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: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:02 am
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:02 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 - Jan 24, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 11 of 12 [ 2769 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 - Mignini & Giutarri   

Michael wrote:
As soon as you get the chance, could one of our translators very kindly render a full and proper translation of the article Jools linked. Much appreciated.


Giuttari & Mignini


MONSTER OF FLORENCE, DERAILED INVESTIGATIONS: GIUTTARI & PM MIGNINI FOUND GUILTY

Judge Mignini and the policeman-writer Giuttari condemned by Florence court to one year and four months and one year and six months for abuse of office.

Florence - Two guilty findings.

The trial which saw PM Giuliano Mignini and the policeman-writer Michel Giuttari accused has finished in this way. They have been condemned to one year and four months and one year and six months by the tribunal of Florence for abuse of office, and the magistrate also for aiding and abetting Giuttari. The judicial proceedings refer to the inquest into the death of the doctor Narducci, from Perugia, an inquest linked to that of the Monster of Florence: investigations which saw Giuttari - already head of the group investigating the serial killings - involved working side by side with the prosecutor's offices in Florence and in Perugia. Mignini was the titular magistrate in Perugia for the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher: the matter of the English student has nothing to do, however, with the trial which came to an end today.

The accusations.
The magistrate from Florence in charge of the investigations, Luca Turco, had asked for 10 months for Mignini and for two and a half years for Giuttari. According to the Florence Prosecutor's Office, Giuttari and Mignini are said to have carried out illegal investigations, with telephone taps and with the opening of files on certain police officers (such as the ex-commissioner for Florence Giuseppe De Donno and the ex-director of the office of external affairs Roberto Sgalla) and journalists (such as Vincenzo Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano and Roberto Fiasconaro) with punitive intent and in order to influence their work, because they are supposed to have had critical attitudes as far as the behaviour of Giuttari with the press or with regard to the inquest into the death of Francesco Narducci, the doctor from Perugia.

Acquittal
Mignini and Giutarri were absolved however "because the fact does not exist" of the accusation of abuse of office (and Mignini was also absolved of aiding and abetting Giuttari), relative to investigations parallel to those of the Genoa Prosecutor's Office, which was investigating Giuttari for fraud in reference to a recording of an interview between himself and the magistrate from Florence, Canessa. At the time Giuttari was the head of Gides (Gruppo investigativo delitti seriali = Group investigating serial killings), while Canessa was coordinating the Tuscan branch of the Monster of Florence investigation.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Now it begins...........


Knox’s stepfather, Chris Mellas, says the charges against Mignini are significant even if they are not related Knox’s case.

"They show that he's willing to break the law in order to do, to pursue his ideas. I think that’s very serious when you consider the fact that he’s one that’s supposed to be upholding the law," said Mellas.

www.king5.com Text and video.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:20 am   Post subject: 112   

Skeptical Bystander, Michael, I'm presenting an argument based purely on logic, I'm just asking for a logical refutation (not one based on exclamations -- "this is ridiculous" etc.)

Skeptical asks why Battistelli should know when the carabinieri arrived since he was only reponsible for the postals? I reply -- because he was standing in the garden when they arrived, and gave them directions on Amanda's phone. He may not know the precise time, but he certainly knows and was asked whether those who called were the first on the scene.

Michael claims that the report he posted was presented to Micheli. I thought that it was created and presented only in the present trial. Bolint unearthed this powerpoint last August, and he repeated this just the other day. I certainly had never seen that document before on this board. However, I am ready to stand corrected if you know for a fact, Michael that it was presented to Micheli.

Manuela Comodi claims that the postal police arrived at 12:46. Let's accept this for a moment and see. Battistelli and Marzi walk down the path to the garden. They never mentioned seeing Amanda phoning her mother, they said Amanda and Raffaele were standing in the garden. So maybe they arrived just as she was hanging up on her mother, so 12:48. Then, Battistelli and Marzi talked with Amanda and Raffaele for enough time to explain why they were there, hear about the blood and the locked door, and get Amanda to write a post-it with Meredith's numbers on it. (Finn even said they were taken around the house, though this is not clear.) But less than five-six minutes for this activity seems impossible. Yet at 12:51 Raffaele calls 112, and at 12:54, he not only calls 112 again but Amanda is standing behind him and her voice is heard on the recording telling him the address.

What's happening here? Either Battistelli and Marzi are standing alone while Amanda and Raffaele are hiding to do this, or Battistelli and Marzi are watching them do it, or Marco and Luca have already arrived, say at 12:50, meaning that all of the initial discussion with Amanda and Raffaele, the post-it etc. happened in two minutes.
None of this sounds possible. I can't see how it can be otherwise than: postals arrive and talk for five-six minutes minimum, Marco and Luca arrive and find them in the kitchen standing over the post-it, Filomena and her friend Paola arrive a few minutes later, and Paola then sees Amanda and Raffaele coming out of Amanda's room. But if police arrival time in the street is 12:46 and down at the cottage is 12:48 (they didn't see Amanda's phone call to her mother), one just has to add up the minutes...

Fiona asks about the call to headquarters at 13:00. What actually happened at 13:00 is that Meredith's second phone was activated at headquarters. It is not stated why this happened. Finn made the assumption that it happened because Filomena had returned home already and told the postal police about the second phone. My guess is that it happened because when Amanda wrote Meredith's two numbers on a post-it, Battistelli used his own phone to call Meredith's second number. However, it could be something else, police at headquarters simply turned it on for example.

Fiona also points out that nothing in the CCTV camera pictures shows her that the black Fiat Punto and the men who appear with it are police, but we know that the postals had a car of that make and color and were ununiformed. It was accepted by all that they were the ones filmed. Only the real meaning of the time marked on the CCTV camera was in dispute.

ttrroonniicc suggests that Amanda and Raffaele called police in a panic when they saw a police car searching outside. That might be a very good idea, only how could they have recognized the black Fiat Punto as a police car? ttrroonniicc also says the postal police found them coming out of a room, but that is wrong, they were standing in the garden (just straightening out facts).
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

A plea to all you PMFers to settle down!!! I have just spent a considerable time catching up on the board and IMHO things in the playground have been a bit rough!

Play the game boys, not the man/woman/dog or bunny-wabbit. And horror of horrors, don't start slinging off about which side of the ocean one inhabits! I thought we in Oz had a monopoly on insulting the poor old Poms!

And let's not mention our love/hate thing with the Septics! (The Yanks = septic tanks) I was told that during the Vietnam War when Sydney was awash with young gladiators on R & R, that they (the Septics) were over-sexed, over-paid and over here! NO! I can't offer an opinion on the veracity or otherwise of this statement, as I was down here in Tas, recently married to the Abruzzese and busy teaching languages to teenagers of varying degrees of enthusiasm for such a pursuit.

The Uni students were out on the streets protesting against national service in Vietnam (compulsory military service), and one of our pro-American pollies famously said, "Run the bastards over!" when a group of Sydney students lay down on the road to stop the "royal" progress with LBJ (another slogan - from our Prime Minister Holt - comes to mind:"All the way with LBJ!")

Brian old friend, you have had your ration of anatomical insults for this week (new week begins on Monday, Old Son!!).

Now I am going to have an early night and hope that the dawning of the (Oz) Sunday will be bright and sunny and that
the board will henceforth be a sea of peace and international co-operation.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:24 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ3Uvjv9lE

Barbie states this at approximately 6.08 on the video.

The consensus of all the authors who have written books about the case so far is that Raffaele Sollecito called 112 after the postal police arrived at the cottage.

John Follain claims the postal police entered the cottage shortly after 12.30pm.

Graham Johnson and Paul Russell, the authors of Darkness Descending, claim the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.34pm.

Gary King, who wrote The Murder of Meredith Kercher, states in his book that Raffaele Sollecito phoned 112 after the postal police turned up at the cottage.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:58 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I wantto meet Mignini.

Who is this man FOA grants the influence and power to control so many well educated legal minds of Italy?
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tiziano,

Right and Wrong ..... Legal and Illegal

The phrase you quote from the bible can also be interpreted as:

1. Everything belongs to God, so give everything to him.

2. Jewish opinion is that Jesus would never had said the phrase (he would be lynched if he preached paying taxes to Rome). Jewish opinion, and most scholars believe it was added later to help spread the gospel in the Greco/Roman world.

See ... an understanding of the case and the law based on religion is like an interpretation based on Nationalism or Feminism.

Italians defuse such a situation by joking that anyone pushing these interpretions are 'i talibani'

Life would be easier if everyone stopped to think 'I am being a bit of a Taliban on this'?

Leading scholars on the saying of jesus are:

Catholic Priest - John P Meier - 4 volumes of Jesus a Marginal Jew

Ex Nun - Karen Armstrong

Jewish rabbi - Lawerence Schiffman

Ex Evangelical - Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus - Recent suprise best seller

There are loads more, but you find amazingly little difference between their views

I love the subject.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your teaching experience would be helpful on this, if you've been asked before, sorry:

How would parents feel about having their kids taught by Edda ... who brought up a convicted murderer?. The PC response would be that Edda is not the criminal? but I think PC might go out of the window for parents?. Could the school fire her if parents where objecting?

I ask, not because I have any interest in the Pro and Con AK PR efforts ...... I think the case so far has proved they don't have much effect anyway (must ask Yummi what she thinks?) .... I don't care whether the family have money for PR .... but they have got to eat?


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
And probably now I'll be saying "never mind" like Roseanne Rosanna Danna.........


The late, great Gilda also created the wacky Roseanne, but "Never mind" was the catch phrase of the ever-confused, but endearing Emily Litella, famous for her advocacy of "violins on TV":

http://www.hulu.com/watch/2364/saturday ... lins-on-tv






(edited after watching the clip for the first time in a LONG time to correct my own faulty memory about Emily's concern!**and, of course, typos!**)

Thank you Bea! Has been a long time!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

So, Mignini crossed the line. This resulted in arrests and the murders stopped, no? Sometimes lines need to be crossed in order to get to the truth. My take on it was that was that he knew what he was doing when he was doing it with only one thought in mind. I am going to take his conviction with a grain of salt as it has no bearing on the Knox/Sollecito/Guede convictions. This only reinforces my belief that he is a man of great dignity and believes in truth and justice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tiziano:.

Your comments about the 'playground' getting rough were timely and well said.

Please indulge me for just a small correction and opinion from 'my side of the ocean.
I promise forever after try to strictly heed your (and Michael's) admirable admonitions against the futility and detrimental result of 'border wars' during our discussions here.

Correction:
The quote about 'over sexed...over here' that your friend repeated really had absolutely nothing germane to "gladiators" and VietNam.
Rather it had its origins in the "Mother Country" with the huge build-up of American boys for the D-Day Invasion (from which many of them never returned.)
Your friend was only about 3 decades decadent with that quote to rationalize his dissent that incidentally was not absent on my side of the ocean at the time.

Opinion:
Again, allow my nationalism for just a moment to remind those possibly too young to be cognizant of the momentous historical impact of those boys 'over here'.
My opinion is almost universally shared that if those as you say 'septic tanks' were not willing to make the Supreme sacrifice at Port Moresby as well as aforementioned Normandy and long after, you and *our* Mother Country may well now be speaking a different language and 'enduring' an entirely decidedly different and deficient level of the magnificent freedoms we all so treasure..

End Flag waving; thank you for patience, and no future parochial white caps from me on Tiziano's mutually appreciated and sought after 'sea of peace'.


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
So, Mignini crossed the line. This resulted in arrests and the murders stopped, no? Sometimes lines need to be crossed in order to get to the truth. My take on it was that was that he knew what he was doing when he was doing it with only one thought in mind. I am going to take his conviction with a grain of salt as it has no bearing on the Knox/Sollecito/Guede convictions. This only reinforces my belief that he is a man of great dignity and believes in truth and justice.


Dang. Where's Dirty Harry when you really need him?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

strano_cammino wrote:
Hi,

I posted this before but I'll just post it again in case anyone missed it the last time.

I will be in Perugia for a few days from tomorrow. If anyone needs pictures or anything else, please send me a PM.

Requests I got so far:

Picture of the place where Rudi bought his kebab, and a picture of Dempsey's bar.

Checking the possibility of hearing screams from Nara's house, checking how long it takes to get from Rudi's place and Rafaele's place to the cottage.

See how safe it is/feels around the cottage at night.

See if the walls to the place where the cell phones were found is open 24h a day.


If there is anything else, send me a PM. Considering I am with a friend who is not all that interested in this case, please don't make it anything too difficult or time-consuming because i don't want to bore her or have her thinking I'm crazy :p


Hi -

I would like to see a picture from the traffic lights Kokomani stopped at - towards the cottage (if you can find them). To get an impression of the distance Sollecito ran after Kokomani with his knife.

Also - did anyone ask to get a picture of the position AK and Sollecito were observing the cottage from right after the murder (I think where Curatolo the "tramp" observed them - was it the squash courts?). Also possibly the position where Curatolo was parked on his bench where AK and Soll. were waiting for some time early on in the night (possibly waiting for Guede - possibly waiting to buy drugs). Needs some research.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I thought they were temporary lights due to roadworks. They may be gone. (I may be wrong).
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: 112   

thoughtful wrote:

Manuela Comodi claims that the postal police arrived at 12:46. Let's accept this for a moment and see.


Ok.

Quote:
Battistelli and Marzi walk down the path to the garden. They never mentioned seeing Amanda phoning her mother, they said Amanda and Raffaele were standing in the garden. So maybe they arrived just as she was hanging up on her mother, so 12:48.


Two minutes is quite a long time to walk a garden path, especially if there are people visible at the end of it. Do you have a reason to believe that is a reasonable time for that journey?

Quote:
Then, Battistelli and Marzi talked with Amanda and Raffaele for enough time to explain why they were there, hear about the blood and the locked door, and get Amanda to write a post-it with Meredith's numbers on it. (Finn even said they were taken around the house, though this is not clear.) But less than five-six minutes for this activity seems impossible.


Yes.

Quote:
Yet at 12:51 Raffaele calls 112, and at 12:54, he not only calls 112 again but Amanda is standing behind him and her voice is heard on the recording telling him the address.


You omit his call to his sister at, I think, 12:50.

Quote:
What's happening here? Either Battistelli and Marzi are standing alone while Amanda and Raffaele are hiding to do this, or Battistelli and Marzi are watching them do it, or Marco and Luca have already arrived, say at 12:50, meaning that all of the initial discussion with Amanda and Raffaele, the post-it etc. happened in two minutes.


Yes

Quote:
None of this sounds possible.


Agreed

Quote:
I can't see how it can be otherwise than: postals arrive and talk for five-six minutes minimum, Marco and Luca arrive and find them in the kitchen standing over the post-it, Filomena and her friend Paola arrive a few minutes later, and Paola then sees Amanda and Raffaele coming out of Amanda's room. But if police arrival time in the street is 12:46 and down at the cottage is 12:48 (they didn't see Amanda's phone call to her mother), one just has to add up the minutes...


Agreed

Quote:
Fiona asks about the call to headquarters at 13:00. What actually happened at 13:00 is that Meredith's second phone was activated at headquarters. It is not stated why this happened. Finn made the assumption that it happened because Filomena had returned home already and told the postal police about the second phone. My guess is that it happened because when Amanda wrote Meredith's two numbers on a post-it, Battistelli used his own phone to call Meredith's second number. However, it could be something else, police at headquarters simply turned it on for example.


Ok

Quote:
Fiona also points out that nothing in the CCTV camera pictures shows her that the black Fiat Punto and the men who appear with it are police, but we know that the postals had a car of that make and color and were ununiformed. It was accepted by all that they were the ones filmed. Only the real meaning of the time marked on the CCTV camera was in dispute.


Well if it was accepted by all there must be more to that footage than I can see. It is not possible to say they were polce from the pictures: it is not possible to say that they were in the car. The legend has to actually say that the apparent colour of the clothes is an artefact of the lighting, since that is not even what is actually seen. And of course the footage is black and white so colour cannot be known. I am afraid I can find no reason to accept this footage is what it purports to be.

To me it causes insurmountable problems for just the reasons you give. We have two options: if we accept that this is indeed what is claimed, then we must say the police arrived when the camera shows that they did. Since the camera is not accurate as to time we must infer the real time from other events: but it seems most likely (based on the arrival of the Carabiniere which can be clearly seen) that it was about 10 minutes slow. This puts the arrival of the Postal police at about 12:46. It means all that you have already outlined. It means the police were wrong about their time of arrival; it means Luca and his friend were also wrong; it means Filomena and her friend were also wrong; and it means that the times of the calls to AK's mother, RS's sister, and the Carabiniere were also wrong. As was the 1:00 pm contact with the police station. Or we can reject the footage as showing the arrival of the postal police. In short we can say one thing is wrong or many things are wrong. Since I see no compelling reason in the footage itself to accept the legend which accompanies it, I go for the former. That seems logical to me
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

According to Graham Johnson and Paul Russell, Dr. Stefanoni found Amanda Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra.

Sollecito forensic expert Professor Vinci also found Amanda Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra and apparently, so did Vincenzo Pascali, who was Sollecito's chief forensic consultant before he walked off the case.

It seems that Dr. Stefanoni believes that the mixed samples of Amanda Knox's blood and Meredith's blood proves that they were bleeding at the same time.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: 112   

thoughtful wrote:
ttrroonniicc suggests that Amanda and Raffaele called police in a panic when they saw a police car searching outside. That might be a very good idea, only how could they have recognized the black Fiat Punto as a police car? ttrroonniicc also says the postal police found them coming out of a room, but that is wrong, they were standing in the garden (just straightening out facts).


Being italian I would think that Sollecito would have recognised two people in uniforms driving up and down looking for the place in their small plain car (which I would think that anyone who was italian would recognise as being "postal police") while one of them was talking on his radio - from the (elevated?) position of a cottage window.

Where did the story of them disappearing into a side room originate from? Recently here it has been said they never left the sight of the postal police within the cottage after their discovery.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
According to Graham Johnson and Paul Russell, Dr. Stefanoni found Amanda Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra.

Sollecito forensic expert Professor Vinci also found Amanda Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra and apparently, so did Vincenzo Pascali, who was Sollecito's chief forensic consultant before he walked off the case.

It seems that Dr. Stefanoni believes that the mixed samples of Amanda Knox's blood and Meredith's blood proves that they were bleeding at the same time.


This is something which has puzzled me. Did those two test the bra separately taking samples themselves? If they did when did they do that? If not did they independently test samples collected by Stefanoni's team. If the latter how did Stefanoni not find this too? How big were the samples? If they were big enough to attribute I am confused as to how they found them and Stefanoni did not? I have asked about this before because I have not been able to find any information about this apart from the bare assertion. Can you shed any light?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

One of the most lucrative movie series in US was "Lethal Weapon" (4), starring Mel Gibson & Danny Glover. Total was $1 Billion.

It was about unorthodox, mostly illegal procedures by police officers. Those guys were heroes.

Interesting paradox.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: 112   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Being italian I would think that Sollecito would have recognised two people in uniforms driving up and down looking for the place in their small plain car (which I would think that anyone who was italian would recognise as being "postal police") while one of them was talking on his radio - from the (elevated?) position of a cottage window.


Except that they were not in uniform. How common are black punto's in Italy? Why is this house hard to find once you are in the street? It seems to stand alone. I can see finding the street as a problem but having arrived there what is the problem?

Quote:
Where did the story of them disappearing into a side room originate from? Recently here it has been said they never left the sight of the postal police within the cottage after their discovery.


Filomena and Paola said they came out of the room just when they arrived, I believe
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:

This is something which has puzzled me. Did those two test the bra separately taking samples themselves? If they did when did they do that? If not did they independently test samples collected by Stefanoni's team. If the latter how did Stefanoni not find this too? How big were the samples? If they were big enough to attribute I am confused as to how they found them and Stefanoni did not? I have asked about this before because I have not been able to find any information about this apart from the bare assertion. Can you shed any light?


Hi Fiona,

The best person to ask about the DNA evidence is Nicki.

I don't think Professor Vinci and Vincenzo Pascali took separate samples, but compared the genetic profiles found on the bra with the genetic profiles of Meredith, Knox, Sollecito and Guede.

Dr. Stefanoni described the amount of Sollecito's DNA as "abundant". I believe there were over 200 of his cells (1.4 ng) on the clasp and that Knox's profile was "partial".
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: 112   

Fiona wrote:
Except that they were not in uniform. How common are black punto's in Italy? Why is this house hard to find once you are in the street? It seems to stand alone. I can see finding the street as a problem but having arrived there what is the problem?


OK I mis-read that thoughtful had stated they were in uniform. I would think that because they were driving up and down looking for the place - one of them on a radio - that Sollecito in his heightened state of paranoia would have instantly recognised them as police -- a clean plain modern dark car zipping up and down (would look like "officialdom") - also how many times do you see two fully grown men looking busy in such a small car - and police not in uniform still *look* like police. Also - they were obviously seeking the cottage - not realising the cottage was set back from the road with the entrance some distance away from it. The impression is that they were looking for the place for quite some time.

Fiona wrote:
Filomena and Paola said they came out of the room just when they arrived, I believe


That's quite incredible - did they go into the room and close the door .... did they give the postal police a reason for their disappearance? Was this when they made phone calls? I don't think so - I think they had made their calls as the postal police got there - making calls while they were there would have been too obvious - would have taken too much time. I think they may have gone into the side room briefly (to smooch and conspire) and did not make any calls from there.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

It's quite clear that Raffaele Sollecito called 112 after the postal police arrived at the cottage. I'd like to know the reason why Sollecito phoned 112 twice.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
Fiona wrote:

This is something which has puzzled me. Did those two test the bra separately taking samples themselves? If they did when did they do that? If not did they independently test samples collected by Stefanoni's team. If the latter how did Stefanoni not find this too? How big were the samples? If they were big enough to attribute I am confused as to how they found them and Stefanoni did not? I have asked about this before because I have not been able to find any information about this apart from the bare assertion. Can you shed any light?


Hi Fiona,

The best person to ask about the DNA evidence is Nicki.

I don't think Professor Vinci and Vincenzo Pascali took separate samples, but compared the genetic profiles found on the bra with the genetic profiles of Meredith, Knox, Sollecito and Guede.

Dr. Stefanoni described the amount of Sollecito's DNA as "abundant". I believe there were over 200 of his cells (1.4 ng) on the clasp and that Knox's profile was "partial".


Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was as you say. But I am not sure that is what Vinci and Pascali are talking about. As I understand it they are talking about the body of the bra itself. Though this is a little unclear as well.

It matters because if there were partial profiles insufficient to be attributed then it is reasonable to assume those represent traces which arise from common living/washing. If they are partials, but sufficient to be attributed then one would perhaps expect Laura and Filomena's dna to be there in similar amount. So if Knox's dna is on the bra in quantities much greater than Laura's and Filmena's that seems to me to imply she handled it, rather than passive transfer. But then I cannot understand why they found it but Stefanoni did not: because she would be comparing what was found with the profiles she had and Knox's profile must have been one of those. I do not know much about this so I am looking for help here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I have obviously missed something which you have all been aware of: can anyone tell me off the top of their heads why the postal police were in an unmarked car? Is this usual ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ3Uvjv9lE

Barbie states this at approximately 6.08 on the video.


Barbie also says how they were "shocked and surprised" when they saw the police at the gate to the cottage. You know, this is something to die for. I would love to see the look in their eyes in that specific moment...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was as you say. But I am not sure that is what Vinci and Pascali are talking about. As I understand it they are talking about the body of the bra itself. Though this is a little unclear as well.


I'm pretty certain that they are referring to the bra clasp.

Fiona wrote:
But then I cannot understand why they found it but Stefanoni did not.


According to Darkness Descending, Dr. Stefanoni found on Meredith's DNA on Meredith's bra. It was also claimed on a NBC Dateline documentary in 2008 thar Knox's DNA was on the bra.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was as you say. But I am not sure that is what Vinci and Pascali are talking about. As I understand it they are talking about the body of the bra itself. Though this is a little unclear as well.


I'm pretty certain that they are referring to the bra clasp.


Perhaps

Quote:
Fiona wrote:
But then I cannot understand why they found it but Stefanoni did not.


According to Darkness Descending, Dr. Stefanoni found on Meredith's DNA on Meredith's bra. It was also claimed on a NBC Dateline documentary in 2008 thar Knox's DNA was on the bra.


She testified that she found both Meredith's and RS's dna on the clasp in a ratio of 6:1. That does not really help me with this though I appreciate your response, the Machine
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ3Uvjv9lE

Barbie states this at approximately 6.08 on the video.


Barbie also says how they were "shocked and surprised" when they saw the police at the gate to the cottage. You know, this is something to die for. I would love to see the look in their eyes in that specific moment...


I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ3Uvjv9lE

Barbie states this at approximately 6.08 on the video.


Barbie also says how they were "shocked and surprised" when they saw the police at the gate to the cottage. You know, this is something to die for. I would love to see the look in their eyes in that specific moment...


I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


And i believe that this is exactly what makes this case that interesting. The surroundings, the mystery...the door, the calls, their versions, the evidence, the criticism of FOA and praise from all the people who knew the actual evidence. I can go on like this.

again, the look on their faces must have been priceless. Imagine, you're just cleaing up the murder scene, got the whole plan on when you call the police and stuff, and then, all of the sudden, the police is coming, from nowhere. It must have been shocking.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
It's quite clear that Raffaele Sollecito called 112 after the postal police arrived at the cottage. I'd like to know the reason why Sollecito phoned 112 twice.


He was asked to call back. This is probably because the police he called knew that police were already on their way (I would be sure that the calling systems of the postal police and the normal police are centralised). The timing of the calls I think is of importance ... the fact is that RS called the police *around* the time of the arrival of the postals. He had known about a "situation" at the cottage for quite some time (AK had been to the cottage back to his apartment, then they had walked back to the cottage). How long they were there is in dispute. The fact he called the police *around* the time of the arrival of the postals is suspicious in itself (out of all the time that morning - why then?). I am pretty certain now that he did panic and call 112 upon seeing an approach to the house which he suspected straight away was officialdom (in his state of heightening terror and heightened paranoia).

I feel this is all getting ridiculous (why dispute it - they are guilty) but it is fascinating to analyse detail in itself and there will be an appeal. The postals upon arrival discovered the washing machine running with items belonging to the victim in it. Around the story of the "mop" - RS was extremely intoxicated the night before and had flooded his kitchen somewhat to get rid of all the traces of blood (when they washed the knife in his sink - "out darn'd spot"). I still don't understand why they introduced the story of the mop - was it in some way to cover the usage of the mop at the cottage? Was the mop from the apartment of RS?
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?


The only thing we can be sure of is that she lies.
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
"The only thing we can be sure of is that she lies."
Or as I posted previously - how the Germans described Leni Riefenstahl (maker of Hitler propaganda docs) - "She only lies when her mouth is open."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Machine,

So this is quite consistent with my senario:

Meredith waits until Guede is in the bathroom, MK starts rowing with AK for e.g. 'bringing that creep around' i.e. Guede, who I think 'tried it on' with MK, believing that since RS was with AK, he was 'entitled' to MK. Seen it a hundred times, with guys like RG. The prosecution mentioned in their summing up the possiblity of Guede's presence being the trigger. This 'entitlement' idea may seem strange to someone who has not seen it, but with guys like Guede, it is the same as if he has been buying a girl drinks all night, then he assumes that she is going home with him, if she goes home with someone else ..... well we have another 'cultural difference' which triggers lots of sexual and non sexual violence. The girl usually makes it worse, by not staying calm but insulting the guy more.

I'm sure the jury understood this is likely. Anyway:

AK and MK start fighting

MK marks AK's neck and face, also rips out one or two of AK's earrings (hence the mixed blood)

AK is hair pulling (girl fighting) with one hand and smashes MK's head, either into a wall, or on the floor. Micheli seems to believe that the hand 'imprint' on MK's face is Knox's?.

Now MK is barely concious, which explains why she didn't appear to be able to fight back as much as expected?

RS initially tries to pull them apart, RG rushes from the bathroom, enraged by what Meredith said.

RS drags AK away

Guede drags MK into the bedroom, beats her before attempting to rape and sodomize her .... as they say 'in anger'. Rape, is more about anger and control than about sex?. Guede holds MK's left arm from behind with his left hand (hence the bruising), she is too stunned to fight back enough. When she screams, he takes his knife from his pocket, and stabs her 3 times in the throat. Maybe there was a fair interval between the first two stabs and the final stab to silence her?.

Where is RS? ........ depends if you believe that his animal porn, manga comics etc. suggests he would have followed MK and RG into the bedroom to hold down MK, or that he 'did his bit' by restraining/calming AK. The lack of hair, DNA etc from AK and RS in the bedroom suggests niether was involved in the struggle in the bedroom.

I think they ran in panic when they realised that a knife had been used, perhaps they ran when RG threaten them?.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knowing that they were in deep trouble, after returning to RS's flat (computer activity at 0100?) ... they returned to the house.

They took the double DNA knife for protection in case Guede was still around, made the stupid decision to try and cover up their involvement. (A couple heard rowing at 0145 I think, at the house).

In the bedroom, they used the knife to cut off MK's bra, getting blood, cells, DNA or whatever, on it in the process. AK may have left a footprint on the bed, but that was never proved, the print was midway between MK and AK's foot sizes.

The rest we know

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This senario explains not just the evidence, and the lack of evidence against AK and RS in the bedroom, but the thing that triggered the crime. It makes sense to me of a lot of other things. Even that essay AK was supposed to have written from jail .... if she did write it. She seems to be guilty about someone being unconcious and her not helping .... letting the death occur, rather than being responsible for it?

This senario doesn't need a sociopathic, mentally disturbed Knox. If she has been diagnosed with any of these conditions, I've not heard about it.

This senario doesn't need any great hostility to have built up between AK and MK. All we have is a minor domestic issue that was resolved by organising a cleaning rota. Meredith had lived the student life for three years, she would have known it takes a little time to organise who takes out the rubbish etc. The Italian girls would have organised themselves on the first day. Both AK and MK were having the time of there lives.

What the senario does need is a guy like Guede. I bet Filomena and Laura would never have let him over the threshold.


Last edited by kevin on Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: At a loss   

Why anyone would need directions


Taken on November 1, 2007
“Assurdo! Perugia”, by mikko'10 [ Flickr ]

mikko10 wrote:

This sign is at the exit of one of Perugia’s sottovias where you exit at 50 km/h (if you respect the city speed limits), but explain to me how you can decipher it in 3 seconds?
Bizarre!



Besides this, a quick look at the [ Perugia Council Ordinances ] shows there was a lot of roadworks (both scheduled, and emergency) going on (gas and water pipes, laying bitumen, etc) where the traffic conditions were changed to one-way etc.

On top of that, the Eurochocolate traffic regulations had just ceased operation and the All Saints' Fair (Fiera dei Morti) ones were in force.

I'm not surprised at least one person needed directions, depending on which way they were coming in. And someone who doesn't get out much - like a forensic pathologist, perhaps?



Examples, just to get a flavour:

There were urgent works in Via Baldeschi, for example (finishing whenever).


or gas pipe works near the Minimetro station down the hillside (22-October to 3-November)


and a whole bunch of stuff starting on 30-October:


Michael,
These PDFview switches are handy!
Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:11 pm   Post subject: Getting there   

Ttrronniicc,

For traffic lights, check out “Via Pergola, 06122 Perugia, Umbria, Italy” on GoogleMaps, and click around the city.

There’s a traffic light on Via della Pergola itself, west of the cottage, controlling access through the one-car-wide Bulagaio Gate.

Kokomani’s traffic lights (at Piazza Grimana, where the University is) are at the end of Via Scortici.


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

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Machine,


Guede drags MK into the bedroom, beats her before attempting to rape and sodomize her .... as they say 'in anger'. Rape, as they, say is more about anger and control than about sex?. Guede holds MK's left arm from behind with his left hand (hence the bruising), she is too stunned to fight back enough, when she screams, he takes his knife from his back pocket, and stabs her 3 times in the throat. Maybe therewas a fair internal between the first two stabs and the final stab to silence her?.



So RS and AK are innocent of the murder, so why are they protecting RG wh-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
I feel this is all getting ridiculous (why dispute it - they are guilty) but it is fascinating to analyse detail in itself and there will be an appeal. The postals upon arrival discovered the washing machine running with items belonging to the victim in it. Around the story of the "mop" - RS was extremely intoxicated the night before and had flooded his kitchen somewhat to get rid of all the traces of blood (when they washed the knife in his sink - "out darn'd spot"). I still don't understand why they introduced the story of the mop - was it in some way to cover the usage of the mop at the cottage? Was the mop from the apartment of RS?



I thought the washing machine was stopped? but suspected to have been recently used?

Trying to see these PDFs, Catnip. is there something I am missing on this MAC?
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fiona wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?


Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/ wherein Sollecito first floated his "we were at a party" alibi. What ARROGANCE! A claim SO easily disproved. Did he REALLY think he would be so far above suspicion that no one would question his word?

It's also VERY interesting to be reminded of how his story of the morning in this article differs in some important ways from Amanda's version and, of course, his own later versions:


Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."




RS says: Amanda immediately saw blood and didn't want to go into the house alone (never mind HOW she could have gone "into the bathroom" and seen the blood and yet NOT gone "into the house alone")
AK says: She didn't see the blood at all, took a shower, brought the mop to RS's and only mentioned "weirdness" at the cottage over their late-morning meal.

This RS says: "We went into Filomena's room after seeing blood in the bathroom"
Later RS says: "I noticed Filomena's open door first thing."

RS says: Amanda was worried b/c Meredith's door was locked.
AK says: I wasn't worried b/c Meredith always locks her door when she's away.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Who's there?   

kevin wrote:
The prosecution mentioned in their summing up the possiblity of Guede's presence being the trigger.


Rudy "explained" his "deposit" in the toilet being left there unflushed because he was surprised by a scream after Meredith and Amanda were talking in English after Meredith said (in one version) to Amanda: "We need to talk".


Alternative "explanation" of why Rudy was surprised while sitting on the throne, and accepting his story a little bit:

  • He was asleep/waiting for his cue/jiving away on the iPod/Smoking?
  • Meredith discovers him there ("Ew!", i.e., another man, as in "This is the last straw!")
  • Rudy jumps up, runs, falls over because pants not done up, as per story
  • Meredith says to Amanda: "We need to talk"
  • Rudy sees his opportunity (whatever it was) slipping away
  • Meredith, putting two and two together, looks in her bedside drawer, discovers missing rent money
  • etc

Other alternatives are also possible.
Top Profile 

Offline vassil01


Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:51 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Patzu wrote:
kevin wrote:
Machine,


Guede drags MK into the bedroom, beats her before attempting to rape and sodomize her .... as they say 'in anger'. Rape, as they, say is more about anger and control than about sex?. Guede holds MK's left arm from behind with his left hand (hence the bruising), she is too stunned to fight back enough, when she screams, he takes his knife from his back pocket, and stabs her 3 times in the throat. Maybe therewas a fair internal between the first two stabs and the final stab to silence her?.



So RS and AK are innocent of the murder, so why are they protecting RG wh-)


This is an very interesting and plausible version of events. A couple of variations are possible: that AK decided to borrow/steal from MK to pay Guede. I don't envisage MK and AK starting a physical fight over bringing Guede into the house. While AK and MK starting fighting over money and the other issues between them Guede got involved and MK said something to Guede: 'loser' etc.. Guede grabbed her partially to separate them and partly out of anger and dragged her into the bedroom. Guede probably cut himself while attacking MK. I think it likely RS and AK were outside the bedroom and when they heard the scream AK freaked out , RS went in and said: 'what the F*** have you done?' Guede threatened him with the knife and AK and RS fled.

I don't think AK and RS are protecting Guede but wanted to get off without any punishment-any involvement in this they probably both realised would be very damaging to their 'rich-kid' lives and self-perceptions. AK knew she was involved in starting the fight and was there and didn't stop RG, and once she had persuaded RS to clean up and stage the break-in they both attempted to get acquitted of all charges and deny any involvement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:38 pm   Post subject: PDF   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:

Trying to see these PDFs, Catnip. is there something I am missing on this MAC?


Don't know. Michael may. Send him a PM.
It may be browser related.
I'm using Firefox.

In the meantime, try the direct links:
[ link ]
[ link ]
[ link ]


They're just chosen at random from the Council Ordinance archive:
[ Perugia Council Ordinances ]
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
My senario explains not just the evidence, and the lack of evidence against AK and RS in the bedroom, but the thing that triggered the crime. It makes sense to me of a lot of other things. Even that essay AK was supposed to have written from jail .... if she did write it. She seems to be guilty about someone being unconcious and her not helping .... letting the death occur, rather than being responsible for it?


Hi Kevin,

Your scenario doesn't explain why Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones at approximately the same time shortly before Meredith was killed. This is highly unusual and suspicious behaviour. There was no evidence of a similar "blackout" of Knox's and Sollecito’s mobile phones in the month before the murder.

Two knives were used in the attack on Meredith and there is no evidence directly linking Guede to using either of them.

The smaller knife was used to cause two smaller wounds on Meredith's neck. Preliminary judge Claudia Matteini noted that Meredith's killers derived some strange enjoyment from her suffering.

The Violent Crimes Unit reconstructed what they think happened after analysing the crime scene and the autopsy reports. They believe that Meredith was attacked by Knox, Sollecito and Guede at the same time.

They concluded from the blood splatter analysis on the wardrobe, Meredith must have been forced onto her knees when the fatal blow was inflicted.

They also believe that she was being restrained when she was stabbed. There was bruising on her left and right elbows, and her right forearm. There was lots of blood on Meredith's left hand, so she must have grabbed her throat after she had been stabbed. However, there was almost no blood on her right hand, which indicates that she was still being restrained when she fell to the floor.

There were four instances of Guede's DNA in Meredith's room, one instance of Sollecito's DNA and one instance of Amanda Knox's DNA. Meredith was subjected to prolonged and brutal attack. There were 47 separate wounds on her body. Surprisingly, there was only instance of someone's DNA on her body, which belonged to Guede.

The woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow must have belonged to Amanda Knox. It was compatible with her foot size. It incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

There was no human activity on Sollecito's computer at 1.00am.

You haven't explained why Knox and Sollecito returned to the cottage with the double DNA knife to cut off Meredith's bra or why they walked round in bare feet in Meredith's blood.

Amanda Knox was probably telling the truth when stated the following:

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


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Highly unlikely they would have attempted a clean up after someone else's crime. They had their phones and would have called the police
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Patzu,

Once they started lying, they just kept digging a bigger and bigger hole. Any 'protecting Guede' and each other is merely self interest. Once they were made offically suspects, their lawyers told them to keep quiet. Mignini says he was within a whisker of getting the truth from Knox, but her lawyer threaten to walk off the case if she said another word. RS had already dropped Knox in it. Without a lawyer, I'm sure he would have talked.

As each day passed, and the families became involved it just meant that they were in a bigger hole .... how could they tell their families all? Also, RS was arrogant enough to tell his dad that the Police are 'stupid' .... he thought they could get away with it completely. Knox was heard saying to him 'I don't think I can keep this up much longer' before the arrest, I believe.

Once the lawyers were involved, the game changed. Had it been in their interests, I'm sure any off the three would have talked.

We are told that even some Knox family members think she knows more than she is saying, but I think they are deluded if they think they can get a big reduction in the sentence, if any, at this late stage. Yummi might know?


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

My picture of Guede is obviously different from the one kevin has. What is the basis for him "being a guy like.." this?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline vassil01


Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:51 am

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Highly unlikely they would have attempted a clean up after someone else's crime. They had their phones and would have called the police

Yes, but they only attempted to clean up their being in the house not actually clean up. And to stage a one-man break in and sex murder which they thought would lead to the police looking for a lone male intruder rather than admitting any involvement. A foolish plan but at that stage they may have mistakenly thought that was their best option at the time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Also - did anyone ask to get a picture of the position AK and Sollecito were observing the cottage from right after the murder (I think where Curatolo the "tramp" observed them - was it the squash courts?). Also possibly the position where Curatolo was parked on his bench where AK and Soll. were waiting for some time early on in the night (possibly waiting for Guede - possibly waiting to buy drugs). Needs some research.


I'm sure I've seen that photo somewhere in the last month, either here or on TJMK, but I can't be more precise than that - I think it shows the railing at the edge of the basketball courts and the street & cottage below - not sure if that's the angle you're looking for.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I am sorry but that scenario strikes me as absurd.

I cannot even begin to imagine a physical fight between AK and MK for so little cause. Even if AK was drunk/stoned etc MK was not. MK could fight if reports of her martial arts training are correct: but along with that goes a certain amount of self disciipline and everything I have read suggests that Meredith was a reasonably calm and disciplined person

I cannot think that Guede could be so enraged by anything Meredith said to induce him to rush out of the toilet and violently assault a half conscious person. And then to attempt rape. And then to stab with two knives? What is there in the little we know of him to mark his as that kind of nutter? He has not even got the "rape prank" in his background nor the violent pornography. He is the least likely of these three to go mad in this way on the basis of what we know. I cannot help but wonder whether class and/or race make this seem plausible to some. Or are there facts in Guede's background I am not aware of?

Even if I accept all of that, however, I cannot see any reason whatsoever for what RS and AK do next on this scenario. Nothing. At. All.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
I feel this is all getting ridiculous (why dispute it - they are guilty) but it is fascinating to analyse detail in itself and there will be an appeal. The postals upon arrival discovered the washing machine running with items belonging to the victim in it. Around the story of the "mop" - RS was extremely intoxicated the night before and had flooded his kitchen somewhat to get rid of all the traces of blood (when they washed the knife in his sink - "out darn'd spot"). I still don't understand why they introduced the story of the mop - was it in some way to cover the usage of the mop at the cottage? Was the mop from the apartment of RS?



I thought the washing machine was stopped? but suspected to have been recently used?

Trying to see these PDFs, Catnip. is there something I am missing on this MAC?


I became obsessed with the washing machine for several days. Yes, it was stopped when the police arrived, & the contents inside (Meredith's) were damp. Much confusion in the English-speaking world arose from Filomena's later testimony that the contents of the washer were "umido," which means only "damp" but somewhere got mis-translated as implying warm & damp (related to "humid"). I don't think there was anything to indicate whether the contents had been washed that morning or the night before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Quote:
Machine, So this is quite consistent with my senario:
Meredith waits until Guede is in the bathroom . . . . .
. . . blah, blah, blah . .
. . . . . Both AK and MK were having the time of there lives.
What the senario does need is a guy like Guede. I bet Filomena and Laura would never have let him over the threshold.

I'm not sure what the point is with all these elaborate concoctions that absolve RS and AK of responsibility for the crime - oh wait, maybe that is the point!
It's very simple - we have three people who have no credible alibi, they lie frequently, there is evidence of their presence at the crime scene, and one has knowledge of the events unknown to the police at that time (ie. multiple killers, African participant, nature of wounds and slowness/pain of death).
All of the above (plus much else) points to the full participation of all three in the actual act, and none of their subsequent behavior makes any sense if they were not.


Last edited by tigerfish on Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
Fiona wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?


Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/ wherein Sollecito first floated his "we were at a party" alibi. What ARROGANCE! A claim SO easily disproved. Did he REALLY think he would be so far above suspicion that no one would question his word?

It's also VERY interesting to be reminded of how his story of the morning in this article differs in some important ways from Amanda's version and, of course, his own later versions:


Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."




RS says: Amanda immediately saw blood and didn't want to go into the house alone (never mind HOW she could have gone "into the bathroom" and seen the blood and yet NOT gone "into the house alone")
AK says: She didn't see the blood at all, took a shower, brought the mop to RS's and only mentioned "weirdness" at the cottage over their late-morning meal.

This RS says: "We went into Filomena's room after seeing blood in the bathroom"
Later RS says: "I noticed Filomena's open door first thing."

RS says: Amanda was worried b/c Meredith's door was locked.
AK says: I wasn't worried b/c Meredith always locks her door when she's away.



The silent Raffaele.

I have been most interested of his tales recently. Some of this is only "as reported by the media per the police that were involved with the interrogation..." etc..etc..

In other words, its his Diary statements that seem to be the most credible.imo.

The Diaries are surely his words we can read, where as much of the other Raffaele statements are 2nd or 3rd hand at least, I have realized.

Transcripts of the Interrogation would be most interesting, or even transcripts during Mignini's questioning of the the three accused would be interesting.

The interrogation and questioing is a big black hole for the readers.

I was watching numerous interrogation videos last night, and also stumbled across Lizzie Bordensdocuments. (the famous axe murder mystery http://lizzieandrewborden.com/pdf%20fil ... nquest.pdf ).

A mind-boggling fact is even in the 1800's there is a complete transcript of her two questioning sessions/ inquest.

So its hard to believe there isn't some kind of transcript, video, audio of this Perugia interrogation somewhere in 2007-2008?
Especially with today's technology, it would be odd there is nothing documenting this interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele.

They had been wire tapping/eavesdropping, they had been questioning them.
Nov 2 questioning went on from at least 12:30 to 5am, resumed on Nov 3 at 11am lasting to 7pmapprox, and then the Nov 5-6 leading to arrest was not a initial session.

Was none of this questioning recorded or documented?
Or maybe its confidential until the Appeals are over?

Especially to read what Raffaele said first hand. Oh well...maybe he'll talk in the Appeal?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Bea wrote:
Fiona wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?


Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/ wherein Sollecito first floated his "we were at a party" alibi. What ARROGANCE! A claim SO easily disproved. Did he REALLY think he would be so far above suspicion that no one would question his word?

It's also VERY interesting to be reminded of how his story of the morning in this article differs in some important ways from Amanda's version and, of course, his own later versions:


Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."




RS says: Amanda immediately saw blood and didn't want to go into the house alone (never mind HOW she could have gone "into the bathroom" and seen the blood and yet NOT gone "into the house alone")
AK says: She didn't see the blood at all, took a shower, brought the mop to RS's and only mentioned "weirdness" at the cottage over their late-morning meal.

This RS says: "We went into Filomena's room after seeing blood in the bathroom"
Later RS says: "I noticed Filomena's open door first thing."

RS says: Amanda was worried b/c Meredith's door was locked.
AK says: I wasn't worried b/c Meredith always locks her door when she's away.



The silent Raffaele.

I have been most interested of his tales recently. Some of this is only "as reported by the media per the police that were involved with the interrogation..." etc..etc..

In other words, its his Diary statements that seem to be the most credible.imo.

The Diaries are surely his words we can read, where as much of the other Raffaele statements are 2nd or 3rd hand at least, I have realized.

Transcripts of the Interrogation would be most interesting, or even transcripts during Mignini's questioning of the the three accused would be interesting.

The interrogation and questioing is a big black hole for the readers.

I was watching numerous interrogation videos last night, and also stumbled across Lizzie Bordensdocuments. (the famous axe murder mystery http://lizzieandrewborden.com/pdf%20fil ... nquest.pdf ).

A mind-boggling fact is even in the 1800's there is a complete transcript of her two questioning sessions/ inquest.

So its hard to believe there isn't some kind of transcript, video, audio of this Perugia interrogation somewhere in 2007-2008?
Especially with today's technology, it would be odd there is nothing documenting this interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele.

They had been wire tapping/eavesdropping, they had been questioning them.
Nov 2 questioning went on from at least 12:30 to 5am, resumed on Nov 3 at 11am lasting to 7pmapprox, and then the Nov 5-6 leading to arrest was not a initial session.

Was none of this questioning recorded or documented?
Or maybe its confidential until the Appeals are over?

Especially to read what Raffaele said first hand. Oh well...maybe he'll talk in the Appeal?



Just to be clear, the article I referenced was an interview Sollecito did with reporter Kate Mansey and quotes him directly, not "as reported by the media per the police..." This is what makes it so interesting. It is one of the few times we hear directly from RS himself. Here is a article where Mansey describes the circumstances of the interview: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1 (published about a week after her interview with him and AFTER he'd become as suspect-- which he was NOT when she interviewed him for the initial article.)


(edited for typo)
Top Profile 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jools wrote:
More Mignini quotes on today's ruling.

A police officer and a prosecutor investigating the case of the monster of Florence were sentenced today by the court in the Tuscan capital for having illegally investigated journalists and police officers whom in their view were critical of the way they conducted the investigation.
Michele Giuttari, a police officer and head of the investigative serial killings group, who took over the Monster of Florence case, and Giuliano Mignini, who was the lead public prosecutor in the investigation into the death of British student Meredith Kercher, were convicted by the court in Florence for abuse of office converging with each other, repectively to one year and six months to one year and four months and interdiction from public office.

"I failed to see any abuse in my activity," said Mignini, adding that he will appeal the ruling after reading the (motivazione) reasons.
"This was an investigative activity judicially validated by the GIP (investigating magistrate judge) court and never objected. Among other things, the positions of the suspects have been archived at my request in some cases with ‘formula dubitativa’ ((Jools: insufficient prove)). Therefore I do not understand what would have constituted the abuse.”

The two were responsible for investigations carried out with wiretaps on journalists and police officers that according to the prosecution had a critical take with regard to inquiries about the case of Francesco Narducci, a doctor from Perugia involved in the case of the monster of Florence.

"As for the wiretaps and other investigative activity I deemed them relevant to the investigations we were completing and I still say that I would do the same again”, explained Mignini, who also contested the site of the proceedings: "This process should not be in Florence. There is a clear violation of Article 11 because also involved are Florentine magistrates. There is, therefore, an obvious incompetence of the office of prosecution."

Mignini and Giuttari They were cleared with the ‘formula piena’ ((Jools: full acquittal –did not occur-)) because the fact of a second similar allegation did not occur, that pertaining to alleged parallel investigations that they conducted on the Genoa prosecutor, who in turn was investigating Giuttari for forgery.
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/reuters/agenzia/11860/


Back to Mignini - I still haven't been able to get my mind around all of the details, so I can't come to any conclusions as to how significant this might be.

It's been stated that the facts are not in dispute. However, I believe that has to do only with the charges involving the Genoa prosecutor. I want to repeat this part of Jools' helpful post above -

"I failed to see any abuse in my activity," said Mignini, adding that he will appeal the ruling after reading the (motivazione) reasons.
"This was an investigative activity judicially validated by the GIP (investigating magistrate judge) court and never objected. Among other things, the positions of the suspects have been archived at my request in some cases with ‘formula dubitativa’ ((Jools: insufficient prove)). Therefore I do not understand what would have constituted the abuse.”

because, while I don't completely understand it, it seems to indicate the Mignini still does dispute some of the facts. In his reference to "judicially validated by the GIP (investigating magistrate judge) court and never objected", he seems to be implying that he did follow proper procedure in what he did, & that will form the basis for his appeal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:10 pm   Post subject: Heavy enough for a gorilla   

SomeAlibi,

Consistency in the application of the law is a good thing. Everyone is treated the same way.

I’ve noticed that interesting things start to happen when retroactive interpretations of what the law is/was start creeping into the picture. That's what makes Administrative Law so fascinating.

By way of a side-track that isn’t really:

As a Police Minister once said: “No-one will forget the image of Chook Fowler being caught red-handed accepting bribes” – [ NSW Parliament Hansard ] Legislative Assembly, 2 May 2000, page 4971, on the topic of “Police Internal Affairs Investigations”

Chookie was a former chief of detectives, and he had the unfortunate timing to be filmed in what was by then considered to be an unethical situation.

I think it was that particular video (but my memory may be faulty here) that introduced the term “gorilla” and its meaning (=a thousand dollars) to wider society.


The Herald’s overview of the aftermath of the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption back in the late 90s, sounds very much like the other side of the coin to the Florence decision against Mignini and co: [ Sydney Morning Herald ] 08 June 2007.


When I went on a tour of HMAS Vampire at the National Maritime Museum here at Darling Harbour in Sydney one holidays, at the end of the tour, an American tourist (with girlfriend), based no doubt on honourable intentions and as is the custom and experience of his own country, tried to thank the tour guide (a retired seadog) by surreptitiously palming him a $5 or $10 note or similar, to which the reply by the tour guide was a refusal, and that he (the tour guide) couldn’t, and wasn’t allowed to, accept tips, because it wasn’t policy, or, in the well-publicised words that came to my mind while he was explaining: “that way lies corruption”.

When you mentioned (as I recall), way back at the start, that you knew it was common practice for the (London?) police to (unofficially) know the phone numbers of various suitable defence lawyers and call them in at any time of the day or night, my ethics ears perked up, because without openness and transparency and oversight and following the rules (whatever they are), “favours”, “kickbacks”, “back-handers” and “pocket-lining” become possible and start to accumulate (and did, over here).

Being aware of this practice of the police proactively expediting/interfering in the legal process (depending on one’s view point) can be the beginning point of the following hypothetical:

Imagine that you are prosecuted for knowing that Police Officer X, “off his own bat”, called Lawyer Y for Client Z. This is standard procedure. You saw nothing untoward. Officer X is fine and upstanding. Your boss in the Ethics Division even signed off on the action, also the usual practice. You are charged with not filling in Form ABC, penalty 6 months’ imprisonment or £500. You are found not guilty the first time. On appeal by Client Z you are found guilty by, coincidentally, an appeal judge who just happens to be Client Z’s uncle, and you must hand in your building pass for three weeks. You decide not to appeal, in your turn, because you accept that ink is black and the procedures specifically state that Form ABC must be filled in, and it wasn’t done in this case, or in any other case ever. Client Z was properly charged and convicted of whatever it was that he/she was arrested for in the first place, and the appeal cannot be faulted, either ethically or procedurally.



Meanwhile, your colleague, also charged and convicted of exactly the same offence, decided to appeal, and on appeal the conviction was quashed, and the order barring him/her from the building was null and void because it was ultra vires, the judge granting the order not having the authority (in retrospect) to do so.


Question: Is your conviction sufficient grounds for dismissing you from the Ethics Division?


Hypotheticals are such interesting things. Touché!

Obviously, I over-simplified a lot, with respect to the Florentine case. It may not even be in the right jurisdiction, for one thing (but the Cassation will sort that out).



On a sobering note:
Over here, people preferred to shorten their lifespans rather than appear before the Wood Commission to answer corruption charges.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:18 pm   Post subject: 112   

Fiona wrote:
Quote:
Two minutes is quite a long time to walk a garden path, especially if there are people visible at the end of it. Do you have a reason to believe that is a reasonable time for that journey?


Very long, but if we accept Comodi's 12:46 arrival (which could mean 12:46 parking the car near the house), since they did not see any sign of Amanda phoning, they were not with her at 12:47, so I gave them an extra minute.

Fiona wrote:
Quote:
To me it causes insurmountable problems for just the reasons you give. We have two options: if we accept that this is indeed what is claimed, then we must say the police arrived when the camera shows that they did. Since the camera is not accurate as to time we must infer the real time from other events: but it seems most likely (based on the arrival of the Carabiniere which can be clearly seen) that it was about 10 minutes slow. This puts the arrival of the Postal police at about 12:46. It means all that you have already outlined. It means the police were wrong about their time of arrival; it means Luca and his friend were also wrong; it means Filomena and her friend were also wrong; and it means that the times of the calls to AK's mother, RS's sister, and the Carabiniere were also wrong. As was the 1:00 pm contact with the police station. Or we can reject the footage as showing the arrival of the postal police. In short we can say one thing is wrong or many things are wrong. Since I see no compelling reason in the footage itself to accept the legend which accompanies it, I go for the former.
That seems logical to me.


The postal police claimed to have arrived at about 12:35. If the prosecution accepts that they arrived at a later time, it is because of the evidence of the CCTV camera, which shows . But why 12:46? That time does not work. The analysis of the CCTV camera time indicates that they went into the garden at about 12:56. If one accepts this, then it fits with the 12:47, 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54 phone calls not having been witnessed by the postal police, with the 13:00 activation of Meredith's second phone at headquarters, with Marco and Luca's arrival "around 1 o'clock" as they testified (say at 13:02 or so), and with Filomena and Paola's arrival just a couple of minutes later (they also said "around 1 o'clock").

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Quote:
I guess I am missing the logic here. How is the arrival time of the postal police tied to the arrival of the carabinieri car?
I still think it is far more interesting to consider what happened between 12:40 and 12:47. I think the postal police arrived, which is why Raffaele did not call his sister until 12:50.


Skeptical, if both the postal police arrival and the carabinieri car arrival are filmed by the CCTV camera, the time interval between them is known even if the precise time of the events is not known. This is the logical connection.

I also think it is very interesting to speculate on what happened between 12:40 and 12:47. Comodi, with good reason, does not think the postal police arrived quite then. So what were they doing? Cleaning (but no rags found)? Or just planning?

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
Being italian I would think that Sollecito would have recognised two people in uniforms driving up and down looking for the place in their small plain car (which I would think that anyone who was italian would recognise as being "postal police") while one of them was talking on his radio - from the (elevated?) position of a cottage window.

Where did the story of them disappearing into a side room originate from? Recently here it has been said they never left the sight of the postal police within the cottage after their discovery.


The postal police were not in uniform. However, perhaps Raffaele, standing in the garden, did identify the occupants as police, seeing the car driving back and forth in front of the house, the occupants perhaps talking on their radios. I find this idea very intriguing. It does seem like then hastily calling 112 might be a natural thing to do.

The story of them emerging from Amanda's room was stated by Filomena's friend Paola. These girls arrived at the cottage "around 1 o'clock", and then or shortly after she saw Amanda and Raffaele coming out of Amanda's room. We have no reason to doubt her words. It doesn't prove that they were telephoning in there.

Machine wrote:
Quote:
Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet.

The consensus of all the authors who have written books about the case so far is that Raffaele Sollecito called 112 after the postal police arrived at the cottage.

John Follain claims the postal police entered the cottage shortly after 12.30pm.

Graham Johnson and Paul Russell, the authors of Darkness Descending, claim the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.34pm.

Gary King, who wrote The Murder of Meredith Kercher, states in his book that Raffaele Sollecito phoned 112 after the postal police turned up at the cottage.


Point taken, Machine. Now, can you spell out for me the logical reasoning that these authors are using to reach their conclusion? I rather like to think for myself.

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
That's quite incredible - did they go into the room and close the door .... did they give the postal police a reason for their disappearance? Was this when they made phone calls? I don't think so - I think they had made their calls as the postal police got there - making calls while they were there would have been too obvious - would have taken too much time. I think they may have gone into the side room briefly (to smooch and conspire) and did not make any calls from there.


I agree. For one thing, when Raffaele's voice and Amanda's behind him are heard in the call, there are no background voices at all, as you'd think there would be if six other people were looking around the house, even through a closed bedroom door. For another, anyone could have flung Amanda's door open and said "Hey Amanda, come here and tell us or show us something or other".

Machine wrote:
Quote:
It's quite clear that Raffaele Sollecito called 112 after the postal police arrived at the cottage.


This is exactly the kind of response that is of no use at all. What's needed here is not just another authoritarian statement. It's a logical argument. I am absolutely sincere when I say that I really would like to see one.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Machine, sorry about the caps, I'm not 'shouting' , its just quicker, I'll try and tidy it up after.

Your scenario doesn't explain why Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones at approximately the same time shortly before Meredith was killed. This is highly unusual and suspicious behaviour. There was no evidence of a similar "blackout" of Knox's and Sollecito’s mobile phones in the month before the murder.

KNOX SAID SHE DIDN'T WANT TO RECEIVE A CALL FROM PATRICK, ASKING HER TO COME INTO WORK, IF THE BAR WAS FILLING UP

WE KNOW RS WAS IN A BAD MOOD FROM JOVANOVIC, I THINK HE WAS WORRIED THAT KNOX WAS CHEATING ON HIM (HIS COMMENTS FROM JAIL SEEM TO CONFIRM THIS). I THINK HE DIDN'T WANT TO TALK TO HIS DAD AS HE PROBABLY HAD PREVIOUSLY; HIS LIFE HAD CHANGED IN THE LAST WEEK, HE'D BECOME A BIG BOY. HE DIDN'T TESTIFY, SO ITS JUST A GUESS.

THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THERE WAS NO PREMEDIATION COUNTED IN THE VERDICT, ACCORDING TO THE BOOK RUMPOLE QUOTES .... IS THAT CONFIRMED?

PREMEDIATION NEVER MADE ANY SENSE TO ME. ALSO, THAT IS PROBABLY WHY SO MANY AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE IN THEIR GUILT. IF THE MOTIVATION TELLS US THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED, THEREFORE GUILTY .... BUT NOT THE ATTEMPTED RAPE, FOLLOWED BY THE FATAL BLOWS, I THINK A LOT MORE PEOPLE WOULD ACCEPT IT AND THE CASE WOULD SOON BE FORGOTTEN.

Two knives were used in the attack on Meredith and there is no evidence directly linking Guede to using either of them.

THERE WAS EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT ONE KNIFE COULD HAVE MADE THE THREE WOUNDS, AS YOU KNOW. A DEMONSTRATION WAS DONE SHOWING HOW IT COULD BE DONE FROM BEHIND.

The smaller knife was used to cause two smaller wounds on Meredith's neck. Preliminary judge Claudia Matteini noted that Meredith's killers derived some strange enjoyment from her suffering. YES, I THINK GUEDE WAS ENJOYING 'PUNISHING THE B*T*H'

The Violent Crimes Unit reconstructed what they think happened after analysing the crime scene and the autopsy reports. They believe that Meredith was attacked by Knox, Sollecito and Guede at the same time.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF RS AND AK IN A STRUGGLE IN THE BEDROOM?. REMEMBER THAT THE PROSECUTION PRESENTS ITS CASE IN THE WORSE POSSIBLE LIGHT FOR THE DEFENDANTS, JUST AS THE DEFENSE PRESENTS THE BEST. WE ARE IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE JURORS, WE DON'T NEED TO ACCEPT 100% OF EITHER. I AM ACCEPTING A HUGE PART OF THE PROSECUTIONS CASE ..... HAVE YOU ACCEPTED ANYTHING IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENSE?.

They concluded from the blood splatter analysis on the wardrobe, Meredith must have been forced onto her knees when the fatal blow was inflicted.

NO PROBLEM FOR GUEDE, ESPECIALLY ARMED WITH KNIFE AND FACING A GIRL WHO HAD ALREADY HAD HER HEAD SMASHED ON THE FLOOR OR A WALL?

They also believe that she was being restrained when she was stabbed. There was bruising on her left and right elbows, and her right forearm. There was lots of blood on Meredith's left hand, so she must have grabbed her throat after she had been stabbed. However, there was almost no blood on her right hand, which indicates that she was still being restrained when she fell to the floor.

DITTO ..... BRUISING ON THE ELBOWS HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE FALLS OR IS FORCED TO THE FLOOR. DON'T WE HAVE A KNIFE SHAPED BLOODSTAIN ON THE BED?
GUEDE STABS HER, DROPS THE KNIFE ON THE BED AND GRABBED HER THROAT .... NO INCONSISTANCIES I CAN SEE.

There were four instances of Guede's DNA in Meredith's room, one instance of Sollecito's DNA and one instance of Amanda Knox's DNA. Meredith was subjected to prolonged and brutal attack. There were 47 separate wounds on her body. Surprisingly, there was only instance of someone's DNA on her body, which belonged to Guede.

EXACTLY, THE INSTANCES OF RS AND AK'S DNA WERE CONNECTED TO THE STAGING. THE BODY WAS MOVED MUCH LATER AND THE BRA REMOVED. WE KNOW THIS WAS RS AND AK .... FULLY CONSISTANT.

ITS NOT SO SUPRISING THAT THE ONLY INSTANCE OF DNA ON HER BODY WAS GUEDE'S ... HE IS THE GUY WHO TRIED TO RAPE AND SODOMIZE HER, SO IT MAKES SENSE THAT HE STABBED HER WHEN SHE STRUGGLED AND SCREAMED?

WE KNOW THAT OF THE 47 WOUNDS SOME WERE VERY SMALL, IF MEREDITH HAD FOUGHT FIRST KNOX AND THE GUEDE, THAT IS NOT SO STRANGE

The woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow must have belonged to Amanda Knox. It was compatible with her foot size. It incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

OK, AS I SAY, LEFT WHEN THEY DID THE STAGING ..... HOWEVER, I'M NOT EVEN SURE OF THAT, NEED TO GO BACK TO THE AUDIOS OR ASK THOUGHTFUL WHETHER IT SOUNDED DEFINETELY DECIDED .... I REMEMBER THE BIT ABOUT IT BEING BETWEEN THE TWO SHOE SIZES ... BUT COULD BE WRONG

There was no human activity on Sollecito's computer at 1.00am.

AGAIN, I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS HUMAN OR NOT?. DOESN'T MATTER, I BELIEVE THEY WENT BACK TO RS'S PLACE, AND TOOK THE 'DOUBLE DNA KNIFE' FOR PROTECTION FROM GUEDE WHEN THEY RETURN TO THE COTTAGE.

You haven't explained why Knox and Sollecito returned to the cottage with the double DNA knife to cut off Meredith's bra or why they walked round in bare feet in Meredith's blood.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY EVEN KNEW THAT MK WAS DEAD, IF THEY WERE IN THE KITCHEN OR AT THE DOORWAY WHEN THE FINAL BLOW WAS STRUCK. THEY WOULDN'T KNOW GUEDE WAS NOT AROUND THE COTTAGE SOMEWHERE? .... I WOULDN'T WANT TO FACE HIM UNARMED?. I THINK THE STAGING WAS DECIDED BETWEEN THEM ONLY WHEN THEY RETURNED ... A COUPLE WERE HEARD ARGUING. FROM WHAT WE KNOW, IT WAS RS WHO WAS THE MOST CONFIDENT OF IT WORKING.

WALKING AROUND IN BARE FEET? ..... MICHAEL THINKS THAT THEY STRIPPED COMPLETELY SO AS NOT TO GET BLOOD ON THEIR CLOTHES OR SHOES, I'D AGREE WITH THAT.

Amanda Knox was probably telling the truth when stated the following:

“Yes we were in the house. We were drunk. We asked her to join us." YES, THEY WERE DRUNK, MEREDITH WASN'T, ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE SHE HAD A GLASS OF WINE OR TWO WITH THEM, FROM THE AUTOPSY?.

KNOX AND RS WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL OVER EACH OTHER? .... RUDY WANTED 'HIS SHARE' .... MEREDITH WAITS UNTIL HE GOES TO THE BATHROOM BEFORE TELLING KNOX TO SLING HIM OUT? .... HE LEFT THE BATHROOM PRETTY QUICK AND PRETTY ANGRY, IF HE HEARD WHAT I THINK HE HEARD.


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

lector wrote:
...while I don't completely understand it, it seems to indicate the Mignini still does dispute some of the facts. In his reference to "judicially validated by the GIP (investigating magistrate judge) court and never objected", he seems to be implying that he did follow proper procedure in what he did, & that will form the basis for his appeal.


The cool/calm Mignini absolutely disputes the facts and findings. This whole process seems to involve about 80% politics and 20% legal maneuvering.

So just like Amanda Knox, Mignini has come out and said that the court is mistaken in its findings and that he will follow through with an appeal. So what can be said about the Knox/Mellas observation that Amanda Knox somehow remains innocent while Mignini is obviously corrupt and incompetent?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful quoted and wrote:

Quote:
The postal police claimed to have arrived at about 12:35. If the prosecution accepts that they arrived at a later time, it is because of the evidence of the CCTV camera, which shows . But why 12:46? That time does not work. The analysis of the CCTV camera time indicates that they went into the garden at about 12:56. If one accepts this, then it fits with the 12:47, 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54 phone calls not having been witnessed by the postal police, with the 13:00 activation of Meredith's second phone at headquarters, with Marco and Luca's arrival "around 1 o'clock" as they testified (say at 13:02 or so), and with Filomena and Paola's arrival just a couple of minutes later (they also said "around 1 o'clock").

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Quote:
I guess I am missing the logic here. How is the arrival time of the postal police tied to the arrival of the carabinieri car?
I still think it is far more interesting to consider what happened between 12:40 and 12:47. I think the postal police arrived, which is why Raffaele did not call his sister until 12:50.


Skeptical, if both the postal police arrival and the carabinieri car arrival are filmed by the CCTV camera, the time interval between them is known even if the precise time of the events is not known. This is the logical connection.

I also think it is very interesting to speculate on what happened between 12:40 and 12:47. Comodi, with good reason, does not think the postal police arrived quite then. So what were they doing? Cleaning (but no rags found)? Or just planning?


I see no logical connection in the sense that in one instance you give times and in the other you say the times aren't available but the interval can be known even if the precise time isn't. Have you seen the CCTV footage in question? I haven't. Does it prove that the postal police went into the garden (from where?) at 12:56?
And I don't understand your statement that Comodi does not think the police arrived quite then. This discussion started with someone stating that Comodi had said the police arrived 5 minutes before RS called 112.

I don't think it is your intention, but your statements are adding a lot of confusion to what is actually a minor issue at this point. At least for me - confusion and minor. I am also confused by your reference to RS's phone at 13:29 because that is not the case, and your claim that the Fiat punto filmed was identified in court as the first car to arrive and so on. Only Bongiorno made this claim and it was never substantiated.

My assumption at this point - awaiting corroboration from a qualified source - is that the postal police were in the garden at 12:36.

Thoughtful quoted and wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet.

The consensus of all the authors who have written books about the case so far is that Raffaele Sollecito called 112 after the postal police arrived at the cottage.

John Follain claims the postal police entered the cottage shortly after 12.30pm.

Graham Johnson and Paul Russell, the authors of Darkness Descending, claim the postal police arrived at the cottage at 12.34pm.

Gary King, who wrote The Murder of Meredith Kercher, states in his book that Raffaele Sollecito phoned 112 after the postal police turned up at the cottage.


Point taken, Machine. Now, can you spell out for me the logical reasoning that these authors are using to reach their conclusion? I rather like to think for myself.


They used ordinary powers of reasoning combined with access to 10,000 pages of evidence. In the case of Barbie Nadeau, this is combined with sitting in the courtroom when all of the testimony was given. It is quite unfair to imply, even indirectly, that TM and Barbie Nadeau and others do not think for themselves. In the case of Nadeau, it is with full knowledge of the facts presented in the courtroom, the case file, and lots of double and triple checking. I think journalists like Nadeau do not always get the respect they deserve: not only did she sit in the courtroom and pore over the evidence, she went and hounded the police, investigators and prosecutors, and kept it up until she was satisifed that what they claimed matched up with the evidence. I know this because I have asked questions and gotten answers. There were some highly qualified and diligent journalists working this case. Readers don't see all the legwork and needling they do. That's what I was getting at when I drew a sharp distinction with SH and other amateurs.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

However, Guede was certainly there, and attempted to rape Meredith?

As for what triggered the assault:

Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

Stolen money - far more likely, but Guede would be the one who was most likely to need money, we know he was a petty thief. The problem is that the three arrived after Meredith so the only time Guede or someone else could have taken it would be between 18:00 and 20:30 or so ..... and only if Knox let them in?

Guede doing something or saying something inappropriate to Meredith ........ yes very,very likely, I've already explained the cultural difference you get with the less educated Italian guys like Guede. He was well known around the bars for 'troubling' girls, when he was on his own.

You can't equate the mentality of middle class 'Anglo-Saxons' to another culture.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I don't think my statements add confusion, I think they are extremely clear. Unless by confusion you mean questioning something that was comfortably accepted even if logically unjustifiable.

I completely agree that the point is very minor, but the frequent repetition of even a small detail as fact when it is not substantiated is not all that minor. I thought the whole point of this board was to seek the complete truth and understanding of the events surrounding Meredith's murder.

The discussion started with Bolint's quoting Comodi as giving the time of 12:46 for the arrival of the postal police, on the last day of the trial, a fact I had already noted myself in the Italian press releases. This is exactly equivalent to "5 minutes before the 112 call" (at 12:51). However, they did not see Amanda calling her mother, so they cannot have been literally in the garden with her at 12:47. This is how the whole issue started.

I'm sorry for my slip in saying that the carabinieri called Raffaele's phone at 13:29 for directions. What they did is call Amanda's phone at 13:29, she handed it to Raffaele, and he handed it to Battistelli.

The black Fiat punto was seemingly accepted by everyone in court as being the postal police (thus, the first car to arrive, but I was using that term to refer to the first carabinieri car to arrive, after 13:29). Only, the postal police claimed that the 12:41 time marked on the CCTV camera was about 10 minutes late and they were really there at about 12:31, a claim which has now been refuted sufficiently that even the prosecution does not claim it. There was never any dispute about its being their car.

Oh, and finally, I wasn't judging whether Barbie Nadeau et al can think for themselves! I was just objecting to being told to blindly accept their conclusions without any explanation.


Last edited by thoughtful on Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?


The only thing we can be sure of is that she lies.


In her email, she also says that RS advised her to call one of her roommates and she called Filomena. What she "forgets" is that she actually called Meredith first, one minute before calling Filomena. Somehow this call, like the one to her mother at 12:47, seems to have been quickly deleted from her memory.

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

However, Guede was certainly there, and attempted to rape Meredith?

As for what triggered the assault:

Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

Stolen money - far more likely, but Guede would be the one who was most likely to need money, we know he was a petty thief. The problem is that the three arrived after Meredith so the only time Guede or someone else could have taken it would be between 18:00 and 20:30 or so ..... and only if Knox let them in?

Guede doing something or saying something inappropriate to Meredith ........ yes very,very likely, I've already explained the cultural difference you get with the less educated Italian guys like Guede. He was well known around the bars for 'troubling' girls, when he was on his own.

You can't equate the mentality of middle class 'Anglo-Saxons' to another culture.


So Kevin,

You'd be perfectly happy to have someone stand in front of you and call you a two-timer to your face in front of other people?

You'd be perfectly happy to have someone stand in front of you and tell you you didn't flush the loo in front of other people?

You'd be perfectly happy when someone else comes along and takes your job?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical said:
Quote:
Have you seen the CCTV footage in question? I haven't. Does it prove that the postal police went into the garden (from where?) at 12:56?


Well sure, the slides are in that document Michael just posted, with the time stamps on them. It proves it if you follow the argument I gave earlier.

Quote:
And I don't understand your statement that Comodi does not think the police arrived quite then. This discussion started with someone stating that Comodi had said the police arrived 5 minutes before RS called 112.


"Quite then" referred to your time interval of 12:40-12:47. Comodi said the famous "5 minutes before"="12:46",
therefore the postals were not there between 12:40 and 12:47 (since they didn't see the call to Mom....but I'm repeating myself because I just saw the end part of your post. Sorry.)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

thoughtful wrote:
I don't think my statements add confusion, I think they are extremely clear. Unless by confusion you mean questioning something that was comfortably accepted even if logically unjustifiable.

I completely agree that the point is very minor, but the frequent repetition of even a small detail as fact when it is not substantiated is not all that minor. I thought the whole point of this board was to seek the complete truth and understanding of the events surrounding Meredith's murder.

The discussion started with Bolint's quoting Comodi as giving the time of 12:46 for the arrival of the postal police, on the last day of the trial, a fact I had already noted myself in the Italian press releases. This is exactly equivalent to "5 minutes before the 112 call" (at 12:51). However, they did not see Amanda calling her mother, so they cannot have been literally in the garden with her at 12:47. This is how the whole issue started.

I'm sorry for my slip in saying that the carabinieri called Raffaele's phone at 13:29 for directions. What they did is call Amanda's phone at 13:29, she handed it to Raffaele, and he handed it to Battistelli.

The black Fiat punto was seemingly accepted by everyone in court as being the postal police (thus, the first car to arrive, but I was using that term to refer to the first carabinieri car to arrive, after 13:29). Only, the postal police claimed that the 12:41 time marked on the CCTV camera was about 10 minutes late and they were really there at about 12:31, a claim which has now been refuted sufficiently that even the prosecution does not claim it. There was never any dispute about its being their car.



I still don't see how you get to 12:56 in the garden, from Comodi's statement that they were there 5 minutes prior to Raffaele's call. If they got there at 12:46 and took two minutes to arrive in the garden (which is eminently reasonable), then they may have failed to see that AK hastily rang off with her mother, perhaps because of their arrival.

I find your reference to 12:56 as something that follows logically from an analysis of the CCTV footage to be quite confusing. First of all, this is not the analysis that won the day during the trial and I think that's because it is simply wrong. I can only conclude, logically I hope, that you are missing one or two pieces of the puzzle.

And I still think your logical deduction from the 13:29 call to Amanda's phone does not necessarily hold. All we know is that several different arrivals of law enforcement officials followed awareness of the horror lying behind the door.

For me, the fact that reliable and competent court reporters, with access to the data and the individuals who testified about it, confirm that RS called 112 after the arrival of the postal police is more than enough to convince me. Reliable and competent are key concepts.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Vasill01,

You've got it exactly, just the word 'loser' never mind anything stronger is enough to get things 'kicked off'. It is something you see EVERY NIGHT outside places that foriegn students go. The jurors would know this. Italian girls can handle these guys, it's natural to them. Foreign girls take a while to understand, and when they do they are often too drunk handle it. They start saying 'loser' 'asshole' etc and all hell breaks loose. The swear words are the ones that everybody understands in Italy.
Top Profile 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Patzu,


Once the lawyers were involved, the game changed. Had it been in their interests, I'm sure any off the three would have talked.



There is no way they would all carry on lying if any one of them could tell the truth and escape a life sentence he/she would do it. And when the lawyers and families got involved there would have been more pressure to tell the truth, instead they have all carried on lying right up to to the present day (well maybe not RS who has just crawled under a rock to hide). As far as I can see they are all equally to blame.
RG for the rape and robbery attempt.
RS for losing it and using a knife when not being able to restrain a girl in front of his girlfiend
and last but not least AK for setting it up and running the show. Maybe she just wanted MK out of her life and wanted to frighten her, maybe she wanted a bigger room with a better view and thought this might scare her away from italy. Whatever the motivation they were all high on drugs and drink and things turned a lot more nasty than she planned. very simple really.


Last edited by Patzu on Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Skeptical said:
Quote:
Have you seen the CCTV footage in question? I haven't. Does it prove that the postal police went into the garden (from where?) at 12:56?


Well sure, the slides are in that document Michael just posted, with the time stamps on them. It proves it if you follow the argument I gave earlier.

Quote:
And I don't understand your statement that Comodi does not think the police arrived quite then. This discussion started with someone stating that Comodi had said the police arrived 5 minutes before RS called 112.


"Quite then" referred to your time interval of 12:40-12:47. Comodi said the famous "5 minutes before"="12:46",
therefore the postals were not there between 12:40 and 12:47 (since they didn't see the call to Mom....but I'm repeating myself because I just saw the end part of your post. Sorry.)


I don't think your analysis of the stamps is right. And also, it seems you are saying that Comodi has also mis-analyzed them or that she was lying? I mean, 12:46 (which would put them within my 12:40-12:47 what were they doing question) is not at all 12:56.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:45 pm   Post subject: Revisiting the Kate Mansey Mirror interview with Sollecito   

Note: This interview occurred before Sollecito was picked up.

"He seemed obsessed with the Italian newspapers I was carrying, all of which had Meredith's picture on the front page.

One of the local reports had a cartoon showing a man and a woman standing over a body sprawled out on a bed.

I asked him: "Is this right? Is this how you found her? And who is the girl with you in the picture?"

He said: "It is right but it's not if you know. It's a cartoon but yes I was there with Amanda. Amanda Knox, my girlfriend. Meredith was Amanda's flatmate.""

He says "but it's not if you know" because it is not a photograph it is a cartoon - the interviewer knows that - why does he have to point out the distinction? (interesting because Raffaele is such a fan of comic books). But the point I am making here that this interview was before he was even aware he was a suspect. He is interested in the newspapers somewhat because of the "fame" this has given him - he sees in the cartoon that he has actually been realised as a cartoon character - yes finally he sees he is actually a cartoon character he's seeing himself cartoonized - this is why he points out the distinction. Some compensation for RS - or maybe it was the motivation.

Months later (in prison) in his grandiously titled "notes on a prison journey" (prison diary) he relates a conversation he has had with a prison guard - quoted here in part.

"Consequently I tell him smiling: "Could it be that I have to tell you
something useful?". He: "I do not care at all." Meanwhile I ask him:
"If you tell me your name to quote you, as I have already talked of
our discussion and become famous". He "No, absolutely no interest
to me really, "you don't hold us". "

Here he relates saying to the prison guard in conversation that he could quote the prison guards name (talk of their discussion) and that would make the prison guard famous. RS considers fame to be a goal - in the interview above he showed a lot of interest in the newspapers --- that was the goal - he was "sating" himself with the newspapers. Like many "school shooters" he had decided to commit an atrocious act to gain notoriety. This is before the lawyers and his family got to him - what you are seeing there is the real RS. He had committed the murder with a fantastical (comic book) idea of himself - he had even dressed up in disguise - on that night he was a comic book hero and the comic books became real to him - he was realised as a cartoon. RS is insane. The prison guard points out that a notion of fame holds no interest to him which surprises RS and makes him question his own values (he states this at the end of his "prison diary" (published by the his own family BTW so there is no dispute) so this conversation and the question it has raised in his mind about his values held importance to him. Right after he has related the conversation with the guard he writes:

"And I kept thinking: 'Well, in fact, if I become famous it is not for a
likeable deed, on the contrary, a tragedy and that is very sad. Already
in order to be famous?"

Note he says "it is not" (about "the deed") which actually confirms he has done the deed. Here he is in dispute with himself he noticed that the guard rejected his offer of "fame" which he himself holds dear and it has caused him to question his deed. He continues right to the end of his diary:

"All look at you and judge you and turn your life like a sock ass
backwards and they even accuse you if you breathe too slowly.
Better give up, do not look to the success, money, but spend a
quiet life without stress and suffering, to me it applies not just
punishment."

He realises here that he should have just lived "a quiet life" and not to have gone all out for his idea of "fame" or notoriety which has given him so much trouble. It turns out he has not ended up with glamorous notoriety but perpetual judgement - he doesn't like the way that people look at him all the time (look there's the killer etc.) he's not turned out to be the dark magnificent comic book hero of his mind. He's just a common criminal. This problem with his psyche has arisen from the glamorisation of violence in the media continually through his development. He hasn't just been "entertained" by comic books films and cartoons - he's been completely obsessed with them.

RS in correspondence with the family of AK fairly recently was still talking about comic books (reportedly). RS is clearly obsessed. It can happen that when an individual has grown up completely immersed in the media that they will not have any boundaries at all between fantasy and reality. Some compensation for RS - he was a "cartoon hero" - he probably had a character and a name for himself. It can all probably be found in the pages of his comic books ... they should be taken off him for his own good.

The interview with Kate Mansey quoted above was before RS was even aware he was a suspect. He states it was himself and AK standing over the body of Meredith Kercher. He didn't seem to be aware there was a problem with that. I would like to see the cartoon he was referring to (from what publication and what date). It probably shows a picture of 2 protagonists assaulting Meredith Kercher which is interesting because nobody then knew who had killed her. Somebody recently on here found from the date of publication of the article that the interview occurred the day the murder was discovered. RS in the photo which accompanies the article is dressed in exactly the same clothes that he was photographed in outside the scene. This can't be true because in the article he is shown italian newspapers "all of which had Meredith's picture on the front page". More information needed - here recently someone has indicated that RS and/or AK would have confessed by now if their families or the lawyers had not got to them. Mignini indicated that he was close to getting a confession out of AK but her lawyer threatened to walk away if he persisted (strange that). So the lawyers have by putting their clients into a state of constant denial guaranteed their employment right through the trial and subsequent appeals. At the stage that Kate Mansey interviewed RS he was confirming the facts and was willing to talk about everything - for the sake of fame - for the sake of notoriety.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... nt;usecol1


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:29 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Bea wrote:
Fiona wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:

I just watched that vid again and noticed Barbie saying that Amanda rang Raff to tell him about the weirdness at the cottage. She walked to Raff's according to Amanda and only mentioned the disarray casually over breakfast.


That whole bit is a mess in terms of the narrative. Knox told Filomena what she had found at the cottage in a phone call at 12:08 and she said she was going to get Raffaele. That implies she was at the cottage then. In her e-mail she says she had returned to Raffaele's and that she phoned Filomena from there. I do not think we can be sure of anything except that she is either lying to Filomena or in the e-mail. Who knows what actually happened?


Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/ wherein Sollecito first floated his "we were at a party" alibi. What ARROGANCE! A claim SO easily disproved. Did he REALLY think he would be so far above suspicion that no one would question his word?

It's also VERY interesting to be reminded of how his story of the morning in this article differs in some important ways from Amanda's version and, of course, his own later versions:


Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

"We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith's room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened."




RS says: Amanda immediately saw blood and didn't want to go into the house alone (never mind HOW she could have gone "into the bathroom" and seen the blood and yet NOT gone "into the house alone")
AK says: She didn't see the blood at all, took a shower, brought the mop to RS's and only mentioned "weirdness" at the cottage over their late-morning meal.

This RS says: "We went into Filomena's room after seeing blood in the bathroom"
Later RS says: "I noticed Filomena's open door first thing."

RS says: Amanda was worried b/c Meredith's door was locked.
AK says: I wasn't worried b/c Meredith always locks her door when she's away.



The silent Raffaele.

I have been most interested of his tales recently. Some of this is only "as reported by the media per the police that were involved with the interrogation..." etc..etc..

In other words, its his Diary statements that seem to be the most credible.imo.

The Diaries are surely his words we can read, where as much of the other Raffaele statements are 2nd or 3rd hand at least, I have realized.

Transcripts of the Interrogation would be most interesting, or even transcripts during Mignini's questioning of the the three accused would be interesting.

The interrogation and questioing is a big black hole for the readers.

I was watching numerous interrogation videos last night, and also stumbled across Lizzie Bordensdocuments. (the famous axe murder mystery http://lizzieandrewborden.com/pdf%20fil ... nquest.pdf ).

A mind-boggling fact is even in the 1800's there is a complete transcript of her two questioning sessions/ inquest.

So its hard to believe there isn't some kind of transcript, video, audio of this Perugia interrogation somewhere in 2007-2008?
Especially with today's technology, it would be odd there is nothing documenting this interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele.

They had been wire tapping/eavesdropping, they had been questioning them.
Nov 2 questioning went on from at least 12:30 to 5am, resumed on Nov 3 at 11am lasting to 7pmapprox, and then the Nov 5-6 leading to arrest was not a initial session.

Was none of this questioning recorded or documented?
Or maybe its confidential until the Appeals are over?

Especially to read what Raffaele said first hand. Oh well...maybe he'll talk in the Appeal?



Just to be clear, the article I referenced was an interview Sollecito did with reporter Kate Mansey and quotes him directly, not "as reported by the media per the police..." This is what makes it so interesting. It is one of the few times we hear directly from RS himself. Here is a article where Mansey describes the circumstances of the interview: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1 (published about a week after her interview with him and AFTER he'd become as suspect-- which he was NOT when she interviewed him for the initial article.)

(edited for typo)



RS also stated in this article that he and AK were at a party on the night Meredith was murdered. It is interesting to note that Filomena and her boyfriend Marco were at a party. I mention this to dispel the idea, which came up recently, that Filomena and Marco had no "better" alibi than RS and AK, because they too spent the evening alone together.

Normally, I would not lend too much credence to this kind of article or source. But Kate Mansey is quite a good journalist who works for more than one publication. More importantly, the interview was done and published before RS and AK were suspects.

Famously, RS got a call from someone during the interview (as Mansey reports in the follow-up article). Intuitively, I think it was his father. Oh, I would give anything to know what they said to one another on November 2, 2007 at 12:40 pm. And why it took RS 10 minutes to call his sister.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.


Is there any evidence that Guede wielded one of the two knives?

The double DNA knife not only places Knox at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, but also indicates that she inflicted the fatal wound.

It seems that Sollecito wielded the other knife and used it to cut off Meredith's bra strap. He presumably held the clasp when it cut the strap.

Hekuran Kokomani testified that both Knox and Sollecito were carrying knives, and he stated this before the police made it known that they believed that two knives were used in the attack. He also stated the knives were different sizes.

Incidentally, I read today that many of the stories in Sollecito's violent Manga comics featured women being stabbed to death by knives or swords. Bear in mind that Sollecito also has an unhealthy obsession with knives.

Some of the judges in the case remarked on the mental instability of Knox and Sollecito, and refused to grant them bail on the grounds that they are dangerous and could reoffend. As far as I'm aware they have never questioned the mental stability of Guede.

kevin wrote:
As for what triggered the assault: Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd


If you had the faintest knowledge of criminal history, you would know that jealousy and envy are often the motives behind numerous brutal murders. You seem to be assuming that Knox and Sollecito are normal, well-balanced individuals. They are not. They clearly have serious psychological defecrs. A number of psychologists have claimed that Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Oh, and finally, I wasn't judging whether Barbie Nadeau et al can think for themselves! I was just objecting to being told to blindly accept their conclusions without any explanation.


I hope the explanation given -- that Barbie Nadeau et al have access to the evidence, were present in court and have done the investigative reporter's due diligence in terms of cross-checking -- is sufficiently clear. If there was some way to salvage this minor point in favor of AK and RS, I am pretty sure they would have stumbled across it.

I did not mean to imply that you were deliberately causing confusion. That was done a long time ago by others invested in a certain outcome. A lot of unnecessary smoke was created, making it hard to see things clearly. I think logic is quite useful, but it is no substitute for the facts, some of which may not seem logical but which nonetheless are part of the picture.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tigerfish,

The aim is to understand what happened and why?, not to score points off the FOA, Frank et al?

Machine, who is not known for his love of Ak and RS says its 'suprising' that there is no evidence of AK and RS on the body. They are equally guilty by law, but we are looking to understand what actually happened.

I think Knox was close to confessing when she was confronted with Patrick's SMS ..... she just ommitted her part and subsituted Patrick for Guede ... dumb as it was, it was the better than naming Guede ..... then the game would have been really up? ..... it was anyway
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Tigerfish,

The aim is to understand what happened and why?, not to score points off the FOA, Frank et al?

Machine, who is not known for his love of Ak and RS says its 'suprising' that there is no evidence of AK and RS on the body. They are equally guilty by law, but we are looking to understand what actually happened.

I think Knox was close to confessing when she was confronted with Patrick's SMS ..... she just ommitted her part and subsituted Patrick for Guede ... dumb as it was, it was the better than naming Guede ..... then the game would have been really up? ..... it was anyway


I believe she came even closer to confessing in December, when she was interviewed by Mignini in the presence of her lawyers. The interview was abruptly broken off by Knox's counsel. Mignini later said he felt that a confession was near. Incidentally, the subject that caused Knox to come to a screeching halt was Patrick Lumumba.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S,

I promise to answer, if you promise not to call me a TW*T ..... deal?

Incidentally, have you seen John Cooper Clarke reading his poem by the same name?. It's on youtube ... its dead funny. He is orginally from Salford like me
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Barbie Nadeau stated on the NBC Dateline documentary, The Trial of Amanda Knox, that the phone records were able to prove that Sollecito hadn't called the police yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJ3Uvjv9lE

Barbie states this at approximately 6.08 on the video.


Barbie also says how they were "shocked and surprised" when they saw the police at the gate to the cottage. You know, this is something to die for. I would love to see the look in their eyes in that specific moment...



OT)) Donnie, I love your avatar!

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hi Kevin

To clarify my comments, it is surprising that there was only one instance of DNA on Meredith's body considering she had 47 separate wounds on her body. If Guede hadn't sexually assaulted Meredith, there would have been no DNA from any of the assailants on her body.

One of the three strangled Meredith such force that they left visible finger marks on her neck and broke her hyoid bone and yet left no DNA. This is shows that it is possible to attack someone and not leave any genetic material, which is something the FOA completely ignore.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Brian S,

I promise to answer, if you promise not to call me a TW*T ..... deal?

Incidentally, have you seen John Cooper Clarke reading his poem by the same name?. It's on youtube ... its dead funny. He is orginally from Salford like me


John Cooper Clarke died out 30 years ago along with "Readers wives" along with the piece of insulation tape "stuck across her eyes"

See I'm not just older than you, I'm also faster
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

At the end of the Kate Mansey article -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1
- she writes:
During the conversation Raffaele's phone rang. It sounded like a male voice speaking in Italian and I understood from the conversation that he was getting irate. Raising his voice, Raffaele sounded exasperated as he said in Italian: "It's just a journalist. I'm just telling her about Meredith. I can talk to a journalist if I want."
The conversation ended badly and he didn't say goodbye when he hung up.
I asked who he was speaking to. He replied: "Just a friend."

I'd bet $100 he was talking to his father and not a friend - another little fib perhaps?
I don't suppose Stilicho has the next page of Raffaele's phone records for Nov 3 that he posted yesterday?
If it's Papa S, it sounds like he's already nervous about Raffaele's involvement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.


I don't know who you are addressing but I don't like to be misquoted. Since there isn't any previous comment by me which you can refer to as 'pretending this doesn't matter much' , i'd be glad if you specify you are talking about something else and correct therfore your previous.

What i wanted to state clearly is that this is a case in which the facts are agreed. This is ALL. There is nothing to buy. The *criminal* finding is not a finding on facts. It deals with the different interpretation of the law, on which not only I am not competent as I said, but also I emphasize i cannot comment it because we don't have an idea untill we have the written motivation. I don't know why this finding was criminal, for what reasons.

The fact - i am absolutely sure about - is that this does not matter at all to the Meredith case. There is no doubt of this. I'm no advocate of Mignini's reputation, and i have no interest in this subject. Mignini is out from the Meredith murder case. While he will continue to work as a prosecutor, he has prosecuted several other cases in this last two years - in matters of drug, violence and petty crime of any kind - and he has some new cases right at the moment in these days. Do you think the other defendants and conviicted would claim innocence because the prosecutor had a problem himself? Do you think their trials will be overturned and people released? No, this argument doesn't exist.


These are critical points and cannot be overstressed in my opinion. Mignini has not denied the facts at all; he has argued that he was acting within the bounds of his authority in doing so.

More importantly, imagine if every suspect Mignini ever successfully convicted were to ask for a retrial because of this recent decision. The idea is absurd. You would have to show that Mignini engaged in or authorized these specific actions in your own case. I don't see a massive wave of convictions overturned.

As for Chris Mellas's most recent statement to the local press, I think that at this point the goal of family and friends is to capitalize on every occasion to remind the public that Knox needs their support, money, lawyers, guns.... Expect coverage of the comedy night, which I find to be in such poor taste, but that's just me.

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

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Tiziano,

Right and Wrong ..... Legal and Illegal

The phrase you quote from the bible can also be interpreted as:

1. Everything belongs to God, so give everything to him.

2. Jewish opinion is that Jesus would never had said phrase (he would be lyched if he preached paying taxes to Rome). Jewish opinion, and most scholars believe it was added later to help spread the gospel in the Greco/Roman world.

See ... an understanding of the case and the law based on religion is like an interpretation based on Nationalism or Feminism.

Italians defuse such a situation by joking that anyone pushing these interpretions are 'i talibani'

Life would be easier if everyone stopped to think 'I am being a bit of a Taliban on this'?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your teaching experience would be helpful on this, if you've been asked before, sorry:

How would parents feel about having their kids taught by Edda ... who brought up a convicted murderer?. The PC response would be that Edda is not the criminal? but I think PC might go out of the window for parents?. Could the school fire her if parents where objecting?

I ask, not because I have any interest in the Pro and Con AK PR efforts ...... I think the case so far has proved they don't have much effect anyway (must ask Yummi what she thinks?) .... I don't care whether the family have money for PR .... but they have got to eat?




As usual I disagree with you Kevin, and I assure you that I am NOT the slightest bit "taliban". For me the St James version of the Bible is great literature and a source of inspiration, both moral and literary. It is part of our culture, as members of the great English-speaking global fraternity.

My interpretation of the quote from St Matthew is that Jesus was inviting his smart-arse (allow me the liberty of a little levity to underline my point here) Pharisee questioners to render unto Caesar what was his due (no-one can escape death or taxes, Kevin!!) and to stop trying to catch him (Jesus) out on a technicality.

And please don't try and speak for "Italians", as it is my understanding that you are not of that nationality, either by birth, or as I am, by having acquired such through marriage. With somewhere between 50 & 60 million Italians in Italy (not to speak of all those scattered around the world), only a very foolhardy person would presume to speak for them.

As for your interpretation of the (reported) words of Jesus, I have no idea from where you have got that. But you appear to also be taking on the task of a spokesperson for the Jews as well as the Italians!!!!!!!!!!! As far as the Italians, the law and the Gospels are concerned, it is apposite to recall at this point that the Crucifix hangs in all court rooms, and since you bring in education as a complementary theme, it also hangs in classrooms in Italy. I mention this as fact, not making any comment on the practice.

My thoughts on Edda Mellas, both as a teacher and as a parent, are that she would not be my preferred choice for any teaching position for which she was qualified to apply, given the impressions I have formed of her from my readings of PMF and TJMK and the Italian and English-speaking press. Thankfully, however, I will not ever be on such a selection panel! I believe that parents are the primary educators of their children, and my children (now 39 and 43) have survived and thrived and are now educating my five grandchildren with a similar philosophy to mine.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Yummi - I don't really buy that. There are criminal cases where the facts are disputed and then there are cases where the facts are agreed. This case it is the latter as you say but if you are a prosecutor it is your job to know what the law is and not fall foul of it at all. You have to look at the conviction - it is a *criminal* finding not a procedural hiccup. It is a custodial sentence even if it is suspended. IMVHO we would do well to acknowledge this is a serious issue and the most serious sort of finding that can be found against a criminal prosecutor for now, pending appeal. The board needs equality, and there's no equality in pretending this doesn't matter much.


I don't know who you are addressing but I don't like to be misquoted. Since there isn't any previous comment by me which you can refer to as 'pretending this doesn't matter much' , i'd be glad if you specify you are talking about something else and correct therfore your previous.

What i wanted to state clearly is that this is a case in which the facts are agreed. This is ALL. There is nothing to buy. The *criminal* finding is not a finding on facts. It deals with the different interpretation of the law, on which not only I am not competent as I said, but also I emphasize i cannot comment it because we don't have an idea untill we have the written motivation. I don't know why this finding was criminal, for what reasons.

The fact - i am absolutely sure about - is that this does not matter at all to the Meredith case. There is no doubt of this. I'm no advocate of Mignini's reputation, and i have no interest in this subject. Mignini is out from the Meredith murder case. While he will continue to work as a prosecutor, he has prosecuted several other cases in this last two years - in matters of drug, violence and petty crime of any kind - and he has some new cases right at the moment in these days. Do you think the other defendants and conviicted would claim innocence because the prosecutor had a problem himself? Do you think their trials will be overturned and people released? No, this argument doesn't exist.



I suspect we don't really view this in a way that will interchange easily. To me there are two components in someone's guilt in a criminal charge. No.1 the facts of the case. No.2 The technical failing of the criminal charge. Saying that 1. is not in play here because the facts are agreed really doesn't change anything at all to me. It's all about 2 - did he break the law. And a court has found he did. So there's really no defence to that pending the appeal which I would LOVE for him to be acquitted on. But for now - he broke the law and that's very serious for a public officer.

As to the relevance on the case of Meredith, I've been perfectly clear on this several times so won't repeat myself again. It's disappointing that's not acknowledged.

I will now terminate my comments on this thread. It's obviously emotive and I think it's best to move on.


Can I just add, SA, that in this case if you look at the sentence you see that the offense is not considered to be serious. It looks to me as if he got his wrist slapped in this round. And it isn't over yet. Mignini plans to fight. At the end of the day, he may be found to have overstepped his bounds. It is always disappointing when those charged with upholding the law are found to have violated it in some way, no matter how small. I agree with you on this point. But I don't think that the punishment should be the same for all instances of professional misconduct, because some breaches are minor and some are not. I don't think any profession could function if you only got one strike and then were out. I know a lawyer here who was disbarred for two years.... for stealing money from his employer! He was reinstated and is now practicing again. I'm glad, because he is a very good lawyer who defends important causes. He has learned his lesson.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

From Il Messaggero, some new quotes from Giuttari plus support shown for Mignini from Perugia's legal circle:

Mignini convicted: “I am shocked”
FLORENCE - The infinite inquest produces another monster, the condemnation of super-policeman Michele Giuttari and that of the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. At least that’s how it seems for the two defendants convicted of having made unauthorized investigative activities and whose view on the events are exactly the opposite: the authorisation for those activities were there. In essence, the vicious hits tail-end of the inquest on the monster of Florence has also reached two investigators involved in the last stages of the most intrigue and insidious investigation ever seen in Italy. After just two hours of deliberations, the court of Florence sentenced to one year and four months of reclusion pm Mignini and one and half year to the policeman-writer Giuttari, suspended sentences with probation.
Il Messaggero-Front Page-

Mignini is in charge of the inquest into the death in 1985, of the Perugian doctor Francesco Narducci, investigation linked to the murder cases of the monster of Florence. Giuttari was head of Gides (Group investigating serial killings), who conducted investigations in Florence and Perugia on the maniac killing couples and his principal instigators.
According to the (Florence) accusation, Giuttari and Mignini would have carried out illicit assessments, with wiretaps, acquisition of information and entering in the register of suspects, police officers, including Florence former police commissioner Giuseppe De Donno and former director of external relations Roberto Sgalla. Same treatment was assigned to some reporters, like Vincenzo Tessandori, Gennaro De Stefano and Roberto Fiasconaro.
According to the accussation, the intent was to punish them, or condition them, for their critical attitudes could have been an obstacle in the investigation into the death of Narducci. Mignini was the magistrate in charge of the investigation into the murder in Perugia of Meredith Kercher, a murder case that has nothing to do with the process that ended in Florence: "The ruling today applies only to me," said the magistrate to whoever asked him of the criticism received by the U.S. press about Meredith’s case. On that case, and the effectiveness of the investigation, "there were judges who have judged," he added, referring to the convictions.

Mignini and Giuttari have been cleared instead of the charge of abuse of office because ‘the fact does not exist’ on the accusation of abuse of office (nor for Mignini also of having favored Giuttari), related to "parallel" investigation to those in the Prosecutor’s of Genoa, who were investigating Giuttari for forgery, regarding a recording of a conversation between him and Florentine PM Paolo Canessa, in charge of the Tuscan part of the monster investigation. At the end of the hearing, Mignini said he was "shocked" while his lawyer, Mauro Ronco, stressed that the defendants have been “discharged from the main part of the process. In fact that belies the whole accusatory plan.”

Giuttari defined himself "Incredulous and bitter to say the least”. "Our activities had the validation from the GIP” –he continued-- “How can it be call into question the legitimacy? I've always done my duty, was carrying out an investigation, that of the principal instigators of the monster of Florence, which in the later stages had seen episodes to put it mildly were abnormal: investigations obstructed, intimidations.” "The same Florentine prosecutors --added Giuttari’s lawyer, Giovanni Maria Dedola-- had identified delays on the commissioner’s work activity, which would then reflect on the investigation about the monster. But in Giuttari and Mignini‘s work activity there has never been intimidating intent. Those are only in the imagination of the prosecution."

The Umbrian Section of the Anm, The National Association of Magistrates, "shunning the ruling as precondition stance," has reiterated to the Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini "the proper appraisal”. It was made taking position after the sentence given today by the prosecutor in Florence. The ANM Umbra, in a statement, has highlighted “in particular the honesty, always recognized by all," of Dr. Mignini. The document contained the support as well of numerous Perugian magistrates outside of the Anm section. Bewilderment even in Perugia’s legal circles. The lawyer Francesco Crisi, a civil party in the Narducci process (defending the doctor's wife, Francesca Spagnoli) claimed to be shocked: “A completely unexpected verdict against a magistrate absolutely serious and well-balanced as a man, precisely because of this inquiry has suffered a grave injustice. In the investigation on the Florence crimes and the related facts, Mignini has always maintained outmost rigor.”
By: CLAUDIO BIANCIARDI
Il Messagero, pg 37
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Patzu, you wrote:

There is no way they would all carry on lying if any one of them could tell the truth and escape a life sentence he/she would do it.

EXACTLY, IF THEY HAD TOLD THE TRUTH IMMEDIATELY THEY WOULD HAVE GOT LOWER SENTENCES. IF IT HAD SUITED THEM, EACH OF THEM WOULD. INSTEAD, THEY TO TRY TO GET OFF TOTALLY.

And when the lawyers and families got involved there would have been more pressure to tell the truth, instead they have all carried on lying right up to to the present day (well maybe not RS who has just crawled under a rock to hide). As far as I can see they are all equally to blame.

SOUNDS LIKE KNOX DID TELL HER MOTHER AT LEAST SOMETHING IN HER 04:00 AM CALL, SINCE THEN EVERY MEETING IN JAIL HAS BEEN RECORDED. HER LAWYERS WOULD HAVE HAD PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH HER, BUT SHE WOULD HAVE STILL HAD TO FACE HER MOTHER.

ONCE THEY WERE ARRESTED, RS'S FAMILY THOUGHT THEY COULD FIX IT WITH POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, KNOX'S FAMILY THOUGHT PR WOULD DO THE TRICK .... NIETHER DID, THE HOLE JUST GOT DEEPER.

RG for the rape and robbery attempt.

RAPE, ATTEMPTED SODOMY, THEN STABBING MEREDITH

RS for losing it and using a knife when not being able to restrain a girl in front of his girlfiend

POSSIBLE .... BUT NOT IN THE BEDROOM I THINK

and last but not least AK for setting it up and running the show.

I THINK SHE SMASHED MEREDITH'S HEAD AGAINST THE WALL OR FLOOR. HER OTHER CRIMES WERE, NOT HELPING MEREDITH WHEN SHE WAS BEING RAPED BY GUEDE, NOT CALLING FOR HELP, ACCUSING PATRICK ETC. .... STILL WORTH THE 26 YEARS IN MY OPINION

Maybe she just wanted MK out of her life and wanted to frighten her, maybe she wanted a bigger room with a better view and thought this might scare her away from italy. Whatever the motivation they were all high on drugs and drink and things turned a lot more nasty than she planned. very simple really.

NO, I REALLY DO THINK THAT SHE THOUGHT MEREDITH WAS HER FRIEND, RIGHT UP UNTIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER. THE COURT FOUND NO PREMEDIATION ... THEREFORE NO PLANNING?. SHE WAS DEVASTATED IN COURT WHEN LAURA TESTIFIED AGAINST HER. SHE STILL THOUGHT LAURA WAS HER BUDDY ... EVEN AFTER THE MURDER.


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin wrote:
NO, I REALY DO THINK THAT SHE THOUGHT MEREDITH WAS HER FRIEND, RIGHT UP UNTIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER. THE COURT FOUND NO PREMEDIATION ... THEREFORE NO PLANNING?


Although I also don't think it was premeditated, are you so certain they were friends up until the final night?

You still haven't answered my questions?

Are you two-timing your wife or girlfriend?

Can I have your job?
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Bea wrote:
Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/


I don't know if it's important or good in any way, but i just made some contact with the polish guy named Tom Bednerek. He's quoted in this article and he's willing to talk to me in a few days. I said that i'm writing MA thesis about the case and that i need some help.

Kevin, i find your posts very interesting, thanks for your great input and balance. Especially tese posts are good:
Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:31 pm
and
Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:38 pm
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful quoted and wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Skeptical said:
Quote:
Have you seen the CCTV footage in question? I haven't. Does it prove that the postal police went into the garden (from where?) at 12:56?


Well sure, the slides are in that document Michael just posted, with the time stamps on them. It proves it if you follow the argument I gave earlier.

Quote:
And I don't understand your statement that Comodi does not think the police arrived quite then. This discussion started with someone stating that Comodi had said the police arrived 5 minutes before RS called 112.


"Quite then" referred to your time interval of 12:40-12:47. Comodi said the famous "5 minutes before"="12:46",
therefore the postals were not there between 12:40 and 12:47 (since they didn't see the call to Mom....but I'm repeating myself because I just saw the end part of your post. Sorry.)


I don't think your analysis of the stamps is right. And also, it seems you are saying that Comodi has also mis-analyzed them or that she was lying? I mean, 12:46 (which would put them within my 12:40-12:47 what were they doing question) is not at all 12:56.



Michael wrote:

Quote:
Well, this is the PDF I've embedded here (tee hee) of the video camera showing arrival times. This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial and he rejected their argument after considering the police evidence. Simply use the vertical scroll bar on the right side of the PDF to skim through the video...the faster you scroll, the faster the video runs:



Thank you for clarifying your source. As Michael noted when he posted it, this comes from the defense file presented to Micheli and rejected by him in favor of the police evidence. There are other factors, which we can deduce at least indirectly, that must be taken into account. Filomena called her boyfriend after speaking to Knox, since he was closer to the cottage, and instructed him to go there. She then headed to the cottage herself. She was two kilometers away, so we can deduce that Marco was less than two kilometers away.

We can also deduce that, it being a holiday weekend and many students being away, traffic was likely not excessive -- in any case, not at a standstill. How long would it take to travel less than 2 kilometers, especially if your girlfriend had just told you to hurry due to an emergency? How long would it take for Filomena to travel 2 kilometers, probably as quickly as she could. I believe she was just parking her car when she talked to AK, so she didn't need to look for it, walk to it, etc. AK and Filomena spoke at 12:20 and 12:34. Filomena called Marco immediately, possibly after the 12:20 call. Regardless, it is hard to imagine Marco taking more than 15 minutes to arrive.

If we look at AK's email, she says: "he (RS] first called his sister for advice and then called
the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way".

Notice that AK does not say, just then the postal police arrived. And notice that AK has herself calling Filomena after 12:54, when in fact she did not call Filomena except once, at 12:08. It was Filomena who called AK, at 12:20 and 12:34. I imagine she did say she would be on her way, and was on her way. I imagine she was also worried sick, since Knox had said in their first conversation that Meredith was "unaccounted" for. (Laura was in Rome.)

I don't know about anyone else, but when I put these things together, I have a hard time accepting the defense claim of 12:56. I can see why Judge Micheli rejected it. It would have been illogical not to.

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

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Quote:
Machine, who is not known for his love of Ak and RS says its 'suprising' that there is no evidence of AK and RS on the body. They are equally guilty by law, but we are looking to understand what actually happened.

We have a young woman killed by violent means. We have three people deeply implicated in her murder by various kinds of evidence, as well as their own lies and inability to account for their whereabouts at the relevant time. In addition, some of us believe there are previous behavioral patterns which point towards a potential for violence amongst all three.
That's about it. We need to accept that we are never going to get a storyboard or script for the events of that night. All these fanciful speculations are the product of our own imaginings - essentially fiction - unless based on actual evidence. Beyond the sketchiest details, what actually happened in that room on that particular night - who did what and why - will probably remain a mystery forever.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
Bea wrote:
Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/


I don't know if it's important or good in any way, but i just made some contact with the polish guy named Tom Bednerek. He's quoted in this article and he's willing to talk to me in a few days. I said that i'm writing MA thesis about the case and that i need some help. Kevin, i find your posts very interesting, thanks for your great input and balance. Especially tese posts are good:
Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:31 pm
and
Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:38 pm


I hope this is true! Since you have asked me for some motherly advice, I'll give you some. If it isn't true, don't try and fool the guy. The best way to gather information from a source is to be transparent and truthful. If you lie, you have to assume the other guy is too. If you are truthful, he will be too.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hi Jools!
Good to see you here and thanks, as usual, for your translations.:)

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

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
At the end of the Kate Mansey article -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1
- she writes:
During the conversation Raffaele's phone rang. It sounded like a male voice speaking in Italian and I understood from the conversation that he was getting irate. Raising his voice, Raffaele sounded exasperated as he said in Italian: "It's just a journalist. I'm just telling her about Meredith. I can talk to a journalist if I want."
The conversation ended badly and he didn't say goodbye when he hung up.
I asked who he was speaking to. He replied: "Just a friend."

I'd bet $100 he was talking to his father and not a friend - another little fib perhaps?
I don't suppose Stilicho has the next page of Raffaele's phone records for Nov 3 that he posted yesterday?
If it's Papa S, it sounds like he's already nervous about Raffaele's involvement.


I'm sure it was his father too. I'm guessing he was already figuring out his son's story sounded fishy.

Meanwhile, brash Rafaelle thinks he can lie flagrantly to reporters and carry knives into police stations and literally get away with murder b/c he's such a crime genius. Papa S must have been tearing out his hair trying to get his idiot offspring to STFU.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Machine,

kevin wrote:
I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.


Is there any evidence that Guede wielded one of the two knives? THERE WAS JUST ONE KNIFE ACCORDING TO THE EXPERT WITNESS.

GUEDE IS KNOWN TO CARRY A KNIFE, ONCE IN MILAN. HE WAS THE ONE RAPING MEREDITH, SHE SCREAMED AND IT ALL WENT QUIET ...
I THINK 'THAT GENTLEMAN' AS HER BROTHER CALLED HIM, STABBED MEREDITH.

The double DNA knife not only places Knox at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, but also indicates that she inflicted the fatal wound.

FORGETTING THE DISPUTES OVER THE DNA, WHAT HAVE WE GOT:

1. KNOX'S TRACES ON THE HANDLE END - BY ITSELF MEANINGLESS

2. MEREDITH'S TRACES ON THE BLADE END - WHICH MEANS IT WAS AT THE MURDER HOUSE, BUT WHEN?. I THINK ONLY USED WHEN THEY RETURNED TO THE COTTAGE. KNOX USED IT TO CUT OFF THE BRA. HENCE MEREDITH'S TRACES.

INCIDENTALLY, TINY DETAIL THAT HAS ALWAYS PUZZLED ME .... YOU ONLY NEED TO CUT A BRA IN ONE PLACE TO GET IT OFF?. I NOTICE THAT THE CLASP SEEMS TO BE CUT ON BOTH ENDS AND COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE REST OF THE BRA. WHY? ..... AFTER ROWING, ABOUT WHETHER TO STAGE THE CRIME AND INCRIMINATE GUEDE EVEN FURTHER, DID RS AND AK SAY 'OK, WE'LL DO THIS TOGETHER'?

It seems that Sollecito wielded the other knife and used it to cut off Meredith's bra strap. He presumably held the clasp when it cut the strap.

THE DRIED BLOODSTAINS SHOW THAT THE BRA WAS REMOVED FROM THE BODY A LONG TIME AFTER THE MURDER


Hekuran Kokomani testified that both Knox and Sollecito were carrying knives, and he stated this before the police made it known that they believed that two knives were used in the attack. He also stated the knives were different sizes.

IF KOLOMANI WERE ALESSANDRA FORMICA, I WOULD BELIEVE THIS .... SORRY, CAN'T MAKE HEAD NOR TAIL OF WHAT HE SAYS, I DON'T THINK THE JURY GAVE HIM ANY CREDIBLITY .... WE'LL SEE IN THE MOTIVATIONS

Incidentally, I read today that many of the stories in Sollecito's violent Manga comics featured women being stabbed to death by knives or swords. Bear in mind that Sollecito also has an unhealthy obsession with knives.

SURE, I SAID IN MY SENARIO, IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU THINK THIS MEANS ... BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HIM STRUGGLING WITH MEREDITH IN THE BEDROOM. I THINK HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN OR FRONT PORCH WITH KNOX.

Some of the judges in the case remarked on the mental instability of Knox and Sollecito, and refused to grant them bail on the grounds that they are dangerous and could reoffend. As far as I'm aware they have never questioned the mental stability of Guede.

I'VE NOT SEEN ANY DOCTORS REPORT ON THEM PROVING THEM MENTALLY UNSTABLE. THE GROUNDS FOR HOLDING GUEDE COULDN'T BE QUESTIONED, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE. DIAGNOSIS DONE WITHOUT THE PERSON BEING EXAMINED PERSONALLY BY THE DOCTOR ARE HARDLY ANYTHING TO GO BY. STILL LESS BY NON-MEDICAL PEOPLE?.


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:09 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
donnie wrote:
Bea wrote:
Speaking of narrative, I was talking about RS's alibi(s) on another board and remembered this article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2 ... -20058122/


I don't know if it's important or good in any way, but i just made some contact with the polish guy named Tom Bednerek. He's quoted in this article and he's willing to talk to me in a few days. I said that i'm writing MA thesis about the case and that i need some help. Kevin, i find your posts very interesting, thanks for your great input and balance. Especially tese posts are good:
Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:31 pm
and
Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:38 pm


I hope this is true! Since you have asked me for some motherly advice, I'll give you some. If it isn't true, don't try and fool the guy. The best way to gather information from a source is to be transparent and truthful. If you lie, you have to assume the other guy is too. If you are truthful, he will be too.


It is true. I made the decision three days ago. I considered it earlier but thought it would be to difficult for me, as this was the first criminal case i was interested in. Well, there were some others, like Manson killings, Ramsey and Zodiac killings, but the difference is that i can relate to Meredith's murder case much more than i can relate to any other and since my major is psychology i feel that i can write about the case. It won't be very deep and complicated, beacuse there is no need to complicate it more than it already is, but just a case study with a simple analysis of a killer's mind. But i've got plenty of time. Right now i'm contacting all Poles in Perugia through this polish site (something similiar to classmates.com) the results of a performed search gave me 308 people, which is pretty good.

Thanks Skep! I really appreciate this! :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bea wrote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, brash Rafaelle thinks he can lie flagrantly to reporters and carry knives into police stations and literally get away with murder b/c he's such a crime genius. Papa S must have been tearing out his hair trying to get his idiot offspring to STFU.

I read him differently - I think he's totally freaked - his whole life in the hands of this 'crazy' girl he's known a week or so. He sounds kind of nervous about her still being at the police station - and with good reason.
Funny tho' - it was him who broke ranks first - throwing her under the bus along with the 'load of bollocks'.
And I don't see him as arrogant about carrying the knife around - I read it as a security blanket.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for clarifying your source. As Michael noted when he posted it, this comes from the defense file presented to Micheli and rejected by him in favor of the police evidence


Yes, Michael did say that. However, Bolint said the opposite, that this was prepared specifically for the trial. I myself noted that this file surfaced on the board only last August. Furthermore, Micheli went for a much earlier postal police arrival time than Comodi, so it did seem reasonable to me that this file might be what made the difference.

If Michael knows for sure that this was presented to Micheli well before the trial, I would really appreciate confirmation.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 - history   

stint7 wrote:
Tiziano:.

Your comments about the 'playground' getting rough were timely and well said.

Please indulge me for just a small correction and opinion from 'my side of the ocean.
I promise forever after try to strictly heed your (and Michael's) admirable admonitions against the futility and detrimental result of 'border wars' during our discussions here.

Correction:
The quote about 'over sexed...over here' that your friend repeated really had absolutely nothing germane to "gladiators" and VietNam.
Rather it had its origins in the "Mother Country" with the huge build-up of American boys for the D-Day Invasion (from which many of them never returned.)
Your friend was only about 3 decades decadent with that quote to rationalize his dissent that incidentally was not absent on my side of the ocean at the time.

Opinion:
Again, allow my nationalism for just a moment to remind those possibly too young to be cognizant of the momentous historical impact of those boys 'over here'.
My opinion is almost universally shared that if those as you say 'septic tanks' were not willing to make the Supreme sacrifice at Port Moresby as well as aforementioned Normandy and long after, you and *our* Mother Country may well now be speaking a different language and 'enduring' an entirely decidedly different and deficient level of the magnificent freedoms we all so treasure..

End Flag waving; thank you for patience, and no future parochial white caps from me on Tiziano's mutually appreciated and sought after 'sea of peace'.


Points taken Stint; my paternal uncle was one of the few who returned to Australia after work experience on the Burma Railway. To his credit, he never spoke about this to any of us nephews and nieces (and I suspect neither did he to his own family, our much older cousins). After his death, he left some historical mementos to my brother, and it was only then that my generation ("war babies") of the family realised that he had NOT been in Changi (a bad enough enough experience!) but on the infamous railway.
Now, an anecdote about the Septics: my mother (born before WW I) told the story of a handsome young American naval officer whom my father brought home for a family meal. He was about to leave the port of Hobart for an unknown destination (as it transpired the Battle of the Coral Sea) and he asked my mother to write to his wife in the States, telling her that he had been our family's guest and sending her his love, as war-time secrecy prevented his disclosing anything about his location. My mother told us as children that she wrote as requested, but never received a reply. It does not take much imagination to picture the oucome of the Battle for this charming young family man.
So when I use the term Septics it is with rueful affection, and no doubt there were some Aussies referring to the Yanks in Sydney Town in the 40s as being "over here etc"!
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Tigerfish,

I think we will get the full story, Vincent Bulgiosi, who tried Charles Mason and got convictions in 101 of 102 of homicides he prosecuted, says that 'three people can keep a secret ..... but only if two of them are dead'.

We could get the full story in three ways, as I see it:

1. One of them breaks rank before the end of the appeals procedure ... it would depend on what benefit they got to induce them presumably?. Sounds like the knox's are investigating this possiblity now?.

2. After the appeals, they can get remission by showing remorse; you can't show remorse without admitting guilt and coming clean?

3. There may be another witness ...... remember Alessandra Formica, our most credible eyewitness as far as I can see, saw a North African (emphatically not Guede) running near the scene of the crime. One possible candidate could be Knox's buddy Juve ... last I heard he had disappeared shortly after the murder... I'm not sure of any further developments.


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin -

Please address your posting style. First of all, if you have the technical ability, which you have, please use the quote boxes for quoting others. Second, please refrain from posting all in caps. There is actually a board rule in place in regard to that. The occasional use of caps 'within' posts we will at our discretion let slide, but adopting it as an actual posting style is not cool...especially when the reason given for doing so is that 'it's easier'. It is disrespectful to the board and members to adopt a policy that one can't be bothered to put suitable effort into their posts. It's antisocial. Finally, I note you've been a member since February last year. Yet still, you've clearly in that time not done enough background reading on the case and, even if unintentionally, are spreading misinformation and even FOA talking points, such as this just for one example:

Kevin wrote:
GUEDE IS KNOWN TO CARRY A KNIFE.


This is false and is an FOA talking point.

Thank You

Michael

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for clarifying your source. As Michael noted when he posted it, this comes from the defense file presented to Micheli and rejected by him in favor of the police evidence


Yes, Michael did say that. However, Bolint said the opposite, that this was prepared specifically for the trial. I myself noted that this file surfaced on the board only last August. Furthermore, Micheli went for a much earlier postal police arrival time than Comodi, so it did seem reasonable to me that this file might be what made the difference.

If Michael knows for sure that this was presented to Micheli well before the trial, I would really appreciate confirmation.

Here is an article dated October 2008 where it mentions the CCTV camera slides presented by RS defense:
http://lanazione.ilsole24ore.com/perugi ... aele.shtml

(My translation)
The video disproves Raffaele

The police arrived at 12.25.

The police patrol arrived at the front of the cottage in via della Pergola at 12.25 on November 2 last year. Only in the following time 12:51 Raffaele Sollecito, along with Amanda Knox telephoned the police to report that someone had entered the house but stressing that "they had not stolen anything"

Further disproves to the statements of the two former lovers, accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher, arrives from the analysis of the video cameras of the San Antonio car-park. To request the hard disk of the installed cctv system were defense lawyers, Giulia Bongiorno, Luca Maori and Marco Brusco just to check the hours that morning, to try to dismantle the accusation theory.

Until now the attention of investigators and lawyers was focused on capturing the evening of the first of November. And on the two people, one of whom was dressed in light colours, which can be glimpsed in the tv cameras. Someone initially suggested that it was Amanda, someone else Meredith (who was wearing a blue sweatshirt and a pair of jeans ndr.). In reality the two individuals have never been fully identified although the police had the full list of people who entered the car park to take back their car.

At the time -- the days after the murder -- in viewing that video the police officer noted down that the time of the tv-camera was set 10 minutes forward. Today looking at that document it is learned therefore that the postal police black (Fiat) Punto, alerted by the woman that received threats by phone and then next morning found two mobile phones in her garden (those stolen from Meredith), made maneuvering in front of the camera at 12.35 and 57 seconds. In fact ten minutes earlier.

(( Jools:12.25. and 57 seconds)). It is however, long before the pretend - according to the prosecution – phone call to 112, which according to tabulation data (print out) produced by the defense, is at 12:51. Raffaele and Amanda were seeking an alibi, is the accusation theory. But the video has trapped them, at least in this respect.

Among the investigators hypotheses is the one that the ex-lovers were there before, the arrival of the police (when it was 'discovered' Mez lifeless body in her locked key bedroom), because they wanted to clean up the cottage and pre-fabricate an alibi. It would have been them in fact who were tampering with the crime scene, throwing the heavy stone to the window and simulate a burglary.

It was just about that morning that the first suspicions of the flying squad were born around the American student and her boyfriend from Puglia. Too unruffled. Too strange the late phone call to the Carabiniere police centre. Too sure they were that nothing was stolen from the house. The rest is the custody report of the judicial police at police headquarters when Amanda spoke of a rape and murder to which she had witnessed. She pointed out, Patrick Lumumba who however, was later deemed not involved.

In fact the accused of Mez’s massacre seem to have always told some truths and some lies. Like Rudy Guede, who says he was in there, with Meredith. To have seen Amanda and Raffaele. But was disproved by both the English student's friends and by his own friends of what he told that he had an appointment with the English girl.

These circumstances, together with evidence provided by forensic police will be at the center of the heated debate on Saturday and will be the elements in which the gup Paolo Micheli will be basing his judgment. Who it will have to tell whether the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele deserves a trial in the Court of Assizes and if Guede, judged in the fast-track trial, should be condemned and for how long.

Perugia, 7 October 2008

Erika Pontini
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Emerald wrote:
It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.

RS defense and his papa tried it at the very beginning, it didn't work much for RS therefore they soon acquired Ms. 'Trentapalle' Bongiorno and strategy changed. I believe this is the reason RS lost a couple of his lawyers, Tedeschi and Brusco.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for clarifying your source. As Michael noted when he posted it, this comes from the defense file presented to Micheli and rejected by him in favor of the police evidence


Yes, Michael did say that. However, Bolint said the opposite, that this was prepared specifically for the trial. I myself noted that this file surfaced on the board only last August. Furthermore, Micheli went for a much earlier postal police arrival time than Comodi, so it did seem reasonable to me that this file might be what made the difference.

If Michael knows for sure that this was presented to Micheli well before the trial, I would really appreciate confirmation.



Micheli was presented with that data. Bolint did 'not' say it wasn't presented to Judge Micheli, or that it "was prepared specifically for the trial". What he said was that it was presented in the main trial. To which my response was that 'if' they 'did' present it in the main trial it doesn't change the reality that it was also presented in the pre-trial. Finally, Bolint made an assertion that it was presented in the trial, although I'm not sure how it is Bolint knows for certain that it was that specific document that was presented, or if it was a different/revised version. Thoughtful, you seem to have developed a habit of putting words in people's mouths. A bit like claiming Comodi said the Postal Police arrived 12:46 when she actually uttered no such words.

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

DONNIE AND KEVIN huh-)

WHY AM I GETTING VARIOUS PM'S THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO BE SENDING TO TIZIANO??

WHAT'S GOING ON???
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I am also receiving multiple PMs intended for others
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael something is happening to the PM's, so far I got PM's from Kevin, Tiziano, Donnie, and Brian none of them were sent to me but somehow I received them.
bricks-) bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jools, Sorry,

I got PM's from Tiziano and Donnie that are addressed to others, but talk about me. Perhaps she is pressing the wrong button ?

Tiziano, my ex-wife Cora and I are doing fine. Would you like to talk to her. I could foward an email from Corinne to you if you like.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

there's something wrong...i also got some pm's from Brian and tiziano that were supposed to be sent to each other and when i thought that this was a simple provocation i replied wothout noticing a receiver. It seems that everyone will get my pm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I also got PM's from Kevin, Tiziano, Donnie, and Brian and none of them were sent to me either.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:26 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:


Everyone,

Please do not reply to any of the recent PM strings from Brian S, Tiziano, Kevin or Donnie. The initial sender accidentally CC'd in 'registered' members in the address, so that the PM and all replies to these PM's are going to every single member on the board. Do not click the reply button on them please. If you wish to reply to one of those members, please instead go into your PM box and create a fresh PM and send it only to that person (that also includes Brian, Tiziano, Kevin and Donnie)

Thank You

Michael

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Jools, Sorry,

I got PM's from Tiziano and Donnie that are addressed to others, but talk about me. Perhaps she is pressing the wrong button ?

Tiziano, my ex-wife Cora and I are doing fine. Would you like to talk to her. I could foward an email from Corinne to you if you like.

Well, at least you can't claim that they talked behind your back :lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael,

Sorry, no caps in future, I'll use quotes in future, got carried away with talking to Machine ... I'll log off for tonight if it helps and keep my postings to the bare min. in future.

An exchange with machine was always going to be long and detailed ... he is on form tonight, I don't take it personally that he disagrees with me, hope he feels the same. If Guede didn't carry a knife in Milan, I'll stand corrected, of course.

Sorry about the problems with PM's .... I just replied to the one from Tizano, she seems worried about how I'm getting on with the ex-wife.


Last edited by kevin on Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: Heavy enough for a gorilla   

Catnip wrote:
SomeAlibi,

Consistency in the application of the law is a good thing. Everyone is treated the same way.

I’ve noticed that interesting things start to happen when retroactive interpretations of what the law is/was start creeping into the picture. That's what makes Administrative Law so fascinating.

By way of a side-track that isn’t really:

As a Police Minister once said: “No-one will forget the image of Chook Fowler being caught red-handed accepting bribes” – [ NSW Parliament Hansard ] Legislative Assembly, 2 May 2000, page 4971, on the topic of “Police Internal Affairs Investigations”

Chookie was a former chief of detectives, and he had the unfortunate timing to be filmed in what was by then considered to be an unethical situation.

I think it was that particular video (but my memory may be faulty here) that introduced the term “gorilla” and its meaning (=a thousand dollars) to wider society.


The Herald’s overview of the aftermath of the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption back in the late 90s, sounds very much like the other side of the coin to the Florence decision against Mignini and co: [ Sydney Morning Herald ] 08 June 2007.


When I went on a tour of HMAS Vampire at the National Maritime Museum here at Darling Harbour in Sydney one holidays, at the end of the tour, an American tourist (with girlfriend), based no doubt on honourable intentions and as is the custom and experience of his own country, tried to thank the tour guide (a retired seadog) by surreptitiously palming him a $5 or $10 note or similar, to which the reply by the tour guide was a refusal, and that he (the tour guide) couldn’t, and wasn’t allowed to, accept tips, because it wasn’t policy, or, in the well-publicised words that came to my mind while he was explaining: “that way lies corruption”.

When you mentioned (as I recall), way back at the start, that you knew it was common practice for the (London?) police to (unofficially) know the phone numbers of various suitable defence lawyers and call them in at any time of the day or night, my ethics ears perked up, because without openness and transparency and oversight and following the rules (whatever they are), “favours”, “kickbacks”, “back-handers” and “pocket-lining” become possible and start to accumulate (and did, over here).

Being aware of this practice of the police proactively expediting/interfering in the legal process (depending on one’s view point) can be the beginning point of the following hypothetical:

Imagine that you are prosecuted for knowing that Police Officer X, “off his own bat”, called Lawyer Y for Client Z. This is standard procedure. You saw nothing untoward. Officer X is fine and upstanding. Your boss in the Ethics Division even signed off on the action, also the usual practice. You are charged with not filling in Form ABC, penalty 6 months’ imprisonment or £500. You are found not guilty the first time. On appeal by Client Z you are found guilty by, coincidentally, an appeal judge who just happens to be Client Z’s uncle, and you must hand in your building pass for three weeks. You decide not to appeal, in your turn, because you accept that ink is black and the procedures specifically state that Form ABC must be filled in, and it wasn’t done in this case, or in any other case ever. Client Z was properly charged and convicted of whatever it was that he/she was arrested for in the first place, and the appeal cannot be faulted, either ethically or procedurally.



Meanwhile, your colleague, also charged and convicted of exactly the same offence, decided to appeal, and on appeal the conviction was quashed, and the order barring him/her from the building was null and void because it was ultra vires, the judge granting the order not having the authority (in retrospect) to do so.


Question: Is your conviction sufficient grounds for dismissing you from the Ethics Division?


Hypotheticals are such interesting things. Touché!

Obviously, I over-simplified a lot, with respect to the Florentine case. It may not even be in the right jurisdiction, for one thing (but the Cassation will sort that out).



On a sobering note:
Over here, people preferred to shorten their lifespans ther than appear before the Wood Commission to answer corruption charges.


Speaking of Chooks, Catnip, I am reminded of that political luminary from Queensland (once referred to not-so-humorously as "the state of corruption") who was in the habit of "feeding the chooks".
To assist those of you overseas and unversed in Oz political history, I am referring to a former premier of the Sunshine State (aka Queeensland) Sir Joe Bjelke-Petersen, who had a habit of calling a press conference where he "fed the chooks"; ie gave his spin to the press gallery!
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jools,

I don't worry much if they do or they don't talk behind my back .... however, anything to say, a PM direct to me would be fine.

Frustrating waiting for the Motivations?, if I am wrong, I'll hold my hands up.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Sorry, no caps in future, I'll use quotes in future, got carried away with talking to Machine ... I'll log off for tonight if it helps and keep my postings to the bare min. in future.

An exchange with machine was always going to be long and detailed ... he is on form tonight, I don't take it personally that he disagrees with me, hope he feels the same. If Guede didn't carry a knife in Milan, I'll stand corrected, of course.

Sorry about the problems with PM's .... I just replied to the one from Tizano, she seems worried about how I'm getting on the ex-wife.


Kevin, Guede took a knife from the kitchen in the nursery in Milan to sleep with for protection. If you had looked in on me an hour ago you would have seen me holding a knife...while preparing my dinner. Both of these do not equate to 'he carries a knife'. If that statement were applicable to Guede then he wouldn't have needed to take a knife from the kitchen since he would have already been 'carrying a knife' if he was a person who can be labelled as 'one who carries a knife'.

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


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

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian S. wrote:
kevin wrote:
Brian S,

I promise to answer, if you promise not to call me a TW*T ..... deal?

Incidentally, have you seen John Cooper Clarke reading his poem by the same name?. It's on youtube ... its dead funny. He is orginally from Salford like me


John Cooper Clarke died out 30 years ago along with "Readers wives" along with the piece of insulation tape "stuck across her eyes"

See I'm not just older than you, I'm also faster

I'll second that Brian!

I too am older, wiser and lots of other things "more" than our Kev from Salford!!

Edit to add:

I have been having trouble lately with the board being very jumpy. I always now do my posts first in Text Edit and then paste them, as otherwise the board tends to eat my posts before I can send them.

While fully aware that I am less, not more, technically aware than Kevin from Salford, I did not send anyone intentionally a PM meant for others. I apologise to anyone who may have been bemused by receiving mail intended for others if this came from me.

Kevin, I have not been intentionally pressing anyone's buttons; I leave that up to the experts in this habit.

And BTW, my mama always told me that "she" was the cat's mother. I find a lot of what you have been up to on the board lately as sadly lacking in respect.

Furthermore, I prefer to respect the findings of the courts, and allow the law to run its course through all stages of the appeal system. My preferred way of contributing to this forum has always been by translating into Engish the material available on the Meredith Kercher murder case in the Italian press and electronic news services.


Last edited by Tiziano on Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for clarifying your source. As Michael noted when he posted it, this comes from the defense file presented to Micheli and rejected by him in favor of the police evidence


Yes, Michael did say that. However, Bolint said the opposite, that this was prepared specifically for the trial. I myself noted that this file surfaced on the board only last August. Furthermore, Micheli went for a much earlier postal police arrival time than Comodi, so it did seem reasonable to me that this file might be what made the difference.

If Michael knows for sure that this was presented to Micheli well before the trial, I would really appreciate confirmation.



Micheli was presented with that data. Bolint did 'not' say it wasn't presented to Judge Micheli, or that it "was prepared specifically for the trial". What he said was that it was presented in the main trial. To which my response was that 'if' they 'did' present it in the main trial it doesn't change the reality that it was also presented in the pre-trial. Finally, Bolint made an assertion that it was presented in the trial, although I'm not sure how it is Bolint knows for certain that it was that specific document that was presented, or if it was a different/revised version. Thoughtful, you seem to have developed a habit of putting words in people's mouths. A bit like claiming Comodi said the Postal Police arrived 12:46 when she actually uttered no such words.


First of all, Bolint did not say the opposite as as far as I can tell and certainly did not say that this material was also presented at the pre-trial phase. You can't blame Bongiorno for trying again with different judges.

But the fact is that your 12:56 time does not work tally with other factors, such as the time of Filomena's last call and how long it would have taken for the others to arrive at the cottage. In addition, Knox's claim in her email to have called Filomena after RS called his sister is discredited not only by phone records (which show that not only did she not call Filomena but their last exchange was at 12:34) but also by common sense.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hi everyone,
An error was made in a PM that was sent recently. The original PM noted that the board is being hit by some trolls these days, which is not a very controversial statement. Everyone received this PM.

Troll invasions happen at regular intervals, whenever news is expected and whenever there is a lull in the action. At this time, both are true. The impending Mignini verdict and the down time until the appeal. The error is that the message was sent to all registered members, but was not intended for all. Again, nothing nasty or controversial was said in the original message.

I enjoy a lively discussion that is in good faith.

But I don't really enjoy animosity, hidden agendas, and willful distortions of points put forward by other people.

Please try and remain civil. If your aim in coming here is just to stir up trouble between people who are remarkably different but who get along remarkably well, please just leave.

Thanks.

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jools wrote:
Emerald wrote:
It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.

RS defense and his papa tried it at the very beginning, it didn't work much for RS therefore they soon acquired Ms. 'Trentapalle' Bongiorno and strategy changed. I believe this is the reason RS lost a couple of his lawyers, Tedeschi and Brusco.


I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered about this:
How likely is it that Dott. Sollecito's family would have offered Rudy hush money to keep quiet about further details of RS's guilt? $$$$ promised, safely deposited, earning interest for 16 years...???
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Jools,

I don't worry much if they do or they don't talk behind my back .... however, anything to say, a PM direct to me would be fine.

Frustrating waiting for the Motivations?, if I am wrong, I'll hold my hands up.



As every member can see, the original message did not name anyone at all. It merely noted that some troll activity was in evidence of late.

Maybe trollism is something like alcoholism. If so, a list of telltale symptoms for self-diagnosis could exist or be drawn up. That way, anyone who sees himself or herself in the warning signs could get the necessary treatment or attend TA (Trolls Anonymous) meetings, though the A in TA seems redundant.:)

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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The 411 wrote:
Jools wrote:
Emerald wrote:
It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.

RS defense and his papa tried it at the very beginning, it didn't work much for RS therefore they soon acquired Ms. 'Trentapalle' Bongiorno and strategy changed. I believe this is the reason RS lost a couple of his lawyers, Tedeschi and Brusco.


I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered about this:
How likely is it that Dott. Sollecito's family would have offered Rudy hush money to keep quiet about further details of RS's guilt? $$$$ promised, safely deposited, earning interest for 16 years...???

411,
Not so unlikely in my opinion.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The 411 wrote:
Jools wrote:
Emerald wrote:
It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.

RS defense and his papa tried it at the very beginning, it didn't work much for RS therefore they soon acquired Ms. 'Trentapalle' Bongiorno and strategy changed. I believe this is the reason RS lost a couple of his lawyers, Tedeschi and Brusco.


I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered about this:
How likely is it that Dott. Sollecito's family would have offered Rudy hush money to keep quiet about further details of RS's guilt? $$$$ promised, safely deposited, earning interest for 16 years...???



Not the first time this would have been the case in history, I am sure
Top Profile 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
As for Chris Mellas's most recent statement to the local press, I think that at this point the goal of family and friends is to capitalize on every occasion to remind the public that Knox needs their support, money, lawyers, guns....

The Warren Zevon reference makes me cringe a bit, even though it's just song lyrics & not inappropriate to the situation; but even the unintended hint that Warren might have played an FOA benefit brings me down.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

AMANDA KNOX'S FATHER WELCOMES LAWYER'S CONVICTION

Sunday January 24,2010
By Marco Giannangeli


DAILY EXPRESS

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

lector wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
As for Chris Mellas's most recent statement to the local press, I think that at this point the goal of family and friends is to capitalize on every occasion to remind the public that Knox needs their support, money, lawyers, guns....

The Warren Zevon reference makes me cringe a bit, even though it's just song lyrics & not inappropriate to the situation; but even the unintended hint that Warren might have played an FOA benefit brings me down.


I doubt he would ever have agreed to any such thing; at the same time, I can't hear those lyrics now without thinking of Daddy's Boy Sollecito.:)

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

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

AMANDA KNOX'S FATHER WELCOMES LAWYER'S CONVICTION
Sunday January 24,2010
By Marco Giannangeli
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/153 ... conviction

My - those journalists have a special set of standards!
A few short paragraphs and two mistakes - he gets Meredith's age wrong and says Mignini was jailed.
Curt is learning tho' - full of praise for the Italian legal system all of a sudden.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael,

Fine, I accept your distinction about Guede only known to carry a knife only once for protection.
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

: “However, it shows that the Italian judicial system works and the wrongful conviction of Amanda is an isolated circumstance.” - Curt Knox.


Wait a minute. What? This from the guy who went on and on about the entire Italian judicial system when it didn't work in his favor and now his daughter's case was an isolated incident? Hypcrite!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
bea wrote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, brash Rafaelle thinks he can lie flagrantly to reporters and carry knives into police stations and literally get away with murder b/c he's such a crime genius. Papa S must have been tearing out his hair trying to get his idiot offspring to STFU.

I read him differently - I think he's totally freaked - his whole life in the hands of this 'crazy' girl he's known a week or so. He sounds kind of nervous about her still being at the police station - and with good reason.
Funny tho' - it was him who broke ranks first - throwing her under the bus along with the 'load of bollocks'.
And I don't see him as arrogant about carrying the knife around - I read it as a security blanket.

Wait a minute! I find him as Bea finds him, brash and arrogant. Didn't he even take his knife with him to the police station when he was questioned? I keep wondering what all the fuss is about the cctv camera? There are cell records, too many different alibis and a bucket of evidence that doesn't make sense and surely implicates them (gee, they have been convicted, haven't they? Ok, we haven't made it through the other two appeals yet but, they were still found guilty), what is all the fuss about the camera/times?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
bea wrote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, brash Rafaelle thinks he can lie flagrantly to reporters and carry knives into police stations and literally get away with murder b/c he's such a crime genius. Papa S must have been tearing out his hair trying to get his idiot offspring to STFU.

I read him differently - I think he's totally freaked - his whole life in the hands of this 'crazy' girl he's known a week or so. He sounds kind of nervous about her still being at the police station - and with good reason.
Funny tho' - it was him who broke ranks first - throwing her under the bus along with the 'load of bollocks'.
And I don't see him as arrogant about carrying the knife around - I read it as a security blanket.

Wait a minute! I find him as Bea finds him, brash and arrogant. Didn't he even take his knife with him to the police station when he was questioned? I keep wondering what all the fuss is about the cctv camera? There are cell records, too many different alibis and a bucket of evidence that doesn't make sense and surely implicates them (gee, they have been convicted, haven't they? Ok, we haven't made it through the other two appeals yet but, they were still found guilty), what is all the fuss about the camera/times?


LOL Please don't encourage them by asking for an explanation! wa-))
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
Quote:
Wait a minute! I find him as Bea finds him, brash and arrogant. Didn't he even take his knife with him to the police station when he was questioned?

Below is the description of Kate Mansey who actually met Raffaele. I can't squeeze a 'brash and arrogant' personality out of that:
RAFFAELE Sollecito is not much to look at . . he looked forlorn . . . he looked lost and frightened . . . He was obviously nervous. It seemed he was desperate to show he had nothing to hide.
. . .shifting his weight from foot-to-foot.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Fine, I accept your distinction about Guede only known to carry a knife only once for protection.


Fine.

Do you also accept that Raffaele Sollecito had a knife collection, carried one with him all the time, was told by his father not to take one to the police station but told his father the police were too stupid to ever notice, but was carrying a knife on the night he was arrested?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:42 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Amanda Knox's father welcomes jail term for Meredith Kercher murder prosecutor for 'corruption'
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 1:07 AM on 24th January 2010

DAILY MAIL

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
LOL Please don't encourage them by asking for an explanation! wa-))

:D :D :D
Top Profile 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Jools wrote:
Emerald wrote:
It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.

RS defense and his papa tried it at the very beginning, it didn't work much for RS therefore they soon acquired Ms. 'Trentapalle' Bongiorno and strategy changed. I believe this is the reason RS lost a couple of his lawyers, Tedeschi and Brusco.


I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered about this:
How likely is it that Dott. Sollecito's family would have offered Rudy hush money to keep quiet about further details of RS's guilt? $$$$ promised, safely deposited, earning interest for 16 years...???



Not the first time this would have been the case in history, I am sure


Well it worked with Kirsty MacColl's killers...A innocent employee took the wrap and earned himself a house, but the sentence was a lot shorter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

sorry to be a pain, but does anybody know if there is any way to view the More4 documentary online yet (outside the UK)? I tried uploading the zip file that someone kindly posted on the board but it didn't work for me (maybe a Windows 7 issue). Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:59 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Inconsistent Staging....Caused By Rudy?


Let's suppose that Meredith was killed at about 11:00 pm. Then, suppose all three culprits left the scene---pronto--- fearing that Meredith's loud scream would draw attention to the cottage. We know that some person, or persons, returned to the cottage for staging and cleanup. Why ---in the usual scenarios---is Rudy never mentioned as returning? Wouldn't he, too, have a motive to return?

I think he did go back, if for no other reason than to examine the scene and remove any evidence left behind. (Wouldn't YOU?) Perhaps, also, intending to "confer" with the lovebirds. Amanda and Raffaele returned first, maybe about midnight (per the witness "Toto"). They do their cleanup. First thing, that "AMANDA," written in blood, must be wiped off of Meredith's bedroom wall. Simulate the burglary in Filomena's bedroom. Strip Meredith and pose her as a rape victim. Clean up their footprints. And so forth. Then they leave for Raffaele's apartment.

Rudy returns, say a little before 2:00 am, finding the front door open. Meredith's door is not locked, so he can see the rape-staging. He looks around the cottage and also discovers the burglary staging. And HIS shoeprints leading out the front door are still there! Looks to him that all the staging and cleanup has been self-serving, for Amanda and Raffaele. Looks like a lone wolf did it! He determines that the lovebirds have left Amanda's lamp behind. HMMM. A lone wolf wouldn't do that. So, noticing Meredith's keys, he takes them and locks her door, knowing a lone wolf wouldn't do that either. He needs to use the bathroom, ...but he goes to the bath near the front door, should he need to flee. While he's there, defecating, he hears the lovebirds returning. They enter and once they're into the common area of the cottage Rudy bolts out the front door, no time to flush the toilet. Lovebirds are left in a predicament. A loud argument ensues. Raffaele kicks Meredith's door once (CRACK!), then Amanda stops him, convincing him --in shouts and slaps--that he's just making matters worse.

Rudy goes dancing to create an alibi. But, next day, knowing that the lovebirds will be angry, and fearing that they will incriminate him, he flees the country.

///


Last edited by fine on Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I was just watching the closing statements, of AK and RS, before their verdict. So interesting to me that RS said that he hopes that the true killer will confess. RG is already convicted. He didn't say "you already have the true killer" or anything to that effect. Was that a reference to AK?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:28 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
LOL Please don't encourage them by asking for an explanation! wa-))

:D :D :D


I think the subject has been beaten into the ground myself.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fine,

Inconsistant Staging

I think the reason Guede wouldn't go back is because he could never be sure that AK and RS hadn't done the right thing and called the emergency services, even anomously. AK had to go back eventually, and I think they took the famous DNA knife with them as protection.

The thinking seems to be that only Knox had a motive for the clean up, since she lived there. Michelli's report says he considered the story about letters on the wall was invented by Guede, most probably having got the idea from a movie.

Guede's whereabouts at 02:00 are known, I think, checkable through the witness statements anyway. There is a timeline on here and TJMK.

The reason for supposing that Guede used the bathroom before the attack, is that afterwards he would have have been covered in blood, but no traces were found.

The one thing for sure is that he would have been as scared of them as they were of him.

Hope that helps
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:

. First thing, that "AMANDA," written in blood, must be wiped off of Meredith's bedroom wall.

///


Fine:
As far as I am aware, the only mention of something written on the wall came from Rudy's diary.

Rudy's version was that when he went back into Meredith's room, he found a dying Meredith, and he felt she was trying to talk to him.
Rudy came closer and that's when he heard Meredith make the following sound:
"af, af, af."

Rudy then tried to write on the wall what Meredith was "saying" (af af af) because he thought it might have some significance. At that same time, however, Rudy writes that Meredith's mouth was filled with blood and her neck was bleeding profusely.

I've read people speculate about whether this was Meredith trying to communicate "Af" as in Raffaele, or even whether Meredith was trying to say Amanda, or AK.

It's also possible that Rudy was just interpreting gasps made by Meredith, as she was struggling to draw a breath, just before she died.

But there was no actual "Amanda" written in blood on the wall.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin,

you still haven't answered my questions.

And just another thing,

People in the UK call this murder, you call it homicide.

You don't stand a chance against me...... I have all the time in the world.... until I die.

PS: I've got an excuse for being up at this time of the morning UK time, approx 4:00am. What's yours?


Last edited by Brian S. on Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian, we've all been told to stop bickering ......
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:53 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Brian, we've all been told to stop bickering ......


Answer my questions.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin wrote:

" Guede's whereabouts at 02:00 are known, I think, checkable through the witness statements anyway. There is a timeline on here and TJMK.

The reason for supposing that Guede used the bathroom before the attack, is that afterwards he would have have been covered in blood, but no traces were found."

____________

Hi Kevin, Rudy showed up at a nightclub about 2:00 am. He had already cleaned himself up at that time...therefore there would NOT have been blood left when using the bathroom at the cottage.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fine,

I think the exact time of the couple being heard rowing was given as 01:45 ... so you would place him at the cottage around that time?. Timings are a bit tight?

Could check on Google to see where the club is in relation to the cottage ?

Wasn't he seen in the clubs until they closed, before the murder that was 06:00 .... now earlier, the mayor changed the closing times after the murder.


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Jools wrote:
Emerald wrote:
It's no secret that I'm not convinced of Raffaele's guilt. Can't understand why the attorney did not do more to separate him from Amanda. Especially withall the bad publicity her Family was creating.

RS defense and his papa tried it at the very beginning, it didn't work much for RS therefore they soon acquired Ms. 'Trentapalle' Bongiorno and strategy changed. I believe this is the reason RS lost a couple of his lawyers, Tedeschi and Brusco.


I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered about this:
How likely is it that Dott. Sollecito's family would have offered Rudy hush money to keep quiet about further details of RS's guilt? $$$$ promised, safely deposited, earning interest for 16 years...???



Not the first time this would have been the case in history, I am sure


With all the recent commotion, I don't think you've been properly welcomed, New Poster h9A7wa9i1K----phew what a mouthful of hieroglyphics!
Do you have a short and easy nickname you go by? "Let's see....H9A"... sounds like"Hannah"--would that work for you? Or "Hans" if you have that extra Y chromosome.
So, have a seat! Make yourself at home! Let your hair down at sit for a spell. We've got some
reallllllly spicy kebaps on the menu tonight! eee-)

To you, Hans/Hannah, Nicki and others: do you also believe the deal with Rudy ALSO provides
blanket protection for Amanda (since Ak's and RS's stories are intertwined). If such a deal is in place (and knowing PapaDoc, it's hard to imagine that it hasn't been done), we can assume that there will NEVER be any revelations by any of the three, since there are such big incentives for NOT telling the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:16 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Fine,

I think the exact time of the couple being heard rowing was given as 01:45 ... so you would place him at the cottage around that time?. Timings are a bit tight?

Could check on Google to see where the club is in relation to the cottage ?

Wasn't he seen in the clubs until they closed, before the murder that was 04:00 .... now earlier, the mayor changed the closing times after the murder.



Kevin,

My timeline for Rudy's return is not determinate, maybe 1:45 am, maybe 1:30 am. All that's important to me---for plausibility---is that the lovebirds have finished their staging/cleanup at the cottage.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fine,

OK, but doesn't that then constrain the time RS and AK had for their cleanup ?.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin,

The timeline posted here at PMF provides the time 2:00 am as the time of the cottage quarrel and Rudy's appearance at the nightclub. BOTH are certainly estimates.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Fine,

OK, but doesn't that then constrain the time RS and AK had for their cleanup ?.



Yup, but I think they could have done their "work" in a couple of hours.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin,

You still haven't answered my questions.

Are you two-timing your wife or girlfriend?

Can I have your job?

These were issues between Meredith and AK immediately prior to the murder.

Do these questions and any argument which may result make you feel uncomfortable?

Do they make you dislike me?

What did AK feel when Meredith directly challenged her on these issues, to her face, in front of other people?
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fine,

I suppose that it's possible then.

I think some posters once tried to estimate how long the cleanup would take. Michael believed they used copious amounts of toliet paper, on the grounds that in a girls house, there is always a mountain of the stuff and its easy to get rid of. I'm the last person in the world to estimate it, but I'm sure its been done already .... its just that Michael has god knows how many posts, you could ask him when he is around.

I'd always assumed that RS and AK were back at the cottage at the latest 01:45 and were back at RS's at 05:31, when there was some computer activity?.
The info is all there, it is just a case of putting it together?. Then it is a question of how likely it is. Need to read Michelli again to follow his logic? and compare it with this idea?
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Brian, I don't dislike you, I've never met you. But, you'll get us both in trouble for bickering.

I answered these questions a couple of days ago, as you know.

We can have a good debate, when we are back in everybody's good books?

Apart from the Kercher case, what else are you doing today? What part of the UK are you in?

Send me a PM ... but address it just for me. I promise I won't grass you up, no matter what you say
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:07 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fine, sorry I missed your 2 hour estimate post, got distracted.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Fine, sorry I missed your 2 hour estimate post, got distracted.


Yes, I understand.

Michael ---about a week ago---guessed that Amanda and Raffaele could do the cleanup in 1 1/2 hours. But more to the point, if you were Rudy wouldn't you return to the cottage???

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Quote:
Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -

Postby Brian S. » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:34 pm

kevin wrote:Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

However, Guede was certainly there, and attempted to rape Meredith?

As for what triggered the assault:

Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

Stolen money - far more likely, but Guede would be the one who was most likely to need money, we know he was a petty thief. The problem is that the three arrived after Meredith so the only time Guede or someone else could have taken it would be between 18:00 and 20:30 or so ..... and only if Knox let them in?

Guede doing something or saying something inappropriate to Meredith ........ yes very,very likely, I've already explained the cultural difference you get with the less educated Italian guys like Guede. He was well known around the bars for 'troubling' girls, when he was on his own.

You can't equate the mentality of middle class 'Anglo-Saxons' to another culture.



So Kevin,

You'd be perfectly happy to have someone stand in front of you and call you a two-timer to your face in front of other people?

You'd be perfectly happy to have someone stand in front of you and tell you you didn't flush the loo in front of other people?

You'd be perfectly happy when someone else comes along and takes your job?

Brian S.




Quote:
Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -

Postby kevin » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:01 am
Brian, I don't dislike you, I've never met you. But, you'll get us both in trouble for bickering.

I answered these questions a couple of days ago, as you know.

We can have a good debate, when we are back in everybody's good books?

Apart from the Kercher case, what else are you doing today? What part of the UK are you in?

Send me a PM ... but address it just for me. I promise I won't grass you up, no matter what you say


I knew I'd have you for dinner. I just had to keep pushing.

I first asked those questions on Sat 23 Jan 9:34pm GMT: see above

You say you answered them a couple of days ago.

Doesn't your memory last longer than 12 hours?
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin (and Donnie)

What you've got to realise is that there are a lot of old-timers here on this board who know the details of this case backwards.

I can take people who may actually think AK is innocent - as long as they're tuned in on the facts.

PS. You've never answered my questions, but I don't suppose I ever really meant to ask them.
Top Profile 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:10 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Long ago, actually years ago now we went over and over and over as to why one of the three individuals involved in this crime has not stepped forward and told the truth. There is only ONE answer!!!! They are all EQUALLY involved in this murder to the most infinite detail. Not even the finest attorneys could separate their guilt. Even Raffaele's dad could not manage with all his money to soften his son's involvement in the crime. Each individual person is unable to reveal any fact because this will start a leak and we all know that leaks get bigger and pretty soon the boat is sunk. I have also always believed that the crime would not have occurred if even one were missing. This was a group crime fueled by each other's sickest desires.

I think Amanda is at peace. She is doing her time and her parents still love her. She is receiving loads of empathy and support to boot! Secretly she is hoping no more evidence is revealed because then the little doubt that some may have of her guilt that remains will be gone.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fine,

1 1/2 hours means your idea is possible, but I seriously think Guede would be completely paranoid about going back because:

- He talked about 'Black man found ... Black man guilty' ..... which I think was his worry as much as RS actually saying it.

- He probably thought it would come down to his word against AK and RS, a distinct disadvantage.

The most important reason to doubt Guede going back would be he had no idea if AK and RS had called the cops. Or that another tenant had returned to the house and done the same. He would have had no reason to be there, whereas AK lived there.

Interesting that he went to the disco .... he probably felt more comfortable in his usual haunts as much as to establish an alibi?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:34 am   Post subject: The Stallone from Giovinazzo (revisited)   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Note: This interview occurred before Sollecito was picked up.

"He seemed obsessed with the Italian newspapers I was carrying, all of which had Meredith's picture on the front page.

One of the local reports had a cartoon showing a man and a woman standing over a body sprawled out on a bed.

I asked him: "Is this right? Is this how you found her? And who is the girl with you in the picture?"

He said: "It is right but it's not if you know. It's a cartoon but yes I was there with Amanda. Amanda Knox, my girlfriend. Meredith was Amanda's flatmate.""

He says "but it's not if you know" because it is not a photograph it is a cartoon - the interviewer knows that - why does he have to point out the distinction? (interesting because Raffaele is such a fan of comic books). But the point I am making here that this interview was before he was even aware he was a suspect. He is interested in the newspapers somewhat because of the "fame" this has given him - he sees in the cartoon that he has actually been realised as a cartoon character - yes finally he sees he is actually a cartoon character he's seeing himself cartoonized - this is why he points out the distinction. Some compensation for RS - or maybe it was the motivation.

Months later (in prison) in his grandiously titled "notes on a prison journey" (prison diary) he relates a conversation he has had with a prison guard - quoted here in part.

"Consequently I tell him smiling: "Could it be that I have to tell you
something useful?". He: "I do not care at all." Meanwhile I ask him:
"If you tell me your name to quote you, as I have already talked of
our discussion and become famous". He "No, absolutely no interest
to me really, "you don't hold us". "

Here he relates saying to the prison guard in conversation that he could quote the prison guards name (talk of their discussion) and that would make the prison guard famous. RS considers fame to be a goal - in the interview above he showed a lot of interest in the newspapers --- that was the goal - he was "sating" himself with the newspapers. Like many "school shooters" he had decided to commit an atrocious act to gain notoriety. This is before the lawyers and his family got to him - what you are seeing there is the real RS. He had committed the murder with a fantastical (comic book) idea of himself - he had even dressed up in disguise - on that night he was a comic book hero and the comic books became real to him - he was realised as a cartoon. RS is insane. The prison guard points out that a notion of fame holds no interest to him which surprises RS and makes him question his own values (he states this at the end of his "prison diary" (published by the his own family BTW so there is no dispute) so this conversation and the question it has raised in his mind about his values held importance to him. Right after he has related the conversation with the guard he writes:

"And I kept thinking: 'Well, in fact, if I become famous it is not for a
likeable deed, on the contrary, a tragedy and that is very sad. Already
in order to be famous?"

Note he says "it is not" (about "the deed") which actually confirms he has done the deed. Here he is in dispute with himself he noticed that the guard rejected his offer of "fame" which he himself holds dear and it has caused him to question his deed. He continues right to the end of his diary:

"All look at you and judge you and turn your life like a sock ass
backwards and they even accuse you if you breathe too slowly.
Better give up, do not look to the success, money, but spend a
quiet life without stress and suffering, to me it applies not just
punishment."

He realises here that he should have just lived "a quiet life" and not to have gone all out for his idea of "fame" or notoriety which has given him so much trouble. It turns out he has not ended up with glamorous notoriety but perpetual judgement - he doesn't like the way that people look at him all the time (look there's the killer etc.) he's not turned out to be the dark magnificent comic book hero of his mind. He's just a common criminal. This problem with his psyche has arisen from the glamorisation of violence in the media continually through his development. He hasn't just been "entertained" by comic books films and cartoons - he's been completely obsessed with them.

RS in correspondence with the family of AK fairly recently was still talking about comic books (reportedly). RS is clearly obsessed. It can happen that when an individual has grown up completely immersed in the media that they will not have any boundaries at all between fantasy and reality. Some compensation for RS - he was a "cartoon hero" - he probably had a character and a name for himself. It can all probably be found in the pages of his comic books ... they should be taken off him for his own good.

....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... nt;usecol1


Excellent analysis, ttrroonniicc! I think you have it spot on.

Compare this with RS letter he wrote to his friends at La Piazza di Giovinazzo in May 2009 (published in Gente June 1, 2009) [I'm becoming somewhat of an online expert on RS letters to his local village magazine :) ]. It seems RS lives in a fantasy world brought on by video games, computer games, cartoons, and movies.

Posted by Jools: Sun May 31, 2009 6:43 pm

Post subject: The Stallone from Giovinazzo

Quote:
From La Stampa:

"I feel like Rocky vs. Drago"

“A little while ago I saw Rocky IV and the fantasy led me to imagine that the “Russian Government” was the public prosecutor and Ivan Drago the worst of the prosecutors witnesses. What imagination I have!”

Raffaele Sollecito, on trial in Perugia with Amanda Knox for the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher, writes to his friends in his hometown Giovinazzo a letter to be published as an exclusive by the weekly “Gente” in newsstands tomorrow.

“To see the film in this perspective – continues Sollecito - has been very exciting.”

Raffaele speaks of life in prison: “ If I had here the Play station I would shut myself in my magical, utopian world where all are honest with themselves and others. Unfortunately, in reality things are not like that and what’s happening to me is proof”.

About his health: “Lately I’m not well, this is because my intestinal problems have deteriorated or because the loneliness brings my morale down to the ground. As you already know, I am alone and fortunately I have with me one of the few things that give me strength to go forward: Fight for justice.”

Sollecito continues: “ As you know, out of here I used to practise Kickboxing, whether in Giovinazzo or in Perugia. Now, as for the workout… have you ever taken a kick in air? Might you ever and a window shutter? Tip: Do not try, do not agree, entrust you.”

With “Gente” Raffaele’s father also spoke in an exclusive, Francesco Sollecito: “ My son is not well. He is got serious intestinal problems. They are not caused by the food diet but I believe it’s from the stress, anxiety syndrome and psychological problems. Raffaeles’s situation, his letter, makes me think about the monologue of Tom Hanks in Castaway when he’s abandoned on an island, is forced to have any communication with his people, any contact with his world. A life medicine on that island were his thoughts and above all the hope to be reunited with that lost world that was his life. Raffaele wants to return to live.”


Read the entire post HERE.

This indicates someone who lives in a fantasy world at the expense of reality. RS is full of heady ideas with little basis in support. He is playing out characters in cartoons and movies and doesn't seem to want to face reality. He just wants to shelter himself in his own "virtual reality". RS's life is boring, he's not athletic, he's (probably) picked on, and he really wants to stay in a world created of fantasy that lives in his head and where he has all the right answers. People like this are seldom at a loss for an idea, plan, or scheme, but there's no basis in reality. RS imagines himself to be a hero who cannot see the true potential of where he lives and of who he can be. Therefore, he leaves the "mundane world" of the usual, the boring and transforms it into a place of magical wonders [in his mind].

Raffaele Sollecito wrote:

Quote:
"And I kept thinking: 'Well, in fact, if I become famous it is not for a
likeable deed, on the contrary, a tragedy and that is very sad. Already
in order to be famous?"


Welcome to the world we live in today where people crave money and fame so badly they turn their lives into a fantasy to try and get it, and once you get into that world you end up telling so many lies it becomes harder and harder to tell the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

fine wrote:
donnie wrote:
fine wrote:
That banging sound.


Amanda and Raffaele BOTH incorporated into their respective stories their alleged failed attempt to force open Meredith's door. On the one hand, this is an implausible story because either one could have kicked open the door if they had wished. So the story is very likely false. On the other hand, it's hard to see why they ATTACHED such importance to this implausible story.....so they tried and failed to force the door or, alternatively, so they didn't try....who cares? It's not incriminating either way. Or is it.

Well, it is an important element, because of it's diversionary force. On November 2, by 1:00 PM the Postal police have arrived at the cottage, and also Filomena and her three friends. Meredith's door is locked, but the door is cracked. Hmm. Why would Amanda and Raffaele wish to assume responsibility for THAT damage, and in so doing DATE the damage as occurrring a few moments earlier? Well, if the damage---and noise---had occured the night before that would have corroborated Kokomani's version of events for the night before. If Kokomani is telling the truth, he is the ONE AND ONLY witness that all three suspects were at the cottage that night, and the suspects knew this, and all four out on the street that night heard that banging sound.

The door damage was probably caused by Meredith herself, while she was locked in her room and the three suspects were outside committing their carjacking prank. She wasn't able to escape because of an asymmetry in door construction noted (above) by SomeAlibi. Any healthy person can kick OPEN a bedroom door, in the direction the door is designed to swing. Difficult to break it down when you're locked inside however....then your force is resisted not just by the bolt but by the door framing as well as the hinges. (Look at a door in your home for proof.) In a situation like THIS it's the door that's first to fail. Or crack. The evidence that someone tried ---and FAILED---to break down the door is evidence that it was Meredith. And also evidence that Kokomani was right.

///


You have a good point here, very interesting take on the door case. But was the door damaged also from the inside? I saw the pictures of the outside only.


Good question donnie. I hope someone here more knowledgable than I can answer it. My understanding is that the door was found "cracked" prior to being broken down. And ---for all I know---it may not be possible to say whether that was from inside or outside force. (Especially since that original crack may have been altered when the door was finally broken down.)

///


Hi. I want to return to the door for a little while. So does anybody know if the door was damaged also from the inside? Are there any pictures or reports? Fine's point was very interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Donnie,

Yes, there is a picture of the inside of the door, there is blood on the handle, it is possibly in the gallery, that Michael recently set up.

I can't remember about the damage, I was looking for which type of lock it had early last year (standard internal lock ... with a key that will lock it from both sides). ..... Oh, tell a lie .... after a long wait, it was posted on youtube, not as a photo but as a crimescene video of the whole room. Hope the vid is still there, some things I saw early on disappeared, someone suggested that they could have been automatically deleted after 6 months.

Glad you found the debate with Machine interesting, he knows his stuff?.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The 411 wrote:
With all the recent commotion, I don't think you've been properly welcomed, New Poster h9A7wa9i1K----phew what a mouthful of hieroglyphics!
Do you have a short and easy nickname you go by? "Let's see....H9A"... sounds like"Hannah"--would that work for you? Or "Hans" if you have that extra Y chromosome.

Thanks 411, h9 will do, and if you speak aloud while typing it is pronounced aych nine ;-)

Did anyone notice what 'cycle' the washing machine was on? Were they trying one of these uber hot programmes that can take over 2.5 hours to run?

I am not sure who might crack first, who knows, could even be Edda or Curt, Curt is looking pretty bad these days. If they know something from the first phone call, could be one of them will not be able to hold it together for 26 years.

If i was innocent and 22, rather than read my letters and the odd classic and write in a diary and compose bad stories, I would be making it hell in prison, kicking doors and going on a hunger strike. No way in hell would an innocent person be behaving as she is 2 years on.


Last edited by H9 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:40 am   Post subject: Re: The Stallone from Giovinazzo (revisited)   

guermantes wrote:
Welcome to the world we live in today where people crave money and fame so badly they turn their lives into a fantasy to try and get it, and once you get into that world you end up telling so many lies it becomes harder and harder to tell the truth.


What would you call it? Is it a malady? "utopian vision"? - "dreamworld"? Is there a medical or psychological term. Can't blame the media itself just media glamorisation of violence ... "unrealism"?

Impossibility because the media is a projection - in the case of RS it has turned into a "dystopia"

Thesaurus words for "dystopia":

Agapemone, Arcadia, Big Rock-Candy Mountain, Canaan,
Cloudcuckooland, Cockaigne, Eden, Eldorado, Erewhon,
Garden of Eden, Goshen, Happy Valley, Land of Youth, Laputa,
Never-Never-land, Neverland, New Atlantis, Pandemonium, Quivira,
Shangri-la, Utopia, cloudland, dreamland, faerie, fairyland,
heaven, kakotopia, kingdom come, land of dreams,
land of enchantment, land of faerie, land of plenty,
land of promise, lotus land, millennium, paradise, promised land,
utopia, wonderland

I think some of the problem with the darker sides of media addiction are to do with "schadenfreude" (delight in another person's misfortune) which is enhanced, amplified by the media for entertainment. Prosecution experts were of the opinion that RS and AK derived pleasure from taunting Meredith Kercher with the knives, judging by her injuries before the terminal one. The media displays violence again and again and is designed to shock to generate a visceral or emotive response in the observer. RS was actively seeking this type of media out. How many violent scenes will RS and AK have seen played out in the media in their life spans? It can be seen as a kind of "training". RS at least felt extremely limited in his life - he eventually pushed the boundaries to "force something to change" in the only sphere he understood could possibly give him some kind of validation. Meeting AK (his first real girlfriend) pushed him over the edge. It's more likely that he was trying to impress her. They were trying to out play each other "see I'm a hero" - "I'm a hero too" - but the characters they were playing were not viable in the real world - they were "anti heroes" - characters which were forced to work and would only work within the media realm using shock value. The media can cause such things to happen within still developing personas. Plus they were drugged out of their minds and where did their drug experience go that night? Into a fantasy which ended up as that dystopia. What Kokomani relates of them confirms this - the fact they were openly threatening him with knives in the street - all boundaries were lost - they were in that fantasy. AK's description of the night (as "Marie Pace" within her "story") confirms the unreality of the experience between her and RS.

You've got to question this (from the press recently) - from somebody who has made it his trade:

Quentin Tarantino: violence is the best way to control an audience
Extreme violence in film is the best way to control the emotions of audiences, Quentin Tarantino claimed.
Published: 8:00PM GMT 12 Jan 2010

The writer and director said "violence is so good" because it is the most enjoyable form of entertainment, adding that what he wants to see at the cinema is a man "bleeding like a stuck pig". The 46 year-old, whose films such as Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill frequently revolve around violence, used a speech at the British Academy of Film andTelevision in Piccadilly to explain how he uses gore to "play" his audiences. When Reservoir Dogs was released in 1992 audience members reportedly walked out during a torture scene. “I feel like a conductor and the audience's feelings are my instruments. I will be like, 'Laugh, laugh, now be horrified'. When someone does that to me I've had a good time at the movies," he said. “If a guy gets shot in the stomach and he's bleeding like a stuck pig then that's what I want to see — not a man with a stomach ache and a little red dot on his belly.” The director said that violence was the best form of cinema entertainment. “In general cinema, that's the biggest attraction. I'm a big fan of action and violence in cinema,” he said. "That's why Thomas Edison created the motion picture camera — because violence is so good. It affects audiences in a big way. You know you're watching a movie."

the problem is that's not always the case

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... ience.html
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
...we've all been told to stop bickering ...... I promise I won't grass you up, no matter what you say



Hi Kevin. Yes.

Homicide sounds so impersonal. Murder sounds more authentic, and is more accurate when discussing Meredith Kercher.
Homicide is a nice term for a drunk driving accident.


Last edited by Jester on Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Donnie,

Yes, there is a picture of the inside of the door, there is blood on the handle, it is possibly in the gallery, that Michael recently set up.

I can't remember about the damage, I was looking for which type of lock it had early last year (standard internal lock ... with a key that will lock it from both sides). ..... Oh, tell a lie .... after a long wait, it was posted on youtube, not as a photo but as a crimescene video of the whole room. Hope the vid is still there, some things I saw early on disappeared, someone suggested that they could have been automatically deleted after 6 months.

Glad you found the debate with Machine interesting, he knows his stuff?.


That's what i was remembering. The video of the bloodied handle, but as i can recall, there wasn't any damaged done from the inside. And, it was just the way you said, it was a video of the whole room, not just the door, so they showed it just for a seconds. I'll take a look.

And yes, the Machine knows his stuff.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:27 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Jester,

Well, I'll remember to mend my ways tonight, I think Brian has gone to bed now.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Fine,

1 1/2 hours means your idea is possible, but I seriously think Guede would be completely paranoid about going back because:

- He talked about 'Black man found ... Black man guilty' ..... which I think was his worry as much as RS actually saying it.

- He probably thought it would come down to his word against AK and RS, a distinct disadvantage.

The most important reason to doubt Guede going back would be he had no idea if AK and RS had called the cops. Or that another tenant had returned to the house and done the same. He would have had no reason to be there, whereas AK lived there.

Interesting that he went to the disco .... he probably felt more comfortable in his usual haunts as much as to establish an alibi?

The obvious reason to doubt that Rudy returned to the cottage is that evidence incriminating him was found throughout the cottage, and he was known to be dancing until 6 AM.

Some say he later danced through a moment of silence for Meredith. Only a man on drugs would do something that inappropriate. When he came down enough to realize what he had done, he knew his only chance was to get out of town.

There is no important reason other than justice.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

My hometown paper: nothing new though

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... 05532.html

apologies if this was already posted :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 42978.html

Tom Matychowlak is in the comments of the Intelligence Squared debate. Anyone know him? How's the thesis coming donnie? Will it be available online after submission? When is the submission date btw?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Maybe I misread, but I thought I read that the prosecutor was charged with phone tapping the police and journatlists ... but it may have been that the prosecutor and police were charged with phone tapping journalists.

Where were the journalists from? That is, who is the injured party in the trial with the prosecutor? I understand that the state is trying the case, but as with the families of murder victims, there must also be a third injured party in this action between journalists and the prosecutor's office.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
My hometown paper: nothing new though

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... 05532.html

apologies if this was already posted :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 42978.html

Tom Matychowlak is in the comments of the Intelligence Squared debate. Anyone know him? How's the thesis coming donnie? Will it be available online after submission? When is the submission date btw?


(OT) I love Philly. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

capealadin wrote:
SomeAlibi is coming back, right? He makes such good points, and, well, he has such a great sense of humour. And, umm, the free beer?


Oh, I only stopped commenting on the thread not on the board - you can't get rid of me that easily (there that's one snapped pencil in Italy at least :) ) . Made the points and moved on. Beer's still on ;)

_________________
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 H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I only started posting so I could be in on the free beer :)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: Revisiting the Kate Mansey Mirror interview with Sollecito   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Note: This interview occurred before Sollecito was picked up.

"He seemed obsessed with the Italian newspapers I was carrying, all of which had Meredith's picture on the front page.

One of the local reports had a cartoon showing a man and a woman standing over a body sprawled out on a bed.

I asked him: "Is this right? Is this how you found her? And who is the girl with you in the picture?"

He said: "It is right but it's not if you know. It's a cartoon but yes I was there with Amanda. Amanda Knox, my girlfriend. Meredith was Amanda's flatmate.""

He says "but it's not if you know" because it is not a photograph it is a cartoon - the interviewer knows that - why does he have to point out the distinction? (interesting because Raffaele is such a fan of comic books). But the point I am making here that this interview was before he was even aware he was a suspect. He is interested in the newspapers somewhat because of the "fame" this has given him - he sees in the cartoon that he has actually been realised as a cartoon character - yes finally he sees he is actually a cartoon character he's seeing himself cartoonized - this is why he points out the distinction. Some compensation for RS - or maybe it was the motivation.

Months later (in prison) in his grandiously titled "notes on a prison journey" (prison diary) he relates a conversation he has had with a prison guard - quoted here in part.

"Consequently I tell him smiling: "Could it be that I have to tell you
something useful?". He: "I do not care at all." Meanwhile I ask him:
"If you tell me your name to quote you, as I have already talked of
our discussion and become famous". He "No, absolutely no interest
to me really, "you don't hold us". "

Here he relates saying to the prison guard in conversation that he could quote the prison guards name (talk of their discussion) and that would make the prison guard famous. RS considers fame to be a goal - in the interview above he showed a lot of interest in the newspapers --- that was the goal - he was "sating" himself with the newspapers. Like many "school shooters" he had decided to commit an atrocious act to gain notoriety. This is before the lawyers and his family got to him - what you are seeing there is the real RS. He had committed the murder with a fantastical (comic book) idea of himself - he had even dressed up in disguise - on that night he was a comic book hero and the comic books became real to him - he was realised as a cartoon. RS is insane. The prison guard points out that a notion of fame holds no interest to him which surprises RS and makes him question his own values (he states this at the end of his "prison diary" (published by the his own family BTW so there is no dispute) so this conversation and the question it has raised in his mind about his values held importance to him. Right after he has related the conversation with the guard he writes:

"And I kept thinking: 'Well, in fact, if I become famous it is not for a
likeable deed, on the contrary, a tragedy and that is very sad. Already
in order to be famous?"

Note he says "it is not" (about "the deed") which actually confirms he has done the deed. Here he is in dispute with himself he noticed that the guard rejected his offer of "fame" which he himself holds dear and it has caused him to question his deed. He continues right to the end of his diary:

"All look at you and judge you and turn your life like a sock ass
backwards and they even accuse you if you breathe too slowly.
Better give up, do not look to the success, money, but spend a
quiet life without stress and suffering, to me it applies not just
punishment."

He realises here that he should have just lived "a quiet life" and not to have gone all out for his idea of "fame" or notoriety which has given him so much trouble. It turns out he has not ended up with glamorous notoriety but perpetual judgement - he doesn't like the way that people look at him all the time (look there's the killer etc.) he's not turned out to be the dark magnificent comic book hero of his mind. He's just a common criminal. This problem with his psyche has arisen from the glamorisation of violence in the media continually through his development. He hasn't just been "entertained" by comic books films and cartoons - he's been completely obsessed with them.

RS in correspondence with the family of AK fairly recently was still talking about comic books (reportedly). RS is clearly obsessed. It can happen that when an individual has grown up completely immersed in the media that they will not have any boundaries at all between fantasy and reality. Some compensation for RS - he was a "cartoon hero" - he probably had a character and a name for himself. It can all probably be found in the pages of his comic books ... they should be taken off him for his own good.

The interview with Kate Mansey quoted above was before RS was even aware he was a suspect. He states it was himself and AK standing over the body of Meredith Kercher. He didn't seem to be aware there was a problem with that. I would like to see the cartoon he was referring to (from what publication and what date). It probably shows a picture of 2 protagonists assaulting Meredith Kercher which is interesting because nobody then knew who had killed her. Somebody recently on here found from the date of publication of the article that the interview occurred the day the murder was discovered. RS in the photo which accompanies the article is dressed in exactly the same clothes that he was photographed in outside the scene. This can't be true because in the article he is shown italian newspapers "all of which had Meredith's picture on the front page". More information needed - here recently someone has indicated that RS and/or AK would have confessed by now if their families or the lawyers had not got to them. Mignini indicated that he was close to getting a confession out of AK but her lawyer threatened to walk away if he persisted (strange that). So the lawyers have by putting their clients into a state of constant denial guaranteed their employment right through the trial and subsequent appeals. At the stage that Kate Mansey interviewed RS he was confirming the facts and was willing to talk about everything - for the sake of fame - for the sake of notoriety.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... nt;usecol1



Good post ttrroonniicc - thanks.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:42 pm   Post subject: Letters   

Hi Kev,

Ahem, you’ve been having a busy day, hey?

Watch out that Argus never sleeps, by the way (unless he hears a good song). I’ve posted about Argus before. He might be lurking.


Now mate, I don’t know where to begin.


kevin wrote:

Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

– Sun 24 Jan (my time) [ link ] XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 [2010], page 11



Hi Kev,

(A)
Don’t worry. No explanation for any perceived lack is necessary.

There’s plenty of evidence in Meredith’s room implicating Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy in the murder and sexual assault (or “struggle”, as you call it). There is also evidence in other rooms of the crime scene as to what Rudy did (in some cases, literally), and what the stagers did. Combined with the evidence of witness statements and the evidence of all three lying at various stages and in various ways, the case is too strong not to have proceeded, and, in my opinion, too strong for the judges at all stages not to have carried out their duty: they are bound by their duty to examine the evidence.

Perhaps when you type “evidence” you mean something different to what I think you might mean? I’m not sure if there is a way that I can help. I often find Google is quite handy in finding things out, more or less at random: [ here ]. Some answers are more correct than others, though. The trick is identifying which are which.

Perhaps a law course on evidence might be of help? For example: there is no evidence that you have spell-check on your computer. – versus – There is evidence that you do not know how to use spell-check. – versus – The way you so consistently spell “scenario” as “senario” across all posts is not evidence that your little brother has not accidentally installed a worm that has pranked your spell-checker into spell-hecker mode before flibbertigibbetting away. (I’ve seen that happen.)


See how those nots seem to get in each other’s way? Bit tricky, that sort of thing.



kevin wrote:
However, Guede was certainly there, and attempted to rape Meredith?

As for what triggered the assault:

Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

Stolen money - far more likely, but Guede would be the one who was most likely to need money, we know he was a petty thief. The problem is that the three arrived after Meredith so the only time Guede or someone else could have taken it would be between 18:00 and 20:30 or so ..... and only if Knox let them in?




(B)
The motive of jealousy has already been adverted to by a previous poster. It is so powerful, I might add, that an entire set of film genres is devoted purely to it and nothing else. Surely you don’t want to deprive a bunch of media moguls of their income?

Perhaps watching a few films might be of assistance? (That’s a serious suggestion, by the way – films are part of the literature syllabus here: you get good marks if you are able to demonstrate an understanding of them.)

Even a half-hour of a comedy sit-com on TV will likely bring in jealousy in the first 10 minutes. See if and when you can spot it. Tell me what it feels like.

By the way, “attempted to rape” is too kind to Rudy and whoever was helping him. You’re sort of pre-empting the judges on that point. Hopefully, you’ve got your case prepared, if you’re going to put on your “let’s join Rudy’s defence team” hat (a good lawyer will be able to do that, actually).


(C)
As to thievery, be careful about snookering yourself logically.

Before closing the thievery chapter, these questions must be answered (amongst others):

(i) why did Amanda say that it was usual for Meredith to lock her door (do you see the three layers in Amanda’s assertion here?);

(ii) have you asked Raffaele’s relatives who they think is a thief (some hints of their opinions have already been reported in various magazine interviews)

(iii) the thief who stole Meredith’s phones wasn’t a thief in the traditional sense – the phones were, in the Italian phrase, subtracted from her person, and even though that is what a thief must do to effect thievery, it is not the only thing; here, it was the only thing (since the phones were discarded almost immediately upon exiting the cottage), which is itself evidence pointing in the direction that it was not a theft, per se, as they say;

(iv) it’s a stupid burglar (a dill, in fact) who doesn’t steal – things like laptops, cameras, designer glasses, jewellery, etc: after all, drugs aren’t free (even if you have a rich boyfriend, or rather, a boyfriend with a rich father), and, aside from buying drugs, what other purpose would or could there be in subtracting money from a person’s drawer?



(D)
“we know he was a petty thief”

What? Run that one past me again, would you, mate?

I must have blinked and missed the “we” bit when that assertion was handed out at the briefing session in the cafeteria during the midnight shift.

In any case, I’m sure you must have meant something completely different to what you wrote, because what you wrote is, as it stands, slanderous.

I disassociate myself utterly and completely from any and all such unattested and unsupported criminous assertions. Moreover, the lawyers call those statements “injurious falsehoods”, so be careful about copping a libel suit (remember, there are civil libels and criminal libels (and there were also blasphemous ones, but that is by the bye)).



kevin wrote:
Guede doing something or saying something inappropriate to Meredith ........ yes very,very likely, I've already explained the cultural difference you get with the less educated Italian guys like Guede. He was well known around the bars for 'troubling' girls, when he was on his own.



(E)
Estimates of “likely” won’t endear you to the accountants. Or Rudy’s team.

Does your “very,very likely” mean I would be very, very likelier to believe your probability estimates than just likely ones, and really, really trust them? Or perhaps I’m getting confused about percentages – a guy who survives on a kebab-and-maybe-beer diet, and scrounges a joint from people he likes to think of as friends, is going to steal a heap of rent-money (and nothing else valuable, by the way) for the purpose of…exactly what? Help me out here, Kev. I’m floundering in a quagmire of roads leading nowhere. Give me some direction here, if that’s not too much of a favour to ask.

(F)
Again, Kev, mate, I must be slower than a wet week in Tassie (no offence, Tiziano!), but I missed the “I've already explained the cultural difference” bit as well – do you remember when or where it was? In case you’ve misplaced it or forgotten which post you put it into, the “search” function is quite helpful in such cases, I find.

(G)
“He was well known around the bars” – are you referring to that tour guide’s comments to a roving reporter, or do you mean “His type was well known” etc? You’ve lost me again, I have to admit. Can you point out the evidence supporting this again? I would be most appreciative. Really.



kevin wrote:
You can't equate the mentality of middle class 'Anglo-Saxons' to another culture.



(H)
“middle class 'Anglo-Saxons'”

Lost again, mate. The only people I’ve heard use the phrase “'Anglo-Saxons'” are UW undergrads on al all-night binge (metaphorically speaking, that is; not that real UW undergrads would do such asserting – they know better).

middle class 'Anglo-Saxons'” is such a delightful concept! – I’m sure the peasants, the ruling classes, and even the bourgeoisie itself would find that amusing.

I haven’t seen any evidence of real middle class anywhere yet (except maybe the Italian lawyers, in a way). Lost again. Must be me.

And Kev, mate, I haven’t done any equating, not that I know of, anyway (unless you mean the kebab, or the beer?)

Kev the Compass – be a mate, and lead me out of Tanglewood!



The good things about posts is that they never go away, so the only way out is upward.


(Z)
By the way, “Italian guys like Guede” who are able to say that the guy with the knife “was not a local [=Perugian], and wasn’t a northerner” are chess-champion material. He gets triple points for that, being in so many corners and all.

Certainly not in the “less educated” category, even though he presents himself as lower-class. He does have standards, unlike the other two. (Unfortunately, their combined standards overall were not very high, in the end.)


Thanks Kev.
You’ve been a great help.
Really.
:)
The chinwag has been most enjoyable.

It's beer o'clock.
Time for my chamomile in my midnight Questura. And some cartwheels to unwind.
I’ll leave you to Argus.



(Z2)
P.S. Re Amanda’s knife collection: does anyone know if it was the German Guede brand? There must be some explanation why knife-loving Raffaele was following Rudy “The Baron” around yet pretending not to notice him (according to the shop owner’s observations). With Amanda’s German-ness as well, there’s enough of what they call a nexus to start attracting things (like knives themselves, in a way).
Top Profile 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

indie wrote:
Long ago, actually years ago now we went over and over and over as to why one of the three individuals involved in this crime has not stepped forward and told the truth. There is only ONE answer!!!! They are all EQUALLY involved in this murder to the most infinite detail. Not even the finest attorneys could separate their guilt. Even Raffaele's dad could not manage with all his money to soften his son's involvement in the crime. Each individual person is unable to reveal any fact because this will start a leak and we all know that leaks get bigger and pretty soon the boat is sunk. I have also always believed that the crime would not have occurred if even one were missing. This was a group crime fueled by each other's sickest desires.

I think Amanda is at peace. She is doing her time and her parents still love her. She is receiving loads of empathy and support to boot! Secretly she is hoping no more evidence is revealed because then the little doubt that some may have of her guilt that remains will be gone.


I agree 100% th-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
There may be another witness ...... remember Alessandra Formica, our most credible eyewitness as far as I can see, saw a North African (emphatically not Guede) running near the scene of the crime. One possible candidate could be Knox's buddy Juve ... last I heard he had disappeared shortly after the murder... I'm not sure of any further developments.


Hi Kevin,

I wouldn't say Alessandra Formica is the most credible eyewitness. The black man who bumped into her may or may not have been Rudy Guede.

Antonio Curatolo is both a credible and an important witness. Judge Paolo Micheli believes he is honest and trustworthy. He corroborated Amanda Knox's admission that she was in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder. He also corroborated Hekuran Kokomani's testimony that Knox and Sollecito were watching the cottage.

Nara Capezalli is another very important witness. She and Antonella Monacchia corroborated Amanda Knox's claim that Meredith screamed loudly. She also heard two or more people running away shortly after Meredith screamed.

Incidentally, you didn't explain how Meredith's DNA got caught in a groove on the blade of the double DNA knife. This wouldn't have happened when Sollecito cut off the bra strap. Furthermore, the double DNA knife is compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith's neck. The double DNA knife was clearly used to stab Meredith.

Amanda Knox admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder and that they had asked Meredith to join them. I think these are very significant admissions.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:

Incidentally, you didn't explain how Meredith's DNA got caught in a groove on the blade of the double DNA knife. This wouldn't have happened when Sollecito cut off the bra strap. Furthermore, the double DNA knife is compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith's neck. The double DNA knife was clearly used to stab Meredith.


I think you know, but the defense side issue with the LCN DNA is the abnormal testing required.

All the other DNA in this case, the DNA people refer to for the bra clasp, Rudy multitude of DNA, was tested in the standard procedure.

If this knife had been tested this way (and it was) there was no Meredith DNA found.

The tool had to have special adjustments made, amplification turned up etc.. and then some readings were seen.

While there is no law against adjusting the tool to read "LCN", as was done in this case on this specific item, LCN and the procedures required are not generally acceptable to the scientific community due to its marginal and unknowns (and known error issues).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thanks Catnip - I enjoyed that recent post.
I am especially interested in jealousy both from a personal POV and as a literary theme, so I appreciated your comments about Kevin's dismissal of jealousy and envy as a motive for the murder:
Quote:
As for what triggered the assault:
Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

I'm vain enough to jump to the conclusion that you might have been referring to my post about a month ago on the subject, that Brian was kind enough to compliment (Thanks Brian).
Just in case Kevin might be inclined to reconsider jealousy as a motive, I'll post it again below - with small edits based on what I've since learned on PMF:

"If we look honestly into our own hearts (and our films, TV and newspapers) we have to acknowledge the terrible power of sexual jealousy and rejection.
Try to imagine yourself in this situation - you are an immature, young woman far from home, burdened with low self esteem and anger control issues and a morbid interest in violent rape fantasies. You love being the center of attention to compensate for childhood neglect, but are thrown into the company of an admired, brilliant, beautiful rival. Her natural charm is effortless, and she befriends you at first, but your narcissism is tiresome and your social ineptness starts to become an embarrassment. She expresses disapproval of your lifestyle in front of acquaintances and she begins to avoid you. Your frustration grows when she attracts a young man you had desired, and then your employer demotes you and offers her your job. Soon after this setback, you observe your new boyfriend watching her with interest, and your anger becomes unbearable.
When an opportunity presents itself to humiliate her under the influence of drugs and two unstable accomplices, the flash-point for an explosion of violence might actually be shockingly low."

I want to stress that all of the above speculation is based on known accounts and testimony.
One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin wrote:
GUEDE IS KNOWN TO CARRY A KNIFE.

So do I, and many people I know.

It's a useful tool.

Pretty normal here, and in Italy.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Incidentally, you didn't explain how Meredith's DNA got caught in a groove on the blade of the double DNA knife. This wouldn't have happened when Sollecito cut off the bra strap. Furthermore, the double DNA knife is compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith's neck. The double DNA knife was clearly used to stab Meredith.


I think you know, but the defense side issue with the LCN DNA is the abnormal testing required.

All the other DNA in this case, the DNA people refer to for the bra clasp, Rudy multitude of DNA, was tested in the standard procedure.

If this knife had been tested this way (and it was) there was no Meredith DNA found.

The tool had to have special adjustments made, amplification turned up etc.. and then some readings were seen.

While there is no law against adjusting the tool to read "LCN", as was done in this case on this specific item, LCN and the procedures required are not generally acceptable to the scientific community due to its marginal and unknowns (and known error issues).

That was Raffaelle's DNA on the bra strap, not Rudy's. There are guidelines for LCN DNA and your statement that is is not generally acceptable is refutable. I have read recent articles to the contrary, especially in Europe. They didn't just manufacture this evidence and the sample they obtained was very obviously Meredith's even to someone who is has no experience within this area of expertise. They weren't just "some readings"....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

JFK states
Quote:
The tool had to have special adjustments made, amplification turned up etc.. and then some readings were seen.

While there is no law against adjusting the tool to read "LCN", as was done in this case on this specific item, LCN and the procedures required are not generally acceptable to the scientific community due to its marginal and unknowns (and known error issues). mul-)


^^^^^^^^^^

I hasten to admit your scientific scenario above defies dissent.

However, from the good ol last resort of common sense, when a kitchen utensil has been scoured with an abrasive element in addition to immersion in liberal doses of bleach, would not a man of common intelligence conclude that just possibly this particular kitchen implement had received "special adjustment" treatment not in normal implementation by normal household practices for utensils used normally only for cooking ?

Still more common sense, this particular utensil has been documented to have had a highly suspicious pattern of whereabouts, completely under auspices of 2 murder suspects who together seem unable to compose a single simple scenario of their own whereabouts during the time a close acquaintance of theirs was savagely murdered .

Just using the above considerations, is a single "special adjustment" so distasteful to dissuade our common intellect from looking *at all* and concluding (unanimously) guilt ?

Again your analytical approach *to one isolated* piece of this whole case, although well reasoned and presented, entertains, but does not my mind alter.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

An exert from Stefano Nazzi, the Italian tabloid guy:

‘And why so many blogs, sites and forums Americans, has enjoyed, with bad taste and a good dose of stupidity, for the condemnation of Mignini. Here are some sentences: "I'm so happy that Mignini was found guilty" or "Giuliano Mignini guilty? This is such great news!”. This is such great news. " “This is our dawn of victory!!!!!!!”. And again: "This is our dawn of victory !!!!!!!". And so on.
As if justice was a game between nations, one by one and ball in the center. As if the condemnation of Mignini could somehow help Amanda Knox. And then there is to swear that none of the Americans (it should be stated that none of the Knox family has been involved in this kind of celebration) know anything of the long and difficult investigation of the Monster of Florence.’

Stefano says the Knox family hasn’t been involved in this celebration.. I don’t know if he has read the recent papers where Curt Knox and his sidekick Chris Mellas are ecstatic (orgasmic) over this recent development. And said it will form part of the appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

stint7 wrote:
JFK states
Quote:
The tool had to have special adjustments made, amplification turned up etc.. and then some readings were seen.

While there is no law against adjusting the tool to read "LCN", as was done in this case on this specific item, LCN and the procedures required are not generally acceptable to the scientific community due to its marginal and unknowns (and known error issues). mul-)


^^^^^^^^^^

I hasten to admit your scientific scenario above defies dissent.

However, from the good ol last resort of common sense, when a kitchen utensil has been scoured with an abrasive element in addition to immersion in liberal doses of bleach, would not a man of common intelligence conclude that just possibly this particular kitchen implement had received "special adjustment" treatment not in normal implementation by normal household practices for utensils used normally only for cooking ?

Still more common sense, this particular utensil has been documented to have had a highly suspicious pattern of whereabouts, completely under auspices of 2 murder suspects who together seem unable to compose a single simple scenario of their own whereabouts during the time a close acquaintance of theirs was savagely murdered .

Just using the above considerations, is a single "special adjustment" so distasteful to dissuade our common intellect from looking *at all* and concluding (unanimously) guilt ?

Again your analytical approach *to one isolated* piece of this whole case, although well reasoned and presented, entertains, but does not my mind alter.


Tigger and Stint 7 are right. How many times do we need to dredge up the LCN issue?

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Incidentally, you didn't explain how Meredith's DNA got caught in a groove on the blade of the double DNA knife. This wouldn't have happened when Sollecito cut off the bra strap. Furthermore, the double DNA knife is compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith's neck. The double DNA knife was clearly used to stab Meredith.


I think you know, but the defense side issue with the LCN DNA is the abnormal testing required.

All the other DNA in this case, the DNA people refer to for the bra clasp, Rudy multitude of DNA, was tested in the standard procedure.

If this knife had been tested this way (and it was) there was no Meredith DNA found.

The tool had to have special adjustments made, amplification turned up etc.. and then some readings were seen.

While there is no law against adjusting the tool to read "LCN", as was done in this case on this specific item, LCN and the procedures required are not generally acceptable to the scientific community due to its marginal and unknowns (and known error issues).


So the knife is a contestable piece of evidence -- what else is new? As many here have said, many times, there was ample evidence to convict without the knife. The judges and jury did not base their verdict on the knife alone. The knife had been cleaned with bleach.

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
Thanks Catnip - I enjoyed that recent post.
I am especially interested in jealousy both from a personal POV and as a literary theme, so I appreciated your comments about Kevin's dismissal of jealousy and envy as a motive for the murder:
Quote:
As for what triggered the assault:
Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

I'm vain enough to jump to the conclusion that you might have been referring to my post about a month ago on the subject, that Brian was kind enough to compliment (Thanks Brian).
Just in case Kevin might be inclined to reconsider jealousy as a motive, I'll post it again below - with small edits based on what I've since learned on PMF:

"If we look honestly into our own hearts (and our films, TV and newspapers) we have to acknowledge the terrible power of sexual jealousy and rejection.
Try to imagine yourself in this situation - you are an immature, young woman far from home, burdened with low self esteem and anger control issues and a morbid interest in violent rape fantasies. You love being the center of attention to compensate for childhood neglect, but are thrown into the company of an admired, brilliant, beautiful rival. Her natural charm is effortless, and she befriends you at first, but your narcissism is tiresome and your social ineptness starts to become an embarrassment. She expresses disapproval of your lifestyle in front of acquaintances and she begins to avoid you. Your frustration grows when she attracts a young man you had desired, and then your employer demotes you and offers her your job. Soon after this setback, you observe your new boyfriend watching her with interest, and your anger becomes unbearable.
When an opportunity presents itself to humiliate her under the influence of drugs and two unstable accomplices, the flash-point for an explosion of violence might actually be shockingly low."

I want to stress that all of the above speculation is based on known accounts and testimony.
One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


Yes, and for a narcissistic personality almost everything can signify a personal attack or humiliation, sometimes even a single, misinterpreted glance might be enough.
I also enjoyed reading your first post btw. Just wanted to add that one can very well imagine someone being friends with and jealous of that same person. Jealousy can be a very strong, ambivalent bond, e.g. also between family members. Catnip is right, lots of research material out there!
And I guess so was TM when he posted above that jealousy and envy were very common murder motives.


Last edited by Ava on Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
Hi Kev,

Ahem, you’ve been having a busy day, hey?

Watch out that Argus never sleeps, by the way (unless he hears a good song). I’ve posted about Argus before. He might be lurking.


Now mate, I don’t know where to begin.


kevin wrote:

Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

– Sun 24 Jan (my time) [ link ] XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 [2010], page 11



Hi Kev,

(A)
Don’t worry. No explanation for any perceived lack is necessary.

There’s plenty of evidence in Meredith’s room implicating Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy in the murder and sexual assault (or “struggle”, as you call it). There is also evidence in other rooms of the crime scene as to what Rudy did (in some cases, literally), and what the stagers did. Combined with the evidence of witness statements and the evidence of all three lying at various stages and in various ways, the case is too strong not to have proceeded, and, in my opinion, too strong for the judges at all stages not to have carried out their duty: they are bound by their duty to examine the evidence.

Perhaps when you type “evidence” you mean something different to what I think you might mean? I’m not sure if there is a way that I can help. I often find Google is quite handy in finding things out, more or less at random: [ here ]. Some answers are more correct than others, though. The trick is identifying which are which.

Perhaps a law course on evidence might be of help? For example: there is no evidence that you have spell-check on your computer. – versus – There is evidence that you do not know how to use spell-check. – versus – The way you so consistently spell “scenario” as “senario” across all posts is not evidence that your little brother has not accidentally installed a worm that has pranked your spell-checker into spell-hecker mode before flibbertigibbetting away. (I’ve seen that happen.)


See how those nots seem to get in each other’s way? Bit tricky, that sort of thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say I've no need to worry because 'No explaination for the perceived lack of evidence is necessary'. You tell me that instead we have witness statements, however, you don't say whose witness statements. Did they finally track down the North African guy seen running from the scene?

Could you point me to these witness statements?

You say, 'There is evidence that all 3 lied at various stages and judges found the case too strong not to proceed' .... I have never disputed that, all 3 lied and the judges were perfectly right to proceed. How does that help?.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kevin wrote:
However, Guede was certainly there, and attempted to rape Meredith?

As for what triggered the assault:

Jealousy, envy, etc. - absurd

Stolen money - far more likely, but Guede would be the one who was most likely to need money, we know he was a petty thief. The problem is that the three arrived after Meredith so the only time Guede or someone else could have taken it would be between 18:00 and 20:30 or so ..... and only if Knox let them in?

You say I've no need to worry because 'No explaination is needed for the perceived lack of evidence is necessary'. You tell me that instead we have witness statements, however, you don't say whose witness statements. Did they finally track down the North African guy seen running from the scene?

There is evidence that all 3 lied at various stages and judges found the case too strong not to proceed .... I have never disputed that, they were perfectly right to proceed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(B)
The motive of jealousy has already been adverted to by a previous poster. It is so powerful, I might add, that an entire set of film genres is devoted purely to it and nothing else. Surely you don’t want to deprive a bunch of media moguls of their income?

Perhaps watching a few films might be of assistance? (That’s a serious suggestion, by the way – films are part of the literature syllabus here: you get good marks if you are able to demonstrate an understanding of them.)

Even a half-hour of a comedy sit-com on TV will likely bring in jealousy in the first 10 minutes. See if and when you can spot it. Tell me what it feels like.

By the way, “attempted to rape” is too kind to Rudy and whoever was helping him. You’re sort of pre-empting the judges on that point. Hopefully, you’ve got your case prepared, if you’re going to put on your “let’s join Rudy’s defence team” hat (a good lawyer will be able to do that, actually).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've not said that jealousy isn't a powerful motive in many murders, but where is there anything to suggest that jealousy was the, or even a, motive here?. I've seen no reliable report that Knox was jealous of Meredith. I have seen speculation growing to become a 'conventional wisdom' that Knox was jealous of Meredith's looks, intelligence and social skills, but that is all.

Surely, your not suggesting that Meredith was jealous of Knox's looks or rich boyfriend, with his own flat and car?.

Sorry, but I'm having none of this nonsense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) As to thievery, be careful about snookering yourself logically.

Before closing the thievery chapter, these questions must be answered (amongst others):

(i) why did Amanda say that it was usual for Meredith to lock her door (do you see the three layers in Amanda’s assertion here?);

(ii) have you asked Raffaele’s relatives who they think is a thief (some hints of their opinions have already been reported in various magazine interviews)

(iii) the thief who stole Meredith’s phones wasn’t a thief in the traditional sense – the phones were, in the Italian phrase, subtracted from her person, and even though that is what a thief must do to effect thievery, it is not the only thing; here, it was the only thing (since the phones were discarded almost immediately upon exiting the cottage), which is itself evidence pointing in the direction that it was not a theft, per se, as they say;

(iv) it’s a stupid burglar (a dill, in fact) who doesn’t steal – things like laptops, cameras, designer glasses, jewellery, etc: after all, drugs aren’t free (even if you have a rich boyfriend, or rather, a boyfriend with a rich father), and, aside from buying drugs, what other purpose would or could there be in subtracting money from a person’s drawer?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that the phones were taken to prevent the crime being reported, rather than for their cash value.

The credit cards and cash were found not to have been stolen by AK and AS in the verdict handed out in December.

Hardly suprising, since we know that Knox had 4000 dollars and by now, there can be no doubt that the parents of both AK and RS would never leave them short of money?.

Guede's traces were found both on the inside and outside of Meredith's handbag .... I think we are narrowing the field as to who stole the money?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(D) ''we know he was a petty thief”

What? Run that one past me again, would you, mate?

I must have blinked and missed the “we” bit when that assertion was handed out at the briefing session in the cafeteria during the midnight shift.

In any case, I’m sure you must have meant something completely different to what you wrote, because what you wrote is, as it stands, slanderous.

I disassociate myself utterly and completely from any and all such unattested and unsupported criminous assertions. Moreover, the lawyers call those statements “injurious falsehoods”, so be careful about copping a libel suit (remember, there are civil libels and criminal libels (and there were also blasphemous ones, but that is by the bye)).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't AK and RS who broke into a lawyer office? ..... sue me if you like

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kevin wrote:
Guede doing something or saying something inappropriate to Meredith ........ yes very,very likely, I've already explained the cultural difference you get with the less educated Italian guys like Guede. He was well known around the bars for 'troubling' girls, when he was on his own.



(E)
Estimates of “likely” won’t endear you to the accountants. Or Rudy’s team.

Does your “very,very likely” mean I would be very, very likelier to believe your probability estimates than just likely ones, and really, really trust them? Or perhaps I’m getting confused about percentages – a guy who survives on a kebab-and-maybe-beer diet, and scrounges a joint from people he likes to think of as friends, is going to steal a heap of rent-money (and nothing else valuable, by the way) for the purpose of…exactly what? Help me out here, Kev. I’m floundering in a quagmire of roads leading nowhere. Give me some direction here, if that’s not too much of a favour to ask.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every year, my accountant asks me for a forecast of how much I expect to invoice in the next financial year. I give her my best educated guess. Here my educated guess,
is that Guede saying or doing something inappropriate to Meredith, is far more likely than the either jealousy or missing money, to have triggered the violence. I don't give percentage probablities to my accountant, so you'll forgive me if I don't give them here, although, we could have a poll on PMF and ask posters .... then I'd give jealousy 0%.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(F) Again, Kev, mate, I must be slower than a wet week in Tassie (no offence, Tiziano!), but I missed the “I've already explained the cultural difference” bit as well – do you remember when or where it was? In case you’ve misplaced it or forgotten which post you put it into, the “search” function is quite helpful in such cases, I find.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've answered your own question. If you've not read the post, the search function is quite helpful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(G) “He was well known around the bars” – are you referring to that tour guide’s comments to a roving reporter, or do you mean “His type was well known” etc? You’ve lost me again, I have to admit. Can you point out the evidence supporting this again? I would be most appreciative. Really.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am referring to his friends interviewed by the TV and press in Perugia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kevin wrote:
You can't equate the mentality of middle class 'Anglo-Saxons' to another culture.



(H)
“middle class 'Anglo-Saxons'”

Lost again, mate. The only people I’ve heard use the phrase “'Anglo-Saxons'” are UW undergrads on al all-night binge (metaphorically speaking, that is; not that real UW undergrads would do such asserting – they know better).

middle class 'Anglo-Saxons'” is such a delightful concept! – I’m sure the peasants, the ruling classes, and even the bourgeoisie itself would find that amusing.

I haven’t seen any evidence of real middle class anywhere yet (except maybe the Italian lawyers, in a way). Lost again. Must be me.

And Kev, mate, I haven’t done any equating, not that I know of, anyway (unless you mean the kebab, or the beer?)

Kev the Compass – be a mate, and lead me out of Tanglewood!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your lost again .... could it be the beer?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The good things about posts is that they never go away, so the only way out is upward.


(Z) By the way, “Italian guys like Guede” who are able to say that the guy with the knife “was not a local [=Perugian], and wasn’t a northerner” are chess-champion material. He gets triple points for that, being in so many corners and all.

Certainly not in the “less educated” category, even though he presents himself as lower-class. He does have standards, unlike the other two. (Unfortunately, their combined standards overall were not very high, in the end.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people don't need formal education to place regional accents?. Guede grew up in Italy, so it should come naturally to him.

However, the statement he made about an intruder with a southern accent (RS) .... was designed to point the blame at RS, the court didn't accept this and found him guilty.

I am so pleased to hear about Guede's standards, he must be very discriminating about who he will rape, sodomize and murder?. No wonder Meredith's brother talks, in awe, about 'That Gentleman' ...... he's got real class?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Kev.
You’ve been a great help.
Really.
:)
The chinwag has been most enjoyable.

It's beer o'clock.
Time for my chamomile in my midnight Questura. And some cartwheels to unwind.
I’ll leave you to Argus.

Z2)
P.S. Re Amanda’s knife collection: does anyone know if it was the German Guede brand? There must be some explanation why knife-loving Raffaele was following Rudy “The Baron” around yet pretending not to notice him (according to the shop owner’s observations). With Amanda’s German-ness as well, there’s enough of what they call a nexus to start attracting things (like knives themselves, in a way).


Last edited by kevin on Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lamaha


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:

One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


I've noticed this too. I have an Indian background and as a redsult I'm more conservative in my ethics and morals. The discussion board I've belonged to for many years (23000 members) is American based, and I've learnt to keep quiet when the subject comes to promiscuity, one night stands with starngers, prostitution, lap dancing and so on, because immediately a whole host of American women jump on me, accuse me of being a prude and of trying to impose my morals on them, and generally take it all extremely personally as an attack on their own lifestyle; where all I have been doing is stating my own position and reasons.
I can imagine a similar tension between Amanda and Meredith. I would have been deeply irritated if a roommate of mine hung a transparent bag with a vibrator and condoms in a shared bathroom or brought too many men home, and if AK is anything like the women on that board, she'd insist on doing what she wants just to demonstrate her freeedom. They take a deep delight in being even more provocative just for the shock's sake. It's actually rather childish.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lamaha


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Quote:
P.S. Re Amanda’s knife collection: does anyone know if it was the German Guede brand? There must be some explanation why knife-loving Raffaele was following Rudy “The Baron” around yet pretending not to notice him (according to the shop owner’s observations). With Amanda’s German-ness as well, there’s enough of what they call a nexus to start attracting things (like knives themselves, in a way).


I'd forgotten about that brand. Interesting connection. Here's a link for Guede-Solingen knives:

http://www.guede-solingen.de/

The Umlaut of course is transliterated with an e: Guede.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I only started posting so I could be in on the free beer :)



By the way, for those that don't recognise it from London or a bond film or two, H9's piccy is the M16 (foreign intelligence) building in Vauxhall - Vauxhall Cross by Terry Farrell. As opposed to Perry Farrel who is the lead singer with Jane's Addiction :) I'm very partial to it myself given that it's made out of serious concrete and RPG-proof glass but still managed to pull off a a classy Art Deco theme. Can't think what Bond was doing driving a speedboat out of it, but he did a hell of a job clearing the terrace on the outside :)

_________________
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: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Quick question: Do we have any idea what the evidence not presented to court but which had been seen by the Kerchers (referred to by her brother the day after the verdict) was?

_________________
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 Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I had assumed he was referring to the evidence which was presentd in closed session?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: Letters   

Catnip wrote:
The motive of jealousy has already been adverted to by a previous poster. It is so powerful, I might add, that an entire set of film genres is devoted purely to it and nothing else. Surely you don’t want to deprive a bunch of media moguls of their income?

Perhaps watching a few films might be of assistance? (That’s a serious suggestion, by the way – films are part of the literature syllabus here: you get good marks if you are able to demonstrate an understanding of them.)

Even a half-hour of a comedy sit-com on TV will likely bring in jealousy in the first 10 minutes. See if and when you can spot it. Tell me what it feels like.

A few days ago, I'd noted the peculiar reference in Darkness Descending that AK & RS apparently were convicted of jealousy as a "futile motive" or something like that:

Rumpole wrote:
Aggravating Circumstance of Futile Motives (jealousy)
Verdict: both guilty. Sentence: none.

I am hoping that Massei's report will shed more light on exactly what this means, since it's not at all clear to me right now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Lamaha wrote:
Quote:
I've noticed this too. I have an Indian background and as a result I'm more conservative in my ethics and morals. The discussion board I've belonged to for many years (23000 members) is American based, and I've learned to keep quiet when the subject comes to promiscuity, one night stands with strangers, prostitution, lap dancing and so on, because immediately a whole host of American women jump on me, accuse me of being a prude and of trying to impose my morals on them, and generally take it all extremely personally as an attack on their own lifestyle; where all I have been doing is stating my own position and reasons.
I can imagine a similar tension between Amanda and Meredith. I would have been deeply irritated if a roommate of mine hung a transparent bag with a vibrator and condoms in a shared bathroom or brought too many men home, and if AK is anything like the women on that board, she'd insist on doing what she wants just to demonstrate her freeedom. They take a deep delight in being even more provocative just for the shock's sake. It's actually rather childish.

Thanks for your response to my recent post - it's always nice to learn that one's speculations have some basis in another person's experience.
I suspect that Meredith would have been just as appalled at my own twenty-something behavior and outlook on life - and she would have raked me over the coals pretty hard - and I would have been offended and judged her a prude just like Amanda.
Hopefully I've learned some lessons about life since then - many of them from the wisdom of Mother India - and she would have found my more mature self a touch less contemptible, and I would have seen her critique for what it was: an earnest expression of her personal beliefs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: Letters   

Catnip wrote:
Hi Kev,

Ahem, you’ve been having a busy day, hey?

Watch out that Argus never sleeps, by the way (unless he hears a good song). I’ve posted about Argus before. He might be lurking.


Now mate, I don’t know where to begin.


kevin wrote:

Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

......................................

The chinwag has been most enjoyable.

It's beer o'clock.
Time for my chamomile in my midnight Questura. And some cartwheels to unwind.
I’ll leave you to Argus.



(Z2)
P.S. Re Amanda’s knife collection: does anyone know if it was the German Guede brand? There must be some explanation why knife-loving Raffaele was following Rudy “The Baron” around yet pretending not to notice him (according to the shop owner’s observations). With Amanda’s German-ness as well, there’s enough of what they call a nexus to start attracting things (like knives themselves, in a way).


cl-)

Catnip, as always you are pure class.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:53 pm   Post subject: Legality of "Perugia Shock"   

Addressed to Skeptical Bystander and Peter Quennell of the PMF sister site "True Justice for Meredith Kercher"

The "Perugia Shock" site must be taken down. "Frank Sfarzo"* continually disrespects the victim even to the extent of displaying advertising alongside post mortem pictures of the victim and defence libel for families of the killers. The images he is using used have been stolen from police sources. Money he has taken from his site must be recovered and donated to the charities of murder victims.

*Frank Sfarzo is a pseudonym

His snazzy little laceless trainers have been purchased with blood money.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin -

Regarding your posting style. I requested you stop responding in caps, you have and that's great, thank you. I also requested that you use a quote box for quotes. There is a very good reason for this. It is so people can clearly and easily differentiate between that which is being quoted and your response, it prevents confusion that can result in people thinking someone has said words they did not say. Now, you've used a quote box. But, to then place your response to the quote IN the quote box negates the whole point of using quote boxes in the first place (your reply to Catnip). It is not difficult to wrap the text in a quote box, the switch is simple:

Code:
[quote]TEXT YOU ARE QUOTING HERE[/quote]


Then place your response just outside and below the quote box. Repeat same action below for next quote, and so on.

At the very least, if you are unable to manage that, put the text you are quoting in between quotation marks...they look like this -> " "

Please understand, I'm not being picky. But even for the best of us, understanding this case and what other people are saying can be challenging. Therefore, it is most important that we present our communication as clearly as possible.

Thank You

Michael

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

lamaha wrote:
tigerfish wrote:

One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


I've noticed this too. I have an Indian background and as a redsult I'm more conservative in my ethics and morals. The discussion board I've belonged to for many years (23000 members) is American based, and I've learnt to keep quiet when the subject comes to promiscuity, one night stands with starngers, prostitution, lap dancing and so on, because immediately a whole host of American women jump on me, accuse me of being a prude and of trying to impose my morals on them, and generally take it all extremely personally as an attack on their own lifestyle; where all I have been doing is stating my own position and reasons.
I can imagine a similar tension between Amanda and Meredith. I would have been deeply irritated if a roommate of mine hung a transparent bag with a vibrator and condoms in a shared bathroom or brought too many men home, and if AK is anything like the women on that board, she'd insist on doing what she wants just to demonstrate her freeedom. They take a deep delight in being even more provocative just for the shock's sake. It's actually rather childish.


Hi lamaha - very interesting cultural perspective. Thank you. I wonder who would not be slightly taken aback though, to be honest. I think 'Washbag-gate' is one of those passive/aggressive and certainly immature behaviours which typify a recently 'off the leash' teen. I came across it as a mature student at Uni. some while back. I was just staggered at the aggressively promiscuous stances some of the young women took, and genuinely worried for them. This was borne out later by the number who ended up in tears needing a hug and in one case an abortion, and in another, medical treatment for genital herpes, poor girl. Another left University altogether in an emotional mess and the other just used to come to my room and curl up on the end of the bed to sleep. They just seemed to go into meltdown! It seemed to be a phase they went through. I was shocked at the risk they were putting themselves at. But in the middle of it they could not be cautioned, and ignored my warnings and just ploughed on. It seemed to be some sort of cultural rite they felt driven by. And all barely 18. Just kids.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
kevin wrote:
There may be another witness ...... remember Alessandra Formica, our most credible eyewitness as far as I can see, saw a North African (emphatically not Guede) running near the scene of the crime. One possible candidate could be Knox's buddy Juve ... last I heard he had disappeared shortly after the murder... I'm not sure of any further developments.


Hi Kevin,

I wouldn't say Alessandra Formica is the most credible eyewitness. The black man who bumped into her may or may not have been Rudy Guede.

Antonio Curatolo is both a credible and an important witness. Judge Paolo Micheli believes he is honest and trustworthy. He corroborated Amanda Knox's admission that she was in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder. He also corroborated Hekuran Kokomani's testimony that Knox and Sollecito were watching the cottage.

Nara Capezalli is another very important witness. She and Antonella Monacchia corroborated Amanda Knox's claim that Meredith screamed loudly. She also heard two or more people running away shortly after Meredith screamed.

Incidentally, you didn't explain how Meredith's DNA got caught in a groove on the blade of the double DNA knife. This wouldn't have happened when Sollecito cut off the bra strap. Furthermore, the double DNA knife is compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith's neck. The double DNA knife was clearly used to stab Meredith.

Amanda Knox admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder and that they had asked Meredith to join them. I think these are very significant admissions.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable at the best of times, lots of studies have shown how, even with the best will in the world, eye witnesses can make big mistakes.

- The reason I think AF is to be believed, is that she seems a perfectly disinterested person, who suprised us by being so emphatic about the guy not being Rudi (She had just come out of the AK,AS trial courtroom).

- Yes, the others are good witnesses, 2 heard the scream

- I think we can believe Antonio that AK and RS where in the piazza, more than once probably and had a heated discussion.

- Stewart Home was in court and reported that he didn't know what to make of Kolomani's testimony .... which seemed a bit of a farce really. The fact that he is a drug pusher and woman beater, makes him less reliable. I honestly think he did drive by the cottage that night and saw the breakdown truck, but much more than that I'm not sure.

The double DNA knife, as SB has just said it is not vital to the case. I said to Peter, along time ago, that it actually might harm the prosecution. If it was used in the murder, then there was pre-mediation?. Pre-meditaion is something a lot of people, myself included, can't see. According the the book Rumpole has, the verdict was murder with no pre-mediation. Meredith's DNA on the knife is hotly disputed at a technical level, and I think it could have picked up traces of DNA if it touched the body, or came off the bra (during the staging).

Instead of the one cut, needed to remove the bra, there must have been two?. The clasp was cut from both sides?. Therefore twice the chance of picking traces of Meredith's DNA?. I think they had trouble with it, maybe 'sawing' rather than cutting down one side, giving up, doing the same down the other side, and finally, RS lost patience and yanked the clasp away.

I'm sure that Amanda was at the house, and that she asked Meredith to join them. The autopsy showed a small amount of alchol in Meredith's system, which was unexpected since she drank nothing at her friends place. She probably had a glass or two of wine with the other three.

More, I think that Knox told the truth about being in the kitchen or maybe porch when the fatal blow was struck. She just subsituted Patrick for Guede and said nothing about her own part in the assualt. I think RS would have dragged AK away, leaving RG to drag Meredith into the bedroom.

Today, I was thinking about:

'OK, so RS then decides to go and get his perverted kicks helping RG with the rape and stabbing'

The problem here is not just lack of physical evidence, it also changes the dynamic of the group? .... RS and RG are now a 'team' .... AK could have simply run for help from the porch, when she heard the scream. Anyway, the group dynamic has changed permanently, RS and RG are now both dependent on AK, who has less to lose by 'spilling the beans' .... really, from that point until now?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Bard wrote:
lamaha wrote:
tigerfish wrote:

One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


I've noticed this too. I have an Indian background and as a redsult I'm more conservative in my ethics and morals. The discussion board I've belonged to for many years (23000 members) is American based, and I've learnt to keep quiet when the subject comes to promiscuity, one night stands with starngers, prostitution, lap dancing and so on, because immediately a whole host of American women jump on me, accuse me of being a prude and of trying to impose my morals on them, and generally take it all extremely personally as an attack on their own lifestyle; where all I have been doing is stating my own position and reasons.
I can imagine a similar tension between Amanda and Meredith. I would have been deeply irritated if a roommate of mine hung a transparent bag with a vibrator and condoms in a shared bathroom or brought too many men home, and if AK is anything like the women on that board, she'd insist on doing what she wants just to demonstrate her freeedom. They take a deep delight in being even more provocative just for the shock's sake. It's actually rather childish.


Hi lamaha - very interesting cultural perspective. Thank you. I wonder who would not be slightly taken aback though, to be honest. I think 'Washbag-gate' is one of those passive/aggressive and certainly immature behaviours which typify a recently 'off the leash' teen. I came across it as a mature student at Uni. some while back. I was just staggered at the aggressively promiscuous stances some of the young women took, and genuinely worried for them. This was borne out later by the number who ended up in tears needing a hug and in one case an abortion, and in another, medical treatment for genital herpes, poor girl. Another left University altogether in an emotional mess and the other just used to come to my room and curl up on the end of the bed to sleep. They just seemed to go into meltdown! It seemed to be a phase they went through. I was shocked at the risk they were putting themselves at. But in the middle of it they could not be cautioned, and ignored my warnings and just ploughed on. It seemed to be some sort of cultural rite they felt driven by. And all barely 18. Just kids.



But but but Bard. Herpes shows you're great at sex! /knox tu-))

_________________
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 tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Oh, here we go again! Kevin, there was NO alcohol in Meredith's system. Also, the DNA's position on the knife indicates there was insertion. The DNA was not right on the tip of the blade. If you at least asked some of these knowledgeable people instead of stating this crap as truth, it might be easier to digest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
The problem here is not just lack of physical evidence, it also changes the dynamic of the group? .... RS and RG are now a 'team' .... AK could have simply run for help from the porch, when she heard the scream. Anyway, the group dynamic has changed permanently, RS and RG are now both dependent on AK, who has less to lose by 'spilling the beans' .... really, from that point until now?


Hi Kevin, if AK had not been involved in the assault, the rape and the lilling, she would have long since spilled the beans. Or do you think she prefers languishing in jail for RS's and RG's sake?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael, could I just check, this. If it works I'll correct the other posts.

Code:
[quote]      1st Satement     /quote]


First reply


Code:
[quote]      2nd Statement    /quote]


Second reply

Code:
[quote]      3th Statement    /quote]


Third reply
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
We know that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable at the best of times, lots of studies have shown how, even with the best will in the world, eye witnesses can make big mistakes.


I wouldn't say that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable at the best of times. Eyewitness testimony is actually regarded as being one of the most trustworthy forms of evidence in the courtroom.

I recommend reading Kokomani's statements in full. There are elements to his story that cannot be dimissed very easily. For example, he mentioned Knox and Sollecito having two different sized knives.

I've wondered what he was doing around Via della Pergola and Piazza Grimana on 30 October and 1 November. He was caught with a large amount of cocaine. I suspect he was a dealer.

When do you think Knox and Sollecito met up with Rudy Guede on the night of the murder? I don't recall giving you a reason for them being together.

kevin wrote:
The double DNA knife, as SB has just said it is not vital to the case. I said to Peter, along time ago, that it actually might harm the prosecution. If it was used in the murder, then there was pre-mediation?. Pre-meditaion is something a lot of people, myself included, can't see. According the the book Rumpole has, the verdict was murder with no pre-mediation. Meredith's DNA on the knife is hotly disputed at a technical level, and I think it could have picked up traces of DNA if it touched the body, or came off the bra (during the staging).


The evidence against Knox and Sollecito is overwhelming without the double DNA knife. However, the knife remains compelling evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli all categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

Furthermore, Sollecito confirmed the presence of Meredith's DNA on the blade when he claimed on two separate occasions that he had accidentally pricked Meredith's hand whilst cooking.

Dr. Stefanoni also noted that there were peculiar diagonal scrapes on the knife blade, which suggested that the knife had been vigorously cleaned, and one of the police officers testified that he had been struck by “the powerful smell of bleach” in Sollecito's apartment.

There is a very good reason why Knox and/or Sollecito vigorously cleaned the knife with bleach: it was used to stab Meredith.

Meredith's murder might have been premeditated or Knox and Sollecito might have planned to threaten or scare Meredith with the double DNA knife. I don't believe that Knox and Sollecito went back to Sollecito's apartment to get a kitchen knife to cut Meredith's bra. Surely, he used one of the knives he always carried.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
Oh, here we go again! Kevin, there was NO alcohol in Meredith's system. Also, the DNA's position on the knife indicates there was insertion. The DNA was not right on the tip of the blade. If you at least asked some of these knowledgeable people instead of stating this crap as truth, it might be easier to digest.


Not absolutely none, there was less than one glass of wine which was likely compatible with the remainder of the halloween's night celebrations the night before.

_________________
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 modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigerfish wrote:
One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


Beautifully expressed. I'm a London/North Herts girl and immediately recognized in Meredith's sister; her accent, her manner etc., a "type" that I know very well, very much as you describe, have had many friends and co-workers that would fall into that category, and, no way to emphasize this enough, none of that is meant in a pejorative way AT ALL. My own fairly mild-mannered middle class Brit-ness didn't translate so well when I first came to the US, I was very blunt and sarcastic in everyday conversation compared to the norm in the US, and had to modify my expression quite a bit to fit in. If Meredith resembled her sister in her manner, and was the general type described, I would have loved her, but can imagine that someone who didn't know how to take that on any level would have found her intimidating and brusque. Hard to imagine a worse combination, actually, than an overly entitled, narcissistic American who was used to obsequious friends who told her how great she was, and a blunt south London girl who told it as she saw it, from a culture where being "judgmental" is not considered a negative trait, because people know how to take it and will just tell you where to go if they don't agree.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

I'm sure this has been seen before, but it helped me to envisage things a little clearer concerning the carpark and the house and also the enormous expanse of trees available for throwing stuff away. I wonder why they didn't fling the phones down the slope here rather than lob it over someone's garden? Panic I guess. Also a drain and I've no doubt all of these things were checked extremely extensively but it still makes me want to go and search round these woods for a couple of days :/ . There's a key and probably a second knife that it'd be lovely to think could be found instead of in some landfill somewhere or in a river / lake

[/attachment]
Attachment:
Car park, gate and house.JPG
:/
Attachment:
woods, house right.JPG


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

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael, could I just check, this. If it works I'll correct the other posts.

Code:
[quote]      1st Satement     /quote]


First reply


Code:
[quote]      2nd Statement    /quote]


Second reply

Code:
[quote]      3th Statement    /quote]


Third reply



Kevin, that's incorrect. before the forward slash of the closing switch there needs to a be a a bracket, like this -> [

So, the following is wrong and won't work:

Code:
/quote]


The following is correct:

Code:
[/quote]



And of course, you don't actually add the 'code' switches, just the 'quote' switches. I'm only using the 'code' switches so I can show you what the 'quote' switches look like.

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

modest_ex wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


Beautifully expressed. I'm a London/North Herts girl and immediately recognized in Meredith's sister; her accent, her manner etc., a "type" that I know very well, very much as you describe, have had many friends and co-workers that would fall into that category, and, no way to emphasize this enough, none of that is meant in a pejorative way AT ALL. My own fairly mild-mannered middle class Brit-ness didn't translate so well when I first came to the US, I was very blunt and sarcastic in everyday conversation compared to the norm in the US, and had to modify my expression quite a bit to fit in. If Meredith resembled her sister in her manner, and was the general type described, I would have loved her, but can imagine that someone who didn't know how to take that on any level would have found her intimidating and brusque. Hard to imagine a worse combination, actually, than an overly entitled, narcissistic American who was used to obsequious friends who told her how great she was, and a blunt south London girl who told it as she saw it, from a culture where being "judgmental" is not considered a negative trait, because people know how to take it and will just tell you where to go if they don't agree.


The nuances of the accents will be lost on anyone that's not from the UK, even perhaps not from the south, so it might be worth adding a little bit more subjective opinion here. Listening to them, to me the Kerchers are quite a Surrey / London family, middle class but not in a posh way. They are polite, considerate people but these are not namby pamby middle or upper class softies. They would have mixed in some reasonably straight forward environments in school and in their home town and Meredith would have called a spade a spade when provoked imho.

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hello Donnie,

Quick question?

This is not the first time that I have noticed that you have deliberately avoided and side stepped a direct question,

Bard asked; Wed Jan 20 1.47 pm;

Quote
“Congratulations on your 'scoop' donnie. Would you care to tell us the site where you found it? I am intrigued to speculate which 'unusual stuff' you put into google. ' “

Donnie replied; Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:21 pm

Quote
“I promise i will try me best to provide you the link to the site...i will have the time later or maybe tomorrow early morning”

To date you have not posted a response anywhere on this board to respond to Bard. I sense a trend emerging where you evade and avoid direct questions at your convenience. It is of no significance to me whatsoever, however you owe it to the other genuine posters here to declare your agenda.

On a deadly serious note;
Do not ever PM me again. Out of convention I will not disclose the contents of your previous PM’s to me, save to say that I found them childlike in their implicit threats.

However Donnie, make no mistake; if you ever PM me again I will publish them in their entirety right here on this forum.

Best wishes


Last edited by Hammerite on Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
modest_ex wrote:
tigerfish wrote:
One further point that I touched on previously. I don't like to make sweeping generalizations such as "middle class Anglo Saxons" and their behavior patterns, but I'm going to make one regarding young British Anglo-Indian women.
I have known a few, and I like them. When they know you a little they can express themselves with particular forthrightness on morals and ethics. Personally I find their outspoken style charming and refreshing, but if one of these young women were to subject me to an impassioned critique of my lifestyle, it might be an uncomfortable experience.
Of course there are westernized middle-class young Indian women in Seattle also, but American culture is different - more deference is paid to personal freedom. It seems that Meredith held some firm convictions about morality that ran counter to Amanda's own philosophy (if you can call it that).
Sometimes I wonder if Amanda didn't translate Meredith's criticisms into far more of a personal attack than was intended.


Beautifully expressed. I'm a London/North Herts girl and immediately recognized in Meredith's sister; her accent, her manner etc., a "type" that I know very well, very much as you describe, have had many friends and co-workers that would fall into that category, and, no way to emphasize this enough, none of that is meant in a pejorative way AT ALL. My own fairly mild-mannered middle class Brit-ness didn't translate so well when I first came to the US, I was very blunt and sarcastic in everyday conversation compared to the norm in the US, and had to modify my expression quite a bit to fit in. If Meredith resembled her sister in her manner, and was the general type described, I would have loved her, but can imagine that someone who didn't know how to take that on any level would have found her intimidating and brusque. Hard to imagine a worse combination, actually, than an overly entitled, narcissistic American who was used to obsequious friends who told her how great she was, and a blunt south London girl who told it as she saw it, from a culture where being "judgmental" is not considered a negative trait, because people know how to take it and will just tell you where to go if they don't agree.


The nuances of the accents will be lost on anyone that's not from the UK, even perhaps not from the south, so it might be worth adding a little bit more subjective opinion here. Listening to them, to me the Kerchers are quite a Surrey / London family, middle class but not in a posh way. They are polite, considerate people but these are not namby pamby middle or upper class softies. They would have mixed in some reasonably straight forward environments in school and in their home town and Meredith would have called a spade a spade when provoked imho.


Exactly.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Try this ...

Quote:
1st Satement


First

Quote:
2nd Statement


Second

Quote:
3th Statement


Third
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Ava wrote:
Quote:
Yes, and for a narcissistic personality almost everything can signify a personal attack or humiliation, sometimes even a single, misinterpreted glance might be enough.
I also enjoyed reading your first post btw. Just wanted to add that one can very well imagine someone being friends with and jealous of that same person. Jealousy can be a very strong, ambivalent bond, e.g. also between family members. Catnip is right, lots of research material out there!
And I guess so was TM when he posted above that jealousy and envy were very common murder motives.

Thanks. And if we're honest I suspect most of us don't have to look too far for research material on jealousy.
As a 16 YO I had quite a similar experience to Amanda's - away from home on a language vacation, an arrogant, self-entitled exterior hiding all kinds of insecurities, then bested in a romantic contest by a roommate whom I had underestimated. It was a big shock to my self image, which I think is a big part of AK's problem in Perugia.
Fortunately there were no serious intoxicants around, and my other companions weren't as dubious as RS and RG. I don't recollect any homicidal impulses, but it was very hard to deal with the totally unjustified anger - so jealousy gave me a pretty tormenting runaround for a few days.
I'd guess almost everybody has experienced something similar.
I was watching a film called "We Don't Live Here Any More" last night where jealousy plays a big part in the story of marital infidelity. Unfortunately not a well-structured narrative - and no murders - just good actors. It played with many different aspects of jealousy - how irrational, inconstant and hard to understand or control it is.
Most people try to push it under the rug - or explode.
I actually think Amanda got dealt an extremely heavy hand, and her 'obsequious' support system (FWIW) was a long way away.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Oh, here we go again! Kevin, there was NO alcohol in Meredith's system. Also, the DNA's position on the knife indicates there was insertion. The DNA was not right on the tip of the blade. If you at least asked some of these knowledgeable people instead of stating this crap as truth, it might be easier to digest.


Not absolutely none, there was less than one glass of wine which was likely compatible with the remainder of the halloween's night celebrations the night before.

Residual doesn't count as the fact is that Kevin is implying Meredith had alcohol in her system. The effects from the residual would have long passed. Maybe this is a rant but, I have a hard time trying to understand why some here are trying so hard to exonerate Ms. Knox and denigrate the memory of Ms. Kercher. Meredith was the victim here. She was brutally murdered and Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede and Raffaelle Sollecito were convicted of her murder. If you want to believe that Amanda is somehow not involved, that is all well and good but, instead of arguing with the facts that are known, why don't you present us with the la_) portrait that we have failed to see? You know, the innocent, young woman who had not one female friend to even testify for her good character. I agree, this is a waste of a young life but, she will still have plenty of life to live when she is released. Meredith will never have a life. Promiscuity was never an issue for me, however the young Ms. Knox should have learned decorum and discretion. This does not make me believe she is a bad person, however, her constant lies spoke volumes of her character along with Rudy's lies and Raffaele's refusal to even speak for himself. Not to mention the fact that no other similar murder has been committed in Perugia since the 3 have been incarcerated........Jumping off my soapbox now. By the way SA, you're a trouble maker and you make me laugh :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Oh, here we go again! Kevin, there was NO alcohol in Meredith's system. Also, the DNA's position on the knife indicates there was insertion. The DNA was not right on the tip of the blade. If you at least asked some of these knowledgeable people instead of stating this crap as truth, it might be easier to digest.


Not absolutely none, there was less than one glass of wine which was likely compatible with the remainder of the halloween's night celebrations the night before.

Residual doesn't count as the fact is that Kevin is implying Meredith had alcohol in her system. The effects from the residual would have long passed. Maybe this is a rant but, I have a hard time trying to understand why some here are trying so hard to exonerate Ms. Knox and denigrate the memory of Ms. Kercher. Meredith was the victim here. She was brutally murdered and Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede and Raffaelle Sollecito were convicted of her murder. If you want to believe that Amanda is somehow not involved, that is all well and good but, instead of arguing with the facts that are known, why don't you present us with the la_) portrait that we have failed to see? You know, the innocent, young woman who had not one female friend to even testify for her good character. I agree, this is a waste of a young life but, she will still have plenty of life to live when she is released. Meredith will never have a life. Promiscuity was never an issue for me, however the young Ms. Knox should have learned decorum and discretion. This does not make me believe she is a bad person, however, her constant lies spoke volumes of her character along with Rudy's lies and Raffaele's refusal to even speak for himself. Not to mention the fact that no other similar murder has been committed in Perugia since the 3 have been incarcerated........Jumping off my soapbox now. By the way SA, you're a trouble maker and you make me laugh :)



Well the autopsy said less than a glass of wine rather than no wine so I'm really going with that. On the other hand, last time I pursued this line of reasoning I nearly got hoisted on a lamp-post which, while a noble Italian tradition, wasn't in my general best interests.

As to being a trouble maker, I have no idea what you mean. *cough* :)

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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Hello Donnie,

Quick question?

This is not the first time that I have noticed that you have deliberately avoided and side stepped a direct question,

Bard asked; Wed Jan 20 1.47 pm;

Quote
“Congratulations on your 'scoop' donnie. Would you care to tell us the site where you found it? I am intrigued to speculate which 'unusual stuff' you put into google. ' “

Donnie replied; Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:21 pm

Quote
“I promise i will try me best to provide you the link to the site...i will have the time later or maybe tomorrow early morning”

To date you have not posted a response anywhere on this board to respond to Bard. I sense a trend emerging where you evade and avoid direct questions at your convenience. It is of no significance to me whatsoever, however you owe it to the other genuine posters here to declare your agenda.

On a deadly serious note;
Do not ever PM me again. Out of convention I will nor disclose the contents of your previous PM’s to me, save to say that I found them childlike in their implicit threats.

However Donnie, make no mistake; if you ever PM me again I will publish them in their entirety right here on this forum.

Best wishes


Hammerite, where have you been recently? I missed that, you know, this constant bashing me, no matter what. Well, here i am and i will explain everything to you. Even though i don't have to.
Bard got an answer from me via PM. I've explained everything i could and i believe that Bard can
confirm that. Anyway, i think that it will be appropriate to copy and paste the pm. where i answer the question. So here it is:

Hi. I've been doing my best but so far without a luck. I'm typing the same things in google but it's not as successful as i thought it would be. I wasn't cautious enough when i found the site, i should save my history of viewing, but i never did. But to be honest, it was just another article talking about the case and the site was coming from the US. There wasn't anything unusal written and i remember it was posted in november of 2007, so this case was still pretty new back then. When i saw the picture i realized it's a rare one, so i saved it, never thought about the article. I'm so sorry i couldn't help.

I found also few others and they were rare to me, but i think you saw them already-the one i posted with Amanda and few friends described as her bike team and Amanda playing scrabble or somthing similiar and it looks like a photoshoot to me, not like a random picture.

Best wishes, Donnie.

There you go. I agree that this should be also posted on the thread. However, it seems that even when i find a "rare" photo or write anything, there's always a reason to bash Donnie. Just get off me, please.

Dear Hammerite. Let's talk about the recent pm that you received from me and it obviously got you mad or whatever. Just check out the latest posts coming from various member, including the Administrators of the boards, Michael and Skep, about the PM's incident and you'll know why you received the PM in the first place. It wasn't meant to be sent to you, it wasn't written to you or wasn't talking about you and to be honest, it wasn't even my fault. Everyone received that message yesterday. You know, the one that starts with words : "really bitter...". So please, check it out again and get your facts straight. The only Pm's we exchanged earlier were written in my defesne and were sent some time ago.(there were two). This third message was sent by a mistake to all the members and it wasn't only or completely my fault. So, i'm very sorry. Plus i don't recall any threats, childlike-maybe, but threats? Never. But if you feel the need to make it public, i won't stop you. There was nothing that i'm ashamed of. No insults, no threats. Just me aksing you kindly to get off me.

PS. I believe that this whole post should be written and sent via PM to you. But since you forbidden me the acces to your PM box, i just had to answer you here. And you were to one who said that we shouldn't have these kind of arguments on the PMF. At least not on the main thread.


Last edited by donnie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Quote:
Micheli was presented with that data. Bolint did 'not' say it wasn't presented to Judge Micheli, or that it "was prepared specifically for the trial". What he said was that it was presented in the main trial. To which my response was that 'if' they 'did' present it in the main trial it doesn't change the reality that it was also presented in the pre-trial. Finally, Bolint made an assertion that it was presented in the trial, although I'm not sure how it is Bolint knows for certain that it was that specific document that was presented, or if it was a different/revised version. Thoughtful, you seem to have developed a habit of putting words in people's mouths. A bit like claiming Comodi said the Postal Police arrived 12:46 when she actually uttered no such words.


Well, excuse me, Michael, but I beg to disagree. I am careful to be accurate and do not misquote people or put words in their mouths.

Re Comodi's words, I cite just one of the many Italian sources:

Quote:
Nel frattempo la Comodi ha ricostruito, sulla base delle registrazioni delle telecamere di sorveglianza, l'arrivo degli agenti sul luogo del delitto. Ha concluso che la polizia e arrivat nell'appartamento cinque minuti prima della chiamata fatta da Sollecito al 112.


I am sorry, but if you consider that I am somehow erring in equating "5 minutes before the first 112 call" (which took place at 12:51) with a time of 12:46, then I would like to know exactly how you see that. The trouble with "5 minutes before" or "12:46" is that it simply doesn't fit into a possible timeline with the other events (staring with Amanda's 12:47 phone call to her mother which they didn't see).

Re bolint:
You wrote (Fri Jan 22 2:43 pm): This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial."

Bolint (Fri Jan 22 3:26 pm) quoted this sentence of yours, and replied: "No, it was discussed in the trial (about March 13) at the hearing of the police witnesses and was fully presented just before the summer vacation. (And i guess that it was used in the closing argument of the defense and that's why the prosecution came out with the new version)"

So I am sorry, but Bolint did indeed contradict your statement.

And you yourself have not yet given me a complete assurance that this powerpoint presentation, juxtaposing the slides from the CCTV camera with Amanda's cellphone records to reveal a contradiction, was shown to Micheli. Of course Micheli saw the CCTV footage, that goes without saying, but it's not the same thing. Jools (thank you Jools) linked earlier today to an article from October 7, 2008, mentioning this CCTV footage. It confirms that the black Fiat Punto manoeuvering in front of the camera was indeed that of the postal police, gives the time of those manoeuvres as 12:35 (whereas the time stamp in the other document shows 12:41, but that isn't contradictory since the car clearly went back and forth), and then states the "10 minutes fast" theory which at the time led to the conclusion that the postal police had arrived at 12:25, but since must have been discredited since Comodi no longer cites it.

Tigger3498 wrote:
Quote:
what is all the fuss about the camera/times?


bucketoftea wrote:
Quote:
LOL Please don't encourage them by asking for an explanation!


No explanation should be needed. Yes, the court has given its verdict, but that doesn't mean that we completely understand what happened. If even one factual detail can be clarified, even one which neither exculpates nor disculpates anyone, that is still a contribution. In fact, I thought that was the whole point of this board: trying to arrive at the complete truth of what happened (even though, sadly, we probably never will). I'm very surprised that anyone would disagree with this. I wonder what their view of the purpose of the board is?
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
The "Perugia Shock" site must be taken down. "Frank Sfarzo"* continually disrespects the victim even to the extent of displaying advertising alongside post mortem pictures of the victim and defence libel for families of the killers. The images he is using used have been stolen from police sources. Money he has taken from his site must be recovered and donated to the charities of murder victims.

If this was China, we'd know very well how to deal with that clownish, posing-as-a-gentleman Sfarzo.
But since it isn't - I feel the best solution is to make PMF the best it can possibly be through our reasoned contributions to the discourse.
There will always be those who prefer junk-food over wholesome nutrition.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Kevin.

I've already re-posted Brian S.'s discussion of the merit of Kokomani's testimony twice. You can go back and find the references yourself as I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

The reason Kokomani's testimony is important is that after the weird occurrence of a man and a woman threatening him with knives and Rudy Guede's comments about a party, which occurred on the street outside Number 7 Via della Pergola, he went off to a bar where he met some friends whom he proceeded to tell about his experience. This was on the very same night, the night of the murder of Meredith Kercher, the night before her body had been discovered or there had been any report of the broken down car. He visited his lawyer fairly soon after that who told him to come back later as he was busy. Kokomani went back to Albania for the Christmas holidays, but when he returned to Perugia, he went back to his lawyer's office and told him the story. The lawyer then accompanied him to the police station so he could tell them. At the time he told his friends the story of a man and a woman with knives on the street by the cottage, no one even knew that a murder with knives had taken place in that cottage.

The police did "riscontri", essentialy a background check of his statement, and it was confirmed by his friends that he had told them the story the night before the discovery of the murder. The episode of the broken down car was not uncovered by the police or in any way made public until weeks after Kokomani told his friends about it.

It didn't really matter what Kokomani managed to say on the witness stand, the important parts of his story were known tand found credible by the police and the justice system long before his appearance there.

You need to do a lot more reading before you spout any more theories about how Rudy Guede killed Amanda all by himself!

Edited to add that it was determined that the street was on Kokomani's regular route into Perugia, he worked in the countryside outside the city.

Edited a second time to indicate that the party did not occur on the street.


Last edited by beans on Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   


_________________
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 Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: Class with a Capital "C" Catnip style (as opposed to ?)   

jhansigirl wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Hi Kev,

Ahem, you’ve been having a busy day, hey?

Watch out that Argus never sleeps, by the way (unless he hears a good song). I’ve posted about Argus before. He might be lurking.


Now mate, I don’t know where to begin.


kevin wrote:

Catnip, Fiona

I am sure there are other senarios that could explain the lack of evidence that AK and RS were involved in any struggle in the bedroom.

......................................

The chinwag has been most enjoyable.

It's beer o'clock.
Time for my chamomile in my midnight Questura. And some cartwheels to unwind.
I’ll leave you to Argus.



(Z2)
P.S. Re Amanda’s knife collection: does anyone know if it was the German Guede brand? There must be some explanation why knife-loving Raffaele was following Rudy “The Baron” around yet pretending not to notice him (according to the shop owner’s observations). With Amanda’s German-ness as well, there’s enough of what they call a nexus to start attracting things (like knives themselves, in a way).


cl-)

Catnip, as always you are pure class.


There is that elusive "c" again Catnip: Scenario after sCenario flashes before our eyes!!!

BTW, no offence taken re wet Tasmanian weekends; the one that just passed was positively idyllic, especially as Sunday was passed with delightful Abruzzese friends, by the banks of the blue Derwent, swimming in 26 degree solar-heated water!

You have to love our classless Oz society where Jack is as good as his master!
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
My hometown paper: nothing new though

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... 05532.html

apologies if this was already posted :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 42978.html

Tom Matychowlak is in the comments of the Intelligence Squared debate. Anyone know him? How's the thesis coming donnie? Will it be available online after submission? When is the submission date btw?


Hey, thanks for asking.Tom Matychowlak seems like a polish surname but i never heard of him. The guy that i have contact with is Tom Bednerek and we exchanged some emails and he said that he will try to help me. I really don't know how big his input will be but i really hope that he can provide some interesting information. After all, he has been quoted saying that he knew Meredith Kercher and that they were toghether at the Halloween party.

As to the thesis-i still got plenty of time. It's due to be submitted in july this year. And yes, i can make it available for PMF, of course, but it will take some time to translate it. I won't do it obviously :) gotta find some english-polish translator.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: Legality of "Perugia Shock" and FRANK SFARZO   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Addressed to Skeptical Bystander and Peter Quennell of the PMF sister site "True Justice for Meredith Kercher"

The "Perugia Shock" site must be taken down. "Frank Sfarzo"* continually disrespects the victim even to the extent of displaying advertising alongside post mortem pictures of the victim and defence libel for families of the killers. The images he is using used have been stolen from police sources. Money he has taken from his site must be recovered and donated to the charities of murder victims.

*Frank Sfarzo is a pseudonym

His snazzy little laceless trainers have been purchased with blood money.


Not only is "SFARZO" a pseudonym, it is indicative of the bombastic self-satisfaction of its owner!
sfarzo
s.m. pomp, magnificence; (ostentazione) ostentation, display: abbigliato con -, gorgeously dressed.


Frank's bombast
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: Legality of "Perugia Shock" and FRANK SFARZO   

Tiziano wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Addressed to Skeptical Bystander and Peter Quennell of the PMF sister site "True Justice for Meredith Kercher"

The "Perugia Shock" site must be taken down. "Frank Sfarzo"* continually disrespects the victim even to the extent of displaying advertising alongside post mortem pictures of the victim and defence libel for families of the killers. The images he is using used have been stolen from police sources. Money he has taken from his site must be recovered and donated to the charities of murder victims.

*Frank Sfarzo is a pseudonym

His snazzy little laceless trainers have been purchased with blood money.


Not only is "SFARZO" a pseudonym, it is indicative of the bombastic self-satisfaction of its owner!
sfarzo
s.m. pomp, magnificence; (ostentazione) ostentation, display: abbigliato con -, gorgeously dressed.


Frank's bombast


That's exactly the question I was about to ask. How obnoxious!

_________________
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 Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hello Donnie,

Re; PM’s

Don’t play coy. I am not at all referring to the recent PM’s that were sent to all registered members. I am referring to the PM’s that you sent to me directly on 17 and 19 Jan 2010, and well you know this Donnie. You are a bit recent to this forum to try to bully members. It won’t work here.

Best wishes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
My hometown paper: nothing new though

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... 05532.html

apologies if this was already posted :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 42978.html

Tom Matychowlak is in the comments of the Intelligence Squared debate. Anyone know him? How's the thesis coming donnie? Will it be available online after submission? When is the submission date btw?


Hey, thanks for asking.Tom Matychowlak seems like a polish surname but i never heard of him. The guy that i have contact with is Tom Bednerek and we exchanged some emails and he said that he will try to help me. I really don't know how big his input will be but i really hope that he can provide some interesting information. After all, he has been quoted saying that he knew Meredith Kercher and that they were toghether at the Halloween party.

As to the thesis-i still got plenty of time. It's due to be submitted in july this year. And yes, i can make it available for PMF, of course, but it will take some time to translate it. I won't do it obviously :) gotta find some english-polish translator.


What course are you taking Donnie? And what is the premise / contention of your thesis i.e. the topic and case that you will be trying to make?

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
I am sorry, but if you consider that I am somehow erring in equating "5 minutes before the first 112 call" (which took place at 12:51) with a time of 12:46, then I would like to know exactly how you see that. The trouble with "5 minutes before" or "12:46" is that it simply doesn't fit into a possible timeline with the other events (staring with Amanda's 12:47 phone call to her mother which they didn't see).


Excuse 'me', but I'm not saying you are erring in 'equating' 5 minutes before. I was saying you are erring in saying 'Comodi said 12:46' when she said no such thing. She said '5 minutes before'. The latter were her words, not the former. The fact that YOU have formed an opinion about what Comodi 'meant' when she said '5 minutes earlier' does not mean that's what she said and say it as a definitive 'She said' . Her words are her words, not your interpretation of them which you've then carved in stone. Ergo:

This phrasing is incorrect:

'Comodi said the Postal Police arrived at 12:46'


This phrasing is correct:

'Comodi said the Postal Police arrived 5 minutes earlier and I interpret that as her saying that they arrived at 12:46'

YOU have assumed she meant 5 minutes 'literally' (and if that is so, how literally? 5 minutes and how many seconds..5 minutes and 17 seconds? 5 minutes and 59 seconds? Wouldn't it have been easier for her to say 12:46 if she REALLY literally meant 12:46?) and then carved it in stone as a 'fact' a 'fact' that nobody but you has agreed the authenticity of. It has not been established and all the evidence shows she was being GENERAL, not literal. A literal interpretation contradicts EVERYTHING the prosecution and their witnesses said on the times up to that point in the trial. Please go back and review the earlier discussion of whether she meant it literally or not from the time Bolint first raised it on the board a couple of days ago.

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


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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Hello Donnie,

Re; PM’s

Don’t play coy. I am not at all referring to the recent PM’s that were sent to all registered members. I am referring to the PM’s that you sent to me directly on 17 and 19 Jan 2010, and well you know this Donnie. You are a bit recent to this forum to try to bully members. It won’t work here.

Best wishes.


Bully? In those pm's i didn't said anything offensive, anything threatening, inappriopriate or insluting. Please, leave me alone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
=Re bolint:
You wrote (Fri Jan 22 2:43 pm): This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial."

Bolint (Fri Jan 22 3:26 pm) quoted this sentence of yours, and replied: "No, it was discussed in the trial (about March 13) at the hearing of the police witnesses and was fully presented just before the summer vacation. (And i guess that it was used in the closing argument of the defense and that's why the prosecution came out with the new version)"

So I am sorry, but Bolint did indeed contradict your statement.


Thoughtful, please highlight the line where Bolint says the file was not presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial, I don't see it.

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


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

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 - re our Kevin!!!   

SomeAlibi wrote:

SomeAlibi, Kan/Kould/May I join join your fan Klub?

You Kan Kount on me to sing your praises for ever and ever. Amen.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
donnie wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
My hometown paper: nothing new though

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... 05532.html

apologies if this was already posted :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 42978.html

Tom Matychowlak is in the comments of the Intelligence Squared debate. Anyone know him? How's the thesis coming donnie? Will it be available online after submission? When is the submission date btw?


Hey, thanks for asking.Tom Matychowlak seems like a polish surname but i never heard of him. The guy that i have contact with is Tom Bednerek and we exchanged some emails and he said that he will try to help me. I really don't know how big his input will be but i really hope that he can provide some interesting information. After all, he has been quoted saying that he knew Meredith Kercher and that they were toghether at the Halloween party.

As to the thesis-i still got plenty of time. It's due to be submitted in july this year. And yes, i can make it available for PMF, of course, but it will take some time to translate it. I won't do it obviously :) gotta find some english-polish translator.


What course are you taking Donnie? And what is the premise / contention of your thesis i.e. the topic and case that you will be trying to make?


Psychology. It's still too early to tell what would be the final outcome, but the topic will be concentrated on a killer's mind. I have some difficulties trying to explaing in english the exact contention, but it will be basically about three things-analysis of a killer's mind(based on their behaviour earlier in life or more recent leading to the killings, i will be doing also the male-female differences-how both genders' crimes are different---good example-Amanda Knox covering Meredith Kercher's body), short review of a Perugia murder(the facts, the evidence, the victim, the murderers and the trial) and the last thing will be a list and short characterisation of other "famous" murders. Woa, that wasn't easy to explain :)


Last edited by donnie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

The Machine wrote:
kevin wrote:
We know that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable at the best of times, lots of studies have shown how, even with the best will in the world, eye witnesses can make big mistakes.


I wouldn't say that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable at the best of times. Eyewitness testimony is actually regarded as being one of the most trustworthy forms of evidence in the courtroom.

I agree with Kevin. I would not trust all the eyewitnesses in this case. Kokomani sounds half reliable and that convenience store guy also (although he may have been a bit too sure about everything) but I find it hard to trust the couple who saw Guede or the university chap who claims to have seen all three suspects with Meredith - maybe, but the red jacket he claims AK to have worn raises my suspicions.

When the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme, was murdered in 1986, his wife who'd seen the murderer, picked out the alleged perpetrator, a small-time criminal/junkie/ alcoholic in a lineup. The guy was tried and convicted but on appeal the conviction was overturned mainly because the court was not sure about her eywitness account (there was also no murder weapon and no clear motive although later on the newspapers have speculated about several motives he may had). Here's a quote from Lisbet Palme wikipedia page:

Quote:
Christer Pettersson was arrested in December 1988, identified by Mrs. Palme, with some hesitation, as the killer. Beforehand she had been informed that the suspected killer was a drug addict, and when confronted with Petterson in a line up, Mrs. Palme said "It's him. Anyone can see that he is a junkie."


Lisbeth Palme still maintains that Pettersson was the killer.

The Palme case is intriguing, it's a bit like Sweden's own JFK case, there are lots of conspiracy theories and books about the case. Here's more info if anybody is interested:


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

I watched a while ago an interesting 60 minutes/CBS/Leslie Stahl show about the reliablity of eyewitness accounts. Here's a link to it, in case you are not dismissing it on grounds that the same network employs Peter van Sant and made the very inept 48 hours show about this case:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/ ... ebarArea.0


Last edited by Rumpole on Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
No explanation should be needed. Yes, the court has given its verdict, but that doesn't mean that we completely understand what happened. If even one factual detail can be clarified, even one which neither exculpates nor disculpates anyone, that is still a contribution. In fact, I thought that was the whole point of this board: trying to arrive at the complete truth of what happened (even though, sadly, we probably never will). I'm very surprised that anyone would disagree with this. I wonder what their view of the purpose of the board is?


Please explain to, say for argument's sake you are successful in showing the Postal Police arrived at 12:56, or 12:47 or some other damn time of your choosing, what amazing new 'truth' does it give us about the case? What does it demonstrate? That Amanda and Raffaele didn't murder Meredith Kercher? If it doesn't demonstrate that, then what exactly 'are' you trying to demonstrate and for 'what' purpose and why is there a need for so much hassle and mental gymnastics to do so...why is it so important? It's not as though it's something you can 'prove' anyway, or even make a really strong case for. It's just something that will go in an endless never ending circle for no purpose.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Rimpole wrote:
I agree with Kevin. I would not trust all the eyewitnesses in this case. Kokomani sounds half reliable and that convenience store guy also (although he may have been a bit too sure about everything) but I find it hard to trust the couple who saw Guede or the university chap who claims to have seen all three suspects with Meredith - maybe, but the red jacket he claims AK to have worn raises my suspicions.


Right, we have you and Kevin saying eye witness testimony shouldn't be used against the accused. We have JFK saying LCN DNA shouldn't be allowed to be used against the accised. We have people on other boards saying people shouldn't be questioned and have their statements used as part of the investigation or the trial. We have people on other boards saying the behaviour of suspects should not be taken into account.

Would someone mind laying out for me what the police SHOULD be allowed to use?

_________________
"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 Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Rimpole wrote:
I agree with Kevin. I would not trust all the eyewitnesses in this case. Kokomani sounds half reliable and that convenience store guy also (although he may have been a bit too sure about everything) but I find it hard to trust the couple who saw Guede or the university chap who claims to have seen all three suspects with Meredith - maybe, but the red jacket he claims AK to have worn raises my suspicions.


Right, we have you and Kevin saying eye witness testimony shouldn't be used against the accused. We have JFK saying LCN DNA shouldn't be allowed to be used against the accised. We have people on other boards saying saying people shouldn't be questioned and have their statements used as part of the investigation or the trial. We have people on other boards saying the behaviour of suspects and the accused should not be taken into account.

Would someone mind laying out for me what the police SHOULD be allowed to use?

Rimpole thinks everything should be allowed to be used against the suspects. Bearing in mind though that eye witnesses aren't often reliable. Judges and lay judges can then assess the weight given to any evidence presented. I don't see any problem with LCN DNA, ie the knife evidence, used in court. The defence had a chance to be present when DNA testing was done, they have no grounds to dispute that evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
Please, leave me alone.


I'm sure there are many posters here who intend to do just that - just as soon as you provide the URL where you found the Amanda Knox at World Cup photo, as The Bard and others have requested.
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Michael wrote:
Rimpole wrote:
I agree with Kevin. I would not trust all the eyewitnesses in this case. Kokomani sounds half reliable and that convenience store guy also (although he may have been a bit too sure about everything) but I find it hard to trust the couple who saw Guede or the university chap who claims to have seen all three suspects with Meredith - maybe, but the red jacket he claims AK to have worn raises my suspicions.


Right, we have you and Kevin saying eye witness testimony shouldn't be used against the accused. We have JFK saying LCN DNA shouldn't be allowed to be used against the accised. We have people on other boards saying people shouldn't be questioned and have their statements used as part of the investigation or the trial. We have people on other boards saying the behaviour of suspects should not be taken into account.

Would someone mind laying out for me what the police SHOULD be allowed to use?

Nothing Michael. They are only supposed to take their angelic looking or cowardly, frightened appearances into account and believe all stories of consensual, intimate liasions. They should believe the victims parents when they state they are "wonderful people" who would never hurt even the smallest flies and, I almost forgot, they should never be allowed to interpret cctv cameras. LOL! Ok, I'll behave now.......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
donnie wrote:
Please, leave me alone.


I'm sure there are many posters here who intend to do just that - just as soon as you provide the URL where you found the Amanda Knox at World Cup photo, as The Bard and others have requested.


My explanation is written in the Pm that i posted earlier. There's nothing more that i can say about it. I never thought about the URL(since the article was just like the every other one back then), i only thought of the picture.


Last edited by donnie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

!!! Clearly OT and a threat to the fragile authority and integrity of this board, but anyway:

bu-) Rabbit haters, look away now. Rabbit haters, look away now. bu-)

More Mungo Abuse! Are there no levels to which the enemy, in all its guises, will not stoop? An oh-so-witty poster called The Myxoman (do you see what he's done there??? *slaps thigh with mirth*) has sent a hilarious shot across my bows on You Tube, suggesting that my carrot munching, sofa-hogging rabbit (shhhh....it's the R word...) is somehow being cruelly caged for my enjoyment. What??!!!! If only they knew!!! I am a prisoner in my own home!

Sigh...Time to disable all comments for now I feel. I wouldn't mind if it was funny, but this is just embarrassing...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Michael wrote:
Rimpole wrote:
I agree with Kevin. I would not trust all the eyewitnesses in this case. Kokomani sounds half reliable and that convenience store guy also (although he may have been a bit too sure about everything) but I find it hard to trust the couple who saw Guede or the university chap who claims to have seen all three suspects with Meredith - maybe, but the red jacket he claims AK to have worn raises my suspicions.


Right, we have you and Kevin saying eye witness testimony shouldn't be used against the accused. We have JFK saying LCN DNA shouldn't be allowed to be used against the accised. We have people on other boards saying saying people shouldn't be questioned and have their statements used as part of the investigation or the trial. We have people on other boards saying the behaviour of suspects and the accused should not be taken into account.

Would someone mind laying out for me what the police SHOULD be allowed to use?

Rimpole thinks everything should be allowed to be used against the suspects. Bearing in mind though that eye witnesses aren't often reliable. Judges and lay judges can then assess the weight given to any evidence presented. I don't see any problem with LCN DNA, ie the knife evidence, used in court. The defence had a chance to be present when DNA testing was done, they have no grounds to dispute that evidence.


Well exactly.... the prosecution puts its evidence, the defence its own. The judge(s) can rule the evidence admissible or inadmissible (as happened with witnesses in this case remember) and then they can attribute credibility / likelihood / weight to the evidence they have heard. We will see the judge's report shortly and that will be hugely informative and helpful in focusing the conversation on the *conviction* not on all of our (I include myself here) thoughts on what might have happened.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
They should believe the victims parents when they state they are "wonderful people" who would never hurt even the smallest flies and, I almost forgot, they should never be allowed to interpret cctv cameras. LOL! Ok, I'll behave now.......


I can hear the attic door creaking open...
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Rimpole thinks everything should be allowed to be used against the suspects. Bearing in mind though that eye witnesses aren't often reliable. Judges and lay judges can then assess the weight given to any evidence presented. I don't see any problem with LCN DNA, ie the knife evidence, used in court. The defence had a chance to be present when DNA testing was done, they have no grounds to dispute that evidence.


So, it sounds as though you are in full support of the way the Italian court handled the Meredith Kercher murder trial. Thanks for the independent evaluation, and for confirming our suspicions.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Go guys...!

The rat is truly hunted down....

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
My explanation is written in the Pm that i posted earlier. There's nothing more that i can say about it. I never thought about the URL(since the article was just like the every other one back then), i only thought of the picture.


You mentioned that you used several specific keywords in your search...
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

How does declaring fundraising income work for the Knox's? Do they report this as earnings/gifts or what? ..set it off expenses relating to the case?....are there any accessible records for the public to see for this charity type giving? or is all of this hidden from public view? Is there an actual charity managed by someone outside the family or is the PR company doing this?
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
donnie wrote:
Please, leave me alone.


I'm sure there are many posters here who intend to do just that - just as soon as you provide the URL where you found the Amanda Knox at World Cup photo, as The Bard and others have requested.


My explanation is written in the Pm that i posted earlier. There's nothing more that i can say about it. I never thought about the URL(since the article was just like the every other one back then), i only thought of the picture.


Hello Donnie,

Yes you are indeed an innocent child, pure as the driven snow.

It is everyone else’s fault that your words are confusing. Everyone misinterprets your words, even when they state the opposite meaning. But we all should know what you REALLY mean. How stupid we are. But as you say (often) you are “young” and we must make allowances for that.

Your English is quiet good though Donnie. Your ability to evade is quiet exceptional considering English is not your first language, a credit to one so "young". Try stating what you mean for a change and we will take you more serious.

Best wishes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Hello Donnie,

Quick question?

This is not the first time that I have noticed that you have deliberately avoided and side stepped a direct question,

Bard asked; Wed Jan 20 1.47 pm;

Quote
“Congratulations on your 'scoop' donnie. Would you care to tell us the site where you found it? I am intrigued to speculate which 'unusual stuff' you put into google. ' “

Donnie replied; Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:21 pm

Quote
“I promise i will try me best to provide you the link to the site...i will have the time later or maybe tomorrow early morning”

To date you have not posted a response anywhere on this board to respond to Bard. I sense a trend emerging where you evade and avoid direct questions at your convenience. It is of no significance to me whatsoever, however you owe it to the other genuine posters here to declare your agenda.

On a deadly serious note;
Do not ever PM me again. Out of convention I will nor disclose the contents of your previous PM’s to me, save to say that I found them childlike in their implicit threats.

However Donnie, make no mistake; if you ever PM me again I will publish them in their entirety right here on this forum.

Best wishes


Hammerite, where have you been recently? I missed that, you know, this constant bashing me, no matter what. Well, here i am and i will explain everything to you. Even though i don't have to.
Bard got an answer from me via PM. I've explained everything i could and i believe that Bard can
confirm that. Anyway, i think that it will be appropriate to copy and paste the pm. where i answer the question. So here it is:

Hi. I've been doing my best but so far without a luck. I'm typing the same things in google but it's not as successful as i thought it would be. I wasn't cautious enough when i found the site, i should save my history of viewing, but i never did. But to be honest, it was just another article talking about the case and the site was coming from the US. There wasn't anything unusal written and i remember it was posted in november of 2007, so this case was still pretty new back then. When i saw the picture i realized it's a rare one, so i saved it, never thought about the article. I'm so sorry i couldn't help.

I found also few others and they were rare to me, but i think you saw them already-the one i posted with Amanda and few friends described as her bike team and Amanda playing scrabble or somthing similiar and it looks like a photoshoot to me, not like a random picture.

Best wishes, Donnie.

There you go. I agree that this should be also posted on the thread. However, it seems that even when i find a "rare" photo or write anything, there's always a reason to bash Donnie. Just get off me, please.

Dear Hammerite. Let's talk about the recent pm that you received from me and it obviously got you mad or whatever. Just check out the latest posts coming from various member, including the Administrators of the boards, Michael and Skep, about the PM's incident and you'll know why you received the PM in the first place. It wasn't meant to be sent to you, it wasn't written to you or wasn't talking about you and to be honest, it wasn't even my fault. Everyone received that message yesterday. You know, the one that starts with words : "really bitter...". So please, check it out again and get your facts straight. The only Pm's we exchanged earlier were written in my defesne and were sent some time ago.(there were two). This third message was sent by a mistake to all the members and it wasn't only or completely my fault. So, i'm very sorry. Plus i don't recall any threats, childlike-maybe, but threats? Never. But if you feel the need to make it public, i won't stop you. There was nothing that i'm ashamed of. No insults, no threats. Just me aksing you kindly to get off me.

PS. I believe that this whole post should be written and sent via PM to you. But since you forbidden me the acces to your PM box, i just had to answer you here. And you were to one who said that we shouldn't have these kind of arguments on the PMF. At least not on the main thread.



donnie, are you trying to suggest to these good people that the pm above was sent to me??? I received no such pm from you. I just checked. You did send me one simply stating the 'key words' you searched for, but nothing more.

Hmmm...where does this lead us donnie? Your move...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

Hammerite wrote:
donnie wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
donnie wrote:
Please, leave me alone.


I'm sure there are many posters here who intend to do just that - just as soon as you provide the URL where you found the Amanda Knox at World Cup photo, as The Bard and others have requested.


My explanation is written in the Pm that i posted earlier. There's nothing more that i can say about it. I never thought about the URL(since the article was just like the every other one back then), i only thought of the picture.


Hello Donnie,

Yes you are indeed an innocent child, pure as the driven snow.

It is everyone else’s fault that your words are confusing. Everyone misinterprets your words, even when they state the opposite meaning. But we all should know what you REALLY mean. How stupid we are. But as you say (often) you are “young” and we must make allowances for that.

Your English is quiet good though Donnie. Your ability to evade is quiet exceptional considering English is not your first language, a credit to one so young. Try stating what you mean for a change and we will take you more serious.

Best wishes.


I'm not trying to evade. I don't think it is appropriate to have this kind of conversation on this thread, so please, pm me if there is anything else. Thank you for another advise and you got my promise that i will try my best to be a "better" member of the PMF boards. :) :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
...the article was just like the every other one back then.


No, it wasn't...
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 -   

donnie wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
donnie wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
donnie wrote:
Please, leave me alone.


I'm sure there are many posters here who intend to do just that - just as soon as you provide the URL where you found the Amanda Knox at World Cup photo, as The Bard and others have requested.


My explanation is written in the Pm that i posted earlier. There's nothing more that i can say about it. I never thought about the URL(since the article was just like the every other one back then), i only thought of the picture.


Hello Donnie,

Yes you are indeed an innocent child, pure as the driven snow.

It is everyone else’s fault that your words are confusing. Everyone misinterprets your words, even when they state the opposite meaning. But we all should know what you REALLY mean. How stupid we are. But as you say (often) you are “young” and we must make allowances for that.




Your English is quiet good though Donnie. Your ability to evade is quiet exceptional considering English is not your first language, a credit to one so young. Try stating what you mean for a change and we will take you more serious.

Best wishes.


I'm not trying to evade. I don't think it is appropriate to have this kind of conversation on this thread, so please, pm me if there is anything else. Thank you for another advise and you got my promise that i will try my best to be a "better" member of the PMF boards. :) :)


Donnie... do indulge me won't you... what was the answer to my earlier post than this one you just answered re The course you are taking and what the premise / basis of your thesis on the murder of Meredith Kercher is?


Edit: Typo

_________________
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 Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 11 of 12 [ 2769 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,456,874 Views