orientation program for UCLA students going to several different universities within the country. Once at the university, my son was assigned a regular university counselor and chose his own course of study just as the regular students did. The liasion checked in with him by phone once a semester - and, of course, he could have called her should there have been a problem.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Kip wrote:
Many study abroad programs have minimal supervision. My son did a year abroad with UCLA's program. There was a UCLA liaison person who handled the initial 3-day orientation program for UCLA students going to several different universities within the country. Once at the university, my son was assigned a regular university counselor and chose his own course of study just as the regular students did. The liasion checked in with him by phone once a semester - and, of course, he could have called her should there have been a problem.


We had this discussion here many moons ago, and the consensus was that students in the UK are treated much more as 'young adults' and left to their own devices compared to US students abroad. I did an Erasmus exchange to Budapest for a term with two nineteen year old single mothers, and their two two year old sons. We must have been mad, but no-one helped us with anything - accommodation, checking we were ok (we weren't) checking we could speak the language (we couldn't). And to be honest I don't think we would have welcomed it if they had! There is more of an attitude of 'if you're old enough to think you can do it you probably can'. Certainly we had very little time with tutors, let alone one of them noticing if we were weird (we were). So it was a bit of a mess, and I think we learned a lot about biting off more than we could chew. But we got through it! Managed not to murder anyone...etc

_________________
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: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:28 pm   Post subject: NYE09   

Happy New Year everyone!


Festivities are continuing in a wave around the world.

We had ours last night, our time.

The landscape enters into your being, and you and it mingle together, becoming part of each other:
we had our annual corroboree down at the Quay and along the harbour foreshores.




It almost seems somehow inappropriate to express an opinion on it
(like saying how good a flower is or kindergarten child is, compared to last year,
there really is no comparison),
yet, the weather played its part (fine and warm, a bit humid),
and the fireworks were spectacular.


As one commentator said, "You never grow too old to watch fireworks."



You also become part of your social landscape.
This phrase the commentator used carries with it an echo from
a poem that is part of the Australian psyche --
the Ode to Rememberance [Wikipedia],
to remember fallen comrades by:



They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.



MK, always 21. r-((



And memory is its own country:


Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind ?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and days o'auld lang syne ?


For auld lang syne, my jo,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll tak a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.



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 31, 2009 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Happy New Year everyone!!!!

_________________
"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 lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Random thought on Jury sequestering.

Don’t know what the procedure is in the USA, whether it is
1) mandatory in all cases,
2) during the trial period,
3) during the jury deliberation period only or
4) both 2 and 3.

Comment:

In trials where sequestering is imposed (eg USA) it is logical to assume that the opposing legal teams will get their desired position out through the media before the trial commences. If the legal representatives are smart ( and they have some really smart ones ) they will media target the geographic area that the jury is drawn from. I imagine that it is nigh on impossible to select a jury on either side of the Atlantic that is 100% media sterile.

I am sure there are US folks here who know more about this than I do, but from my experience as a criminal trial juror & reasonably informed citizen, sequestration is not mandatory. It's fairly common during the deliberation period.

I think it's extremely rare, if it happens at all, for a jury to be sequestered throughout the length of a trial. The jurors are usually admonished by the judge not to discuss any aspect of the trial with anyone, even a spouse, & to avoid any media coverage of the case.
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 31, 2009 11:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

lector wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Random thought on Jury sequestering.

Don’t know what the procedure is in the USA, whether it is
1) mandatory in all cases,
2) during the trial period,
3) during the jury deliberation period only or
4) both 2 and 3.

Comment:

In trials where sequestering is imposed (eg USA) it is logical to assume that the opposing legal teams will get their desired position out through the media before the trial commences. If the legal representatives are smart ( and they have some really smart ones ) they will media target the geographic area that the jury is drawn from. I imagine that it is nigh on impossible to select a jury on either side of the Atlantic that is 100% media sterile.

I am sure there are US folks here who know more about this than I do, but from my experience as a criminal trial juror & reasonably informed citizen, sequestration is not mandatory. It's fairly common during the deliberation period.

I think it's extremely rare, if it happens at all, for a jury to be sequestered throughout the length of a trial. The jurors are usually admonished by the judge not to discuss any aspect of the trial with anyone, even a spouse, & to avoid any media coverage of the case.



Indeed:

When Do Judges Sequester Juries?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:18 am   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE - LOCKING THREAD!   

picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE - LOCKING THREAD!

I am now locking this thread. Please continue the main discussion in the new main discussion thread: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -

Thank You

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -   

bilko wrote:
Donald Trump didn't bite, si I'm back I'm afraid. I managed to get my Colonel to go for the free tickets and here is his comment:

"Thank God, someone is doing something about this case. I am a retired Colonel in the U.S. army and although I am quite elderly and infirm. I am willing to get on that plane and help free Anita. Of course, I will need putting up in some decent accommodation, so hopefully you could stretch to a five star, and also provide a bunk for my sergeant.
I may be a bit shaky on details, but I think that I heard, on the Geraldo show that an octopus was involved. I find this hard to believe, but if true I will be boycotting calamari from now on. I also read somewhere that Anita was in the flat at the time of the murder and that she heard the local Starbucks proprietor do the deed. If this is true then that brand of coffee is definitely not on my menu!"

I don't know why the post didn't make it. Still, you can't blame an old soldier for trying!


This is the officer in question, who saw the chance of a freebie courtesy of Donald Trump I believe. Anita is invoked whenever someone is 'a bit shaky on the details'

:)

_________________
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 14 of 14 [ 3464 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,890,397 Views