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 12:59 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:59 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 15 [ 3716 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:45 am   Post subject: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - March 4, 10   

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






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 1 - Jan 24, 10

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)

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


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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File


Another day - another thread. Thank you, Michael and Skep!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File


Another day - another thread. Thank you, Michael and Skep!



This thread will be devoted to helping Donnie write his master's thesis on athletic murderers and sociopaths. I'm joking.:)

_________________
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:15 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Donnie in the previous thread wrote:
Actually , yes. It's in the sent messages box, dated Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:35 am. It can be easily checked by admins or in any other simple way.


No it cannot. Admins do not have access to the membership's PM boxes. This is for member privacy. Therefore, we cannot check if or when a certain PM was sent by one member to another.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File


Another day - another thread. Thank you, Michael and Skep!



Hi FBN. The past thread had got to the length where it needed to be locked and by UK time, it is now Monday 25th and I believe the Sollecitos' trial is due to begin today and the fundraiser will also be happening soon, so there should be plenty more news. If I didn't lock the old thread now, I wouldn't be able to for a few days. Apologies to anyone if I broke the flow.

_________________
"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 Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hi, just saying hello! :-)
Sollecitos''s trial already? wow! time flies.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote


"Hi FBN. The past thread had got to the length where it needed to be locked and by UK time, it is now Monday 25th and I believe the Sollecitos' trial is due to begin today and the fundraiser will also be happening soon, so there should be plenty more news. If I didn't lock the old thread now, I wouldn't be able to for a few days. Apologies to anyone if I broke the flow".

Hello Michael,

If ever a thread needed breaking it was that one. Thanks
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:46 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

If Donnie needs another sporting murderer for his thesis, there is Rae Carruth, a former wide receiver for the NFL Carolina Panthers, who arranged and supervised the shooting of his pregnant girlfriend in 2001, in order to avoid paternity payments for the unborn child. His girlfriend died but the child was saved. He is currently in prison.
And if Donnie is looking for another jealous homicidal female, there's always Amy Fisher, the famed Long Island Lolita/porn star/striptease artist and underage lover of Joey Buttafuoco. Amy is famous for shooting Joey's wife Mary Jo in the face, and later saying she had no sympathy for her. She is currently stripping this very evening in NY to raise funds for Haiti.
The former ice skater/female boxer/all-round whacko, Tonya Harding, from the Pacific NW USA (what's in the water up there, Skep?) warrants mention as an interesting sporting semi-criminal due to her involvement in the the attack on fellow competitor Nancy Kerrigan's knee. Check her out, Donnie - you'll find a whole mess of psychology there. Maybe you can track her down and get an interview - you should try Amy also. (Trivia: Tonya once fought a bout with Bill Clinton's nemesis Paula Jones on Fox TV)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:26 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - how come she's not in gaol?   

tigerfish wrote:
If Donnie needs another sporting murderer for his thesis, there is Rae Carruth, a former wide receiver for the NFL Carolina Panthers, who arranged and supervised the shooting of his pregnant girlfriend in 2001, in order to avoid paternity payments for the unborn child. His girlfriend died but the child was saved. He is currently in prison.
And if Donnie is looking for another jealous homicidal female, there's always Amy Fisher, the famed Long Island Lolita/porn star/striptease artist and underage lover of Joey Buttafuoco. Amy is famous for shooting Joey's wife Mary Jo in the face, and later saying she had no sympathy for her. She is currently stripping this very evening in NY to raise funds for Haiti.
The former ice skater/female boxer/all-round whacko, Tonya Harding, from the Pacific NW USA (what's in the water up there, Skep?) warrants mention as an interesting sporting semi-criminal due to her involvement in the the attack on fellow competitor Nancy Kerrigan's knee. Check her out, Donnie - you'll find a whole mess of psychology there. Maybe you can track her down and get an interview - you should try Amy also. (Trivia: Tonya once fought a bout with Bill Clinton's nemesis Paula Jones on Fox TV)


Tigerfish, hello there.
How come Amy is on the loose? Did she kill Buttafuoco's wife or merely wound/deface her? Buttafuoco's name is oddly resonant (=firethrower in English). What a bevy of hideously cruel females!!! I remember the nasty, vicious Harding whacking or was it kicking her ice-skating opponent? Donnie has un embarras de choix for his research it seems! And they try and tell us that sport is character-building!!!!! I'll stick to literature any day.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I would be surprised if any university gave out masters degrees in sports psychology for studies in men that murder; athletes or otherwise. That usually falls under the category of sociology. Sports psych is an entirely different subject.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:02 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I am a little puzzled as to why we seem to be talking almost exclusively about each other, atm :)

If everyone is bored then I have lots of digging to do to counter absurd claims at jref and I have spent my free time this evening doing just that. Handers would be welcome because you all know how long it takes to find stuff amongst the wealth of information on this board :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I don't know why we're talking about pretend masters degrees.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:21 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

A new thread! Great timing and thank you. b-((

I was thinking about purchasing the Russell book on Amazon and went to have a look. While there I took a look at Candace Dempsey's upcoming 352 pages-o-lies and noticed that people are having a little contest about who can come up with the most unique "tag" to associate with her paperback for the beach. Also, 1 very astute comment already noted.

From the AMAZON Website:

Quote:
Suggested Tags from Similar Products (What's this?)

Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).

Check a corresponding box or enter your own tags in the field below.

true crime(21)
chelsea goldstein(10)
farce(8) cl-)
fraud(8) cl-)
libel(6) cl-)
fail(5) cl-)
fantasy(4)
cl-)
ann rule(8)
the truth(4)
best true crime(4)


Your tags: Add your first tag


Here's my own tag: fc-))


The reality of the release is almost here and I still can't believe this woman will be making money off the murder of Meredith Kercher. Candace, your friendz and family must be so proud - is this your greatest accomplishment? Revolting.


rt-))

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I`ll keep this brief as I'm postin off my kid's Wii thingy as I've had some issues with my electrics at home. I graduated with a Bsc in psychology in 1995 , not that this makes me an expert or anything but having some knowlege of the difference between psych and sports psyh, one is about motivation while the other is about motivating. Donnie, unless the course content has changed radically in the last 15 years I would suggest that unless your thesis is going to postulate that jack the ripper was W G Grace, your heading for a resit.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:36 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

don't know why I posted that about perugia shock - what can anyone do about it anyway - out
Top Profile 

Offline GameOver


Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:25 am

Posts: 42

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:41 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I cannot remember who was wondering about group dynamics and people with no prior recorded history of violence or major criminal actions but I wanted to add the following link which describes " The Lucifer Effect".

This book was written by well-renowned psychologist Philip Zimbardo. He performed the famous 'prison study' a few decades ago where he took Stanford University students who were deemed free of mental illness or pre-existing conditions prior to the study and separated them into 'prisoners' and 'jailers/wardens' and the dynamic which resulted. His work goes into what happens in group forces, what can lead to 'groupthink', and the challenge of society to accept seemingly 'good' people who commit atrocious acts.

He also has updated his research in regards to the treatment of detainees and prisoner abuses in the Abu Ghraib situation.

http://www.thelucifereffect.com

May seem unrelated intially but his research encompasses a lot of information on studies of organizational behavior.

I have been reading through pages and pages of these threads and have finally been able to 'jump rope' in and add a little bit. Hope everyone is doing well!

-GameOver
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline GameOver


Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:25 am

Posts: 42

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:14 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"Why We Conform: The Power of Groups"

http://www.lucifereffect.com/guide_conform.htm

"Informative conformity often occurs in situations in which there is high uncertainty and ambiguity. In an unfamiliar situation, we are likely to shape our behavior to match that of others. The actions of others inform us of the customs and accepted practices in a situation. Others inform us of what is right to do, how to behave in new situations.

In addition to conforming to the group norms due to lack of knowledge, we also conform when we want to be liked by the group. This type of conformity, called normative conformity, is the dominant form of social conformity when we are concerned about making a good impression in front of a group. Though we may disagree secretly with the group opinion, we may verbally adopt the group stance so that we seem like a team player rather than a deviant. "

*****


Ahhh..and for the FOA and willfully ignorant media outlets in general, the term 'truthiness', made famous by Stephen Colbert, political satirist, comes to mind:

"In satire, truthiness is a 'truth' that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]"

"Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word…
It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?…
Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I "feel" it to be true, but that "I" feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality." -Stephen Colbert, The Onion interview

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

Cheers,
GameOver
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:15 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael,

Sorry, cocked up the quotes again. I think I've spotted the error. I'd saved my reply to Catnip. So I'll repost it when the I'm sure I've got the hang of quotes, quoting only the relevant bits of the original post. That should make it much shorter.

Thanks
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Machine,

Kolomani - What do you think about the suggestions that the Sollecito family offered money to him to disappear?. I think it unlikely, they thought political connections would solve everthing.

Of course we'll need to wait and see the 'Motivations', but I think the jury would give less wieght to Kolimani's testimony because even if he was in the area, which seems likely, he is hardly a disinterested party, like Allessandra Formica?. He could have sold drugs to AK,RG and RS, or been involved in some other way.

In which case why believe him any more than the three convicted?.

Alternatively, he was around the cottage that night, saw the breakdown truck, but nothing else of relevance, and thought he could make a quick buck out of interviews with the press?.

I think AF did see the North Africian, but he may have no involvement at all ..... These are a couple of things which we may learn about when one of the convicted finally comes clean, which I think will happen sooner or later.
Top Profile 

Offline lamaha


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:08 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:57 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
Bard said in the previous thread:

Hi lamaha - very interesting cultural perspective. Thank you. I wonder who would not be slightly taken aback though, to be honest. I think 'Washbag-gate' is one of those passive/aggressive and certainly immature behaviours which typify a recently 'off the leash' teen. I came across it as a mature student at Uni. some while back. I was just staggered at the aggressively promiscuous stances some of the young women took, and genuinely worried for them. This was borne out later by the number who ended up in tears needing a hug and in one case an abortion, and in another, medical treatment for genital herpes, poor girl. Another left University altogether in an emotional mess and the other just used to come to my room and curl up on the end of the bed to sleep. They just seemed to go into meltdown! It seemed to be a phase they went through. I was shocked at the risk they were putting themselves at. But in the middle of it they could not be cautioned, and ignored my warnings and just ploughed on. It seemed to be some sort of cultural rite they felt driven by. And all barely 18. Just kids.


The funny thing is that in my youth I was considered wild and outrageous; and now the things I was up to seem all so very tame! The boundaries are being pushed back constantly... I wonder where it will all end. On my regular board there's a certain group who might argue, for instance, that voluntary prostitution is an acceptable profession just like every other and that the only problem is the stigma attached to it. I am just waiting to see if these ladies (and men) will still be of that opinion when they have daughters of their own!

In discussing the Amanda Knox case, they seemed most offended by the media's obsession with AK's "liberated sexuality" and seemed to be supporting her based on that element alone; she lived an "empowered" life and those who are against her feel threatened etc etc. The worst insult they can throw at you is "judgmental". It's a writers' board and a couple of them write hard-core pornography so sometimes one needs to walk on eggshells not to "offend".

Any perceived criticism of their sexual choices results in an outbreak of rage, and similarly I believe that any straight-talking from Meredith might very well have fuelled such anger; which atits core is in fact just insecurity. The fact that Meredith was attractive to men that Amanda liked (RS as well as the fellow downstairs) would have added insult to injury; requiring, perhaps, "revenge".

Most of my friends live in South London and when I visit them I take the A23 through Coulsden. I shall always think of Meredith on such occasions.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:13 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jester wrote:
I would be surprised if any university gave out masters degrees in sports psychology for studies in men that murder; athletes or otherwise. That usually falls under the category of sociology. Sports psych is an entirely different subject.


Actually, my supervisor (or whatever, i don't know how to call him in english), gave me hard times when he learned about the subject of my work and after some chats, he decided that we should give it a try. It doesn't matter what the subject is, however it must contain elements of pscyhology etc. Plus, 1/4 of my classes were sociology. All kinds of sociology.
Forr example, my buddy, who's studying social work, writes his thesis about tennis and how (being a tennis pro) is its influence on your adult life.(got no idea if i wrote that correclty). So as you can see you can have all kinds of variations. Just have to stick to some basic elements of your major.

And thanks EVERYONE for your feedback, very special thanks to Skep. All the suggestions are great and i really appreciate it.

Tiziano, sport is character building, it helps so much in developing a personality, i could talk about it for hours, but as you've said-it's not that easy and sometimes something goes terribly wrong.

edit, typos.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Donnie said:

Quote:
Actually, my supervisor (or whatever, i don't know how to call him in english),...


Donnie, I think some people would call such a person a "thesis director". To be confirmed by a native English speaker maybe.

On another topic,

I sometimes like silly challenges, so I looked for and was able to track down that photo of Amanda Knox working as a barista at the "World Cup", using Google and some of the key word hints that you mentioned ealier :)
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

French Mom wrote:
Donnie said:

Quote:
Actually, my supervisor (or whatever, i don't know how to call him in english),...


Donnie, I think some people would call such a person a "thesis director". To be confirmed by a native English speaker maybe.

On another topic,

I sometimes like silly challenges, so I looked for and was able to track down that photo of Amanda Knox working as a barista at the "World Cup", using Google and some of the key word hints that you mentioned ealier :)


Then "thesis director " it is! Thank you.
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

For crying out loud Donnie, give it a rest!
Shouldn't we be discussing the case? Whether or not we accept what Donnie has to say regarding his thesis is immaterial and I suggest we keep it to our selves. Do we really want this site to deteriorate like this?

In an effort to get myself back on track. I am ready to accept that some of the evidence is questionable. For example, one could question the DNA on the knife, one could question the times of the arrival of the police and one could question that the witnesses are lying or mistaken. Questioning is one thing but it is not proof that things are not as presented. What matters to me is the totality of the evidence. For Knox and Sollecito to be innocent, every witness statement, every bit of forensics and every telephone record must be wrong. How likely is that? If one puts all the evidence in with all the lies that they have told, they must be guilty.

As far as motivation is concerned, I don't think that we will ever know, unless one of them comes up with a credible confession. For that reason, I decline to have an opinion. I do have an opinion on the evidence, though. Although it has been questioned, I believe that the prosecution has answered those questions well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Bilko,I was aksed to answer, sorry for off topic. It is the last time...! I'll give it a rest.

Bard says:
Quote:
As you are studying psychology, could you say why someone would hang around in a hostile environment whilst seeming impervious to the atmosphere gathering around them? Do you think they might be someone with an investment in staying put perhaps? Hmmm? Most people would just bugger off, but some just keep hanging in there. It's curious psychology isn't it? 'Contrary' would you call it? Antagonistic? Defiant? Fool-hardy? There must be a psychologist's take on a scenario like this? What would be the assessment?


So after i grabbed some sleep and before i'll go run my errands, i'll try to answer. Maybe it won't be very in depth but at least i tried :)
First of all there could be a plenty of reasons to hang out in a hostile environment. The most important one is, one's motivation (to stay). There has to be a reason, people never stay voluntarily in destructive or hostile environments, unless, they are ill. The illness...There is one disease that is connected to these kinds of behaviours, it is schizophrenia.
However, as far as i know, i'm not schizophrenic ( :P ) and i'm not showin autodestructive behaviours, so i guess there is a reason, a motive, to stay. At the same time, i wanna say, that i don't think that the PMF is a hostile environment. You know, i was the one who caused the troubles at the first place, so i kinda desrved it.
Anyway, as i've said, there has to be a reason. And most of the time, the one that stays in this kind of environment, don't wan't other participants to know what are one's real motives behind his stay, maybe some hidden interests or embarassing experiences that led one to contact the environment. It is also often that the one's social life is dead and desperately seeks for attention, or the need to argue, to be angry, to feel that someone's listening, that his opinions aren't overlooked, that his opinions matters to some people. However, it is also often that one got some spare time or is VERY interested in the subject that the environment holds(right spelled?), then simply despite all the negative comments and things like that, he stays, beacuse the need to explore the subject is too big.
It may be not putting me in the best light :P But i;m not like that, however some of my behaviours fit my description. I guess, you know, i just wanted to know the case, i wanted to meet smart people from all around the world, the people that have their opinions, that are well educated and well spoken and i want to learn english and being a member of PMF boards helps me. It's perfect here.

So sorry for my poor english and the use of the word environment all the time, but i couldn't find a good substitute. I hope that my answer is the one you were wishing for. I realise it's not pure psychology but it would be too difficult for me at the moment to write in a understandable english and at the same time use all the terms of psychology. I just never learned these things in english. Again, sorry.

Donnie.


Last edited by donnie on Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:17 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bilko wrote:
For crying out loud Donnie, give it a rest!
Shouldn't we be discussing the case? Whether or not we accept what Donnie has to say regarding his thesis is immaterial and I suggest we keep it to our selves. Do we really want this site to deteriorate like this?

In an effort to get myself back on track. I am ready to accept that some of the evidence is questionable. For example, one could question the DNA on the knife, one could question the times of the arrival of the police and one could question that the witnesses are lying or mistaken. Questioning is one thing but it is not proof that things are not as presented. What matters to me is the totality of the evidence. For Knox and Sollecito to be innocent, every witness statement, every bit of forensics and every telephone record must be wrong. How likely is that? If one puts all the evidence in with all the lies that they have told, they must be guilty.

As far as motivation is concerned, I don't think that we will ever know, unless one of them comes up with a credible confession. For that reason, I decline to have an opinion. I do have an opinion on the evidence, though. Although it has been questioned, I believe that the prosecution has answered those questions well.


All of the above :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bilko wrote:
If one puts all the evidence in with all the lies that they have told, they must be guilty..


That's why all the supporters of Amanda Knox believe that she's innocent. They simple aren't aware of all the evidence, of all the lies. They know about the knife/the lack of physical evidence, but only when we put it together, we get the real view on the case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:57 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

tigerfish wrote:
If Donnie needs another sporting murderer for his thesis, there is Rae Carruth, a former wide receiver for the NFL Carolina Panthers, who arranged and supervised the shooting of his pregnant girlfriend in 2001, in order to avoid paternity payments for the unborn child. His girlfriend died but the child was saved. He is currently in prison.
And if Donnie is looking for another jealous homicidal female, there's always Amy Fisher, the famed Long Island Lolita/porn star/striptease artist and underage lover of Joey Buttafuoco. Amy is famous for shooting Joey's wife Mary Jo in the face, and later saying she had no sympathy for her. She is currently stripping this very evening in NY to raise funds for Haiti.
The former ice skater/female boxer/all-round whacko, Tonya Harding, from the Pacific NW USA (what's in the water up there, Skep?) warrants mention as an interesting sporting semi-criminal due to her involvement in the the attack on fellow competitor Nancy Kerrigan's knee. Check her out, Donnie - you'll find a whole mess of psychology there. Maybe you can track her down and get an interview - you should try Amy also. (Trivia: Tonya once fought a bout with Bill Clinton's nemesis Paula Jones on Fox TV)


_________________

Tonya, before the Judges. The "broken shoestring" incident. 1994 Olympics

tigerfish,

I'd forgotten all about the Tonya Harding / Nancy Kerrigan affair. The WHACK heard round the world. donnie should have a look. (There's a Wikipedia article. en.wikipedia.org) "A whole mess of psychology" indeed. And the same media frenzy: "The attack on Kerrigan and the news of Harding's alleged involvement led to a media frenzy of saturation news coverage." (Wiki)

"She [Tonya] maintained her innocence of and disgust at the attack, and got a tattoo of an angel on her back, allegedly as a symbol of her innocence." (Wiki)

And the same behind-the-scenes intimidation between FRIENDS and FOES, extending up to the present: "On March 23, 2004, it was reported that Harding cancelled a planned boxing match against Tracy Carlton in Oakland, California because of an alleged death threat against her." (Wiki)
Also, some of her Youtube videos have COMMENTS DISABLED.

There are so many psychological parallels here, it seems inevitable that Amanda will take up figure skating or boxing, once she's released. Yes, it's in the water.

///


Last edited by fine on Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote in the previous thread:
Quote:
Rimpole thinks everything should be allowed to be used against the suspects. Bearing in mind though that eye witnesses aren't often reliable. Judges and lay judges can then assess the weight given to any evidence presented. I don't see any problem with LCN DNA, ie the knife evidence, used in court. The defence had a chance to be present when DNA testing was done, they have no grounds to dispute that evidence.


Fly by Night wrote in the previous thread:
Quote:
So, it sounds as though you are in full support of the way the Italian court handled the Meredith Kercher murder trial. Thanks for the independent evaluation, and for confirming our suspicions.


What's that supposed to mean? "Confirming suspicions" doesn't sound anything positive to me, rather the opposite.

There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here, you are jumping every other person (and I don't mean Fly by night especially) for not agreeing with every single aspect of the case. Or doubting some piece of evidence.

btw: I haven't read that much of Kevin's comments because his posts are not easily readable, but happened to saw his eyewitness comment and the psychology round that subject is interesting. Sorry if you have already earlier discussed that aspect of the case. Maybe some of you saw the 60 minutes show already last summer when it first aired?

OT The weather's wonderful here today, warm and nice, only a few minus degrees ( -7 degrees Centigrade) which feels really nice after the colder spell, and the snow (we have lots and lots of snow this winter) looks beatiful on the trees and on the ground. And it's getting lighter!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Move to free 'Foxy'
Shamed lawyer's tactics may be used to FREE Amanda Knox

NEWS OF THE WORLD

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote:
There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here, you are jumping every other person (and I don't mean Fly by night especially) for not agreeing with every single aspect of the case. Or doubting some piece of evidence.



Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that nobody's out to get you:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Peggy-Ganong-Amand- ... 439ce46dc4

The above was found by Tara just today.

_________________
"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 Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here, you are jumping every other person (and I don't mean Fly by night especially) for not agreeing with every single aspect of the case. Or doubting some piece of evidence.



Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that nobody's out to get you:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Peggy-Ganong-Amand- ... 439ce46dc4

The above was found by Tara just today.


Hello Michael,

I was of the opinion that this “gal” doesn’t have a price and just couldn’t be bought; which is probably sticking in the gullets of the FOAK chappies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Geologist


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Posts: 83

Location: Leeds and Toronto

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

Michael wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here, you are jumping every other person (and I don't mean Fly by night especially) for not agreeing with every single aspect of the case. Or doubting some piece of evidence.



Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that nobody's out to get you:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Peggy-Ganong-Amand- ... 439ce46dc4

The above was found by Tara just today.


Classy, they had to get a dig in at the Holloway case too I see.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

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

76% voted they thought it wasn't a fair trial. I am assuming that AK's clan gathered the troops to vote perhaps? or an indication of the shallow press reporting, either way, have a look, vote if you want and add comments.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/20 ... l/results/
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

On the above, who is this andysconcession?

Well, he operates out of:

La Porte, Texas, United States

Here's his profile:

http://myworld.ebay.com/andysconcession/


Let's see what sort of chap this Andy is:



Andy wrote:
Recommended reading - The Borgias, (Classic Biography) by Georgina Masson, Marion Johnson. The name Borgia is synonymous with the political corruption, greed, incest, and murder that is rife in Italy. Rodrigo Borgia-Pope Alexander VI-the first man to have clearly bought himself the papacy, and two of his infamous illegitimate children-Cesare and Lucrezia-were the three central figures of the Borgia dynasty, notorious for seizing power, wealth, land, and titles through bribery, marriage, and murder. Borgias Castle is in Perugia, Italy and most residents are descendants of Borgia!


The window stickers were in support of Amanda Knox, a petite american lady that offered no resistance because she was niave. The British press photo-shopped her prison dress into scandolous humor and Italians stole her family's mail at the post office with bribery.

Not long ago the Brits assassinated the character of Princess Diane and the family of Madeleine McCann. The descendants of Perugia have hatred even against their own neighbors because they are a different clan. This is result of too much inbreeding of a limited Italian culture. This inbreeding causes deleterious genes to become widespread in a small population. They lose the ability to reason and understand human mortality with sanity. That's why why the Vatican has no issues with it's crimes against innocent victims. They gossip with amusement as they destory innocent lives and cultures.



http://cgi.ebay.com/Amanda-Knox-Perugia ... 439ce4710a

In short he is your atypical Amanda Knox supporter.

_________________
"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 Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

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

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
76% voted they thought it wasn't a fair trial. I am assuming that AK's clan gathered the troops to vote perhaps? or an indication of the shallow press reporting, either way, have a look, vote if you want and add comments.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/20 ... l/results/


Hello h9

Another survey of note is that 100 % of the jurors in Perugia thought she had a fair trial and I can state with a high degree of confidence that they were better informed of the facts in this case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Andy's review of a book as well:

My 12th grade child has not passed the Math TAKS. However we noticed it was two problems. A Psychiatrist recommeded Prozac to help with improving the neurotransmitters or concentration issues. This was a God sent miracle.

This book "Barron's How to Prepare for the TAKS by Loyce Engler" is extremely well written with lots of examples and has so far improved her math classroom test scores from low 60/70's to 80/90's range. I'm certain she will pass the TAKS before she graduates next in 2009.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Er..excuse me, but did I read that right? This is an american and he says that murder is rife in Italy???

You couldn't make it up !!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Welcome to the twilight zone!
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

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

Sollecito's trial begins today?
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fiona wrote:
Er..excuse me, but did I read that right? This is an american and he says that murder is rife in Italy???

You couldn't make it up !!


Yes Fiona, obviously the vaccination programme didn’t work.


Last edited by Hammerite on Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
Re bolint:You wrote (Fri Jan 22 2:43 pm): This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial."Bolint (Fri Jan 22 3:26 pm) quoted this sentence of yours, and replied: "No, it was discussed in the trial (about March 13) at the hearing of the police witnesses and was fully presented just before the summer vacation. (And i guess that it was used in the closing argument of the defense and that's why the prosecution came out with the new version)"

So I am sorry, but Bolint did indeed contradict your statement.
Thoughtful, please highlight the line where Bolint says the file was not presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial, I don't see it.


Sure, Michael. It's the word "No". You wrote "This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial", and he quoted this sentence of yours and underneath wrote "No". It would be great if you could justify how you know that it was (and/or if Bolint could justify how he knew that it wasn't). I'm not disputing your statement, just asking (for the third time) if you're sure about it.

Quote:
YOU have assumed she meant 5 minutes 'literally' (and if that is so, how literally? 5 minutes and how many seconds..5 minutes and 17 seconds? 5 minutes and 59 seconds? Wouldn't it have been easier for her to say 12:46 if she REALLY literally meant 12:46?) and then carved it in stone as a 'fact' a 'fact' that nobody but you has agreed the authenticity of. It has not been established and all the evidence shows she was being GENERAL, not literal. A literal interpretation contradicts EVERYTHING the prosecution and their witnesses said on the times up to that point in the trial. Please go back and review the earlier discussion of whether she meant it literally or not from the time Bolint first raised it on the board a couple of days ago.


Michael, I haven't assumed that it's rock-solid literal. I can drop all mention of 12:46 and use "5 minutes before the 112 calls" instead, and take "5 minutes" to mean "roughly 5 minutes, possibly 6 or 7 minutes" (but not as much as 10 minutes, otherwise she would have said so, let alone the 15, 20, 25 minutes the prosecution was alleging in previous months.) It's still just as impossible. It's not just the fixed literal interpretation that contradicts everything that the prosecution said before, "about 5 minutes" contradicts everything as well. That's my point and was also Bolint's: the difference would seem to be due to the proof provided in the defence file you posted.

I know exactly what Bolint wrote, and he did also mention the 12:46 timing, but I'm happy to let that drop in favor of "5 minutes before the 112 calls" and take that 5 minutes as being a little rough. The point is that if the postal police arrived about 5 minutes before the 112 calls, they would have either witnessed both Amanda's 12:47 call to her mother, and Raffaele's 12:50 call to his sister, or witnessed Amanda and Raffaele disappearing rather than being with them for five minutes talking about bloodstains and Meredith's phones. The point is that this 5 minutes is not possible, not even if it's a minute or two more or less. Therefore I say that it is proven that the prosecution mis-analysed the timings.

Quote:
Please explain to, say for argument's sake you are successful in showing the Postal Police arrived at 12:56, or 12:47 or some other damn time of your choosing, what amazing new 'truth' does it give us about the case? What does it demonstrate? That Amanda and Raffaele didn't murder Meredith Kercher? If it doesn't demonstrate that, then what exactly 'are' you trying to demonstrate and for 'what' purpose and why is there a need for so much hassle and mental gymnastics to do so...why is it so important? It's not as though it's something you can 'prove' anyway, or even make a really strong case for. It's just something that will go in an endless never ending circle for no purpose.


I'm not trying to demonstrate that Raffaele and Amanda didn't participate in the murder, and am surprised to learn that you can't imagine any other goal. I am simply demonstrating that there is a clear proof that the postal police did not arrive 5 minutes before the 112 calls, as the prosecution averred on the last day of trial. This is not an amazing new truth, and it certainly does not prove the innocence of Raffaele, Amanda or Rudy. But, it is a fact that has a bearing on the events of the morning of November 2nd, and as such, like every single much-discussed and much-debated event of that morning, concerning mops, lamps etc., has a right to be clarified here.

It should not go in a never-ending circle. The only reason it does that is because reasonable, equilibrated posters like you, Skep and many others here are, for reasons that escape me, unable to simply admit that Amanda cannot have decided to phone her mother and Raffaele his sister within the very first minute(s) of the visit of the postal police, especially without the police noticing a thing, and that therefore the prosecution's statement about "5 minutes before" is an error. The way I see it, the mental gymnastics involved are being used to deny the obvious. I've explained why the prosecution scenario is simply impossible, and I've had knowledgeable journalists and authors quoted at me, but no one has been able to simply explain to me why it is, in fact, possible.

This doesn't harm Meredith's lovely memory. It doesn't make any claims about the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele in her murder. It's just a little thing, but it's producing an amount of resistance that astonishes me. If those people who care enough to answer me could just take my obvious point, all this back and forth wouldn't exist.
~
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
Sure, Michael. It's the word "No". You wrote "This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial", and he quoted this sentence of yours and underneath wrote "No". It would be great if you could justify how you know that it was (and/or if Bolint could justify how he knew that it wasn't). I'm not disputing your statement, just asking (for the third time) if you're sure about it.


You are twisting the word 'no', it is your interpretation of it which as usual you are interpreting as whatever is most convenient to your endless circular argument, your 'truthiness' to borrow a recently offered term. Thoughtful, I am rapidly running out of patience.


Thoughtful wrote:
Michael, I haven't assumed that it's rock-solid literal. I can drop all mention of 12:46 and use "5 minutes before the 112 calls" instead, and take "5 minutes" to mean "roughly 5 minutes, possibly 6 or 7 minutes" (but not as much as 10 minutes, otherwise she would have said so, let alone the 15, 20, 25 minutes the prosecution was alleging in previous months.) It's still just as impossible. It's not just the fixed literal interpretation that contradicts everything that the prosecution said before, "about 5 minutes" contradicts everything as well. That's my point and was also Bolint's: the difference would seem to be due to the proof provided in the defence file you posted.


There you go again. Now you say that if she didn't mean literally five minutes, she meant 'about five minutes'. You are not trying to tell us what she said, but what she 'meant' and are claiming that to be fact. In it's very general terms, 5 minutes can mean 10 minutes or even 15....'I'll be back in 5 minutes', see what I'm saying? If she was wanting to be precise, she'd have given an exact time. She didn't because she didn't need to, the times had already been given by the prosecution earlier in the trial and we 'know' what those times are.

Thoughtful wrote:
I'm not trying to demonstrate that Raffaele and Amanda didn't participate in the murder, and am surprised to learn that you can't imagine any other goal.


I think you misread me, once again. What I wrote was designed as a 'question'...if you are not trying to argue they are innocent of murder, then what is the so fantastically important point you are trying to make that requires an endless argument? I didn't think the question was so complicated to comprehend.

Thoughtful wrote:
I am simply demonstrating that there is a clear proof that the postal police did not arrive 5 minutes before the 112 calls


Why work so hard to demonstrate that 5 minutes before can't work when nobody but you believes she meant that literally in the first place? Sorry, you've lost me.

Thoughtful wrote:
But, it is a fact that has a bearing on the events of the morning of November 2nd, and as such, like every single much-discussed and much-debated event of that morning, concerning mops, lamps etc., has a right to be clarified here.


Sorry, I don't buy it. You're not clarifying a thing. Quite the opposite. You're doing your damndest to muddy the waters and it reeks of sophistry to me.

Thoughtful wrote:
It should not go in a never-ending circle. The only reason it does that is because reasonable, equilibrated posters like you, Skep and many others here are, for reasons that escape me, unable to simply admit that Amanda cannot have decided to phone her mother and Raffaele his sister within the very first minute(s) of the visit of the postal police, especially without the police noticing a thing, and that therefore the prosecution's statement about "5 minutes before" is an error. The way I see it, the mental gymnastics involved are being used to deny the obvious. I've explained why the prosecution scenario is simply impossible, and I've had knowledgeable journalists and authors quoted at me, but no one has been able to simply explain to me why it is, in fact, possible.


Is it not clear why? It's because we've read your arguments Thoughtful and we don't agree with them. Your arguments require accepting many 'assumptions' and 'leaps of faith' (ie, the police car in the video was the first to arrive on the scene, the call for directions was for the first car to arrive on the scene, Batistelli was standing out in the car park logging the time of each of the cars as they came in, Comodi literally meant 5 minutes, etc,). Hardly 'clear proof'! Go back and read our responses to your arguments and you'll see 'why' we don't agree with them.

_________________
"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 Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Geologist wrote:
Michael wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here, you are jumping every other person (and I don't mean Fly by night especially) for not agreeing with every single aspect of the case. Or doubting some piece of evidence.



Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that nobody's out to get you:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Peggy-Ganong-Amand- ... 439ce46dc4

The above was found by Tara just today.


Classy, they had to get a dig in at the Holloway case too I see.



Wow. Just wow.

Not only does "Andy" CLEARLY not know the meaning of big word "xenophobic" but he's gone ahead and coined some fancy NEW words too-- "jinjingoistic" and "xenophobicgoistic." ??!!?!?!!?!!????
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael,

Is that the Sollecito family 'obstruction of justice trial' that starts today?.

If so, do you know whether audio of the hearings will be available?. We got them from Corriere del Umbria last time, I think.

Thoughful,

If you are doing the translations this time, we could split the load?. It should be short and sweet ..... anything would be compared to the main trial transcripts you did?.

This should be non controversial on PMF?. However, I've noticed that people who read the transcripts only, sometimes get less of a picture of whats going on .... e.g. often, at the end of a question and answer phase, it's more the tone of people's voices, or how they say it, that indicates whether a point has been excepted or not?.


Last edited by kevin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Sollecito's trial begins today?


Supposedly Emerald.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Kevin wrote:
If so, do you know whether audio of the hearings will be available?. We got them from Corriere del Umbria last time, I think.


I very much doubt it Kevin. The trial isn't high profile enough. We'll be struggling to find 'any' sort of media reports, let alone recordings.

_________________
"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 kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I'll check CU anyway, though sometimes it took a few hours after the hearing before they went online.

CU is regional so it may be high profile just in Umbria, and possibly Puglia ..... not much ever happens down there. I'll check the Bari papers.

Anyway, I'll set up a word processor with an English spell checker ... I know I need it.
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:22 pm   Post subject: Or so   

An example of how easy “escalation” can occur. This is group dynamics psychology in extremis.

At a club with about 50 people listening to a Latin American music group, half a dozen or so Italians at one table, and about the same number of Albanians at another table, some heavy remarks were directed towards the girls, an argument, a Wild West-style brawl, then a shoot-out, guns drawn on both sides, at least a dozen or so shots. One person dead, several injured. First statements collected so far are at loggerheads: the Italians say it was the Albanians’ fault, and the Albanians say vice versa.


The pub, ironically, is called “Il Brigante” (The Brigand).





The carabinieri sealing up the pub



[ Corriere della Sera: Milano ] 25 January 2010
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: Or so   

Catnip wrote:
An example of how easy “escalation” can occur. This is group dynamics psychology in extremis.

At a club with about 50 people listening to a Latin American music group, half a dozen or so Italians at one table, and about the same number of Albanians at another table, some heavy remarks were directed towards the girls, an argument, a Wild West-style brawl, then a shoot-out, guns drawn on both sides, at least a dozen or so shots. One person dead, several injured. First statements collected so far are at loggerheads: the Italians say it was the Albanians’ fault, and the Albanians say vice versa.


The pub, ironically, is called “Il Brigante” (The Brigand).





The carabinieri sealing up the pub



[ Corriere della Sera: Milano ] 25 January 2010


I thought that bar was familiar. I think that's where SomeAlibi is taking us all for a beer ;)

_________________
"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 kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip,

I'd better not say anything about the group dynamics operating in Il Brigante. ?. The ladies will have me by the balls?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
In it's very general terms, 5 minutes can mean 10 minutes or even 15


I say she said 5 minutes, she meant about 5 minutes. You say she said 5 minutes, she meant 10 or even 15.

I said that when you wrote that the defence presentation was presented to Micheli and Bolint wrote "No", he meant "no". You say that this is an interpretation; presumably you think he might have meant "yes". (Bolint? are you there??)

Good Lord. Who's twisting here?

I have asked you three times if you are certain that the defence file was presented to Micheli. You don't answer this simple factual question. Just "I'm running out of patience". Well, I have plenty of patience, I'm not running out on my side. Are you certain that that defence presentation that you posted was presented to Micheli as such?

I'm not talking about bunnies, master's theses, or other posters (not that these topics bother me at all, but they appear to bother some). I am not being offensive or in any way personal. I am discussing a fact of the case, a fact that turned up very late in the trial, on the last day to be precise, and was quoted in many newspapers. If that's not legitimate on this board, then I hardly see what could be.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

So what’s on offer at the FOA Café?

Donnie Kebab, great concept, but at the end of the day just recycled meat.
Kevin Pie, yesterday’s leftovers mashed up, served with sour sauce.
Thoughtful Stew, a bitter regurgitation, nobody bought it even when fresh.
JFK Vegan Special, so lite you can’t see it.

Any takers?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
I say she said 5 minutes, she meant about 5 minutes. You say she said 5 minutes, she meant 10 or even 15.


You are saying she said '5 minutes' NOW, but that's not what you were saying before, you were saying she said 12:47, which she did not and that's why I called you up on it. I'm NOT saying she meant 5...10...15...20 minutes, I'm saying we don't 'know' exactly what she meant so therefore we can't be putting words in her mouth as fact. And we certainly can't be going and throwing out all previous evidence and testimony in the trial regarding it on the basis of an utterance that is very much open to interpretation. In your case, you're attempting to claim your interpretation of it as a solid fact...a 'clear proof', throw out all the previous evidence and then rebuild it all upon what is essentially a subjective assumption. Are you understanding my point?

Thoughtful wrote:
I have asked you three times if you are certain that the defence file was presented to Micheli. You don't answer this simple factual question. Just "I'm running out of patience". Well, I have plenty of patience, I'm not running out on my side. Are you certain that that defence presentation that you posted was presented to Micheli as such?


I have already stated it. But why are you so concerned about whether that is the case or not? Is it because you are trying to maintain that somehow, this document presents something 'new' that was not put to Micheli and that 'new element', whatever it is, overturned the prosecution case during the trial? Can you find in any of the media analyses during the trial, that this part of the prosecution case was overturned, or that the prosecution 'accepted' that the defence were right? I've followed this trial from beginning to end and I've seen no reports of this. Every report I've seen has made clear that the prosecution maintain Raffaele and Amanda called the police after they arrived. You also do not suddenly change your times and just throw a new time in there without supporting it, in the summing up. The judge and the defence would have been all over it. They weren't. This makes it abundantly clear that the prosecution were retaining the times they'd always maintained. What is in that document that is 'new' and in your mind, you think Judge Micheli didn't see/know? He saw the video, he saw the phone records, he heard the defence arguing strongly that the police had been called before the Postal Police arrived. So, what 'new element' exactly, is the 'game changer' here?

You also contradict yourself. You maintain the prosecution 'changed' their times because the defence 'proved' them to be impossible. Yet you are claiming the prosecution changed their times to ones that are also impossible. That makes little sense to me. And these times you claim they changed them to are no better for Raffaele and Amanda then the other times the prosecution gave, since they are still before Amanda and Raffaele called the police. So, why weren't the defence all over this 'new' impossible time? They weren't because it doesn't exist and the prosecution haven't changed anything.

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


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:19 pm   Post subject: Full Circle   

Full Circle

From manga to manga, we have come full circle in the narrative.

An Italian news site* reported on a Taiwanese TV station which prepared a video to illustrate their news story on the verdict last December.

Immediate takeaways: Rudy is the beer guzzler; Italian windows are quite big and Frenchy-Americany; the bloody footprints on the bathmat are a bit obvious as a clue; dusting the kitchen knife for prints looks professional.

Actually, the girl-shoving is quite realistic psychologically; and the general yahooing-around is age-bracket authentic. The animators got their psychology right in terms of portraying a story. The animation itself is quite good technically.

But it is not probative evidence.

On the other hand, a visual representation of hypothesized scenarios might make it much each easier and faster to identify the/any flaws in the hypotheses.






They (the Italian news site) called it “The Meredith Kercher Murder as seen from the Far East”.
The video is [ here ].


P.S.
As it happens, by serendipity, I've just guzzled too much cold juice and now have a Rudy stomach, and won't be able to make a choice from the menu at this particular moment, because I have to pay a quick visit to "the little room" (not that I'll fall asleep there, here's hoping). Back in a mo'. Continue discussing amongst yourselves, as my teacher used to say.



* [ TGCOM ] 07 December 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Thoughtful wrote:
I'm not talking about bunnies, master's theses, or other posters (not that these topics bother me at all, but they appear to bother some). I am not being offensive or in any way personal. I am discussing a fact of the case, a fact that turned up very late in the trial, on the last day to be precise, and was quoted in many newspapers. If that's not legitimate on this board, then I hardly see what could be.


A 'new fact' CANNOT be introduced on the last day. New facts, especially one that is also a change of a previously supplied fact, cannot be introduced in the summing up.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote:
P.S.
As it happens, by serendipity, I've just guzzled too much cold juice and now have a Rudy stomach, and won't be able to make a choice from the menu at this particular moment, because I have to pay a quick visit to "the little room" (not that I'll fall asleep there, here's hoping). Back in a mo'. Continue discussing amongst yourselves, as my teacher used to say.


You mean, back in five minutes? ;)

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Just looking into this issue of gendered violence a bit more. In terms of aggression, gender and authority pressure, it seems that the infamous Milgram experiment found no significant differences between men and women; also, apparently "women would press the high-voltage buttons sooner, more frequently and keep their finger depressed for longer than the men" (Alix Krista, Deadlier Than the Male,1994, 48). FWIW.

There seems to be a fair amount of literature around about female criminality, and challenges to the "common sense" of women being genetically less predisposed to violence than men.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

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

Rumpole wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
So, it sounds as though you are in full support of the way the Italian court handled the Meredith Kercher murder trial. Thanks for the independent evaluation, and for confirming our suspicions.


What's that supposed to mean? "Confirming suspicions" doesn't sound anything positive to me, rather the opposite. There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here...


Perhaps I should be more like donnie; making nervous and liberal use of :P and :lol: and d-))
What's to be paranoid about when all we really have here are our suspicions.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael,

CU has nothing about there being the Solletico family trial today. However, I just thought that when it happens, it will be covered by that local TV in station in Umbria, who interviewed Patrick .... that lasted all evening and about 6 videos posted on youtube.

Also, Telenorba should be very interested, since they also got in trouble for showing pictures of the body?.

Incidentally, the interview with Patrick was where I hear how much he was paying his 'casual staff'. At first he wouldn't say how much .... any Italian would know immediately that he didn't declare it for tax and contributions. Eventually, he said it was 5 or 10 euros a night OR a couple of free drinks. Really, the deal is that the girl (usually) gets to feel 'important' to her friends. The bar owner expects them to bring their friends to spend money in the bar.

He went on, reluctantly, but at length, to explain, that all the bar owners do it, really it a job one 'shift at a time'. They find any excuse to organise a party, birthdays, haloween, or just invent something. Offering Meredith a job was just his way of getting her group of buddies in for a night or two .... in a way, she could have said 'I bet you say that to all the girls' and she would be almost right.

People seem to think the job was a career with the Home Civil Service?. Patrick's own business was not much more secure. The monthly lease is about the same as for an equivalent sized flat. The bars can, and do, change hands very frequently. Some do eventually become established long term, but that takes years of hard work and long hours.

This was reflected in the compensation payout to Patrick. The compensation for time in jail is a set amount per day, which he got. Had he run a well established bar, I think the payout would have been more. Again, the system got it about right. Knox got a year in jail, at first I thought that low, but now I think it is about right?.

'


Last edited by kevin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:22 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Stephanie Gosk reporting on the Mignini verdict with who else? Edda Mellas.

THE TODAY SHOW

I suppose tomorrow's report will be about the appeal fund benefit at The Comedy Underground this Wednesday night.

From the website of this very small venue:

Quote:
AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT
Description: AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT

There is no doubt that a triple tragedy has occurred in Italy. The first is the shocking murder of Meredith Kercher, a young college student from England. The second and third are the unjust convictions of Amanda Knox, a young college student from the University of Washington, and Raffaele Sollecito, her friend. Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda. An appeal for a new trial is in the works. Please show your support for Amanda and her family by coming to the comedy benefit.

Starring
SUSAN JONES
GEOFF LOTT
BILLY WAYNE DAVIS
plus
Xung Lam
John Gardner &
Renee Perrault
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Time: 8:00pm-10:00pm
Duration: 120 minutes
Updated: Saturday, January 9, 2010 12:24am
Price: SEE DESCRIPTION
Description: Tickets are $50.
Tickets:



THE COMEDY UNDERGROUND

Anything to keep Amanda in the news!

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Amanda Knox: Chief prosecutor in former UW student murder case convicted and sentenced

January 24, 10:50 PM Seattle Headlines Examiner Isabelle Zehnder

EXAMINER

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


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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
So, it sounds as though you are in full support of the way the Italian court handled the Meredith Kercher murder trial. Thanks for the independent evaluation, and for confirming our suspicions.


What's that supposed to mean? "Confirming suspicions" doesn't sound anything positive to me, rather the opposite. There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here...


Perhaps I should be more like donnie; making nervous and liberal use of :P and :lol: and d-))
What's to be paranoid about when all we really have here are our suspicions.


I find them cute, you know the smileys and following the board rules, i use them for better understanding.
And what a great last line...!
I wonder how the Solecito trial will end, even though it has just begun.


Last edited by donnie on Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

This Police arrival and timing of phone calls on 2 Nov can be a bit hard to follow.

From the following video interview Anne Bremmer is confirming that RS did not call the 911 [112] before the postal police arrived. She states that he phoned his sister, who is in the police, and therefore “technically” he did phone the "police", just not 112.

“He” = RS

Interviewer: “…He told the special telephone police that he had already called 911 [112] when in fact he hadn’t and it was only after the special telephone police showed up that the first calls were made”.

AB: “He had a relative [sister] that was in the police dept that he got a hold of and that’s what he is saying. And so to try and say he is not being truthful is not correct”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umkDJZGlSZY&feature=related

@ 4 mins 6 seconds
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

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

This documentary, that Hammerite posted...the Trial Of Amanda Knox...is it also very biased and one sided? I know that 48 hours is, but is it any better? I've managed to watch only part 1 some time ago. What are your opinions?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Sure, Michael. It's the word "No". You wrote "This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial", and he quoted this sentence of yours and underneath wrote "No". It would be great if you could justify how you know that it was (and/or if Bolint could justify how he knew that it wasn't). I'm not disputing your statement, just asking (for the third time) if you're sure about it.


You are twisting the word 'no', it is your interpretation of it which as usual you are interpreting as whatever is most convenient to your endless circular argument, your 'truthiness' to borrow a recently offered term. Thoughtful, I am rapidly running out of patience.


Thoughtful wrote:
Michael, I haven't assumed that it's rock-solid literal. I can drop all mention of 12:46 and use "5 minutes before the 112 calls" instead, and take "5 minutes" to mean "roughly 5 minutes, possibly 6 or 7 minutes" (but not as much as 10 minutes, otherwise she would have said so, let alone the 15, 20, 25 minutes the prosecution was alleging in previous months.) It's still just as impossible. It's not just the fixed literal interpretation that contradicts everything that the prosecution said before, "about 5 minutes" contradicts everything as well. That's my point and was also Bolint's: the difference would seem to be due to the proof provided in the defence file you posted.


There you go again. Now you say that if she didn't mean literally five minutes, she meant 'about five minutes'. You are not trying to tell us what she said, but what she 'meant' and are claiming that to be fact. In it's very general terms, 5 minutes can mean 10 minutes or even 15....'I'll be back in 5 minutes', see what I'm saying? If she was wanting to be precise, she'd have given an exact time. She didn't because she didn't need to, the times had already been given by the prosecution earlier in the trial and we 'know' what those times are.

Thoughtful wrote:
I'm not trying to demonstrate that Raffaele and Amanda didn't participate in the murder, and am surprised to learn that you can't imagine any other goal.


I think you misread me, once again. What I wrote was designed as a 'question'...if you are not trying to argue they are innocent of murder, then what is the so fantastically important point you are trying to make that requires an endless argument? I didn't think the question was so complicated to comprehend.

Thoughtful wrote:
I am simply demonstrating that there is a clear proof that the postal police did not arrive 5 minutes before the 112 calls


Why work so hard to demonstrate that 5 minutes before can't work when nobody but you believes she meant that literally in the first place? Sorry, you've lost me.

Thoughtful wrote:
But, it is a fact that has a bearing on the events of the morning of November 2nd, and as such, like every single much-discussed and much-debated event of that morning, concerning mops, lamps etc., has a right to be clarified here.


Sorry, I don't buy it. You're not clarifying a thing. Quite the opposite. You're doing your damndest to muddy the waters and it reeks of sophistry to me.

Thoughtful wrote:
It should not go in a never-ending circle. The only reason it does that is because reasonable, equilibrated posters like you, Skep and many others here are, for reasons that escape me, unable to simply admit that Amanda cannot have decided to phone her mother and Raffaele his sister within the very first minute(s) of the visit of the postal police, especially without the police noticing a thing, and that therefore the prosecution's statement about "5 minutes before" is an error. The way I see it, the mental gymnastics involved are being used to deny the obvious. I've explained why the prosecution scenario is simply impossible, and I've had knowledgeable journalists and authors quoted at me, but no one has been able to simply explain to me why it is, in fact, possible.


Is it not clear why? It's because we've read your arguments Thoughtful and we don't agree with them. Your arguments require accepting many 'assumptions' and 'leaps of faith' (ie, the police car in the video was the first to arrive on the scene, the call for directions was for the first car to arrive on the scene, Batistelli was standing out in the car park logging the time of each of the cars as they came in, Comodi literally meant 5 minutes, etc,). Hardly 'clear proof'! Go back and read our responses to your arguments and you'll see 'why' we don't agree with them.


This is where you are totally mistaken, Thoughtful, and putting words in my mouth to boot. I don't think AK and RS decided anything after the arrival of the postal police; I think they had ample time before that to work out their plan. I think I have laid out pretty clearly what probably happened so I will not bore everyone else here with it yet again. RS and AK began planning how the discovery would go down well before the unexpected arrival of the postal police. Filomena's second or third call (12:20 or 12:34) sent them into fast forward.

Your arguments did not not convince the judges or the jury and they don't convince me. There is nothing logically necessary about them, and you are using disputed information. Nothing "new" was presented on the last day of the trial either. Nobody was shocked to learn that RS did not call 112 until after the postal police arrived and that he had tried to claim the contrary until confronted by phone records that caught him in his lie. As for AK, she lied to family and friends in her email home, where she stated that she called Filomena to summon her after RS called his sister. She never called Filomena after the first call and it looks like she avoided responding to one or more call.

This is all available from the phone records.

I'm sorry everyone, for repeating myself again. If you think it makes you cross, imagine how I feel. And I get really irritated when anyone misrepresents what I have said. I have tried to explain why the journalists, the judges and the jury did not buy Bongiorno's argument, which is basically Thoughtful's argument, and I have done so fully and with much repetition. The prosecution demonstrated that its scenario was not only not impossible but actually concordant with the facts.

By the way, it takes me less time to WALK two kilometers than it has taken to read the above string and add what I hope are my last words on it. Imagine how much faster Filomena could do 2 kilometers in a motorized vehicle, especially if she sensed there was some urgency! Her boyfriend was even faster than she. But that makes sense. He was less than 2 kilometers away.

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

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

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

Hammerite wrote:
This Police arrival and timing of phone calls on 2 Nov can be a bit hard to follow.

From the following video interview Anne Bremmer is confirming that RS did not call the 911 [112] before the postal police arrived. She states that he phoned his sister, who is in the police, and therefore “technically” he did phone the "police", just not 112.

“He” = RS

Interviewer: “…He told the special telephone police that he had already called 911 [112] when in fact he hadn’t and it was only after the special telephone police showed up that the first calls were made”.

AB: “He had a relative [sister] that was in the police dept that he got a hold of and that’s what he is saying. And so to try and say he is not being truthful is not correct”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umkDJZGlSZY&feature=related

@ 4 mins 6 seconds


:roll:

Bremner is one acrobatic parser, I'll give her that. Yes, Sollecito called his sister who serves in a different city and had no jurisdiction or ability to help. Was she even on duty?

If I come home to find my neighbor's house on fire and I call my cousin who is a volunteer fireman in another part of the country, yes, I have technically "called the fire department" but I haven't done a thing to prevent my neighbor's house from burning down.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

donnie wrote:
This documentary, that Hammerite posted...the Trial Of Amanda Knox...is it also very biased and one sided? ..... What are your opinions


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

Donnie, ........it is.

One need not look at any more than the opening 10 seconds to endure enough of "Air-Brushed Annie Bremner's" FOA assinity to make the conclusion you request

You have probably made the understatement of the week by asking.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Bea wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
This Police arrival and timing of phone calls on 2 Nov can be a bit hard to follow.

From the following video interview Anne Bremmer is confirming that RS did not call the 911 [112] before the postal police arrived. She states that he phoned his sister, who is in the police, and therefore “technically” he did phone the "police", just not 112.

“He” = RS

Interviewer: “…He told the special telephone police that he had already called 911 [112] when in fact he hadn’t and it was only after the special telephone police showed up that the first calls were made”.

AB: “He had a relative [sister] that was in the police dept that he got a hold of and that’s what he is saying. And so to try and say he is not being truthful is not correct”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umkDJZGlSZY&feature=related

@ 4 mins 6 seconds


:roll:

Bremner is one acrobatic parser, I'll give her that. Yes, Sollecito called his sister who serves in a different city and had no jurisdiction or ability to help. Was she even on duty?

If I come home to find my neighbor's house on fire and I call my cousin who is a volunteer fireman in another part of the country, yes, I have technically "called the fire department" but I haven't done a thing to prevent my neighbor's house from burning down.



The Postal Police arrived before Raffaele called his sister anyway so Anne Bremner is as usual, talking out of the part of her anatomy she speaks best.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Grrrrrrrr.... That really makes me angry (I edited what I really wanted to say) they are equating Meredith's death and Amanda's prosecution. Meredith is DEAD. Amanda is depressed. Not equal at all.

If Amanda did not want to be prosecuted, she should not have committed a crime.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

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

Bea asks:
Quote:
Bremner is one acrobatic parser, I'll give her that. Yes, Sollecito called his sister who serves in a different city and had no jurisdiction or ability to help. Was she even on duty?


^^^^^^^^

Bea, I sure you recall that Lt Vanessa was deemed to have given enough "help", active, and/or passive, that she was summarily fired from her very desirable position for interfering with the process.

IMHO, Raffie's attempt to call 'Sis' is just another example of his exaggerated sense of self importance, and ability to make water defy gravity with insider influence and $$$.

I enjoyed you use of 'parser' with Ms Bremner.
Since Bill Clinton's dubious definition of the word 'is' during his tawdry tribulations with Ms Lewinski is pretty much universally acclaimed as the ultimate excellence in parsing, Ms Bremner places herself with very reputable resources.


Last edited by stint7 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stint7 wrote:
donnie wrote:
This documentary, that Hammerite posted...the Trial Of Amanda Knox...is it also very biased and one sided? ..... What are your opinions


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

Donnie, ........it is.

One need not look at any more than the opening 10 seconds to endure enough of "Air-Brushed Annie Bremner's" FOA assinity to make the conclusion you request

You have probably made the understatement of the week by asking.


There was some considerable discussion of the programme when it aired in the UK a couple of weeks ago. I think it is worth pointing out that the documentary was intended as a study of the representations of Amanda Knox rather than a study of the crime itself, although clearly there was some overlap. So don't watch it expecting to hear detailed analyses of forensic evidence, etc. That would be like watching the Charlize Theron movie MONSTER expecting a reconstruction of Aileen Wuornos's life and crimes. Well, that's a little too much of a stretch, but it is an investigative piece about media representations primarily, not a true crime doc.

The consensus seems to be that it is pro-Knox, and I think, in the final analysis, it is. But it also leaves her twisting in the wind at times (particularly in the footage of her in court trying to explain why she blamed Patrick), and it has interesting things to say about the way the crime has been represented, and how things have moved on in terms of reportage, in an age of blogs, forums and global media.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Bea wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
This Police arrival and timing of phone calls on 2 Nov can be a bit hard to follow.

From the following video interview Anne Bremmer is confirming that RS did not call the 911 [112] before the postal police arrived. She states that he phoned his sister, who is in the police, and therefore “technically” he did phone the "police", just not 112.

“He” = RS

Interviewer: “…He told the special telephone police that he had already called 911 [112] when in fact he hadn’t and it was only after the special telephone police showed up that the first calls were made”.

AB: “He had a relative [sister] that was in the police dept that he got a hold of and that’s what he is saying. And so to try and say he is not being truthful is not correct”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umkDJZGlSZY&feature=related

@ 4 mins 6 seconds


:roll:

Bremner is one acrobatic parser, I'll give her that. Yes, Sollecito called his sister who serves in a different city and had no jurisdiction or ability to help. Was she even on duty?

If I come home to find my neighbor's house on fire and I call my cousin who is a volunteer fireman in another part of the country, yes, I have technically "called the fire department" but I haven't done a thing to prevent my neighbor's house from burning down.



The Postal Police arrived before Raffaele called his sister anyway so Anne Bremner is as usual, talking out of the part of her anatomy she speaks best.



But how interesting that even she concedes that RS called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. Why oh why did he wait ten minutes to call his sister and even longer to call 112? Here's what I think: they knew Filomena and crew were coming and hoped they would discover the body and then call the police. That sounds like a plan. But then these two guys show up and -- holy shit -- they are the police. RS did not call the police before these guys arrived. And AK never called Filomena after RS called his sister. Why does she say she did? Why did they lie about this?

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

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Quote:
Really, the deal is that the girl (usually) gets to feel 'important' to her friends. The bar owner expects them to bring their friends to spend money in the bar.
He (Lumumba) went on, reluctantly, but at length, to explain, that all the bar owners do it, really it a job one 'shift at a time'. They find any excuse to organise a party, birthdays, haloween, or just invent something. Offering Meredith a job was just his way of getting her group of buddies in for a night or two .... in a way, she could have said 'I bet you say that to all the girls' and she would be almost right.
People seem to think the job was a career with the Home Civil Service?.

Nobody has ever said this was a prize job worth killing somebody over. Amanda losing her job at Le Chic now means she is a customer like anyone else, and the bar appears to have been the center of Amanda's very thin social life - ie. she went there on Halloween night when she wasn't working and couldn't connect with Meredith. According to your own account she's worthless to Patrick because she seems to have no friends, so she's lost an opportunity to feel 'important' which is important to her. Patrick's offer of the job to Meredith in preference to Amanda reflects his perception of Meredith's superior social status in Perugia.
Several people here believe it's just another in a list of confirmed petty irritations that Amanda blames on Meredith rather than looking in the (proverbial) mirror. Unfortunately human beings kill each other every day for very petty reasons.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tigerfish,

' just another in a confirmed list of petty irritations that Amanda blames on Meredith'

Could you post the list and who comfirmed each petty irritation please.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
But how interesting that even she concedes that RS called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. Why oh why did he wait ten minutes to call his sister and even longer to call 112? Here's what I think: they knew Filomena and crew were coming and hoped they would discover the body and then call the police. That sounds like a plan. But then these two guys show up and -- holy shit -- they are the police. RS did not call the police before these guys arrived. And AK never called Filomena after RS called his sister. Why does she say she did? Why did they lie about this?


Why didn't Amanda do the calling earlier?

This all boils down to Amanda using RS as an alibi. Now, the focus is on RS calling the police, instead of where it should be on Amanda being there all morning ALONE trying to cover her tracks.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

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

Do we know she was alone?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

In her article published on Dec 14, 2009, Andrea Vogt lists and reviews the key pieces of evidence. It is a long list and this item, about the 112 call, is not at the top.

Lies and alibis: Prosecutors argued that in the days immediately following the murder, Knox and Sollecito gave a number of differing stories and alibis.

At one point, in intercepted prison conversations with his family about the knife found with Kercher's DNA, Sollecito suggested he may have accidentally cut Kercher's finger with a knife once while cooking fish.

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

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


Prosecutors argued that Sollecito called 911 only after he and Knox had been surprised on the scene by another police unit that had shown up to investigate the theft of Kercher's cell phones, which had been found that morning ringing in the yard of a nearby villa.

Defense attorneys argued it was Sollecito who called police to report that something was amiss.


Notice that defense attorneys did not contest that Sollecito called police AFTER the arrival of the postal police. I believe this is because they realized it was a lost cause. They were reduced to arguing that he DID call, albeit after the arrival of the police. Not a particularly strong argument. If you look at the change in comments made by supporters on the Internet about the phone call, you can see that they too got the message. Comments began to appear to the effect that RS's phone call (like AK's call to Filomena), no matter when it was made, proves that he did not kill Meredith. I think we can infer -- though we are not obligated to do so -- that the defense totally conceded the point that RS called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. In addition, there was a huge discrepancy between what he told 112 and what Knox said about the crime scene. I doubt this disrepancy can be attributed to cultural factors. Between a pool and spots of blood the difference is more than just descriptive.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Fiona wrote:
Do we know she was alone?


This is an interesting question. I am not sure she was alone.

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

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Quote:
Tigerfish, ' just another in a confirmed list of petty irritations that Amanda blames on Meredith'
Could you post the list and who comfirmed each petty irritation please.

Kevin - if you aren't already familiar with these well-documented 'petty irritations' recounted in various witness testimonies, then it's way beyond time that you start reading about this case, rather than post endless fictional accounts of the events based on nothing more than your imaginings - or prejudice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tigerfish,

I don't believe they are confirmed 'petty irritations' in ANY witness statements. I believe that again it is speculation that becomes 'Conventional Wisdom' just through constant repetition. Name a few off the top of you head, and who confirmed them, if you can't produce the full list.

If you can't then you have to agree that there are no well documented 'petty irritations' recounted in the various witness testimonies?
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

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

Emerald wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
But how interesting that even she concedes that RS called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. Why oh why did he wait ten minutes to call his sister and even longer to call 112? Here's what I think: they knew Filomena and crew were coming and hoped they would discover the body and then call the police. That sounds like a plan. But then these two guys show up and -- holy shit -- they are the police. RS did not call the police before these guys arrived. And AK never called Filomena after RS called his sister. Why does she say she did? Why did they lie about this?


Why didn't Amanda do the calling earlier?

This all boils down to Amanda using RS as an alibi. Now, the focus is on RS calling the police, instead of where it should be on Amanda being there all morning ALONE trying to cover her tracks.


Good point Emerald. Shall we just remind latecomers of the sight that met Amanda's eyes when she entered the cottage, door open and swinging in the breeze, no sign of anyone...the cottage she decides to then strip off in, have a shower and wander around naked? THIS is what was in the bathroom, on the floor. The bathroom, in RS's own words to the police, with 'lots of blood'.

Perhaps someone could list all the good reasons they can think of for taking this course of action rather than running from the house screaming and calling the police immediately...


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

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Do we know she was alone?


This is an interesting question. I am not sure she was alone.


I have some doubt.

If we consider her narrative she says that she woke up about 10:30 and she went to the cottage to shower and change and to get a mop. I have never understood why she went home to shower nor why she needed to change since it seems she had planned to spend the night at RS's. I take clean knickers and a toothbrush when I am going to be away overnight. So maybe if she thought she was going to be working she intended to go home? But I do not think she has said so; nor does she seem to have spent many nights apart from RS after they met. Maybe I am wrong about that, though

Then there is the fact that she phoned Filomena at 12:08 and she told her she was going to get RS: implying she was at the cottage at that point, and RS was not. But her e-mail says she phoned Filomena from RS's house after she went back there, a bit freaked out by the oddities at the cottage.

We know that they were at RS's at around 6 am: because the computer was used and the phones went on. (Well I assume we can tell from the phone record they were there when that happened: somebody was there anyway)

Apparently Knox went to the shop around 7 am. Alone, I believe. It seems unlikely to me that she would then go to the cottage alone to clean up, though. Not unless RS was not involved in the murder and she had to actually do some staging to fit with whatever she told him. I don't believe that.

If he was involved in the murder then I cannot see that he would wish to trust his fate to her competence; nor yet that she would wish to face what had to be done by herself: two heads are better than one and keeping an eye on each other is natural too.

If they did most of the staging the night before, what were they doing in the morning? Well, if there was no bleach till they bought some, we can guess. But you would want two pairs of eyes, no?

I just find it hard to see why she would go there on her own no matter whether I am trying to make her story fit, or I am founding on her crime.

ETA: The Bard reminded me of my other concern if trying to accept her narrative: I cannot believe in this shower given what she said she found. But I can believe in it if they were together and had done most of what they had to do. Still leaves me wondering about the bath mat though: maybe not a shower but water run for other purposes?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

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

Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Sure, Michael. It's the word "No". You wrote "This was the file that the defence presented to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial", and he quoted this sentence of yours and underneath wrote "No". It would be great if you could justify how you know that it was (and/or if Bolint could justify how he knew that it wasn't). I'm not disputing your statement, just asking (for the third time) if you're sure about it.


You are twisting the word 'no', it is your interpretation of it which as usual you are interpreting as whatever is most convenient to your endless circular argument, your 'truthiness' to borrow a recently offered term. Thoughtful, I am rapidly running out of patience.


Thoughtful wrote:
Michael, I haven't assumed that it's rock-solid literal. I can drop all mention of 12:46 and use "5 minutes before the 112 calls" instead, and take "5 minutes" to mean "roughly 5 minutes, possibly 6 or 7 minutes" (but not as much as 10 minutes, otherwise she would have said so, let alone the 15, 20, 25 minutes the prosecution was alleging in previous months.) It's still just as impossible. It's not just the fixed literal interpretation that contradicts everything that the prosecution said before, "about 5 minutes" contradicts everything as well. That's my point and was also Bolint's: the difference would seem to be due to the proof provided in the defence file you posted.


There you go again. Now you say that if she didn't mean literally five minutes, she meant 'about five minutes'. You are not trying to tell us what she said, but what she 'meant' and are claiming that to be fact. In it's very general terms, 5 minutes can mean 10 minutes or even 15....'I'll be back in 5 minutes', see what I'm saying? If she was wanting to be precise, she'd have given an exact time. She didn't because she didn't need to, the times had already been given by the prosecution earlier in the trial and we 'know' what those times are.

Thoughtful wrote:
I'm not trying to demonstrate that Raffaele and Amanda didn't participate in the murder, and am surprised to learn that you can't imagine any other goal.


I think you misread me, once again. What I wrote was designed as a 'question'...if you are not trying to argue they are innocent of murder, then what is the so fantastically important point you are trying to make that requires an endless argument? I didn't think the question was so complicated to comprehend.

Thoughtful wrote:
I am simply demonstrating that there is a clear proof that the postal police did not arrive 5 minutes before the 112 calls


Why work so hard to demonstrate that 5 minutes before can't work when nobody but you believes she meant that literally in the first place? Sorry, you've lost me.

Thoughtful wrote:
But, it is a fact that has a bearing on the events of the morning of November 2nd, and as such, like every single much-discussed and much-debated event of that morning, concerning mops, lamps etc., has a right to be clarified here.


Sorry, I don't buy it. You're not clarifying a thing. Quite the opposite. You're doing your damndest to muddy the waters and it reeks of sophistry to me.

Thoughtful wrote:
It should not go in a never-ending circle. The only reason it does that is because reasonable, equilibrated posters like you, Skep and many others here are, for reasons that escape me, unable to simply admit that Amanda cannot have decided to phone her mother and Raffaele his sister within the very first minute(s) of the visit of the postal police, especially without the police noticing a thing, and that therefore the prosecution's statement about "5 minutes before" is an error. The way I see it, the mental gymnastics involved are being used to deny the obvious. I've explained why the prosecution scenario is simply impossible, and I've had knowledgeable journalists and authors quoted at me, but no one has been able to simply explain to me why it is, in fact, possible.


Is it not clear why? It's because we've read your arguments Thoughtful and we don't agree with them. Your arguments require accepting many 'assumptions' and 'leaps of faith' (ie, the police car in the video was the first to arrive on the scene, the call for directions was for the first car to arrive on the scene, Batistelli was standing out in the car park logging the time of each of the cars as they came in, Comodi literally meant 5 minutes, etc,). Hardly 'clear proof'! Go back and read our responses to your arguments and you'll see 'why' we don't agree with them.


Michael, I totally agree with you. From reading the Italian press regarding what Comodi said the “5 minutes before” I get the same impression as you that she was using a general term, much like when she asked Knox in court about the phone call to her mother at 'midday' at 12.00 rather than precisely stating 12.46 time, no one doubted what the prosecutor meant, because the fact it is in the case file. It’s the same for the ‘5 minuti prima’. Defense problem is not the number of minutes and they did not put up an argument for an actual number, their problem is the ‘prima’.
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Quote:
Tigerfish, I don't believe they are confirmed 'petty irritations' in ANY witness statements. I believe that again it is speculation that becomes 'Conventional Wisdom' just through constant repetition. Name a few off the top of you head, and who confirmed them, if you can't produce the full list.
If you can't then you have to agree that there are no well documented 'petty irritations' recounted in the various witness testimonies?

Kevin - I don't appreciate you asking me to waste my time doing your homework. I don't intend to continue this conversation, but if you wish to learn, I propose you could begin by searching under 'housework', 'hygiene', 'Giacomo' and 'rabbit'. (Somehow this list in itself suggests a certain chronology of downward spiral)
Hopefully this endeavor might slow down the tsunami of fanciful scenarios, but my experience of life has taught me to be a pessimist about some things.


Last edited by tigerfish on Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tigerfish,

Those four things you quote are not 'petty irritations that Amanda blamed Meredith for' so will you withdraw your statement please?.


Last edited by kevin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fiona wrote:
The Bard reminded me of my other concern if trying to accept her narrative: I cannot believe in this shower given what she said she found. But I can believe in it if they were together and had done most of what they had to do. Still leaves me wondering about the bath mat though: maybe not a shower but water run for other purposes?


The shower and hair wash are a total fiction IMV. Anyone coming cold to those aspects alone would dismiss them as lies immediately. It's common sense. Who would shower in a room with a strange male's bloody footprint in their house? There WAS a clean up (no footprints going up to the mat) but the person who did it left their own crap in the toilet? Give me a break.

Amanda did not shower (unless it was to wash her bloodied feet) nor did she 'dry her hair' in a tiny bathroom with an adult male's crap in the toilet. I know she was not fussy, but this really is beyond belief. Plus she appears unkempt in the photos an hour or so later. No shower, no hair-wash. I don't think she was alone for a moment. They've been up all night on their hands and knees using her lamp to clean up, with Meredith's dead body beside them in the bedroom. What level of disconnect is going on here? They've been cleaning the floor and flushing the bloodied kitchen roll down the toilet as they went. They've been thinking what to say to who, who to phone, how to have it discovered. Amanda's saying 'let me do the talking, just say this...' And then the worst sight in the world...the police strolling down the drive in the bright sunshine. I should think 'surprised and embarrassed' doesn't even begin to cover it...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

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

Kevin - this conversation has ended.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

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

Fiona wrote:
I am a little puzzled as to why we seem to be talking almost exclusively about each other, atm :)

If everyone is bored then I have lots of digging to do to counter absurd claims at jref and I have spent my free time this evening doing just that. Handers would be welcome because you all know how long it takes to find stuff amongst the wealth of information on this board :)


Hello Fiona,

My goodness I never thought of that. Although I have been following (with considerable admiration ) your own [et al] patient and informed debate on JREF it actually never occurred that if someone could check various background stuff it would leave you [et al] to do the presentation. Idiot!!! Anyone else out there that is following the JREF debate and has any relevant info please send it on to Fiona [et al].

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=5e2fc9831f6269f4824a2a358a190a06&t=161229&page=58

ps; This will cost you big Fiona when we assemble for the beer night that SA is organising; my capacity for Guinness is staggering (pardon the pun)

pps: “al” is doing quiet an impressive good job there also
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Kevin and/or thoughtful, what do you two think of the quality of the defense for Amanda and Raffaele? From the looks of your posts for the last few days you both seem to be working harder than their own paid defense attorneys! Why didn't they spell all this out in their closing arguments? I think the reason is simple the evidence and facts of the case made it impossible. It is just so hard to get around all those lies upon lies.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:

‘Sollecito's trial begins today?’

I know there is a trial scheduled on Jan 27, that would be this Wednesday, concerning the Telenorba telecast with 5 members of the Solecito clan and with two Telenorba people for defamation and some other charges including a possble civil suit. I’m not sure when this other obstruction of justice trial is scheduled, which would be the more interesting of the two.


Last edited by DLW on Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In her article published on Dec 14, 2009, Andrea Vogt lists and reviews the key pieces of evidence. It is a long list and this item, about the 112 call, is not at the top.

Lies and alibis: Prosecutors argued that in the days immediately following the murder, Knox and Sollecito gave a number of differing stories and alibis.



LIES and ALIBIS are the very heart of this case. You could throw out almost ALL the other evidence and still have a solid conviction based on the lies AK & RS told and their ever-changing, ultimately unmatching alibis.

I find it really interesting how in his post-conviction statements, RS has been careful to say that he knows Amanda couldn't have done it b/c she is too "sweet" to do such a thing (http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ama ... id=9300723) NOT that she couldn't have done it because he was with her on the night of the murder.

Funny how the FOAKers refuse to acknowledge this fact. Sollecito is in effect declaring that his belief in her innocence is NO DIFFERENT than any other FOAKer-- based on his impression of her and NOT on any inside knowledge of her whereabouts on the night of the murder.

I sure as hell hope this gets emphasized in the appeal process. The man who she claims to have spent the night with says SHE WASN'T THERE!

Of course, this doesn't let RS off the hook either b/c he has a boatload of lies and switched alibis of his own ("we were at a party, I was on the internet, I called 112 before the police came, I pricked MK with a knife while cooking...")

Lots of lies, lots of alibis-- but in the end, these two couldn't even get it together enough to agree on any of their LIES and ALBIS.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I am a little puzzled as to why we seem to be talking almost exclusively about each other, atm :)

If everyone is bored then I have lots of digging to do to counter absurd claims at jref and I have spent my free time this evening doing just that. Handers would be welcome because you all know how long it takes to find stuff amongst the wealth of information on this board :)


Hello Fiona,

My goodness I never thought of that. Although I have been following (with considerable admiration ) your own [et al] patient and informed debate on JREF it actually never occurred that if someone could check various background stuff it would leave you [et al] to do the presentation. Idiot!!! Anyone else out there that is following the JREF debate and has any relevant info please send it on to Fiona [et al].

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=5e2fc9831f6269f4824a2a358a190a06&t=161229&page=58

ps; This will cost you big Fiona when we assemble for the beer night that SA is organising; my capacity for Guinness is staggering (pardon the pun)

pps: “al” is doing quiet an impressive good job there also


Thanks :)

As you will know if you have followed that thread, I came to this case from a standing start not very long ago. It has been an incredible amount of work trying to get to grips with it and to answer on all fronts: it really does take time to find stuff and digest it and then put it in the context of the challenges. So any help you can offer will be gratefully received. As you say, others are doing the same (and Michael is helping a lot, for he has all the knowledge I lack) but the more the merrier. It is for JREF to do its own research but it is also important not to let the facts be obscured on what is, after all, a fairly big and influential board outside the criminal justice specialists. At least I think it is.

I have no special skills in research or presentation at all: no need to go through me. Just post anything relevant you happen upon on the thread

PS: how can it cost me? SA is paying!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Tigerfish,

Those four things you quote are not 'petty irritations' that Amanda blamed Meredith for' so will you withdraw your statement?.


We know there were tensions between the girls on a number of matters. One was Amanda's rather lax toilet habits - i.e leaving her shit for other girls to clear up. This is fact. That is not a petty irritation in my book. It is disgusting, offensive and disrespectful to others. I can well imagine it being a cause of tension. Another was Amanda not pulling her weight in the housework rota. This is fact. Again, if you've ever shared a house with other people you will know how irritating that is. The other girls would have discussed both of Amanda's delightful habits in these areas, believe me, and she would know it. She would have felt excluded by them.

The R word refers to the vibrator and condoms Amanda felt compelled to leave on show in the bathroom. This is fact. (Ms Knox was keen to use the opportunity of her first EVER public statement to answer the burning question of the vibrator - to whit HOW BIG IT WAS! Thanks for that dear. Key point). More points of, *hem*, cultural tension; the issue of boys was another cause of annoyance as Amanda liked a bit, as we know. She brought strange men to the house, which made Meredith feel uncomfortable and possibly unsafe. The number of Amanda's boyfriends was mentioned in phone calls home to her mother. This is fact. We are told Meredith disapproved of Amanda keeping DJ on a string at home and sleeping with other men. She was also possibly narked by Amanda saying of the boy Meredith liked 'I like him, but you can have him'. Oh and there was the incident Patrick described when he demoted Amanda and asked Meredith to work a shift. Amanda was pretty irritated about that.

Christ - who'd want to live with her given the above list! I think it's enough to make her sound like a prize pain in the arse myself. I don't know about 'petty irritations'. I think they are pretty major irritations myself. You clearly don't know teenage girls kevin...if Meredith had mentioned any of the above to Amanda there would have been trouble...

Imagine the conversation subtext : "Hey Amanda, about your filthy toilet habits, would you mind using the toilet properly because we are fed up with cleaning up your shit after you. Oh and the men you bring back here? Yes, all of them. Could we keep the numbers down a bit. And didn't you say you had a boyfriend back home? Oh and would you mind not parading your sexual equipment in public, as it kind of reflects on the rest of us who don't sleep around. Thanks. Oh and by the way, I GOT A JOB!!!!!"

However politely Meredith and the girls couched their criticisms, that's what AK would have heard. Enough yet? Do we really need to be spelling this sort of thing out at this stage of the game????

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

tigerfish wrote:
Kevin - this conversation has ended.


It wasn't going anywhere anyway.
If Kevin doesn't want to accept that Meredith, like most young women her age, unloaded her "petty" grievances about one of her roommates to her close friends, who testified to this effect during the trial, then he is free to believe otherwise. If he wants to interpret Arline Kercher's statement that Meredith did not confide this to her as meaning things were fabulous between the two, then he is free to do that as well. If this requires that he overlook her satisfaction with the verdict, then he is free to go there. If Kevin isn't interested in considering the possibility that Amanda was a bit annoyed with her "goody two shoes" roommate, then he doesn't have to.
I think we all agree that these petty grievances are the kinds of things that often lead to people changing roommates, not murder. But in a contingent world, anything is possible and people sometimes do things for reasons they don't understand.
I doubt the appeal is going to focus on "the real" relationship between the two and how everyone got it wrong. Unfortunately for all of us, Meredith cannot tell us how she experienced the relationship.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Wasn't Kevin asking about Amanda's grievances with Meredith?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Wasn't Kevin asking about Amanda's grievances with Meredith?


AK could address them or deny them at any time. So far, she has only stated that there were none. She certainly has not alluded in public to any grievances or jealousy she may have harbored, perhaps related to Le Chic, perhaps to the fact that Giacomo from downstairs fancied Meredith. One of the other roommates testified that AK said Meredith could have him. Judy Bachrach, who seems to have direct and unlimited access to Edda Mellas, wrote in an early Vanity Fair article that AK thought of Meredith as a studious goody-two shoes who spent her evenings studying, as opposed to partying.

We can speculate about these things until the cows come home, but we won't get much further than that. Hence the futility of these arguments. And hence my comment that Kevin is entitled to think whatever he wants. The appeal will certainly not revisit any of these things. AK and her fans will continue to spin the relationship in any way they want. There seems to be little respect for Meredith and her family, but then there never was. And Meredith is not here to tell us her side.

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

fine wrote:

_________________

Tonya, before the Judges. The "broken shoestring" incident. 1994 Olympics


I'd forgotten all about the Tonya Harding / Nancy Kerrigan affair. The WHACK heard round the world. donnie should have a look. (There's a Wikipedia article. en.wikipedia.org) "A whole mess of psychology" indeed. And the same media frenzy: "The attack on Kerrigan and the news of Harding's alleged involvement led to a media frenzy of saturation news coverage." (Wiki)

"She [Tonya] maintained her innocence of and disgust at the attack, and got a tattoo of an angel on her back, allegedly as a symbol of her innocence." (Wiki)

And the same behind-the-scenes intimidation between FRIENDS and FOES, extending up to the present: "On March 23, 2004, it was reported that Harding cancelled a planned boxing match against Tracy Carlton in Oakland, California because of an alleged death threat against her." (Wiki)
Also, some of her Youtube videos have COMMENTS DISABLED.

There are so many psychological parallels here, it seems inevitable that Amanda will take up figure skating or boxing, once she's released. Yes, it's in the water.

///


As an odd coincidence, Nancy Kerrigan is in the (crime) news again, today.

"The brother of figure skater Nancy Kerrigan has been charged with assaulting their 70-year-old father Daniel, who was found dead over the weekend in the family's Massachusetts home." (Associated Press.)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Imagine the conversation subtext : "Hey Amanda, about your filthy toilet habits, would you mind using the toilet properly because we are fed up with cleaning up your shit after you. Oh and the men you bring back here? Yes, all of them. Could we keep the numbers down a bit. And didn't you say you had a boyfriend back home? Oh and would you mind not parading your sexual equipment in public, as it kind of reflects on the rest of us who don't sleep around. Thanks. Oh and by the way, I GOT A JOB!!!!!"


And..."Would you mind NOT walking around naked in front of our boyfriends when they come and visit? And would you mind not strumming that same damn guitar chord incessantly or singing so bloody loud? And could you also not display your vibrator and condoms in a transparent vanity case in our bathroom so that visitors who use it don't mistake them as belonging to us? Oh and could you wash a bit more? And would you mind actually helping out with some of the cleaning chores? And would you mind not using the place as a hotel, staying out every night with your boyfriend, coming home only to make a mess and then leaving us to clean it up? Would you also mind stopping the yoga right in the middle of when we're talking to you? Could you also pack in your crass jokes? And, please, could you not jump up in the restaurant when we are out together and burst into loud song? And finally, could you stop endlessly talking about 'you'?"

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DLW wrote:
Emerald wrote:

‘Sollecito's trial begins today?’

I know there is a trial scheduled on Jan 27, that would be this Wednesday, concerning the Telenorba telecast with 5 members of the Solecito clan and with two Telenorba people for defamation and some other charges including a possble civil suit. I’m not sure when this other obstruction of justice trial is scheduled, which would be the more interesting of the two.


Thanks for clearing that up DLW. My mistake :)

_________________
"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 DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

From Virgilio Notizie: info only,

Washington, Jan. 25. (Apcom) - (AFP) - At the meeting this morning between the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, has not made any mention of the conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. This was confirmed by the Minister in the same press conference. "Amanda Knox we have not talked," said Frattini.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Michael, I totally agree with you. From reading the Italian press regarding what Comodi said the “5 minutes before” I get the same impression as you that she was using a general term, much like when she asked Knox in court about the phone call to her mother at 'midday' at 12.00 rather than precisely stating 12.46 time, no one doubted what the prosecutor meant, because the fact it is in the case file. It’s the same for the ‘5 minuti prima’. Defense problem is not the number of minutes and they did not put up an argument for an actual number, their problem is the ‘prima’.


Thanks for the common sense Jools.

_________________
"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 H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Of course we know some of Meredith's grievances, from her friend's testimonies. I think kevin was asking for documentation of Amanda's grievances and Skep has kindly supplied the comment:

Judy Bachrach, who seems to have direct and unlimited access to Edda Mellas, wrote in an early Vanity Fair article that AK thought of Meredith as a studious goody-two shoes who spent her evenings studying, as opposed to partying.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Indie, - Lawyers:

Both Thoughtful and myself are interested in finding out what happened and why on the night of Nov 1st 2007. Simple as that, no hidden agenda, nothing else. Some other folk are interested for there own reasons and find it difficult to understand anyone who is not interested in insulting people etc.

On the question of the defense teams, I posted at the beginning of the trial, my worry that AK and RS had expensive lawyers, while RG only had court appointed (legal aid) lawyers. As it turned out, it seems that the RG team's decision to go for a fast track trial might have been a better move, it depends on the results of the appeals?. We'll be better able to judge then?. what is your view?.

I saw both Guede's lawyers and Maresca on the Porta a Porta show after the verdict. Guede's lawyers where fine, you couldn't fault their defense of RG given what they had to work with.

Maresa, both on the show and in the audios of the hearings, was a very laid back but sharp Florentine. On the audios you can actually, hear and sense the fact that his job, like the judges and jurors, is to ensure that the truth comes out. He would be redundant if he simply was another lawyer for the prosecution?.

A good example is the fuss over Knox's fine for the 'near riot' at her party in Seattle:

The prosecution dramatically introduced an 'Official Report from Interpol' .... with huge stress on the word 'Interpol' ..... on the incident.

The defence then played down its significance ... a normal rowdy student party, basically.

The judge said something like .... 'well which was it?' and Maresca breaks into the shouting match between the defense and prosecution, with ahh .. a bit of both .... I think everyone was amused by the 'Interpol report'.

In a way, both myself and Thoughtful are following Maresca, we want the truth to come out for the Kercher Family, and for all of us. That means challenging any unproven 'Conventional Wisdoms'?, and some are pretty wild. Not all posters and certainly not all readers go way bejond anything based on fact.

Machine, for example, is a mine of information, though he approaches the case from the prosecution perspective. It is great to be able to put things to him and see what he says, because he always responds with facts, not speculation, personal dislikes, or insults.

Let me know what you think of the lawyers performance.


Last edited by kevin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: Full Circle   

Catnip wrote:
P.S.
As it happens, by serendipity, I've just guzzled too much cold juice and now have a Rudy stomach, and won't be able to make a choice from the menu at this particular moment, because I have to pay a quick visit to "the little room" (not that I'll fall asleep there, here's hoping). Back in a mo'. Continue discussing amongst yourselves, as my teacher used to say.

That's been a long 5 minutes. Did you in fact fall asleep? If so, I hope you remembered to flush when you woke up.

Sorry, my little effort at comic relief. Please carry on as usual.
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Kevin wrote:
Both Thoughtful and myself are interested in finding out what happened and why on the night of Nov 1st 2007. Simple as that, no hidden agenda, nothing else. Some other folk are interested for there own reasons and find it difficult to understand anyone who is not interested in insulting people etc.


Are you a team?

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Kevin wrote:
Both Thoughtful and myself are interested in finding out what happened and why on the night of Nov 1st 2007. Simple as that, no hidden agenda, nothing else


Just to add...I don't know about that. Thoughtful seems to be obsessed with what happened on the morning of the 2nd and not the slightest bit interested in the night of the 1st.

_________________
"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 fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

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

Back to everyone's favorite subject........them cell phone calls on November 2.


Fiona wrote (above): "At 1208, Amanda calls Filomena. Amanda claims that she made this call from Raffaele’s house." *****

And yet on our own TIMELINE perugiamurderfile.org it states: "1235 Filomena, having spent the night away with her boyfriend Marco Zaroli, whilst parking their car (with PG and LA) at the 'Fair of the Dead' in Perugia, receives phonecall (first of a series of three) from AK ..." *****

I've seen multiple references, on this site and others, to that early 12:08 phone call from Amanda to Filomena. (And when I say phone call I mean successful phone call: Amanda dialing Filomena's number, Filomena answering the call, and then having a conversation with Amanda.) So, simple question. Was her first phone call to Filomena at 12:08 or was it at 12:35?

///
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fine wrote:
And yet on our own TIMELINE perugiamurderfile.org it states: "1235 Filomena, having spent the night away with her boyfriend Marco Zaroli, whilst parking their car (with PG and LA) at the 'Fair of the Dead' in Perugia, receives phonecall (first of a series of three) from AK ..." *****


It's wrong Fine, it needs updating, both in the times and in the fact that after Amanda's initial call to Filomena, Amanda never called her again. It was Filomena who made all the calls after that (one of which was ignored). My apologies that it's not fully up to date.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

kevin wrote:
Indie, - Lawyers:

Both Thoughtful and myself are interested in finding out what happened and why on the night of Nov 1st 2007. Simple as that, no hidden agenda, nothing else. Some other folk are interested for there own reasons and find it difficult to understand anyone who is not interested in insulting people etc.
On the question of the defense teams, I posted at the beginning of the trial, my worry that AK and RS had expensive lawyers, while RG only had court appointed (legal aid) lawyers. As it turned out, it seems that the RG team's decision to go for a fast track trial might have been a better move, it depends on the results of the appeals?. We'll be better able to judge then?. what is your view?.

I saw both Guede's lawyers and Maresca on the Porta a Porta show after the verdict. Guede's lawyers where fine, you couldn't fault their defense of RG given what they had to work with.

Maresa, both on the show and in the audios of the hearings, was a very laid back but sharp Florentine. On the audios you can actually, hear and sense the fact that his job, like the judges and jurors, is to ensure that the truth comes out. He would be redundant if he simply was another lawyer for the prosecution?.

A good example is the fuss over Knox's fine for the 'near riot' at her party in Seattle:

The prosecution dramatically introduced an 'Official Report from Interpol' .... with huge stress on the word 'Interpol' ..... on the incident.

The defence then played down its significance ... a normal rowdy student party, basically.

The judge said something like .... 'well which was it?' and Maresca breaks into the shouting match between the defense and prosecution, with ahh .. a bit of both .... I think everyone was amused by the 'Interpol report'.

In a way, both myself and Thoughtful are following Maresca, we want the truth to come out for the Kercher Family, and for all of us. That means challenging any unproven 'Conventional Wisdoms'?, and some are pretty wild. Not all posters and certainly not all readers go way bejond anything based on fact.

Machine, for example, is a mine of information, though he approaches the case from the prosecution perspective. It is great to be able to put things to him and see what he says, because he always responds with facts, not speculation, personal dislikes, or insults.

Let me know what you think of the lawyers performance.



I doubt you and thoughtful have cornered the market or represent some disinterested search for the truth à la Maresca. As for challenging unproven conventional wisdom, if you were a regular participant here (as opposed to an occasional drop-in) you would understand that our posters realize there are grey areas and engage in some speculation about things that are not provable in any world (how did Meredith really feel about AK and vice versa falls into this category, but for different reasons). Other things have been proven to the satisfaction of most neutral observers, like the fact that RS called 112 after the postal police arrived. His own defense doesn't deny it; he doesn't deny it; and if you asked Maresca you would get a very clear answer.

I think it is great to challenge conventional wisdom but if you have to do cartwheels and somersaults and fold yourself up like an origami in order to do so, and if you whine because others offer more compelling counter-arguments, then you have to concede that there may be more profitable aspects of conventional wisdom to undermine.

My point is that you are not offering anything concrete to counter anyone's sense that something was amiss in the relationship between AK and MK. My own view is that they probably would have gone their separate ways by the end of the term. They would probably not have forged a lasting friendship. Just my own view. Meredith cannot speak to us about it.

Finally, I must say that I don't care if you want to speculate about the lack of animosity between AK and MK. But if you cannot fathom how two young women might develop animosity toward one another over the most petty things, then I have to wonder where you have spent your life on this planet? Have you never been 20 years old? Never hung out with people this age? Never seen how mixed gender groups that socialize operate? Never heard a group of young women gossiping? Never watched television or read a book about friendships and fallings out?

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

fine wrote:
Back to everyone's favorite subject........them cell phone calls on November 2.


Fiona wrote (above): "At 1208, Amanda calls Filomena. Amanda claims that she made this call from Raffaele’s house." *****

And yet on our own TIMELINE perugiamurderfile.org it states: "1235 Filomena, having spent the night away with her boyfriend Marco Zaroli, whilst parking their car (with PG and LA) at the 'Fair of the Dead' in Perugia, receives phonecall (first of a series of three) from AK ..." *****

I've seen multiple references, on this site and others, to that early 12:08 phone call from Amanda to Filomena. (And when I say phone call I mean successful phone call: Amanda dialing Filomena's number, Filomena answering the call, and then having a conversation with Amanda.) So, simple question. Was her first phone call to Filomena at 12:08 or was it at 12:35?

///



AK's first call was to MK; but she fails to mention this in either her email home or her call to Filomena at 12:08. In AK's email, she says the call to Filomena was made from RS's house on his advice. But Filomena believed AK was at the cottage when she called, because AK said she would go and fetch RS. Also, and I am looking at the actual phone log as I write, AK never called Filomena again. Filomena called her: at 12:11, 12:20 and 12:34. Based on the length of the calls, plus testimony, it is possible (and even likely) that AK did not respond to all of Filomena's calls. Finally, AK says in her email that she called Filomena after RS called his sister, and that Filomena said she would be on her way. No such call was made by AK, who did not attempt to reach Filomena after 12:08.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael,

Depends what you mean by a team?. We've both been described as 'trolls' ... whatever they are. Also 'FOA spies' ..... I don't think either of us gives a monkeys about the FOA, I certainly don't. Like a juror or Maresca, I see a need for the thruth to come out. I remember you once almost pleading with a poster 'you don't have to agree with everything I say' ...... I remember it sounding like 'The Life of Brian' .... ' you've got to make up your own mind '.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Depends what you mean by a team?. We've both been described as 'trolls' ... whatever they are. Also 'FOA spies' ..... I don't think either of us gives a monkeys about the FOA, I certainly don't. Like a juror or Maresca, I see a need for the thruth to come out. I remember you once almost pleading with a poster 'you don't have to agree with everything I say' ...... I remember it sounding like 'The Life of Brian' .... ' you've got to make up your own mind '.


Kevin, there were six lay jurors and two judges and they unanimously agreed on the verdict. They too probably wished the two suspects would have allowed the truth to come out. But they chose another strategy. It is too bad, in a way, because they probably would have gotten a more lenient sentence. It isn't too late, however, for any of those convicted -- including Rudy Guede -- to allow the truth to emerge.

And I think everyone on this board would like to see the truth emerge so you needn't feel you are part of a small committee of truthseekers. I agree that we all have our pet theories and beliefs, which we cling to, but you must admit that you are included in the word "all". If you can't admit your own biases, then what hope do you have of convincing anyone of anything?

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Depends what you mean by a team?. We've both been described as 'trolls' ... whatever they are. Also 'FOA spies' ..... I don't think either of us gives a monkeys about the FOA, I certainly don't. Like a juror or Maresca, I see a need for the thruth to come out. I remember you once almost pleading with a poster 'you don't have to agree with everything I say' ...... I remember it sounding like 'The Life of Brian' .... ' you've got to make up your own mind '.


Hello Kevin,

With all respect I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox: Chief prosecutor in former UW student murder case convicted and sentenced

January 24, 10:50 PM Seattle Headlines Examiner Isabelle Zehnder

EXAMINER


Thanks for the link. That's what I thought ... that both police and journalists had their phones tapped, meaning that it is a contradiction in argument for anyone to suggest that because the prosecutor was found guilty of tapping police phones, there are implications that the prosecutor now colluded with police ... and Amanda's verdict should be thrown out the window. I may not be explaining this clearly, but if the prosecutor is currently in an adversarial process with police, then I see no connection with suggesting that the prosecutor could have done something illegal and colluded with police in the Knox conviction. One does not imply the other, although some people seem to be attempting to argue that one does imply the other ... that the prosecutor was found guilty of abuse of Power of Office and is an adversarial conflict with police, and therefore he must have colluded with police to falsely convict Knox.

"The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox murder case, Giuliano Mignini, was convicted and sentenced Friday of abuse of office and illegally tapping telephones of journalists and police officers in an earlier “Monster of Florence” murder case."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Depends what you mean by a team?. We've both been described as 'trolls' ... whatever they are. Also 'FOA spies' ..... I don't think either of us gives a monkeys about the FOA, I certainly don't. Like a juror or Maresca, I see a need for the thruth to come out. I remember you once almost pleading with a poster 'you don't have to agree with everything I say' ...... I remember it sounding like 'The Life of Brian' .... ' you've got to make up your own mind '.


Nicely sidestepped. What I mean is that you are a couple, partners, although I'm not claiming you know each other in the Biblical sense. I just see you defending Thoughtful, speaking in the context of 'we' and I also recall that when you arrived on the board again very recently, your post where you criticised Nicki for questioning Tom's translation. In that post you also threw in a criticism of the board's regard for Thoughtful...and that was really rather random, since Thoughtful hadn't posted here for months. Then, suddenly, not too long after your post Thoughtful just 'reappears', continuing from where she left off last time. It could all be just coincidence of course...

_________________
"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 tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
Kevin wrote:
Both Thoughtful and myself are interested in finding out what happened and why on the night of Nov 1st 2007. Simple as that, no hidden agenda, nothing else.

Quote:
Michael:
Are you a team?

One of them endlessly regurgitates and amplifies doubts about small details in the prosecution's narrative, and the other spins implausible fantasies based on next-to-nothing. I don't know if they are a team but the end result is the same: obfuscation. I don't see anything 'hidden' in that agenda.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

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

I guess the Sollecitos are also cashing in on Italian TV shows with 'RS letters from Prison'. BTW this are the same letters published by RS local town magazine La Piazza di Giovinazzo.

This is from You tube:
((The show starts with a quick reporting on the case))

TV show Domenica Cinque. Host Barbara d’Urso interviews Vanessa Sollecito -18 January 2010.

Part -1-
Barbara d’Urso: I thank Vanessa Sollecito, sister of Raffaele for accepting my invitation. Good afternoon Vanessa!

Vanessa Sollecito: Good afternoon to all

Bd’: Vanessa has brought me a letter just written by Raffaele in prison. There is seven years difference between you and your brother?

VS: Yes.

Bd’: What things do you remember of him as a child, for example, how was his relationship with you?

VS: He was a very quiet child. Yes, different from me I was always more active, he was the opposite, much calmer, quiet, laid-back

Bd’: Let’s remind everyone. Raffaele at this moment is in prison, convicted, sentenced to 25 years and has already been in prison for two and half years… Last time you saw him was last Friday? How is he, what did he tell you, what does the letter say?

VS: Yes, obviously in his situation he cannot be happy, because an innocent in prison for 2 years and three months cannot in reality be well. Never the less in the situation… he feeds from the strength that we as family try to give him or his friends, and also the strength given by all those people from all over the world who often write to him in support

Bd’: You are convinced, I imagined by what you are saying that Raffaele is innocent?

VS: Obviously, after reading the case file. Obviously I’ve made an outline picture of the situation and understood not only I know he is innocent, but also completely out of the events

Bd’: So according to you, what happened that night? Have you got an Idea?

VS: What happened to Meredith? Or what happened at the, the, the… process?

Bd’: What happened that night!

VS: …An idea, yes, certainly, I have one…. Mostly sure my brother was not in that house that night

Bd’: Where was your brother?

VS: He was at his house

Bd’: May I ask you, what is your idea? What could’ve happened if your brother was at his house?

VS: My brother was at home. Meredith, you can even see from the CCTV camera recordings she came back home and soon after she was killed by someone in a way, yes I would say, rather a bit too brutal

Bd’: Very brutal!

VS: So, most surely it was not a murder by a person who was hesitant or unsure of what it was doing. It was a violent crime

Bd’: Have you made conjectures, have you got hypothesis, have you got suspects?

VS: Yes, haha… But I cannot talk about those on live TV, even because the judiciary events have a procedure… has considerations outside Court

Bd’: You already gave me a letter that he wrote soon after the sentence, but now you bring some other letter he wrote for Epiphany?

VS: Yes, the one you already have is the one he wrote Christmas time

Bd’: I will read some bits that Raffaele wrote in prison: Now three weeks have passed since a sentence that I think is completely arbitrary, I am very down and in mistrust of justice and bureaucratic institutions. I go to sleep very late and I sleep badly. During the day as soon as I leave the cell, I look around and I feel a big void that sucks in the soul from my heart. When I read or study, my mind leaves me and I feel a little better, but as soon as I return to reality the sadness covers me and this horrible world tries to suck me in again.

Bd’: Raffaele in prison what does he do from morning till evening? I know that you have submerged him literally with books as an alternative, a way for him to read and not think too much?

VS: He tries to spend his time reading, responding to the very many letters, as I said before, continuously receives from people all parts of the world who support him, continues to study what he possibly can under the situation of not being able to move freely, apart from the studies… he watches TV and then… he does various activities like takes a course in painting, goes to the libray, plays mini-football ((soccer)) board games with other detainees

Bd’: Can I ask you what kind… I’m asking you not as a journalist but as an Italian woman, how come he watches TV?
((here video stops before VS answers))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdD57Ktu ... re=related
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Nicely sidestepped. What I mean is that you are a couple, partners, although I'm not claiming you know each other in the Biblical sense. I just see you defending Thoughtful, speaking in the context of 'we' and I also recall that when you arrived on the board again very recently, your post where you criticised Nicki for questioning Tom's translation. In that post you also threw in a criticism of the board's regard for Thoughtful...and that was really rather random, since Thoughtful hadn't posted here for months. Then, suddenly, not too long after your post Thoughtful just 'reappears', continuing from where she left off last time. It could all be just coincidence of course...


Hi Michael,

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that thoughtful and Kevin have both reappeared after a lengthy absence. However, if the last time they posted before their absence was the same date, I'd be a little suspicious ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Oops! forgot to post part 2 of the you tube video. :)

Here it is:
Part2 -

Bd’: What kind of feelings does Raffaele have now for Amanda?

VS: …umm… respect, but…umm… I think, a esteem as a human being

Bd’: Is there no love anymore after all this time?

VS: …look I can give you ((…?...)) I don’t think that, given his youth, because he was 23 when the event happened, then after only 1 week when you meet a person you can fall in love fully in such a way that ((--??--)) then… you arrived at a point that you would end up to be totally depersonalized. So, the friendship, the affection, the respect, for to be fellow adventurers, this, yes I can confirm, but something else… no, is not there, logically it couldn’t be

Bd’: And what kind of feelings he has instead for a friend who is no longer here, for Meredith?

VS: Meredith he seen her, in a glimpse, two times before she died. So, is not that she was his friend, he never acquainted her. He cannot feel a big grief as if she was a dear ((loved one)) person to him, but he can feel immense grief for what Meredith could have experienced in that circumstance for her family and for him, because he finds himself in this absolutely shocking situation

Bd’: Would you like to read me some passage from a letter he wrote?

VS: Regarding Meredith…
Because this letter stresses a bit the one he wrote at Christmas, however, they are, as ever emotional letters, couldn’t be any other way.
Regarding Meredith, he says, he is not able to understand exactly why the denial to do further investigations, even on the part of Meredith’s lawyer, to establish exactly what happened.
I will now read the passage: One other thing that I keep reflecting upon is the fact that Meredith’s family fully trusts the court and the police investigation and they don’t attempt to seek further tests, to better understand what happened on November 1, 2007 in Via della Pergola. I believe they have a right to know what happened and not as it can be fantastically summarized by journalists respectfully. I believe also that Meredith has the right to rest in peace, knowing that true justice will be made, and that we all have the right to know what really happened. I believe that the absolute truth is known only by God, but with a bit of effort and work in the investigation, it’s possible to come to understand with good probability, the responsibility or not, of persons accused. The problem is, whether in my case or that of others accused, lots of errors were made in the way of investigation and nobody wants admit it yet. For all of these motives I’m not capable of understanding and would appreciate if someone could try to enlighten me soon.

Bd’: Listen Vanessa, Raffaele prays?

VS: Yes

Bd’: Yes, he prays a lot?

VS: Yes, well…??... There is a priest and a small room let’s say a church inside prison and since he is always been a believer, obviously he prays

Bd’: And your mother? What kind of feelings does she have at this moment?

VS: … My … made? ((here VS didn’t understand the host))

Bd’: No, your mother, how does she feel?

VS: My mother died in 2005 Barbara!

Bd’: Oh, excuse me, your father, who at one time was also on this show?

VS: Papà how is he? Completely distraught, like a caged lion because he fights, like we all do, but I am not a mother, so I don’t know what it means as a parent, for sure he suffers a lot, more than I do suffer as a sister or the rest of my family, probably because he is a father who feels powerless with everything that we are seeking to do to make truth win out

Bd’: I remember that, …there is no need to remind here but Raffaele Sollecito has been found guilty in the first degree trial and was given 25 years of imprisonment and inside he continues to say that he is completely innocent. You are his sister, here on live TV and you have the possibility and if you will to say something. Do you want to say anything?

VS: I can only confirm what is… that is… his disappointment for what’s happened. I know that everyone does their job, therefore, we have had a correct process, the investigators have done their job, but I believe that a lot more can still be done, if for no other reason to find out, as he says in this letter to find the truth and to give peace finally to this poor girl and her family.

Bd’: Have you met Meredith’s family?

VS: No, I’ve never had the opportunity

Bd’: You’ve never seen them?

VS: No, I never had a way to interact

Bd’: Thank you Vanessa for being here with me. Thanks truly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_mv6n3A ... re=related


Last edited by Jools on Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

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

Michael wrote:
kevin wrote:
Michael,

Depends what you mean by a team?. We've both been described as 'trolls' ... whatever they are. Also 'FOA spies' ..... I don't think either of us gives a monkeys about the FOA, I certainly don't. Like a juror or Maresca, I see a need for the thruth to come out. I remember you once almost pleading with a poster 'you don't have to agree with everything I say' ...... I remember it sounding like 'The Life of Brian' .... ' you've got to make up your own mind '.


Nicely sidestepped. What I mean is that you are a couple, partners, although I'm not claiming you know each other in the Biblical sense. I just see you defending Thoughtful, speaking in the context of 'we' and I also recall that when you arrived on the board again very recently, your post where you criticised Nicki for questioning Tom's translation. In that post you also threw in a criticism of the board's regard for Thoughtful...and that was really rather random, since Thoughtful hadn't posted here for months. Then, suddenly, not too long after your post Thoughtful just 'reappears', continuing from where she left off last time. It could all be just coincidence of course...


Hello Michael,

Well if we adhere strictly to the biblical sense regarding couples than we must consider that someone “begat” someone else, so to speak. Following on from this we must consider the time line of absence from events which according to the good book states that following the said “begatting” we must await the “fullness of time” which averages out at circa 9 months give or take.

Don’t know the stats on this Michael but you could have gotten the Biblical angle wrong here.


Last edited by Hammerite on Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Nicely sidestepped. What I mean is that you are a couple, partners, although I'm not claiming you know each other in the Biblical sense. I just see you defending Thoughtful, speaking in the context of 'we' and I also recall that when you arrived on the board again very recently, your post where you criticised Nicki for questioning Tom's translation. In that post you also threw in a criticism of the board's regard for Thoughtful...and that was really rather random, since Thoughtful hadn't posted here for months. Then, suddenly, not too long after your post Thoughtful just 'reappears', continuing from where she left off last time. It could all be just coincidence of course...


Hi Michael,

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that thoughtful and Kevin have both reappeared after a lengthy absence. However, if the last time they posted before their absence was the same date, I'd be a little suspicious ;)



After lengthy absences, Kevin posted again on 20 January and Thoughtful on 22 January. This is surely a coincidence. And the last time they both posted was on 6 August 2009. Another coincidence for sure!

Hey, I don't care if they are a team. What I do care about is not allowing anyone, operating solo or as part of a team, to obliquely or directly accuse other people of not being truthseekers. I don't like it when people come here and make comments about the board and/or posters, which is how Kevin began his return. I noted that he owed Nicki an apology. I must have missed his posted apology. Since then, he has moved on to state that he and another poster are all about the truth and busting conventional wisdom, as opposed to everyone else. What in the world is he talking about?

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SB, Michael,

I can't speak for thoughtful. Maybe she will respond when she logs on again.

SB, I agree that probably AK and MK would have gone there separate ways. AK would have probably moved in with RS for a while at least. As far I as can see there was no serious problems between AK and MK. Meredith had lived the student life for three years, Knox hadn't. They sorted out a cleaning rota to resolve the only minor problem we have heard about. Millions of girls share flats and go through far worse problems in the first few weeks?.

As you say, we have no idea whether one was jealous of the other, I doubt it, they were both too busy having the time of there lives. If there is no evidence of any envy, or jealousy between the girls, how has it come about that people are always talking about it?.

I think I know the answer ..... I don't know the history of TJMK and PMF, but if Peter had set up a site dedicated to honouring Meredith's memory and countering claims made by the FOA, Frank etc. and this site was dedicated only to finding the truth ...... a la Maresa ..... FOR Meredith, her family and all of us, it would be easier for people to separate the two things?.

As it is, I think the two things get mixed up on both boards.

Remember, that Maresca works for the Kercher family.


Last edited by kevin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Nope. Not a team. Maybe we have one thing in common, which is not feeling or expressing personal animosity, offensiveness or sneering towards anyone here, or being at all interested in that aspect of the discussion.

I am pleased to say that no one has called me a troll or FOA, at least not directly.

Jools -- I think 5 minutes is significantly different from 20 minutes and I feel that Comodi changed something on that last day. BUT you're right that she said "12:00" instead of "12:47" for Amanda's phone call to her mother, so her precision on timing is off.

Michael, to me it makes a big difference whether Micheli saw this argument and discarded it for reasons we don't know, or whether it was brought up during this trial and caused a change.

There's clearly nothing more to be said on the subject (public expression of relief!) until more information comes our way, either in the complete explanations, or perhaps if I can contact one of the journalists directly to learn more about the counterargument. (If I do, beware -- I might post on the subject again!)

Bye for now
T.

PS I'm very interested in what happened on the night of November 1st, obviously. It's just that there's nothing concrete to say about it. We don't know exactly what happened and I don't have a pet theory.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Jools quoted Vanessa Sollecito:

Quote:
Meredith he seen her, in a glimpse, two times before she died. So, is not that she was his friend, he never acquainted her. He cannot feel a big grief as if she was a dear ((loved one)) person to him, but he can feel immense grief for what Meredith could have experienced in that circumstance for her family and for him, because he finds himself in this absolutely shocking situation


Does this include the time they were cooking together at his place and he pricked her with a kitchen knife?

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

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

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

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Is that the Sollecito family 'obstruction of justice trial' that starts today?.

If so, do you know whether audio of the hearings will be available?. We got them from Corriere del Umbria last time, I think.

Thoughful,

If you are doing the translations this time, we could split the load?. It should be short and sweet ..... anything would be compared to the main trial transcripts you did?.


This should be non controversial on PMF?. However, I've noticed that people who read the transcripts only, sometimes get less of a picture of whats going on .... e.g. often, at the end of a question and answer phase, it's more the tone of people's voices, or how they say it, that indicates whether a point has been excepted or not?.


Curious.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
SB, Michael,

I can't speak for thoughtful. Maybe she will repond when she logs on again.

SB, I agree that probably AK and MK would have gone there separate ways. AK would have probably moved in with RS for a while at least. As far I as can see there was no serious problems between AK and MK. Meredith had lived the student life for three years, Knox hadn't. They sorted out a cleaning rota to resolve the only minor problem we have heard about. Millions of girls share flats and go through far worse problems in the first few weeks?.

As you say, we have no idea whether one was jealous of the other, I doubt it, they were both too busy having the time of there lives. If there is no evidence of any envy, or jealous between the girls, how has it come about that people are always talking about it?.

I think I know the answer ..... I don't know the history of TJMK and PMF, but if Peter had set up a site dedicated to honouring Meredith's memory and countering claims made by the FOA, Frank etc. and this site was dedicated only to finding the truth ...... a la Maresa ..... FOR Meredith, her family and all of us, it would be easier for people to separate the two things?.
As it is, I think the two things get mixed up on both boards.

Remember, that Maresca works for the Kercher family.


1. AK was a junior. She had lived in a dorm her first year and in a shared house the second year so it is not true that she had not lived the student life for three years.

2. As I have stated repeatedly, you are free to doubt it. However, anecdotal testimony both in and out of the courtroom suggests that there may well have been friction between them, felt by one or both. I see no reason why anyone would deny this or try to argue definitely either way. Meredith is dead. We don't know how she felt and never will hear it from her. As for AK, she may have been oblivious to any negative feelings MK had for her. This is entirely possible, for reasons we have discussed ad nauseam. Again, let me just state for the record that anyone who has been around people this age for any length of time can only too well imagine what may have been going on beneath the surface.

3. I don't know anyone who has a problem separating the two things. One is a blog and the other is a message board. They look and feel different and operate in total independence.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Shirley wrote:
kevin wrote:
Michael,

Is that the Sollecito family 'obstruction of justice trial' that starts today?.

If so, do you know whether audio of the hearings will be available?. We got them from Corriere del Umbria last time, I think.

Thoughful,

If you are doing the translations this time, we could split the load?. It should be short and sweet ..... anything would be compared to the main trial transcripts you did?.


This should be non controversial on PMF?. However, I've noticed that people who read the transcripts only, sometimes get less of a picture of whats going on .... e.g. often, at the end of a question and answer phase, it's more the tone of people's voices, or how they say it, that indicates whether a point has been excepted or not?.


Curious.


It would be great if they worked together. Frankly, I don't know how Thoughtful got through them as quickly as she did. I have done this kind of work before and it is quite time-consuming and tiring. She must have worked 24/7 for several days.

Lots of things that are hinted at through tone can be picked up by people who don't speak the language fluently. Of course, lots of things are conveyed through body language, which an audio transcript does not provide. Personally, between my own poor Italian and the excellent Italian of several posters here, I feel that I can get a pretty full picture and would be able to read a set of transcripts without too much misunderstanding. I hope I am not overestimating my abilities. But I am reading a bunch of 17th century plays right now in a foreign language and have had no trouble so far supplying tones of voice that fit with the drama.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Kevin wrote:
SB, Michael,

I can't speak for thoughtful. Maybe she will repond when she logs on again.


Why not? You've done so already a couple of times.

Thoughtful wrote:
Nope. Not a team. Maybe we have one thing in common, which is not feeling or expressing personal animosity, offensiveness or sneering towards anyone here, or being at all interested in that aspect of the discussion.


No, you're just a pair of 'unique minds that found each other in the darkness' :roll:

Maybe you think we're not very bright here on PMF.

Thoughful wrote:
I am pleased to say that no one has called me a troll or FOA, at least not directly.


I'm not saying you're FOA Thoughtful, I don't believe you are, never have. I just think you have your own game going 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 tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Quote:
I can't speak for thoughtful. Maybe she will repond when she logs on again.
SB, I agree that probably AK and MK would have gone there separate ways. . . . . . As far I as can see there was no serious problems between AK and MK. . . . .They sorted out a cleaning rota to resolve the only minor problem we have heard about. . . . If there is no evidence of any envy, or jealous between the girls, how has it come about that people are always talking about it?.

As kevin gets pushed into a corner here, it's remarkable how his comments are becoming progressively more inaccurate and worthless, until they've finally arrived at flat-out spin and mendacity.
NB. Also interesting to note how they both happen to post the exact same minute now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

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

Jools wrote:
Oops! forgot to post part 2 of the you tube video. :)

Here it is:
Part2 -

Bd’: What kind of feelings does Raffaele have now for Amanda?

VS: …umm… respect, but…umm… I think, a esteem as a human being

Bd’: Is there no love anymore after all this time?

VS: …look I can give you ((…?...)) I don’t think that, given his youth, because he was 23 when the event happened, then after only 1 week when you meet a person you can fall in love fully in such a way that ((--??--)) then… you arrived at a point that you would end up to be totally depersonalized. So, the friendship, the affection, the respect, for to be fellow adventurers, this, yes I can confirm, but something else… no, is not there, logically it couldn’t be

Bd’: And what kind of feelings he has instead for a friend who is no longer here, for Meredith?

VS: Meredith he seen her, in a glimpse, two times before she died. So, is not that she was his friend, he never acquainted her. He cannot feel a big grief as if she was a dear ((loved one)) person to him, but he can feel immense grief for what Meredith could have experienced in that circumstance for her family and for him, because he finds himself in this absolutely shocking situation

Bd’: Would you like to read me some passage from a letter he wrote?

VS: Regarding Meredith…
Because this letter stresses a bit the one he wrote at Christmas, however, they are, as ever emotional letters, couldn’t be any other way.
Regarding Meredith, he says, he is not able to understand exactly why the denial to do further investigations, even on the part of Meredith’s lawyer, to establish exactly what happened.
I will now read the passage: One other thing that I keep reflecting upon is the fact that Meredith’s family fully trusts the court and the police investigation and they don’t attempt to seek further tests, to better understand what happened on November 1, 2007 in Via della Pergola. I believe they have a right to know what happened and not as it can be fantastically summarized by journalists respectfully. I believe also that Meredith has the right to rest in peace, knowing that true justice will be made, and that we all have the right to know what really happened. I believe that the absolute truth is known only by God, but with a bit of effort and work in the investigation, it’s possible to come to understand with good probability, the responsibility or not, of persons accused. The problem is, whether in my case or that of others accused, lots of errors were made in the way of investigation and nobody wants admit it yet. For all of these motives I’m not capable of understanding and would appreciate if someone could try to enlighten me soon.

Bd’: Listen Vanessa, Raffaele prays?

VS: Yes

Bd’: Yes, he prays a lot?

VS: Yes, well…??... There is a priest and a small room let’s say a church inside prison and since he is always been a believer, obviously he prays

Bd’: And your mother? What kind of feelings does she have at this moment?

VS: … My … made? ((here VS didn’t understand the host))

Bd’: No, your mother, how does she feel?

VS: My mother died in 2005 Barbara!

Bd’: Oh, excuse me, your father, who at one time was also on this show?

VS: Papà how is he? Completely distraught, like a caged lion because he fights, like we all do, but I am not a mother, so I don’t know what it means as a parent, for sure he suffers a lot, more than I do suffer as a sister or the rest of my family, probably because he is a father who feels powerless with everything that we are seeking to do to make truth win out

Bd’: I remember that, …there is no need to remind here but Raffaele Sollecito has been found guilty in the first degree trial and was given 25 years of imprisonment and inside he continues to say that he is completely innocent. You are his sister, here on live TV and you have the possibility and if you will to say something. Do you want to say anything?

VS: I can only confirm what is… that is… his disappointment for what’s happened. I know that everyone does their job, therefore, we have had a correct process, the investigators have done their job, but I believe that a lot more can still be done, if for no other reason to find out, as he says in this letter to find the truth and to give peace finally to this poor girl and her family.

Bd’: Have you met Meredith’s family?

VS: No, I’ve never had the opportunity

Bd’: You’ve never seen them?

VS: No, I never had a way to interact

Bd’: Thank you Vanessa for being here with me. Thanks truly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_mv6n3A ... re=related



"I believe that the absolute truth is known only by God, but with a bit of effort and work in the investigation, it’s possible to come to understand with good probability, the responsibility or not, of persons accused."

Here RS betrays himself by saying "only God" knows the truth-- surely the "real murderers" know the truth, do they not? I think RS is jolly glad that "only God' knows what he did and not his angry dad and his doting sister.

Of course, AK & RG know the truth too-- but I'm sure RS thinks they are no more likely to rat him out than "God" is.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

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

SB Michael,

I'll just wait to see Michael's reply, if any, and then I'll log off until Wednesday. As I say, the Solletico family trial shouldn't be very controversal?.

After that, the motivations will tell us how the jury reached it's verdict ...... where I am wrong on anything, I'll 'throw up my hands' and accept it with grace
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Jools quoted Vanessa Sollecito:

Quote:
Meredith he seen her, in a glimpse, two times before she died. So, is not that she was his friend, he never acquainted her. He cannot feel a big grief as if she was a dear ((loved one)) person to him, but he can feel immense grief for what Meredith could have experienced in that circumstance for her family and for him, because he finds himself in this absolutely shocking situation


Does this include the time they were cooking together at his place and he pricked her with a kitchen knife?


Good catch!

Again, THIS is what actually makes the "double-DNA" knife significant. They can throw out all the much-fought-about lab tests and STILL there is no innocent explanation for WHY Rafaelle felt the need justify how Meredith's DNA could be on the knife without it having been used in the attack.

Now his own sister is on the record saying they only met for the briefest of glimpses. Busted. Game over.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
SB Michael,

I'll just wait to see Michael's reply, if any, and then I'll log off until Wednesday. As I say, the Solletico family trial shouldn't be very controversal?.

After that, the motivations will tell us how the jury reached it's verdict ...... where I am wrong on anything, I'll 'throw up my hands' and accept it with grace



I'm not even sure audio files will be readily available. I agree with you, though, the trial will probably not be very controversial. Perhaps something of relevance to the murder of Meredith Kercher will emerge.

As for the verdict, it may be useful to compare the report with Andrea Vogt's very detailed list of the evidence. I personally don't think the judges and jury considered the animosity between the two, since it is very subjective, denied by the surviving accused, and based on second-hand testimony from friends. I don't think the friends were lying or colluding; it's just that, as I said, Meredith is not here to enlighten us and she was not there to enlighten the jury either. I see it as forming part of the murky background. Maybe the difference between us, Kevin, is that I don't find AK to be a credible source on the state of the relationship.

I found her closing statement to the court very disturbing. She certainly did not sound like someone who really cherished Meredith Kercher. She thanked all of the people who made her performance possible, like she had just won an Oscar. None of this proves anything, but it chilled me to the bone. It was quite inappropriate, which seems to be par for the course. In the same way, I find the decision to hold a comedy night benefit to be totally inappropriate and in bad taste to boot. That's just me.

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

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

Michael,

Sorry, you had already posted. But thoughtful is right about us not being a 'team'.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Remember, that Maresca works for the Kercher family.


What are you trying to imply here?
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Here is another pic from from Donnie's mysterious URL:


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Here is another pic from from Donnie's mysterious URL:


Madison Paxton took that pic. Amanda was her 'muse'...I'm a guy, so I won't comment further on 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 tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
There's clearly nothing more to be said on the subject* (public expression of relief!) until more information comes our way, either in the complete explanations, or perhaps if I can contact one of the journalists directly to learn more about the counterargument. (If I do, beware -- I might post on the subject again!**)

*Is that a promise? . . . . **Oh, apparently not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:03 pm   Post subject: team?!   

OK, just one last word on the subject of teams. We're definitely not a team. We have no joint plan or joint point of view or anything. I don't know Kevin or have any communication with him except for the occasional pleasant PM on this board. I didn't even realize he stopped posting at the same time as I did. That's weird.

However, we didn't "return" at the same time by sheer coincidence. I really wanted to respond to bolint's messages (if anything, maybe bolint and I could be a team? :) ) but at the same time I had sort of decided to stop posting and just read. But then I read Kevin's nice remark about me, which surprised me very much. I really didn't think for a moment that anyone actually remembered me here (although teehee, I was proud that ViaDellaPergola used my translation in their youtube video!) and it made me think "Oh well, at least one person thinks it would be nice if I posted, why not go ahead?" Okay, it wasn't a resounding success, but hey.

Michael wrote:
Quote:
I'm not saying you're FOA Thoughtful, I don't believe you are, never have. I just think you have your own game going on.


I know that, Michael. I said that no one called me troll or FOA, and I meant exactly that -- no need for interpretations -- sheesh you are one for interpreting too, aren't you? I know neither you or anyone else has said that and I appreciate it.

This said, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "my own game". I mean, I don't understand the word "game" in this context. Posting about details and events surrounding Meredith's murder is not a game to me at all.

OK, this time I'm really off until something new turns up, but if I can be useful on audio translations I'll try to (and yes Skep, I went a bit mad on those audio translations and worked on them every day till 4 or 5 a.m. I just couldn't stop listening once I started.)
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
Tigerfish,

' just another in a confirmed list of petty irritations that Amanda blames on Meredith'

Could you post the list and who comfirmed each petty irritation please.


__________________
Amanda, meanwhile, was becoming increasingly erratic. "Her moods started swinging from docile and lazy to hyperactive and flighty. ***I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory."


__________________________

Kevin, this "petty irritation" was confirmed by Patrick. www.dailymail.co.uk And "confirmed" way back in November, 2007.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
kevin wrote:
Remember, that Maresca works for the Kercher family.


What are you trying to imply here?


:) Oh what a giveaway. Job jobbed. That type of comment only comes from certain sources.

We've seen it all before.

Kevin, you just plain ain't smart enough.

Leave the Kercher family alone with their grief.

Or maybe you think, they think Amanda is guilty, and you can't stand that thought.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SB,

I really meant that the trial will not be too controverial between Thoughful, myself and other posters. That was all becoming hard work, there is no plot, spying etc.

I think I can say 'We are everything it says on the tin'

The 'Obstruction of Justice' trial is very interesting for me.

As I said to Michael, even if the trial isn't big news Nationally or Internationally, it will be well covered locally in Puglia and Umbria. CU is regional, so it is possible that there will be audio, the small local TV stations have so much time to fill that an interview is stretched out over an evening, very relaxed and informative. I'll see if I can get any videos direct from the TV stations, if they are not put on youtube or wherever. They are not CNN.

See you Wednesday
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Amanda Knox: Chief prosecutor in former UW student murder case convicted and sentenced

January 24, 10:50 PM Seattle Headlines Examiner Isabelle Zehnder

EXAMINER


Thanks for the link. That's what I thought ... that both police and journalists had their phones tapped, meaning that it is a contradiction in argument for anyone to suggest that because the prosecutor was found guilty of tapping police phones, there are implications that the prosecutor now colluded with police ... and Amanda's verdict should be thrown out the window. I may not be explaining this clearly, but if the prosecutor is currently in an adversarial process with police, then I see no connection with suggesting that the prosecutor could have done something illegal and colluded with police in the Knox conviction. One does not imply the other, although some people seem to be attempting to argue that one does imply the other ... that the prosecutor was found guilty of abuse of Power of Office and is an adversarial conflict with police, and therefore he must have colluded with police to falsely convict Knox.

"The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox murder case, Giuliano Mignini, was convicted and sentenced Friday of abuse of office and illegally tapping telephones of journalists and police officers in an earlier “Monster of Florence” murder case."


Hi Jester. It's alright, I understand exactly what you mean :)

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
kevin wrote:
Remember, that Maresca works for the Kercher family.


What are you trying to imply here?


:) Oh what a giveaway. Job jobbed. That type of comment only comes from certain sources.

We've seen it all before.

Kevin, you just plain ain't smart enough.

Leave the Kercher family alone with their grief.

Or maybe you think, they think Amanda is guilty, and you can't stand that thought.


That is one reason I find his position so important. Not only does he work for them, he speaks for them. And he has no doubt that the evidence convicted AK and RS. Not the tabloids.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Nope. Not a team. Maybe we have one thing in common, which is not feeling or expressing personal animosity, offensiveness or sneering towards anyone here, or being at all interested in that aspect of the discussion.


Um...that's not exactly true of kevin, in all fairness. His re-entry to the board was somewhat bad tempered as I recall! And quite sneering and offensive towards some parties...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: team?!   

thoughtful wrote:
OK, just one last word on the subject of teams. We're definitely not a team. We have no joint plan or joint point of view or anything. I don't know Kevin or have any communication with him except for the occasional pleasant PM on this board. I didn't even realize he stopped posting at the same time as I did. That's weird.

However, we didn't "return" at the same time by sheer coincidence. I really wanted to respond to bolint's messages (if anything, maybe bolint and I could be a team? :) ) but at the same time I had sort of decided to stop posting and just read. But then I read Kevin's nice remark about me, which surprised me very much. I really didn't think for a moment that anyone actually remembered me here (although teehee, I was proud that ViaDellaPergola used my translation in their youtube video!) and it made me think "Oh well, at least one person thinks it would be nice if I posted, why not go ahead?" Okay, it wasn't a resounding success, but hey.

Michael wrote:
Quote:
I'm not saying you're FOA Thoughtful, I don't believe you are, never have. I just think you have your own game going on.


I know that, Michael. I said that no one called me troll or FOA, and I meant exactly that -- no need for interpretations -- sheesh you are one for interpreting too, aren't you? I know neither you or anyone else has said that and I appreciate it.

This said, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "my own game". I mean, I don't understand the word "game" in this context. Posting about details and events surrounding Meredith's murder is not a game to me at all.

OK, this time I'm really off until something new turns up, but if I can be useful on audio translations I'll try to (and yes Skep, I went a bit mad on those audio translations and worked on them every day till 4 or 5 a.m. I just couldn't stop listening once I started.)


Thoughtful,

I know your opinions differ from many on this board, including me, but I've never considered you to be a troll. You worked hard with the translations, and you made your arguments with knowledge of facts as you understood them. You became informed on a subject before you spoke, unlike one or two others I could name.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"VS: My brother was at home. Meredith, you can even see from the CCTV camera recordings she came back home and soon after she was killed by someone in a way, yes I would say, rather a bit too brutal

Bd’: Very brutal!

VS: So, most surely it was not a murder by a person who was hesitant or unsure of what it was doing. It was a violent crime"


Not the sharpest knife in the box, is she...

And yes, I spotted the 'glimpsed twice' comment too, Skep. Papa Sollecito needs to keep his children AWAY from the media. They suffer terminal foot in mouth disease...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Here is another pic from from Donnie's mysterious URL:

;)
I was about to post that picture also, but thought it was enough, you know, me posting AK pics all the time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

kevin wrote:
SB, Michael,

I can't speak for thoughtful. Maybe she will respond when she logs on again.

SB, I agree that probably AK and MK would have gone there separate ways. AK would have probably moved in with RS for a while at least. As far I as can see there was no serious problems between AK and MK. Meredith had lived the student life for three years, Knox hadn't. They sorted out a cleaning rota to resolve the only minor problem we have heard about. Millions of girls share flats and go through far worse problems in the first few weeks?.

As you say, we have no idea whether one was jealous of the other, I doubt it, they were both too busy having the time of there lives. If there is no evidence of any envy, or jealousy between the girls, how has it come about that people are always talking about it?.

I think I know the answer ..... I don't know the history of TJMK and PMF, but if Peter had set up a site dedicated to honouring Meredith's memory and countering claims made by the FOA, Frank etc. and this site was dedicated only to finding the truth ...... a la Maresa ..... FOR Meredith, her family and all of us, it would be easier for people to separate the two things?.

As it is, I think the two things get mixed up on both boards.

Remember, that Maresca works for the Kercher family.


Kevin

It offends sensibilities to suggest that the Kerchers’ are pushing an agenda through their lawyer Maresca. The Kerchers didn’t choose to be here, they don’t enjoy being here, they don’t wish to remain here, they have nothing to gain by being here and they don’t wish to be involved in the circus that has evolved from the savage murder of their daughter and sister. If you have any decency at all in you please leave the family out of your agenda. They are above this slime and don’t deserve to be included in your agenda, shame on you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Commenting after references to the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan affair, The 411 said "As an odd coincidence, Nancy Kerrigan is in the (crime) news again, today."

As an additional odd coincidence, the police chief investigating Kerrigan's father's death is named Bongiorno.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

beans wrote:
Commenting after references to the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan affair, The 411 said "As an odd coincidence, Nancy Kerrigan is in the (crime) news again, today."

As an additional odd coincidence, the police chief investigating Kerrigan's father's death is named Bongiorno.


Weird!
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:36 pm   Post subject: Re: team?!   

thoughtful wrote:
OK, just one last word on the subject of teams. We're definitely not a team. We have no joint plan or joint point of view or anything. I don't know Kevin or have any communication with him except for the occasional pleasant PM on this board. I didn't even realize he stopped posting at the same time as I did. That's weird.

However, we didn't "return" at the same time by sheer coincidence. I really wanted to respond to bolint's messages (if anything, maybe bolint and I could be a team? :) ) but at the same time I had sort of decided to stop posting and just read. But then I read Kevin's nice remark about me, which surprised me very much. I really didn't think for a moment that anyone actually remembered me here (although teehee, I was proud that ViaDellaPergola used my translation in their youtube video!) and it made me think "Oh well, at least one person thinks it would be nice if I posted, why not go ahead?" Okay, it wasn't a resounding success, but hey.

Michael wrote:
Quote:
I'm not saying you're FOA Thoughtful, I don't believe you are, never have. I just think you have your own game going on.


I know that, Michael. I said that no one called me troll or FOA, and I meant exactly that -- no need for interpretations -- sheesh you are one for interpreting too, aren't you? I know neither you or anyone else has said that and I appreciate it.

This said, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "my own game". I mean, I don't understand the word "game" in this context. Posting about details and events surrounding Meredith's murder is not a game to me at all.

OK, this time I'm really off until something new turns up, but if I can be useful on audio translations I'll try to (and yes Skep, I went a bit mad on those audio translations and worked on them every day till 4 or 5 a.m. I just couldn't stop listening once I started.)


Aside from all the PM's, you don't know each other!? You stopped and started posting again at the same time. How weird indeed, what a World!

Interpreting? Not quite...let's call it 'Admin's spider sense'...it's quite spooky. Actually, I don't think it is. There's nothing supernatural about it, neither is it about interpretation. It's about after being a Moderator for years, knowing your stuff and seeing it coming a mile away.

Regarding your game, you should know, you're playing it and I'm watching you play it. Don't be all 'Kevin' now, you're brighter then that and so am I.

As for your response to Bolint's post, it went beyond a 'response' and became a campaign. Now you're settling for arguing what colour the sky is...to someone who knows it's colour well.

_________________
"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 French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

French Mom wrote:
Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hammerite wrote:
French Mom wrote:
Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)



But the secret to a successful term paper is finding good sources and providing them.:)

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

Offline French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Sorry Hammerite if I did something wrong. I thought it was no big deal to post this since it appeared to me that Donnie had been there first.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
French Mom wrote:
Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)



But the secret to a successful term paper is finding good sources and providing them.:)


I hope someone has impressed upon donnie the importance of accurate referencing...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hammerite wrote:
French Mom wrote:
Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)


"Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else! ... I just don't see the point in crying over(and over and over ) a dead rabbit!"
Donnie Darko (1972 - 1988)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

French Mom wrote:
Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/



Flipping hard to forget that it's Amanda's college newspaper where the photos are line credited to Madison and David innit?

_________________
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 French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi said
Quote:
Flipping hard to forget that it's Amanda's college newspaper where the photos are line credited to Madison and David innit?


Actually, the way I got there was by doing a Google search on "Amanda Knox promiscuous". One of the top results was a UW article where Madison Paxton explained that Amanda was not promiscuous in her opinion. And there, there was a link to the list of UW Daily articles about Amanda Knox. So, I did start with Donnie's keywords.

And I am very sorry if I upset anyone by providing this link.

* Edited error in quote
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

A comment for anybody who doesn't know:

The reason the Kerchers have made claims for damages (which have been granted) is to prevent anybody who is found guilty of the murder of their daughter making a profit by selling their book or story from prison.

That's the way it works in Italy

This has all been explained many times before.

Nobody expects them to ever get a penny(even the courts), although the family have had to spend tens of thousands of pounds on a lawyer and travelling backwards and forwards to Italy, hotel stays etc.

Perhaps they should hold a comedy evening, as per Seattle.(and no, I'm not prepared to pay 2$ for the sarcasm icon patented in the US).


Last edited by Brian S. on Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

French Mom wrote:
SomeAlibi said
Quote:
Flipping hard to forget that it's Amanda's college newspaper where the photos are line credited to Madison and David innit?


Actually, the way I got there was by doing a Google search on "Amanda Knox promiscuous". One of the top results was a UW article where Madison Paxton explained that Amanda was not promiscuous in her opinion. And there, there was a link to the list of UW Daily articles about Amanda Knox. So, I did start with Donnie's keywords.

And I am very sorry if I upset anyone by providing this link.

* Edited error in quote


French Mom, check your pms! Not a problem. You have not offended anyone. In fact your post was splendid!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

French Mom wrote:
SomeAlibi said
Quote:
Flipping hard to forget that it's Amanda's college newspaper where the photos are line credited to Madison and David innit?


Actually, the way I got there was by doing a Google search on "Amanda Knox promiscuous". One of the top results was a UW article where Madison Paxton explained that Amanda was not promiscuous in her opinion. And there, there was a link to the list of UW Daily articles about Amanda Knox. So, I did start with Donnie's keywords.

And I am very sorry if I upset anyone by providing this link.

* Edited error in quote


I don't think you did, but it is interesting that the keywords in question lead straight to the UW Daily, which has provided some of the least professional coverage in English on this case. Not that this is a surprise. The paper is not written by professionals; it is written by students. And it makes sense that DJ and Mads would be the ones providing the photos; they were students at the UW at the time. I walk right by the UW Daily office at least once a week. I could probably stop in and drop off some photos.:)

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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brian S. wrote:
A comment for anybody who doesn't know:

The reason the Kerchers have made claims for damages (which have been granted) is to prevent anybody who is found guilty of the murder of their daughter making a profit by selling their book or story from prison.

That's the way it works in Italy

This has all been explained many times before.

Nobody expects them to ever get a penny(even the courts), although the family have had to spend tens of thousands of pounds on a lawyer and travelling backwards and forwards to Italy, hotel stays etc.

Perhaps they should hold a comedy evening, as per Seattle.


And in my opinion it is the best thing they could have done. The tragedy they're facing is absolutely unimagineable, but they made the right choice with their claims for damages, since we all can agree that Amanda Knox and co will be able to make some money if she ever decide to write a book or something like that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Last edited by H9 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brian S. wrote:
A comment for anybody who doesn't know:

The reason the Kerchers have made claims for damages (which have been granted) is to prevent anybody who is found guilty of the murder of their daughter making a profit by selling their book or story from prison.

That's the way it works in Italy

This has all been explained many times before.

Nobody expects them to ever get a penny(even the courts), although the family have had to spend tens of thousands of pounds on a lawyer and travelling backwards and forwards to Italy, hotel stays etc.

Perhaps they should hold a comedy evening, as per Seattle.


Also to emphasise the seriousness of the crime against their daughter. It should also be noted that the Kerchers have stated that any moneys recovered will be donated to charity. Of course, the reality is the Kerchers will see none of it. Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy have no money to give. It's a token compensation only. However, as Brian has said, it will prevent Amanda (and the others) from profiting from the crime. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the family or the entourage.

_________________
"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 French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander said
Quote:
... it is interesting that the keywords in question lead straight to the UW Daily, which has provided some of the least professional coverage in English on this case. Not that this is a surprise.

I agree wholeheartedly. Personally, I had not been to their website in a long, long time (and had missed many of the photos because of it).

Bard said
Quote:
French Mom, check your pms! Not a problem. You have not offended anyone. In fact your post was splendid!

Thanks Bard!
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make money off of this crime?


As far as i know, no. Beacuse all of the incoms will go to the Kercher family. Am i right? That is only if we talk about Amanda doing some book writing etc., not her family though.
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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Yes, if they are offered it for such contracts, I'm afraid they will.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Donnie -

As a concerned elder (not that much I emphasise, I still look 25 damn it), I'm developing a strong fear that we are keeping you from your education. I would hate to think we are having a bad influence and detracting you from your studies.

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Yes, if they are offered it for such contracts, I'm afraid they will.


Hang on Michael, are you saying that if the Knoxes decide to sign film rights, say, to coverage of their 'fight', and they make a million dollars from it, NONE of that money goes towards paying the people their daughter 'owes' money to?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
French Mom wrote:
SomeAlibi said
Quote:
Flipping hard to forget that it's Amanda's college newspaper where the photos are line credited to Madison and David innit?


Actually, the way I got there was by doing a Google search on "Amanda Knox promiscuous". One of the top results was a UW article where Madison Paxton explained that Amanda was not promiscuous in her opinion. And there, there was a link to the list of UW Daily articles about Amanda Knox. So, I did start with Donnie's keywords.

And I am very sorry if I upset anyone by providing this link.

* Edited error in quote


I don't think you did, but it is interesting that the keywords in question lead straight to the UW Daily, which has provided some of the least professional coverage in English on this case. Not that this is a surprise. The paper is not written by professionals; it is written by students. And it makes sense that DJ and Mads would be the ones providing the photos; they were students at the UW at the time. I walk right by the UW Daily office at least once a week. I could probably stop in and drop off some photos.:)


Although, to give them their due, they did react promptly (and treated it seriously) when it emerged certain individual's identities were being stolen. Well done for that. Of course, in this context we're not talking about their administration but rather their reporting...and that's not been very good at all.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Yes, if they are offered it for such contracts, I'm afraid they will.


Hang on Michael, are you saying that if the Knoxes decide to sign film rights, say, to coverage of their 'fight', and they make a million dollars from it, NONE of that money goes towards paying the people their daughter 'owes' money to?


Yes, I'm afraid I'm saying exactly that. Liability only covers Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, not their families or any of their hangers 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 The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Yes, if they are offered it for such contracts, I'm afraid they will.


Hang on Michael, are you saying that if the Knoxes decide to sign film rights, say, to coverage of their 'fight', and they make a million dollars from it, NONE of that money goes towards paying the people their daughter 'owes' money to?


Yes, I'm afraid I'm saying exactly that. Liability only covers Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, not their families or any of their hangers on.


So they could just tuck that money away for her for when she gets out? How sick.

Talking of sick, perhaps we should start a list of all those who are actually profiting from the murder of Meredith Kercher. I will start the bidding with Candace Dempsey, 'Award' winning cookery blogger...

On second thoughts this line of thinking is making me feel sick...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - re SB   

Just a question from a naive little onlooker to all this jostling being carried on by a thoughtful one and another a little less so from the cotton mills ("dark Satanic Mills" no less!).

Please explain: what does SB signify?

Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Yes, if they are offered it for such contracts, I'm afraid they will.


Hang on Michael, are you saying that if the Knoxes decide to sign film rights, say, to coverage of their 'fight', and they make a million dollars from it, NONE of that money goes towards paying the people their daughter 'owes' money to?


Yes, I'm afraid I'm saying exactly that. Liability only covers Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, not their families or any of their hangers on.


So they could just tuck that money away for her for when she gets out? How sick.

Talking of sick, perhaps we should start a list of all those who are actually profiting from the murder of Meredith Kercher. I will start the bidding with Candace Dempsey, 'Award' winning cookery blogger...

On second thoughts this line of thinking is making me feel sick...



Why would the family pay Bard (omitting decency), AK is over the age of majority and therefore they are separate legal entities. For example if your cousin owes money to say Blockbuster (video rental shop) would you feel the urge to pay for their late returns? Or put another way if your cousin wins the lottery do you think you have a legal right to a share? That’s the way the cookie crumbles I am afraid.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hammerite wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Will her family be able to make (serious)money off of this crime? horror of horrors.. like tv movie rights?


Yes, if they are offered it for such contracts, I'm afraid they will.


Hang on Michael, are you saying that if the Knoxes decide to sign film rights, say, to coverage of their 'fight', and they make a million dollars from it, NONE of that money goes towards paying the people their daughter 'owes' money to?


Yes, I'm afraid I'm saying exactly that. Liability only covers Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, not their families or any of their hangers on.


So they could just tuck that money away for her for when she gets out? How sick.

Talking of sick, perhaps we should start a list of all those who are actually profiting from the murder of Meredith Kercher. I will start the bidding with Candace Dempsey, 'Award' winning cookery blogger...

On second thoughts this line of thinking is making me feel sick...



Why would the family pay Bard (omitting decency), AK is over the age of majority and therefore they are separate legal entities. For example if your cousin owes money to say Blockbuster (video rental shop) would you feel the urge to pay for their late returns? Or put another way if your cousin wins the lottery do you think you have a legal right to a share? That’s the way the cookie crumbles I am afraid.


Um, I guess it's the kinda decency/morality line I am coming from here. You know, feeling responsible for my offspring etc etc. I know it is considered deeply old-fashioned these days...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Amanda Knox Family believes they are victims. Therefore, they are owed the $$$.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Minister Frattini: With Clinton, no mention of Amanda Knox.
We did not talk
Washington, Jan. 25. (AFP) - During the meeting this morning between the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, there was not any mention of Amanda Knox conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. This was confirmed by the Minister, head of the (*) Farnesina, during the press conference. Minister Frattini said:" Of Amanda Knox we have not talk".
Virgilio Notizie
((* The Farnesina is the official building of the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs))
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

How sick?

Bard: "So they could just tuck that money away for her for when she gets out? How sick."

That's exactly what will happen. It's probably happening right now. Part of the $400,000 "cost" of making the film THE TRIALS OF AMANDA KNOX must have included "compensation" paid to Knox/Mellas family members, though the compensation will probably not be paid til the film turns a profit. Once the film hits the US market, it will be profitable. And when profitable, the clan may earn a fixed percent of the profits.
My guess is that the book contract has already been signed by the clan, and they've been paid a cash advance. A ghost-writer is now scribbling away....adding the finishing touches. And you can be SURE that the book contract does not mention Amanda as having any "proprietary interest" in the product. And since the monies will be in the clan's name, modest amounts of money and gifts can be sent to Amanda while she's jailed in Italy. She'll no longer suffer a shortage of underpants. Maybe silk.

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Ok, injection of common sense from elsewhere:

"recent news was summed up today by the juxtaposition of two stories. Goldmann Sachs have nobly decided to cap their bonuses this year at £1m per person. Meanwhile a UN worker in Haiti who was buried alive for several days was finally rescued, took 2 days off to sort himself out and was then back carrying out aid work and helping to deal with the disaster. Who has all the power? And who has all the humanity?"

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Ok, injection of common sense from elsewhere:

"recent news was summed up today by the juxtaposition of two stories. Goldmann Sachs have nobly decided to cap their bonuses this year at £1m per person. Meanwhile a UN worker in Haiti who was buried alive for several days was finally rescued, took 2 days off to sort himself out and was then back carrying out aid work and helping to deal with the disaster. Who has all the power? And who has all the humanity?"


And this is a big injection of encouragement, good will, moral support and love for the MODERATORS: Michael, and especially at this time, Skeptical Bystander (AKA as SB: sorry Skep, but kkkkevin was busy being so abstruse that I was busy looking for arcane meanings where none existed!!!).

I read in disgust the rot posted on the site for which a link was recently provided. All I can say is this, Skep: if they take the time to post such muck, that means you have really stirred the poisonous possums! Well done!

Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DLW wrote:
From Virgilio Notizie: info only,

Washington, Jan. 25. (Apcom) - (AFP) - At the meeting this morning between the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, has not made any mention of the conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. This was confirmed by the Minister in the same press conference. "Amanda Knox we have not talked," said Frattini.


No need for Frattini to address the matter with Hillary. when we know that President Obama will be dedicating most of his Wednesday night State of the Union Address to the travesty of justice in Perugia. Right?

And then, of course, after that obligation, Obama will be flying off to Seattle that very night just in time to attend the Comedy Fundraiser.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Minister Frattini: With Clinton, no mention of Amanda Knox.
We did not talk
Washington, Jan. 25. (AFP) - During the meeting this morning between the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, there was not any mention of Amanda Knox conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. This was confirmed by the Minister, head of the (*) Farnesina, during the press conference. Minister Frattini said:" Of Amanda Knox we have not talk".
Virgilio Notizie
((* The Farnesina is the official building of the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs))


IMO, this means Sect'y Clinton has not a problem with how the justice is being meted out. FM Frattini mentioning it is the same as Sect'y Clinton saying so, but without seeming to take sides with a foreign gov't against an American Citizen.

Well played.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Have noticed that in the pic of Amanda on her "throne" there is no flush button. Guess she got used to not expecting to find one. Skep and Michael, kudo's to you both for dealing with certain issues (posters?) so , well , kindly. I would have used my banning powers rather quickly. Some Alibi, love, love , your posts. Thanks for the info on H9's avatar. Art Deco, and James Bonds, Daniel Craig! Swoon.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Has the Comedy fundraiser sold out, yet?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:38 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I wish it was an empty house, don't you, Emerald?

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tiziano wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Ok, injection of common sense from elsewhere:

"recent news was summed up today by the juxtaposition of two stories. Goldmann Sachs have nobly decided to cap their bonuses this year at £1m per person. Meanwhile a UN worker in Haiti who was buried alive for several days was finally rescued, took 2 days off to sort himself out and was then back carrying out aid work and helping to deal with the disaster. Who has all the power? And who has all the humanity?"


And this is a big injection of encouragement, good will, moral support and love for the MODERATORS: Michael, and especially at this time, Skeptical Bystander (AKA as SB: sorry Skep, but kkkkevin was busy being so abstruse that I was busy looking for arcane meanings where none existed!!!).

I read in disgust the rot posted on the site for which a link was recently provided. All I can say is this, Skep: if they take the time to post such muck, that means you have really stirred the poisonous possums! Well done!



Here is the site and post that Tiziano is referring to. It seems that someone has taken exception to my comments on the record after the verdict for the Seattle press. Thanks to Tara for spotting it on e-bay. I haven't seen any of the bumper stickers that the seller is peddling, at least not yet. He should watch out, though. He's might make me famous! On the other hand, I might have to sue him for libel, since he claims that I am "an independent journalist and fictional writer for tabloid newspaper" [who] "was merciless in her character assassination of Amanda Knox for monetary purposes and sick greed". He goes on to say I am part of the liberal media and the type of writer who has destroyed the USA. These bumper stickers are going fast, folks. Be the first on your block to have a bumper sticker that will leave everyone scratching their heads. Who is Peggy Ganong? And soon we'll be hearing: "What would Peggy Ganong do?" And so on.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Peggy-Ganong-Amand- ... 439ce46dc4

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

donnie wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
French Mom wrote:
Donnie said
Quote:
And i'm glad that you found the photo by using some the words that i suggested. I really tried to help from the start. Just wasn't smart enough to think about anything else but the photo. I would be more than happy if you could post that URL, so Bard and everyone else could see it. Thank you.


Here is the mysterious URL

http://dailyuw.com/topic/person/amanda_knox/


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)


"Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else! ... I just don't see the point in crying over(and over and over ) a dead rabbit!"Donnie Darko (1972 - 1988)




So, Donnie. How is Washington University's international exchange programme with your Polish University coming along? That'd be the WWU that AK went to with the student paper where you found the images through google.

Mentioning that there are WWU students at your place would have been a decent bit of 'fair disclosure' given that it's AK's old school. Of course, the active imaginations might like to imagine that maybe you attended WWU on exchange (it's got a good tennis club - check it out) or even that you could be a WWU student doing a little exchangerooni in Poland would rather explain why your english is so good (and gets better when you are a little bit annoyed). But that's probably just crazy talk no doubt...


http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/ipe/abroad/c ... untryID=50


Attachment:
WWU and Polish exchange.JPG


wh-)


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

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:16 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Whoa! One of those IS donnie's University!

It couldn't be that...no, our tennis coaching psychologist....I cannot believe it SA...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"So, Donnie. How is Washington University's international exchange programme with your Polish University coming along? That'd be the WWU that AK went to with the student paper where you found the images through google."

SomeAlibi,
WWU (Western Washington University) is about 100 miles north of the UW (University of Washington), where "The Daily" student newspaper is published.

//
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

fine wrote:
"So, Donnie. How is Washington University's international exchange programme with your Polish University coming along? That'd be the WWU that AK went to with the student paper where you found the images through google."

SomeAlibi,
WWU (Western Washington University) is about 100 miles north of the UW (University of Washington), where "The Daily" student newspaper is published.

//



Fine is right. Deanna goes to Western, which is in Bellingham; AK went to the University of Washington, which is in Seattle.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
fine wrote:
"So, Donnie. How is Washington University's international exchange programme with your Polish University coming along? That'd be the WWU that AK went to with the student paper where you found the images through google."

SomeAlibi,
WWU (Western Washington University) is about 100 miles north of the UW (University of Washington), where "The Daily" student newspaper is published.

//



Fine is right. Deanna goes to Western, which is in Bellingham; AK went to the University of Washington, which is in Seattle.


Deanna goes to University???

Lord above, how does she find the time...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
fine wrote:
"So, Donnie. How is Washington University's international exchange programme with your Polish University coming along? That'd be the WWU that AK went to with the student paper where you found the images through google."

SomeAlibi,
WWU (Western Washington University) is about 100 miles north of the UW (University of Washington), where "The Daily" student newspaper is published.

//



Fine is right. Deanna goes to Western, which is in Bellingham; AK went to the University of Washington, which is in Seattle.



Ah, pesky error. Or should that be footfault? Of course, UW will send its out and receive them over from Poland too ;)


http://ipeweb.admin.washington.edu/inde ... leSearch=1

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

State Department Briefing by Phillip J. Crowley, January 25, 2010

ENEWS

_________________
"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 Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:44 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Tiziano wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Ok, injection of common sense from elsewhere:

"recent news was summed up today by the juxtaposition of two stories. Goldmann Sachs have nobly decided to cap their bonuses this year at £1m per person. Meanwhile a UN worker in Haiti who was buried alive for several days was finally rescued, took 2 days off to sort himself out and was then back carrying out aid work and helping to deal with the disaster. Who has all the power? And who has all the humanity?"


And this is a big injection of encouragement, good will, moral support and love for the MODERATORS: Michael, and especially at this time, Skeptical Bystander (AKA as SB: sorry Skep, but kkkkevin was busy being so abstruse that I was busy looking for arcane meanings where none existed!!!).

I read in disgust the rot posted on the site for which a link was recently provided. All I can say is this, Skep: if they take the time to post such muck, that means you have really stirred the poisonous possums! Well done!



Here is the site and post that Tiziano is referring to. It seems that someone has taken exception to my comments on the record after the verdict for the Seattle press. Thanks to Tara for spotting it on e-bay. I haven't seen any of the bumper stickers that the seller is peddling, at least not yet. He should watch out, though. He's might make me famous! On the other hand, I might have to sue him for libel, since he claims that I am "an independent journalist and fictional writer for tabloid newspaper" [who] "was merciless in her character assassination of Amanda Knox for monetary purposes and sick greed". He goes on to say I am part of the liberal media and the type of writer who has destroyed the USA. These bumper stickers are going fast, folks. Be the first on your block to have a bumper sticker that will leave everyone scratching their heads. Who is Peggy Ganong? And soon we'll be hearing: "What would Peggy Ganong do?" And so on.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Peggy-Ganong-Amand- ... 439ce46dc4


I'm sorta disappointed they don't say you are "both jinjingoistic and xenophobicgoistic" b/c that is pretty impressive to be not one but TWO entirely made up things! pp-(

Then again, it might cause a lot of car accidents as people squinted and squinted trying to figure out WTH ol' Andy was trying to say. Not that his chosen design isn't just as likely to cause mass roadway confusion.

And I never knew the grim reaper was a xenophobe. I pretty much had him pegged for an equal opportunity kind of guy. ;)



ETA: I note that he is actually giving these away of you send a SASE which I believe violates ebay rules. An idiot AND a cheater... what a guy!
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I notice on the ebay site, that Andy concession is an LLC company. JUST in case he is sued, no doubt. And he spells it AMAND KNOX>

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

And I see our ebay seller, andysconcessions, has been a buyer too. He purchased from the seller "shadow.tek" in June, 2008. Here's what shadow.tek has to say (or is trying to say)....


"Your personal privacy are too important.

Don't risk being bugged. Fight Back!

Do you suspect that you are being bugged? Do you think your spouse/significant other may be spying on you, listening to your phone calls, or bugging your house? Does he/she seem to know things that you have kept secret? Do you think your boss or co-workers may be eavesdropping on you at work? Do you suspect a wireless video camera is hidden to spy on you in the bathroom, bedroom, at home or work? Now You can know for sure. Take control of the situation. You can gather the evidence. You can make the decision to find out the truth. Your personal affairs are too important. Don't take the risk of being spied on. Stay informed, stay in control.

-ShadowTek"

///


Last edited by fine on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Love it! Paranoid to boot!. Or a gift for Magnini?

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

Offline jw


Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: Full Circle   

Catnip wrote:
Full Circle

From manga to manga, we have come full circle in the narrative.

An Italian news site* reported on a Taiwanese TV station which prepared a video to illustrate their news story on the verdict last December.

Immediate takeaways: Rudy is the beer guzzler; Italian windows are quite big and Frenchy-Americany; the bloody footprints on the bathmat are a bit obvious as a clue; dusting the kitchen knife for prints looks professional.

Actually, the girl-shoving is quite realistic psychologically; and the general yahooing-around is age-bracket authentic. The animators got their psychology right in terms of portraying a story. The animation itself is quite good technically.

But it is not probative evidence.

On the other hand, a visual representation of hypothesized scenarios might make it much each easier and faster to identify the/any flaws in the hypotheses.






They (the Italian news site) called it “The Meredith Kercher Murder as seen from the Far East”.
The video is [ here ].


P.S.
As it happens, by serendipity, I've just guzzled too much cold juice and now have a Rudy stomach, and won't be able to make a choice from the menu at this particular moment, because I have to pay a quick visit to "the little room" (not that I'll fall asleep there, here's hoping). Back in a mo'. Continue discussing amongst yourselves, as my teacher used to say.



* [ TGCOM ] 07 December 2009


Ta, Catnip.

Is that Chinese in the video? Sollecito's name fares better there than with the American newscasters.

jw
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: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:19 am   Post subject: ON WEAVING   

ON WEAVING

Note for Translators
The translator’s motto: caveo contextus – “I’m on the lookout for context”

One (of various) reasons that I have not yet done a fully-fledged digest of all the summing up speeches is that they would not contain anything new in terms of facts, which are the primary drivers of this case. A clue is provided by the information that the speeches required time to be written up, that is, they literally are speeches, not question-and-answer sessions or other discourse directly related to the facts. They merely present possible scenarios and suggested hypotheses to assist the judicial panel in giving appropriate weight to the relevant facts.

With hindsight, I should not have let the interpretation void grow (and grow it did!).

However, there is a fundamental aspect that would have stopped me even if I had had the time and opportunity to translate them:
That fundamental flaw is this – 5cm of print in a newspaper does not a speech make.
And there were multiple speeches, responding each to each.

The rest of this post just goes into slightly more detail, so if you’re not all that interested in reading about a house with no roof and the Three Little Pigs in a murder case, by all means skip over to the next post. Us translators won’t mind! There’s plenty at the table for everybody.

To begin,
(A)
Once, our cat brought me a a gift of something to eat: a dead mouse. It wasn’t to be interpreted as an act of “Ewuuwgh!!” but rather an act of kindness and gentilezza on her part, an inclusive gesture. She opened her world to me and invited me in. In Boolean logic terms, she ANDed me into her world.

Likewise, when I translated Punto as “point” or “dot” (back in the camera/clock-watching testimony days), various kind posters brought in suggestions, gifts, of the correct translation (“Punto”, a model of Fiat car). Responding was a kindness, and definitely not an attack. The translation was improved, and my enormous ignorance was slightly reduced. Now, whenever I see a Punto passing a CCTV camera, I know what it is.

(B)
The lawyers who advocate on their client’s behalf have two weapons, or two tools of the trade.
One is “the facts”, which may be disputed or accepted as the case requires, but which also (and always) are the keys that unlock multiple hypothetical scenarios.
Once all scenarios have been unlocked, then the second tool comes into play: interpretation. And that can be confusing, because an inference – which is based on fact – sounds and feels very much like an interpretation, even an opinion. Even though interpretations can be proposed and discarded more or less at whim, facts (and the inferences drawn from them) can never be rejected. The interpretation is provided at the summing up stage, which can become even more confusing when Lady Rhetoric enters Stage Right with her elegant flourishes.


(C)
Brian S mentioned the other day about how hours of testimony in court gets compressed into three paragraphs in the newspaper (and I’ve seen examples where whole days end up as one or two lines).
When compressing occurs, something has to be dropped. If accuracy is retained, then the report is true to the event. For example, Sam Gamgee summarised the entire story of The Lord of the Rings as “the story of Nine-Fingered Frodo and the Ring of Doom” (which is accurate). That spawned a whole series of entries in the field of “ShrinkLit”. (e.g., “Dante went for a walk one day, And came back another day.” – I just made that one up.)

Some things cannot be compressed. Witness testimony can. The subject matter of a speech can. The rhetoric of a speech cannot (from what I am seeing).
Rhetoric requires explanation, and the explanation can be longer than the original text.

Riddles, tongue-twisters, counting rhymes, nonsense verse and other filastrocche are examples of seemingly straight-forward “rhetoric” used by children.


“Belli o brutti li puoi fare
ma a nessuno li puoi mostrare”

Good ones and bad ones you can have
But you will never show them to anyone*




“La bella del palazzo
s’affacia al suo terrazzo
tutto il giorno fila e tesse
ma rimane senza veste”

The princess of the palace
Stands naked on her balcony
Knitting the whole day blest
She never ever gets dressed**




“Giro giro tondo
Un pezzo di pane tondo”

is

Ring-a-ring-a-rosy
A pocket full of posy
in different words.

(D)
When Giulia Bongiorno inserted some pop song lyrics in her closing address to the Assize Court, what was she doing?
She quoted one of Italian pop-song singer-songwriter Sergio Endrigo (1933-2005)’s songs.


[ The Diggiloo Thrush ]

Finding the song title was a bit labyrinthine.
“Sergio Endrigo” was on [ Wikipedia ],
which linked to [ Wikipedia ] Portuguese
which linked to [ Wikipedia ] Turkish
which linked to [ Sergio Endrigo Official Site ] (in Italian)
which has his discography. There may well be other pathways to get there.

But which song was it? Luckily, the Official Site has a forum, where one nico asked:
nico wrote:
nico, Apr 24th, 2009 - 10:00 AM

hello , i'm searching for some lyrics
Hi everybody , i'm french and i'm sorry but i don't speak italian ...

for some reasons i'm looking for a song from sergio endrigo with a part of the lyrics : " era una casa tanto piccina ..."

Can someone helps me ? I need the name of the song and all the lyrics .

– [ ESOS Forum ]



Two weeks later there was a reply by Ivano Rebustini, who posted the song title and the lyrics, here: [ Sergio Endrigo Official Site Forum ]. The name of the song is La Casa (“The House”), the A-side of a 1969 45rpm record (Cetra SP 1417) [ ESOS ].


In effect, the song is a delightful nonsense-rhyme.

There’s a cute little house
without a kitchen or ceiling
You can’t go inside to stand and be seen in
because there’s no floor there for standing
you can’t fall asleep in the bed
because there’s no roof over your head
you can’t go to the bathroom and bide
because there’s no thing to go in.
But it’s beautiful, that house, truly, really
in Via dei Matti***, number zero unruly
But it’s beautiful, that house, truly, really
in Via dei Matti, number zero unruly

(repeat twice)


The song is (in Boolean terms) ORing^ the concept of “house”.

Bongiorno was trying to say (in my less elegant terms) that the prosecution’s case was a house of cards, that it looked like a case and been built but, when you looked closer, it actually had great gaping holes in it, like a house without a roof or a floor.

Comodi replied with The Three Little Pigs: Amanda and Raffaele’s houses of lies collapsed and fell over with one investigative puff, whereas the prosecution case has been built up solid, brick by brick, and remains standing.

(E)
The recent busy bee-in-the-bonnet regarding Comodi’s “five minutes” in her closing address can, I submit, be explainable to everyone’s satisfaction by ANDing a few inferences together to support a rhetorical flourish.


In Rumpolean terms (the real Rumpole, that is, the one on TV; not our Rumpole), it goes like this (with the bit reported by the newspapers in bold):

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
(places hands on the lapels of her legal gown)
this case is of many parts, deeply convoluted and finely detailed
and has energised the wit and wisdom of many famous minds.
You have heard my learned friends discourse at great length on many matters in very great detail.
For example, take that long and minute debate near the beginning of the trial,
when the arrival of the Postal and Communication Police was examined and cross-examined.
Even if we allow the defence’s contention that the time on the clock should be adjusted by a further,
what was it? ten minutes? fifteen? Even if we allow the defence the greatest possible latitude, it still remains the case, as we look at the footage from the parking lot camera, that Raffaele called 112 five minutes after the Postal Police arrived. Let me repeat that, to be clear: the Postal Police arrived five minutes before he called 112. There can be only one possible explanation for such an action, and that explanation is that he was attempting to establish an alibi for himself, to distance himself from the inevitable and consequently dangerous – to him – suspicions of the police. It does not take a criminal mastermind to think of something like this.
And so, members of the jury,… {etc etc }


You can’t make nothing out of nothing, as the old saying goes.
(Though you can make something out of nothing, if you’re a PR firm.)



(Z)
While we’re here, here’s another Rhetorical Example
"Ho paura di avere una maschera da assassina forzata sulla mia pelle"
[ Unione Sarda ] 03 December 2009

This is usually translated as something like:
“I’m afraid of having the mask of an assassin forced upon me”.

Literally, it is: “I’m afraid of having an assassin’s mask forced onto my skin”.
With the caveats: assassina = “murderess, killer, assassin”, and pelle = “skin, hide”.
forzare = “to force, to compel (someone against their will)”, e.g., forzare una porta (“break open a door”).

But is mask a suitable choice for “maschera”?
It is certainly dramatic, and makes good newspaper copy.

Which alternative meanings are there?

maschera
= “mask” (item of clothing or apparel) : you wear them, put them on, take them off – portare la maschera (“to wear a mask”), indossare la maschera (“to put on a mask”), togliersi la maschera (“to pull off one’s mask”)
= “fancy-dress” (for a party or a ball): you put on a fancy-dress costume, mettersi in maschera
= “(protective) mask” (equipment), e.g., oxygen mask, maschera per ossigeno
= “a disguise, a cover, a front”, una maschera di indifferenza (“a mask of indifference”)
= “face, features”, maschera severa (“stern features”), avere una maschera molto espressiva (“to have a very expressive face”)
= “face-pack”, maschera di bellezza
= “an usher(ette); a stock character in the commedia dell’arte
= “radiator grille (on a car)”, maschera per radiatore
= “a form (on a computer)”, maschera di ricerca (“search form”)
= and other meanings related to plumbing and carpentry

So, that’s the noun. What about the verb?
What kind of maschera (from any or all the above definitions) is “forced onto the skin” of somebody?

I think this could be half an attempt at an Italianised version of a standard English phrase, and then polished a bit for up-market.

At the point in the narrative structure (i.e., a book or film or TV show) where the character finds themself in the same situation as Amanda found herself in on the last day of legal argument in court, the character in the narrative structure usually says (in English): “I don’t want to be branded as a murderer”, or “I’m afraid I’ll be always branded as a murderer”.
So “forzata sulla mia pelle” becomes “stamped (or punched) onto my skin”, i.e., branded.


But “I’m afraid of having an assassin’s mask forced upon me” is much more excitingly dramatic and poetic, isn’t it?







* dreams
** a spider
*** literally, Street of the Mad People
^ don’t say this aloud

P.S. The air is warmer than my skin (i.e., it’s {insert intensifier adjective} hot!)
Trusty computer is melting, so going offline for a bit. Will catch up later.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hi, Catnip. That was very interesting. I mentioned in an earlier post that I felt AK"s attorneys had given her the rather flowery prose of the ASSASSIN's MASK. I would have used the :branded as a killer". BTW, when I was 11 or 12, when our cat Sergio, brought a dead mouse into the house, and I screamed and was totally girlie, and freaked out, my wonderful mum praised the cat, and explained to me that it was a gift of love. She said "bravo, Sergio". Our whole family has an incredible love and respect for animals. Wish that were true of some humans.

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

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:36 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

No Way. Really?

Are there really souls still posting on this site that think the kids are innocent?
Haven't we thoroughly chewed the marrow out of every bone of evidence thrown to us, over and over again into a fine cud, and have yet to taste even the slightest piquant trace of innocence? Our bloodhounds have whooped and bayed for hours for any smell of AK47's innocence but they never tracked, because there were no traces of innocence to run towards. Wouldn't the tiniest opiate of evidence suggesting that AK47 could possibly be innocent had made our addiction to this case more palatable? It would have spurred a tight chess match of reason and rhetoric between opposing commentators rather than a year-long fool's mate.

A conclusion lurks in the dark: You totally blew your perfect art-crime, Amanda the amateur. The evidence is overwhelming and you are where you belong, locked away for years in an Italian prison. And I'm not afraid of you, I swear.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:43 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
At one point, in intercepted prison conversations with his family about the knife found with Kercher's DNA, Sollecito suggested he may have accidentally cut Kercher's finger with a knife once while cooking fish.

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



I've been reading both the monster of florence and also a book on the peterson trial, and am frequently struck by a number of random parallels.. I'm only the second chapter in the peterson book, but the author makes the point that both Peterson and O.J. made excuses as to why blood might be found somewhere; apparently one of Peterson's first comments to his mother-in-law (which was several hours after the police had been contacted and the search started) was that if the police found any kind of blood it wouldn't mean anything cause he was a hunter.

In the monster of florence, Preston recounts the story of the 1961 death of Salvatore Vinci's wife; a death initially ruled a suicide. The interesting thing is, like Knox, Salvatore came to the house then left- 'failing' to discover the death. He returned with the wife's father & brother to 'discover' the body. The quote in Preston's book is "Years later, one townsperson reflected the general view: 'he was only looking for witness to his staged suicide'. Eventually the case was re-opened as a homicide and 1986 he was arrested and charge; later acquitted due in part to the lack of witnesses still alive & the small amount of evidence still around from 1961.

anyways, just some weirdness thrown in there.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:49 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I must admit, Greggy, that even without any evidence, I had the "hinkey feeling (which is what American detectives say they get) when interviewing people, and inspecting a crime scene. On a show here in the U.S, they immediately suspect the possible suspects when they lie, can't remember, change stories, etc. AK< RS , never came across as innocent,. In anyway. More than anything, their actions bespoke guilt. To me, anyway. And their callousness, and total disregard, and any lack of empathy, just jarred. I know, we are supposed to deal with just facts, and evidence, but instinct can be very compelling.

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fiona wrote:
I have never understood why she went home to shower nor why she needed to change since it seems she had planned to spend the night at RS's. I take clean knickers and a toothbrush when I am going to be away overnight. So maybe if she thought she was going to be working she intended to go home? But I do not think she has said so; nor does she seem to have spent many nights apart from RS after they met. Maybe I am wrong about that, though


I've posted this before- I've actually done this myself when staying at someone else's house overnight-come home to my own place the next morning to shower, usually I've run out of clothes. Why shower somewhere else if you're just going to put on the same clothes? Keep in mind knox was supposed to have been working that night, so she may not have had any clothes to change into at Sollecito's.

By itself, the behavior doesn't contribute to establishing guilt; its the other complications in this story that cause the most questions.. was the other roommate's door closed, as knox states, or open, as Sollecito states? An american college girl returns to an open front door at her apartment in a foreign country and takes a shower without checking the house? She says she assumes someone took the trash out, hoping everyone ignores the white elephant of why she never assumed (or even checked that) her roommate may have been behind the locked door next to her own bedrom.

At least we can thank Knox for introducing to the world the concept of Bathmat Surfing.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yeah, Pat, and in the Peterson case, wasn't it interesting that in that FIRST conversation to Lacey's mother, he said Lacey is MISSING? Not have you seen her, where can she be? That one word...

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

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:44 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote (from Comodi's summing-up):
Quote:
Even if we allow the defence’s contention that the time on the clock should be adjusted by a further,
what was it? ten minutes? fifteen? Even if we allow the defence the greatest possible latitude, it still remains the case, as we look at the footage from the parking lot camera, that Raffaele called 112 five minutes after the Postal Police arrived. Let me repeat that, to be clear: the Postal Police arrived five minutes before he called 112. There can be only one possible explanation for such an action, and that explanation is that he was attempting to establish an alibi for himself, to distance himself from the inevitable and consequently dangerous – to him – suspicions of the police. It does not take a criminal mastermind to think of something like this.

I feel as if I was bludgeoned close to the state of an imbecile by that avalanche of hairsplitting over the last two days, so it's a little hard to grasp the simple truth of the passage above. I'm no criminal mastermind either, but if I consider it thoughtfully, I'm sure I'll get it in the end.
As for the chess analogy, Greggy, that was easy - a fool's mate indeed.
But which one is the fool, and which one the mate, I ask myself? That is the question.


Last edited by tigerfish on Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:00 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

At the end of the day: Who else?

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

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
So, it sounds as though you are in full support of the way the Italian court handled the Meredith Kercher murder trial. Thanks for the independent evaluation, and for confirming our suspicions.


What's that supposed to mean? "Confirming suspicions" doesn't sound anything positive to me, rather the opposite. There is some kind of very paranoid atmosphere here...


Perhaps I should be more like donnie; making nervous and liberal use of :P and :lol: and d-))

Good morning,

Yeah, you should've put one smiley there so I wouldn't have starting suspecting that you're taking the mickey out of me ...

My sarcasm and irony detector just wasn't sure.

Although I tend to use similar formulations in my mother tongue (Finnish).

But you never know with foreigners what they are up to ...
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:55 am   Post subject: Re: Full Circle   

jw wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Full Circle



They (the Italian news site) called it “The Meredith Kercher Murder as seen from the Far East”.

The video is [ here ].


* [ TGCOM ] 07 December 2009


Ta, Catnip.

Is that Chinese in the video? Sollecito's name fares better there than with the American newscasters.

jw

Sounds like Japanese to me.
edit note: On second and subsequent listenings: I don't know anymore. Maybe it's Chinese after all but different variant than in the Hongkong video below.

Here, I think, you can hear Chinese (Canton or Mandarin variant can anyone tell?), it seems to be from Hongkong (hk) with the same animation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvb6wo4qe8

The fingerprint guy looks to be Gordon Freeman, awolling from Half-Life (PC/Playstation/Xbox game).

What does manga signify to you lot? There are all the time references to the violent manga comics read by Soll so one gets the impression that you think all manga is sex and violence. But that's not true. Manga is very popular in Finland (as probably elsewhere in Europe but apparently not so in the UK and US?) since about 1990's and a lot of teenagers read it here. Manga means just comics in Japanese so there are bound to be different variants anyway. One of my friends explained to me (as I don't read manga) that there are two kinds of manga: the ordinary children's manga and the adult oriented pornographic manga which Soll had obviously graduated into from the more childish variant. But as Finnish public libraries carry adult-oriented comics (manga included I think), I don't think that Soll reading manga can be of great significance when it comes to motive. Simple jealousy and rage, a moment of anger and losing it when inebriated sounds like enough motive to me.

Evidence re manga: Helsinki comics festival had an entire day dedicated to manga - would parents allow their teenage children to participate if manga was about sex and violence?

http://sarjakuvafestivaalit.fi/index.ph ... Itemid=256

Anime (japanese animation) is also popular in Finland.

note: this need to lecture you about manga may derive more from my irritation of Darkness Descending stating that Soll was reading "manga, the violent Japanese comics" than your actual remarks here, although I get the impression that you think it's all violence and porn. I'm now reading the book properly from start to end, earlier I just read it browsing extensively here and there. It definitely seems to be a group effort, and not all writers seem to have read the whole book through as I've so far spotted that in two places the book thinks Meredith still had a boyfriend in England and in a third occasion he's descibed as an ex-boyfriend. I think they should have had one of the board members to proof read the manuscript before printing.


Last edited by Rumpole on Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:19 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Lessons From Amanda Knox: How Not To Get Arrested When Abroad

http://www.defamer.com.au/2009/12/lesso ... en-abroad/
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Wiki on Manga

This seems to be an extensive treatment of the Manga genre on Wikipedia.
Here is the introduction:


This article is about the comics created in Japan. For other uses, see Manga (disambiguation).
The kanji for "manga" from Seasonal Passersby (Shiki no Yukikai), 1798, by Santō Kyōden and Kitao Shigemasa.


Manga (kanji: 漫画; hiragana: まんが; katakana: マンガ; About this sound listen (help·info)) (English: /ˈmɑːŋɡə/ or /ˈmæŋɡə/) consist of comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku コミック), in the Japanese language and conforming to the style developed in Japan in the late 20th century.[1] In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II,[2] but they have a long, complex pre-history in earlier Japanese art.[3]

In Japan, people of all ages read manga. The genre includes a broad range of subjects: action-adventure, romance, sports and games, historical drama, comedy, science fiction and fantasy, mystery, horror, sexuality, and business/commerce, among others.[4] Since the 1950s, manga have steadily become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry,[5] representing a 406 billion yen market in Japan in 2007 (approximately $3.6 billion). Manga have also become increasingly[vague] popular worldwide.[6] In 2008, the U.S. and Canadian manga market was $175 million. Manga are typically printed in black-and-white,[7] although some full-color manga exist (e.g. Colorful). In Japan, manga are usually serialized in telephone book-size manga magazines, often containing many stories, each presented in a single episode to be continued in the next issue. If the series is successful, collected chapters may be republished in paperback books called tankōbon.[8] A manga artist (mangaka in Japanese) typically works with a few assistants in a small studio and is associated with a creative editor from a commercial publishing company.[2] If a manga series is popular enough, it may be animated after or even during its run,[9] although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films[10] (e.g. Star Wars).

"Manga" as a term used outside Japan refers specifically to comics originally published in Japan.[11] However, manga-influenced comics, among original works, exist in other parts of the world, particularly in Taiwan ("manhua"), South Korea ("manhwa"),[12] and the People's Republic of China, notably Hong Kong ("manhua").[13] In France, "la nouvelle manga" has developed as a form of bande dessinée (literally drawn strip) drawn in styles influenced by Japanese manga. In the United States, people refer to manga-like comics as Amerimanga, world manga, or original English-language manga (OEL manga).
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:42 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Lessons From Amanda Knox: How Not To Get Arrested When Abroad

http://www.defamer.com.au/2009/12/lesso ... en-abroad/


Rumpole, you can't beat Australians for good, down-to-earth practical advice!!!

Well found and well quoted on today, Tuesday 26th January,2010 - it's Australia Day!

Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Men don't kill women, manga does

Hentai manga is only the latest in a line of sensational media the press have seized on to 'explain' appalling violence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksbl ... nmangadoes

apologies if already mentioned in an earlier post
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I would highly recommend people not stray into researching violence, porn and manga if they want to hang onto their breakfasts. I had the misfortune to be shown some of this stuff online by a geeky friend as I was mystified by the whole phenomena. It is truly repulsive. There seems to be a large number of subgroups of the stuff, each more refined in its level of cruelty and degradation of women, the destruction of their sexual organs and the gloating enjoyment of their pain and suffering. There clearly are many forms of innocent manga, but the sexual violence stuff is truly disturbing. Rumpole, you are clearly aware of the relatively santised soft porn type stuff. There's another whole level of depravity that I am happy you have not encountered...!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:57 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Whoa! One of those IS donnie's University!

It couldn't be that...no, our tennis coaching psychologist....I cannot believe it SA...


Awww.That was...nice.
It's a pity that we can't post a pictures of ourselves here, on PMF. You know, we don't have this special section (?). I would post lots of crazy pictures hitting some backhands while reading books. But i guess it's not a place to do these kind of stuff.

I'm flattered. Even when Michael tells me to shut it for a while(suggesting that you don't wan't to keep me from eduction), i'm still being asked some very interesting questions.

Thanks SomeAlibi, that was fun to read ;) I wouldn't call it crazy talk, but yeah, you went loose on this one. (is this even slightly correct?).

ps. i don't recall me being annoyed, SA. :)


Last edited by donnie on Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Quote:
Aside from all the PM's, you don't know each other!? You stopped and started posting again at the same time. How weird indeed, what a World!

Interpreting? Not quite...let's call it 'Admin's spider sense'...it's quite spooky. Actually, I don't think it is. There's nothing supernatural about it, neither is it about interpretation. It's about after being a Moderator for years, knowing your stuff and seeing it coming a mile away.

Regarding your game, you should know, you're playing it and I'm watching you play it. Don't be all 'Kevin' now, you're brighter then that and so am I.


I am amazed by the hostility of this post.

No, aside from a very small number of PM's, Kevin and I don't know each other in the least. I hope you are not casting doubt on my veracity, because I happen not to be a liar.

I still have no idea what your magical "Spider Sense" is telling you about my (non)connection with Kevin or about the supposed "game" that I am supposedly "playing". Perhaps you would have the courtesy to spell it out, so that I can understand if what you mean by a "game" is something that I would call by quite a different name, such as "an effort to understand". And I have no idea what "don't be all 'Kevin' " means. Can you translate into English?
Thank you.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:21 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Men don't kill women, manga does

Hentai manga is only the latest in a line of sensational media the press have seized on to 'explain' appalling violence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksbl ... nmangadoes

apologies if already mentioned in an earlier post



There's a very interesting comment exchange at the bottom of this article on the subject of sexual violence. Thanks for posting H9!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:22 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Rumpole wrote:
Lessons From Amanda Knox: How Not To Get Arrested When Abroad

http://www.defamer.com.au/2009/12/lesso ... en-abroad/


Rumpole, you can't beat Australians for good, down-to-earth practical advice!!!

Well found and well quoted on today, Tuesday 26th January,2010 - it's Australia Day!



Found also an American variant of the same advice - this might be the original version, but I'm sure both Australians and Americans are good at giving practical advice (happy Australia Day!)

How Not to Get Arrested When You're Abroad: A Foxy Knoxy-Inspired Guide

http://gawker.com/5420357/lessons-from- ... ll+(Gawker)

Lessons from Amanda Knox: How Not to Get Arrested When You're Abroad [Travel Tips]

http://www.kidmercuryblog.com/t608677/
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Comedy fundraiser planned for Amanda Knox appeal

by LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News

Posted on January 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Updated yesterday at 5:28 PM

KING5





AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT
Description: AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT

There is no doubt that a triple tragedy has occurred in Italy. The first is the shocking murder of Meredith Kercher, a young college student from England. The second and third are the unjust convictions of Amanda Knox, a young college student from the University of Washington, and Raffaele Sollecito, her friend. Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda. An appeal for a new trial is in the works. Please show your support for Amanda and her family by coming to the comedy benefit.


THE COMEDY UNDERGROUND

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


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

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:43 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

donnie wrote:
Jester wrote:
I would be surprised if any university gave out masters degrees in sports psychology for studies in men that murder; athletes or otherwise. That usually falls under the category of sociology. Sports psych is an entirely different subject.


Actually, my supervisor (or whatever, i don't know how to call him in english), gave me hard times when he learned about the subject of my work and after some chats, he decided that we should give it a try. It doesn't matter what the subject is, however it must contain elements of pscyhology etc. Plus, 1/4 of my classes were sociology. All kinds of sociology.
Forr example, my buddy, who's studying social work, writes his thesis about tennis and how (being a tennis pro) is its influence on your adult life.(got no idea if i wrote that correclty). So as you can see you can have all kinds of variations. Just have to stick to some basic elements of your major.

And thanks EVERYONE for your feedback, very special thanks to Skep. All the suggestions are great and i really appreciate it.

Tiziano, sport is character building, it helps so much in developing a personality, i could talk about it for hours, but as you've said-it's not that easy and sometimes something goes terribly wrong.

edit, typos.


You're completing a master's degree thesis in Sports Psych but pretending your supervisor (or whatever it's called in English) has agreed to let you write about murderers like Amanda Knox, and other murderers who were athletes, but you're still trying to figure out what you're writing about, but it's a masters ... and not all of the murderers are athletes. Right?

What university gives out these degrees? Mayby every loudmouth on a forum could gtet a masters at that university too.

I call bullshit, but you already knew that.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jester wrote:
donnie wrote:
Jester wrote:
I would be surprised if any university gave out masters degrees in sports psychology for studies in men that murder; athletes or otherwise. That usually falls under the category of sociology. Sports psych is an entirely different subject.


Actually, my supervisor (or whatever, i don't know how to call him in english), gave me hard times when he learned about the subject of my work and after some chats, he decided that we should give it a try. It doesn't matter what the subject is, however it must contain elements of pscyhology etc. Plus, 1/4 of my classes were sociology. All kinds of sociology.
Forr example, my buddy, who's studying social work, writes his thesis about tennis and how (being a tennis pro) is its influence on your adult life.(got no idea if i wrote that correclty). So as you can see you can have all kinds of variations. Just have to stick to some basic elements of your major.

And thanks EVERYONE for your feedback, very special thanks to Skep. All the suggestions are great and i really appreciate it.

Tiziano, sport is character building, it helps so much in developing a personality, i could talk about it for hours, but as you've said-it's not that easy and sometimes something goes terribly wrong.

edit, typos.


You're completing a master's degree thesis in Sports Psych but pretending your supervisor (or whatever it's called in English) has agreed to let you write about murderers like Amanda Knox, and other murderers who were athletes, but you're still trying to figure out what you're writing about, but it's a masters ... and not all of the murderers are athletes. Right?

What university gives out these degrees? Mayby every loudmouth on a forum could gtet a masters at that university too.

I call bullshit, but you already knew that.


If you would actually read, carefully, what i wrote earlier, you would know, that on monday i was going to see my teacher and tell him about my ideas, you would know that i changed my mind about specifics, you would know that i still have plenty of time to decide and think about the subject. But no, you never did. You just call it a bullshit, but you already know that.
And if would show any sympathy(i mean any, like very little) you would be able to understand that i was having major troubles when i tried to explain how it works here, in my city. It's a matter of good talk between the thesis director and a student and you can work it out, even when when you're completing a master's degree thesis in Sports Psychology and write the thesis about athelete's that were murderers. But hey, does it really matter, Jester? If you wanna talk about my thesis, please send me PM, it was said, that we should just drop it, cause not everyone likes to read about my bullshit, you know.
You should be able to understand Jester, that my english skills aren't the best, therefore when i tried to explain, i maybe wasn't clear enough. I shouldn't write it in the first place, but i was asked to do it.
Now, SA, now i'm annoyed and i don't think that my english got any better.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:30 pm   Post subject: A brush with the hair   

tigerfish wrote:
Catnip wrote (from Comodi's summing-up):
Quote:
Even if we allow the defence’s contention ...


...that avalanche of hairsplitting over the last two days...


Hi Tigerfish,
Allow me to take the opportunity of your post to re-emphasise to everybody (even though it is probably already clear to most readers, I expect) that my imagined reconstruction of what Comodi may have said is not probative or authoritative, but merely imagined and speculative.

Stylistic variation in Italian newspaper reporting is quite an art and well-developed (it helps you to stand out from the competition, amongst other things), but in this particular example, about the five minutes, a set of reports (not just one) said that Comodi said "he called the carabineri five minutes after the postal police arrived", and another set (again, not just one) said that she said "the postal police arrived five minutes before he called the carabinieri".

Stylistic variation is (usually) limited to the reporter doing the varying. Here, it seems, one table of reporters heard thing, and another table heard another, so perhaps both ways were heard. The only way I can visualise both the phrases "five minutes before" and "five minutes after" being used in the same speech is through some sort of rhetorical device or flourish.

Hence, my imagined speech for Comodi. What she actually said to the court could well be in the court transcript/recording (if there is one for the summing up speeches), but the newspaper reports are definitely not worth basing forensic argument on (I mean "forensic" in the lawyer sense of the word, i.e., able to stand up to cross-examination in court).

Newspapers are good for conjecture though, if people like that sort of thing.

Not to be ironic, but in Australian English, doing something "every five minutes" is poetical (for humans) and literal (for computers).

Example of usage:,
"As a narrative constructionist, I get frustrated when Amanda and Raffaele keep changing their stories every five minutes. I've already used up a dozen packets of story-board paper, and that timeline needs straightening out - I mean literally, it's as bent as a banana at the moment; oh wait, here comes another story change; maybe that will fix things..."



Anyway, talking about tennis, while watching the Australian Open in Melbourne on TV, I noticed that the clock behind the players was 8 to 10 minutes slower than mine. Luckily, Sydney and Melbourne are in the same time zone, so I was able to deduce that my clock was 8 to 10 minutes faster than the one in Melbourne (I think that's right; it got a bit confusing for a couple of minutes).


If anyone feels like participating in Adopt-A-Kevin Week, the next time that he lobs in and launches a forehand-volley asking someone to do so his homework for him, could someone introduce him (if it seems it would help) to the concept of what happens if someone actually did do his homework for him? Kevin has a habit of logically snookering himself, which he needs to divest himself of if he wants to be able to be a legal eagle who can present a persuasive case (e.g., for Rudy, say; which seems to be where he is heading (unless I am getting confused, which is quite possible)).

Kev to poster A: Do my homework for me.
Poster A: OK!
{google google}
Poster A: Here you are! {presents results}
Kev: Um, how do I know your research is correct?
Poster A: Er...
Kev to Poster B: Poster B, can you check for me that Poster A is correct, and get back to me?
Poster B: OK!
{google google} PM PM {google google}
Poster B: Here you are! {presents results}
Kev: Um, how do I know your research is correct?
Poster B: Er...
... {repeat forever in an infinite loop}

Moral: laziness will never get you anywhere, either on (the tennis) court or in (the legal) court.


It's just that, with the public holiday (Australia Day) now over, I'm back off into chasing zebras in the translation/news space and won't have the hours to baby-sit his dummy-spits*. Anyway, he's a big boy now, isn't he? If he doesn't want to learn to walk when he has the ability, that's entirely his decision.

The next lesson was going to be about evidence and how the word "not" works, but before that, the use of AND and OR (not AND or OR) has to be mastered. But I don't have the time to write that textbook chapter for him now. As ever, Skeptical Bystander's and Michael's advice to him is the best possible tonic.


Gotta go now.
Ciao, tutti!



{sings to self} "There's a house with no roof and no door, and no windows or floor. There's no kitchen or ceiling, no bathroom and no ..." It sounds like a Cheshire-cat type of house, doesn't it? I wonder if it's in Cheshire, where the cheeses come from...{trailing off into the distance}





* Tiziano can explain, as ever! :)
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

[quote="The Bard
So they could just tuck that money away for her for when she gets out? How sick.

On second thoughts this line of thinking is making me feel sick...[/quote]

They might have to be careful about giving Amanda something outright as opposed to say letting her live in a house with their name on the deeds. If Amanda owned a substantial asset there might be some means of forcing her to sell it but even so as British litigants trying to enforce an Italian judgement in the US courts the Kerchers would face an uphill task which they might choose to decline.

However if Curt has passed away by that time (not unlikely if he doesn't calm down) who's to say his wife and daughters will be willing to share the loot with Amanda ? That perhaps makes you feel better Bard !
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Did this movie ever make the local cinemas?

http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy/umbria/ ... ect-,movie

L'ultima città
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
Comedy fundraiser planned for Amanda Knox appeal

by LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News

Posted on January 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Updated yesterday at 5:28 PM

KING5





AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT
Description: AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT

There is no doubt that a triple tragedy has occurred in Italy. The first is the shocking murder of Meredith Kercher, a young college student from England. The second and third are the unjust convictions of Amanda Knox, a young college student from the University of Washington, and Raffaele Sollecito, her friend. Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda. An appeal for a new trial is in the works. Please show your support for Amanda and her family by coming to the comedy benefit.


THE COMEDY UNDERGROUND


An appeal for a new trial? This sounds a bit misleading to me. Is it intentional?

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I'm confused too, Skep. I thought the appeals go over the trial to be sure things were done correctly, not a new trial? Sorry. I can't even remember...is it just the innocenti claiming there will be a retrial? :(
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Michael wrote:
Quote:
Aside from all the PM's, you don't know each other!? You stopped and started posting again at the same time. How weird indeed, what a World!

Interpreting? Not quite...let's call it 'Admin's spider sense'...it's quite spooky. Actually, I don't think it is. There's nothing supernatural about it, neither is it about interpretation. It's about after being a Moderator for years, knowing your stuff and seeing it coming a mile away.

Regarding your game, you should know, you're playing it and I'm watching you play it. Don't be all 'Kevin' now, you're brighter then that and so am I.


I am amazed by the hostility of this post.

No, aside from a very small number of PM's, Kevin and I don't know each other in the least. I hope you are not casting doubt on my veracity, because I happen not to be a liar.

I still have no idea what your magical "Spider Sense" is telling you about my (non)connection with Kevin or about the supposed "game" that I am supposedly "playing". Perhaps you would have the courtesy to spell it out, so that I can understand if what you mean by a "game" is something that I would call by quite a different name, such as "an effort to understand". And I have no idea what "don't be all 'Kevin' " means. Can you translate into English?
Thank you.


Personally, I wouldn't care if you and Kevin were a team. I would just advise you in this case to improve your teamwork and perhaps suggest you see Donnie the sports psychologist major for some tips.
On a more serious note, I would just note in passing that you and Kevin seem quite different in most respects. However, one thing you have in common is that neither of you came by the board, even briefly, when the verdict was announced. For many, many people who have put in time here it was a key moment that was deemed important enough to note with a brief post. I think many people were moved to post by a strange bond, forged over time.

Intuitively, as opposed to logically, maybe some people are wondering about your motives because you decided not to join us for a moment of heightened emotion. Maybe for some people this makes your motives look not quite straightforward. I'm not saying they are right or that I share this view. But it is probably better to get it out in the open and then move on.

If I had to say what bothered me about Kevin, it would be that after not posting since August 6, and not joining us to share the emotional release brought on by the announcement of the verdict, he returns when he sees an opportunity to stir up trouble between two posters on the board and, coincidentally, to reopen an old wound with regard to one of the two posters (Nicki). This is not in keeping with the spirit of the board.

As far as you are concerned, Thoughtful, I can see that you saw an opportunity to revisit one element that you had hotly contested. You reiterated your arguments and were challenged on them in collegial fashion. My own feeling is that you probably did not convince anyone, but I could be wrong. I don't object to your logic or your heroic attempt to make water run uphill for AK and RS. But I do take exception to your repeated suggestions that this board is not tolerant of discussion or that you are using deductive reasoning whereas the rest of us are stuck in the dark ages, driven by superstition and conventional wisdom. I am overstating, of course, but you get the point. On at least two occasions since your return, you have taken one of my statements and misconstrued it. The first time I let it go (it was about Battistelli). The second time, I noted that you had misconstrued my point (in order to more easily refute it). I think this may be what Michael means by game-playing. Perhaps you don't intend it or are unaware of it. I can't speak for Michael or anyone else, but I can speak for me: if I have to spend too much time going back over my own posts to retrieve my statements and correct someone's misconstrual, I quickly lose interest in the discussion. Whether it is intentional or not doesn't matter.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I'm confused too, Skep. I thought the appeals go over the trial to be sure things were done correctly, not a new trial? Sorry. I can't even remember...is it just the innocenti claiming there will be a retrial? :(


I think this is an attempt to capitalize on the imagined "Mignini effect". It seems that the PR team and its acolytes think that being factually correct and transparent is for wimps. They can say whatever they like!

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Catnip wrote:

Quote:
Anyway, talking about tennis, while watching the Australian Open in Melbourne on TV, I noticed that the clock behind the players was 8 to 10 minutes slower than mine. Luckily, Sydney and Melbourne are in the same time zone, so I was able to deduce that my clock was 8 to 10 minutes faster than the one in Melbourne (I think that's right; it got a bit confusing for a couple of minutes).


It is amazing how confusing this sort of simple problem can become, even under ordinary circumstances. Imagine what it's like when smoke and mirrors are applied! Just when you think you are in the clear, you fall into another rabbit hole.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Comedy fundraiser planned for Amanda Knox appeal

by LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News

Posted on January 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Updated yesterday at 5:28 PM

KING5





AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT
Description: AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT

There is no doubt that a triple tragedy has occurred in Italy. The first is the shocking murder of Meredith Kercher, a young college student from England. The second and third are the unjust convictions of Amanda Knox, a young college student from the University of Washington, and Raffaele Sollecito, her friend. Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda. An appeal for a new trial is in the works. Please show your support for Amanda and her family by coming to the comedy benefit.


THE COMEDY UNDERGROUND


An appeal for a new trial? This sounds a bit misleading to me. Is it intentional?

It's purely misinformation. First AK's defense needs to have Massei's motivations in order for them to see from which parts of the court motives they can request a reopening and the Appeals will have to agree or not to that. Basically to further debate and obviously has to be something extra or different from what defense presented so far during the Assises trial as that didn't get them anywhere. So we shall see whether the Court of Appeals agrees and if, to review anything defenses will claim.

From above the funny part is this one: "Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda."

Who have they convinced? :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
So we shall see whether the Court of Appeals agrees and if, to review anything defenses will claim.


Is there any possibility that the court won't agree and we won't have an appeal?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Comedy fundraiser planned for Amanda Knox appeal

by LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News

Posted on January 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Updated yesterday at 5:28 PM

KING5





AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT
Description: AMANDA KNOX APPEAL FUND BENEFIT

There is no doubt that a triple tragedy has occurred in Italy. The first is the shocking murder of Meredith Kercher, a young college student from England. The second and third are the unjust convictions of Amanda Knox, a young college student from the University of Washington, and Raffaele Sollecito, her friend. Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda. An appeal for a new trial is in the works. Please show your support for Amanda and her family by coming to the comedy benefit.


THE COMEDY UNDERGROUND


An appeal for a new trial? This sounds a bit misleading to me. Is it intentional?

It's purely misinformation. First AK's defense needs to have Massei's motivations in order for them to see from which parts of the court motives they can request a reopening and the Appeals will have to agree or not to that. Basically to further debate and obviously has to be something extra or different from what defense presented so far during the Assises trial as that didn't get them anywhere. So we shall see whether the Court of Appeals agrees and if, to review anything defenses will claim.

From above the funny part is this one: "Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda."

Who have they convinced? :roll:

I venture to say "misinformation" is Edda's middle name. Just wondering if Raffaele's father has put up the money for this fundraiser aka "keep the killers heartbreak in the news" sob-sob. Someone hand me a kleenex PLEEZE.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

On a somewhat related note, Director Steven Soderbergh's "trial by media" Tot Mom play is creating quite a stir in Sydney, and consequently around the world. The central theme deals with the tendency of today's media reporting to essentially create and try in the court of public opinion a parrallel case that may be completely unrelated to the actual case being argued in court, or in Casey Anthony's situation a case that has yet to go to court. But I feel like I've seen this all somewhere before - it must be a remake.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

donnie wrote:
Jools wrote:
So we shall see whether the Court of Appeals agrees and if, to review anything defenses will claim.


Is there any possibility that the court won't agree and we won't have an appeal?


No. The Italian system is not like that in the US or the UK. An appeal is automatically granted and the terms are also different. It is not true that one needs new evidence or evidence of procedural failings or a case that the verdict is perverse. The italian appeal is essentially a retrial in that the case is considered as if for the first time. I think it is important to remember this
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thanks Fiona
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote:
Quote:
Hi Tigerfish,
Allow me to take the opportunity of your post to re-emphasise to everybody (even though it is probably already clear to most readers, I expect) that my imagined reconstruction of what Comodi may have said is not probative or authoritative, but merely imagined and speculative.

It was late when I read your post and I didn't take the time to make sure if it was imagined reconstruction or taken from a transcript. What I have been sure about all along was that it was totally implausible for the prosecution to introduce an entirely new time-line for Nov 2, AM/PM events during summing-up. Far more likely to be a slip of the tongue, or a transcriber/journalist screw-up. In any case it will be cleared up in the judges' report.
No big deal if it had been a Comodi tongue-slip. By the end of the trial I'm sure everybody in the room (even the Knox's) had been bludgeoned into a similar imbecilic state as I experienced last weekend during that thoughtful discussion. Nobody who seriously looks at the evidence has yet tasted "even the slightest piquant trace of innocence*".
* Thanks again Greggy


Last edited by tigerfish on Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fiona wrote:
donnie wrote:
Jools wrote:
So we shall see whether the Court of Appeals agrees and if, to review anything defenses will claim.


Is there any possibility that the court won't agree and we won't have an appeal?


No. The Italian system is not like that in the US or the UK. An appeal is automatically granted and the terms are also different. It is not true that one needs new evidence or evidence of procedural failings or a case that the verdict is perverse. The italian appeal is essentially a retrial in that the case is considered as if for the first time. I think it is important to remember this


That's what i wanted to know, thank you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Showing disrepect towards the Kercher Family or Maresca is not exclusive to the Knox/Mellas clan.

This is what Marisa, a Raffaele Sollecito family member from Giovinazzo thinks of Maresca and the Kerchers:
marisa68
22/12/2009 23:49

UNFORTUNATELY. THE LAW IS NOT EQUAL FOR EVERYONE. WHEN I SAW HIM ((RG)) THIS MORNING IN THE TG ((TV news)) LIKE THE MONKEY IN A CAGE I THOUGHT THAT HE HAD FINALLY TOLD THE TRUTH.
BUT HE IS AN ANIMAL AND HE WILL NEVER DO IT.
I HOPE GOD REMEMBERS HIM…
THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT WAS TO READ THE WORDS OF THE KERCHER FAMILY ....." SATISFIED! "
SATISFIED??????
BUT OF WHAT???
THEY HAVE NEVER FOLLOWED ONE AND I SAY ONE SINGLE HEARING.
THEY HAVE TRUSTED A *PIRIPICCHIO SOME NOBODY AND THEY CAME ONLY TO APPLAUD THE UNJUST SENTENCE OF RAFFAELE AND AMANDA.
BUT I SAY… GOOD GOD YOUR DAUGHTER SLAUGHTERED AND INSTEAD OF SHOUTING THEIR INDIGNATION TOWARDS THE MURDERER THEY SAID
SATISFIED?????
BUT OF WHAT????
SHAMEFULLLLLL!
Giovinazzo.It Forum



* She calls Maresca a Piripicchio, -IMO- she means a clown, like Piripicchio the comedian from (Sollecito’s home region).
http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid= ... 793869266#
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Disgusting.

Thanks for posting, Jools.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hmmm, the sense of entitlement shows through that, at least the way I read it. Such folk do not believe that a criminal is defined by his or her commission of a crime: they use the term "criminal class" somewhat literally. There are folk like that all over the world. I do not find much to admire
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fiona wrote:
Hmmm, the sense of entitlement shows through that, at least the way I read it. Such folk do not believe that a criminal is defined by his or her commission of a crime: they use the term "criminal class" somewhat literally. There are folk like that all over the world. I do not find much to admire


And if I understand correctly, she is comparing RG to a monkey! In their primitive racist assumptions, the Sollecitos and the Knox/Mellas's seem to have a lot in common. Black man found, black man convicted. Papa is all smiles but I am worried he will invent strange things. African American hairs found in Meredith's hand...

_________________
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: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Has the Comedy fundraiser sold out, yet?


They wouldn't be pimping it on the local news station "news" reports every day if it were.

I think that even with this daily "coverage", and even if every local news station in town were down at the club to cover the action "live" like they were at the Salty's fund raiser, it will be a bust.

They’ve lost on moral principles alone and had to go on the tele to try and explain why a “comedy” fundraiser was somehow appropriate.

They say they'd like to see a line around the block waiting to get into the place. Well, I'd like to see that too and I hope Linda Byron is there to document all the grass roots on fire support.

Maximum possible gross at face ticket value would be about 10K, but I suspect they will be very lucky to even clear enough to cover the next round of plane tickets to Perugia after expenses, unless The Donald happens to phone something in.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
From above the funny part is this one: "Forensic experts, ABC 20/20, CBS 48 Hours Mystery and a multitude of expert forensic scientists have convincingly disputed the “evidence” that convicted Amanda."

Who have they convinced?


Not only convincing to 'whom', but 'how'? How have the arguments of those in the quoted sources been in any way convincing? I watched all those episodes and was far from convinced. Indeed, like many, felt I was being subjected to a propaganda campaign and anyone who's convinced by those is rather dim.

_________________
"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: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Hmmm, the sense of entitlement shows through that, at least the way I read it. Such folk do not believe that a criminal is defined by his or her commission of a crime: they use the term "criminal class" somewhat literally. There are folk like that all over the world. I do not find much to admire


And if I understand correctly, she is comparing RG to a monkey! In their primitive racist assumptions, the Sollecitos and the Knox/Mellas's seem to have a lot in common. Black man found, black man convicted. Papa is all smiles but I am worried he will invent strange things. African American hairs found in Meredith's hand...


It's a blatantly racist remark, pure and simple! Black people have been called monkeys for years on end by racists. In English football matches, in the past, where there'd be black players, 'fans' would throw bananas onto the pitch. Monkeys love bananas right? That comment equating Rudy to a monkey wouldn't have even been published in the UK, under law it wouldn't have been allowed to be. However, in this case in Italy I'm glad it was...as now we can see how these people really tick, how they really are and what they really think. And as a member of the public, I realise even more Raffaele (and Amanda) are in exactly the right place.

_________________
"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: Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

This has probably already been discussed, but I'm a little slow on the uptake today. So......

Has anyone else noticed the Amanda Knox Family is mentioning RS in every interview post trial? Before, it all about la_)

Now Knox/Mellas has seen the reality of this case. IMO, RS's attorney is not going to allow her client to be dragged down by Amanda any longer. After the summation, RS's attorney proved not to be particularly fond of Edda's hug.
Top Profile 

Offline lector


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am

Posts: 97

Location: swamps of Jersey

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
...But I feel like I've seen this all somewhere before - it must be a remake.

The dingo et it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Don’t know if this was posted before, but Dan Abrams, the top legal analyst for NBC was on the Today show yesterday talking about what ramifications the Mignini case may have on the Knox case. Doesn’t see any connection between the two on paper, but the appeal judges are human and it just gives more ammunition to the Knox legal case. In the end, is skeptical of what impact, if any on the legal case. Also thinks the Italians are being bad sports as far as the slander charges against Amanda and her parents, particularly since they secured a murder conviction. Says the best thing going for Amanda, is that in Italy the case gets revisited on the appeals.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/#35059481

Marisa, a Solecito relative says Rudy looked like a monkey in a cage??
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 15 [ 3716 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,891,674 Views