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


Last visit was: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:47 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:47 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - March 4, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 15 of 15 [ 3716 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Author Message

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stilicho wrote:
Emerald wrote:
mstev14420 wrote:
How can someone be rehabilitated without ever acknowledging their guilt?


That's my opinion, too. Amanda will have to sit in front of a parole panel and say something like "I'm sorry for being a part of the crimes against Meredith Kercher."

IMO, it will never happen.


Showing remorse for a crime entails a lot more than that, Emerald.

She would have to explain details such as what they were looking for on Meredith's floor with her lamp, what happened to Meredith's missing belongings, how they staged the burglary and when, what they used to clean the hallway, how they happened upon Kokomani, and numerous other details that she knows but has lied about. It's a lot more than just saying "sorry" and having that be the end of it.

The road to rehabilitation begins with complete honesty and acceptance of the verdict. As we know, until the appeals process is completed, the rehabilitation cannot begin.


I agree that she wouldn't be allowed to get away with one bald sentence Stilicho but it's not any parole board's job to tie up every loose end of the evidence for us murder tourists. They might press her on the point of whether she struck the fatal blow but to expect them years down the line to be quizzing her about the lamp and Kokomani is a bit fanciful.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:49 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

A little OT, but could be added to the files of parasitic, publicity seeking lawyers: I belong to another forum about the Drew Peterson murders where the moderators have done a fantastic job as here, and is well read and respected; a resource used by many. One of his lawyers (one of his small zoo) has this week contacted the moderators because he wished to add more of his accomplishments to their profile of him. This is not even the same Peterson lawyer who has a second career as an orgasm coach/author.

It made us all laugh.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Showing remorse for a crime entails a lot more than that, Emerald.

She would have to explain details such as what they were looking for on Meredith's floor with her lamp, what happened to Meredith's missing belongings, how they staged the burglary and when, what they used to clean the hallway, how they happened upon Kokomani, and numerous other details that she knows but has lied about. It's a lot more than just saying "sorry" and having that be the end of it.

The road to rehabilitation begins with complete honesty and acceptance of the verdict. As we know, until the appeals process is completed, the rehabilitation cannot begin.


I think we are talking about the same thing here. Before Amanda can give the details, she must accept responsibility. Sure, I'd appreciate knowing the details, but it's not necessary Amanda shares them with me to be rehabilitated.

I don't believe she will EVER admit what she's done.



Of course she won't - her entire edifice of support would crumble away and she would have admitted to bankrupting her family and causing her sister to become a drop out. And the narcissist could never contemplate denigrating their own reputation that way.

Now Rudy, perhaps, or Sollecito may be different. I find the whole silence of the Sollecito camp to be quite interesting. Relatively very little coming from them. I wonder if we're going to see some attempt at a cut-throat defence in the appeal. Probably too much to hope for but hmmmm... And for Rudy, on TJMK the suggestion is that he may be ready to talk if he can get protection. I'd love to know more detail about that.

I've also been contemplating an old idea; Writing to Rudy in jail and put it to him that for the terrible thing that he has done, he has the ability to put the minds at "rest" for the family about what really happened and to end the constant denigration of Italy by the US media. He would be no hero for doing so (we all know what role and particularly the sexual one he played in the attack) but if he can admit to the terrible events, which many of us believe were probably under the influence of a great deal of alcohol / drugs, is genuinely remorseful and can blow away the lies coming from the FOA in the direction of Italian media, then I think many people (of course not all) may give him credit for stopping the besmirching of Italy and the Italian justice system.

If he serves his sentence, is fully contrite and accepting of what he is done, is fully rehabilitated over the years, then this course of action would represent the strongest course of action possible to him being able to resume some sort of normal life eventually.

The problem is, in order to do so, he has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. That means admitting to his role in the sexual assault as well as the murder and perversely I see the former as being something harder for him to do. He could say "I was so stoned and suddenly they were on her with the knives" but he can't explain how his DNA was inside her without taking a very heavy hit with the few people that support him. He is an inverterate liar by his own admission and I struggle to see him not wanting to spin some self-serving version to deal with that issue and if he does so, it will likely fall apart and when that happens it will undermine the true parts of the real story he can tell.

Still, I think it's worth a try. I really do, so I'm going to do it. Anyone have the address of the jail he's in?

_________________
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: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:26 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Emerald wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Showing remorse for a crime entails a lot more than that, Emerald.

She would have to explain details such as what they were looking for on Meredith's floor with her lamp, what happened to Meredith's missing belongings, how they staged the burglary and when, what they used to clean the hallway, how they happened upon Kokomani, and numerous other details that she knows but has lied about. It's a lot more than just saying "sorry" and having that be the end of it.

The road to rehabilitation begins with complete honesty and acceptance of the verdict. As we know, until the appeals process is completed, the rehabilitation cannot begin.


I think we are talking about the same thing here. Before Amanda can give the details, she must accept responsibility. Sure, I'd appreciate knowing the details, but it's not necessary Amanda shares them with me to be rehabilitated.

I don't believe she will EVER admit what she's done.



Of course she won't - her entire edifice of support would crumble away and she would have admitted to bankrupting her family and causing her sister to become a drop out. And the narcissist could never contemplate denigrating their own reputation that way.

Now Rudy, perhaps, or Sollecito may be different. I find the whole silence of the Sollecito camp to be quite interesting. Relatively very little coming from them. I wonder if we're going to see some attempt at a cut-throat defence in the appeal. Probably too much to hope for but hmmmm... And for Rudy, on TJMK the suggestion is that he may be ready to talk if he can get protection. I'd love to know more detail about that.

I've also been contemplating an old idea; Writing to Rudy in jail and put it to him that for the terrible thing that he has done, he has the ability to put the minds at "rest" for the family about what really happened and to end the constant denigration of Italy by the US media. He would be no hero for doing so (we all know what role and particularly the sexual one he played in the attack) but if he can admit to the terrible events, which many of us believe were probably under the influence of a great deal of alcohol / drugs, is genuinely remorseful and can blow away the lies coming from the FOA in the direction of Italian media, then I think many people (of course not all) may give him credit for stopping the besmirching of Italy and the Italian justice system.

If he serves his sentence, is fully contrite and accepting of what he is done, is fully rehabilitated over the years, then this course of action would represent the strongest course of action possible to him being able to resume some sort of normal life eventually.

The problem is, in order to do so, he has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. That means admitting to his role in the sexual assault as well as the murder and perversely I see the former as being something harder for him to do. He could say "I was so stoned and suddenly they were on her with the knives" but he can't explain how his DNA was inside her without taking a very heavy hit with the few people that support him. He is an inverterate liar by his own admission and I struggle to see him not wanting to spin some self-serving version to deal with that issue and if he does so, it will likely fall apart and when that happens it will undermine the true parts of the real story he can tell.

Still, I think it's worth a try. I really do, so I'm going to do it. Anyone have the address of the jail he's in?



I think he is in Viterbo Prison/jail 70 miles away from Perugia
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:11 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

What is the age difference of Edda and Chris?
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

12 years I think...
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
What is the age difference of Edda and Chris?

I believe she is 14 years older than him.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I'm meeting with my criminal judge friend soon, so if anyone wants a query about the Italian Criminal Justice system answered, let me have your question as soon as possible, and I will see what I can do. I am planning to ask about whether the emphasis is more on retribution or rehabilitation, etc. Also, some insight into the appeals system.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
Still, I think it's worth a try. I really do, so I'm going to do it. Anyone have the address of the jail he's in?


RG is in Viterbo, here is the address:
Casa Circondariale di Viterbo
Strada Santissimo Salvatore 14.b
01100 Viterbo
Lazio
Italy
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

observer wrote:
I'm meeting with my criminal judge friend soon, so if anyone wants a query about the Italian Criminal Justice system answered, let me have your question as soon as possible, and I will see what I can do. I am planning to ask about whether the emphasis is more on retribution or rehabilitation, etc. Also, some insight into the appeals system.


Does Rudy's fast track trial automatically entitle him to a reduced sentence?

Will Amanda's sentence be reduced if found culpable in the 2nd level?

Can la_) opt to have her appeal heard among the prisoners who supposedly think she is innocent? tou-)
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

First news about the 427-page Motivazioni della Sentenza publication:

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 5577.shtml

Google translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=it&tl=en

Italian GoogleNews articles:

http://news.google.com/news/search?cf=a ... 0&ict=itn2


Last edited by piktor on Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

observer wrote:
I'm meeting with my criminal judge friend soon, so if anyone wants a query about the Italian Criminal Justice system answered, let me have your question as soon as possible, and I will see what I can do. I am planning to ask about whether the emphasis is more on retribution or rehabilitation, etc. Also, some insight into the appeals system.



What are the hoops to jump through for extradition?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thanks, piktor.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:21 pm   Post subject: Bunny philosophy   

*** Warning ***

BUNNY ALERT!

BUNNY ALERT!

*** Warning ***



Piktor,


Beautiful painting.
Impressionism with a Warholian boldness.

Why am I thinking of a painterly Goldoni? (“ingenious mix of wit and honesty” – [ Wikipedia ], perhaps?)

I looked at the swirls of colour, admiring how they were jostling each other, like billabongs in a river or figures in a Bosch landscape, and then the brushstrokes coalesced into a shape, and I realized, “Wait a minute! That’s a jaw! And there’s a tooth!” It was a lion’s head!


Which reminded me:
A few weeks ago, I went to visit Mrs Bunny at the Art Gallery, at an exhibition which has now closed:
[ AGNSW: artist in paris ].

Mrs Bunny’s maiden name was Jeanne Morel, and when she was an art student in Paris over a hundred years ago, she met a fellow art student, Rupert, who was from Australia. He started painting her and eventually they married and the paintings continued. She was a very lovely woman.




“List the colours you can see. Describe the texture of the painting and think about how Bunny has applied the daubs of paint.” –

(Jeanne is the one on the left, in Dolce farniente, 1897)
AGNSW

At the exhibition, on one of the walls, there was a quote by Rupert, trying to describe the difference for an artist, between being in Paris and being in Australia. It went something like (my words): “In Paris, painting is a process, it is in the atmosphere. In Australia, painting is treated as an entity, from the outside.”

This leads to two thoughts:
– Firstly, Amanda may see the brushstrokes, but they don’t connect together into a crime to be remorseful about (e.g., since Meredith is her friend, and murderers do not kill friends, then how can Amanda be a murderer? Alternatively, it’s not murder if your “boyfriend” did it.)
– Secondly, a murder, in all its horrible and infantile atmosphere, is a process and not the same as discussing it as an entity, in court or as an alibi, say. With a whirlwind of emotions on the one hand, and a partial emotional disconnect on the other hand, it could (?) be a case of “never the twain shall meet”, that is, the dispassionate logic of trying to retroactively reconstruct the emotion and motives of a scene (e.g. by imagining it) may never be connected to the (remembered?) emotion of the event because (at a conscious level, anyway) that “little bridge over the Seine” that does the actual connecting is not there.

In either case, there is no remorse. Nor can there ever be.

As hinted by the number of parentheses and question marks, this is all highly speculative.
Am happy to be proved wrong.

In any case, Piktor, you keep on painting. There is definitely no disconnect there. :)

Am now off to: “Find Jeanne in other paintings.” – [ Bunny trail (pdf) ]



*** End warning ***
Bunny Alert Over.
Resume normal transmission.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The logic is inescapable.

"un voluminoso fascicolo. Si tratta di 427 pagine"
a voluminous document, 427 pages' worth
TGCOM, from Piktor's link.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thanks Piktor. I'll put the google translated version up here:


Caso Meredith, "Quadro unwrinkled"
Dunning-Knox, appeal motivates sentencing
The judges of the Court of Assizes of Perugia lodged the grounds for the condemnation of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith. All the issues raised in the process, it says, "shows a comprehensive and unified, without gaps and inconsistencies." For the college, the picture showed "acts as strictly necessary and consequential outcome of the allocation made to both the defendants assumed offense.

The reasons for conviction of two defendants, are contained in a voluminous file. It is 427 pages signed by the President of the Court Giancarlo Massei and assessors Beatrice Christians. "What was Meredith Kercher murder made without programming, without any animosity or feeling resentment toward the victim in some way can be seen as a preparation-predisposition to crime - writing the college -. The facts are shown to be achieved under contengenze of purely random.

The measure also states that Knox "freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of killing Meredith in the awareness of the innocence of that. Hence the condemnation of the young in Seattle for the crime of libel. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were sentenced respectively to 26 and 25 years in prison.



TGCOM

_________________
"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 pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I did a yahoo pipe that pulls a google news RSS feed for "amanda Knox", translates the summary, then when you click on the article also translates the article.

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info? ... 9c5ac1141a

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
The reasons for conviction of two defendants, are contained in a voluminous file. It is 427 pages signed by the President of the Court Giancarlo Massei and assessors Beatrice Christians. "What was Meredith Kercher murder made without programming, without any animosity or feeling resentment toward the victim in some way can be seen as a preparation-predisposition to crime - writing the college -. The facts are shown to be achieved under contengenze of purely random.


I don't quite understand this translation. Does it mean the jury thought it was a random act, not premeditated?

College writings showed a predisposition?
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: Bunny philosophy   

Catnip,

You paint with words. Keep on writing, what you write is beautiful in itself and that is the condition of true art: it is self-sufficient.

We can sense your wisdom and love of truth that trails into to a clear beauty. th-)

Emerald,

You are welcome r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Okay. At least we know the report is released. Everyone must be busy with translating it. Thanks!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

For those in the UK, it's on BBC News 24 now. If you missed it, I'm sure it'll come up again.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Michael wrote:
The reasons for conviction of two defendants, are contained in a voluminous file. It is 427 pages signed by the President of the Court Giancarlo Massei and assessors Beatrice Christians. "What was Meredith Kercher murder made without programming, without any animosity or feeling resentment toward the victim in some way can be seen as a preparation-predisposition to crime - writing the college -. The facts are shown to be achieved under contengenze of purely random.


I don't quite understand this translation. Does it mean the jury thought it was a random act, not premeditated?

College writings showed a predisposition?



Yes, a random act without premeditation. But, this is what the prosecution were arguing anyway so, so far the judges and the prosecution are in accord.

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From: Il secolo XIX

I giudici: «Il delitto di Perugia non venne programmato» - 04 marzo 2010

"The facts are shown to be achieved by of forces of purely random contingencies " wrote the judges of the Court of Assize in the ruling motivation by which the sentenced Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to 25 and 26 years, for the murder of Meredith Kercher . It had been excluded so that the murderers had planned the murder. Everything was accomplished "without any kind of planning, without any animosity or feeling resentment toward the victim to be seen as a preparation-predisposition to crime." In any case, the picture that emerged from the surveys results as an outcome strictly necessary and consequential for the allocation of the assumed offensive facts to both defendants” and the picture of what happened appears to be a "comprehensive and unified framework, without gaps and inconsistencies," so the judges in Perugia wrote.

The material criminal act, which is sexual violence, the judges attributed it to Rudy Guede, who was assisted by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito where made fragile by the taken drugs. "Amanda and Raffaele” - wrote the judges – consented to Rudy’s action, they “participated actively in the criminal Rudy aims to overcome the resistance of Meredith, to subjugate the will and allowing Rudy to vent lustful impulses." They judges write afterwards in the written decision: "The prospect of letting Rudy fulfil the intention of subduing Meredith for sexual abuse might have been sees like something particularly exciting in that moment, that, while not expected, was worth to be experienced."
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The word "college" translates "collegium" (council), which is the panel of judges the Court of Assise.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Google Translation:

In 427 pages the reasons for the Court of Assizes of Perugia for the verdict against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox
for the murder of British student did the first November 2007. "Crime without any programming
Delitto Meredith, filed verdict
"Murder born of sexual violence of Guede"


PERUGIA - Quattrocentoventisette pages. Many are served to the judges of the Court of Assizes of Perugia to justify the sentence on the murder of Meredith Kercher, in Perugia on first place November 2007. For that crime committed "without any planning, without animosity or feeling resentful," wrote the judges, were sentenced Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, respectively, 26 and 25 years in prison. For the same offense he was sentenced (30 years with abbreviated rite later reduced on appeal to 16 note) the Ivorian Rudy Hermann Guede, currently awaiting appeal in the Court of Cassation. "The motive - they write the magistrates Perugini - erotic nature of sexual violence that originated from the choice of the evil wrought by Rudi, found the active collaboration of Amanda and Raffaele.

From prison inmate Rudy Viterbo where he wrote a letter with an appeal''to those who know, talk.'' A solicitation that appears to concern themselves Amanda and Raffaele (indicated by Rudy, especially the American student that he had always said to know, present at the crime scene note) that said they were always strangers to each other.

All the issues raised in the process "shows a comprehensive and unified, without gaps and inconsistencies," wrote the judges in the file signed by the President of the Court Giancarlo Massei and assessors Beatrice Christians. According to the College, the picture showed "acts as strictly necessary and consequential outcome of the allocation made to both the defendants assumed offense.

The measure also states that Knox "freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of killing Meredith in the consciousness of innocence and accused Lumumba of the same. The courts emphasize that there was "no confirmation" of the stresses that Amanda suffered by investigators to accuse Lumumba. For the Court of Assizes of Perugia the objective pursued by the American (also convicted for the crime of libel against the Congolese musician, ed) was to "send investigators to the wrong track, away from what could have led to 'assessment of individual responsibility and her boyfriend. " "A behavior is a choice, then - wrote the Court - a purely defensive: Amanda had a good relationship with Lumumba from which it had always been treated well and could not therefore be no cause for resentment, hostility, revenge that he could justify so serious an accusation .

That of Meredith Kercher, it reads, it was a murder carried out "without any planning, without animosity or feeling resentment toward the victim in some way can be seen as a preparation-predisposition to crime." According to the College "the facts are shown to be achieved under contengenze purely random.

The reasons are called "contingencies purely random and went to welded with each other, creating a situation which, in the combination of several factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly find themselves without any commitment they encounter by chance (there is no trace of any appointment made) and Rudy Guede are together in this house on Via della Pergola, where that night (between the first and November 2, 2007 note) Meredith is only one. " According to the judges' behavior also put in place against Meredith after the rapes and the murder is committed is to have held the lifeless body reveals, in addition to a feeling of pity towards the victim, denial and then a kind repentance as committed: denial and repentance entrusted to such a gesture of piety. "

The criminal act material, or sexual violence, the judges attach to Rudy Guede, who was assisted by Amanda and Raffaele rendered fragile by the drug taken. "Amanda and Raffaele - write the judges - participated actively in the criminal Rudy aims to overcome the resistance of Meredith, to subjugate the will and allowing Rudy to vent their lustful impulses." They write more judges in the written decision: "The prospect of help in regard to subdue Rudy Meredith for sexual abuse, might seem like a particularly exciting that, while not expected, was experienced."

"The motive - Add Perugia judges - so erotic nature of sexual violence that originated from the choice of the evil wrought by Rudi, found the active collaboration of Amanda and Raffaele. This participation, active and violent, has also involved the current defendants in competition with Rudi comes from what has been observed talking about the injuries suffered by Meredith, the outcome of genetic testing, from bare footprints found in various parts of the house. "

One of the tests, according to prosecutors, the murder carried out by more than one person is confirmed by the physical strength of Meredith, from his conscious being on the night of violence and his past experience in the gym. "Meredith began when violent action was awake and dressed and not sdraiaiata on the bed." And again: "According to the analysis, the girl was slender, with a physical and was physically very strong, as they had claimed her mother and sister Meredith. He also did boxing."


(04 March 2010)



LA REPUBBLICA

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Wow! I appreciate this report is very detailed.


Thanks for the translations!
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"Meredith's murder was not premeditated, even immediately after, probably Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito repented of what they had committed and why they covered the corpse of the English girl."- AGI, March 4

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=it&tl=en
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I just watched the BBC24 report and thought it presented in an oddly sarcastic way; implying that the report was somehow "late". I thought I was watching CBS.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Generic mitigation are due to their immaturity (snippet from TGCOM):

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo475577.shtml

(...) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are young and have no previous criminal record. "no witness has referred of violent actions" committed previously from the murder. "On the contrary circumstances had resulted by which - the collegium wrote - both the firs and the second, besides being committed with diligence in their study, they showed themselves well disposed with others and also accepted the engagement of working activity". "The inexperience and immaaturity proper of young age were stressed by the context where they found themselves because this was very different from the one in which they grew up and devoid of usual points of reference that could be valuable to consisitute a support, confroontation and verification in the day-by-day self determinations"
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thanks very much Jool & H9....

Piktor - another wonderful painting. Do you ever sell any of your pieces? They are far superior to many things I see in my part of the world that go for lots of money. Beautiful. Again!

Somewhere the Merryrot Hagiographic Society is winding up for its first of many releases on why the judges' report is rubbish. There's probably a big clock in David's office that they've pre-set to a minimal credible amount of time so as to suggest they've fully read the report. When the time expires, a klaxon will sound, a military voice will command over loudspeakers "Launch Bullshit! Launch Bullshit!" and applying flame to a fuse made from a trail of a million one dollar notes, the first firework will launch. After a brief display of noise and light, a slightly sulphorous odour will be all that's left drifting across small parts of Seattle. Then all there will be to do is watch Chris Mellas get carted off in a police van when he mishears someone ask him to help stack the bonfire faggots...

_________________
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 bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

BBC 13:38 4 March 2010
Amanda Knox murder case 'has no holes'

Judges have published their reasons for convicting Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.
The judges in Italy said the murder happened without planning or grudge.
But they said that there were no holes or inconsistency in the evidence which pointed to the guilt of Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
The pair were found guilty in December of killing Ms Kercher, from Coulsdon, Surrey, in Perugia in 2007.
In the 400-page judgement, the judges said the case pointed to a "necessary and consequential" outcome.
The fact Miss Kercher was found covered with a blanket, showed the pair felt "regret" for what they had done, the judges said.
Knox was jailed for 26 years and Sollecito for 25 years in December last year. They are both appealing against their murder convictions.
Knox is appealing against her conviction on the grounds that the forensic evidence against her was flawed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Well, I'm hearing certain things. I will see if I can bring you solid confirmation later (or someone else can) but this is what is emerging:

The murder was not premeditated. The attack on Meredith was carried out in order to help Rudy facilitate sex with the victim, so the judges see the sexual assault as the 'reason' for the attack, rather then as a product caused 'by' the attack. This they did, under the haze of drugs for the thrill of the experience. Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives and one of those two inflicted the fatal wound. Immediately after death, the three were filled with regret and remorse.

That's the summary so far. More as I hear 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bilko wrote:
BBC 13:38 4 March 2010
Amanda Knox murder case 'has no holes'

Judges have published their reasons for convicting Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.
The judges in Italy said the murder happened without planning or grudge.
But they said that there were no holes or inconsistency in the evidence which pointed to the guilt of Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
The pair were found guilty in December of killing Ms Kercher, from Coulsdon, Surrey, in Perugia in 2007.
In the 400-page judgement, the judges said the case pointed to a "necessary and consequential" outcome.
The fact Miss Kercher was found covered with a blanket, showed the pair felt "regret" for what they had done, the judges said.
Knox was jailed for 26 years and Sollecito for 25 years in December last year. They are both appealing against their murder convictions.
Knox is appealing against her conviction on the grounds that the forensic evidence against her was flawed.



Here's the link to the article: BBC

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


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives and one of those two inflicted the fatal wound.

That's the summary so far. More as I hear it.


Michael, is that uncertainty over who dealt the fatal blow inferred or explicitly stated ?
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
observer wrote:
I'm meeting with my criminal judge friend soon, so if anyone wants a query about the Italian Criminal Justice system answered, let me have your question as soon as possible, and I will see what I can do. I am planning to ask about whether the emphasis is more on retribution or rehabilitation, etc. Also, some insight into the appeals system.



What are the hoops to jump through for extradition?


Just wondering, is this an issue that has been brought up by Amanda or her family? Or is it just conjecture, along the lines of "this wouldn't happen in the US, things are better in the US of A" etc?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives and one of those two inflicted the fatal wound.

That's the summary so far. More as I hear it.


Michael, is that uncertainty over who dealt the fatal blow inferred or explicitly stated ?



Well, bear in mind this is 'tentative'...this is what I'm hearing. Apparently, the report indicates it was either Raffaele or Amanda who made the fatal wound (with the other making some of the other knife wounds) but does not assert as a 'truth' which one of them it was.

_________________
"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 observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
observer wrote:
I'm meeting with my criminal judge friend soon, so if anyone wants a query about the Italian Criminal Justice system answered, let me have your question as soon as possible, and I will see what I can do. I am planning to ask about whether the emphasis is more on retribution or rehabilitation, etc. Also, some insight into the appeals system.


Does Rudy's fast track trial automatically entitle him to a reduced sentence?

Will Amanda's sentence be reduced if found culpable in the 2nd level?

Can la_) opt to have her appeal heard among the prisoners who supposedly think she is innocent? tou-)


Don't understand the second question - do you mean, will her already shortish sentence be maintained, or will it be further reduced? Don't R and A already have shortish sentences, relatively, because of their youth, no previous serious criminal record etc?
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives and one of those two inflicted the fatal wound.

That's the summary so far. More as I hear it.


Michael, is that uncertainty over who dealt the fatal blow inferred or explicitly stated ?



Well, bear in mind this is 'tentative'...this is what I'm hearing. Apparently, the report indicates it was either Raffaele or Amanda who made the fatal wound (with the other making some of the other knife wounds) but does not assert as a 'truth' which one of them it was.


Thanks Michael that answers the question. Keep up the good work.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Can someone please condfirm this is correct -

Rudy's sentence is 30 years
Amanda's is 26 years
Raffaele's is 25 years

It was proved during his trial that Rudy definitely wielded a knife and actively took part in Meredith's murder?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

observer wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Does Rudy's fast track trial automatically entitle him to a reduced sentence?

Will Amanda's sentence be reduced if found culpable in the 2nd level?

Can la_) opt to have her appeal heard among the prisoners who supposedly think she is innocent? tou-)


Don't understand the second question - do you mean, will her already shortish sentence be maintained, or will it be further reduced? Don't R and A already have shortish sentences, relatively, because of their youth, no previous serious criminal record etc?


It is my understanding Rudy's sentence was originally 30 years, but reduced to 24 in the appeal. Since he opted for the fast track trial, the sentenced was reduced by 1/3 to 16 years. Is that correct?

Even though Amanda/Raffaele did not opt for fast track, can their sentences still be reduced by 1/3?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

observer wrote:
Emerald wrote:
observer wrote:
I'm meeting with my criminal judge friend soon, so if anyone wants a query about the Italian Criminal Justice system answered, let me have your question as soon as possible, and I will see what I can do. I am planning to ask about whether the emphasis is more on retribution or rehabilitation, etc. Also, some insight into the appeals system.


Does Rudy's fast track trial automatically entitle him to a reduced sentence?

Will Amanda's sentence be reduced if found culpable in the 2nd level?

Can la_) opt to have her appeal heard among the prisoners who supposedly think she is innocent? tou-)


Don't understand the second question - do you mean, will her already shortish sentence be maintained, or will it be further reduced? Don't R and A already have shortish sentences, relatively, because of their youth, no previous serious criminal record etc?


Yes, they've already had all their mitigation. Their only further hope of sentence reduction is if they get themselves acquitted of one or more of the charges. But I can't see that happening. The tone of the report seems to be saying...'their guilt of the charges is indisputable'. The only one they may be able to get rid of is the transportation of a knife, which at most would get them a reduction of a year, if that. But then, I can't find a court upholding the conviction of all the other charges and not the knife transportation one...since that would leave a hole in the logic of how the knives got to the scene in order to carry out the assault and murder, then to return to Raffaele's. The crime scene fabrication is clear. And the report seems pretty emphatic about the deliberate false accusation of Patrick. It looks to me, as though they're all screwed.

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From what I've read so far, this report leaves LOTS of room for Raffaele or Amanda to turn on the other.

I'm betting on Raffaele to tell it was Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

observer wrote:
Can someone please condfirm this is correct -

Rudy's sentence is 30 years
Amanda's is 26 years
Raffaele's is 25 years

It was proved during his trial that Rudy definitely wielded a knife and actively took part in Meredith's murder?



No, Rudy's sentence was 24 years, after a 6 year discount for mitigation. This was therefore then reduced by a further 8 years (1/3 discount of final sentence) as a reward for opting for the fast track. So for Rudy, Net 24, 16 years Gross.

Amanda and Raffaele's sentence is as you wrote 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
From what I've read so far, this report leaves LOTS of room for Raffaele or Amanda to turn on the other.

I'm betting on Raffaele to tell it was Amanda.



Well, only for the purpose of improving their reputation, rather then sentence reduction. They may accuse each other of landing the fatal blow with the knife for example, but it doesn't make a difference who landed the fatal blow in regard to their sentence.

They all three were convicted of murder, they each got 24 years for the murder conviction. This sentence does not differentiate between who landed the fatal blow, as in the eyes of Italian law each are seen as guilty as the other even if they did not.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Amanda Knox Judge Says She Killed Without Animosity
Judge Rejects Prosecution's Motive, But Approves of the Verdict
By ANN WISE
ROME, March 4, 2010


(with video)


ABC NEWS

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


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
From what I've read so far, this report leaves LOTS of room for Raffaele or Amanda to turn on the other.

I'm betting on Raffaele to tell it was Amanda.


I'd keep hold of your cash for now Emerald. He's still gambling on total acquittal on appeal which can't happen if he admits to being present. Only after the appeal fails will he have any incentive to do that and fear of retaliation might still keep him quiet. I've thought all along that Amanda has something on him- perhaps it was left to her to dispose of the second knife and he doesn't know where it went.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I recall your attention to the fact that - as for what we know so far - the sentence report talking about a "merely casual murder" with total absence of prehemeditation, intends to exclude the kitchen knife as a murder weapon. The knife is not cited as one of the main evidence. But could have been considered an evidence anyway as an object in Sollecito's home that was found to be contaminated with meredith's DNA, albeit used only by Amanda. This suggests a possible contact between Amanda and Meredith, the knife could have beren used only to cut the bra clasp, chosen because it was an anonymous knife, easy to clean (on the contrary of Sollecito's collection knifes, personal and valuable items). Because it was deemed clean from blood and devoid of probation value by Knox, it was just taken back home washed and put back in the drawer.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From Il Giornale.
(my quick translation)

Meredith's murder born out of Guede's rape.

No doubts on culpability.

"Shows a picture without gaps and inconsistencies." There is no doubt, therefore, of the culpability of the two youngsters.

Over 400 pages. The reasons for the sentence were filed this morning. It is 427 pages signed by the President of the Court Giancarlo Massei and side judge Beatrice Cristiani. The measure also states that Knox "freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of killing Meredith and accused him consciously aware of Lumumba’s innocence. Hence the conviction of the girl from Seattle for the crime of ‘calunnia’ (slander).

The motive is rape. Meredith's murder happened by way of the motive erotic-violent. "The motive – wrote the Perugini magistrates - however erotic in nature of sexual violence that originated from the choice of the maliciousness acted by Rudi, found the active participation of Amanda and Raffaele. Such participation, active and violent, also involved the current defendants together with Rudi comes from what has been observed talking about the injuries suffered by Meredith, the outcome of genetic testing, from bare footprints found in various parts of the house.”

No premeditation. In the motivations they speak of "contingencies purely random that welded with each other, creating a situation which, in the combination of several factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly find themselves without no commitment, casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made) and are together in this house on Via della Pergola, where that night (between November 1 and 2, 2007 - ed) Meredith is alone.”

Mez's body was covered. According to the judges “ even the behavior displayed to Meredith after the rape and murder is committed reveals that to have covered the lifeless body, is consistent to a feeling of pity towards the victim, the denial and then a sort of repentance for what was committed: denial and repentance related to a sort of gesture of pity."
Il Giornale
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Well, only for the purpose of improving their reputation, rather then sentence reduction. They may accuse each other of landing the fatal blow with the knife for example, but it doesn't make a difference who landed the fatal blow in regard to their sentence.

They all three were convicted of murder, they each got 24 years for the murder conviction. This sentence does not differentiate between who landed the fatal blow, as in the eyes of Italian law each are seen as guilty as the other even if they did not.


Okay. Thanks Michael.

Sometimes the google translate does not make much sense. I don't want to ask a lot of questions, because you are doing such a fine job of making it comprehensive.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
observer wrote:
Can someone please condfirm this is correct -

Rudy's sentence is 30 years
Amanda's is 26 years
Raffaele's is 25 years

It was proved during his trial that Rudy definitely wielded a knife and actively took part in Meredith's murder?



No, Rudy's sentence was 24 years, after a 6 year discount for mitigation. This was therefore then reduced by a further 8 years (1/3 discount of final sentence) as a reward for opting for the fast track. So for Rudy, Net 24, 16 years Gross.

Amanda and Raffaele's sentence is as you wrote it.


Thanks Michael. So the actual sentences as of now are -

Rudy 16
Amanda 26
Raffaele 25?

Amanda's and Raffaele's sentences already include the reduction for mitigating circumstances? Sorry if I sound confused. Each news report says something different...
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Judge: Amanda Knox took part in murder but wasn't crime's mastermind

By ANDREA VOGT
SPECIAL TO SEATTLEPI.COM

PERUGIA, Italy - Amanda Knox was present and took part in the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher, but was not the mastermind or the lead perpetrator, according to a judge's opinion released Thursday.

Judge Giancarlo Massei, who presided over the nine-month trial of Seattle native Amanda Knox and Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito released the opinion explaining the jury's guilty verdict just one day before the 90-day cut-off deadline required by Italian law.

The opinion, a whopping 427 pages (front and back) is an excruciatingly detailed account of why the jury convicted Knox and Sollecito last December. Obtained in Perugia by seattlepi.com, the opinion largely supports the prosecution's case, particularly on the forensics, but also lives ample room for a number of criticisms that will likely feature prominently in her upcoming appeal.

For example, the jury disagreed with the murder dynamic that prosecutors put forth. Both the alleged murder weapon (a knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and a trace amount of Kercher's on the blade) and the bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA were considered reliable elements of proof.

Jurors, however, said they believed two witnesses were "not credible" and also did not agree with prosecutors' theory of how the murder unfolded. In particular, they did not believe that Knox was the mastermind or lead perpetrator of the attack on Kercher, but rather aided Rudy Guede, who the jury believes began the sexual violence that then spiraled out of control.

Yes, there was a sex game, but Knox didn't start it, but Guede did, the jury believed.

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini expressed both satisfaction and surprise. "This is one of the things I like about the Italian system," said Mignini upon receiving the heavy 3-inch thick document with its detailed explanation. "We get to know why."

Knox's attorney, Luciano Ghirga, reached by seattlepi.com as he was coming out of the courthouse, refrained comment until later in the day, as it would take some time to read through the hefty opinion. He noted, however, that Knox's appeal would likely begin after the summer break. ( Seattlepi.com's Andrea Vogt, reporting from Perugia, will be updating the story regularly throughout the day.)

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
What is the age difference of Edda and Chris?


Known in their closely-knit Seattle suburb as a prim school teacher, Edda, at 39, married Christopher Mellas in March 2002.

He was only 27, according to their wedding certificate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0hDggEN5z
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

observer wrote:
Michael wrote:
observer wrote:
Can someone please condfirm this is correct -

Rudy's sentence is 30 years
Amanda's is 26 years
Raffaele's is 25 years

It was proved during his trial that Rudy definitely wielded a knife and actively took part in Meredith's murder?



No, Rudy's sentence was 24 years, after a 6 year discount for mitigation. This was therefore then reduced by a further 8 years (1/3 discount of final sentence) as a reward for opting for the fast track. So for Rudy, Net 24, 16 years Gross.

Amanda and Raffaele's sentence is as you wrote it.


Thanks Michael. So the actual sentences as of now are -

Rudy 16
Amanda 26
Raffaele 25?

Amanda's and Raffaele's sentences already include the reduction for mitigating circumstances? Sorry if I sound confused. Each news report says something different...



Yes, that's correct.

_________________
"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 Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Macport wrote:
I studied siblingship as part of my degree. Excellent post - excellent thoughts.


IMO

It worked for Amanda in Seattle among the Family group (big fish in the little pond of sisters). However, Amanda did not adapt it well in the 'real World' dynamic.

The 411 and Earthling are just pointing out possible examples of the impact that the dynamics within one's original family can cause later in life. And yes what you are saying is exactly right. When surrounded by a familial (no matter how dysfunctional) structure that somehow allowed her to keep her personality intact, she did fine. As she moved further away from that structure the cracks began to show (robbery hazing prank, rock throwing campus party). And finally alone, adrift in Perugia - meltdown.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

So, according to Andrea Vogt, the knife and bra clasp were considered reliable proofs...but two witnesses were not considered credible. I wonder which ones? It would also seem that the Knox and Sollecito defence were at least partly successful in their blaming of Rudy, since he has been judged to be the ringleader. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, since he did not figure himself in the trial and neither did his lawyers, as well as the fact that his statements were not admitted and neither was his trial reviewed by Judge Massei. A sort of trial in absentia in his case.

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


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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"As for the Knox, convicted for the murder is to add one year more to the slander of Patrick Diya Lumumba, Congolese singer who was first arrested for his statements by American girl. In this case, said the Court, the Knox 'freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of killing Meredith in the consciousness of innocence and accused her of that Lumumba. The purpose was to direct investigators to a false trail, away from what would have led to the establishment of responsibilities and her boyfriend. behavior is a choice, then, purely defensive: Amanda had a good relationship with Lumumba from which it had always been treated well and could not therefore be no cause for resentment, hostility, revenge that he could justify so serious an accusation."- JulieNews

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... -T8P4REJgg
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....

Add to all that your father largely abandons you at crucial age in your development and . . .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I will be interested to hear the response from Rudy and his legal team. They really, really won't like this.

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


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
So, according to Andrea Vogt, the knife and bra clasp were considered reliable proofs...but two witnesses were not considered credible. I wonder which ones? It would also seem that the Knox and Sollecito defence were at least partly successful in their blaming of Rudy, since he has been judged to be the ringleader. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, since he did not figure himself in the trial and neither did his lawyers, as well as the fact that his statements were not admitted and neither was his trial reviewed by Judge Massei. A sort of trial in absentia in his case.


On the other hand he'll be out long before the other two despite being tagged the ringleader. I'm guessing he still thinks he made the right choice.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
The tone of the report seems to be saying...'their guilt of the charges is indisputable'. The only one they may be able to get rid of is the transportation of a knife, which at most would get them a reduction of a year, if that. But then, I can't find a court upholding the conviction of all the other charges and not the knife transportation one...since that would leave a hole in the logic of how the knives got to the scene in order to carry out the assault and murder, then to return to Raffaele's. The crime scene fabrication is clear. And the report seems pretty emphatic about the deliberate false accusation of Patrick. It looks to me, as though they're all screwed.


Thank God. And thank you Michael. Am I the only one who gets incredibly emotional when these big events happen in the case. Somehow it seems to crystallise all the pain down into one point. I think intensely about Meredith's family at moments like this. I imagine them seizing on every crumb of comfort they can in these situations. For me, this is a relief. It sounds assured and damning and confident. I would not want to be the lawyer that stands up and tries to pick this apart...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"PERUGIA, Italy, March 4 (UPI) -- The case against the U.S. student convicted of killing her British roommate in Italy had no holes or inconsistencies, documents from the trial indicated."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/ ... 267714728/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


It's interesting to see early signs that seem to suggest the intense focus on AK as ringleader might need some re-eavluation. Early days, though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


It's interesting to see early signs that seem to suggest the intense focus on AK as ringleader might need some re-eavluation. Early days, though.


I have never been able to get my mind around the ringleader concept in this case. I see it more as group dynamics. FBN has it right, in my opinion. He posted oh so long ago about a perfect storm of dysfunction. Not one of the three would have acted alone.

From the article Jools posted:

No premeditation. In the motivations they speak of "contingencies purely random that welded with each other, creating a situation which, in the combination of several factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly find themselves without no commitment, casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made) and are together in this house on Via della Pergola, where that night (between November 1 and 2, 2007 - ed) Meredith is alone.”

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
So, according to Andrea Vogt, the knife and bra clasp were considered reliable proofs...but two witnesses were not considered credible. I wonder which ones? It would also seem that the Knox and Sollecito defence were at least partly successful in their blaming of Rudy, since he has been judged to be the ringleader. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, since he did not figure himself in the trial and neither did his lawyers, as well as the fact that his statements were not admitted and neither was his trial reviewed by Judge Massei. A sort of trial in absentia in his case.


On the other hand he'll be out long before the other two despite being tagged the ringleader. I'm guessing he still thinks he made the right choice.



Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.

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


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


Well the "docile tag along" scenario has only been proposed in the blogosphere; his defence has always been the innocent bystander who negligently forgot to call an ambulance. It's worth remembering that Rudy is indisputably a rapist and culpable (to a disputed degree) in a nasty muder.That two other villains tried to use him to get themselves off the hook makes them worse, not him better. Whatever this report says about him won't affect his lenient sentence so I won't be getting too worked up on his behalf.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


It's interesting to see early signs that seem to suggest the intense focus on AK as ringleader might need some re-eavluation. Early days, though.


I have never been able to get my mind around the ringleader concept in this case. I see it more as group dynamics. FBN has it right, in my opinion. He posted oh so long ago about a perfect storm of dysfunction. Not one of the three would have acted alone.



Well, I don't think they are saying he was a ringleader in that sense, as in directing everything as it unfolded. Rather, that it was simply his idea to start with.

I know this. Someone who stands in front of a kneeling victim and slowly and deliberately tortures her with a knife is no 'follower', they are not 'passive' in any sense. It is a highly deliberate, dominant and dynamic action. They may be encouraged, yes, but directed or controlled like a follower, no. And it wasn't Rudy that tortured Meredith with the 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 windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
So, according to Andrea Vogt, the knife and bra clasp were considered reliable proofs...but two witnesses were not considered credible. I wonder which ones? It would also seem that the Knox and Sollecito defence were at least partly successful in their blaming of Rudy, since he has been judged to be the ringleader. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, since he did not figure himself in the trial and neither did his lawyers, as well as the fact that his statements were not admitted and neither was his trial reviewed by Judge Massei. A sort of trial in absentia in his case.


On the other hand he'll be out long before the other two despite being tagged the ringleader. I'm guessing he still thinks he made the right choice.



Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


I guess the choice then would be whether one chooses to believe Guede, who may be telling the truth, or who may be telling further lies in order to save part of his reputation, or whether one goes with the extensive deliberations of judges and jurors, who seem to have concluded that he was the key motivating force. So far as we can tell. FWIW, I have always thought it more a group dynamic, spiralling out of control scenario.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I'm still one of the "Amanda as ring leader". IMO, the idea was hers to play a practical joke. The heinous conclusion was not planned. She had the option to seek help for the victim, but chose not to.

The various 'confessions' of Amanda are of her hearing the crimes, but doing nothing to help the victim.

Amanda was there. Of that I have absolutely no doubt.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


It's interesting to see early signs that seem to suggest the intense focus on AK as ringleader might need some re-eavluation. Early days, though.


I have never been able to get my mind around the ringleader concept in this case. I see it more as group dynamics. FBN has it right, in my opinion. He posted oh so long ago about a perfect storm of dysfunction. Not one of the three would have acted alone.



Well, I don't think they are saying he was a ringleader in that sense, as in directing everything as it unfolded. Rather, that it was simply his idea to start with.

I know this. Someone who stands in front of a kneeling victim and slowly and deliberately tortures her with a knife is no 'follower', they are not 'passive' in any sense. It is a highly deliberate, dominant and dynamic action. They may be encouraged, yes, but directed or controlled like a follower, no. And it wasn't Rudy that tortured Meredith with the knife.


I would concur that "ringleader" is probably not a useful term in this context. Perhaps we may get a little more detail and precision on this aspect of the report in the coming days.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


It's interesting to see early signs that seem to suggest the intense focus on AK as ringleader might need some re-eavluation. Early days, though.


I have never been able to get my mind around the ringleader concept in this case. I see it more as group dynamics. FBN has it right, in my opinion. He posted oh so long ago about a perfect storm of dysfunction. Not one of the three would have acted alone.

No way of knowing this but I have always wondered if AK and RS incited, instigated, fomented rage in RG by falsely stating that Meredith had spoken racial slurs against him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
So, according to Andrea Vogt, the knife and bra clasp were considered reliable proofs...but two witnesses were not considered credible. I wonder which ones? It would also seem that the Knox and Sollecito defence were at least partly successful in their blaming of Rudy, since he has been judged to be the ringleader. I'm a little uncomfortable with that, since he did not figure himself in the trial and neither did his lawyers, as well as the fact that his statements were not admitted and neither was his trial reviewed by Judge Massei. A sort of trial in absentia in his case.


On the other hand he'll be out long before the other two despite being tagged the ringleader. I'm guessing he still thinks he made the right choice.



Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


I guess the choice then would be whether one chooses to believe Guede, who may be telling the truth, or who may be telling further lies in order to save part of his reputation, or whether one goes with the extensive deliberations of judges and jurors, who seem to have concluded that he was the key motivating force. So far as we can tell. FWIW, I have always thought it more a group dynamic, spiralling out of control scenario.


Yes, but it would at least give the public and Meredith's family the option to judge for themselves what is the truth. Silence or simple flat denial is of no help to anyone in doing so. And truth, when told, does have a ring to it while lies can betray themselves as such.

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


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:

Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


But also if he was the ringleader he has nothing to lose in coming up with a new version which admits involvement but minimises his own role. We still won't know if he's telling the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....

Add to all that your father largely abandons you at crucial age in your development and . . .


The father was largely an absentee father wasn't he? She was 2 or 3 at the time of the divorce and no stepfather stepped in for a while..
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:

Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


But also if he was the ringleader he has nothing to lose in coming up with a new version which admits involvement but minimises his own role. We still won't know if he's telling the truth.


No, he doesn't...but in addition to what I said in my above post regarding the ring of truth and lies betraying themselves, it would also be provocative to the other two and in turn give them the nudge to speak, a sort of domino effect, a breaking of the damn setting the recriminations in motion. While there 'may' be lies, it also creates an environment for many truths to slip out.

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


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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Macport wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....

Add to all that your father largely abandons you at crucial age in your development and . . .


The father was largely an absentee father wasn't he? She was 2 or 3 at the time of the divorce and no stepfather stepped in for a while..

And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:

Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


But also if he was the ringleader he has nothing to lose in coming up with a new version which admits involvement but minimises his own role. We still won't know if he's telling the truth.


No, he doesn't...but in addition to what I said in my above post regarding the ring of truth and lies betraying themselves, it would also be provocative to the other two and in turn give them the nudge to speak, a sort of domino effect, a breaking of the damn setting the recriminations in motion. While there 'may' be lies, it also creates an environment for many truths to slip out.


That is possible but of course a painful process for the Kerchers . I don't think any of the three really want to torture them any further; they're just utterly selfish. Until one of them admits to something before being cornered by evidence I wouldn't place any reliance on a new "confession" from any of them.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.

The judge and jury interpret the case based on what occurs within the courtroom. As I have stated before my experiences in witnessing trials is that they are not necessarily "pageants of truth". I accept that they are humans interpreting what they've seen and heard. We are humans who have been in dialogue about this case, one way or another, for over two years. A long way of saying I'll take the report with just a pinch of salt.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Macport wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....

Add to all that your father largely abandons you at crucial age in your development and . . .


The father was largely an absentee father wasn't he? She was 2 or 3 at the time of the divorce and no stepfather stepped in for a while..

And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)


A 21 year old kid with rage issues and Edda is known to have a bad temper too. I doubt Amanda learned much about controlling her own anger in that household. She may have been the "can't kill a spider" girl at home, but once she was on her own, she started modelling her unrestrained parents. Once she got started, she had no training in how to put on the brakes-- first with her behavior and then with her rage.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:

Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


But also if he was the ringleader he has nothing to lose in coming up with a new version which admits involvement but minimises his own role. We still won't know if he's telling the truth.


No, he doesn't...but in addition to what I said in my above post regarding the ring of truth and lies betraying themselves, it would also be provocative to the other two and in turn give them the nudge to speak, a sort of domino effect, a breaking of the damn setting the recriminations in motion. While there 'may' be lies, it also creates an environment for many truths to slip out.


That is possible but of course a painful process for the Kerchers . I don't think any of the three really want to torture them any further; they're just utterly selfish. Until one of them admits to something before being cornered by evidence I wouldn't place any reliance on a new "confession" from any of them.



Everything must be weighed on its own merits. But in order to do so, you need something to weigh.

And it isn't about torturing anybody. It's about the 'truth' and I think the Kerchers have a right to that.

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


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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.

The judge and jury interpret the case based on what occurs within the courtroom. As I have stated before my experiences in witnessing trials is that they are not necessarily "pageants of truth". I accept that they are humans interpreting what they've seen and heard. We are humans who have been in dialogue about this case, one way or another, for over two years. A long way of saying I'll take the report with just a pinch of salt.


Fair enough. Difference of opinion. I'm just a little relieved that convictions are decided by a group of people examining and discussing evidence, rather than people discussing it all on the internet, however seriously and intently.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

There is a good report by Richard Owen in The Times:

In a riposte to Knox's family and friends who claim she was the victim of a mistrial based on flawed evidence, the judges said the prosecution had drawn "a comprehensive and coherent picture, without holes or inconsistencies". The defendants had been able to describe Ms Kercher's injuries, and their guilt was clear from DNA traces and naked footprints found "in various parts of the house".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 049945.ece
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

To further a point, I would say that I look to the report only to what extent it backs any scenario that holds the three responsible and therefore reinforces their convictions.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.

The judge and jury interpret the case based on what occurs within the courtroom. As I have stated before my experiences in witnessing trials is that they are not necessarily "pageants of truth". I accept that they are humans interpreting what they've seen and heard. We are humans who have been in dialogue about this case, one way or another, for over two years. A long way of saying I'll take the report with just a pinch of salt.


Fair enough. Difference of opinion. I'm just a little relieved that convictions are decided by a group of people examining and discussing evidence, rather than people discussing it all on the internet, however seriously and intently.



I don't think anyone here claims either the right or the want to 'decide' the truth. We would however, like to form our own opinions on what it may be and that we do have the right to.

The decision belongs to the court and I support it. It doesn't mean I or anyone else has to agree with every single last detail they announce, certainly in regard to things such as motive in this particular case, where the motives could have been many, but no evidence to clearly define for certain which and the only way to 'know' is to actually get inside the heads of the murderers, something that is impossible to do for anyone, including a court. So, in regard to that, it can only ever be a 'best guess' and that is subjective.

_________________
"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 Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.

The judge and jury interpret the case based on what occurs within the courtroom. As I have stated before my experiences in witnessing trials is that they are not necessarily "pageants of truth". I accept that they are humans interpreting what they've seen and heard. We are humans who have been in dialogue about this case, one way or another, for over two years. A long way of saying I'll take the report with just a pinch of salt.


Fair enough. Difference of opinion. I'm just a little relieved that convictions are decided by a group of people examining and discussing evidence, rather than people discussing it all on the internet, however seriously and intently.

Point taken yet for me the quality of the evidence presented here, The Perugia Murder File and on True Justice For Meredith Kercher and on Lies Our Mothers Told Us rivals that presented in many courtrooms in the United States.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Bea wrote:
Jools wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Macport wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....

Add to all that your father largely abandons you at crucial age in your development and . . .


The father was largely an absentee father wasn't he? She was 2 or 3 at the time of the divorce and no stepfather stepped in for a while..

And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)


A 21 year old kid with rage issues and Edda is known to have a bad temper too. I doubt Amanda learned much about controlling her own anger in that household. She may have been the "can't kill a spider" girl at home, but once she was on her own, she started modelling her unrestrained parents. Once she got started, she had no training in how to put on the brakes-- first with her behavior and then with her rage.

And now in prison with even more wonderful people to continue to model herself after.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I take your points, Michael and Macport. I have also benefited from some quite remarkable insights on the case from certain sites and discussion boards, no more so than right here. I have also read quite a lot of rubbish. I don't mean to deny anyone's right to make up their own minds, and decide on their version of the truth.

Nevertheless, there has been a good deal of anticipation about the report here, and I think rightly so. I had the impression that it was being anticipated as - if not gospel - then at least a very authoritative document. I would be a little perturbed if it ends up being cherry-picked for the elements that fit what people have already made up their minds about. Perturbed, maybe not all that surprised.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Michael wrote:

Alternatively, it may be just the push he needs to come clean about what really happened that night. By now, he knows he has zero chance of getting the conviction overturned or reduced further in his third degree and if he feels he has wrongly been labelled the ringleader, that may be just the final nudge to force him to try and save part of his reputation at least by saying who 'was' the ringleader and how it went down that night. I sense there's a chance of this. Remember, during Amanda and Raffaele's trial, one of the few times Rudy spoke out about the trial was in protest of his having been labelled as having carried out the sexual assault. 'If' he was not the ringleader, being judged so will upset him a great deal. The only way for him to resolve that, is to tell the truth. He has nothing to lose now.


But also if he was the ringleader he has nothing to lose in coming up with a new version which admits involvement but minimises his own role. We still won't know if he's telling the truth.


No, he doesn't...but in addition to what I said in my above post regarding the ring of truth and lies betraying themselves, it would also be provocative to the other two and in turn give them the nudge to speak, a sort of domino effect, a breaking of the damn setting the recriminations in motion. While there 'may' be lies, it also creates an environment for many truths to slip out.


That is possible but of course a painful process for the Kerchers . I don't think any of the three really want to torture them any further; they're just utterly selfish. Until one of them admits to something before being cornered by evidence I wouldn't place any reliance on a new "confession" from any of them.



Everything must be weighed on its own merits. But in order to do so, you need something to weigh.

And it isn't about torturing anybody. It's about the 'truth' and I think the Kerchers have a right to that.


Amen to that of course. I was actually being optimistic in saying that none of the three are likely to behave like Ian Huntley who enjoys the "power" his knowledge of the girls' fate gives him over the poor parents and will NEVER give them an honest account. I think Rudy is a weak horse to back but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly. It is worth reflecting that Sollecito has had much less attention paid to him than either Guede or Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
I take your points, Michael and Macport. I have also benefited from some quite remarkable insights on the case from certain sites and discussion boards, no more so than right here. I have also read quite a lot of rubbish. I don't mean to deny anyone's right to make up their own minds, and decide on their version of the truth.

Nevertheless, there has been a good deal of anticipation about the report here, and I think rightly so. I had the impression that it was being anticipated as - if not gospel - then at least a very authoritative document. I would be a little perturbed if it ends up being cherry-picked for the elements that fit what people have already made up their minds about. Perturbed, maybe not all that surprised.

LOL Yes a good bit of rubbish too. I've produced my share just to incite rioting here, but if you cull through it all a wider image of the crime emerges. The internet has made the world a community and those discussing this case are as much a jury of peers as anyone else, hundreds of them rather than just nine.

I would say the anticipation of the report is generated by concern about to what extent it supports the convictions.


Last edited by Macport on Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:17 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: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly.


But surely things would not escalate quickly in any sense if there was not some kind of pre-existing dynamic between the three, on some level at least, that would mean two individuals with 'no animosity' towards an innocent party would agree to take part in the rape and murder of that individual? I am feeling the boy's fingerprints on this from the way the report reads. How many parties have you been to, drink or drug fulled, where you'd agree to join in with the rape of someone at someone else's say so. It suggests some hold to me, some need to impress, something. It can't just have been random if the suggestion is that there was no premeditation and no animosity. Why do it otherwise? There was predisposition? It is the perfect storm...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly.


But surely things would not escalate quickly in any sense if there was not some kind of pre-existing dynamic between the three, on some level at least, that would mean two individuals with 'no animosity' towards an innocent party would agree to take part in the rape and murder of that individual? I am feeling the boy's fingerprints on this from the way the report reads. How many parties have you been to, drink or drug fulled, where you'd agree to join in with the rape of someone at someone else's say so. It suggests some hold to me, some need to impress, something. It can't just have been random if the suggestion is that there was no premeditation and no animosity. Why do it otherwise? There was predisposition? It is the perfect storm...

That's why I suggest that AK and RS instilled some kind of hate in RG toward Meredith. Just my guess.

Hate, sadism, lust, drugs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly.


But surely things would not escalate quickly in any sense if there was not some kind of pre-existing dynamic between the three, on some level at least, that would mean two individuals with 'no animosity' towards an innocent party would agree to take part in the rape and murder of that individual? I am feeling the boy's fingerprints on this from the way the report reads. How many parties have you been to, drink or drug fulled, where you'd agree to join in with the rape of someone at someone else's say so. It suggests some hold to me, some need to impress, something. It can't just have been random if the suggestion is that there was no premeditation and no animosity. Why do it otherwise? There was predisposition? It is the perfect storm...


Err... not many. But I've led a sheltered life.

Seriously, though, I do take your point. I sense the report is leaning heavily on the drink- and drug-fueled aspect, particularly with the emphasis on regret after (the covering of Meredith's body). Perhaps the point is the DE-emphasis of animosity leading to premeditated attack.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
I take your points, Michael and Macport. I have also benefited from some quite remarkable insights on the case from certain sites and discussion boards, no more so than right here. I have also read quite a lot of rubbish. I don't mean to deny anyone's right to make up their own minds, and decide on their version of the truth.

Nevertheless, there has been a good deal of anticipation about the report here, and I think rightly so. I had the impression that it was being anticipated as - if not gospel - then at least a very authoritative document. I would be a little perturbed if it ends up being cherry-picked for the elements that fit what people have already made up their minds about. Perturbed, maybe not all that surprised.



There has been a good deal about the report full stop - not just here! As far as I am concerned, there is no more authoritative document than this report, since it presents the reasons for the verdict based on the body of evidence presented.

For the time being, this 400-plus page report has been issued in hard copy format only. That's why the journalists filing reports have done so from Perugia, where they went to obtain a copy. As with the much shorter (105 pages) Micheli report, we will provide a redacted version of the report in English. The intention is not to cherry-pick, but in fact to comply with laws in force. My understanding is that it is illegal to produce a non-redacted version in digitized form. In addition, the task of translating 400-plus pages, even with the services of a team of translators, is daunting. Anyone who is waiting for a translation of the report from our team in the next few days is bound to be sorely disappointed.

Just so you all know, google and babelfish and any number of automatic translation programs can come up with a crappy, sometimes incomprehensible translation of any document in seconds. It takes real people a lot longer. A tenable workload for a professional translator is 3,000 words per day. I think at the UN, which is known for not being an exacting employer of translators, the expected daily load is 2,500 words.

A page is sometimes defined as 300 words, but depending on font size and line spacing it may be longer or shorter. Often a single-spaced Word page is 600 words. So let's see: 600 x 427 (and possibly twice that - I'm not sure from Andrea Vogt's article whether the recto-verso doubled the size or referred to the total) = 256,300 words. Now let's imagine that it is actually 800+ pages, which would double this word count.

It becomes clear from the above that translating a document of this length takes time. A team of translators (which we are lucky to have) can work more quickly than an individual translator, but the work has to be coordinated, harmonized and proofread. To add to the complexity, the group of translators has to work from a common glossary, which is usually constructed as the work progresses. Translators also do research as they translate, since even bilingual people are not necessarily familiar with equivalencies in areas they are not specifically trained in. Finally -- and I am really just skimming the surface -- when one is dealing with concepts that have no simple equivalence, one has to find ways around the "untranslatability" problem. I actually have a rubber stamp that says untranslatable, and a red ink pad to go with it. Someone had it made for me after I noted that the biggest problem facing translators is untranslatability. The job of the translator is to work around this problem.

All in all, producing a translated product of quality is a complex undertaking when the source document is as long and complex as this one is.

Finally, please remember that most of our translators have day jobs. Some of them are translators; others work in fields such as law and biology. They translate for PMF for free. They are not available to work full-time on the translation of this or any other document on PMF.

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

Offline Yuri


Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hi Skep,

I'm a native Italian speaker but without any legal (or official translation) training. If you need help, I'll be glad to assist.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yuri wrote:
Hi Skep,

I'm a native Italian speaker but without any legal (or official translation) training. If you need help, I'll be glad to assist.


Thanks, Yuri. I'll let you know as things develop. As I said, for now there is only the hard copy report.

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thanks for putting this in perspective, Skep. I don't underestimate the task ahead for the translators (well, maybe I did just a little. Not anymore. :-) ).

My point about cherry-picking was not to do with what is or is not possible, or is or is not legal, but more about the spirit in which it is taken. Clearly all we have at the moment are the "headlines" from what the journalists have been able to translate and summarise so far. But there are some clear strands beginning to emerge that may or may not fit theories that have been developing here and elsewhere, amongst people who care very deeply about it all. Ideally, people will take time to absorb the insights that are to come, weigh them up carefully, and not take only what fits pre-existing notions of what actually happened that night.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael quotes:
"From prison inmate Rudy Viterbo where he wrote a letter with an appeal''to those who know, talk.'' "

On Rudy's letter:
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=21

(mostly he wrote the usual BS)
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly. It is worth reflecting that Sollecito has had much less attention paid to him than either Guede or Knox.

I agree about Sollecito. He is a "closed" being to me. We have little or no information about him. He has said the least of the three. For my way of analyzing this crime he shares a crucial aspect with the other two. Each through different means has lost the input of a parent in their life.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Nick Pisa on the judges' motivation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... iling.html
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... iling.html

Referred to as "a purely casual murder". Is this a slight misinterpretation? Calling it "purely casual" is not the same as attributing the murder to "purely casual contingencies", is it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
"The report said the killing was not planned and the culprits had no ill feeling towards Meredith.
It said: 'It was a murder without planning, without any animosity or grudge against the victim.'
It added that the murder was the result of 'purely casual contingencies' and that the pair had not planned to meet the third convicted murderer, Rudy Guede, on the night of the crime."
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I was sure it would be Rudi who would spill the beans, and now I am positive. I also believe that it was Rudi who covered up Meredith. I don,t accept the lack of animosity, or that it was Rudi who was the ringleader. In as much as this may not matter, as long as the verdicts are upheld, it seems to me that FOA's and the Marriot team will now be shouting from the rooftops that you see, Amanda and Meredith were friends, etc etc. If there was no animosity or some planning, HOW could one stand by, and allow something like this to happen? If it doesn,t make sense, it,s not true. On trying to understand some of the *translations* it mentions that Rudi sent a letter via Viterbo? saying the ones who know what happened * talk. This apparently was a message to AK and RS. Anyone know anything more about this? And is it the first time that this has come to light? Thanks for all the help making sense of this. It's been like Greek, ummm, unintelligible, for the most part, for me.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Thanks for putting this in perspective, Skep. I don't underestimate the task ahead for the translators (well, maybe I did just a little. Not anymore. :-) ).

My point about cherry-picking was not to do with what is or is not possible, or is or is not legal, but more about the spirit in which it is taken. Clearly all we have at the moment are the "headlines" from what the journalists have been able to translate and summarise so far. But there are some clear strands beginning to emerge that may or may not fit theories that have been developing here and elsewhere, amongst people who care very deeply about it all. Ideally, people will take time to absorb the insights that are to come, weigh them up carefully, and not take only what fits pre-existing notions of what actually happened that night.


Blimey. Spot the teacher! Hee hee! We will all try very hard windfall, promise! :)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bolint wrote:
Nick Pisa on the judges' motivation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... iling.html


From Pisa's article:
Today prosecutor Mr Mignini said: 'I have not yet had a chance to read fully the whole report but from the brief bits I have read it would seem to confirm our case exactly.

'I have no doubt that they will launch an appeal on the grounds of the DNA but that is up to them as far as the prosecution is concerned the case ended.'

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Bard. :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
Thanks for putting this in perspective, Skep. I don't underestimate the task ahead for the translators (well, maybe I did just a little. Not anymore. :-) ).

My point about cherry-picking was not to do with what is or is not possible, or is or is not legal, but more about the spirit in which it is taken. Clearly all we have at the moment are the "headlines" from what the journalists have been able to translate and summarise so far. But there are some clear strands beginning to emerge that may or may not fit theories that have been developing here and elsewhere, amongst people who care very deeply about it all. Ideally, people will take time to absorb the insights that are to come, weigh them up carefully, and not take only what fits pre-existing notions of what actually happened that night.


Blimey. Spot the teacher! Hee hee! We will all try very hard windfall, promise! :)


BUSTED. sor-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

capealadin wrote:
" it mentions that Rudi sent a letter via Viterbo? saying the ones who know what happened * talk. This apparently was a message to AK and RS. Anyone know anything more about this? And is it the first time that this has come to light? "


He did not come to any light. Same old vague garbage.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thank you Bolint. The posts crossed. I read the link now, and, to be honest, even with the translation, it's not very intelligible (to me, anyway). But if I'm understanding enough, he is definitely putting AK and RS there, nevermind being the ringleaders. I notice he uses the word omerta.. but is the reason he is waiting so long to tell all, because if AK and RS win on appeal, he automatically goes free? Or is his sentence now set in stone?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I meant that this letter has come to light. I don,t believe that this is all garbage. He *seems* to be pretty close to wanting very badly to tell what happened that night. Hence, my earlier questions.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
I agree that she wouldn't be allowed to get away with one bald sentence Stilicho but it's not any parole board's job to tie up every loose end of the evidence for us murder tourists. They might press her on the point of whether she struck the fatal blow but to expect them years down the line to be quizzing her about the lamp and Kokomani is a bit fanciful.


I was addressing the issue of rehabilitation and not early release. You're right that she doesn't owe me or anyone else an explanation of her actions but she cannot truly be rehabilitated until she is honest about what she did. I would expect that to be the domain of a psychiatrist or a therapist and not a parole board.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Speaking of 'cherry picking', ABC says:

"The judge’s summary basically depicts Knox as a good kid, overwhelmed by being so far from home".

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ama ... d=10007363

Anyone have more on the 'overwhelming' element
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
I take your points, Michael and Macport. I have also benefited from some quite remarkable insights on the case from certain sites and discussion boards, no more so than right here. I have also read quite a lot of rubbish. I don't mean to deny anyone's right to make up their own minds, and decide on their version of the truth.

Nevertheless, there has been a good deal of anticipation about the report here, and I think rightly so. I had the impression that it was being anticipated as - if not gospel - then at least a very authoritative document. I would be a little perturbed if it ends up being cherry-picked for the elements that fit what people have already made up their minds about. Perturbed, maybe not all that surprised.



Yes, I would hesitate at the term 'gospel', but authoritative certainly. It is the closest comprehensive description of the 'truth' that we are going to get, even if we don't fully agree or are unsure about certain points. The same goes for the Micheli report. I have always touted his report as authoritative, but I've never agreed with every single point therein. After all, the only people who can write a 100% accurate blow by blow account of what happened that night and the next morning are those who were actually there and responsible and I doubt even they could, as certain minor points may be misremembered or confused due to shock, drugs, self denial and duration of time since the event.

But of course, it's important since it is the report from the experts of experts, the court, as to the how and the why. They have seen and examined more of the evidence, though not all, then anyone else.

_________________
"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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)


I don't make nearly as much of the age difference or the broken family as a lot of people do. The issue with AK's stepfather is not his age but his level of maturity. Anyone who brags about drinking with their underaged stepchildren has some serious emotional (not to mention possible legal) problems.

That's the point about CM, not his age.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly.


But surely things would not escalate quickly in any sense if there was not some kind of pre-existing dynamic between the three, on some level at least, that would mean two individuals with 'no animosity' towards an innocent party would agree to take part in the rape and murder of that individual? I am feeling the boy's fingerprints on this from the way the report reads. How many parties have you been to, drink or drug fulled, where you'd agree to join in with the rape of someone at someone else's say so. It suggests some hold to me, some need to impress, something. It can't just have been random if the suggestion is that there was no premeditation and no animosity. Why do it otherwise? There was predisposition? It is the perfect storm...



And I ask, thought for the day, wouldn't that make these people even more dangerous still? They don't even need to dislike you or to have been offended in some way to torture you to death?! I mean, with someone who is rather dangerous, at least you normally have some safety of thought in that 'well, they'll be alright as long as I don't piss them off'. You kind of know where you stand. But who can ever be safe from someone who'll happily kill you even if they like you, just for the crack?

_________________
"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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


That's the problem in cases like this and it's still being played out in the BC courts in the murder of Reena Virk. Where there are several attackers, it's difficult to pick out one individual as the pack leader. Scenarios involving escalating violence are never easy to analyse and this is one of them.

We're slowing everything down like they do in a sports show replay.

Also we're getting excerpts from a thick tome and may be missing important parts of the decision.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Somehow, to me, I find it much more disturbing that there was NOT any malice leading to this. Shouldn't that be a whole lot more frightening, that they were able to snap like that and go through with torturing someone they didn't necessarily dislike? Can someone who is capable of this be rehabilitated? Do they deserve to be? What chance did Meredith have? Why should her killers get a second one?

This will take some time to sink in and maybe when it does, I won't be as horrified as I am right now. Color me crazy, but this to me is ten times worse.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


not sure how much the concept of "hold" applies, particularly if things happened and escalated quickly.


But surely things would not escalate quickly in any sense if there was not some kind of pre-existing dynamic between the three, on some level at least, that would mean two individuals with 'no animosity' towards an innocent party would agree to take part in the rape and murder of that individual? I am feeling the boy's fingerprints on this from the way the report reads. How many parties have you been to, drink or drug fulled, where you'd agree to join in with the rape of someone at someone else's say so. It suggests some hold to me, some need to impress, something. It can't just have been random if the suggestion is that there was no premeditation and no animosity. Why do it otherwise? There was predisposition? It is the perfect storm...



And I ask, thought for the day, wouldn't that make these people even more dangerous still? They don't even need to dislike you or to have been offended in some way to torture you to death?! I mean, with someone who is rather dangerous, at least you normally have some safety of thought in that 'well, they'll be alright as long as I don't piss them off'. You kind of know where you stand. But who can ever be safe from someone who'll happily kill you even if they like you, just for the crack?


Whoops. It pays to refresh...

Yeah. What Michael said.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stint7 wrote:
Speaking of 'cherry picking', ABC says:

"The judge’s summary basically depicts Knox as a good kid, overwhelmed by being so far from home".

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ama ... d=10007363

Anyone have more on the 'overwhelming' element


Not on the overwhelmed aspect, but here is what ABC says about the arrangement with the University of Washington:
Quote:
Knox's parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, told Oprah Winfrey last month that their daughter has good days and bad in prison. The worst, Curt Knox said, was the day he had to hold his daughter as she cried for the entire 45 minute visit.

On other days, she is "bubbly," and spends part of her days studying languages in a correspondence course created for her by the University of Washington, which she was attending at the time of her arrest.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Corrina wrote:
Somehow, to me, I find it much more disturbing that there was NOT any malice leading to this. Shouldn't that be a whole lot more frightening, that they were able to snap like that and go through with torturing someone they didn't necessarily dislike? Can someone who is capable of this be rehabilitated? Do they deserve to be? What chance did Meredith have? Why should her killers get a second one?

This will take some time to sink in and maybe when it does, I won't be as horrified as I am right now. Color me crazy, but this to me is ten times worse.



Yeah, that's what I'm saying exactly. People that know you, like you, are not enraged, provoked or offended and will out of the blue torture and murder you just for fun. You are right, that is ten times worse and pretty damned creepy.

_________________
"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 bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The unbelievable reporting continues. ABC News International also states:

"Knox was badgered and hit in the head by police until she allowed that she had a vision that she was at the apartment when Kercher was murdered and that Lumumba was there too. She later signed a statement to that effect."

They do not say if this was stated in the report, stated by Curt Knox or just made up by their reporter!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)


I don't make nearly as much of the age difference or the broken family as a lot of people do. The issue with AK's stepfather is not his age but his level of maturity. Anyone who brags about drinking with their underaged stepchildren has some serious emotional (not to mention possible legal) problems.

That's the point about CM, not his age.



It's not his age, it's his rage.

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...here is what ABC says about the arrangement with the University of Washington:
Quote:
Knox's parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, told Oprah Winfrey last month that their daughter has good days and bad in prison. The worst, Curt Knox said, was the day he had to hold his daughter as she cried for the entire 45 minute visit.

On other days, she is "bubbly," and spends part of her days studying languages in a correspondence course created for her by the University of Washington, which she was attending at the time of her arrest.


I have not been able to find any evidence that Knox is officially enrolled as a regular student at the University of Washington. Given the above statement, it is far more likely that she is participating in a UW Extension course program; credits that might possibly be applied towards an undergraduate degree program at some point in time.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)


I don't make nearly as much of the age difference or the broken family as a lot of people do. The issue with AK's stepfather is not his age but his level of maturity. Anyone who brags about drinking with their underaged stepchildren has some serious emotional (not to mention possible legal) problems.

That's the point about CM, not his age.



It's not his age, it's his rage.


His rage coupled with his sexual taunts make a very disturbing combination.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skep wrote:

Quote:
The intention is not to cherry-pick, but in fact to comply with laws in force. My understanding is that it is illegal to produce a non-redacted version in digitized form. In addition, the task of translating 400-plus pages, even with the services of a team of translators, is daunting. Anyone who is waiting for a translation of the report from our team in the next few days is bound to be sorely disappointed.


This was a repeaded concern by the English speaking commetners on TJMK and this forum. But to make it clear, there is no legal problem in publishing the *original* italian digitalized version, as long as the names of witnesses, suspects and people involved are removed, as well as and personal sensitive data (telephone number, adresses). The legality issue only concerns the Italian Privacy Code. There is no copyright on the content.

The problem with a possible integral translation is only in regard to its fidelty: the translation should be careful especially around legal terms, and fully respect the semantics and structure of speech. I would have no problem in translating Micheli's report for i., and the same for this one, because it's the kind of job I am able to do in good quality with a meticulous care, it's just that I don't have it. It would be a work of weeks anyway.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
Skep wrote:

Quote:
The intention is not to cherry-pick, but in fact to comply with laws in force. My understanding is that it is illegal to produce a non-redacted version in digitized form. In addition, the task of translating 400-plus pages, even with the services of a team of translators, is daunting. Anyone who is waiting for a translation of the report from our team in the next few days is bound to be sorely disappointed.


This was a repeaded concern by the English speaking commetners on TJMK and this forum. But to make it clear, there is no legal problem in publishing the *original* italian digitalized version, as long as the names of witnesses, suspects and people involved are removed, as well as and personal sensitive data (telephone number, adresses). The legality issue only concerns the Italian Privacy Code. There is no copyright on the content.

The problem with a possible integral translation is only in regard to its fidelty: the translation should be careful especially around legal terms, and fully respect the semantics and structure of speech. I would have no problem in translating Micheli's report for i., and the same for this one, because it's the kind of job I am able to do in good quality with a meticulous care, it's just that I don't have it. It would be a work of weeks anyway.



Thanks for that confirmation Yummi, most helpful. We have been told that the report and other legal documents cannot be digitised and published in their whole form, only quoted from. I understood that information in regard to privacy issues could not be published but we were lead to believe the rules were even more stringent then that. It's good to know they aren't. We also have concerns of our own...we do not want to publish an explicit description of what happened to Meredith in regard to the sexual assault, torture and autopsy. We are concerned with protecting the dignity of her memory as much as possible, as well as causing as little distress to her family and friends as we can.

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


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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
411's birth order stuff is always interesting and though never an excuse for behaviour, it can explain alot, expecially for such an 'unselfaware' family as the Knox/Mellas clan.

An interesting site also: http://www.blogster.com/birthorder/

The First Born having experienced mother turning away to take care of the baby decides “When I grow up I’m not going to let anyone reject me.”  The First Born becomes agreeable, passive, and non-assertive to avoid giving others reasons to reject him or her.   The rite of passage decision is “It’s okay for someone to reject me.”  This allows the First Born to accept rejection as a normal part of life rather than something to feel bad about.

Sounds like Amanda was unable to make this rite of passage on her own

The First Born learns to hide sadness as a child when the baby comes home.  Losing mother’s attention to the baby makes the First Born feel sad, a feeling he soon learns is unacceptable because mother has to take care of the baby.  Unable to turn the sadness off the First Born learns to hide the sadness not only from others but from self.  The sadness goes into the subconscious where it becomes First Born depression that keeps him from being happy.

I wonder how much of this 'sexual liberation' was unleashed because of skewed view of happiness.

In dysfunctional families children cope according to their Birth Order so that their Birth Order behavior is strengthened.  In harmonious families
children's Birth Order behavior tends to be more relaxed.

The First Born feels the need to control others’ opinions about him or her.   Having “lost” mother’s love to the baby the First Born looks for ways to get it back by being good, showing off or doing what mother wants.  This becomes a lifelong pattern of catering to others’ emotions to get them to feel good toward the First Born. 

The First Born feels guilty if others show signs of displeasure toward him or her.The First Born feels entitled to respect that, when it is not forthcoming, makes the First Born angry.  The desire for respect is rooted in a deeper desire for love and is a substitute for it.  To dissociate from that anger the First Born needs to recognize that anger is not going to get love nor will it earn him/her respect. The First Born needs to know it is okay to have respect and the way to get it is to show love rather than rage.

Again.. Amanda doesn't appear to have joined up the dots here.....

Very insightful. Thank you, H9.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

By the way, a confession to everyone. I've been a bad Moderator. You may have noted we're well into 15 pages now. Normally I start a new discussion thread when we are in the region of 10 - 12 pages. I was actually holding out creating a new thread for when the report was imminent, hence why this thread has gone on for so long. I anticipated that I would get some prior warning, a rumble in the jungle, before it's imminent release. I didn't and was caught completely by surprise. I don't know what I'm going to do now. I want to break this thread, but can't at this juncture. I'm itching to do so at midnight tonight. I may or may not, depending on what transpires between then and now...we'll see. But, you can blame me for the thread being so huge. Sorry everyone.

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


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

Offline katsgalore


Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:38 pm

Posts: 105

Location: Italy/France/Switzerland

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hi, I tried posting this earlier, but I've never posted before, and it doesn't seem to have worked. So I'm going to try again, but this time, I will also add the information that this is a translation from a Repubblica article which appeared today at: http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/0 ... i-2502472/

Verdict filed in Meredith crime:
“Murder arising from Guede’s sexual violence”
PERUGIA - Four hundred and twenty-seven: This is how many pages it took for the judges of Perugia’s Court of Assizes to explain the sentence on the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia on 1 November 2007. For this crime carried out, the judges wrote, “without any planning, without any animosity or feeling of rancour”, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were sentenced to 26 and 25 years imprisonment, respectively. For the same crime, Ivory Coast national Rudy Guede was sentenced (to 30 years following a “fast-track” trial, subsequently reduced to 16 years in appeal) and is currently waiting to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Perugian judges wrote: “The motive, was of an erotic, sexually violent nature, which riginated in the evil choice made by Rudy, and elicited the active collaboration of Amanda and Raffaele.”
From Viterbo prison, where he is held, Rudy wrote a letter with an appeal: “to those who know, talk”. A request which appears to be addressed to the same Amanda and Raffaele (both - particularly the American student whom he has always claimed to know - pointed to by Rudy as having been present at the crime scent, ndr) who have always declared themselves to have no involvement in the affair.
Together, all the elements which emerged during the process “demonstrated a comprehensive and unified picture, without gaps and inconsistencies”, wrote the judges in the file signed by the Court President, Giancarlo Massei and by assessor judge Beatrice Cristiani. According to the College [as in the board of judges], the picture that emerges “has, as its necessary and strictly consequential outcome, the attribution of the hypothesized facts of the crime to both the accused.”
The measure furthermore asserts that Knox “freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of having killed Meredith, and so accused him with the full knowledge of the innocence of the same Lumumba”. The judges underlined that there had not been “any confirmation” that Amanda had been urged by the investigators to accuse Lumumba. For Perugia’s Court of Assizes, the objective aimed at by the American (who was also convicted for the crime of calumny with regard to the Congolese musician, ndr) was to “lead the investigators down the wrong path, far from that which could have led them to establish her own responsibility, and that of her boyfriend”. “Such behaviour is a choice”, wrote the Court, “and thus merely defensive: Amanda had a good relationship with Lumumba, by whom she had always been well treated, and therefore there could have been no motive for rancour, animosity, revenge which could have justified such a serious accusation.”
The murder of Meredith Kercher, it further reads, was carried out “without any planning, without the animosity or feeling of resentment towards the victim which in some ways can be seen as the preparation/predisposition to commiting a crime”. According to the board of judges, “the actions turn out to have been carried out as a result of purely coincidental events”.
In the judges’ report, they talk of “purely coincidental events which, when joined together with each other, created a situation which, in the combination of various factors, made possible these crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly found themselves without any commitments, meet Rudy Guede by chance (there is no trace of any appointment having been made), and find themselves together at the house on the via della Pergola on the very evening (between 1 and 2 November, ndr) that Meredith is there alone”. According to the judges, “even the behaviour towards Meredith - once the assault and the murder have been commited - which consisted in covering her lifeless body, shows a feeling of pity for the victim, refusal, and thus a sort of repentance for what has been done: refusal and repentance shown through such an act of pity.”
The judges attributed the material criminal act, that is, the sexual violence, to Rudy Guede, who was aided by Amanda and Raffaele, weakened by the drugs they had consumed. The judges wrote: “Amanda and Raffaele participated actively in the criminal actions carried out by Rudy with the aim of overcoming Meredith’s resistance, subjugating her will, and allowing Rudy to relieve his lustful urges.” The judges also wrote in their report: “The prospective of helping Rudy achieve his aim of subjugating Meredith in order to sexually abuse her may have appeared to be an exciting detail which, although unforeseen, should be tried”.
“The motive”, added the Perugian judges, “was therefore of an erotic, sexually violent nature, which originated in the evil choice made by Rudy, and elicited the active collaboration of Amanda and Raffaele. That such participation, active and violent, had also involved the current defendants as well as Rudy can be deduced from what has been observed in talking about the lesions suffered by Meredith, by the outcome of the genetic investigations, by the prints of bare feet found in various parts of the house.”
According to the judges, in this murder case, one of the tests, carried out by several people, is confirmed by Meredith’s physical strength, by the fact that she was conscious on the evening of the assault, and by her previous experience in the gym. “Meredith, when the violence began, was awake and dressed, and was not laying down on her bed.” Furthermore: “According to the analyses, the young woman had a slender and well-endowed physique, and was physically very strong, as was claimed by Meredith’s mother and sister. She had even done boxing”.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kaysgalore wrote:
Hi, I tried posting this earlier, but I've never posted before, and it doesn't seem to have worked. So I'm going to try again,



Welcome katsgalore, congratulations on your first post on PMF and thank you kindly for the excellent translation!!! :)

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Who could be the two witnesses not found credible?

One candidate is surely Kokomani.
The other could be Gioffreddi (who had seen all four of them together two days before the murder)?


Last edited by bolint on Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
So in all the scenarios that have been proposed how does RG go from the docile tag along to the vicious ring leader?


It's interesting to see early signs that seem to suggest the intense focus on AK as ringleader might need some re-eavluation. Early days, though.


I have never been able to get my mind around the ringleader concept in this case. I see it more as group dynamics. FBN has it right, in my opinion. He posted oh so long ago about a perfect storm of dysfunction. Not one of the three would have acted alone.

From the article Jools posted:

No premeditation. In the motivations they speak of "contingencies purely random that welded with each other, creating a situation which, in the combination of several factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly find themselves without no commitment, casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made) and are together in this house on Via della Pergola, where that night (between November 1 and 2, 2007 - ed) Meredith is alone.”


I think this lends a great deal of weight to the substance Knox's false accusation of Lumumba. She met up with "him" and took him home because "he" wanted her - Meredith. She had to think fast on the fly. Recall Knox says she heard thuds in the other room, perhaps because Meredith told Guede to get the hell out. But there nothing to say that Guede wielded a knife. Perhaps they locked Meredith in her room for awhile. Kokomani also heard banging. There was arguing and things got seriously out of control - Raffaele and Amanda became directly involved in the confrontation. Things happen for no apparent reason when you get seriously f***ed up.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
And the stepfather that stepped in is a 21 year old kid!
bricks-)


I don't make nearly as much of the age difference or the broken family as a lot of people do. The issue with AK's stepfather is not his age but his level of maturity. Anyone who brags about drinking with their underaged stepchildren has some serious emotional (not to mention possible legal) problems.

That's the point about CM, not his age.



It's not his age, it's his rage.


His rage coupled with his sexual taunts make a very disturbing combination.

I don’t think nobody cares or makes much about the age difference with his wife. If he fancies himself as her ‘boy toy’ and if she fancied to have a kid as a husband good for them. But the level of rage and childish behaviour he now displays is very telling. One can only think that as a 20-21 year old kid himself, he could not have been better then and as a stepfather given his very own youth to be in charge as a father figure of two daughters acquired through a relationship was probably a big disaster. Edda Mellas seems was bringing up 3 children and with one of them she was romantically involved with. bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline Azzurra


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:13 pm

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Does anyone know what kind of details Raffaele knew that he "shouldn't" have known about poor Meredith's wounds and when he stated these things? I can't remember reading about RS talking about the injuries or the victim's agony, which "couldn't-hurt-a-spider-Amanda" instead discussed very happily at the police station. Not to be confused with any belief that RS is innocent, which I never for a second thought (living in Italy in 2007 the general opinion in my town was that he's guilty as sin but that he'd get out of trouble and avoid prison because of Papá's connections...)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bolint wrote:
Who could be the two witnesses not found credible.

One candidate is surely Kokomani.
The other could be Gioffreddi (who had seen all four of them together two days before the murder)?



I agree with Kokomani, although there are problems with passing him off so easily...I also agree possibly with the second...but also suggest it may instead be the shop owner.

There's also an outside chance the second could be the girl who bumped into a guy hurrying from the scene...not so much because she is unreliable as a witness, but because the person she saw hurrying away in fact had nothing to do with the crime (due to the time it happened, as the murder is put later then that).

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

" I want to break this thread"

You should, the earlier the better.
A huge amount of discussion is to be expected when we get hold of the judges report.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

for those who understand spoken italian, an RAI report

http://www.radio.rai.it/grr/view.cfm?V_ ... Tematica=5

I studied italian when living in florence, but that was long ago so this is above my ability. Coulda shoulda woulda.

:/
Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I was just thinking and speculating about the report. I think AK, RS, and RG were eating mushrooms at the house. MK and AK argued over missing money or something, where AK had the knife in her hand. THEN Rudy joined in with his sexual assault. RS then joined in and with AK they began the knife play. Argument to sexual assault to knife play to murder.

Was anyone found guilty of stealing the money? Sorry I don't remember.

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

katsgalore wrote:
Hi, I tried posting this earlier, but I've never posted before, and it doesn't seem to have worked. So I'm going to try again, but this time, I will also add the information that this is a translation from a Repubblica article which appeared today at: http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/0 ... i-2502472/

Verdict filed in Meredith crime:
“Murder arising from Guede’s sexual violence”
PERUGIA - Four hundred and twenty-seven: This is how many pages it took for the judges of Perugia’s Court of Assizes to explain the sentence on the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia on 1 November 2007. For this crime carried out, the judges wrote, “without any planning, without any animosity or feeling of rancour”, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were sentenced to 26 and 25 years imprisonment, respectively. For the same crime, Ivory Coast national Rudy Guede was sentenced (to 30 years following a “fast-track” trial, subsequently reduced to 16 years in appeal) and is currently waiting to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Perugian judges wrote: “The motive, was of an erotic, sexually violent nature, which riginated in the evil choice made by Rudy, and elicited the active collaboration of Amanda and Raffaele.”
From Viterbo prison, where he is held, Rudy wrote a letter with an appeal: “to those who know, talk”. A request which appears to be addressed to the same Amanda and Raffaele (both - particularly the American student whom he has always claimed to know - pointed to by Rudy as having been present at the crime scent, ndr) who have always declared themselves to have no involvement in the affair.
Together, all the elements which emerged during the process “demonstrated a comprehensive and unified picture, without gaps and inconsistencies”, wrote the judges in the file signed by the Court President, Giancarlo Massei and by assessor judge Beatrice Cristiani. According to the College [as in the board of judges], the picture that emerges “has, as its necessary and strictly consequential outcome, the attribution of the hypothesized facts of the crime to both the accused.”
The measure furthermore asserts that Knox “freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of having killed Meredith, and so accused him with the full knowledge of the innocence of the same Lumumba”. The judges underlined that there had not been “any confirmation” that Amanda had been urged by the investigators to accuse Lumumba. For Perugia’s Court of Assizes, the objective aimed at by the American (who was also convicted for the crime of calumny with regard to the Congolese musician, ndr) was to “lead the investigators down the wrong path, far from that which could have led them to establish her own responsibility, and that of her boyfriend”. “Such behaviour is a choice”, wrote the Court, “and thus merely defensive: Amanda had a good relationship with Lumumba, by whom she had always been well treated, and therefore there could have been no motive for rancour, animosity, revenge which could have justified such a serious accusation.”
The murder of Meredith Kercher, it further reads, was carried out “without any planning, without the animosity or feeling of resentment towards the victim which in some ways can be seen as the preparation/predisposition to commiting a crime”. According to the board of judges, “the actions turn out to have been carried out as a result of purely coincidental events”.
In the judges’ report, they talk of “purely coincidental events which, when joined together with each other, created a situation which, in the combination of various factors, made possible these crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly found themselves without any commitments, meet Rudy Guede by chance (there is no trace of any appointment having been made), and find themselves together at the house on the via della Pergola on the very evening (between 1 and 2 November, ndr) that Meredith is there alone”. According to the judges, “even the behaviour towards Meredith - once the assault and the murder have been commited - which consisted in covering her lifeless body, shows a feeling of pity for the victim, refusal, and thus a sort of repentance for what has been done: refusal and repentance shown through such an act of pity.”
The judges attributed the material criminal act, that is, the sexual violence, to Rudy Guede, who was aided by Amanda and Raffaele, weakened by the drugs they had consumed. The judges wrote: “Amanda and Raffaele participated actively in the criminal actions carried out by Rudy with the aim of overcoming Meredith’s resistance, subjugating her will, and allowing Rudy to relieve his lustful urges.” The judges also wrote in their report: “The prospective of helping Rudy achieve his aim of subjugating Meredith in order to sexually abuse her may have appeared to be an exciting detail which, although unforeseen, should be tried”.
“The motive”, added the Perugian judges, “was therefore of an erotic, sexually violent nature, which originated in the evil choice made by Rudy, and elicited the active collaboration of Amanda and Raffaele. That such participation, active and violent, had also involved the current defendants as well as Rudy can be deduced from what has been observed in talking about the lesions suffered by Meredith, by the outcome of the genetic investigations, by the prints of bare feet found in various parts of the house.”
According to the judges, in this murder case, one of the tests, carried out by several people, is confirmed by Meredith’s physical strength, by the fact that she was conscious on the evening of the assault, and by her previous experience in the gym. “Meredith, when the violence began, was awake and dressed, and was not laying down on her bed.” Furthermore: “According to the analyses, the young woman had a slender and well-endowed physique, and was physically very strong, as was claimed by Meredith’s mother and sister. She had even done boxing”.


Hi Katsgalore,
Welcome and thanks a lot for translating above article.
hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"but also suggest it may instead be the shop owner."

But he is not in that context. he has nothing to do with the motive as his testimony is related to the day following the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:

There's also an outside chance the second could be the girl who bumped into a guy hurrying from the scene...not so much because she is unreliable as a witness, but because the person she saw hurrying away in fact had nothing to do with the crime (due to the time it happened, as the murder is put later then that).


But didn't she come foward early and provide some details that hadn't been released yet?

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.

I still can't get around Amanda bringing the large kitchen knife from Raff's apartment. Why would she bring it? To cut mushrooms and wave around at errant motorists? (Kokomani) I guess we'll never know.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bolint wrote:
" I want to break this thread"

You should, the earlier the better.
A huge amount of discussion is to be expected when we get hold of the judges report.


Yeah, I know...I can't before midnight though, that will screw up the dates...they'll no longer be clean and that causes problems. If I don't do it at midnight tonight, I'll have to wait until midnight tomorrow. But, I hate to break a thread right in the middle of an important debate. As I said...we'll see.

_________________
"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 Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Earthling wrote:
windfall wrote:
Macport wrote:
casually meet Rudy Guede (there 'is no trace of any appointment made)

AK is furious with Meredith. RS wishes to impress AK and is a sadist. How does RG on a casual night out say lets go rape Meredith?


You're still reading pre-meditation into the scenario. The strong hints from early news on the report are that the judges and jurors reject the notion of premeditation.

I still can't get around Amanda bringing the large kitchen knife from Raff's apartment. Why would she bring it? To cut mushrooms and wave around at errant motorists? (Kokomani) I guess we'll never know.

Exactly. Oh I'm bringing a big knife over to play, no premeditation going on here, we're just pranking people.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hada Messia and Mallory Simon have written the following article for CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/04/ama ... rs/?hpt=T2

These two journalists have been consistently awful and they've maintained their usual standards with this article. The only difference this time is that they've interviewed David Marriott instead of Anne Bremner. I expect it didn't cross their minds to actually speak to someone connected to Meredith or someone who thinks the verdicts are just and fair.

Apparently, Meredith was "poked" with the two knives:

"Sollecito poked Kercher with a knife, inflicting one wound measured at 4 cm (1.5 inches), and Knox poked her with a bigger knife after she screamed, inflicting a larger 8-cm (3-inch) wound, jurors found."
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

You've got to break the thread tonight Michael.

All we are getting at the moment are some cherry picked words from either the intro or the conclusion.

Tomorrow, there will be much more detail in the Italian press.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brian S. wrote:
You've got to break the thread tonight Michael.

All we are getting at the moment are some cherry picked words from either the intro or the conclusion.

Tomorrow, there will be much more detail in the Italian press.



I agree one thousand percent with Brian. A lot of cherry picking in the race to press, most of it worth very little. Nobody can sift through 427 pages in a few hours and come up with anything representative of the whole. All speculation based on this scant material is for naught; and laments about what is left unexplained are premature.

This is why I found Ted Simon's comment bizarre. He cannot possibly have had the time to read the document thoroughly. What we are seeing in the press is people positioning themselves and talking out of their asses for the most part.

About the only thing I have come away with is that Mignini did his job and got a valid conviction. What happens on appeal is out of his hands and up to those representing the murderers.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brian S. wrote:
You've got to break the thread tonight Michael.

All we are getting at the moment are some cherry picked words from either the intro or the conclusion.

Tomorrow, there will be much more detail in the Italian press.



Hey, return of the wanderer :) How's the health Brian, much better I hope? Okay, I'll break it tonight.

Oh and Andrea Vogt has promised in her article that she'll be updating it throughout the day, so that will be worth keeping an eye on.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
You've got to break the thread tonight Michael.

All we are getting at the moment are some cherry picked words from either the intro or the conclusion.

Tomorrow, there will be much more detail in the Italian press.



Hey, return of the wanderer :) How's the health Brian, much better I hope? Okay, I'll break it tonight.

Oh and Andrea Vogt has promised in her article that she'll be updating it throughout the day, so that will be worth keeping an eye on.


I'm feeling much better Michael, thankyou. :)

And I'm sure we will see the return of other "old faithfulls" now that we have this report.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:

Oh and Andrea Vogt has promised in her article that she'll be updating it throughout the day, so that will be worth keeping an eye on.


The frontpage of SeattlePI has a banner graphic: "Why they found amanda knox guilty; Jury says she was involved in roommate's murder- but not in the way prosecutors argued"

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Michael wrote:

Oh and Andrea Vogt has promised in her article that she'll be updating it throughout the day, so that will be worth keeping an eye on.


The frontpage of SeattlePI has a banner graphic: "Why they found amanda knox guilty; Jury says she was involved in roommate's murder- but not in the way prosecutors argued"

Pat


And this is something I'm sure the US press will find it hard to come to terms with.

As a non-legal from a common law country, I've always said that the best way to view the Italian system is as some kind of "inquiry".
The judges will reach their own conclusions.

Think about an inquiry into a plane crash.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

pataz1 wrote:
The frontpage of SeattlePI has a banner graphic: "Why they found amanda knox guilty; Jury says she was involved in roommate's murder- but not in the way prosecutors argued"

Pat


Solid evidence that they slept through the whole thing - no one on the jury could be bothered with actual thinking, right?
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hi, Everybody
I'm off to a medical appointment with Dr. "My Time's More Important Than Anyone Else's"
I'm sure you know the type of M.D. (Medical Deity)--who makes his patients usually wait and wait, and wait, typically over 90 years....errr, I exaggerate--make that 90 minutes--just to be ushered back to the examining room.

Should I take a book or should I spend my waiting room time translating the Corriere article about Rudy...IL DELITTO DI PERUGIA. I haven't read all of today's posts, so it may have already been done.

Lemme know if it's worth it. I'll be leaving in the next 10 minutes or so...and will check back here in a bit for your opinion on this.
The 411
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
You've got to break the thread tonight Michael.

All we are getting at the moment are some cherry picked words from either the intro or the conclusion.

Tomorrow, there will be much more detail in the Italian press.



Hey, return of the wanderer :) How's the health Brian, much better I hope? Okay, I'll break it tonight.

Oh and Andrea Vogt has promised in her article that she'll be updating it throughout the day, so that will be worth keeping an eye on.


I'm feeling much better Michael, thankyou. :)

And I'm sure we will see the return of other "old faithfulls" now that we have this report.


Glad to hear you're much better, I worried :)

I look forward to reading the 'old faithfulls' once again. As for 'have' the report, well...not really. It's out, but we don't have it as of yet. It has been released in hard copy only. It may be digitalised at a later point, then we'll have it. The best we can hope for until then is scans...and those offer their own problems, greatly limiting how fast we can work with them. Even there, we'd have to rely on some kind soul spending the best part of their day scanning 800 + pages.


Personally, with the greatest respect, I disagree with this approach from the Italian judiciary. If ever a report in any case required digitalisation, it was this one. The ILE by doing it this way have handed the Anglo media (along with the FOA) every opportunity to ignore that which they don't like and to cherry pick that which suits them on a plate. It's easy to sanitise and spin something the public can't actually see for themselves and that cherry picking and spin is all digitalised. It therefore has the advantage. But then it seems, all government institutions in every country are having trouble adapting to the Information Age.

_________________
"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 stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Couple things from Seattle PI Article:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html

1)"...the opinion largely supports the prosecution's case, particularly on the forensics, but also leaves room for different interpretations that will likely feature prominently in Knox's appeal -- namely the motive and murder dynamic inside the apartment".

Maybe I am missing something, but not sure how the Report's discussion of motive or dynamic would affect the unanimous verdict or prompt any reduction of sentences from Appeal

2(..."Jurors discounted as unreliable two eye witnesses -- an Albanian drug-dealer and another student. Both testified they had seen Knox, Sollecito and Guede together.

Again, since neither of these were significant providers of the *overwhelming* amount of evidence, I fail to see how their unreliability can affect appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Should I not be surprised that the spin is that this PROVES the case against Amanda is a crock? (Oh yeah, and the case against that guy that looks like Harry Potter is also wrong...) It is somehow better that a person can kill and torment another person they liked very much for no apparent reason? Oooooo-KAY. Just a little knife play with an unwilling participant. Nothing wrong at all with such a thing so long as you didn't PLAN on doing it. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIght.

Also, did CNN really list Marriott as the Knox/Mellas attorney? When did he change professions?
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

A bunch of off the top of my head comments:

The Youtube video of Amanda drunk. If I remember correctly, it's just her and a bunch of guys.
As a parent this gives me the utter creeps - one of the first Don't-Get-Yourself-Raped rules for my kid would be to stay out of exactly that situation.
(Do not be the only girl with a bunch of drunk guys. Avoid frat parties.)
I think what is going on here is Amanda the risk taker, Amanda the tough girl hanging out with the guys, and Amanda the Center of the Universe having the attention of the guys at Party Central.
And this is her behavior in her home territory, where she understands all the rules - even the ones she's breaking.
It is edgy behavior at best.
Take this scene as a precursor to the murder - Amanda and a couple of guys hanging out getting wasted.

Then add, the night before, on Halloween.
There were all those calls trying to pinpoint Meredith, and arrange a meeting.
I don't think it is farfetched to think Amanda had a prank planned.
There's no need to assume it was meant to be worse than the rumored Seattle mock attack.
And mixed with Halloween, perhaps add in Ninja costuming, and maybe a Big Knife to make it all the more convincing.
But, annoyingly, it didn't happen the previous night, as planned.

The problem is that pranks mask hostility.
The whole concept of the practical joke is a difficult one, and is rooted in the concept of masked aggression - a victim is attacked under the veil of "humor" and the attackers' defense is that it is all a joke.
This time, maybe, there was a little too much underlying hostility.
And when combined with alcohol and who knows what else, the first actions went beyond what could be explained as twisted humor.

The failure of the prank to stay within allowable limits could have been predicted.
After all, in this case there was a language barrier between Amanda and her assistants.
And a cultural difference as well, so that either Guede or Raphaele or both may have never quite gotten the concept that they were only supposed to be making a very limited mock attack, not causing any real damage.
And the assistants are themselves problematic - there's the knife fetish, the sexual attraction to the victim.
And they are all high as kites to boot.
And the victim isn't really a member of Amanda's "group," or a person likely to take stupid highjinks lightly, especially if things simply began too violently.

Given Amanda's loud party - the throwing bottles at cops and neighbors, and the rumored Seattle mock attack, it seems to me that even at home in Seattle, her sense of where the boundaries on normal aggression lie was fuzzy at best.
I live in a student neighborhood - Southside Berkeley - and have done since 1974.
Loud parties abound.
I have only occasionally seen the cops called in.
I have only *once* encountered a student party that included hurling objects at neighbors and cops.
Being loud is completely normal, being violent is not.
Getting ticketed and fined is highly unusual.
Amanda was an a disaster waiting to happen.

I don't know how you would point to a "ringleader."
Only Amanda could have assembled the group and gotten them all in the door.
And while Guede's presence was accidental, she and Raphaele had something planned, or else why is the knife there.
But I agree that what happened was not intended.
Something was planned, but not this.
But she was high, and even initially attacked much too hard - Did Meredith somehow immediately react in a way that pushed Amanda's buttons?
Was she supposed to have not recognized the attackers, or have cowered?
Something turned things beyond a joke, and seemingly it happened early.
Does providing for the initial attack make Amanda the leader?

Guede may have had urges of his own, but it's difficult to believe he could convince the other two to undertake the whole attack just to satisfy his desires.
My own thought is that he was also acting in a diminished capacity, and took advantage of a chaotic situation to push his own agenda.
The violence spiraled from there.
Does that make him the leader?

And, like many others here, I find Raphaele opaque.
My own thought is that the actual *use* of the knife probably began with him, just as the actual sexual attack began with Rudy.
But I can easily see a knife intended as stage dressing pulling him into using it in the heat of the moment.
Warped curiosity and sadism pulled him over the normal barriers against such things once the situation became chaotic.

Any of these attacks sealed Meredith's fate when the group understood they had gone too far for a joke.
But I don't see any one of the three attackers shaping their actions, or leading the others.
In fact, I suspect that if they had had a functional ringleader things would never have ended as they did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

More detail from Vogt at the Seattle PI website. So if you murder someone in Italy you'll be better off if you remember to cover them up afterwards. And even though the jury and judge may disagree with the Prosecution, they themselves are clearly grabbing at straws when it comes to motive and reconstruction. But there can be no doubt as to the participation of all three:

Jurors theorized that Knox, Sollecito and Guede arrived at the apartment together and got high. They suggested Guede used the bathroom, and when he came out saw Knox and Sollecito being intimate, became excited and sought out Kercher, who was reading in her room.

When she resisted, Knox and Sollecito came into the room and aided Guede in restraining her so he could continue. The violence spiraled out of control, and Kercher was eventually killed, with Knox threatening and eventually stabbing her with the large kitchen knife the jury was convinced is the murder weapon, jurors decided.

The court said it did not believe the crime was premeditated, but rather a result of violence partly attributable to the suspects' uninhibited behavior after getting high.

It also noted that it gave Knox and Sollecito a reduced sentence because they were young and had taken pity on the victim and covered Kercher's body with the duvet.

The court cited as reliable elements of proof not just the alleged murder weapon (a knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and a trace amount of Kercher's on the blade) and the bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA, but also the luminol-enhanced footprints attributed to Knox and Sollecito.

The judge paid particular attention to the multiple traces of mixed blood (Kercher's) and DNA (Knox's) in the apartment's small bathroom, noting that also the door and lightswitch in the bathroom had been touched with someone with bloody hands or clothes.

Traces of Kercher's blood and Knox's DNA were found together in several spots, the judge wrote, specifically, the on a cotton swap box, the sink and the bidet.

"Mixed biological traces belonging to Meredith and Amanda in the washbasin and bidet and seemed to indicate the cleaning of hands of feet," the opinion read, going on to suggest that Knox's skin tissues had rubbed off as she tried to scrub off Meredith's blood in the bathroom.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I can hear it now. "I only poked her with the knife, it's not MY fault she moved". The family, their representation, their public relations firm and the media hacks that bow to them are morally and emotionally bankrupt.

I am completely convinced Edda and Curt know Amanda was involved and are willing to thwart justice, only not for her freedom. FOR THE MONEY they anticipate their pretty little "white" lies will bring.

You lousy bastards aren't going to erase Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

As expected, the mixed samples of blood and DNA were considered compelling evidence:

"The judge paid particular attention to the multiple traces of mixed blood (Kercher's) and DNA (Knox's) in the apartment's small bathroom, noting that also the door and lightswitch in the bathroom had been touched with someone with bloody hands or clothes.

Traces of Kercher's blood and Knox's DNA were found together in several spots, the judge wrote, specifically, the on a cotton swap box, the sink and the bidet.

"Mixed biological traces belonging to Meredith and Amanda in the washbasin and bidet and seemed to indicate the cleaning of hands of feet," the opinion read, going on to suggest that Knox's skin tissues had rubbed off as she tried to scrub off Meredith's blood in the bathroom." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
The judge paid particular attention to the multiple traces of mixed blood (Kercher's) and DNA (Knox's) in the apartment's small bathroom, noting that also the door and lightswitch in the bathroom had been touched with someone with bloody hands or clothes.

Traces of Kercher's blood and Knox's DNA were found together in several spots, the judge wrote, specifically, the on a cotton swap box, the sink and the bidet.

"Mixed biological traces belonging to Meredith and Amanda in the washbasin and bidet and seemed to indicate the cleaning of hands of feet," the opinion read, going on to suggest that Knox's skin tissues had rubbed off as she tried to scrub off Meredith's blood in the bathroom.


Knox probably wasn't bleeding, after all.
Top Profile 

Offline jw


Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Post removed as redundant. Thanks to our always vigilant The Machine for being quick to update us all on Andrea Vogt's article.

jw
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stint7 wrote:
Couple things from Seattle PI Article:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html

1)"...the opinion largely supports the prosecution's case, particularly on the forensics, but also leaves room for different interpretations that will likely feature prominently in Knox's appeal -- namely the motive and murder dynamic inside the apartment".

Maybe I am missing something, but not sure how the Report's discussion of motive or dynamic would affect the unanimous verdict or prompt any reduction of sentences from Appeal

2(..."Jurors discounted as unreliable two eye witnesses -- an Albanian drug-dealer and another student. Both testified they had seen Knox, Sollecito and Guede together.

Again, since neither of these were significant providers of the *overwhelming* amount of evidence, I fail to see how their unreliability can affect appeal.



It doesn't. But then Andrea is writing for her readership and is well aware that they have all watched too much TV and believe motive is king, a belief the FOA has greatly encouraged it must be said.

_________________
"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 Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
As expected, the mixed samples of blood and DNA were considered compelling evidence:
(Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer).
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html


Kokomani and the student were discounted, but it is worth pointing out that Mignini is not concerned about any "disagreement":

Lead prosecutor Giuliano Mignini expressed satisfaction Thursday with the judge's opinion, despite divergences from the case he had presented in court.

"They confirmed the compatibility of the murder weapon, the fact that there was no contamination, that it was group violence and that the murder was committed by all three," he said. "They confirmed the staging and inconsistencies in their statements. It is perfectly in line except for a few small nuances that have to do with the hypotheses about that night. Everyone is trying to understand what happened."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stint7 wrote:
Couple things from Seattle PI Article:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html

1)"...the opinion largely supports the prosecution's case, particularly on the forensics, but also leaves room for different interpretations that will likely feature prominently in Knox's appeal -- namely the motive and murder dynamic inside the apartment".

Maybe I am missing something, but not sure how the Report's discussion of motive or dynamic would affect the unanimous verdict or prompt any reduction of sentences from Appeal

2(..."Jurors discounted as unreliable two eye witnesses -- an Albanian drug-dealer and another student. Both testified they had seen Knox, Sollecito and Guede together.

Again, since neither of these were significant providers of the *overwhelming* amount of evidence, I fail to see how their unreliability can affect appeal.



By process of elimination, this means Curatolo's 'in' and his testimony is damning. It also means they've accepted the testimony of the shop owner. That's not good for Amanda and by default Raffaele either.

_________________
"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 Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
They [the jury] confirmed the staging and inconsistencies in their [Amanda & Raffaele] statements."


These two findings alone incapcitate about 90% of all FOA rhetoric.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Translate the usual Rudy article or no? What say ye? Anyone? Helloooooo?
woooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (that's a dry, hollow wind sound with tumble weeds a'blowing ....)
Heck, I'll just do it. I've printed it out and
figure it will be better than doing the usual stuff I do to kill time in the waiting room--ya know,
reading old magazines,
doing splits, turning cartwheels, doing faces, making out with my boyfriend...
Over and out,
The 411
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Few observations, from the blindingly obvious (IAL, it's what I *do*) to the hopefully vaguely interesting;

Rapidly changing picture to be anticipated as the detail becomes available. Early journalist 'grabs' are going to be highly distorted by Merryrot / FOA. Early onslaught to come, followed by a concerted effort to obfuscate the better detail as it comes out by sheer volume of contradiction and assertion. I am sure this tactic has been pre-meditated.

In my experience, whenever you get feedback about jury reasoning on a guilty verdict (not that usual in the UK, but it happens) there are almost always inferences / causalities the jury have drawn which were not suggested by the prosecution or, if they were, only very elliptically so. Therefore when you hear that reasoning supplied from the jury, you are momentarily a bit knocked back. Occasionally stunned. But they heard the totality of the evidence so who is to say the connections are not reasonable? Obviously an opening for the headline-FOA-attack.

DNA appeal basis of Knox appeal coming thru loud and clear. Recent Innocence Project acquittals of long term incarcerated will be heavily previewed ahead of it.

I'm very interested on the *detail* concerning the knife imprint and 2(+) knife theory aka the Reason-why-the-lone-wolf-theory is undermined by the FOA by their own logic - what lone wolf ever attacked with two different knives?

Note to some previous posts: I still (IMHO) think there is a general lack of understanding about the extremity of possible reactions under heavy alcohol and drug influence with borderline personalities. If they hadn't been so completely off their faces, imho it's very unlikely this would have happened. The press grabs are currently playing the sex angle which ends up with Rudy the Ringleader. I don't believe this with the emphasis that is coming across in the early grabs and translations.

I believe some troubled personalities, group dynamics and a great deal of alcohol and drugs caused an almost unimaginable spiral of events. Is it that unusual? No, sadly it really isn't - I've met with defendants in their teens and twenties who committed horrendous gbh (that has made juries cry and occasionally rush to the toilet) and defendants who have killed while under severe influences in a way that was many times worse than the worst thing they had ever done before that. Some can't even remember the event and I genuinely believe that they can't. Just think of the terrible arguments and fights many of you have seen when someone has had way way too much to drink and the terrible remorse that follows it. Add in the sexual elements and RS's obsession with knives (he's the one that did the 'pricking' wounds here as things escalated) and you might imagine given they were totally out of it, how things went. General animosity (but not pre-mediated specific intent to harm that evening), borderline / troubled personalities and a totally out of control intoxication caused a sexual assault, then the knife-wounding as a terrible escalation and then what I believe finally to be a panicked, drugged up and very quickly decided "there's no alternative" killing imvho.

_________________
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 Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From Nazzi's blog. It wouldn't suprise me to see Frank's post on todays news along the same line as Nazzi. These two are the only Italians that their reporting of the case has been as if Cmellas is behind them as their Pupet Master. FOA will be arguing with each other over the same questions if they bother to read Frank's posts this time.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the reasons for the sentence. New doubts.

So Amanda’s hatred towards Meredith there's nothing to it. Indeed it never existed. It’s said in the (motivazioni) reasons for the sentence filed in Perugia exactly 90 days after the verdict of conviction for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (to 26 and 24 years in prison.) The reasons say literally that the murder occurred "without any planning, without animosity or feeling of resentment toward the victim which in some way could be view as a planning-predisposition to the crime." Again: "The facts are shown to be achieved under purely casually contingencies. Yet prosecutors had insisted on this point: Amanda hated Meredith, she was jealous, considered her as a prissy and for this she wanted to kill her, involving Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito. None of all that. The motivations demolish that theory.

However, why have Knox and Sollecito been convicted? The judges write that, the "combination of various factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly find themselves with nothing to do; meet randomly Rudy Guede and are found together in the house on Via della Pergola, where Meredith was alone that night." Therefore, write the judges, "the dynamic was of an erotic, sexual violence nature, which originated in the bad deed made by Rudy and found the active participation of Amanda and Raffaele." In essence, according to the judges, Rudy Guede wanted to rape Meredith Kercher, Amanda and Raffaele that evening had nothing to do and helped Rudy.

A bit weak as a motivation. Why Amanda and Raffaele helped Rudy? Is not explained. The judges reasoned the sentence of guilt, saying that, Amanda had, in accusing Patrick Lumumba, “a demeanor and choice purely defensive: Amanda had a good relationship with Lumumba, whom had always treated her well and could therefore not be a cause for resentment, hostility, revenge that could justify such a serious accusation other than to indicate to the investigators a false trail, away from what could have led to the establishment of hers and her boyfriend responsibilities."

These are the reasons. The doubts remain. Indeed, there’re even more now.
Nazzi's blog
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
DNA appeal basis of Knox appeal coming thru loud and clear. Recent Innocence Project acquittals of long term incarcerated will be heavily previewed ahead of it.


Aren't the vast majority of Innocence Project acquittals based upon presentations of DNA evidence that was not presented in a trial? Are you aware of any Innocence Project acquittals based upon claims of contamination?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
There is a good report by Richard Owen in The Times:

In a riposte to Knox's family and friends who claim she was the victim of a mistrial based on flawed evidence, the judges said the prosecution had drawn "a comprehensive and coherent picture, without holes or inconsistencies". The defendants had been able to describe Ms Kercher's injuries, and their guilt was clear from DNA traces and naked footprints found "in various parts of the house".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 049945.ece


Amanda made some very descriptive confessions with information only the perpetrator could know.

What did Raffaele tell the police?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
DNA appeal basis of Knox appeal coming thru loud and clear. Recent Innocence Project acquittals of long term incarcerated will be heavily previewed ahead of it.


Aren't the vast majority of Innocence Project acquittals based upon presentations of DNA evidence that was not presented in a trial? Are you aware of any Innocence Project acquittals based upon claims of contamination?


You're right of course. I'm just saying what I expect to happen next. Hold the argument in reserve - I expect it will be needed.

_________________
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 Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
The judges' opinion that the killing was not fuelled by hatred contradicts the argument made in the Perugia courtroom by the lead prosecutor in the case.

As the end of the trial neared, Giuliano Mignini told the court that Knox harboured a hatred for Miss Kercher and wanted to get back at her for saying she was unclean and promiscuous.

But fellow prosecutor Manuela Comodi argued instead that "we live in an age of violence with no motive" and that the reason for the murder was a mystery.


Sky news

It would seem the prosecution had "no motive" covered.


Last edited by Brian S. on Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


Lack of animosity reinforces the impulsive, unplanned nature of this crime.

It was drugs, alcohol or a combination of the two that fueled this crime.

If the judge's theory is that it is a sexual attack, it had to be initiated by the solitary male with no companion.

The victim's hyoid bone was fractured, maybe the judges have evidence that points to Guede as the first attacker.

If you are in an alcohol or drug-fueled daze, and at that young age, anything is possible. Paranoid psychotic episodes are caused by certain drugs, cocaine in particular.

We will never know just what chemicals these three had running in their bloodstream on that night.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
From Nazzi's blog. It wouldn't suprise me to see Frank's post on todays news along the same line as Nazzi. These two are the only Italians that their reporting of the case has been as if Cmellas is behind them as their Pupet Master. FOA will be arguing with each other over the same questions if they bother to read Frank's posts this time.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the reasons for the sentence. New doubts.

So Amanda’s hatred towards Meredith there's nothing to it. Indeed it never existed. It’s said in the (motivazioni) reasons for the sentence filed in Perugia exactly 90 days after the verdict of conviction for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (to 26 and 24 years in prison.) The reasons say literally that the murder occurred "without any planning, without animosity or feeling of resentment toward the victim which in some way could be view as a planning-predisposition to the crime." Again: "The facts are shown to be achieved under purely casually contingencies. Yet prosecutors had insisted on this point: Amanda hated Meredith, she was jealous, considered her as a prissy and for this she wanted to kill her, involving Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito. None of all that. The motivations demolish that theory.

However, why have Knox and Sollecito been convicted? The judges write that, the "combination of various factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly find themselves with nothing to do; meet randomly Rudy Guede and are found together in the house on Via della Pergola, where Meredith was alone that night." Therefore, write the judges, "the dynamic was of an erotic, sexual violence nature, which originated in the bad deed made by Rudy and found the active participation of Amanda and Raffaele." In essence, according to the judges, Rudy Guede wanted to rape Meredith Kercher, Amanda and Raffaele that evening had nothing to do and helped Rudy.

A bit weak as a motivation. Why Amanda and Raffaele helped Rudy? Is not explained. The judges reasoned the sentence of guilt, saying that, Amanda had, in accusing Patrick Lumumba, “a demeanor and choice purely defensive: Amanda had a good relationship with Lumumba, whom had always treated her well and could therefore not be a cause for resentment, hostility, revenge that could justify such a serious accusation other than to indicate to the investigators a false trail, away from what could have led to the establishment of hers and her boyfriend responsibilities."

These are the reasons. The doubts remain. Indeed, there’re even more now.
Nazzi's blog



It would appear that Windfall's fear of people cherry picking the report has indeed come to pass...but not by us, as he presumed. But then, all but the most naive of us knew the Knox PR machine would get into gear the day the report was published, within hours in fact, to spin...spin...spin. I'm just waiting for, when their heads stop spinning, them all to start puking up pea soup and launching into stabbing themselves with a crucifix in their unmentionables and throwing priests out of windows.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

piktor wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


Lack of animosity reinforces the impulsive, unplanned nature of this crime.

It was drugs, alcohol or a combination of the two that fueled this crime.

If the judge's theory is that it is a sexual attack, it had to be initiated by the solitary male with no companion.

The victim's hyoid bone was fractured, maybe the judges have evidence that points to Guede as the first attacker.

If you are in an alcohol or drug-fueled daze, and at that young age, anything is possible. Paranoid psychotic episodes are caused by certain drugs, cocaine in particular.

We will never know just what chemicals these three had running in their bloodstream on that night.


And maybe those who will happily kill their friends for no reason, with chemical stimuli, will also just as happily do so without?

Once upon a time it used to be 'the Devil made me do it'. Now, it 'was the drugs made me do it'. Both are bullshit.

_________________
"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: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From Notizie.Vigilio
The staging of the crime scene was made by Knox & Sollecito. Raffaele took the stone to simulate the home burglary. While the love birds created the simulation in FR's room Rudy run away.
It was Amanda and Raffaele, after the murder, implementing the act to simulate a thief-killer entry in the house of Meredith Kercher. Wrote the judges in the grounds of conviction of Amanda and Raffaele.

"The situation outside the house must have seemed quiet - they say - and it was then decided to break the glass to create the staging of the unknown burglar that entered through the window and it was decided that one could fit. ... Raffaele Sollecito is to be retained that he had gone out around the house to find a big rock to use to break the glass and Amanda could in turn go to the bathroom to wash her hands and feet. When Raffaele returned with the big rock, the mess was created in Romanelli’s room, the glass was broken and the shutters pushed to outside." Then, according to the Court, they re entered back into Meredith’s room to take the phones "and decided to cover the body of Meredith with a quilt and then went out locking the door of that room." While the two lovers were working on the staging, Rudy Guede would be fleeing the scene.
Virgilio
Edited to add the full article.


Last edited by Jools on Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

lauowolf wrote:

The Youtube video of Amanda drunk. If I remember correctly, it's just her and a bunch of guys.
As a parent this gives me the utter creeps - one of the first Don't-Get-Yourself-Raped rules for my kid would be to stay out of exactly that situation.
(Do not be the only girl with a bunch of drunk guys. Avoid frat parties.)
I think what is going on here is Amanda the risk taker, Amanda the tough girl hanging out with the guys, and Amanda the Center of the Universe having the attention of the guys at Party Central.
And this is her behavior in her home territory, where she understands all the rules - even the ones she's breaking.
It is edgy behavior at best.
Take this scene as a precursor to the murder - Amanda and a couple of guys hanging out getting wasted.


Not every "bunch of guys" or "bunch of drunk guys" are potential rapists, at whatever age, yikes. And not every female hanging out with them is a "risk taker" or "tough girl," "having the attention" or engaging in "edgy behavior." Sometimes people hang out because they like each other, work together, have class together, whatever, geeesh.
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Good posts lauowolf and SomeAlibi. All your speculations above seem valid to me. Everybody - including the judges' report - is giving an account of the events as if seen through frosted glass. The only people who can give a clear account are keeping silent or else giving distorted, self-serving versions.
Without an expert translation it's hard to know the exact meaning of the report. When the judges talk about 'lack of animosity', they could be meaning it didn't reach an overwhelming or homicidal level of animosity. Like Mignini, Comodi and the judges, we are all trying to figure out how it happened.
Many things point to a relationship between Meredith and Amanda with some causes for irritation - and even people with deep and enduring relationships have moments of intense anger towards one another. But no true friend would allow, or participate in, a mean, frightening sexual assault on a companion - some underlying hostility or animosity would have to exist for this to occur.


Last edited by tigerfish on Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
From Nazzi's blog. It wouldn't suprise me to see Frank's post on todays news along the same line as Nazzi. These two are the only Italians that their reporting of the case has been as if Cmellas is behind them as their Pupet Master. FOA will be arguing with each other over the same questions if they bother to read Frank's posts this time.


But that's good after all. A few bloggers would criticize a sentence on its motivations, that's what we would expect to happen, and that's the privilege for of all of us living in free societies. It is good if you think how often the PR side maintains that Perugians live under intimidation in fear of speaking up, they avoid criticize authorities, that criticizing police is forbidden or things like that. One person who is not convinced becomes news.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"It is a crime that happened ... without any planning, without any animosity or rancorous feeling against the victim that in some way could be seen [as] a preparation and predisposition to the crime," it said.

I agree with Bard and can't, truly, imagine that there wasn't at least some rancorous or spiteful feeling toward Meredith that had developed into the anger driving Amanda's mind immediately prior to the night of the murder. The fact that she also quickly thereafter turned on Patrick in the most malevolent way suggests that she felt animosity raging for him too and was ready to act on it. Her diminishment of importance at Le Chic combined with Patrick's notice that he'd asked Meredith to come and work--doing a fun, cool, attention attracting task such as mixing a "special Mojito"--would be enough to push her over the edge and trigger a jealous drive for revenge on both of them.

It's this "game" part of the prosecution's case that misses the mark, I think. Wanting to play a "sex game" is not really a trait of what we see as "normal human nature" and that's part of why people resist it--they can't relate. Almost all of us have some "predisposition" for jealous rage (e.g., Mrs. Tiger Woods) and Amanda, with drugs and timing contributing, unleashed a jealous monster. Just can't let go of that viewpoint.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quick question for Yummi, if he knows?

How soon would you expect the motivations to be on-line?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


Lack of animosity reinforces the impulsive, unplanned nature of this crime.

It was drugs, alcohol or a combination of the two that fueled this crime.

If the judge's theory is that it is a sexual attack, it had to be initiated by the solitary male with no companion.

The victim's hyoid bone was fractured, maybe the judges have evidence that points to Guede as the first attacker.

If you are in an alcohol or drug-fueled daze, and at that young age, anything is possible. Paranoid psychotic episodes are caused by certain drugs, cocaine in particular.

We will never know just what chemicals these three had running in their bloodstream on that night.


And maybe those who will happily kill their friends for no reason, with chemical stimuli, will also just as happily do so without?

Once upon a time it used to be 'the Devil made me do it'. Now, it 'was the drugs made me do it'. Both are bullshit.



Michael will remember this - there was an add in the UK which basically said that 98% of heroin users had done dope first. The logic went, don't do dope because you'll end up a smack addict. Of course it didn't take long for people to point out that a tiny tiny fraction of people who smoke dope end up as heroin users. A usual causality piece of BS to make a (wrong) point.

A tiny tiny percentage of people who use alcohol and dope (and coke) end up as murderers or people who commit GBH. However, it is true that for cases of GBH and murder, the presence and causality of such intoxicants is extraordinarily high. Without those intoxicants being present in the wrong, terribly wrong people, you don't get the final flip of all the necessary switches.

You need screwed up people first. Then you need bad circumstances. And if you add a great deal of intoxicants on top, that's how, once in a blue moon statistically speaking, you end up with a situation like this. But as long as you get the causality chain right, the alcohol / chemicals catalyst (not primary cause) is extremely highly correlated to the outcome.

_________________
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: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From FOA sites :

Amanda is in a good mood considering her situation. She is spending a lot of time writing to her younger sisters and trying to stay connected with her family and home. Remaining connected is a big deal right now so your pictures of Seattle and home are very important to her. She is also writing poetry, all of it good and some of it outstanding. Those of you who are into poetry and books feel free to discuss your latest interests with her via the e-mail address. She’s pretty nerdy when it comes to books and writing.

Amanda is amazed at how many people care about her and adding our 3,000th member here will probably just embarrass her and warm her heart at the same time. The attention and love can sometimes be overwhelming, but it's a good problem to have.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Case against Amanda Knox over Meredith Kercher killing 'solid'
The evidence which convicted Amanda Knox of the murder of student Meredith Kercher was solid, judges have ruled.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/816050-judg ... ling-solid


Last edited by Jools on Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
From FOA sites :

Amanda is in a good mood considering her situation. She is spending a lot of time writing to her younger sisters and trying to stay connected with her family and home. Remaining connected is a big deal right now so your pictures of Seattle and home are very important to her. She is also writing poetry, all of it good and some of it outstanding. Those of you who are into poetry and books feel free to discuss your latest interests with her via the e-mail address. She’s pretty nerdy when it comes to books and writing.

Amanda is amazed at how many people care about her and adding our 3,000th member here will probably just embarrass her and warm her heart at the same time. The attention and love can sometimes be overwhelming, but it's a good problem to have.


tu-))

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From NY Times by Rachel Donadio:
After Ms. Kercher was found semi-naked with her throat slit in the house she shared with Ms. Knox in Perugia, the case became the focus of relentless media coverage. Ms. Knox, in particular, became an object of fascination, alternately depicted as an innocent American caught up in the unpredictable wheels of the Italian justice system and as a pot-smoking wild child capable of committing murder in the heat of a sex game.

In their painstaking reconstruction of the case, Judge Giancarlo Massei and Judge Beatrice Cristiani outlined their understanding of the events leading up to Ms. Kercher’s death and enumerated the DNA and forensic evidence that led the jury — the two judges along with six civilians — to reach a guilty verdict.

They paint a picture of a debauched chain of events in which Mr. Guede, knowing that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were being “intimate” in Ms. Knox’s room, “gave in to his own desires” and sought to have sex with Ms. Kercher.

Then, the judges wrote, Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, who acknowledged they had been smoking hash that evening, “might have found it exciting” to help Mr. Guede sexually assault Ms. Kercher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world ... 5knox.html
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
piktor wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I don't quite see the lack of animosity or resentment fitting in with this crime profile somehow. It suggests to me that the hold Rudy had over RS and AK must have been much stronger than I imagined. What was the hold, if this surmise is true? To facilitate the sexual assault and murder of someone you have 'no animosity toward' seems a stretch. In this case I would see some very strong drive coming into play - Raff's latent knife fetish playing out?? Agree with SA, Raff is the mystery here for me.


Lack of animosity reinforces the impulsive, unplanned nature of this crime.

It was drugs, alcohol or a combination of the two that fueled this crime.

If the judge's theory is that it is a sexual attack, it had to be initiated by the solitary male with no companion.

The victim's hyoid bone was fractured, maybe the judges have evidence that points to Guede as the first attacker.

If you are in an alcohol or drug-fueled daze, and at that young age, anything is possible. Paranoid psychotic episodes are caused by certain drugs, cocaine in particular.

We will never know just what chemicals these three had running in their bloodstream on that night.


And maybe those who will happily kill their friends for no reason, with chemical stimuli, will also just as happily do so without?

Once upon a time it used to be 'the Devil made me do it'. Now, it 'was the drugs made me do it'. Both are bullshit.


All reports say the judges concluded it was a "drug fueled" assault.

It is no less of a crime to run over a pedestrian while sober or under the influence.

The callousness shown by the three is what got them lenghthy prison sentences.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Barbie Nadeau: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1


Last edited by disinterested on Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From The NY Times above article:

In a statement released by a family spokesman, Ms. Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, said the reasoning contained “a lot of conjecture” as well as “discrepancies,” “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” and “conclusions not supported by evidence.” They said they had instructed their lawyers to begin an appeal immediately.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html


Vogt has added this statement from the Knox family:

"In our opinion, there is a lot of conjecture in these motivations, a number of discrepancies as well as a number of inconsistencies and contradictions; as well as conclusions not supported by evidence. These will be detailed in the appeal.

"Based on our initial review of the motivations, we feel there is a substantial basis for the appeal and are confident that the appeal will result in a reversal of this wrongful conviction."
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stint7 wrote:
Speaking of 'cherry picking', ABC says:

"The judge’s summary basically depicts Knox as a good kid, overwhelmed by being so far from home".

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ama ... d=10007363

Anyone have more on the 'overwhelming' element



So, what are they saying? Amanda just made a big oopsie?

"............good kid, overwhelmed by being so far from home" The commentator neglected to add Amanda TORTURED and MURDERED

Grrrrrrrrrr...... stup-)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Speaking of 'cherry picking', ABC says:

"The judge’s summary basically depicts Knox as a good kid, overwhelmed by being so far from home".

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ama ... d=10007363

Anyone have more on the 'overwhelming' element



So, what are they saying? Amanda just made a big oopsie?

"............good kid, overwhelmed by being so far from home" The commentator neglected to add Amanda TORTURED and MURDERED

Grrrrrrrrrr...... stup-)



Worse, even, they say the following as a fact rather than an attributed opinion, even after it has been rejected by the written report;

"Knox was badgered and hit in the head by police until she allowed that she had a vision that she was at the apartment when Kercher was murdered and that Lumumba was there too. She later signed a statement to that effect.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
By the way, a confession to everyone. I've been a bad Moderator. You may have noted we're well into 15 pages now. Normally I start a new discussion thread when we are in the region of 10 - 12 pages. I was actually holding out creating a new thread for when the report was imminent, hence why this thread has gone on for so long. I anticipated that I would get some prior warning, a rumble in the jungle, before it's imminent release. I didn't and was caught completely by surprise. I don't know what I'm going to do now. I want to break this thread, but can't at this juncture. I'm itching to do so at midnight tonight. I may or may not, depending on what transpires between then and now...we'll see. But, you can blame me for the thread being so huge. Sorry everyone.




Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Michael wrote:
By the way, a confession to everyone. I've been a bad Moderator. You may have noted we're well into 15 pages now. Normally I start a new discussion thread when we are in the region of 10 - 12 pages. I was actually holding out creating a new thread for when the report was imminent, hence why this thread has gone on for so long. I anticipated that I would get some prior warning, a rumble in the jungle, before it's imminent release. I didn't and was caught completely by surprise. I don't know what I'm going to do now. I want to break this thread, but can't at this juncture. I'm itching to do so at midnight tonight. I may or may not, depending on what transpires between then and now...we'll see. But, you can blame me for the thread being so huge. Sorry everyone.







I, for one, find Michael's failure as a moderator to be absolutely unforgiveable and I am going to suggest we strap him to the first Merryrot firework over Seattle wearing a large hat that says "The Thread Was Too Long And A Completely Unforgiveable Sin".

Personally, I shall not be hanging around here until 11:59:59 to post "LAST POST AHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!"

Ahem. tou-)

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

I, for one, find Michael's failure as a moderator to be absolutely unforgiveable and I am going to suggest we strap him to the first Merryrot firework over Seattle wearing a large hat that says "The Thread Was Too Long And A Completely Unforgiveable Sin".

Personally, I shall not be hanging around here until 11:59:59 to post "LAST POST AHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!"

Ahem. tou-)



beer-)
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

What do you think of this rubbish?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04/crimesider/entry6267274.shtml

I quote the conclusive line: "The verdict against Knox was highly controversial in America, but considered a fait accompli in Italy where Knox was vilified by the media as a sexual temptress".

I found this article interesting as it seems to show the steps and pattern of the the PR strategy. The building of the ideologic setting. The verdict is a kind of unavoidable outcome in a peculiar morally charachterized environment as a whitch trial was orchestrated by a media wave and a popular, tribal / fundamentalist kind of prejudice. I'm sure Marriott spin doctors made a table study with TV networks and publishers about what's going to sell among the U.S. audience.


Last edited by Yummi on Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   



Sorry I just had to see what that would look like.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

This report totally negates every talking point of the Curt/Edda/Marriot spin. They are the ones who promoted the evil vixen, blood thirsty, satan worshiper.

Amanda was judged by the EVIDENCE. What will Curt/Edda/Marriot do now?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Is it me or does the Seattle PI report seem somewhat balanced? http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
What do you think of this rubbish?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04/crimesider/entry6267274.shtml

I quote the conclusive line: "The verdict against Knox was highly controversial in America, but considered a fait accompli in Italy where Knox was vilified by the media as a sexual temptress".

I found this article interesting as it seems to show the steps and pattern of the the PR strategy. The building of the ideologic setting. The verdict is a kind of unavoidable outcome in a peculiar morally charachterized environment as a whitch trial was orchestrated by a media wave and a popular, tribal / fundamentalist kind of prejudice. I'm sure Marriott spin doctors made a table study with TV networks and publishers about what's going to sell among the U.S. audience.



Yummi, CBS has provided the very worst coverage (it had plenty of competition) of any US television media nearly from the start of this case. CBS is responsible for the first embarrassing 48 Hours program, where Paul Ciolino carried out a sloppy pseudo-investigation at the behest of producer Doug Longhini. Instead of asking hard questions in light of the valid criticism they got for their sloppy work, CBS seems to have decided to stick with its initial bias. It then hooked up with Doug Preston, who featured in the second and even worse 48 Hours, which was hosted by a very clueless Peter Van Sant. Van Sant wanted to call in the Airborne forces to get AK out of Italy. He slandered (in my opinion) Andrea Vogt in an interview he gave to the local CBS affiliate to promote the show. That segment was removed. Doug Longhini seems absolutely desperate to push his original xenophobic angle, no matter what. What do you expect? He seems to get his information from the FOA, Candace Dempsey in particular.

He is wrong about the verdict being highly controversial "in America"; if you look at the local reaction in Seattle, most people accept the verdict and realize that Italy is not a third world country. CBS has tried to whip up a controversy and is now pretending to merely report what's out there. It is absolutely shameful.

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

I, for one, find Michael's failure as a moderator to be absolutely unforgiveable and I am going to suggest we strap him to the first Merryrot firework over Seattle wearing a large hat that says "The Thread Was Too Long And A Completely Unforgiveable Sin".

Personally, I shall not be hanging around here until 11:59:59 to post "LAST POST AHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!"

Ahem. tou-)



beer-)


Careful now, or you will get yourself banned. Did you catch were he recently banned Erin89 for complimenting him as being a hot sh*t website administrator? I guess he took it the wrong way.
drin-)
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Any word from Francesco Maresca?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael will remember this - there was an add in the UK which basically said that 98% of heroin users had done dope first. The logic went, don't do dope because you'll end up a smack addict. Of course it didn't take long for people to point out that a tiny tiny fraction of people who smoke dope end up as heroin users. A usual causality piece of BS to make a (wrong) point.


Oh, don't get me started. The whole pot smoking turns you into a heroin addict is...well, you know what it is.

And I will say this...and in so doing give something away about myself, which I never do. I was in care. Whilst there, there were some who would go out and commit petty crime. They weren't good criminals, embaressingly poor ones actually and they'd get caught. Next would be court. They'd go up in front of the judge and say they committed their crime while on drugs, that they had a drug problem and they were very sorry and would be willing to go on a drug rehab waste of money thingy course. The judge would then slap their wrist, then gush 'good boy' and put forward the order they go on the drug rehab thing while suspending their sentence. At most, they got a supervision order and probation.

Of course, I lived with these guys...I knew the drug story was crap. Sure, they took drugs occasionally, recreationally, but they weren't under the influence when they committed their crime and neither were they dependent. But, the court bent over for them because they told the court what they wanted to hear...'the drugs made me do it...and I repent'.

Trust me when I say drugs have replaced the Devil. Before, when you blamed the Devil and repented, they wouldn't flay you alive, you'd told them what they wanted to hear...it met their mindset and their need for an explanation as to 'why' that they could accept. The modern exact replacement is drugs...the drugs made me do it, I repent, send me to rehab and I'll never do it again.

As a lawyer, you know as well as I, what complete crap that is. The key is not telling a court what they should hear...but what they 'want' to hear, at least what they want to hear that may benefit you. It's all a sordid game...playing the game is all so easy when you know the rules.

_________________
"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: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Yummi wrote:
What do you think of this rubbish?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04/crimesider/entry6267274.shtml

I quote the conclusive line: "The verdict against Knox was highly controversial in America, but considered a fait accompli in Italy where Knox was vilified by the media as a sexual temptress".

I found this article interesting as it seems to show the steps and pattern of the the PR strategy. The building of the ideologic setting. The verdict is a kind of unavoidable outcome in a peculiar morally charachterized environment as a whitch trial was orchestrated by a media wave and a popular, tribal / fundamentalist kind of prejudice. I'm sure Marriott spin doctors made a table study with TV networks and publishers about what's going to sell among the U.S. audience.



Yummi, CBS has provided the very worst coverage (it had plenty of competition) of any US television media nearly from the start of this case. CBS is responsible for the first embarrassing 48 Hours program, where Paul Ciolino carried out a sloppy pseudo-investigation at the behest of producer Doug Longhini. Instead of asking hard questions in light of the valid criticism they got for their sloppy work, CBS seems to have decided to stick with its initial bias. It then hooked up with Doug Preston, who featured in the second and even worse 48 Hours, which was hosted by a very clueless Peter Van Sant. Van Sant wanted to call in the Airborne forces to get AK out of Italy. He slandered (in my opinion) Andrea Vogt in an interview he gave to the local CBS affiliate to promote the show. That segment was removed. Doug Longhini seems absolutely desperate to push his original xenophobic angle, no matter what. What do you expect? He seems to get his information from the FOA, Candace Dempsey in particular.

He is wrong about the verdict being highly controversial "in America"; if you look at the local reaction in Seattle, most people accept the verdict and realize that Italy is not a third world country. CBS has tried to whip up a controversy and is now pretending to merely report what's out there. It is absolutely shameful.



Ciolino is just a class act. The way he came across in the documentaries, I cannot think of a finer meathead I've seen in many a long year. I particularly like the following from his website's homepage;

http://www.pjcinvestigations.com/

"We are committed to customer service. In fact, service is the only product we offer. Our focus on service is an integral part of our ongoing employee training."

"PJC's future growth and direction will be predicated on paying attention to the fundamentals. Listening to, and understanding, the needs of our clients, and then providing the professional, investigative support that will help them to achieve their professional and/or individual goals will be the key to our continued success."

Now, call me a sceptical bystander, but does not the both of those paras have a vague wiff of "tell us what you need the answer to be and we'll investigatamise it so"? Reminds me of the old joke; Qu: "How many accountants does it take to change a lightbulb?" / "What would you like the answer to be?"

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael will remember this - there was an add in the UK which basically said that 98% of heroin users had done dope first. The logic went, don't do dope because you'll end up a smack addict. Of course it didn't take long for people to point out that a tiny tiny fraction of people who smoke dope end up as heroin users. A usual causality piece of BS to make a (wrong) point.


Oh, don't get me started. The whole pot smoking turns you into a heroin addict is...well, you know what it is.

And I will say this...and in so doing give something away about myself, which I never do. I was in care. Whilst there, there were some who would go out and commit petty crime. They weren't good criminals, embaressingly poor ones actually and they'd get caught. Next would be court. They'd go up in front of the judge and say they committed their crime while on drugs, that they had a drug problem and they were very sorry and would be willing to go on a drug rehab waste of money thingy course. The judge would then slap their wrist, then gush 'good boy' and put forward the order they go on the drug rehab thing while suspending their sentence. At most, they got a supervision order and probation.

Of course, I lived with these guys...I knew the drug story was crap. Sure, they took drugs occasionally, recreationally, but they weren't under the influence when they committed their crime and neither were they dependent. But, the court bent over for them because they told the court what they wanted to hear...'the drugs made me do it...and I repent'.

Trust me when I say drugs have replaced the Devil. Before, when you blamed the Devil and repented, they wouldn't flay you alive, you'd told them what they wanted to hear...it met their mindset and their need for an explanation as to 'why' that they could accept. The modern exact replacement is drugs...the drugs made me do it, I repent, send me to rehab and I'll never do it again.

As a lawyer, you know as well as I, what complete crap that is. The key is not telling a court what they should hear...but what they 'want' to hear, at least what they want to hear that may benefit you. It's all a sordid game...playing the game is all so easy when you know the rules.


Michael, I hear you and I know absolutely what you are talking about. ALL THE TIME it's rolled out as a defence, quite so. But the flip side of the correlation I talk about is true as well. We take our own view at the end of the day.

LAST POST!!!!! (There - perfect example of an exercise in futlity) :)

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Emerald wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

I, for one, find Michael's failure as a moderator to be absolutely unforgiveable and I am going to suggest we strap him to the first Merryrot firework over Seattle wearing a large hat that says "The Thread Was Too Long And A Completely Unforgiveable Sin".

Personally, I shall not be hanging around here until 11:59:59 to post "LAST POST AHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!"

Ahem. tou-)



beer-)


Careful now, or you will get yourself banned. Did you catch were he recently banned Erin89 for complimenting him as being a hot sh*t website administrator? I guess he took it the wrong way.
drin-)



I would respond FBN...but unfortunately midnight has interrupted us. Now I have to break the thread :)

Stand by.

_________________
"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 Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Is it me or does the Seattle PI report seem somewhat balanced? http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416178_knox04.html


I think Vogt has been constantly tweaking today to impart what could be described as an objective viewpoint. But part of that could be attributable to the radical about-face taken by the Knox family themselves. Look at their statement once again:

"In our opinion, there is a lot of conjecture in these motivations, a number of discrepancies as well as a number of inconsistencies and contradictions; as well as conclusions not supported by evidence. These will be detailed in the appeal.

"Based on our initial review of the motivations, we feel there is a substantial basis for the appeal and are confident that the appeal will result in a reversal of this wrongful conviction."


What on earth happened to the Loco-Prosecutor Clown Cops Hitting People Over The Head Kangaroo Court rehtoric? This actually comes across as a coherent, reasonable statement at the begining of an appeal process (nevermind that the appeal process is automatic).
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
From NY Times by Rachel Donadio:
After Ms. Kercher was found semi-naked with her throat slit in the house she shared with Ms. Knox in Perugia, the case became the focus of relentless media coverage. Ms. Knox, in particular, became an object of fascination, alternately depicted as an innocent American caught up in the unpredictable wheels of the Italian justice system and as a pot-smoking wild child capable of committing murder in the heat of a sex game.

In their painstaking reconstruction of the case, Judge Giancarlo Massei and Judge Beatrice Cristiani outlined their understanding of the events leading up to Ms. Kercher’s death and enumerated the DNA and forensic evidence that led the jury — the two judges along with six civilians — to reach a guilty verdict.

They paint a picture of a debauched chain of events in which Mr. Guede, knowing that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were being “intimate” in Ms. Knox’s room, “gave in to his own desires” and sought to have sex with Ms. Kercher.

Then, the judges wrote, Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, who acknowledged they had been smoking hash that evening, “might have found it exciting” to help Mr. Guede sexually assault Ms. Kercher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world ... 5knox.html


Quote:
In a statement released by a family spokesman, Ms. Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, said the reasoning contained “a lot of conjecture” as well as “discrepancies,” “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” and “conclusions not supported by evidence.” They said they had instructed their lawyers to begin an appeal immediately.


Has anyone seen this statement from Curt/Edda? I'd like to read the full statement.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Shirley wrote:
lauowolf wrote:

The Youtube video of Amanda drunk. If I remember correctly, it's just her and a bunch of guys.
As a parent this gives me the utter creeps - one of the first Don't-Get-Yourself-Raped rules for my kid would be to stay out of exactly that situation.
(Do not be the only girl with a bunch of drunk guys. Avoid frat parties.)
I think what is going on here is Amanda the risk taker, Amanda the tough girl hanging out with the guys, and Amanda the Center of the Universe having the attention of the guys at Party Central.
And this is her behavior in her home territory, where she understands all the rules - even the ones she's breaking.
It is edgy behavior at best.
Take this scene as a precursor to the murder - Amanda and a couple of guys hanging out getting wasted.


Not every "bunch of guys" or "bunch of drunk guys" are potential rapists, at whatever age, yikes. And not every female hanging out with them is a "risk taker" or "tough girl," "having the attention" or engaging in "edgy behavior." Sometimes people hang out because they like each other, work together, have class together, whatever, geeesh.

Ummmm...
Did you see the YouTube video?
Amanda is utterly blasted.
And, yes, maybe I am reading backwards here a little too much.
In Perugia, Amanda wiped out of her mind, hanging out with two young men she hardly knew, helped assault and murder another girl.
Maybe it makes me look at the video and see someone acting out, a risk taker, someone a bit edgy.
Doesn't seem to be overstating things much.
And yes, I agree.
Not every group of young men will go ballistic, even if drunk or high.
But take a look at rape statistics - a LOT of girls get raped - and consider too that most rapes are never reported.

Did I say every such group is composed of thugs? Nope.
But, a group of thugs will look like look like that.
Did I say any girl hanging out with such a group is looking for trouble? Nope.
But that's what someone looking for trouble looks like.


And, yes, I would stand by the advice.
And I think any one familiar with US campus drinking situations would give similar advice to any young woman they cared about.
Colleges and universities work very hard to suppress information about campus crime, but anyone associated with any institution of higher learning here knows of more than a handful of really ugly rape stories and the attendant cover-ups.
Literally - off the top of my head I have six of them I know about.
No charges pressed in any of them, and fewer than half even reported.
(Hey, if it isn't reported, it didn't happen. No crime here Mom and Dad!
All you have to do is make the victim shut up.)
Colleges and universities do public relations too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Jools wrote:
From NY Times by Rachel Donadio:
After Ms. Kercher was found semi-naked with her throat slit in the house she shared with Ms. Knox in Perugia, the case became the focus of relentless media coverage. Ms. Knox, in particular, became an object of fascination, alternately depicted as an innocent American caught up in the unpredictable wheels of the Italian justice system and as a pot-smoking wild child capable of committing murder in the heat of a sex game.

In their painstaking reconstruction of the case, Judge Giancarlo Massei and Judge Beatrice Cristiani outlined their understanding of the events leading up to Ms. Kercher’s death and enumerated the DNA and forensic evidence that led the jury — the two judges along with six civilians — to reach a guilty verdict.

They paint a picture of a debauched chain of events in which Mr. Guede, knowing that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were being “intimate” in Ms. Knox’s room, “gave in to his own desires” and sought to have sex with Ms. Kercher.

Then, the judges wrote, Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, who acknowledged they had been smoking hash that evening, “might have found it exciting” to help Mr. Guede sexually assault Ms. Kercher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world ... 5knox.html


Quote:
In a statement released by a family spokesman, Ms. Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, said the reasoning contained “a lot of conjecture” as well as “discrepancies,” “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” and “conclusions not supported by evidence.” They said they had instructed their lawyers to begin an appeal immediately.


Has anyone seen this statement from Curt/Edda? I'd like to read the full statement.



If one of the addressees on their press release list publishes it verbatim, you'll see it. One place you might try is the West Seattle blog, which in the past has published the full PR.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:19 am   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD   

picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: New discussion thread opened here: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 15 of 15 [ 3716 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,891,572 Views