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: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:40 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:40 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:

Quote:
Also Nina Burleigh has Giulia Alagna as an assistant for her book. GA is the same 'Fixer, Interpreter' the Knox/Mellases and King5 had. Oops, I forgot, also worked with Paul Ciolino on his 'fantastic' show 48 hours.
http://it.linkedin.com/pub/giulia-alagna/15/320/a0b
[/quote]

This is quite significant, of course. I believe Giulia will work for anyone, but she seems to have carved out a niche with the Knox/Mellas entourage and PR coterie.... Nina Burleigh, Doug Longhini (CBS producer), Paul Ciolino, not to mention various close friends of the Knox family who visited Perugia last summer. What's in it for Giulia? Perhaps a career as a journalist, which is certainly what she aspires to. Everyone has to start somewhere.

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: REPUBBLICA Stagliano video   

__________________________________________________________________________

SKEP WROTE:

Hi 411. Actually, I think I said (or meant) that both Mike Heavey and Tom Wright have daughters who were students at Prep when Knox was. Also, tuition is much higher than three thousand dollars a year. I must have said thirteen or twenty-three thousand. I don't remember exactly![/quote]

THE 411 RESPONDS:
How right you are! MY BAD! In addition to the many problems I have, I can't read my own handwriting! sh-)) It is indeed 13 K, not 3 K according to the tape, and I've corrected my typo!

I really need to get away from the computer,get some caffeine, and stretch my legs!
(TRANSLATION help for non-English readers here:
To Stretch ones legs = "To DO CARTWHEELS") da-))
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Who opened the front door for Rudy to leave after committing the crime? Surely with the gruesomeness of the heinous crime, his dna mixed with the victim's blood would have been there.

I don't doubt Rudy's complicity. But, am having a hard time understanding his dna nowhere but the bedroom and toilet bowl.
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In Perugia, there are people who think concaine was involved.

In what sense?

Sorry, but most people who do cocaine don't go and brutally murder people simple because they've done cocaine!

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that AK and company are the perps, but to claim that cocaine or other drugs are the cause is total BS!

Reality is is that most people in Italy carry knives, do minor league drugs, etc., and this has no bearing on the true facts of the case!

The 90 days expire on Tuesday, so we can all look forward to some enlightenment!

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

tom_ch wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In Perugia, there are people who think concaine was involved.

In what sense?

Sorry, but most people who do cocaine don't go and brutally murder people simple because they've done cocaine!

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that AK and company are the perps, but to claim that cocaine or other drugs are the cause is total BS!

Reality is is that most people in Italy carry knives, do minor league drugs, etc., and this has no bearing on the true facts of the case!

The 90 days expire on Tuesday, so we can all look forward to some enlightenment!

Tom



There is a huge difference between stating that cocaine or any other drug was "involved" and stating that it was a cause. I don't think anyone has argued that cocaine or pot caused the three convicted of murdering Meredith to do what they did. It is a fact that Perugia leads Italy in deaths from cocaine.

Also, I merely noted that some observers in Perugia believe that cocaine was involved. I was just reporting what I was told.

I don't know what the statistics are on knife-carrying in Italy. Some people in France carry small knives that they use to cut bread; but this phenomenon is far more widespread in the countryside. I would certainly not say that half of the people I know in France carry a knife. For one thing, none of my female friends there carry one, and they make up over half the population.

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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

tom_ch wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In Perugia, there are people who think concaine was involved.

In what sense?

Sorry, but most people who do cocaine don't go and brutally murder people simple because they've done cocaine!

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that AK and company are the perps, but to claim that cocaine or other drugs are the cause is total BS!


Skep just stated a fact e.g. there are people who think cocaine was involved. She didn't claim that cocaine or other drugs were the reason behind the attack or draw any other conclusions.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Something that has been bothering me for a long time: if, as AK claimed, Meredith was in the habit of locking her door even when she went to the bathroom to take a shower, then why would RS try and break her locked door down? On the basis of AK's reasoning, which she maintained until Filomena insisted otherwise, why didn't she and RS logically conclude that Meredith had simply gone out or that she had spent the night elsewhere? It isn't as if noon is too early to go out in the morning.

_________________
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: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Worried front door open... bit of blood around.. no answer on phone...???? That could be her story i guess
Top Profile 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
Skep just stated a fact e.g. there are people who think cocaine was involved. She didn't claim that cocaine or other drugs were the reason behind the attack or draw any other conclusions.

So, again, in what sense was it involved?

Based on my own knowledge and experiences with dope and coke, neither had anything to do with this!

Some evil people did some evil stuff, end of story.

Trying to place the blame on 'drugs' is BS.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Worried front door open... bit of blood around.. no answer on phone...???? That could be her story i guess


Yes, but why take a leisurely shower and then go back to RS's place with a mop to clean the floor from a spill that would already be dry? Also, the phone calls to Meredith's phone (very, very short, no ringing and ringing going on) came only once she was back at RS's, according to AK. So she went home to an open front door and a bit of blood (described by RS to police as a pool of blood), took a shower (did not try and reach any of her roommates) and dried her hair (walking past Filomena's room but not seeing the mess because the door was closed, though RS said it was open when he arrived), found a mop and walked back to RS's, and only as she was having breakfast thought there could be a problem? Sounds like a story, all right.

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

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - UMBERTO BINDELLA   

DLW wrote:
OT) Umberto Rib, was the 31 yr old ex boyfriend of Sonia Marra who went missing in Perugia Nov. 16 in 2006. Umberto was recently arrested and charged with murder in that case, and spent about two weeks in jail. He was subsequently released on Feb 6, but the charges weren’t dropped. He mysteriously left his parents home last night and can’t be found. He left a four page note expressing his innocence, and drove off. The police are currently searching for him. TJMK has followed this case.
It's nice to see FinnMacCool back.

Youreporter.it

Update: Well they found him in the woods today after going missing. His car got stuck in the mud. He’s not under any restrictive measures. There’s a hearing set for March 12, where the prosecutor is objecting to his release. Should be interesting.

Here is a report from Terni in Rete re UMBERTO BINDELLA, only suspect in the case of the disappearance in 2006 of a student in Perugia from Puglia. He spent a fortnight in prison, was released and now must face a review hearing contesting his release.
For some unknown reason, Google Translator insists on changing his surname to "Rib".

BINDELLA
TRANSLATED FROM TERNI IN RETE
BINDELLA FOUND. “THEY HAVE RUINED MY LIFE AND CONTINUE TO DO SO”
FEBRUARY 28TH 2010 18.08 HOURS
By Adriano Lorenzoni

UMBERTO BINDELLA found in the early afternoon at Deruta.

Seen in the woods near Deruta in the vicinity of the sanctuary of the Madonna of the Baths.

UPDATE: The Carabinieri from Deruta have found Umberto Bindella in the woods around Deruta, near the sanctuary of the Madonna of the Baths. According to the first reports it has been learnt that Bindella was found in a confused state. His vehicle was bogged down in a pool of mud. His parents and his lawyer, Daniela Paccoi rushed to the spot. Bindella himself exchanged a few words with journalists to whom he insisted that he had absolutely nothing to do with the disappearance of Sonia Marra.

“They have ruined my life and continue to do so. In reply to the reporters who asked him why he had run away from home, he replied, “I needed a break to think”.

His mother as well repeated that her son was “a victim”.

Lawyer Daniela Paccoi asked for “respect on behalf of the media” for her client. “Umberto is confused, it’s been two days since he ate, he needs peace. Perhaps we will give a press conference, for now let’s leave him in peace.”

Umberto Bindella was found safe and sound. He was seen in the early afternoon by a group of trippers who were on a horse ride through the woods around Deruta. The Carabinieri who were alerted straight away went to the spot. First they found Bindella’s car, then they came upon Bindella himself, who was found in good physical conditions. According to first reports, Bindella is supposed to have told the officers that he had no intention of going home.


During the 48 hours when Bindella left no trace of himself, his parents feared that he could have done himself extreme harm.
He had left papers on his desk in which he expressed his disappointment about justice, holding himself to be its victim.

On March 12th, among other things, the Review Court must hand down a decision about the appeal by Magistrate Giuseppe Petrazzini against his release from prison.

Umberto Bindella, up until today, remains the only person under investigation for the disappearance of the student from Puglia, Sonia Marra, which took place in Perugia in December 2006.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Worried front door open... bit of blood around.. no answer on phone...???? That could be her story i guess


Yes, but why take a leisurely shower and then go back to RS's place with a mop to clean the floor from a spill that would already be dry? Also, the phone calls to Meredith's phone (very, very short, no ringing and ringing going on) came only once she was back at RS's, according to AK. So she went home to an open front door and a bit of blood (described by RS to police as a pool of blood), took a shower (did not try and reach any of her roommates) and dried her hair (walking past Filomena's room but not seeing the mess because the door was closed, though RS said it was open when he arrived), found a mop and walked back to RS's, and only as she was having breakfast thought there could be a problem? Sounds like a story, all right.


Her story would be increasing worry.. start as a "hmmm" moment... "huh, what's this?" moment... wander back to RS's make a call (remember this is a story! so a 3 second phone means a call...) then she would have the input from RS.. so 'hey, something's up' moment... ' maybe we should try to open the door' moment.....
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

tom_ch wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Skep just stated a fact e.g. there are people who think cocaine was involved. She didn't claim that cocaine or other drugs were the reason behind the attack or draw any other conclusions.

So, again, in what sense was it involved?

Based on my own knowledge and experiences with dope and coke, neither had anything to do with this!

Some evil people did some evil stuff, end of story.

Trying to place the blame on 'drugs' is BS.

Tom


No one is talking about blame, for goodness sake. For any given crime, there are numerous facts and factors that have more or less causal potency. Some facts have zero causal potency. They are just facts. My statement was one of fact -- that some people in Perugia believe that the drug cocaine may have been involved.

Are you trying to say that it is impossible that the perps used cocaine and/or pot on the night of Nov 1? Both AK and RS have stated that they smoked cannabis on that night. If they are to be believed, cannabis was involved.

I am certainly not looking for some way to excuse either one.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Worried front door open... bit of blood around.. no answer on phone...???? That could be her story i guess


Yes, but why take a leisurely shower and then go back to RS's place with a mop to clean the floor from a spill that would already be dry? Also, the phone calls to Meredith's phone (very, very short, no ringing and ringing going on) came only once she was back at RS's, according to AK. So she went home to an open front door and a bit of blood (described by RS to police as a pool of blood), took a shower (did not try and reach any of her roommates) and dried her hair (walking past Filomena's room but not seeing the mess because the door was closed, though RS said it was open when he arrived), found a mop and walked back to RS's, and only as she was having breakfast thought there could be a problem? Sounds like a story, all right.


Her story would be increasing worry.. start as a "hmmm" moment... "huh, what's this?" moment... wander back to RS's make a call (remember this is a story! so a 3 second phone means a call...) then she would have the input from RS.. so 'hey, something's up' moment... ' maybe we should try to open the door' moment.....


Why did she go back to RS's? If she was worried, then why not call RS and ask him to come to the cottage? In fact, I am not sure she ever went back to his apartment at all. But that's just me. And given the length of the calls to Meredith, no one can plausibly argue that a real attempt was made to reach her and that the door was broken down only when it became apparent that she was "missing". In fact, why didn't AK and RS try calling Meredith's cell phones from the outside of the locked door before trying to break it down? According to them, they called from RS's place.

_________________
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: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Where were the pings to Meredith's phones? Don't they pinpoint Amanda?
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
In Perugia, there are people who think concaine was involved.

In what sense?

Sorry, but most people who do cocaine don't go and brutally murder people simple because they've done cocaine!

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that AK and company are the perps, but to claim that cocaine or other drugs are the cause is total BS!

Reality is is that most people in Italy carry knives, do minor league drugs, etc., and this has no bearing on the true facts of the case!

The 90 days expire on Tuesday, so we can all look forward to some enlightenment!

Tom



There is a huge difference between stating that cocaine or any other drug was "involved" and stating that it was a cause. I don't think anyone has argued that cocaine or pot caused the three convicted of murdering Meredith to do what they did. It is a fact that Perugia leads Italy in deaths from cocaine.

Also, I merely noted that some observers in Perugia believe that cocaine was involved. I was just reporting what I was told.

I don't know what the statistics are on knife-carrying in Italy. Some people in France carry small knives that they use to cut bread; but this phenomenon is far more widespread in the countryside. I would certainly not say that half of the people I know in France carry a knife. For one thing, none of my female friends there carry one, and they make up over half the population.


None of the people I know in Italy carry a knife, it may be more common in the countryside, just like in France. Some people may carry those swiss army knifes when travelling or hiking, but hardly anybody would think of carrying a knife especially in a city. Besides, it is forbidden by law unless one can prove a knife is needed for a specific law-approved purpose-surely not robbing or stabbing someone. Of course thugs do carry knifes, but I don't think thugs are representative of most of the Italian population. The reality is that most Italians don't carry knifes and don't do minor league drugs! Actually Sollecito's habit to carry a knife everywhere would seem quite bizarre to the average law abiding citizen, which represent the majority of Italians.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Worried front door open... bit of blood around.. no answer on phone...???? That could be her story i guess


Yes, but why take a leisurely shower and then go back to RS's place with a mop to clean the floor from a spill that would already be dry? Also, the phone calls to Meredith's phone (very, very short, no ringing and ringing going on) came only once she was back at RS's, according to AK. So she went home to an open front door and a bit of blood (described by RS to police as a pool of blood), took a shower (did not try and reach any of her roommates) and dried her hair (walking past Filomena's room but not seeing the mess because the door was closed, though RS said it was open when he arrived), found a mop and walked back to RS's, and only as she was having breakfast thought there could be a problem? Sounds like a story, all right.


Her story would be increasing worry.. start as a "hmmm" moment... "huh, what's this?" moment... wander back to RS's make a call (remember this is a story! so a 3 second phone means a call...) then she would have the input from RS.. so 'hey, something's up' moment... ' maybe we should try to open the door' moment.....


Why did she go back to RS's? If she was worried, then why not call RS and ask him to come to the cottage? In fact, I am not sure she ever went back to his apartment at all. But that's just me. And given the length of the calls to Meredith, no one can plausibly argue that a real attempt was made to reach her and that the door was broken down only when it became apparent that she was "missing". In fact, why didn't AK and RS try calling Meredith's cell phones from the outside of the locked door before trying to break it down? According to them, they called from RS's place.


Well, I agree, dumb to say Meredith locks the door then worry if it is locked. and Meredith not around. Usually the point of locking a door is because you AREN'T home, so any reasons will be spin actually. She weaves the convoluted tale with assorted details but never really answering. If you pinned her down she would have to say puzzled (not worried) by door but the explanation is the lock... concerned( not worried) blood.. hmm maybe Meredith's time of month... then needs an excuse to say she got Raf and fit the mop in the story... so then she has to make the puzzle lead to concern and then escalate to worry and this is the escalation which doesn't make sense but she said it:

AK: Yes. When I saw that Meredith's door was locked, and that if she was in
there, she wasn't answering, I really wanted to find out whether she was in
there or not. I was confused about this, because why should her door be locked
if she wasn't inside? So first I tried -- the way the house is situated,
she had a window near that little balcony, so I first tried to climb over
the balcony to see if I could see inside. But I couldn't, and [laughing]
Raffaele was saying "No, get back here!" and pulling me back onto the balcony.
So then he tried to knock the door down.

LG: Yes, and I know that you had tried to open the door together, hadn't you?

AK: Yes. Raffaele tried giving it a kick, and also pushing it with his shoulder
to open it, because we didn't know why that door should be locked.

LG: And you also tried calling out Meredith's name?

AK: Of course, and I also tried looking in the keyhole.


*****And skep, I am sure you are right, Amanda's story is rubbish really and Mignini asked the same questions to show how illogical it was and how she scrambled to try and make a story out of the scenario:


GM: But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that
Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

AK: I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand.
I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

GM: I see, you didn't explain properly.

GCM: The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay, you say it was not always
open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance which didn't particularly
alarm you, so much so that you even said this to Romanelli.

AK: Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--

GCM: Okay, okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas
in fact Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?

AK: Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door
was locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that
she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and
she isn't well or something.

GCM: Yes, but per carita, still on this circumstance. A door is locked,
locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't answering me?
I could just calmly think that nobody is there--

AK: Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

GCM: --and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door
by breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not
answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left.
She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

AK: I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the
house--
GCM: No, excuse me. Per carita. After this, the other party will continue
the examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can
think that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why
should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this
is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain
why you were so worried in relation to your knowledge. Your motive for trying
to break down the door.

AK: Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself,
because there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know
what to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but
I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if
someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there,
I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken
window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried.
So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there.
I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said
to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain
the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's
never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that.


Last edited by H9 on Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Burleigh, who hopes to interview Knox and Sollecito in jail, said of Italian perceptions of crime in general, "[They] also seem to have no concept of 'robbery gone wrong.' I can't tell you how many Italian 'dottores' of law and criminology said to me that thieves simply do not kill. Obviously, they've missed the news about all the poor bodega owners and 7-Eleven clerks in early graves over here."

I gather that Nina Burleigh is trying to make the point that the murder could be the result of a robbery gone wrong, rather than a "sex game gone wrong," but how many robberies down at the local bodega end in death resulting from multiple stab wounds to the neck made from two different knives? (Then of course there's also the main issue that the robbery in this case was faked, but I guess she's just not going there.) Sounds like Nina's writing a profoundly true and deep assessment of this crime for sure. I think I'll read Barbie's book instead...which I'm hoping will be reproduced here...although I guess that's not legal, huh?
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I don't think these links have been posted here yet, found these from the comments section of the above referenced Bill Edelblute blog article:

Edda radio interviewed by Frank Shiers about the Oprah show, 13:39 minutes long chat:

[urlx=http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=287975&page=1]Amanda Knox's family pleased with Oprah appearance[/urlx]

Another google translation of the Rudy Guede Micheli Report (haven't seen this commented/ edited version before):

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AToWe ... Ymht&hl=en

Watched the Oprah Show on youtube and on some reality tv fan something place on net. Not too bad. Da capo al fine ie the same story from beginning to end once again. Oprah tried to be objective. Edda says (on the radio interview) that during the breaks she was much more supportive.

But what was that thing about the cartwheels? I get all confused as I thought it was in Stewarthome2000's or someone else's courtroom account that the policemen and -women testified that they told AK off for cartwheeling as it was not appropriate behaviour. Could it really be some lost in translation thing? My apologies if you've already discussed this on length, I haven't read all messages from the past week.

Can anyone tip me on how to view all the 184 comments there are on the Edelblute article's comments section? I seem to be able to view only some of the latest ones from 28th and 27th of February (Colonel Hall = Bilko? making appearances along with some pesky sounding MaryH). Clicking next or previous does not seem to change the number of comments shown.


Last edited by Rumpole on Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

RS removed the pipe under his sink to clean it because water remains in the bottom of the U-shaped pipe. He just couldn't put it back together because plumbing is not as easy as one would assume. There was probably DNA/blood from washing the knife in the sink. RS knew enough to clean the pipe (that's why there was no DNA in it).

As far as drug testing goes,

Cocaine 2-5 days blood/urine, 90 days follicle
LSD 0-3 hours blood/urine (very uncommon test) up to 3 days follicle
Meth 1-3 days blood/urine, 90 days follicle

Even if the police did test AK, RS, and RG's it would have been clean.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Who opened the front door for Rudy to leave after committing the crime? Surely with the gruesomeness of the heinous crime, his dna mixed with the victim's blood would have been there.

I don't doubt Rudy's complicity. But, am having a hard time understanding his dna nowhere but the bedroom and toilet bowl.

He could have taken a dive through Filomena's broken window, as he erased all DNA evidence behind him with the mop Knox was fiddling with when police arrived.

Wait! Cleanup! Knox cleaned up cuz her boyfriend was to arrive and call police before police arrived, just after sister Vanessa told him to call police, after knox calls Mom at a godawful early hour, although Knox cannot -will not- remember she ever-ever made the call the prosecution with documented proof says she made.

So Knox cleans up after Guede, takes a shower and uses the bloody bath mat to hop and slide to her room, which justifies her bare footprints, the victim's DNA and Sollecito's- cuz her boyfriend likes to skip around in his bare feet on a cold November morning.

Then she rats on her boss. He is put in jail for two weeks and then Guede is caught in Germany... this makes a lot of sense and will exonerate the two defendants come appeal time! v-)) br-)) wh-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:50 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander,

Thanks for the language discussion earlier. About the bilingual thing: I think the speaking part is more essential, talking precedes writing. I can't, of course, speak for all bilingual people, but the ones that I know of, are good at both talking and writing their both languages, some of them work with languages and I haven't noticed anything wrong with their spelling and/or writing of Finnish or English. But I can imagine that if one is from a bilingual family and not working with languages that much and not reading books that much either, then his or her writing in one or both of the languages may certainly be inferior to the abilities of someone that actively uses his or her languages daily both in talking and writing.

Yes, English has a large vocabulary, a lot larger than most languages, there's the Roman layer of words at the bottom (trying to recall what I studied about the history of the English language some 20 years ago) and then the same concepts from couple of other eras (I don't remember which, anglo-saxon something probably, viking era?). When other languages have one term for a concept, English may have three alternatives such as royal, kingly, and regal which mean roughly the same in English as far as I know whereas most other languages would have one word as a translation for all three. But the vastness of the English vocabulary does not make English a difficult language, you don't have to know all the vocabulary by heart to be able to use the language, there are always dictionaries that you can use when reading and writing. And when talking, most people use only a certain number of words.

Grammatically English is fairly easy, and I don't think the syntax is that complicated either.

btw: Listened to the Strange Dave show (ages ago when the link was first posted here). You were very brave to go there. I would never ever in my life do anything like that voluntarily.
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I also find it telling when an FOA article appears and nobody will take responsibility for writing it. The MyNorthwest.com was the second one, after the Vashon paper piece about Curt.
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Reading Foxy Knoxy's testimony transcript there is something pretty incriminating. One of the prosecutors was really going after her on when she fingered PL. The judge and prosector took quite a bit of time to show that the police had just discovered the PL text message (from Knox - the see you later) and didn't know who it was to. They kept pushing AK to stop protecting people and Amanda broke and accused Patrick. The police didn't know anything about him or suggest the possibility of him committing the crime.

So there was no suggestion of who did it or what happened that the police were trying to confuse Amanda with. That's another load of crap Knox's parents and FOA pushes. She came up with the PL story on her own.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Something that has been bothering me for a long time: if, as AK claimed, Meredith was in the habit of locking her door even when she went to the bathroom to take a shower, then why would RS try and break her locked door down? On the basis of AK's reasoning, which she maintained until Filomena insisted otherwise, why didn't she and RS logically conclude that Meredith had simply gone out or that she had spent the night elsewhere? It isn't as if noon is too early to go out in the morning.


For some reason, Amanda did not try to open the door. She was an athlete. Strong legs. Kick that sucker down. Instead, they say Raffaele the 'non-athlete' tried to use his shoulde to open the locked bedroom door. The only thing that would break in that situation would be the shoulder. I'm not a crime show CSI nut, professional thief or medical smarty. Just makes sense.

Was Raffaele's shoulder bruised? Not that I recall.

Amanda knew what was behind that locked bedroom door. Somebody else was supposed to 'discover' it.

IMO, that bra was tossed into the room right before the door was locked by Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

There is no evidence of cocaine (or something similiar) use but the suspicion is there for a few reasons.
- Stomach pains reported by both RG and AK
- The extreme violence of the crime. Not an excuse but it can help bring the 'evil' out so to speak.
- The presence of RG

Especially, the last reason interests me. RG himself explains it by having a date with MK. Pretty much proven to be wrong, and nobody believes a word of that. However, he adds to this fantasy that he waited at the empty cottage for 15 minutes or so. There is no reason to add this unless it is actually true which indicates that he did have a meeting with someone, just that it wasn't MK.

Going to speculate a bit on this: AK went out from RS appartment for awhile, receives a message that she doesn't have to work after all, bumps into RG in town, they chitchat about drugs (possibly cocaine), AK wants to try it and RG offers her to bring her some later. They plan to meet around 9pm at the cottage or basketball court.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

Thanks for the language discussion earlier. About the bilingual thing: I think the speaking part is more essential, talking precedes writing. I can't, of course, speak for all bilingual people, but the ones that I know of, are good at both talking and writing their both languages, some of them work with languages and I haven't noticed anything wrong with their spelling and/or writing of Finnish or English. But I can imagine that if one is from a bilingual family and not working with languages that much and not reading books that much either, then his or her writing in one or both of the languages may certainly be inferior to the abilities of someone that actively uses his or her languages daily both in talking and writing.

Yes, English has a large vocabulary, a lot larger than most languages, there's the Roman layer of words at the bottom (trying to recall what I studied about the history of the English language some 20 years ago) and then the same concepts from couple of other eras (I don't remember which, anglo-saxon something probably, viking era?). When other languages have one term for a concept, English may have three alternatives such as royal, kingly, and regal which mean roughly the same in English as far as I know whereas most other languages would have one word as a translation for all three. But the vastness of the English vocabulary does not make English a difficult language, you don't have to know all the vocabulary by heart to be able to use the language, there are always dictionaries that you can use when reading and writing. And when talking, most people use only a certain number of words.

Grammatically English is fairly easy, and I don't think the syntax is that complicated either.

btw: Listened to the Strange Dave show (ages ago when the link was first posted here). You were very brave to go there. I would never ever in my life do anything like that voluntarily.


Talking only precedes writing and reading chronologically, in part because of the way the brain develops. People the world over have many misconceptions about language. If you are interested in how linguists see things, I recommend a fascinating collection of essays entitled Language Myths, written by leading linguists and compiled by Laurie Bauer and Peter Tredgill.

Here are some of the myths debunked in the book:

The media are ruining English
Some languages are harder than others
Children can't speak or write properly anymore
Italian Is Beautiful, German Is Ugly
Etc.

Anyway, having listened to people butcher the English language for most of my adult life, I beg to differ that it is easier to learn than other languages. I also don't think French is harder to learn than Spanish, for example. I'm kidding somewhat about people butchering English. At the same time, among the many misconceptions people have about languages is one you cited earlier, about the supposed importance of accent. It turns out that most everyone has one. Let's take French. What does it mean to speak unaccented French? Does it mean to have a Parisian accent? Does this mean people from Québec can't acquire native fluency? Today on my walk I listened to a podcast called La Libairie, where francophone bookstore owners from all over the world weigh in on books. The woman from Montréal had an accent, as did the woman from Génève and the guy from Belgium. People from Corrèze have an accent that is noticeably different than the one you hear in La Vendée. Some people don't realize I have one when I speak French, while others detect a slight accent. They are usually wrong when they try and guess where I am from.

Certain languages "seem" easier for learners because of deep structures in their own language. Native speakers of Spanish may find French easier than native speakers of a Scandinavian language, who often find English easier because of some syntactical similarities.

As for Strange Dave, last I heard he was booted off the air!!!!!
Did you notice when he asked me if I spoke English because I didn't understand one of his questions?

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

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Was it ever mentioned anywhere in court that none of Rudy's DNA was found around the window of Filomena's room? I mean, he would have had to exert himself quite a bit in pulling himself up and through the window and that would have most definitely left some kind of trace of him in that room? I also would like to think that a possible explanation for Amanda and Meredith's blood/DNA being found mixed in several places(that forensics was able to ascertain fresh from old and menstrual, etc..), is becuase Meredith was able to bop Amanda one in the nose in self-defense. At least, I'd like to think that Meredith got in one good shot on one of her attackers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:21 am   Post subject: REPUBBLICA Stagliano video (FINAL PART!)   


From approx. 6:57 to the END of the video

_____________________________________________________________________
“Although it’s important that these influential people on her side
have made a big splash, they don’t really represent the entire city.” (said Ganong.)

Anne Bremner, former prosecutor and current TV legal commentator is
the spokeswoman for the Friends of Amanda, a site where counterinformation regarding trial facts is continually updated. “An injustice in any part of the world is an injustice in all of the world. I personally felt it was important to lend a hand, to expose the absolute lack of evidence. In other words, someone who has absolutely nothing to do with this horrendous crime. What has happened since the verdict? Nothing, except to increase the passion, that much more. We will never, ever abandon Amanda.” (said Anne B.)


{PRESS CONFERENCE SUBTITLES AS FOLLOWS OF the REPORTER’S QUESTIONS appear frame by frame}
A REPORTER ASKS:
“TODAY SEN. CANTWELL SPOKE OF CONTAMINATED EVIDENCE…

OF UNSEQUESTERED JURORS AND A QUESTIONABLE PROSECUTOR…

ADDITIONALLY, WE’VE SEEN JURORS WEARING TRI-COLORED SASHES…

AND THERE WAS ANGER IN THE ITALIAN PRESS AND ALL THIS INDICATES THAT THERE HASN’T BEEN A FAIR TRIAL…

AND ALL OF YOU IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT CLAIM THE OPPOSITE…”


VOICE OVER:
In the meantime, they continue their tireless lobbying activity, recruiting the most varied of advocates. Sen. Marie Cantwell has expressed such serious doubts about the judicial system, that Anti-Americanism contaminated the case, also making Hillary Clinton interested in the case.

Fortunately, she (Hillary) was too busy dealing with Afghanistan and Iran to offer an opinion on the matter.

Even, VIPs like Donald Trump, who has proposed a boycott of Italy, until the girl is home.

SUBTITLE OF STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS CONFERENCE
“ITALY HAS ITS OWN JUSTICE SYSTEM, DIFFERENT THAN OUR OWN.”

No one remembers one detail-- that at least Italy doesn’t have the Death Penalty. Nor the many cases that American was careful to collaborate with Italian judges, such as, (after) the Disaster of Cermes, and the killing of Agent Nicola Calferi by (American) soldier (Mario) Lozano ).

END OF VIDEO co-)
pp-(


Last edited by The 411 on Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Going to work was a 'party' planned by Amanda. Not a quiet evening at home with Raffaele.

She was not at Raffaele's all night, IMO. Amanda searched for a party.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Kinda off topic, but Rumpole says:

Yes, English has a large vocabulary, a lot larger than most languages, there's the Roman layer of words at the bottom (trying to recall what I studied about the history of the English language some 20 years ago) and then the same concepts from couple of other eras (I don't remember which, anglo-saxon something probably, viking era?). When other languages have one term for a concept, English may have three alternatives such as royal, kingly, and regal which mean roughly the same in English as far as I know whereas most other languages would have one word as a translation for all three.

English isn't a Romance language, so Latin isn't the bottom layer.
It's Germanic, the bottom layer is that Anglo-Saxon - or below it proto-Germanic stuff.
The Latin in English comes in with the church, and then a further Romance layer after 1066.
But in general what confuses things in English is its complete comfort in assimilating vocabulary from anywhere, as you point out happily piling up multiple words for the same thing from different sources.
As well as dragging in other spelling conventions (or not), so that you have to keep track of which rules something follows.
Maddening stuff.
I'm always utterly impressed at people who learn it as adults.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I've been wondering about the calls made to Meredith's phone by Amanda, were the timings taken from Meredith's phone or Amanda's. I'm interested as the phone I'm using at the moment times my out going calls from the point of connection and does not count the ring tone. I've noticed that the average time for the request to leave a voice mail message is between 8-12 seconds depending on the network I'm connecting with. Given the length of the calls Amanda made it would not leave much time for any really useful message. Did Amanda actually leave a message, I can't remeber reading that she had which is odd if she was so concerned.

Regarding Raff's failed attempt to force Meredith's door. I can only go by the crime scene photos but the door looks similar to a standard internal door which is basically two sheets of thin plywood on a pine surround with an extra bit to allow a lock to be fitted. Even with a mortice lock fitted it would not take more than a couple of good kicks to smash it in. I have had occasion to force an entry through similar doors although that was a long time ago I'm pretty sure I could still get through one of those without much effort inspite of my age and physique.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
Talking only precedes writing and reading chronologically, in part because of the way the brain develops. People the world over have many misconceptions about language. If you are interested in how linguists see things, I recommend a fascinating collection of essays entitled Language Myths, written by leading linguists and compiled by Laurie Bauer and Peter Tredgill.


Assumed easiness of English and/or about difficulties and peculiarities, it is a topic i could see rising several times on this forum. I take the occasion to affirm what I think too, in agreement with Skep and probably with anybody who has dealt with languages for a while: there is no difference in complexity of human languages. All language, in their normal use, have an identical degree of difficulty/complexity. It may be different the way and order in which those level of complexity manifest themselves during the learning of a second language, due to different structures of languages. Obviously a highly inflected language (Latin, German) will manifest a higher degree of complexity before to the learner, on its surface, because the learner has to think more at the beginning in the phase of production of the first correct sentences. But this difference in complexity is illusory.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Kinda off topic, but Rumpole says:

Yes, English has a large vocabulary, a lot larger than most languages, there's the Roman layer of words at the bottom (trying to recall what I studied about the history of the English language some 20 years ago) and then the same concepts from couple of other eras (I don't remember which, anglo-saxon something probably, viking era?). When other languages have one term for a concept, English may have three alternatives such as royal, kingly, and regal which mean roughly the same in English as far as I know whereas most other languages would have one word as a translation for all three.

English isn't a Romance language, so Latin isn't the bottom layer.
It's Germanic, the bottom layer is that Anglo-Saxon - or below it proto-Germanic stuff.
The Latin in English comes in with the church, and then a further Romance layer after 1066.
But in general what confuses things in English is its complete comfort in assimilating vocabulary from anywhere, as you point out happily piling up multiple words for the same thing from different sources.
As well as dragging in other spelling conventions (or not), so that you have to keep track of which rules something follows.
Maddening stuff.
I'm always utterly impressed at people who learn it as adults.


Then you may be dismayed to learn that it is not true (or at least not true in the ways one thinks) that language learning is harder for adults than it is for children!

_________________
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 Mar 01, 2010 3:02 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Talking only precedes writing and reading chronologically, in part because of the way the brain develops. People the world over have many misconceptions about language. If you are interested in how linguists see things, I recommend a fascinating collection of essays entitled Language Myths, written by leading linguists and compiled by Laurie Bauer and Peter Tredgill.


Assumed easiness of English and/or about difficulties and peculiarities, it is a topic i could see rising several times on this forum. I take the occasion to affirm what I think too, in agreement with Skep and probably with anybody who has dealt with languages for a while: there is no difference in complexity of human languages. All language, in their normal use, have an identical degree of difficulty/complexity. It may be different the way and order in which those level of complexity manifest themselves during the learning of a second language, due to different structures of languages. Obviously a highly inflected language (Latin, German) will manifest a higher degree of complexity before to the learner, on its surface, because the learner has to think more at the beginning in the phase of production of the first correct sentences. But this difference in complexity is illusory.


This is exactly right, Yummi. What appears complex to a learner at first is related to what he or she already knows or doesn't know.

Here's another myth: that people learn foreign languages faster if they are immersed in them. Immersion can provide opportunity and the illusion of less effort, but if the input is not comprehensible, no amount of exposure will help a person learn a foreign language. I knew of several English speakers in France for long periods who simply decided not to learn French. They had different reasons for opting out of the linguistic experience, and not necessarily bad ones!

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

411 Thanks for the translation on the video, just one question at the end of the final segment I noticed film of some US Airforce jets was that a reference to the Calavese cable car disaster, in your text it mentioned a disaster at Cermes,I googled it but got pages of post disaster protocols.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

With the Judges Report coming out in a couple of days, I just wanted to preserve these very recent "truths" of Chris Mellas for comparison. These statements can be found at the "Chris and Frank Shock Blog"...

Interesting that Chris has only met ONE person that believes Amanda is guilty.

Chris Mellas:
Quote:
Chris said...

The family of the murderer always say they didn't do it.
Always.

And in this case the family, immediatly said she didn't do it, without hearing a shred of the evidence.
Their minds were made up.



The above statement is BULLSHIT


We went and we asked Amanda what happened.
Had Amanda been guilty, then we would have said so. Simple as that!

We would still support her, as any parent would, but we would not be saying that she is innocent.

She said she had nothing to do with it and the evidence does not point to her involvement either.
As a parent, you know when your kid is lying. You can just tell.

Amanda was not lying. She has not lied. Not in any detail regarding this case. She knew from the beginning that this was serious. Her friend was killed. Nothing is more serious than that.

If anyone has lied, it has been the police and the judiciary in Perugia.

The police said they could not find her clothing and used this to hold her in jail as "a serious indication of guilt" when the clothing was right on her bed the entire time. It was even recorded it in the crime scene video that the police took.

The cops said the shoe prints were Raffaele's and they used this against him in the same manner, but they were Rudy's.

The police willfully witheld Amanda's right to council "because she needed to think about what she had done" according to Arturo De La Felice, Chief of Police, Perugia, in a statement he made to newspapers the morning after her arrest. In doing so, he violated her human rights accorded to her by EU Law and Italian law. Willfilly.

The police also said that another serious indication of guilt was the location of the Harry Potter book. Amanda had said she was at Raffaele's house and she had been reading the book for a while, before watching a movie. Mignini told the judge that the book had been located at Amanda's house, the judge called her a liar and denied her release but the crime scene video clearly showed the book in Raffaele's house.

Her story checked out on all points, but the lies of the police and the judges kept her in jail.

All of this was done BEFORE we had any of the evidence. We were not allowed the evidence because "the investigation was not done yet".

Mignini witheld audio of wiretapped calls between Amanda and her relatives in Germany. These calls would have helped her gain freedom when we were at the supreme court. They were of her relatives repeatedly asking her to go to Germany, and Amanda declining the offer so that she could stay and help with the investigation.

The supreme court ruled that she was a flight risk.

The Italian judicial system is not at fault here. It is the perugian officials who twist the laws or break them, to suit their needs.

They used laws against Amanda, which were reserved for heads of organized crime. Laws which are not meant to be used for regular cases.

They even labeled her a threat to the public!
In no way is she a threat. She is 5' 2" and 115lbs. Sorry but there is not much threat there. She can't order a hit on someone, and she certainly can't overpower most people. Nor would she!

When it was more convenient for them, they just ignored their own laws and acted like vigilanties. Like they were police, judge, and jury, all rolled into one.

While I cannot speak for all parents, I know that the ones who I have spoken to have all said the same thing. If you know she is innocent, then you cannot give up fighting for her, and we aren't.

We know she is innocent. We will fight until she is free and those who wronged her and Raffaele are brought to justice for their actions.

It's what you do as parents. It is what we are doing, because she is innocent.

You know that if you were in the same pinch, you would hope and rely on your parents, friends, and relatives, to do the same.


February 24, 2010 11:50 PM




Chris said...

You're full of smokes and mirrors, and strawmen.
All in the hope of distracting people from the fact that Amanda Knox' DNA is on the handle of the knife that killed Meredith Kercher.



The knife that doesnt fit the wounds? That one??
If thats all you are basing your decision on, you are a simple and easily entertained person.

So, for you:
Simply put.
No evidence of Amanda in the crime scene, and no evidence or argument in court, of a clean up, means she was not there. That makes it impossible for her to be the killer.

Both Raffaele and Amanda are innocent.

Simple enough for you?

This one point, you cannot dispute. She was not in the room where Meredith was killed.

To be more precise, she was at Raffaele's house, with him, but that is hard to prove. The lack of evidence within the crime scene is not though. You just can't argue around that point.

The Knife is just garbage "evidence". It is evidence that Stefanoni doesn't know how to clean a machine, or know when low is too low on her testing machines.

February 25, 2010 12:29 AM




and more from Chris Mellas earlier today:



Quote:
Chris said...

Amanda's team was offered the chance to be there for the tests. They passed.


Oh look... someone else is lying about the case. Someone who is either guessing, repeating a lie that someone else said, or someone who is lying to make the defense look bad. My guess is that its the last one.

Here is how it actually went:

The police called to say that the testing was starting. This testing took place in Rome.

Carlo was in court on another case and Luciano was in Perugia, 2.5 hours away, and also in court on a different case.

We asked that it be postponed until we could get there later that day.

They said no, it could not be postponed to later that same day.

Then they appointed someone else, that is in no way related to the case, to be our stand in. This person "had no objections" to the tests and that was the end of it.

"they passed"... what a crock of crap!

We did complain about this in court, but judge Massei said that they had followed the rules in appointing a stand in and that some things just can't be scheduled, they just have to happen when they happen.

The law is that the defense is supposed to be notified 3 hours prior to any official function. The testing is an official function. They did not afford us the 3 hour notice.

We don't have the money or time to take every little broken law and rule to the supreme court. Nor should we have to, but that would require a fair court.

...something we have not yet encountered in Perugia.

February 27, 2010 11:10 PM



Chris said...

Amanda killed Meredith the knife proves it.

No it doesn't.

* The knife DNA proves that the machine was dirty.

* The knife does not fit the wounds.

* The TMB blood test (which is far more sensitive than a DNA test, including LCN) showed negative results for the rpesence of human blood.

* There was no indication of bleaching, because the knife still had DNA on it...from Amanda, who had used it previously for cooking.

Get over it. It is not the knife that was used to kill Meredith.

You want the real knife? Get Rudy to say where he dumped it. (just like his shoes that he dumped in Germany, when he ran away)

February 27, 2010 11:17 PM



Chris said...

Amanda could have had representatives at the DNa testing but decided it was too expensive.

Another fruitcake lying about the DNA testing "invitation" we recieved.

For the true reason why we were not present at the testing of the knife, please read my previous post on this topic.

February 27, 2010 11:20 PM



Chris said...

Chris...sorry, i forgot you were the significant other. It says a lot that you are not even related but still defend Amanda. I believe in her 1000% and hope she comes home to Seattle again.

Thanks...
I tend to stay out of the camera aim, unless I have to.
Someone in this family has to remain free of the prosecutor.

I've been the step dad since the summer before Amanda was in 3rd grade. Though not officially step dad until a few years later.

You get to know someone completely when you are there for that length of time. She really is a good kid.

Switching the topic a bit...

It's funny, reading the comments here. There is so much hate and nastiness, So much incorrect information.

Some wonderfully supportive comments too.

But you just can't help but walk away from here thinking that nearly the whole world is against Amanda.

But when you really start looking at the posts, what they are saying, and the way they say it. I don't think it is more than a handful of nasty people.

Even more evident, is when you leave this place, back to the real world. Talking to people on the street here in Seattle, or when I am in Italy. You don't find too many that believe the prosecutors position.

I was talking to a guy from Hewlet Packard today, getting spare parts for a system before I leave for Italy, and in the course of conversation he mentioned the case. "You hear about the case involving some girl being killed over there?" Amanda Knox I think her nsame was, he said. I asked what he thought about it, and he said that his opinion was that she was wrongly convicted and that he would be hesitant to go there.

I don't know if he knew my connection to it and I didn't tell him, but it is nice to hear the honest opinion and impression from strangers.

I have only bumped into one person who thought she was guilty, and it had nothing to do with the evidence and more to do with the false reporting, early on in the case.

I talked to him about it and he was unswayed, because he had read about bleach purchases and her beeing seen at a laundry mat with a black guy the day after the crime. Both of which were false reports.

1 person out of MANY who I have spoken with.

I think thats the reality of it.

Most people understand that when you boil it all down, she could not have had a thing to do with this because there is no evidence of her in the room where to the crime took place and the knife does not fit the wounds.

There is yet another group that believes in her innocence but still thinks that she exibited terrible behavior, thanks to the early on reports and such, and for those people, I think that when they finally see and hear Amanda, they will understand.

We dealt with this on Oprah when she asked about cartwheels.

It is the job of the prosecution to make anything and everything look bad, and in that respect, they did an excellent job. The press certainly made their job that much easier too.

So did the shopkeeper at Bubbles when he sold the store camera footage and made up the story about wild sex.

She needed underwear because all of hers were locked up in the crime scene. She bought regular underwear.
The rest that was reported on was fiction.
It's been the halmark of this case.

February 28, 2010 12:44 AM

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:28 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brogan wrote:
411 Thanks for the translation on the video, just one question at the end of the final segment I noticed film of some US Airforce jets was that a reference to the Calavese cable car disaster, in your text it mentioned a disaster at Cermes,I googled it but got pages of post disaster protocols.


Hi, Brogan:
Cermes/Cavalese. It's one and the same--different references for the same tragic incident.
Cermes is the mountain, where the cable car was heading.
Calavese is the actual Italian town where the incident took place.
If you google for the Italian articles, you'll find it referred under
"Strage (i.e, Massacre) del Cermes.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:47 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The 411 wrote:
Brogan wrote:
411 Thanks for the translation on the video, just one question at the end of the final segment I noticed film of some US Airforce jets was that a reference to the Calavese cable car disaster, in your text it mentioned a disaster at Cermes,I googled it but got pages of post disaster protocols.


Hi, Brogan:
Cermes/Cavalese. It's one and the same--different references for the same tragic incident.
Cermes is the mountain, where the cable car was heading.
Calavese is the actual Italian town where the incident took place.
If you google for the Italian articles, you'll find it referred under
"Strage (i.e, Massacre) del Cermes.


Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought we were on the same page, I know that many Italians are still angry over the fallout from the Calavese incident as the NATO agreement that led to the air crew being subject to courts martial in the US was a get out of jail free card as no one was found guilty for the reckless behaviour that caused the death of the passengers in the cable car. The only person to be jailed was found guilty of destroying evidence. If I remember correctly it was for disposing of the gun camera video of the incident that would have proved the prosecutions case. As allways I stand to be corrected by anyone with better information.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I've been going through Nicki's old posts but cannot find the one where she supposedly discusses why it's perfectly logical that there is no AK DNA in Meredith's room - can you Nicki yourself or someone else point me to the right direction? (I was reading some post here ages ago, where someone mentioned that Nicki explains the lack of AK DNA very well.)

I'm just interested to read the motivations behind that claim, it's not a question that I think that there would need to be loads of her DNA if she took part in this violent attack as the Knoxes, Mellases and that Ted Simon bloke are claiming. Or rather when she took part ... There isn't always any DNA at all (like in the Christine Schürrer case in Sweden that I talked about earlier) and people have been convicted of crimes before DNA was ever discovered.

Once the judges' report comes out, the Mellas-Knox gang will be touring all the morning shows, Edda said this on the radio interview, apparently all the big networks have been asking them to come, btw: Elisabeth Vargas was called an expert by this Frank Shiers (lol). For me she sounds very biased towards her own country and countrymen. I'm actually getting really tired of this continuous whining about the jury not being sequestered as in the US - again today I've heard and / or read that several times. It was mentioned on the Oprah show and on the Guardian free speech piece on TJMK and couple of other texts. It's just so very parochial. And it's really irritating. And stupid. For if one commits a crime abroad, one cannot expext US rules to be applied. So after the first realisation that things are different in Italy, they should've gone forward and stopped repeating it on every show they attend. It's so dishonest. Most of the time I'm sure they truly believe their daughter's word, they really think that she's been very honest and told everything about that night to them, but when they go on and on about the same lame facts about Italian juries, I sometimes start to doubt their motives. I've been to read most of the FOA stuff at some point, and I can understand how they can convince people with their version of the facts, they made me doubt every aspect of the evidence. I found that science woman, DNA expert of a sort they have, rather convincing at first. When she claimed that as there's no blood on the knife, there can't be any DNA either.

Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.

As most cases are appealed in my own country as well, I think some first level lay-judges and judges may actually think that as there will be another trial, their decision does not matter that much (Sometimes the verdicts are turned all upside down on the next level, so much so that one starts to wonder why we have a first level court at all when on appeal the verdict is totally changed by a new set of judges. I've noticed that in Finland the appeal judges on the second level and supreme court seem to take the penal code too literally forgetting common sense totally, for instance, when the penal code does not mention either hammer or a baseball bat as tools that can be viewed as comparable weapons to firearms and edged weapons that can cause life-threatening injuries, the idiot judges took recently off some months of an already lenient Finnish way sentence someone had had for an aggravated assault of his wife - with a hammer and baseball bat, the aggravated assault was deemed to be only an assault. Most people would have the common sense to think that a hammer and a baseball bat are deadly weapons when used to attack someone.) I have no evidence of this sort of behaviour, ie handling the bucket to the next level, but trying to put myself in that position I came to that conclusion, I could see myself doing that if I was not sure of something, although I think I would rather acquit than convict someone if I was not convinced (the principle being: better to have one guilty person acquitted than one single innocent person convicted to prison).

I've been reading on and of a blog by a Finnish law professor who reviews (Finnish) law cases and he often comments on how poorly written the motivations behind the (first level) verdicts are - he's written books about how the verdicts should be motivated (in Finland at least). There should always be a pro et contra discussion about the evidence, for example. Sometimes some judges seem to take the word of the accused as gospel repeating all his or her explanations in the motivations even though there's not enough evidence to back the accused's version.

Whereas for me there's more than enough evidence that I know about that would convince me that all three are guilty. Will we ever get to know what evidence the Kercher family was referring to when they (where did they say that, is there a tape or video about that?) said after the verdict that there is evidence that the press doesn't know about as it was presented during the closed sessions. About which sessions AK's prison priest commented in some newspaper article that after those sessions, AK for the first time thought that she may be convicted. Would have been interesting if Oprah had asked about that, was it true or just something the press invented, if true why did AK think so. But of course she didn't ask any too tough questions. And that's why the show was taped, so that they could monitor every single aspect of the show.

Candade Dempsey made some very snide remarks about that evidence, too I must say that I find her style of writing not very likable, her attitude has something very despicable in it. Why can't she support AK and her family and manage to sound like a decent human being, I'm sure that should be possible.


Last edited by Rumpole on Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

[quote="Tara"]With the Judges Report coming out in a couple of days, I just wanted to preserve these very recent "truths" of Chris Mellas for comparison. These statements can be found at the "Chris and Frank Shock Blog"...

Interesting that Chris has only met ONE person that believes Amanda is guilty.


[quote]

Tara:
I bet you remember that OJ Simpson (who, we've learned shares the same birthday as AK)
ALSO said that EVERY PERSON *HE* met on the street believed he, the great OJ was innocent of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Hmmmm....As it is still Sunday let us open our Bibles to an Old Testament passage about DENIAL.

Jeremiah 5:21

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not." huff-))

Those particular foolish people haven't a prayer, sayeth The Reverend 411 nnn-))
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:54 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.


She said it on CNN (Anderson Cooper, with Doug Preston and Lisa Bloom as the other guests). I think I know exactly what she meant and why she said it: as a journalist who has worked extremely hard to be objective and whose refusal to take the Marriott spin at face value made her a target, she certainly realized that an open and fair trial can always go either way. I think she would have lost credibility if she had placed a bet at that critical moment.

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

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Denial is a very powerful tool of the mind. Amanda's parents are in denial, and they'll probably never emerge from it. I think that if Amanda came out and admitted she killed Merideth, Curt and Edda wouldn't believe it (or try to mitigate Amanda's culpability).

Some parents forcefully reject the logic and evidence in favor of fairy tales. Just like Curt thought Amanda was a virgin and never touched a joint in her life. I think Chris Mellas is the most capable of comprehending the truth. That's probably why he's lashing out. But family will protect their own from murder regardless. Look at the Skakels in the Martha Moxley case in Greenwich back in the 70's. Their whole family protected the son, even though his brother knew he did it and probably told his parents that. It was 30 years before Skakel brothers panicked about the possibility of DNA evidence and started changing his story to fit that possibility. Now he's in jail for a very long time.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brogan wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Brogan wrote:
411 Thanks for the translation on the video, just one question at the end of the final segment I noticed film of some US Airforce jets was that a reference to the Calavese cable car disaster, in your text it mentioned a disaster at Cermes,I googled it but got pages of post disaster protocols.


Hi, Brogan:
Cermes/Cavalese. It's one and the same--different references for the same tragic incident.
Cermes is the mountain, where the cable car was heading.
Calavese is the actual Italian town where the incident took place.
If you google for the Italian articles, you'll find it referred under
"Strage (i.e, Massacre) del Cermes.


Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought we were on the same page, I know that many Italians are still angry over the fallout from the Calavese incident as the NATO agreement that led to the air crew being subject to courts martial in the US was a get out of jail free card as no one was found guilty for the reckless behaviour that caused the death of the passengers in the cable car. The only person to be jailed was found guilty of destroying evidence. If I remember correctly it was for disposing of the gun camera video of the incident that would have proved the prosecutions case. As allways I stand to be corrected by anyone with better information.


Brogan:
Ahhhhhh!! ANOTHER TYPO for me to acknowledge today (this time me typing the mountain incorrectly!!!!--No wonder you couldn't find it on Google! sor-) THE MOUNTAIN IS SPELLED CERMIS, with a final "i-s" not "e-s." CERMIS.

I think it's time to get some shut-eye! p-(((
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:44 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Brogan wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought we were on the same page, I know that many Italians are still angry over the fallout from the Calavese incident as the NATO agreement that led to the air crew being subject to courts martial in the US was a get out of jail free card as no one was found guilty for the reckless behaviour that caused the death of the passengers in the cable car. The only person to be jailed was found guilty of destroying evidence. If I remember correctly it was for disposing of the gun camera video of the incident that would have proved the prosecutions case. As allways I stand to be corrected by anyone with better information.


I'm not Italian, and I'm still angry about that case. I hate injustice!

Mostly OT below:

Not that I've been thinking that accident that much recently before starting to read these AK blogs and boards where it's often mentioned. But when it first happened it was big news even in Finland (whereas this AK case is not and has never been), I remember whole page articles about the incident in all the papers, morning and afternoon ones. Justice has not been done in that case. Those soldiers or whatever they were should be in jail. But it's not news to me that America gets away with murder (recommend reading for this section: Michael Mandel: How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity). The crew's been rewarded for excellent service ie excellent killings it sounds like to me. Likewise the crew of that US ship that shot down the Iranian passenger plane: no sentences, just some medals for a nice killing :-) And I seem to remember that USA paid some blood money to Iran. Though, US (you?) haver never admitted having done anything wrong. Sounds a bit like AK's behaviour actually.

I'm referring to this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

"According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. The Iranian government maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft." In this case, I actually find the Iranian government more trustworthy.

Robert A. Entman has written an interesting journal article where he compares the discourse about the downed Iranian plane vs a Soviet downed KAL plane in US news media: Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents:

http://tinyurl.com/yau7qv4

He concludes:
"By de-emphasizing the agency and the victims and by the choice of graphics and adjectives, the news stories about the U.S. downing of an Iranian plane caffed it a technical problem while the Soviet downing of a Korean jet was portrayed as a moral outrage." Hypocrisy! Double standards!

I wonder when the first Amanda Knox related thesis appears in the US or some other country... One could study the news media bias in the US, UK and Italy. And easily come to the conclusion that the whole US media is biased to the bone. Guardian's AK sympathies are a bit odd, though, I've always regarded Guardian as the best UK newspaper. But maybe Fast Pete or any one of you could write an article to the Guardian Comment is free section like that AK hangaround cast member Matthew something.

Btw: To revenge for this downing of an Iranian plane, Iran initiated the downing of the Lockerbie plane, that's my current understanding of that case. I don't know whether Libya was involved, maybe. And I'm not convinced that al-Megrahi was guilty. But he may have been involved. There are lots of blogs and articles that claim otherwise, though.

Another book that I've actually read (haven't read the Mandel book yet, but I have it on loan from the university library at the moment) and can recommend (and so can Osama bin Laden) is this book:

http://tinyurl.com/ylbnq4n

Lots of new information there, I didn't know for instance that it was CIA (= USA) that put Nelson Mandela to prison for 28 years, did you? Currently I'm at loss why the UAE made such a fuss about the Mossad's Dubai killing - are USA not pals with the UAE? I think the 26 people that took part in that killing (some of which may be US agents?) are the true face of evil -they are worse than AK and co for they were knowingly, with premeditaion, participating in a murder of another human being (these people: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8517716.stm). I don't buy Tzipi Livni's hypocritical statements that any dead terrorist is a good terrorist. In that case she should commit suicide. Her own parents were Irgun terrorists and the whole country of Israel is built on Zionist terrorism. Also Ms Livni herself like many of the Israeli top ministers, has worked in Mossad's false flag operations taking part in assassinations. I don't actually understand how any lawful state wants to have anything to do with Israel with such assassins as ministers. I don't know of any other Western country that allows those kind of people to be presidents and ministers. Palestine and Arafat are the only ones that come to mind at all. I have nothing against ordinary Israeli people, they are like all other people everywhere in the world, but I'm always on the side of the weaker party in a war and in this case it's the oppressed Palestinians that my sympathy goes for. I've been boycotting (I know, boycotts are stupid, a bit like this Donald Trump Duck's Italian boycott but what can I do?) all Israeli products (computer parts, fruit, tomatoes) since the Gaza war started in 2008, inspired actually by British translator circles (and Naomi Klein), there's a sorts of activism going on at a British university, google Mona Baker if you want to know more, she's currently researching the role translators and interpreters have in international conflicts, interesting stuff. I've also been reading Norman Finkelstein's (an American) interesting accounts of the Holocaust industry. What is interesting, is that the jewish lobby tried to make both of these people lose their jobs - it's like no honest talk about Israel is allowed, what about freedom of speech? Finkelstein lost his job, Baker didn't. American jewish lobby seems to have a lot of power.

And I watched a documentary film about antisemitism called Defamation a while ago on Finnish televion. It's made by an Israeli Yoav Shamir and it was from this film I discovered Finkelstein. The film's really good:

trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5jsiLWXGYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qR1h-H7 ... re=related

Hebrew is such a beautiful language. But that Jewish grand-mother (of Yoav Shamir) sounds like the worst anti-semite herself, she's hilarious. She's so like my grandma (no, my grandma is neither jewish nor antisemite).

I find it in bad taste that the state of Israel hords thousands of school kids to visit concentration camps and enact the atrocities the jews encountered there. The teenagers all sound paranoid, thinking that they will be attacked by Polish /European antisemites and neo-nazis in every corner. But why teach the Israeli children to hate current Germans? So that the cycle of hatred will never end? Are children and grand-children of the nazis responsible for what the nazis did 60-70 years ago?

Likewise I find it in bad taste that Palestinians teach they children to hate Israelis. Although, I'm not sure if they need to, the children surely have eyes to see the treatment their parents are getting in the hands of the Israeli soldiers.

Arnold Toynbee (British historian) stated in a 1961 lecture at McGill University to a mainly Jewish audience:

"The Jewish treatment of the Arabs in 1948 was as morally indefensible as the slaughter by the Nazis of six million Jews … The most tragic thing in human life is when people who have suffered impose suffering in their turn."

I think that last sentence about sums my opinion on Israel: Israel behaves like a child molested by a pedofile that becomes a child-molester and pedofile itself in turn.

I don't actually even think that that piece of land where the Eretz Israel is located is really that much worth fighting for, it's mostly dry desert (Negev), 3/4 of the area is desert. The state of Israel could quite well have been erected on some empty Pacific islands, for instance.

Sorry about the political rantings. Mostly off topic. Just could not resist this time when the Cavalese case was mentioned the umpteenth time and possible anti-American sentiments were discussed. My thoughts about the American and Israeli foreign policy have nothing to do with whether AK is guilty, of course they haven't. And, if required, I could do some ranting about British foreign policy, too, and their imperial blunders here and there, Iraqi war and WMD. But I know nothing much about Italy's foreign policy so that I cannot rant about. Other than mention that Berlusconi could probably write a 500-page book about his best caffes and blurts (if he hasn't already written that).


Last edited by Rumpole on Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 245

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.


She said it on CNN (Anderson Cooper, with Doug Preston and Lisa Bloom as the other guests). I think I know exactly what she meant and why she said it: as a journalist who has worked extremely hard to be objective and whose refusal to take the Marriott spin at face value made her a target, she certainly realized that an open and fair trial can always go either way. I think she would have lost credibility if she had placed a bet at that critical moment.


She said it after the verdict. But I suppose your point is valid whether she said it before or after the verdict.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tara wrote:
With the Judges Report coming out in a couple of days, I just wanted to preserve these very recent "truths" of Chris Mellas for comparison. These statements can be found at the "Chris and Frank Shock Blog"...

Quote:
Quote:
Amanda's team was offered the chance to be there for the tests. They passed.


The police called to say that the testing was starting. This testing took place in Rome.

Carlo was in court on another case and Luciano was in Perugia, 2.5 hours away, and also in court on a different case.

We asked that it be postponed until we could get there later that day.

February 28, 2010 12:44 AM


Even if this is accurate, that the testing was started, the defence team was not available, and an independent source was selected--what's the problem? Is Mellas arguing that the authorities deliberately scheduled the test when Carlo and Luciano were too far away? Couldn't the defence team have found independent sources in Rome ahead of time? I am quite certain this isn't the only time the Rome lab has tested data from three hours or more distant. Are all of them suspect?

I don't understand the objection.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

One has to wonder how useful it would have been to them if Chris or anyone else of their party had witnessed the testing. Not at all, I suspect. It sounds like their lawyers did what is usual, and that is to send an agent. I don't understand either except this is what FOAKers do. They make up any old thing. eg Janet Huff replying to questions about the early phone call about not "finding" Meredith.....according to her (on this occasion) Amanda and Edda were just having a casual chat, as they do (at 445am), and Amanda "just happened to mention" the mysterious locked door and blood etc.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Grammatically English is fairly easy, and I don't think the syntax is that complicated either.


"Grammatically English"? rul-)


Knox was on the Dean's List and had a scholarship to a private Jesuit school in her home town. Above average intelligence and above average scholastic skills, right?

Have you read Knox's email, announcing to the world her rampant innocence from this all?: not exactly sterling use of written English.

English grammar might be "easy". Writing in correct English or speaking correct English is not that easy. I would say it is fairly difficult. Then again, doing anything well is not easy.

" then she went to take a shower and i began to start eating a
little while i waited for my friend (Raffaele-at whose house i stayed
over) to arrive at my house. He came right after i started eating and
he made himself some pasta."- Knox email, Nov. 4, 2007

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -knox.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - Filomena's Bedroom   

The Machine wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Additionally, I had never read that glass slivers from the staged break in window left a trial to, and only to the exit door. No slivers were found anywhere in Meredith's room, the scene of the horrific crime.


Hi Stint,

Mignini emphasised the importance of the staged break-in when he was summing up:

"The key to this mystery lies in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli,” another tenant in the house, he told the jury. “The window was broken from the inside, not the outside. The glass was on top of the clothes that had been strewn around the room, not under them. The break-in was staged and Knox is the one who did it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

There is no doubt that the break-in was staged in. The defence lawyers didn't even attempt to provide an alternative scenario. The fact there was so much glass on top of Filomena's clothes and computer proves that the window was broken after the room had been ransacked.

"Prosecutors showed photographs of shattered glass on top of scattered clothes, in an attempt to convince the jury that the room had been turned upside down first, then that a rock had been thrown through the window." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

Filomena said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes. Her laptop was among the clothes:

"I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.”

At the trial, Gioia Brocci, of the Perugia forensic police, explained how she photographed the crime scene starting from the outside of the house. She claimed that there were no traces of someone attempting to climb up the outer wall to get in through the broken window.

As Finn pointed out in his excellent piece, there was no evidence that Rudy Guede was ever in Filomena's room, but there was a mix of Amanda Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood.

Barbie Nadeau pointed out that this evidence was possibly more incriminating than the double DNA knife:

“But perhaps more damning even than the knife was Stefanoni’s testimony that a mix of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood was found on the floor in the bedroom of a third roommate, Filomena Romanelli.”


Thanks TM for posting this yesterday, you have brought up a lot of interesting and important points and provided the perfect lead-in for my latest scenario.

There is also this account of Filomena's trial testimony where she mentions the computer case and glass on top of and underneath the clothes:

"I went in and found the wardrobe open, clothes were thrown around everywhere, it was in a terrible mess. The first thing I did was check for my jewellery and I found that it was where I had left it... Then I found that my sunglasses and handbag and computer were still there. There was glass under the window and also both on top of and underneath the clothes and lying on top of the computer case."
(Peter Popham, The Independent, Feb 8 2009)

I agree with Mignini that the key to this mystery lies in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli but I don't agree with his theory on how the staged break-in happened.
I think that that a minor amount of staging occurred AFTER the clothes were strewn on the floor and the window was broken as a result of something more sinister.

The prosecution hypothesis is that the window was broken from the inside. The defense hypothesis is that the window was broken from the outside.

I tend to agree with the defense hypothesis that the window was broken from the outside:

In the trial Francesco Pasquali, a retired forensic police officer hired as a consultant by Sollecito's defense, argued that the rock was thrown from the terraced parking area across from the window, making the glass “explode” on the inside and spreading glass fragments everywhere on the inside and the outside of the windowsill. The prosecutors objected on the grounds that that the exterior shutters were found to be partially closed on the morning after the murder. The purpose of the objection was to discredit the lone-wolf theory of the defense which the prosecution rightly succeeded in doing so over the course of the trial. However I think that this particular objection was weak - several hours had passed since the window was broken. Damian (a poster in the archives here) reported that it was windy that night, so a gust of wind may have been responsible for the shutters partially closed position. Or the mop on the porch may have been used by AK/RS to close the shutters from the outside thus avoiding having to step on the broken glass inside.

The real mystery to me is WHY clothes were pulled from the wardrobe, WHY Filomena's computer case was placed on the floor, and WHY the window was broken afterwards.

Assuming that there were two separate attacks on Meredith (the only way that Kokomani's statements make any sense to me) here is an alternative scenario:

Meredith was trapped in the cottage and went to Filomena's bedroom to signal for help from passersby.
Meredith frantically pulled clothes from the wardrobe looking for something she could use to attract attention.
Meredith found a yellow piece of clothing with the intention of using it to wave at passing cars from the window.
Meredith placed Filomena's computer case directly beneath the window and used it to stand on in order to lean further out the window.
When Meredith saw Kokomani she started either swinging the left window against its frame or banging the shutters against the wall to get his attention.
Amanda panicked and threw rocks at the window from the parking area in order to drive Meredith away from it.
Meredith saw the large rock coming and withdrew in time to avoid getting injured or showered by glass fragments.
Either Meredith tossed the yellow shirt on top of the clothes at the foot of the wardrobe or Amanda did it later during cleanup.

The above scenario is based in part on the following physical evidence:

Meredith's hyoid bone was broken during strangulation which would have impaired her voice making it difficult and/or painful to yell for help.
The high-intensity streetlight in front of the cottage casts a shadow on the side of the cottage where Filomena's bedroom window is located.
On close examination of photos the thick bag placed directly underneath the right window has the size, shape, and material of a computer case.
There is a yellow shirt or sweater prominently lying on top of the pile of clothes at the foot of the wardrobe.
According to the Micheli report two rocks were found under a chair on the floor of the bedroom - a small one lying next to the large one (9 lb).
The pattern of glass on the outer windowsill indicates that the window was closed when it was broken.
The interior blackout panel of the broken window had a deep scratch with glass particles embedded in it.

I think Amanda is the one who threw the rocks because she would have been nearest the cottage at the time that Meredith was making the banging sounds.
According to Kokomani Rudy was near the garbage bins and Raffaele was off chasing Kokomani as far as the traffic lights in Piazza Grimana.
I have no doubt that an athletic barista would have been able to throw the 9 lb rock a distance of 10-12 feet.
Not to mention the rock throwing incident at Amanda's wild going away party in Seattle on June 30, 2007. Amanda denied involvement (of course).

As noted by Stint no glass slivers were found anywhere in Meredith's room but I wonder about the trail leading out of Filomena's room all the way to the front door.
Maybe Amanda had thrown more than two rocks into the room and the trail was left during the disposal of the others.
I suppose the small one under the chair was missed because it was hidden.
Anyway some rearranging was probably done to make the disorder look more like a staged break-in.
A policeman early on remarked that it was a strange "break-in". I couldn't agree more.

Another thought is that Amanda may have cut herself on a stray piece of glass during the cleanup.
That would explain some of the traces of her blood mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom.
Although I think the missing post / bleeding ear idea is a valid and good one too.

Here is a photo that shows the yellow garment on top of the pile of clothes and the computer case on the floor beneath the window.

Attachment:
filomena-bedroom.jpg


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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.




I don't think it would be a case of the jury not having courage; i think that it would be a case of one of the appeals being done when interest in the case has died down, thus the courts might be able to make a political decision to release on a technicality. This would appease the PR campaign's US pressure. By the time of the third appeal, the moderates of the (US) public might be satisfied with knox and sollecito spending 5-8 years in prison. Thus I highly doubt any possibility of them being released on the first appeal, but I think its a possibility for them to be released on some technicality on the final appeal.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.


She said it on CNN (Anderson Cooper, with Doug Preston and Lisa Bloom as the other guests). I think I know exactly what she meant and why she said it: as a journalist who has worked extremely hard to be objective and whose refusal to take the Marriott spin at face value made her a target, she certainly realized that an open and fair trial can always go either way. I think she would have lost credibility if she had placed a bet at that critical moment.


She said it after the verdict. But I suppose your point is valid whether she said it before or after the verdict.


I only saw her say it once, and it was before the verdict, when she was asked if she had a prediction about the verdict. Thus her use of the conditional future "could" and not "could have", which is what she would have said post-verdict. Unless you saw a different show and she was being asked how the appeal would go (?). If so, I haven't seen this one. But the same reasoning applies: I doubt any professional who has covered this case objectively would make a prediction.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

It's too bad the US public is learning about the Italian Justice System according to gospel of Knox/Mellas/FOA. The things they've said about it are generally correct, but the context has been incorrect. For instance, the non-sequestering of jurors, wearing of National color sashes, collection/testing of dna evidence, etc.

JMO.... things are done pretty much the same way here in the US.

If Amanda did not want to be judged by a foreign Justice System, she should not have committed heinous crimes in a foreign country.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.




I don't think it would be a case of the jury not having courage; i think that it would be a case of one of the appeals being done when interest in the case has died down, thus the courts might be able to make a political decision to release on a technicality. This would appease the PR campaign's US pressure. By the time of the third appeal, the moderates of the (US) public might be satisfied with knox and sollecito spending 5-8 years in prison. Thus I highly doubt any possibility of them being released on the first appeal, but I think its a possibility for them to be released on some technicality on the final appeal.

Pat



The judges and jury were unanimous in their decision to convict; according to one juror they were in disagreement only about whether or not to ask for life or the lighter sentence. I think AK and RS were lucky to get the lighter sentence; I'm not sure they would have fared so well had the crime(s) been committed in the United States. Some people here get life without the possibility of parole; others get the death penalty. Their age and lack of prior record might have worked in their favor.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

RE: Chris Mellas Statements in above Post from Tara.

It only took the first paragraph or two to see the wisdom of the Marriott Managers keeping Chris off their "approved dog and pony list".

His derogatory name calling, rude insults and lame attempts at sarcasm are about the level one would expect from the 4th Grade Bully on the School Playground. (Strange Dave Wannabe?)

Some have reported that, his innate intelligence demonstrated by his ability (and/or lack thereof) to present a meaningful coherent dialogue is possible even a grade or two below 4th.

For example he advances minor and major premises to conclude innocence: (insulting insinuations omitted)
His computer salesman (delivery person?) thought Amanda was innocent without even knowing who Chris was.
He has only *ever* met one person who thought Amanda was guilty.
( Chris using infantile prose insults and denigrates that poor lost lonely soul)

Conclusion a la above 'logic' from Chris... Amanda is Innocent ( Also because she said so)

Those 19 independent judges who concluded evidence to charge was overwhelming, and the 8 Jurors who listened to 4 highly talented Defense Lawyer$$ try to discredit this evidence during a year long trial, and still ultimately *unanimously* voted guilty..... got it all wrong.


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


Last edited by stint7 on Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
One has to wonder how useful it would have been to them if Chris or anyone else of their party had witnessed the testing. Not at all, I suspect. It sounds like their lawyers did what is usual, and that is to send an agent. I don't understand either except this is what FOAKers do. They make up any old thing. eg Janet Huff replying to questions about the early phone call about not "finding" Meredith.....according to her (on this occasion) Amanda and Edda were just having a casual chat, as they do (at 445am), and Amanda "just happened to mention" the mysterious locked door and blood etc.


Chris Mellas seems to fancy himself a DNA expert. I doubt he has any credentials in this area, however. In his latest comments, he casually notes that AK has not told one lie but that the police and investigators have repeatedly lied. For his version (the FOA version) to fly, you have to believe that everyone else was either lying or acting in bad faith or both, from start to finish. In his version, the police and investigators have not made human mistakes; they are diabolical and dishonest and have sought deliberately to do harm to Amanda Knox. The judicial system is just as evil, repeatedly lying and withholding documents and information. He is angry because the investigators did not share information with the family when the investigation was ongoing. Back in Seattle, he has met only one person who thinks Amanda Knox is guilty.

_________________
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 Mar 01, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stilicho wrote:
Tara wrote:
With the Judges Report coming out in a couple of days, I just wanted to preserve these very recent "truths" of Chris Mellas for comparison. These statements can be found at the "Chris and Frank Shock Blog"...

Quote:
Quote:
Amanda's team was offered the chance to be there for the tests. They passed.


The police called to say that the testing was starting. This testing took place in Rome.

Carlo was in court on another case and Luciano was in Perugia, 2.5 hours away, and also in court on a different case.

We asked that it be postponed until we could get there later that day.

February 28, 2010 12:44 AM


Even if this is accurate, that the testing was started, the defence team was not available, and an independent source was selected--what's the problem? Is Mellas arguing that the authorities deliberately scheduled the test when Carlo and Luciano were too far away? Couldn't the defence team have found independent sources in Rome ahead of time? I am quite certain this isn't the only time the Rome lab has tested data from three hours or more distant. Are all of them suspect?

I don't understand the objection.



Chris isn't exactly arguing this point; he is implying or insinuating it. This is his MO. Both CdV and LG work with legal teams, and both could easily have sent someone from their team if it was important to them. CdV is based in Rome and until this case came along worked in corporate law. He wasn't sitting alone in some small office handling inheritance disputes between family members. But don't bother pointing any of this out to Chris! He actually gets emotional mileage out of believing everyone is out to do him wrong. IMO, he does not act in good faith and thus imagines that no one else does either.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The knife DNA controversy brought out the best combinations of Amanda and Raffie's creative story telling.

The Defense expends endless effort and experts to show that Meredith's DNA was not proven to be on the knife.

Meanwhile Raffie in an ill timed attempt to defuse prosecution facts that he knows could very well be true, says "Oh sure, during a show, cook, and tell session *at my Apartment*, I jabbed Meredith's finger with that knife while demonstrating proper fish filleting techniques.
(so of course that DNA sample is accurate, but not incriminating).

Not to be outdone, Amanda meanwhile unbeknown to Raffie, exposes another obvious bald faced falsehood by writing that Meredith *was never in Raffie's Apartment*

But, Hey, from an irrefutable authority on all that is or can be truth, none other than StepDad Chris, "Amanda never lies'.

PS: Incidentally, Mr Mellas also stated that he was a StepDad for years before he was officially StepDad
(whatever that indicates or is intended to insinuate or influence)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Whereas for me there's more than enough evidence that I know about that would convince me that all three are guilty. Will we ever get to know what evidence the Kercher family was referring to when they (where did they say that, is there a tape or video about that?) said after the verdict that there is evidence that the press doesn't know about as it was presented during the closed sessions. About which sessions AK's prison priest commented in some newspaper article that after those sessions, AK for the first time thought that she may be convicted. Would have been interesting if Oprah had asked about that, was it true or just something the press invented, if true why did AK think so. But of course she didn't ask any too tough questions. And that's why the show was taped, so that they could monitor every single aspect of the show.

Candace Dempsey made some very snide remarks about that evidence, too I must say that I find her style of writing not very likable, her attitude has something very despicable in it. Why can't she support AK and her family and manage to sound like a decent human being, I'm sure that should be possible.


I'm not sure when the Kerchers made this statement, but I think the evidence they are referring to was given behind closed doors out of respect for Meredith. It is related to the specifics of the brutality she was subject to before she was killed. I am not sure we will ever have access to it. As for Candace Dempsey, she seems incapable of hiding her contempt for the Kercher family. On the surface, she sends flowery, meaningless phrases their way, but they are as phony as a two-dollar bill. It's a different story beneath the surface. What oozes out gets mixed up with the slimy, disingenuous surface, creating an ugly and defensive attitude. If she is unable to support AK and family while sounding like a decent human being, it is because she is not a decent human being.

She is also deceitful. When she tried to shave 20 years off her age by changing the dates of her master's degree on her CV and got caught, she pretended it was a typo. She also has repeatedly claimed that she worked as a crime beat reporter for her Spokane newspaper, but there is absolutely no record of her work in this area anywhere.

I think just about everyone who has followed this case remembers how Candace tried to use Meredith's death and Stephanie Kercher's pain to her own advantage by suggesting that her situation was comparable with Stephanie's because she had lost a sister to cancer. When she was called on it, and when others who had suffered horrible loss themselves tried to remind her of the incommensurability of loss and suggest that she was wrong to instrumentalize Meredith's death and Stephanie's pain for commercial gain, she deleted their posts. Actually, it was even worse than that. She deleted their posts but not her original, terribly insensitive comments, and said that these posters had upset her mother by talking about the painful loss of Candace's sister -- when in fact it was Candace who brought it up in the first place. As this long paragraph shows, Candace is a really twisted person. You have to be a masochist to put up with it.

As for her writing, it is glib and superficial. She avoids difficulty and prefers the easy cliché. This style is agreeable to some; others find it deeply dissatisfying. It's kind of like fast food versus slow food. Slow food requires more preparation and has to be chewed on longer. It takes longer to digest. But it fills you up and stays with you longer. You take nourishment from it that makes you stronger. Candace produces fast food: greasy and empty.

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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

pataz1 wrote:
[Thus I highly doubt any possibility of them being released on the first appeal, but I think its a possibility for them to be released on some technicality on the final appeal. Pat


The judges at the Italian Supreme Court think the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. I don't see why they would change their minds.

I don't think there's any possibility of Knox and Sollecito getting off on a technicality, especially after the way the FOA and the US media have slimed Italy and its legal system. I'm sure their lawyers have already explored all avenues.

Furthermore, the US officials who count, believe that Knox is guilty and will have welcomed the verdict. They don't want to see two vicious sex killers getting off on a technicality any more than the judges at the Italian Supreme Court. Knox and Sollecito are a modern day version of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
It's kind of like fast food versus slow food. Slow food requires more preparation and has to be chewed on longer. It takes longer to digest. But it fills you up and stays with you longer. You take nourishment from it that makes you stronger.



Candace produces fast food: greasy and empty.


And with her frequent addition of "artificial ingredients" Candace's Creations are known to cause indigestion, heartburn, nausea, and sudden onset of vomiting.. tu-))
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
[Thus I highly doubt any possibility of them being released on the first appeal, but I think its a possibility for them to be released on some technicality on the final appeal. Pat


The judges at the Italian Supreme Court think the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. I don't see why they would change their minds.

I don't think there's any possibility of Knox and Sollecito getting off on a technicality, especially after the way the FOA and the US media have slimed Italy and its legal system. I'm sure their lawyers have already explored all avenues.

Furthermore, the US officials who count, believe that Knox is guilty and will have welcomed the verdict. They don't want to see two vicious sex killers getting off on a technicality any more than the judges at the Italian Supreme Court. Knox and Sollecito are a modern day version of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.




What are the chances of extradition?
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The 411 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
It's kind of like fast food versus slow food. Slow food requires more preparation and has to be chewed on longer. It takes longer to digest. But it fills you up and stays with you longer. You take nourishment from it that makes you stronger.



Candace produces fast food: greasy and empty.


And with her frequent addition of "artificial ingredients" Candace's Creations are known to cause indigestion, heartburn, nausea, and sudden onset of vomiting.. tu-))

Another good humor fix from PMF. You're making me give up the funny pages.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What are the chances of extradition?


I don't think the Italian authorities will do Amanda Knox or her family any favours. I don't think people fully comprehend what these maniacs did to Meredith. Her last hour was beyond hell on earth. The court sessions that dealt with the details of the attack and the wounds Meredith suffered were closed to the public and the media.

I'll check with an Italian lawyer for a more definitive answer.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Enerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Does everyone have access to a free lawyer? At what point did people arranged their own legal teams? from day 1? Is Rudy paying for any of his lawyers? Are the Kerchers paying for their lawyers? Did they have a choice?
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
I don't think people fully comprehend what these maniacs did to Meredith. Her last hour was beyond hell on earth.

I forget who it was that presented this so graphically but the statement went something like this (as I remember). Just sitting at your desk right now, make a fist and just strike the desktop over and over again and count to yourself and imagine that each is a wound to Meredith. By the time you reach into the twenties you fatigue of doing it and yet there were 47 wounds on Meredith. ttrroonniicc isn't around much now and there maybe varying opinions of him, but I was using the chat box one day with him and he used a word for AK and RS that has stuck with me - feral.

1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast <feral teeth> <feral instincts>
2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wild <feral cats>
synonyms see brutal
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Enerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.



I don't think we can get inside Filomena's head or decide for her when she became convinced of anything. We do know from multiple witness testimony that she vigorously contested Amanda's claim that Meredith always locked her door.

Sometimes people only realize certain truths on a conscious level well after the fact. There is an emotional component to the decision-making process and to the learning process. Human beings are constantly reassessing their prior knowledge and feelings in light of subsequent events. That's just how our brains are made.

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

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The timing of Knox's parents' appearance on Oprah and a bunch of media reports on this case is interesting. IMO, they are obviously doing this right before the report comes out as a preemptive strike against all the damning evidence that the report no doubt will describe at length.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What are the chances of extradition?


I don't think the Italian authorities will do Amanda Knox or her family any favours. I don't think people fully comprehend what these maniacs did to Meredith. Her last hour was beyond hell on earth. The court sessions that dealt with the details of the attack and the wounds Meredith suffered were closed to the public and the media.

I'll check with an Italian lawyer for a more definitive answer.


I'm still amazed that the FOAKers think putting Amanda in an American jail will be BETTER for her. She sure as heck won't have private cooking and bathing amenities, the privilege to wear her own clothes and weekly access to a hairdresser in the US prison system.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Some more recent propaganda from the FOA. They do seem like they’ve gone into overdrive right before the other shoe drops. That‘s when the judges report comes out.

Ron McQuade continued
Chris Halkides part IX

Tiziano wrote: ‘Here is a report from Terni in Rete re UMBERTO BINDELLA, only suspect in the case of the disappearance in 2006 of a student (Sonia Marra) in Perugia from Puglia. He spent a fortnight in prison, was released and now must face a review hearing contesting his release.
For some unknown reason, Google Translator insists on changing his surname to "Rib".’

This is something I should have picked during the translation. It’s a case when the Google translation was hard to understand. No wonder I couldn’t get any hits when I googled Umberto Rib when his last name is Bindella.. You’ve done some excellent reporting on this case over at TJMK
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DLW wrote:
Some more recent propaganda from the FOA. They do seem like they’ve gone into overdrive right before the other shoe drops. That‘s when the judges report comes out.

Ron McQuade continued
Chris Halkides part IX

Tiziano wrote: ‘Here is a report from Terni in Rete re UMBERTO BINDELLA, only suspect in the case of the disappearance in 2006 of a student (Sonia Marra) in Perugia from Puglia. He spent a fortnight in prison, was released and now must face a review hearing contesting his release.
For some unknown reason, Google Translator insists on changing his surname to "Rib".’

This is something I should have picked during the translation. It’s a case when the Google translation was hard to understand. No wonder I couldn’t get any hits when I googled Umberto Rib when his last name is Bindella.. You’ve done some excellent reporting on this case over at TJMK


It's kind of funny to read Ron McQuade's strangely obsessive writings about Mignini and then look at his own bio:

Quote:
Ron McQuade writes erotic suspense novels with twists of spirituality. Of the six, five are published.


I don't know if his erotic suspense novels are actually in print. He seems to be quite involved with Associated Content.

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

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

When Chris Mellas says that he has been Amanda's dad since 3rd grade he is inadvertantly showing that Curt Knox was an absent father.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
DLW wrote:
Some more recent propaganda from the FOA. They do seem like they’ve gone into overdrive right before the other shoe drops. That‘s when the judges report comes out.

Ron McQuade continued
Chris Halkides part IX

Tiziano wrote: ‘Here is a report from Terni in Rete re UMBERTO BINDELLA, only suspect in the case of the disappearance in 2006 of a student (Sonia Marra) in Perugia from Puglia. He spent a fortnight in prison, was released and now must face a review hearing contesting his release.
For some unknown reason, Google Translator insists on changing his surname to "Rib".’

This is something I should have picked during the translation. It’s a case when the Google translation was hard to understand. No wonder I couldn’t get any hits when I googled Umberto Rib when his last name is Bindella.. You’ve done some excellent reporting on this case over at TJMK


It's kind of funny to read Ron McQuade's strangely obsessive writings about Mignini and then look at his own bio:

Quote:
Ron McQuade writes erotic suspense novels with twists of spirituality. Of the six, five are published.


I don't know if his erotic suspense novels are actually in print. He seems to be quite involved with Associated Content.


Ron McQuade will surely feel at home, perfect bio for a Foxy Knoxy supporter. The Knox/Mellas keep some lovely company.
br-))
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

mstev14420 wrote:
When Chris Mellas says that he has been Amanda's dad since 3rd grade he is inadvertantly showing that Curt Knox was an absent father.



Yes, I think you're right; as I have said before, a well-placed source told me Curt was not a presence in AK's life post-divorce. If Chris Mellas has been around since she was eight, then it is reasonable to assume that he had some influence on the formation of her personality, values, etc. Every single person I have talked to who has come into contact with Chris Mellas in connection with this case has said the same thing about him: he's a hothead with anger, control and trust issues. I think this is why Marriott has made sure he has stayed out of the spotlight. I also think Marriott was Curt's idea, possibly as a way of ensuring that Chris Mellas was kept out of the spotlight. As an accountant by training, Curt knows a liability when he sees one.

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

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

"PS: Incidentally, Mr Mellas also stated that he was a StepDad for years before he was officially StepDad
(whatever that indicates or is intended to insinuate or influence)"

I was just thinking that. So if he is accurate, he met Edda 5 years before he married her, at which time he was 27. So he was 22 years old when introduced to Amanda. Real great replacement father figure there Edda. If the role was reversed, and Curt had met a 22 year old woman, would we consider her a motherly figure?
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

mstev14420 wrote:
When Chris Mellas says that he has been Amanda's dad since 3rd grade he is inadvertantly showing that Curt Knox was an absent father.


It also shows that he was her stepfather when he was 20-21 years old himself.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
mstev14420 wrote:
When Chris Mellas says that he has been Amanda's dad since 3rd grade he is inadvertantly showing that Curt Knox was an absent father.


It also shows that he was her stepfather when he was 20-21 years old himself.



It also shows why he is such a liability in the cold cruel world of US network television. Oprah's demographic sees in Curt an age appropriate Dad. This demographic sees Chris and shakes its head in disapproval. Marriott knows how these things are perceived. He's the man in charge.

_________________
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 Mar 01, 2010 8:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
DLW wrote:
Some more recent propaganda from the FOA. They do seem like they’ve gone into overdrive right before the other shoe drops. That‘s when the judges report comes out.

Ron McQuade continued
Chris Halkides part IX

Tiziano wrote: ‘Here is a report from Terni in Rete re UMBERTO BINDELLA, only suspect in the case of the disappearance in 2006 of a student (Sonia Marra) in Perugia from Puglia. He spent a fortnight in prison, was released and now must face a review hearing contesting his release.
For some unknown reason, Google Translator insists on changing his surname to "Rib".’

This is something I should have picked during the translation. It’s a case when the Google translation was hard to understand. No wonder I couldn’t get any hits when I googled Umberto Rib when his last name is Bindella.. You’ve done some excellent reporting on this case over at TJMK


It's kind of funny to read Ron McQuade's strangely obsessive writings about Mignini and then look at his own bio:

Quote:
Ron McQuade writes erotic suspense novels with twists of spirituality. Of the six, five are published.


I don't know if his erotic suspense novels are actually in print. He seems to be quite involved with Associated Content.


Ron McQuade will surely feel at home, perfect bio for a Foxy Knoxy supporter. The Knox/Mellas keep some lovely company.
br-))


Harry Wilkens and his venereal disease poetry, Doug Preston and his obsession with satanic ritual suspense novels, and now Ron McQuade and his erotic suspense novels. Their own bios probably explain best why they have such trouble convincing the world that Mignini is a bizarre madman.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DLW wrote:
Some more recent propaganda from the FOA. They do seem like they’ve gone into overdrive right before the other shoe drops. That‘s when the judges report comes out.

Chris Halkides part IX


I don't have any evidence that Chris H is a member of FOA. Do you? I don't necessarily disbelieve you but I haven't seen the source listing him as a participant.

I will leave his science to the real scientists but the biggest weakness in halides1's approach is his tendency to intersperse technical information with unrelated links. He commonly links to cases of widespread contamination or even outright corruption. He cites the Washington State and Houston crime labs as examples, while they are actually exceptions and rather unlike anything alleged to have happened in Perugia. The Duke lacrosse case has absolutely nothing in common except for a false accusation. Halides1 doesn't seem to realise that the accused in the Duke lacrosse case was implicated by a false accusation and falsified DNA, while Mr Lumumba was framed by the real killer and was partly exonerated by the forensics teams. I sure hope AK's defence teams aren't going to mention the Duke lacrosse case because it's actually the opposite of what they want!

Halides1 posts at the JREF forum, which is how I know about his opinions. Of the few things I agree with him on, I figure the appeals will focus on the DNA forensics and will ignore other evidence such as AK's own words, the lamp, the changing alibis, or anything else like that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

How does the report get released? To the attorneys? Media?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I can't wait for the report. It is one thing to report, and another to have it in black and white. BTW, Skep: As to *phony as a two dollar bill*. I.ve had quite a few, and they were legit:)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 Mar 01, 2010 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Does everyone have access to a free lawyer? At what point did people arranged their own legal teams? from day 1? Is Rudy paying for any of his lawyers? Are the Kerchers paying for their lawyers? Did they have a choice?



No, they all got free lawyers. Only in this case the three suspects (or at least their families) decided to dump the free lawyers and go out and hire expensive ones. They could have stuck with the free lawyers but chose not to. And it's not as though free lawyers are crap, Maresca working for the Kerchers along with his second, was appointed to the Kerchers for free and he's done very 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Rumpole wrote:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau said on some tv show that she thought "it could go either way", in court, that is, so apparently she did not find the evidence that overwhelming. Which sort of amazes me a bit. And makes me slightly worried what could happen on the appeal (although Machine, Michael etc most of you are of the opinion that there's enough evidence). Bearing in mind the possibility of several appeals in Italy, I can also understand at some level Curt Knox's comment about the jury not having enough courage to acquit AK (and RS) but handing the bucket over to the next level of judges to resolve. Also, had they acquitted AK on first level trial, it would have made it difficult to get her back to Italy should she be convicted to prison.




I don't think it would be a case of the jury not having courage; i think that it would be a case of one of the appeals being done when interest in the case has died down, thus the courts might be able to make a political decision to release on a technicality. This would appease the PR campaign's US pressure. By the time of the third appeal, the moderates of the (US) public might be satisfied with knox and sollecito spending 5-8 years in prison. Thus I highly doubt any possibility of them being released on the first appeal, but I think its a possibility for them to be released on some technicality on the final appeal.

Pat


The Italian judiciary doesn't work like that. The suggestion can only come from those that don't understand them 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 DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stilicho wrote:

‘I don't have any evidence that Chris H is a member of FOA. Do you? I don't necessarily disbelieve you but I haven't seen the source listing him as a participant.’

No I don’t either. And no disrespect to Chris H. at the JREF forum, as I was providing a link to his lopsided (my thought) article. It was just the timing of this post, along with some of the same topics he brings up as does the FOA. I understand that there are some legitimate questions (the judges report will certainly clarify some of these) of the case, and somebody unrelated to the FOA can try to explain their POV. I agree with everything else you said.
I also agree that the appeal will certainly center on the forensics, because of the condensed nature. And will mainly focus on those issues as deemed most important by the courts motivation report, along with any new items.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DLW wrote:
stilicho wrote:

‘I don't have any evidence that Chris H is a member of FOA. Do you? I don't necessarily disbelieve you but I haven't seen the source listing him as a participant.’

No I don’t either. And no disrespect to Chris H. at the JREF forum, as I was providing a link to his lopsided (my thought) article. It was just the timing of this post, along with some of the same topics he brings up as does the FOA. I understand that there are some legitimate questions (the judges report will certainly clarify some of these) of the case, and somebody unrelated to the FOA can try to explain their POV. I agree with everything else you said.
I also agree that the appeal will certainly center on the forensics, because of the condensed nature. And will mainly focus on those issues as deemed most important by the courts motivation report, along with any new items.


Well, he is quoted in the FOA site as another "professor" and no bloggers or experts with different pov from FOA mantra gets quoted there!

"Chris Halkides, associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, has added his voice to those of other experts who believe the "Double-DNA knife" is worthless as evidence and had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher."
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Enerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.



I don't think we can get inside Filomena's head or decide for her when she became convinced of anything. We do know from multiple witness testimony that she vigorously contested Amanda's claim that Meredith always locked her door.

Sometimes people only realize certain truths on a conscious level well after the fact. There is an emotional component to the decision-making process and to the learning process. Human beings are constantly reassessing their prior knowledge and feelings in light of subsequent events. That's just how our brains are made.



Thoughtful: Your impression about Filomena's warm, caring tone is how I remember the taped November 5th phone call, as well.

However, Skep is right. We don't know what Filomena was thinking, and when she was thinking it. This particular phone conversation took place just days after a shocking, violent, unexpected murder took place in her home. Meredith,a beautiful young girl with whom she had shared her home, had just been savagely killed. I'm sure Filomena was still in shock; barely able to wrap her mind around the enormity of the event.

Bu Filomena's changing feelings about Amanda reminded me of a similar case: the Laci Peterson murder story.

Just days after a very pregnant Laci Peterson "went missing" from her home, I vividly recall watching Larry King interview Laci's mother and stepfather, on his live show. I know this was during the Christmas holiday period (2002). The story had just made the national headlines.

As I remember, there was at least one other Laci relative on that program, perhaps two. This was, as I wrote, just a few days after Laci was reported missing. It was the first time I really was aware of the case.

Early on in the program, Larry asked the family "SO WHERE'S LACI'S HUSBAND?" Why was Scott (Laci's husband) was not present for that Larry King Live interview nor for any of the other TV appearances, in that early period, he wondered, (AS I DID, TOO!)

Laci's mother Sharon Rocha defended him, explaining that Scott was just too "distraught" and "upset" to be seen on TV. The poor dear.

A perplexed Larry persisted, however, and specifically asked Laci's mother. "You know the first person they look to as a suspect in these cases is the husband. Do you wonder about Scott?" The answer FROM Sharon and EVERYBODY PRESENT was an EMPHATIC and CATEGORICAL "NO." The couple was deeply in love, we heard, Scott was the perfect husband, a model son-in-law,etc." For a minute or two, every Laci relative on the show began singing his praises, one after the other.

It was only later that Laci's family revealed that just DAYS AFTER THAT INTERVIEW, their PRIVATE opinion about him started to flip 180 degrees. In subsequent interviews with Laci's mother and stepfather, Laci's mother and stepfather expressed that (long before the police had gathered incriminating evidence on Scott), they had serious doubts about him.
It was Scott's suspicious behavior (including REFUSING TO appear on TV, when the rest of the family did) that FIRST got them thinking the unthinkable.

The stepfather mentioned one of the initial clues was Scott first calling them to report "Laci is missing" when he didn't find her at home at the expected time.

The mother remembers going to give Scott a consoling hug , but was surprised when he stiffly turned her away and rebuffed the hug. (WHO DOES THAT REMIND US OF?) wh-)

As Skep wrote: "Human beings are constantly reassessing their prior knowledge and feelings in light of subsequent events." To that I would add "and Human beings ALSO reassess their prior knowledge in light of further knowledge, rumination and reflection."
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
No, they all got free lawyers. Only in this case the three suspects (or at least their families) decided to dump the free lawyers and go out and hire expensive ones. They could have stuck with the free lawyers but chose not to. And it's not as though free lawyers are crap, Maresca working for the Kerchers along with his second, was appointed to the Kerchers for free and he's done very well.


A lawyer paid by the state in a high-stake case always sounds like a dangerous option. Had Amanda been let's say a poor Roma from Eastern Europe, anyway this would have happened, and the state would have appointed most likely a good one, because of the high case profile. But it wouldn't be possible to hire the many expensive forensic experts.
In fact I imagine a state appointed lawyer - maybe a young woman - would have looked though the 10,000 pages of investigation file and Amanda's declarations. Then would have talked to her and convinced her that it would be better to choose the short trial, building a version seeking a strong leniency. She would have got less than Rudy, maybe significantly less, and with many benefits she would be out in 6-7 years. Which would have been the best result possible. Cheap things sometimes do the best job.
One of the three bosses in Ghirga's lawfirma - the lawyer Avv. Costa - was strongly endorsing this strategy. Ghirga and Dalla Vedova at a certain point opted for the innocent line and the big trial. The firma eventually split on this irreconciliable difference.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

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

If the Amanda Knox Family was so sure proper justice would not happen for la_) until the second level, why did they waste their time and $$$ on the lengthy first level trial? Use the state appointed attorneys first. Save the 'big guns' for the second level.

How completely silly that suggestion sounds is how completely ridiculous the Family sounds. The interviewers have approached them as though there was no valid trial; only judgment.

Curt said 2 sources are required for US media. Who were the 2 sources Oprah used? Curt/Edda and Simon?
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.


You are not thinking like a woman. Women empathize by nature and become motherly when they see someone in deep trouble.

Also: if Filomena suspected Knox, what better way of disguising her suspicions than to sound affectionate and on Knox's side. Maybe Knox would spill the beans.

Misunderestimate women at your own peril. kh-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No, they all got free lawyers. Only in this case the three suspects (or at least their families) decided to dump the free lawyers and go out and hire expensive ones. They could have stuck with the free lawyers but chose not to. And it's not as though free lawyers are crap, Maresca working for the Kerchers along with his second, was appointed to the Kerchers for free and he's done very well.


A lawyer paid by the state in a high-stake case always sounds like a dangerous option. Had Amanda been let's say a poor Roma from Eastern Europe, anyway this would have happened, and the state would have appointed most likely a good one, because of the high case profile. But it wouldn't be possible to hire the many expensive forensic experts.
In fact I imagine a state appointed lawyer - maybe a young woman - would have looked though the 10,000 pages of investigation file and Amanda's declarations. Then would have talked to her and convinced her that it would be better to choose the short trial, building a version seeking a strong leniency. She would have got less than Rudy, maybe significantly less, and with many benefits she would be out in 6-7 years. Which would have been the best result possible. Cheap things sometimes do the best job.
One of the three bosses in Ghirga's lawfirma - the lawyer Avv. Costa - was strongly endorsing this strategy. Ghirga and Dalla Vedova at a certain point opted for the innocent line and the big trial. The firma eventually split on this irreconciliable difference.



Yummi,

I believe you are correct in your hypothetical assessment. If Amanda had confessed very early on to partial involvement in the murder, her story being the night began as an innocent late Halloween prank gone wrong and that she was scared to paralysis at the ferocity of RS's and RG's sexual attacks on MK, she probably would have gotten about 5 years of jail time after testifying against them with crocodile tears. It would have been easy for the Public and Court to believe such a story. Some of the detectives would have questions about the clean-up evidence, but would have been told to forget it; the case was settled and over. Alas, the big-time lawyers let Amanda live in her illusion of being found innocent, and going free - without her family ever knowing the vicious, cruel monster they created. I'm not scared of Ak47, I swear.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:55 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No, they all got free lawyers. Only in this case the three suspects (or at least their families) decided to dump the free lawyers and go out and hire expensive ones. They could have stuck with the free lawyers but chose not to. And it's not as though free lawyers are crap, Maresca working for the Kerchers along with his second, was appointed to the Kerchers for free and he's done very well.


A lawyer paid by the state in a high-stake case always sounds like a dangerous option. Had Amanda been let's say a poor Roma from Eastern Europe, anyway this would have happened, and the state would have appointed most likely a good one, because of the high case profile. But it wouldn't be possible to hire the many expensive forensic experts.
In fact I imagine a state appointed lawyer - maybe a young woman - would have looked though the 10,000 pages of investigation file and Amanda's declarations. Then would have talked to her and convinced her that it would be better to choose the short trial, building a version seeking a strong leniency. She would have got less than Rudy, maybe significantly less, and with many benefits she would be out in 6-7 years. Which would have been the best result possible. Cheap things sometimes do the best job.
One of the three bosses in Ghirga's lawfirma - the lawyer Avv. Costa - was strongly endorsing this strategy. Ghirga and Dalla Vedova at a certain point opted for the innocent line and the big trial. The firma eventually split on this irreconciliable difference.


Hi Yummi,
To what extent do you think Raffaele's lawyers had an effect on Amanda's lawyers choosing the big trial? Or Amanda's lawyers effect on Raffaele's lawyers?
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:10 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

piktor wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.


You are not thinking like a woman. Women empathize by nature and become motherly when they see someone in deep trouble.

Also: if Filomena suspected Knox, what better way of disguising her suspicions than to sound affectionate and on Knox's side. Maybe Knox would spill the beans.

Misunderestimate women at your own peril. kh-))


I'll misunderestimate your post at my peril. "Thinking like a woman"???? I know plenty of women who are not "motherly" when in relation with someone in "deep trouble." Though, I guess, whatever "motherly" means.

I suspect, also, that Filomena, was probably in shock, at her roommate's brutal assault and murder, and also the shocking possibility of involvement in people she lived with. To suggest she was "disguising her suspicions" is certainly possible, but I suspect that's a manipulation she may not have had the emotion or energy or deception for.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:42 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:

The Italian judiciary doesn't work like that. The suggestion can only come from those that don't understand them at all.


While I admit I haven't looked into the appeals process all that much, after a quick search tonight I wonder which part of my statment was off, other then ordering/numbering the appeals? I did imply that politics could influence a decision by the court, or perhaps to be more accurate politics could motivate the court to find a technicality upon which to overturn the conviction.

Truejustice:
This situation is exacerbated by the broad appeal rights guaranteed also on the 2nd level of appeal, at the Supreme Court of Cassation. Like other supreme courts around the world, such court does not re-examine the entire body of evidence, but only ‘errores in iudicando’ and ‘errores in procedendo’ (errors in procedure or application of the law).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 040071.ece
The Court of Cassation, the country’s highest court, is to rule on David Mills’s second and final appeal against a four-and-a-half-year sentence.

The estranged husband of the Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell was found guilty last year of accepting a $600,000 (£390,000) bribe from Mr Berlusconi to give false testimony on the Prime Minister’s behalf in corruption trials in the 1990s. Both deny the charges.

The nine Supreme Court judges could overturn Mills’s sentence on a technicality, arguing that the time allowed for a conviction has run out under Italy’s statute of limitations.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 ... ribery.php
Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation on Thursday overturned the bribery conviction of David Mills, a British barrister and former lawyer to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The court agreed with prosecutors who said the statute of limitations had expired [Times report], but fined Mills (...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrado_Carnevale
Corrado Carnevale (born May 9, 1930) is an Italian judge, currently member of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. He became famous because of the large number of Mafia cases overturned in the Appeal Court where he was president, because of his involvement in some of the worst corruption scandals in the history of the Italian Judiciary and his alleged collusion with the Mafia.
(...)
He earned the nickname Sentence-Slayer (Italian ammazzasentenze) because of the high number of convictions of Mafiosi overturned on appeal in his court for the slightest technicality, such as the lack of a rubber stamp on a document. The Maxi Trial of the mid-1980s, spearheaded by Giovanni Falcone, had led to the convictions of over 200 Mafiosi, of which only a few dozen were still behind bars by 1990, due to Carnevale's role in the appeal trials, quashing the sentences of men who had been brought to trial for conspiracy with the Mafia after long and extenuating trials.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:25 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Speaking of the relevance of an attempted clean-up if AK had confessed.... there was a guy in Texas a few years ago who shot and killed his neighbor. Then he cut him into pieces and disposed of the body. However, the jury found he acted in self defense and did not convict him of murder. The fact that he tried to cover it up was apparently irrelevant. He might have gotten some minor charge for messing with evidence or something, but he was aquitted of the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

piktor wrote:

You are not thinking like a woman. Women empathize by nature and become motherly when they see someone in deep trouble.

Also: if Filomena suspected Knox, what better way of disguising her suspicions than to sound affectionate and on Knox's side. Maybe Knox would spill the beans.

Misunderestimate women at your own peril. kh-))


Filomena was in shock. Amanda was planning a shopping spree and get-together for all her 'friends' to meet Edda.

Those who intimately knew the dynamic of Amanda's stay in Italy quickly concluded the police were absolutely correct. Some of Meredith's Family immediately flew to Italy; yet had no compunction to speak with Amanda.

My point is the people who speak on behalf of Amanda did not know the Amanda who lived in Italy.

There was no one who spoke on Amanda's behalf at the trial either. No one who knew her in Italy.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:51 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - Filomena's Bedroom   

The Machine wrote:
Hi Stint,

Mignini emphasised the importance of the staged break-in when he was summing up:

"The key to this mystery lies in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli,” another tenant in the house, he told the jury. “The window was broken from the inside, not the outside. The glass was on top of the clothes that had been strewn around the room, not under them. The break-in was staged and Knox is the one who did it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).
(snip)

As Finn pointed out in his excellent piece, there was no evidence that Rudy Guede was ever in Filomena's room, but there was a mix of Amanda Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood.



I was looking more into the staged break-in after some comments on my blog.. one of the interesting things I found was a reference in a CDU article from may 30 09 that quotes testimony (from Codispoti) that glass was found on top of the rock itself! " Inoltre la scientifica ha trovato i vetri sopra il sasso e le tracce di effrazione all’interno della persiana"

The interesting thing on the black-out panel is what that means to the physics. People arguing in support of innocence claim that glass may have landed on top of the bed or the desk, or possibly the chair, then pushed off after the clothes were strewn about. The problem is the glass and damage to the black-out panel (if I read the Guede report correctly). Thus, a rock goes through the glass and hits the closed black-out panel. Following this line of thought, the path of the rock thus had to have been deflected from its original path, ending underneath the chair. Any shattered glass would hit the panel within millisecs of the rock hitting the panel. The rock would have weight and kinetic energy to be deflected laterally, over to the chair. But the glass doesn't, so gravity would be the major force acting to determine where the glass ends up after potentially striking the black-out panel; i.e. it would end up on the ground, not all the way over on the bed, chair, or desk. (unless F. had left the chair under the window, but then she likely would have reported it moved).

I therefore think its difficult to construct a scenario involving the rock hitting the break-out panel and ending up under the chair that results in any kind of sufficient quantity of glass on top of something in the room, to be brushed onto the clothes after the clothes are tossed on the floor.

Pat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:07 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Enerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.


In reading over some of the inital press stories the few days after the murder, they seem to push the story of a break-in. The police may have had their suspicions from the start, but from the press most people would be lead to believe it was a break-in. So I don't know that F. would have really had significant suspicions about her roommate until after she was arrested. Even the glass wouldn't have seemed significant to F. until after the arrest.

I'm finishing up the Scott Peterson trial book; Laci's mother admittted in her trial testimony that she didn't initally realize the significance of Scott stating from the first phone call "Laci's missing".

As Skep stated.. reasessing prior events..

Pat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Filomena was suspicious of Amanda's behavior from the moment she saw her at the apartment.

If Amanda had said, "I'm too confused to call police", Filomena would have done so. Instead, AK tried to postpone the police involvement by saying she already had. Maybe that's what Amanda told Raffaele as well.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:19 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - More on Bindella   

Photo Gallery
BINDELLA
ANOTHER REPORT ON UMBERTO BINDELLA AND HIS ANGER AS A SUSPECT OF MURDER.

“I didn’t run away, I wanted to be alone”

“I didn’t run away, I just needed to be alone and think a bit, away from everyone.” The mystery around the disappearance of Umberto Bindella finished in a little stretch of woods, between Deruta and Casalina.

Perugia, the finding of Umberto Bindella


Deruta, March 1st, 2010 – On Friday evening the traces of the 31 year-old young man accused of the murder of the student Sonia Marra (missing since November 2006 when she was 25) were lost. Yesterday the Carabinieri of the Deruta Branch found him not far from the sanctuary of the Madonna of the Baths, from where it seems that he had not budged in the period of time between his leaving home and his discovery. Upset and nervous to the point of attacking a photographer, but alive, hidden in a little wood on the edges of the highway in his Honda Jazz, which had ended up accidentally in a ditch.


Therefore the possibility of a tragic final gesture has been averted.
"My family knows that I could never do such a thing,” Bindella said referring to the theory of a suicide which had actually circulated straight after he went away. The arrival of the forces of law and order, of his parents, of his sister and brother-in-law served to calm down the young man, who then vented his feelings into the microphones of the press.

“The system is disgusting – he said – and this event is ruining my life. I’m not afraid of the trial, I’m afraid of the system; in spite of everything I still trust in justice, I’m ready to defend my honour and to show my innocence.”

Wearing a dark red jumper, blue jeans and black shoes, Bindella let himself go and intensely showed his state of mind.

“They are depriving me of liberty, of dignity, of work and everything. This whole business is stopping me from living the years between 30 and 40; and once all the accusations against me collapse, nobody will be able to give me back what has been taken away from me. I am innocent, I reaffirm this, but the system thinks differently: I have clarified my position; I have given all the explanations, everything that I have been asked. I don’t feel like a scapegoat, at the most a victim: the investigations are all going in one direction; they are trying every way to find me guilty, without examining other possibilities."


Bindella speaks openly of the “obtuseness” of the magistrates, while his mother holds her hand on his shoulder and seems to almost hold up this big man who is almost a foot taller than she is.

“I believe him – the woman declares, her eyes dense with emotion and understandable concern – because he is a good lad. He needed to think and probably he could have done so differently; he’s done something foolish, but this going away doesn’t mean anything in itself.”

The tow truck arrives to pull out Bindella’s car, a small crowd gathers on the edge of the road: the young man who wanted to reflect all alone thus finds himself once again with so many eyes directed at him.

Luca Vagnetti
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:59 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
DLW wrote:
stilicho wrote:

‘I don't have any evidence that Chris H is a member of FOA. Do you? I don't necessarily disbelieve you but I haven't seen the source listing him as a participant.’

No I don’t either. And no disrespect to Chris H. at the JREF forum, as I was providing a link to his lopsided (my thought) article. It was just the timing of this post, along with some of the same topics he brings up as does the FOA. I understand that there are some legitimate questions (the judges report will certainly clarify some of these) of the case, and somebody unrelated to the FOA can try to explain their POV. I agree with everything else you said.
I also agree that the appeal will certainly center on the forensics, because of the condensed nature. And will mainly focus on those issues as deemed most important by the courts motivation report, along with any new items.


Well, he is quoted in the FOA site as another "professor" and no bloggers or experts with different pov from FOA mantra gets quoted there!

"Chris Halkides, associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, has added his voice to those of other experts who believe the "Double-DNA knife" is worthless as evidence and had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher."


Being an associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry hardly qualifies him as an expert. Another problem with his approach, for anyone unfamiliar with his entries at the JREF, is his dependence on textbooks written almost ten years ago to buttress his case. To his credit, I haven't seen him argue that DNA forensics is his own area of expertise.

Thanks for the info, Jools. It's apparent he's had contact with the FOA, somehow, but it's they who are flaunting his credentials. He seems content to "just ask questions".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Had an email from amazon this morning cancelling my order for John Follain's book. It's apparently been discontinued, which I assume means that the book has been cancelled or delayed indefinitely...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:

Knox and Sollecito are a modern day version of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.


While respecting your strong feelings on this case TM you're wrong on that count. You can make a fair comparison with the final killing of Edward Evans who was a young man rather than a child but Meredith's murder however appalling does not compare with the pre-planned kidnapping of children off the street and recording their torture for posterity. Objectively that's in a league of it's own.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Filomena was suspicious of Amanda's behavior from the moment she saw her at the apartment.

If Amanda had said, "I'm too confused to call police", Filomena would have done so. Instead, AK tried to postpone the police involvement by saying she already had. Maybe that's what Amanda told Raffaele as well.



Didn't Filomena also say after giving AK and RS a ride to the police station they (she and her boyfriend) checked the car to see if they 'left' ie 'planted' anything there?
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Filomena was suspicious of Amanda's behavior from the moment she saw her at the apartment.

If Amanda had said, "I'm too confused to call police", Filomena would have done so. Instead, AK tried to postpone the police involvement by saying she already had. Maybe that's what Amanda told Raffaele as well.



Didn't Filomena also say after giving AK and RS a ride to the police station they (she and her boyfriend) checked the car to see if they 'left' ie 'planted' anything there?



I thought that it was two other friends of Filomena's who did this after Raf had asked them certain questions on the ride to the police station.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Ah, okay, Thanks mortytoad. It was in Michael's timeline:
1350 Phones seized, reported by Bartolozzi at 14:00

Evening Paola Grande and Luca Altieri take RS and AK to Perugia police station in their car. PG and LA have stated that during the trip RS was constantly asking them questions regarding the murder and investigation of a manner that caused them to become so concerned and suspicious, they thorougly checked over the interior of the car after RS and AK got out, for ‘incriminating evidence’ they were afraid the pair may have ‘planted’ there. The ‘suspicious’ behaviour of the couple continued inside the police station, which was noted and reported by multiple witnesses.

I am not sure where this was recorded though, court testimony or in a newspaper interview??
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

patza wrote

Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 040071.ece
The Court of Cassation, the country’s highest court, is to rule on David Mills’s second and final appeal against a four-and-a-half-year sentence.

The estranged husband of the Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell was found guilty last year of accepting a $600,000 (£390,000) bribe from Mr Berlusconi to give false testimony on the Prime Minister’s behalf in corruption trials in the 1990s. Both deny the charges.

The nine Supreme Court judges could overturn Mills’s sentence on a technicality, arguing that the time allowed for a conviction has run out under Italy’s statute of limitations.


What you are reading, patza, is wrong.
Berlusconi was NOT acquitted and the verdict was NOT overturned. It was rather the public TV network who was suffering a political pressure. In fact the director of RAI1 news was denounced and petitioned for having released a false piece of news:

http://www.asca.it/news-MILLS__OLTRE_56_MILA_HANNO_FIRMATO_PETIZIONE_SU_FACEBOOK_CONTRO_TG1-897976-ORA-.html

http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=126&ID_articolo=239&ID_sezione=277&sezione=

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/articolo/2121990

The guilty verdict was not overturned due to technicalities. Only the penalty was cancelled because of expiration term. While both the Prosecutor General and the Supreme Court stated that "bribery had been committed with no doubt". But some of the government-controlled press told a lie.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:22 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Shirley wrote:
piktor wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Quote:
It's interesting all the people who lived with Amanda at the scene of the crime, immediately KNEW. They had absolutely no doubt who at least one of the perpetrators was.


But is that really true? Filomena's voice on the taped phone call of November 5th sounds so warm, so kind and sincere and she expresses sympathy for all the police questioning, and wants to meet her mom. I wonder exactly when Filomena really became convinced of Amanda's guilt. She certainly did at some point, but I don't think it can have been immediate.


You are not thinking like a woman. Women empathize by nature and become motherly when they see someone in deep trouble.

Also: if Filomena suspected Knox, what better way of disguising her suspicions than to sound affectionate and on Knox's side. Maybe Knox would spill the beans.

Misunderestimate women at your own peril. kh-))


I'll misunderestimate your post at my peril. "Thinking like a woman"???? I know plenty of women who are not "motherly" when in relation with someone in "deep trouble." Though, I guess, whatever "motherly" means.

I suspect, also, that Filomena, was probably in shock, at her roommate's brutal assault and murder, and also the shocking possibility of involvement in people she lived with. To suggest she was "disguising her suspicions" is certainly possible, but I suspect that's a manipulation she may not have had the emotion or energy or deception for.


I have a faint suspicion Filomena had a major role in the prosecution's line of investigation.

Once investigators got wind that Filomena's 'burglarized' room was staged and that Filomena was very uncomfortable with the conversation she and her boyfriend had with Knox/Sollecito on the way to the police station, the effect of her comments to police sealed the fate of the two accused.

From then on, the two accused got the police's undivided attention.

Filomena was credible and her alibi checked. She had firsthand knowledge of the individuals at Pergola 7 and had no agenda. She was firmly on the victim's side and wanted this tragedy cleared up as urgently as authorities did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:54 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Trump: Knox prosecutor 'a nut job'
By Kathi Goertzen

Trump:

"I think I'm good at judging people. I study people and I've become rich because I understand what people are about. And I watched the Amanda Knox case unfolding in news reports. And this is not a guilty person."

"There's no evidence that links her to this crime," he said. "Other than she said some stupid things after being tormented for hours and hours and hours. It's amazing a lot of people in Italy think she's guilty, but the evidence isn't there. Even the prisoners think she's innocent. They have a better instinct than you or I. But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail. They thought they'd said goodbye to her, they'd never see her again. And the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people were crying she came back. Even they know she didn't do it. So it was just something that struck me I thought it was a horrible miscarriage of justice and I spoke up."

Trump says Mignini is the one who should be in jail. The prosecutor is appealing a recent conviction for abusing his power in a different case.

"I know exactly what this guy is all about," Trump said "He's a maniac and I've watched this maniac who's being prosecuted for abuse and it wouldn't matter to him if she was innocent or guilty. He just wanted to bring in the scalp. He looks like a madman to me. He looks like an absolute maniac. A nut job in my opinion. And it's just my opinion. This is a free country and I'm allowed to say what I think."


Trump also believes Americans should intervene. He says he's met with one member of the Knox legal team and feels they're getting nowhere on appeal.

"I think the president should get involved," Trump said. "This is a miscarriage of justice. I think the president should absolutely get involved and I think people should boycott Italy. They should not go to Italy. This is not a close call that she may be guilty. She's not guilty!"

Trump says though the family has not asked for financial support, he may help them.

"What people don't know about me is basically I'm a good person and I'm a fair person. I help a lot of families -- many all over the United States when they're in trouble. I like helping people. And I see someone who can't defend herself. I see her parents who seem like wonderful people. They don't have a lot of money and the lawyers are getting nowhere. It could be years. There's no reward in this for me; maybe just the opposite. A whole country may not like that I'm doing this, but I think it's very unfair.

"All I can do is speak up as a citizen of this country about a citizen of this country that was really treated very unfairly and it's destroyed her life. She went to Italy to learn Italian. The only good news is she's learned Italian."
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/85925657.html
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

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

booking my trip to Italy as we speak.......
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 Mar 02, 2010 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:

My point is the people who speak on behalf of Amanda did not know the Amanda who lived in Italy.

There was no one who spoke on Amanda's behalf at the trial either. No one who knew her in Italy.



The only adult who knew the most about the Italian-holiday Amanda was her boss Patrick,
and what he said about people not needing lies when they're telling the truth will in time probably
become the summarisng epigram for the case, I reckon.

If she hadn't slandered him (and indirectly gotten him stuck in prison and his club shut down for a while), I imagine he could have been in a position to provide character witness testimony if required - even though she came in late, left early, flirted with the clientele, didn't pick up the empty glasses like she was supposed to (how hard is that?), I can imagine him trying to find the good side in anyone. That's the sort of person he is, as his friends show.

On the other hand, it was a murder, and the step before "feral" is "reckless", and the kindest thing in the long run is to introduce Truth to the participants, not to continue the creative spinner's fantasy world of "La Dolce Vita student-holiday yay!-with-no-leash-on, oh-no, look-what-happened, [delete key] 'can't remember; wasn't there' ".

Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up? It's not quite what the domestic science teachers had in mind, I reckon.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
booking my trip to Italy as we speak.......



Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, too.



Quote:
Trump:

"I think I'm good at judging people. I study people and I've become rich because I understand what people are about. And I watched the Amanda Knox case unfolding in news reports. And this is not a guilty person."


Trump was not such a good judge of people when dealing with Miss California USA, Carrie PreJean.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

One of comments about The Donald was *he never met a microphone he didn't like*. He is so full of hot air, and inflated ego. They say only your best friends will tell you the truth, so I quess he doesn't have any. PLEASE let the report be irrefutable, so that many of these mis-informed , ignorant, publicity seekers , crawl back under the rocks, where they belong.

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

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Speaking of Filomena, has she or Laura Mezzeti(sp), made any post-verdict public comments or staements anywhere?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Trump: Knox prosecutor 'a nut job'
By Kathi Goertzen

Trump:

"I think I'm good at judging people. I study people and I've become rich because I understand what people are about. And I watched the Amanda Knox case unfolding in news reports. And this is not a guilty person."

"There's no evidence that links her to this crime," he said. "Other than she said some stupid things after being tormented for hours and hours and hours. It's amazing a lot of people in Italy think she's guilty, but the evidence isn't there. Even the prisoners think she's innocent. They have a better instinct than you or I. But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail. They thought they'd said goodbye to her, they'd never see her again. And the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people were crying she came back. Even they know she didn't do it. So it was just something that struck me I thought it was a horrible miscarriage of justice and I spoke up."

Trump says Mignini is the one who should be in jail. The prosecutor is appealing a recent conviction for abusing his power in a different case.

"I know exactly what this guy is all about," Trump said "He's a maniac and I've watched this maniac who's being prosecuted for abuse and it wouldn't matter to him if she was innocent or guilty. He just wanted to bring in the scalp. He looks like a madman to me. He looks like an absolute maniac. A nut job in my opinion. And it's just my opinion. This is a free country and I'm allowed to say what I think."


Trump also believes Americans should intervene. He says he's met with one member of the Knox legal team and feels they're getting nowhere on appeal.

"I think the president should get involved," Trump said. "This is a miscarriage of justice. I think the president should absolutely get involved and I think people should boycott Italy. They should not go to Italy. This is not a close call that she may be guilty. She's not guilty!"

Trump says though the family has not asked for financial support, he may help them.

"What people don't know about me is basically I'm a good person and I'm a fair person. I help a lot of families -- many all over the United States when they're in trouble. I like helping people. And I see someone who can't defend herself. I see her parents who seem like wonderful people. They don't have a lot of money and the lawyers are getting nowhere. It could be years. There's no reward in this for me; maybe just the opposite. A whole country may not like that I'm doing this, but I think it's very unfair.

"All I can do is speak up as a citizen of this country about a citizen of this country that was really treated very unfairly and it's destroyed her life. She went to Italy to learn Italian. The only good news is she's learned Italian."
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/85925657.html


What an asshole - just my opinion and I'm entitled to it. In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys said there were 7.3 million (sic) people in the United States under correctional supervision (Probation, Prison/Jail and Parole). Here's news for old syrup-head; Americans are killers and sexual assailants and every other type of criminal under the sun too. Up to 7.3 million of them.

What is it with this pernicious, perpetual use of "citizen" or any other type of mention of nationality that features at all in whether Amanda Knox is guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher??? h-)) ta-)) m-))

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote:

Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up? It's not quite what the domestic science teachers had in mind, I reckon.


At least AK and RS have learnt something...

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 Mar 02, 2010 1:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

mortytoad wrote:
Speaking of Filomena, has she or Laura Mezzeti(sp), made any post-verdict public comments or staements anywhere?


Not that we're aware of. The last we heard from Filomena was when she made her scathing remark about Amanda after Amanda gave her testimony on the stand.

_________________
"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 bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I think what she said about Amanda was "She's always changing the story" or similar.

Can anyone remember who it was who first complained about the tricolor sashes?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

mortytoad wrote:
Speaking of Filomena, has she or Laura Mezzeti(sp), made any post-verdict public comments or staements anywhere?


They keep a pretty low profile, I'm presuming because it's still sub judice. Plus I'm not sure how much that'll ever change - the horror of what happened would keep many people away of course, but also AK dobbed them in as "big [dope] smokers" in her diary which was widely covered and I believe would inevitably come up in the context of articles about them. Probably not the sort of thing that would make you ever want to talk to the press even when they can given that, like everyone, they need to work for a living?

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote:
Emerald wrote:

My point is the people who speak on behalf of Amanda did not know the Amanda who lived in Italy.

There was no one who spoke on Amanda's behalf at the trial either. No one who knew her in Italy.



The only adult who knew the most about the Italian-holiday Amanda was her boss Patrick,
and what he said about people not needing lies when they're telling the truth will in time probably
become the summarisng epigram for the case, I reckon.

If she hadn't slandered him (and indirectly gotten him stuck in prison and his club shut down for a while), I imagine he could have been in a position to provide character witness testimony if required - even though she came in late, left early, flirted with the clientele, didn't pick up the empty glasses like she was supposed to (how hard is that?), I can imagine him trying to find the good side in anyone. That's the sort of person he is, as his friends show.

On the other hand, it was a murder, and the step before "feral" is "reckless", and the kindest thing in the long run is to introduce Truth to the participants, not to continue the creative spinner's fantasy world of "La Dolce Vita student-holiday yay!-with-no-leash-on, oh-no, look-what-happened, [delete key] 'can't remember; wasn't there' ".

Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up? It's not quite what the domestic science teachers had in mind, I reckon.


lil' Catnip sounds a little feral today:


"Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up?"

Ouch!
oil on paper painted by yours truly


Last edited by piktor on Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Patzu - thank you so much for the Treniers clip. I haven't seen them since "The Grl Can't Help It" movie. If anyone explores the other clips offered at the end, there is a fantastic Dean & Jerry number. Those guys were the tops. They will all have to make an appearance on the Motor Pool Memories blog.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

pataz1 wrote:

I'm finishing up the Scott Peterson trial book; Laci's mother admittted in her trial testimony that she didn't initally realize the significance of Scott stating from the first phone call "Laci's missing".

Pat.


Ron Grantski (Laci's stepfather) apparently DID have his suspicions raised early on. Or at least that is what he has said publicly, after hearing Scott say "Laci's missing."
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DONALD TRUMP SAID:
They(the prisoners) have a better instinct than you or I. But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail. They thought they'd said goodbye to her, they'd never see her again. And "the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people were crying she came back."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Donald...you tell us that the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people WERE CRYING SHE CAME BACK.
Well,that's certainly understandable! These poor souls had thought they'd GOTTEN RID OF AMANDA-- FOR GOOD!
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Good. Let Trump give money to the family. Maybe then they can stop holding fundraisers. Somehow, now they have a taste for it, I can't imagine them ever stopping. They have a meal ticket now, and it doesn't matter if she's in jail or released at this point. Way to go, sell your baby! Do you suppose Candace has to hand over a portion of her sales to her family ties?
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DONALD TRUMP SAID:
"They have a better instinct than you or I. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO THIS, THE GRAMMAR POLICE RESPOND:

Not "you or I", Donald.
It should be "you or me," in this instance.

CORRECTION:
They have a better instinct than you or me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Note to everyone:
It's a lot easier to correct Donald's bad grammar--- than to correct his mindless, foolish, knee-jerk (BIG EMPHASIS ON THE "JERK" part) "REASONING." n-((

As Rene Descartes said:
"I think, therefore I am."

while...

Donald Trump says:
"I am rich, therefore I am RIGHT."
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Jools wrote:
Trump: Knox prosecutor 'a nut job'
By Kathi Goertzen

Trump:

"I think I'm good at judging people. I study people and I've become rich because I understand what people are about. And I watched the Amanda Knox case unfolding in news reports. And this is not a guilty person."

"There's no evidence that links her to this crime," he said. "Other than she said some stupid things after being tormented for hours and hours and hours. It's amazing a lot of people in Italy think she's guilty, but the evidence isn't there. Even the prisoners think she's innocent. They have a better instinct than you or I. But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail. They thought they'd said goodbye to her, they'd never see her again. And the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people were crying she came back. Even they know she didn't do it. So it was just something that struck me I thought it was a horrible miscarriage of justice and I spoke up."
Trump says Mignini is the one who should be in jail. The prosecutor is appealing a recent conviction for abusing his power in a different case.

"I know exactly what this guy is all about," Trump said "He's a maniac and I've watched this maniac who's being prosecuted for abuse and it wouldn't matter to him if she was innocent or guilty. He just wanted to bring in the scalp. He looks like a madman to me. He looks like an absolute maniac. A nut job in my opinion. And it's just my opinion. This is a free country and I'm allowed to say what I think."


Trump also believes Americans should intervene. He says he's met with one member of the Knox legal team and feels they're getting nowhere on appeal.

"I think the president should get involved," Trump said. "This is a miscarriage of justice. I think the president should absolutely get involved and I think people should boycott Italy. They should not go to Italy. This is not a close call that she may be guilty. She's not guilty!"

Trump says though the family has not asked for financial support, he may help them.

"What people don't know about me is basically I'm a good person and I'm a fair person. I help a lot of families -- many all over the United States when they're in trouble. I like helping people. And I see someone who can't defend herself. I see her parents who seem like wonderful people. They don't have a lot of money and the lawyers are getting nowhere. It could be years. There's no reward in this for me; maybe just the opposite. A whole country may not like that I'm doing this, but I think it's very unfair.

"All I can do is speak up as a citizen of this country about a citizen of this country that was really treated very unfairly and it's destroyed her life. She went to Italy to learn Italian. The only good news is she's learned Italian."
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/85925657.html


What an asshole - just my opinion and I'm entitled to it. In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys said there were 7.3 million (sic) people in the United States under correctional supervision (Probation, Prison/Jail and Parole). Here's news for old syrup-head; Americans are killers and sexual assailants and every other type of criminal under the sun too. Up to 7.3 million of them.

What is it with this pernicious, perpetual use of "citizen" or any other type of mention of nationality that features at all in whether Amanda Knox is guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher??? h-)) ta-)) m-))



I I I I I I I I I I I me me me me me me me I I I I I I I me me me me me me me

Imaginary conversation between 2 narcissists (perhaps an exclusive post-release interview):

Narc 1: I I I I I

Narc 2: me me me me me

Narc 1: I me I me I me

Narc 2: me I me I me I

Narc 1: Me I?

Narc 2: me me...

Narc 1 (interrupting): I I I I I I I

Etc.

Riveting conversation, blinding insight!
Stay tuned!

_________________
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 Mar 02, 2010 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
booking my trip to Italy as we speak.......



Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, too.



Quote:
Trump:

"I think I'm good at judging people. I study people and I've become rich because I understand what people are about. And I watched the Amanda Knox case unfolding in news reports. And this is not a guilty person."


Trump was not such a good judge of people when dealing with Miss California USA, Carrie PreJean.



For that matter, what about Ivana? She married an ITALIAN! Boycott Italy!

_________________
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: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Dear Donald Trump:
Before you open up your big self-important mouth, pontificating on matters of which you have no understanding pro-) , please hark back to the words of French philosopher ( Skep's two specialties!! pp-( )J. P. Sartre:

"THE RATIONAL MAN GROANS AS HE GROPES FOR THE TRUTH;
HE KNOWS THAT HIS REASONING IS NO MORE THAN TENTATIVE,
THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAY SUPERVENE TO CAST DOUBT ON IT...
ONLY A STRONG EMOTIONAL BIAS CAN GIVE A LIGHTNING-LIKE CERTAINTY."


The 411
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote:
Emerald wrote:

My point is the people who speak on behalf of Amanda did not know the Amanda who lived in Italy.

There was no one who spoke on Amanda's behalf at the trial either. No one who knew her in Italy.



The only adult who knew the most about the Italian-holiday Amanda was her boss Patrick,
and what he said about people not needing lies when they're telling the truth will in time probably
become the summarisng epigram for the case, I reckon.

If she hadn't slandered him (and indirectly gotten him stuck in prison and his club shut down for a while), I imagine he could have been in a position to provide character witness testimony if required - even though she came in late, left early, flirted with the clientele, didn't pick up the empty glasses like she was supposed to (how hard is that?), I can imagine him trying to find the good side in anyone. That's the sort of person he is, as his friends show.

On the other hand, it was a murder, and the step before "feral" is "reckless", and the kindest thing in the long run is to introduce Truth to the participants, not to continue the creative spinner's fantasy world of "La Dolce Vita student-holiday yay!-with-no-leash-on, oh-no, look-what-happened, [delete key] 'can't remember; wasn't there' ".

Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up? It's not quite what the domestic science teachers had in mind, I reckon.


Speaking of holidays, it has always struck me as implausible that AK did not know that Nov 1 was a holiday in Italy. First of all, she would have known that there was no school on Thursday or Friday; indeed, she testified that she and RS were planning a day trip on Friday. Second of all, her boss Patrick must have told her why he might not need her services on that particular Thursday night. Lots of students were away for the long weekend; Le Chic was having a slow night. Why do AK and her FOA-lks feel the need to lie about even these seemingly unimportant details?

_________________
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: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:


I I I I I I I I I I I me me me me me me me I I I I I I I me me me me me me me

Imaginary conversation between 2 narcissists (perhaps an exclusive post-release interview):

Narc 1: I I I I I

Narc 2: me me me me me

Narc 1: I me I me I me

Narc 2: me I me I me I

Narc 1: Me I?

Narc 2: me me...

Narc 1 (interrupting): I I I I I I I

Etc.

Riveting conversation, blinding insight!
Stay tuned!


The drama continues...
in
SCENE II, ACT 1
[The Curtain opens]

Narc 1: ME, me me me me
Narc 2: me me me me me
Narc 1: I am I am I am I am
Narc 2: (INTERRUPTING) Me I?

Narc 1: But ENOUGH ABOUT ME!!!!....WHAT DO ***YOU**** THINK ABOUT *ME*? tou-)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The 411 wrote:
Dear Donald Trump:
Before you open up your big self-important mouth, pontificating on matters of which you have no understanding pro-) , please hark back to the words of French philosopher ( Skep's two specialties!! pp-( )J. P. Sartre:

"THE RATIONAL MAN GROANS AS HE GROPES FOR THE TRUTH;
HE KNOWS THAT HIS REASONING IS NO MORE THAN TENTATIVE,
THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAY SUPERVENE TO CAST DOUBT ON IT...
ONLY A STRONG EMOTIONAL BIAS CAN GIVE A LIGHTNING-LIKE CERTAINTY."


The 411


Donald Trump's absolute belief in himself is legendary (and scary). As for his claim that he got rich by knowing how to read people, let the record show that he actually got his start on the path to wealth the way most people do: he was to the manor born. Here is an excerpt from his bio in Wikipedia:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American business magnate, socialite, author and television personality. He is the Chairman and CEO of the Trump Organization, a US-based real-estate developer. Trump is also the founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operates numerous casinos and hotels across the world. Trump's extravagant lifestyle and outspoken manner have made him a celebrity for years, a status amplified by the success of his NBC reality show, The Apprentice (where he serves as host and executive producer).

Donald was the fourth of five children of Fred Trump, a wealthy real estate developer based in New York City. Donald was strongly influenced by his father in his eventual goals to make a career in real estate development, and upon his graduation from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, Donald Trump joined his father's company, The Trump Organization.

In the same Wiki article, Donald is quoted as saying that he actually moved back in with his parents after graduating from Wharton and went straight to work for Daddy Warbucks. Well, first he passed go and collected 200 dollars.

_________________
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 Mar 02, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The 411 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


I I I I I I I I I I I me me me me me me me I I I I I I I me me me me me me me

Imaginary conversation between 2 narcissists (perhaps an exclusive post-release interview):

Narc 1: I I I I I

Narc 2: me me me me me

Narc 1: I me I me I me

Narc 2: me I me I me I

Narc 1: Me I?

Narc 2: me me...

Narc 1 (interrupting): I I I I I I I

Etc.

Riveting conversation, blinding insight!
Stay tuned!


The drama continues...
in
SCENE II, ACT 1
[The Curtain opens]

Narc 1: ME, me me me me
Narc 2: me me me me me
Narc 1: I am I am I am I am
Narc 2: (INTERRUPTING) Me I?

Narc 1: But ENOUGH ABOUT ME!!!!....WHAT DO ***YOU**** THINK ABOUT *ME*? tou-)



tt-)

_________________
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: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The 411 wrote:
Dear Donald Trump:
Before you open up your big self-important mouth, pontificating on matters of which you have no understanding pro-) , please hark back to the words of French philosopher ( Skep's two specialties!! pp-( )J. P. Sartre:

"THE RATIONAL MAN GROANS AS HE GROPES FOR THE TRUTH;
HE KNOWS THAT HIS REASONING IS NO MORE THAN TENTATIVE,
THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAY SUPERVENE TO CAST DOUBT ON IT...
ONLY A STRONG EMOTIONAL BIAS CAN GIVE A LIGHTNING-LIKE CERTAINTY."


The 411


The Trump Man groans as he gropes for his comb-over;
He know that his comb-over is no more than tentative,
That other winds may supervene to cast doubt on it…
Only a strong hairspray can give an immobile certainty.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Wonder if Trump will cast Curt Knox for his next celebrity apprentice? He is got the time, -no job- he is a minor, albeit very minor, celebrity now and in need of funds for his charity.

... And how about Chris Mellas, has he still got a job? Is he still the only ‘breadwinner’ in the family? Okay, so he’s less than very minor, celebrity but, it would make great reality TV to have both of these defenders of lies in the same Trump show ar-)) s-(( ta-))
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Catnip wrote:
Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up? It's not quite what the domestic science teachers had in mind, I reckon.

I swear there may need to be a book of these PMF gems LOL. Humor helps us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Narc 1: I I I I I

Narc 2: me me me me me

Narc 1: I me I me I me

Narc 2: me I me I me I

Narc 1: Me I?

Narc 2: me me...

Narc 1 (interrupting): I I I I I I I

Etc.

Riveting conversation, blinding insight!
Stay tuned!

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Wonder if Trump will cast Curt Knox for his next celebrity apprentice? He is got the time, -no job- he is a minor, albeit very minor, celebrity now and in need of funds for his charity.

... And how about Chris Mellas, has he still got a job? Is he still the only ‘breadwinner’ in the family? Okay, so he’s less than very minor, celebrity but, it would make great reality TV to have both of these defenders of lies in the same Trump show ar-)) s-(( ta-))


It may be better for "The Comb Over" (good one, Shirley) to make The Family work for its handout. The 2008 financial crisis has left its mark on Narc 1:

Quote:
Trump was caught in the 2008 financial crisis, with sales for his Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago lagging. He failed to repay a $40m loan to Deutsche Bank in December. Arguing that the crisis was an Act of God, he evoked a clause in the contract to not pay the loan and initiated a countersuit, asserting that his image has been damaged. Deutsche Bank replied in court that 'Trump is no stranger to overdue debt' and has twice previously filed for bankruptcy with respect to his casino operations.
On February 17, 2009 Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, Mr Trump having stated on February 13 that he would resign from the board. Trump Entertainment Resorts has three properties in Atlantic City.


No wonder The Comb Over (aka Narc 1) wants to lead a boycott of Italy. It draws too many potential tourists away from Trump Entertainment Resorts.

_________________
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: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Comb Over needs some hairspray


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

He's looking dangerously Barbara Cartland. Can he wear pink?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Danny LaRue?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

He puts the Buffo in Bouffant


buf·fo
   /ˈbufoʊ; It. ˈbuffɔ/ Show Spelled[boo-foh; It. boof-faw] Show IPA
–noun,plural-fi  /-fi/ Show Spelled[-fee] Show IPA, -fos. Music.
1.
(in opera) a comedy part, usually bass.
2.
a male opera singer who specializes in comic roles.
Use buffo in a Sentence
See images of buffo
Search buffo on the Web


[
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
He's looking dangerously Barbara Cartland. Can he wear pink?


cl-)


Chapter 2 of the Donald Trump Story, entitled My Fabulous Ability to Read People and My Consistency:

In October 2007, Trump appeared on Larry King Live and delivered a strong criticism of then-United States President George W. Bush, particularly concerning the Iraq War. He also predicted that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton would win the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominations, respectively, and said that he would be very supportive of either of them being elected President. He made further statements about the issue on the The Situation Room, in which he said "anybody who wants more troops in Iraq, I don't feel can win an election" as Rudy Giuliani supports that position. On the same show, he was also critical of the public perception of Angelina Jolie as a grand beauty.[26]

On September 17, 2008, Trump officially endorsed John McCain for the U.S. Presidency on Larry King Live.[27]

I think that comb-over may be hiding a gigantic hole in Trump's head. What the Wiki article fails to mention -- and I think this is due to a huge cover-up -- is that illegal aliens drilled through his skull while Trump slept, quietly removing the entire contents, which turned out to be quite insignificant.

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think that comb-over may be hiding a gigantic hole in Trump's head. What the Wiki article fails to mention -- and I think this is due to a huge cover-up -- is that illegal aliens drilled through his skull while Trump slept, quietly removing the entire contents, which turned out to be quite insignificant.

Stop, stop, too much! Me laughing too much.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Alien drilling


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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up? It's not quite what the domestic science teachers had in mind, I reckon.

I swear there may need to be a book of these PMF gems LOL. Humor helps us.


At these "laugh-out-loud" moments" here, I'm often reminded of Meredith. hugz-)
It was the Kercher Family who told us that Meredith herself had "a love for the ridiculous!!"
And what/who could be more RIDICULOUS...than DONALD TRUMP!!!???
Appreciating the ridiculous makes her that much more endearing !!!!

By the way...has anyone else stopped to realize....that AK (and her entire family and entourage) lack a sense of humor????

Much has been written about Amanda and the FOA not having a conscience...but I think she and the FOA don't have a real sense of humor (unless it is wisecracks made at someone else's expense...."dirty Jew""Fellini Forensics" etc.)

Scary, huh?

Having to be around people without without a sense of humor is....as Hobbes would say, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish."

By the way, that's my ****third**** "philosopher quote,
CITED IN A SINGLE DAY"--all on just two cups of coffee!!
Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME......... :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Shirley wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Dear Donald Trump:
Before you open up your big self-important mouth, pontificating on matters of which you have no understanding pro-) , please hark back to the words of French philosopher ( Skep's two specialties!! pp-( )J. P. Sartre:

"THE RATIONAL MAN GROANS AS HE GROPES FOR THE TRUTH;
HE KNOWS THAT HIS REASONING IS NO MORE THAN TENTATIVE,
THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAY SUPERVENE TO CAST DOUBT ON IT...
ONLY A STRONG EMOTIONAL BIAS CAN GIVE A LIGHTNING-LIKE CERTAINTY."


The 411


The Trump Man groans as he gropes for his comb-over;
He know that his comb-over is no more than tentative,
That other winds may supervene to cast doubt on it…
Only a strong hairspray can give an immobile certainty.


Between Shirley's parody and H9's photo of Donald's "hair-owing" coiffure,
I'm laughing so hard, Je crois que je vais cracher une boule de poils.
(i.e., I think I am going to cough up a fur ball.)
Attention, ça vient.
(i. e., Here it comes now.}

Today's French Lesson comes to you, thanks to one of 411's fave reads:
"French for Cats: All the French Your Cat Will Ever Need" by Henri de la Barbe (Henry Beard)

P.S. When compiling the "Best of PMF's Humor", whatever you do, don't overlook Shirley's posts.
Shirley's messages are like haikus--very compact, yet meaningful and they pack quite a punch (line)!! :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Aw, thanks 411! I'm :oops:

P.S. That was a lovely, lovely tribute to Meredith and her enjoyment of the ridiculous. :)
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Thought this might be relevant:

BEIJING — A Chinese college student fed up with his roommate's snoring, has confessed to stabbing him to death in the middle of the night.

Zhao Yan, 22, was stabbed in the chest and back late last year in his room at Jilin Agricultural University in the northeastern province of Jilin, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Tuesday.

His roommate, 23-year-old Guo Liwei, confessed Monday that he stabbed Zhao because of a dispute over his snoring, the report said, citing the Changchun Intermediate People's Court.

Guo had previously complained to Zhao about his snoring and posted video of him snoring on a university Web site, which created more tension between the two, Xinhua reported.

"I told Zhao about it and he became angry. He verbally abused me several times, prompting me to kill him," Guo was quoted as saying by Xinhua.

Guo is currently awaiting sentencing by the court, the report said. Calls to the court rang unanswered Tuesday morning.

Violent crimes have been on the rise in China, especially as the country's rapid economic development has created a growing rich-poor gap.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/0 ... 82180.html
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416070_trump02.html

"She went to Italy to learn Italian. The only good news is she's learned Italian."

He says he's met with one member of the Knox legal team and thinks they're getting nowhere on appeal.


Who has he met with?

Everyone is welcome to join the comments section
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Alien drilling



The diagram is perfect for instructional purposes, but I want our readers to know that Trump's actual brain is about one-tenth that size.

_________________
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: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

LEAKED Defense strategy:

She's innocent (NOBODY does cartwheels in a police station if they're not). Hopefully the appeals process will straighten out what is, at least to me, a clear miscarriage of justice.

While Amanda might have been an "odd duck" in Italy, she's not at all that unusual in Seattle, where "neo-hippies" are as common as the grass.
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Barbie Nadeau's book on the case, Angel Face: The Real Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox, has now got a front cover.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Angel-Face-Stud ... 0984295135
Top Profile 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Doberman says "Gee Sarge, you can't argue with this guy! I never realised that the prisoners found her inoocent.! That settles it."

Personally, I'm not sure. Would you buy a timeshare from Honest Don?


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
LEAKED Defense strategy:

She's innocent (NOBODY does cartwheels in a police station if they're not). Hopefully the appeals process will straighten out what is, at least to me, a clear miscarriage of justice.

While Amanda might have been an "odd duck" in Italy, she's not at all that unusual in Seattle, where "neo-hippies" are as common as the grass.



Don't you mean LEAKY defense strategy? :)

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

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Is there any sign of the report?
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
Who has he met with?

Everyone is welcome to join the comments section


The only attorney who would speak with the family about or friends is Carlo Dalla Vedova. As Luciano Ghirga is not willing to engage into any conversation in English.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

No report today?
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Who has he met with?

Everyone is welcome to join the comments section


The only attorney who would speak with the family about or friends is Carlo Dalla Vedova. As Luciano Ghirga is not willing to engage into any conversation in English.

I think he means Ted Simon. Tramp and Simon have a common friend, Don King. Ted Simon was King's attorney in a murder case.
Here is a pic of Trump & King


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

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

What a hairy day. Do they go for pedicures together too?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Who has he met with?

Everyone is welcome to join the comments section


The only attorney who would speak with the family about or friends is Carlo Dalla Vedova. As Luciano Ghirga is not willing to engage into any conversation in English.

I think he means Ted Simon. Tramp and Simon have a common friend, Don King. Ted Simon was King's attorney in a murder case.
Here is a pic of Trump & King



Since Trump is coordinating a one-man boycott of all things Italian, I would imagine he hasn't spoken to anyone actually defending Knox where it matters. He is talking either about Ted Simon, as Jools suggests, or Anne Bremner. Both aspire to celebrity status and hence appear on television as often as possible, just like The Donald. His comb-over may be endangeed and his vast real estate empire may be rickety, but he has become one of the best-paid self-promoting lunatics on US television. General Patton once famously said that America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser. In fact, if you judge from US television only, I think you have to agree that nowadays America loves an asshole. The more boorish and bombastic the better.

_________________
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 Mar 02, 2010 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
No report today?



I could be wrong, but the 90-day deadline brings us to Friday. My sources said it would not be coming out on Tuesday. They could also be wrong. In fact, those issuing it know when they plan to release it!

_________________
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: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

So what is the feeling here for the appeal? Do people think the best outcome the family realistically hopes for will be a reduction in sentence and extradition to the States? ....Worse case scenario.. all stays the same and they are on to the next appeal and begging money from Donald?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416070_trump02.html

"She went to Italy to learn Italian. The only good news is she's learned Italian."

He says he's met with one member of the Knox legal team and thinks they're getting nowhere on appeal.


Who has he met with?

Everyone is welcome to join the comments section


I read the comments (but did not leave one) and was pleased to note that several people took Goertzen and the PI to task for chasing after and reporting the opinion of this loud-mouthed attention whore. This is not news, people. This is celebrity gossip. The most surprising item in the article itself is that Goertzen sent a copy of her interview to Mignini. I don't see what she hopes to accomplish other than making Seattle look like Palukaville.

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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So what is the feeling here for the appeal? Do people think the best outcome the family realistically hopes for will be a reduction in sentence and extradition to the States? ....Worse case scenario.. all stays the same and they are on to the next appeal and begging money from Donald?


Commisario Montalbano, who is an Italian lawyer, wrote the following:

"The two appeals are totally independent. The judges are different too. The process for an appeal of an abbreviated trial are subject to the procedures of Art. 599 of the CPP, which are different from the full appeal of an appellate Court of Assizes, the tougher process that Knox and Sollecito must contend with.

This judge simply expected that Amanda and Raffaele will get their sentence confirmed in appeal, and he then acted accordingly. Basically he granted to Guede the same ‘attenuanti generiche’ applied to the two of them.

And then with the 1/3 auto-reduction for his short-form trial Guede got his sentence reduced to 16 years.

On the appeal of AK and RS anything can happen, but the most likely scenario is a confirmation of the sentence. The only way they’ll get out of it is if a majority of jurors see grounds for reasonable doubt based on ‘insufficient evidence’.

That’s not too likely, but possible."
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Palukaville?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I could be wrong, but the 90-day deadline brings us to Friday. My sources said it would not be coming out on Tuesday. They could also be wrong. In fact, those issuing it know when they plan to release it!


Friday makes sense for the news cycle. That's commonly the day stuff gets released to deflect a media storm.

How does the report get released? What kind of announcement is made?

O/T..... I did some yard work a few days ago. Now, covered in an itchy rash on my face, neck and arms. One of my eyes is swollen almost completely shut. Please excuse any errors. co-)
Top Profile 

Offline Salamander


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 23

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Friday makes sense for the news cycle. That's commonly the day stuff gets released to deflect a media storm.

Isn't the 90 days up today, though? Or is it a bit flexible as to when they can release it?

I checked with Micheli's report, and that was released on a Tuesday 90 days to the day after the verdict. Reports started coming out about it on here at around 22:30 that evening.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The most surprising item in the article itself is that Goertzen sent a copy of her interview to Mignini. I don't see what she hopes to accomplish other than making Seattle look like Palukaville.


I don't think it's a coincidence that Kathi Goertzen's article was published just before Judge Massei's report is due to be released. I fully expect there will be a flurry of articles about the case coming out of Seattle. I'm sure David Marriott has been extremely busy.

I don't expect that Kathi Goertzen or any of the other Seattle-based journalists will even think about interviewing someone who is connected to Meredith's family or someone who is not a rabid Knox supporter like Stefano Maffei.

Kathi Goertzen's article and interview with Donald Trump are completely pointless. She just comes across as a silly airhead.


Last edited by The Machine on Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Salamander wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Friday makes sense for the news cycle. That's commonly the day stuff gets released to deflect a media storm.

Isn't the 90 days up today, though? Or is it a bit flexible as to when they can release it?

I checked with Micheli's report, and that was released on a Tuesday 90 days to the day after the verdict. Reports started coming out about it on here at around 22:30 that evening.



Hmmm...the verdict was announced on December 4 (or 5th, it was after midnight I think).

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

Offline Salamander


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 23

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hmmm...the verdict was announced on December 4 (or 5th, it was after midnight I think).

Ah OK, for some reason I had it in my head it was December 2. That makes more sense, then! Most probably out on Friday then, as you say.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

TM wrote:
Quote:
I don't expect that Kathi Goertzen or any of the other Seattle-based journalists will even think about interviewing someone who is connected to Meredith's family or someone who is not a rabid Knox supporter like Stefano Massei.


Who is Stefano Massei?
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
TM wrote:
Quote:
I don't expect that Kathi Goertzen or any of the other Seattle-based journalists will even think about interviewing someone who is connected to Meredith's family or someone who is not a rabid Knox supporter like Stefano Massei.


Who is Stefano Massei?


I meant Stefano Maffei. He's the legal expert that Andrea Vogt quoted in an article for The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

"There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Salamander wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Friday makes sense for the news cycle. That's commonly the day stuff gets released to deflect a media storm.

Isn't the 90 days up today, though? Or is it a bit flexible as to when they can release it?

I checked with Micheli's report, and that was released on a Tuesday 90 days to the day after the verdict. Reports started coming out about it on here at around 22:30 that evening.



Hmmm...the verdict was announced on December 4 (or 5th, it was after midnight I think).


I am expecting it on March 4.

Although the verdict was pronounced on Dec. 5, the court appointment for its reading was made for Dec. 4. The 90 day limit starts at date of schedule, not at time of reading.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Machine wrote:
Barbie Nadeau's book on the case, Angel Face: The Real Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox, has now got a front cover.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Angel-Face-Stud ... 0984295135



Hmmm - the book cover calls it the "True" Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox. I wonder how Knox came to hate students so much? br-))
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
I think he means Ted Simon. Tramp and Simon have a common friend, Don King. Ted Simon was King's attorney in a murder case.


Oh, I forgot. Well if Ted says there is no chance on appeal this is an interesting information (what is the real target then? Book royalties?). It is also not a particularly good publicity (why does he think so?) ;) This Mr.Trump appears to be a genius of PR. I didn't know him before.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I think he means Ted Simon. Tramp and Simon have a common friend, Don King. Ted Simon was King's attorney in a murder case.


Oh, I forgot. Well if Ted says there is no chance on appeal this is an interesting information (what is the real target then? Book royalties?). It is also not a particularly good publicity (why does he think so?) ;) This Mr.Trump appears to be a genius of PR. I didn't know him before.



There are many explanations. One of them is that Donald Trump says whatever comes into his head, with no regard for any kind of objective truth. It isn't even clear that he has spoken to anyone on the legal team. Another explanation is that Donald Trump is using a tactic we have seen before, and one that seems to work well with a certain segment of the US population: he is trying to frighten people. He wants them to think that unless they do something, the worst will happen. He apparently believes that some people think this is more important than healthcare reform or the recent earthquakes. It is reasonable to say that Donald Trump is not taken seriously by 99% of the US population. Maybe 99.9%. He's become a television personality and is about as real as Bugs Bunny. This is why I am surprised that Kathi Goertzen actually went to New York to interview him. It makes her look really, really bad.

I am not joking when I say that Donald Trump says whatever comes into his head. I have seen him on television and read interviews, and he often contradicts himself or makes no sense. I think he likes to shock people and feels that his celebrity gives him the right to opine on lots of subjects he knows little about. Those who interview him are as bad as he is.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I wonder what Ivana thinks? I always preferred her....
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
He's looking dangerously Barbara Cartland. Can he wear pink?


Oh btw, I realised for non-Brits on the forum, when I referred to Il Trumpo as old syrup-head then I was using cockney rhyming slang;

Syrup (and fig) = Wig.

Lets not call 'im a 'merchant' right? wan-)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I wonder what Ivana thinks? I always preferred her....



Maybe she thinks The Donald is right... I see she has filed for divorce from Rossano Rubicondi, her fourth husband and an evil Italian.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Salamander wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hmmm...the verdict was announced on December 4 (or 5th, it was after midnight I think).

Ah OK, for some reason I had it in my head it was December 2. That makes more sense, then! Most probably out on Friday then, as you say.


Don't forget February was a short month, so that adds a few days in March.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:22 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I wonder what Ivana thinks? I always preferred her....



Maybe she thinks The Donald is right... I see she has filed for divorce from Rossano Rubicondi, her fourth husband and an evil Italian.


Ivana lives in Italy and marries Italians. She like Italy. IMO, it's the main reason Donald Trump is so snotty about Italy.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Trump said:
Even the prisoners think she's innocent. They have a better instinct than you or I. But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail. They thought they'd said goodbye to her, they'd never see her again. And the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people were crying she came back. Even they know she didn't do it.

OMG! Cliche city.
Let's count 'em

Even the prisoners think she's innocent.
This seems rather unlikely to me.
Did I miss a poll or something?
Cliche time - the saintly child shines forth so that even the sinners around her have to recognize her specialness.

Prisoners have a better instinct than you and I (sic).
Oh really?
My instincts are just fine, thank you.
But I'd suspect people ending up *in prison* probably have worse than average instincts about things.
Or else how'd they decide to do something stupid and then get caught?
Maybe he just means better instincts than he has, which I might agree with.

But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail.
Oh, so they'd divided up her stuff, or at least packed it for her, since she was clearly not coming back.
Because everyone in the place was just sitting around wondering about !Amanda!, since they have no lives or concerns of their own.
No one worried about their own hearings, or family problems.
Nope, all focused on !Amanda! and incredulous at the outcome of the trial.
Because they all believe her every word.
Sure.

They thought they'd said goodbye to her?
Oh really?
I though they had really great instincts, surely they'd have seen it coming.
Oh, and see !Amanda! above.

These hardened tough people
Because they are in prison.
But most of them, I strongly suspect, did NOT randomly murder innocent people.
Most people in prison are there for property stuff, and drug stuff.
My father - who doctored the local prison - said in general he would characterize the prisoners more as stupid than tough.
And I myself would consider Amanda likely harder and tougher than most.
But the Cliche Machine knows that anyone (else) in prison is Hard and Tough.

were crying when she came back.
Oh really?
Because of how much they all Love !Amanda!
Was there something I missed about the prisoners being upset?
Shades of 50s noir prison scenes - "The men are always restless on an execution night."
All I remember was hearing about someone fixing hot milk for an upset Amanda.

Why is anyone even TALKING with this doofus.

Sorry about the caps, but I'm mystified.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
Salamander wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hmmm...the verdict was announced on December 4 (or 5th, it was after midnight I think).

Ah OK, for some reason I had it in my head it was December 2. That makes more sense, then! Most probably out on Friday then, as you say.


Don't forget February was a short month, so that adds a few days in March.


* December and January have 31 days. That evens out February's 28. *


Last edited by piktor on Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Trump said:
Even the prisoners think she's innocent. They have a better instinct than you or I. But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail. They thought they'd said goodbye to her, they'd never see her again. And the prisoners -- these hardened, tough people were crying she came back. Even they know she didn't do it.

OMG! Cliche city.
Let's count 'em

Even the prisoners think she's innocent.
This seems rather unlikely to me.
Did I miss a poll or something?
Cliche time - the saintly child shines forth so that even the sinners around her have to recognize her specialness.

Prisoners have a better instinct than you and I (sic).
Oh really?
My instincts are just fine, thank you.
But I'd suspect people ending up *in prison* probably have worse than average instincts about things.
Or else how'd they decide to do something stupid and then get caught?
Maybe he just means better instincts than he has, which I might agree with.

But the prisoners couldn't believe when she came back to the jail.
Oh, so they'd divided up her stuff, or at least packed it for her, since she was clearly not coming back.
Because everyone in the place was just sitting around wondering about !Amanda!, since they have no lives or concerns of their own.
No one worried about their own hearings, or family problems.
Nope, all focused on !Amanda! and incredulous at the outcome of the trial.
Because they all believe her every word.
Sure.

They thought they'd said goodbye to her?
Oh really?
I though they had really great instincts, surely they'd have seen it coming.
Oh, and see !Amanda! above.

These hardened tough people
Because they are in prison.
But most of them, I strongly suspect, did NOT randomly murder innocent people.
Most people in prison are there for property stuff, and drug stuff.
My father - who doctored the local prison - said in general he would characterize the prisoners more as stupid than tough.
And I myself would consider Amanda likely harder and tougher than most.
But the Cliche Machine knows that anyone (else) in prison is Hard and Tough.

were crying when she came back.
Oh really?
Because of how much they all Love !Amanda!
Was there something I missed about the prisoners being upset?
Shades of 50s noir prison scenes - "The men are always restless on an execution night."
All I remember was hearing about someone fixing hot milk for an upset Amanda.

Why is anyone even TALKING with this doofus.

Sorry about the caps, but I'm mystified.



I think the source is.... Curt and Edda, who heard it from Amanda! How convenient! There is so much wrong with The Donald's analysis and underlying assumptions that it is hard to know where to start. But you are right: why is anyone, let alone someone who calls herself a journalist, even talking to this DOOFUS? I just can't get over that. Not that I think Goertzen is the be-all and end-all, but is it too much to expect local journalists to show some minimum level of common sense? This is a story?! And the PI covered it?! Mind boggling. Just mind boggling. If I were her boss, I think I would say "you're fired", except that The Donald would probably sue me for copyright infringement.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Too bad Amanda's fellow criminals were not on her jury, huh?

I read somewhere Amanda's American cell mate had requested to be moved. Is that correct? She may be an interesting interview after leaving prison.

Curt/Edda have this really bad habit of blurting out stuff like gospel, acting as though nothing they say can be researched and found to be lies.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Barbie Nadeau's book on the case, Angel Face: The Real Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox, has now got a front cover.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Angel-Face-Stud ... 0984295135



Hmmm - the book cover calls it the "True" Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox. I wonder how Knox came to hate students so much? br-))


Probably because she grew out of hating cereal?

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:46 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Knox and Sollecito are a modern day version of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.


While respecting your strong feelings on this case TM you're wrong on that count. You can make a fair comparison with the final killing of Edward Evans who was a young man rather than a child but Meredith's murder however appalling does not compare with the pre-planned kidnapping of children off the street and recording their torture for posterity. Objectively that's in a league of it's own.


Agree that their crimes are quite different, but this quote from Brady about Myra could as easily be spoken by Rafaelle about Amanda: "Apart our futures would have taken radically divergent courses." http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... te_10.html

I suspect it was the similar unfortunate accident of two warped minds meeting their perfect match for mayhem that prompted TM's comparison. (Feel free to correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, TM!)
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

piktor wrote:
lil' Catnip sounds a little feral today:


"Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up?"

Ouch!
oil on paper painted by yours truly


Another astounding work of art from you, piktor. Just gorgeous.
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:04 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hot milk in prison? Are you kidding me? Amanda sure picked a good country to murder someone in.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:59 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Bea wrote:
piktor wrote:
lil' Catnip sounds a little feral today:


"Isn't it ironic that the one with the reputation for not doing the household chores is the one who does the scene clean-up?"



Another astounding work of art from you, piktor. Just gorgeous.


Thank you, Bea. wor-)) Catnip's ferocious wit made me do it wor-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lisareik


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:42 pm

Posts: 62

Location: Israel

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Amidst this sorry tale of hate and violence I must take exception to the attempt by one writer to accuse Israel of behaving in racist, hate filled ways.

Allow me to offer that the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948, in part as a response to the Holocaust, and was recognized and declared valid and fair by the U.N.
Since its inception Israel has been under aattack by its Arab neighbors.
It is fashionable to equate Palestinian terrorists with ideological underdogs in this battle of unequals; it is also possible to feel in Israel the world's condemnation of our basic right to exist within safe and secure borders. The writer's flippant remark as to why not situate the modern Jewish state in the Pacific belies a historical, cultural, literary legacy that carried this people through 2,000 years of dispersion.

We living in Israel sincerely desire peace with all our beings.
We have tried -at times with less rather than more success- to arrive at a bargaining position with our neighbors.
But it requires a shift in perception; a shift in basic cultural and psychological norms; and this can hardly be abetted by slinging mud in the face of a nation defending its citizens.
All we require is to reach out a hand to human dignity and an end to demonization.
What this writer has done is to magnify the demonic aspect of a nation trying to live like any other.

Not to stretch the analogy, human agression begins on the individual level; "He who has saved one person is as if he has saved an entire world". Te change in consciouness from an aggressiive, animalistic orgy to a civlized, human level of being, begins when each of us dares examine his conscience.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

lisareik wrote:

Quote:
Since its inception Israel has been under aattack by its Arab neighbors.
It is fashionable to equate Palestinian terrorists with ideological underdogs in this battle of unequals; it is also possible to feel in Israel the world's condemnation of our basic right to exist within safe and secure borders. The writer's flippant remark as to why not situate the modern Jewish state in the Pacific belies a historical, cultural, literary legacy that carried this people through 2,000 years of dispersion.

We living in Israel sincerely desire peace with all our beings.
We have tried -at times with less rather than more success- to arrive at a bargaining position with our neighbors


The poster you refer to has opened quite an OT framework on which part of humanity debates. It think his externation was linked to the international issue of U.S./ Italy cultural/political relation, aimed to cast some light on the possible 'antiamericanism' and he was letting out his thought from that point.

I have to say I don't agree entirely with his post but neither with your POV Lisareik. Not everybody shares the same view about recent Middle East history and people might have yet their views on politics and ideologies and moral issues involved (like Zionism and so on). I ultimately think any human population equally desires peace, the problem is everybody wants it at his own condition.

My very personal point could be that Israel has a 18% of non-Jewish population, and still denies citizenship and entrance to people who are not actually 'neighbours', they are a population who has been living in the land for thousands years and albeit suffered an ethnic cleansing are still refugees not foreigneers, thus Israel just ouhght not define itself as a 'Jewish state'.
Top Profile 

Offline Salamander


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 23

Highscores: 3

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

piktor wrote:
I am expecting it on March 4.

Although the verdict was pronounced on Dec. 5, the court appointment for its reading was made for Dec. 4. The 90 day limit starts at date of schedule, not at time of reading.

Thanks for that, I guess we should expect it Thursday then. Does anyone know when the full report will be published online (presumably on the Penale website?) - does it happen at the same time as it's officially released, or later on?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I wish we knew, but am reminded of a favourite Homer Simpson quote "Isn't there anything faster than a microwave??" LOL we must be patient, my pets.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Did you all notice the photo jools posted in the gallery? Check out Chris's T-shirt...

"Foxy Knoxy's Mom's Boy Toy"


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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Did you all notice the photo jools posted in the gallery? Check out Chris's T-shirt...

"Foxy Knoxy's Mom's Boy Toy"


Ug. That's the toy that you leave at the very bottom of the toybox...like that creepy baby doll whose eyes open when you (quite accidentally) move it. Positively icky.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Jools wrote:
Wonder if Trump will cast Curt Knox for his next celebrity apprentice? He is got the time, -no job- he is a minor, albeit very minor, celebrity now and in need of funds for his charity.

... And how about Chris Mellas, has he still got a job? Is he still the only ‘breadwinner’ in the family? Okay, so he’s less than very minor, celebrity but, it would make great reality TV to have both of these defenders of lies in the same Trump show ar-)) s-(( ta-))


Hi Jools! :D

According to the disgruntled "Charlatan" here, Chris Mellas sits "10 feet from his wife, all day, everyday" at work.

It appears that Chris Mellas' delightful personality has trickled down from Charlatan's wife, to Charlatan. If only we all could work with Chris Mellas; we too could insult anyone and everyone, all day, everyday!

From the PI comment section:

Quote:
Posted by Charlatan at 2/24/2010 7:33 a.m.

Let's get one thing absolutely straight here: NOBODY who's posting anything about this kid's innocence or guilt KNOWS anything. You can BELIEVE all you want but KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF are two different things.

The Italian judicial system, for 100+ years, has been the running joke of European law. Gossip and innuendo is not only allowed to affact the cases, it's a time-honored part of the process: "Well, everybody says she must be guilty, so that's the most likely answer!" THAT is Italian "Justice". Italian prosecutors operate under almost none of the same rules of evidence or third-party testimony that ours do. They can and customarily do accept anonymous "facts" from any kook who walks into a police station and wants to be a part of The Show.

Whatever happened in that house that night is KNOWN by only the person who killed Ms. Karcher and the ghost of Meredith herself. ALL the rest is speculation and innuendo.

I fervently PRAY that all you bigoted, sensationalist scum who loudly trumpet your unfounded opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty someday have your son or daughter placed in the same situation. It would serve all you little, cowardly people right to have to watch your loved one sit in judgment for a thing you know full well they didn't do and read the mouthy trash like you've posted here. Karma, as we all know, is a Bee-yotch, and you're no more immune than anybody else.

My wife sits ten feet, all day every day, from Amanda's step-dad. This isn't reality TV, folks. These are REAL people - YOUR friggin' neighbors - who have had their lives ripped apart by an egomaniacal clown who is, himself, under indictment for EXACTLY the same crap as he's pulled during this whole process. The mere fact that he still has his job is all the proof we need of how effed up the Italian system is. This isn't Jerry Springer; lurid entertainment set out for your base, prurient interest. This is something that COULD happen to YOU.

You might want to remember that...


Seattle PI; Amanda's Parents Gain Sympathy on Oprah...

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


Dearest Jools,

On another subject, did I just read a post by you where you called Trump, "Tramp" ???? In the future, please issue a warning that prior to reading, readers should set aside all beverages.

Thank you for your cooperation! :lol:

Fondly,

Tara

mop-)

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

RE: Charlatran's dismal diatribe above:

1) For someone who ridicules everyone else's lack of knowledge of the case, per chance have you yourself become familiar enough with the facts to be able to correctly reference the surname of the deceased ? Hint..try: K-E-R-C-H-E-R (Jeeeez)

2) Unless your wife has a 10 foot umbilical cord to her Siamese twin, Curt, per chance is your dumb declaration about "all day, every day" just a bit of an exaggeration ?
(As is most of the other mis-information you herald interspaced with your pitiful 5th grade name calling, and obnoxious 7th grade obscenities.

3) Based on your obvious love of fellow man and astute avoidance of foul language, your "prayers" for all of us might be more beneficially bestowed on yourself.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Corrina wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Did you all notice the photo jools posted in the gallery? Check out Chris's T-shirt...

"Foxy Knoxy's Mom's Boy Toy"


Ug. That's the toy that you leave at the very bottom of the toybox...like that creepy baby doll whose eyes open when you (quite accidentally) move it. Positively icky.


Is there any doubt in anyone's mind why the Marriott Masterminds keep the ever so suave and sociable Mr Mellas completely and totally out of everyone's sight whenever possible.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Just heard news of an American Journo saying the report will be out tm, and that the expectation is that the verdict will be thrown OUT. Please tell me this is not true someone!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tara wrote:
Jools wrote:
Wonder if Trump will cast Curt Knox for his next celebrity apprentice? He is got the time, -no job- he is a minor, albeit very minor, celebrity now and in need of funds for his charity.

... And how about Chris Mellas, has he still got a job? Is he still the only ‘breadwinner’ in the family? Okay, so he’s less than very minor, celebrity but, it would make great reality TV to have both of these defenders of lies in the same Trump show ar-)) s-(( ta-))


Hi Jools! :D

According to the disgruntled "Charlatan" here, Chris Mellas sits "10 feet from his wife, all day, everyday" at work.

It appears that Chris Mellas' delightful personality has trickled down from Charlatan's wife, to Charlatan. If only we all could work with Chris Mellas; we too could insult anyone and everyone, all day, everyday!

From the PI comment section:

Quote:
Posted by Charlatan at 2/24/2010 7:33 a.m.

Let's get one thing absolutely straight here: NOBODY who's posting anything about this kid's innocence or guilt KNOWS anything. You can BELIEVE all you want but KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF are two different things.

The Italian judicial system, for 100+ years, has been the running joke of European law. Gossip and innuendo is not only allowed to affact the cases, it's a time-honored part of the process: "Well, everybody says she must be guilty, so that's the most likely answer!" THAT is Italian "Justice". Italian prosecutors operate under almost none of the same rules of evidence or third-party testimony that ours do. They can and customarily do accept anonymous "facts" from any kook who walks into a police station and wants to be a part of The Show.

Whatever happened in that house that night is KNOWN by only the person who killed Ms. Karcher and the ghost of Meredith herself. ALL the rest is speculation and innuendo.

I fervently PRAY that all you bigoted, sensationalist scum who loudly trumpet your unfounded opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty someday have your son or daughter placed in the same situation. It would serve all you little, cowardly people right to have to watch your loved one sit in judgment for a thing you know full well they didn't do and read the mouthy trash like you've posted here. Karma, as we all know, is a Bee-yotch, and you're no more immune than anybody else.

My wife sits ten feet, all day every day, from Amanda's step-dad. This isn't reality TV, folks. These are REAL people - YOUR friggin' neighbors - who have had their lives ripped apart by an egomaniacal clown who is, himself, under indictment for EXACTLY the same crap as he's pulled during this whole process. The mere fact that he still has his job is all the proof we need of how effed up the Italian system is. This isn't Jerry Springer; lurid entertainment set out for your base, prurient interest. This is something that COULD happen to YOU.

You might want to remember that...


Seattle PI; Amanda's Parents Gain Sympathy on Oprah...

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


Dearest Jools,

On another subject, did I just read a post by you where you called Trump, "Tramp" ???? In the future, please issue a warning that prior to reading, readers should set aside all beverages.

Thank you for your cooperation! :lol:

Fondly,

Tara

mop-)



Yawn. Oh yeah, him. He signed up for our board some time back and lasted about ten minutes. Same tone, same ignorance, same arrogance. His wife really does work with Mellas. He should direct his comments about reality television to the Knox and Mellas families and their PR guru, who in fact have turned this into just that, with the help of clueless local media hacks like Kathi Goertzen, who rush off to interview stars of reality television like Trump.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Just heard news of an American Journo saying the report will be out tm, and that the expectation is that the verdict will be thrown OUT. Please tell me this is not true someone!


The report coming out tomorrow is the sentencing report, which explains the verdict that was reached unanimously. This verdict could only be thrown out on appeal, a process that is currently and automatically in process. So you misheard or someone misspoke.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Tara wrote:
Jools wrote:
Wonder if Trump will cast Curt Knox for his next celebrity apprentice? He is got the time, -no job- he is a minor, albeit very minor, celebrity now and in need of funds for his charity.

... And how about Chris Mellas, has he still got a job? Is he still the only ‘breadwinner’ in the family? Okay, so he’s less than very minor, celebrity but, it would make great reality TV to have both of these defenders of lies in the same Trump show ar-)) s-(( ta-))


Hi Jools! :D

According to the disgruntled "Charlatan" here, Chris Mellas sits "10 feet from his wife, all day, everyday" at work.

It appears that Chris Mellas' delightful personality has trickled down from Charlatan's wife, to Charlatan. If only we all could work with Chris Mellas; we too could insult anyone and everyone, all day, everyday!

From the PI comment section:

Quote:
Posted by Charlatan at 2/24/2010 7:33 a.m.

Let's get one thing absolutely straight here: NOBODY who's posting anything about this kid's innocence or guilt KNOWS anything. You can BELIEVE all you want but KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF are two different things.

The Italian judicial system, for 100+ years, has been the running joke of European law. Gossip and innuendo is not only allowed to affact the cases, it's a time-honored part of the process: "Well, everybody says she must be guilty, so that's the most likely answer!" THAT is Italian "Justice". Italian prosecutors operate under almost none of the same rules of evidence or third-party testimony that ours do. They can and customarily do accept anonymous "facts" from any kook who walks into a police station and wants to be a part of The Show.

Whatever happened in that house that night is KNOWN by only the person who killed Ms. Karcher and the ghost of Meredith herself. ALL the rest is speculation and innuendo.

I fervently PRAY that all you bigoted, sensationalist scum who loudly trumpet your unfounded opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty someday have your son or daughter placed in the same situation. It would serve all you little, cowardly people right to have to watch your loved one sit in judgment for a thing you know full well they didn't do and read the mouthy trash like you've posted here. Karma, as we all know, is a Bee-yotch, and you're no more immune than anybody else.

My wife sits ten feet, all day every day, from Amanda's step-dad. This isn't reality TV, folks. These are REAL people - YOUR friggin' neighbors - who have had their lives ripped apart by an egomaniacal clown who is, himself, under indictment for EXACTLY the same crap as he's pulled during this whole process. The mere fact that he still has his job is all the proof we need of how effed up the Italian system is. This isn't Jerry Springer; lurid entertainment set out for your base, prurient interest. This is something that COULD happen to YOU.

You might want to remember that...


Seattle PI; Amanda's Parents Gain Sympathy on Oprah...

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


Dearest Jools,

On another subject, did I just read a post by you where you called Trump, "Tramp" ???? In the future, please issue a warning that prior to reading, readers should set aside all beverages.

Thank you for your cooperation! :lol:

Fondly,

Tara

mop-)

Zorry Tara about you splashing your key board. It was a typo ;)

The ignoramus who goes by the name of Charlatan... I suppose he gets his knowledge of Italian judiciary from Mrs Charlatan who in turn gets it from the childish adult. Tutti quanti pazzi :!:
br-))
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Just heard news of an American Journo saying the report will be out tm, and that the expectation is that the verdict will be thrown OUT. Please tell me this is not true someone!


But, the 'expectation' is by 'whom', on what grounds and 'who' told them to expect it? And what foresight does this 'agency' have when they haven't even read the motivations born of a trial that convicted all parties in a unanimous verdict, since it has not yet even been published? Are they a Gypsy reading tea leaves?

Cases don't get thrown out at the publication of motivations. Only a court can condemn or acquit and the only court that will hear this case again will be the appeal court, which will be many months away.

Understand what this is. It simply is no more then war speak by US media, much the same way that in a war a government will tell their people 'God is on our side' or, 'We shall prevail'. The US media have claimed a side and are sticking a stars and stripes in opinion pieces masquerading as news, all with the sole purpose of trying to control the opinion of the American public. These people are not peddling news, but politics.

_________________
"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: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:39 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

Regarding off-topic discussion. On most discussion forums, the primary role of Moderators is not only to enforce the rules of the site, but to keep the discussion on-topic. Skep and I can be a little relaxed about the latter here since firstly, we have an intelligent and responsible membership who won't take things too far off course and b) since we maintain only one active discussion thread, where other sites may have many, we have the luxury of being able to take a more personal approach handled with more discretion. Indeed, we ourselves will also go off-topic on occasion.

However, there are several forms of off-topic discussion where I do not wish this forum to go...politics, religion and social politics. The reason for that is that these areas are highly inflammatory and divisive. From a Moderator's perspective, they are 'toxic' and going into those areas of discussion will destroy this board more speedily and comprehensively then 10 kegs of black powder lit beneath it.

Therefore, I request, unless they can be linked to the actual case beyond the tentative, that such subjects are avoided here. This also includes, especially includes...the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Thank You

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


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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Just heard news of an American Journo saying the report will be out tm, and that the expectation is that the verdict will be thrown OUT. Please tell me this is not true someone!


But, the 'expectation' is by 'whom', on what grounds and 'who' told them to expect it? And what foresight does this 'agency' have when they haven't even read the motivations born of a trial that convicted all parties in a unanimous verdict, since it has not yet even been published? Are they a Gypsy reading tea leaves? .


:D I think a gypsy reading tea leaves will be more accurate and trustworthy than the likes of Juju Chang, Linda Byron et al
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Duh. Apologies for this beginners mistake. I panicked. Apparently it was something called Court TV with Beth Karas??? Never heard of it, but I missed the source which would have alerted me. Yes, war speak indeed. No way this is going to do anything other than confirm the reasoning behind the sentencing. So they are all completely misinformed by whoever is spinning. Should not spread alarm and dismay amongst the troops! Apologies!

I don't think there is ANY chance of the verdict being thrown out at any point. It would make a total mockery of their own processes, which I happen to believe are fair and sound. AK and RS could not have asked for a more painstaking investigation, and any amount of saying the opposite isn't going to change it. All I can think is that KM are now doing this for themselves, not for Amanda. It's putting off the terrible silence that they are going to have to face at some point. The same silence Arline and John hear day in day out. The sound of your child missing. Only their silence stretches on to eternity. At least one day The KM will have their daughter come home. It's been said so often before. Can they not show some restraint, out of respect for Meredith's parents? Just shut up for five minutes? Please? How long until the media machine tires? Anyone? It can't be long now.

Had a health scare with my sister recently. I cannot imagine losing my sister. It's a wonderful relationship between sisters - when the fighting is all over. She's going to be fine, but I thought of Stephanie at one point. Her loss. She smiles so bravely, and so genuinely, when she remembers and talks of Meredith. The memories are a real comfort to her. What a terrible loss.

I am praying, which I don't do generally other than in an abstract sense - that this report is heavy-weight, conclusive and contains some information not heretofore disclosed. Something that is very hard to argue with and pick apart. Something that makes an appeal seem something of a formality. Because this is the only way I can see of the whole matter blowing over - and for the Kerchers I think it's time they were allowed some peace. As so many people have noted, the evidence is overwhelming. The guilty verdict unanimous. They have an uphill struggle to prove that their little angel is innocent now. She herself seems quite resigned. It is the family that beat their chest. LA is sitting pretty in jail getting herself a degree (HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE????) and waiting to return home to yellow ribbons and the chat show circuit. I don't even want to see a reduction in sentence. On what grounds? The media pressure? Murder is murder and she deserves the full term, along with Raffaele. Why should any of them dare to ask for mercy when they showed none? They did not have previously poor characters? Neither did Meredith.

Justice has spoken, and sentenced. It should stand IMO. Maybe then the Kerchers will be able to find peace, despite the deafening silence which is their life sentence.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Duh. Apologies for this beginners mistake. I panicked. Apparently it was something called Court TV with Beth Karas??? Never heard of it, but I missed the source which would have alerted me. Yes, war speak indeed. No way this is going to do anything other than confirm the reasoning behind the sentencing. So they are all completely misinformed by whoever is spinning. Should not spread alarm and dismay amongst the troops! Apologies!


I think what has happened here is simply that they've taken the word 'hope' and in a fit of over editorial liberalisation with the English language, changed it to the word 'expected'. That's the spirit.

But, this I will tell you...the very first day of the appeal will tell us what we need to know in order for us to understand exactly what they are going to rule as a verdict...the first day ;)


PS: I hope your sister is much better.

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


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Some thoughts about the excellent Appeal Process article by Commissario Montalbano

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... w_so_slow/

Direct Quotes:
The extraordinary broad appeal rights awarded by the Italian system are all part of the 1989 reform, which intended to add even more guarantees to the right of the accused.
This has resulted in an incredible increase in pending cases in the overburdened Italian justice system.
According to the latest report to Parliament by Justice Minister Angelo Alfano the pending cases in the Italian justice system at the end of 2006 amounted to nearly 9 million cases.

The average appeals trial lasts 730 days.
Over 50% of sentences are reduced by appeal.
Average criminal convicted of murder serves only 35% of sentence

My Thoughts:
When I do some arithmatic using the above stated statistics,, the *outcome* of the complete Appeals process will probably be rendered redundant.
Even with no reduction, the Italian prison system will have her 'rehabilitated' in 2016. (completion of 35% of 26 years).
Based on above durations and backlogs, this will probably be before the start/completion of the 2nd Appeals trial.

Am I oversimplifying or omitting ??
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Trump (aka Tramp}, as all of us know by now, is well-known for making foolish-sounding ego-driven "ejaculations." (Look it up, folks, "ejaculation" ALSO means, "an exclamation!!!" } :lol:

It is literally true, as Skep has pointed out, that Trump DOES say whatever comes into his mind.

Reminds me of former PM Margaret Thatcher who once boasted "I make up my mind about people in the first ten seconds and I rarely change it."

With that kind of thinking, she must be another acclaimed graduate of "Here's-Lookin'-At U."

People like the self-inflated Trumpster come to believe they are magical, not only in their narrow area of expertise, but in everything they think and say. They really believe they have special gifts, and have ALL THE RIGHT ANSWERS.

Look at how many of the FOA (dare I say ALL of them?!!! ) suffer from this dangerous syndrome of delusion --from Paul Ciolino, to Doug Preston (remember how he "just knew" by looking at her that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent :roll: --to John Kelly who and Anne Bremner who, without knowing a damn thing about Italian Law and justice, spouted off their "expert" *COUGH* expert *COUGH* opinion????!!

The 411 says: ta-)) "Yeah, "expert"......Expert, my.... EXPLETIVE DELETED!!!!" s-((
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

How can someone be rehabilitated without ever acknowledging their guilt?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

I'm responsible for the info that Bard posted. Sorry, Bard, for any flack. Beth Karas, from Court TV was on , saying the report would be out tomorrow. She erroneosly stated the Guede had already confessed. Yeah, we know that is incorrect. She went on to say that these cases more often get thrown out on a technicality. And that that was expected here. She finished by saying AK continues to claim her *complete innocence*. It came on TV as I was pming Bard, about something different. So, I was just relating what came on TV. Underneath this, of course, is a little bit of fear,that ultimately the verdict could change. There is obviously so much BS out there, and I was disappointed in Beth's report,as she is normally very good. My thinking is that she was just repeating a sound bite that had been given to her.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

capealadin wrote:
I'm responsible for the info that Bard posted. Sorry, Bard, for any flack. Beth Karas, from Court TV was on , saying the report would be out tomorrow. She erroneosly stated the Guede had already confessed. Yeah, we know that is incorrect. She went on to say that these cases more often get thrown out on a technicality. And that that was expected here. She finished by saying AK continues to claim her *complete innocence*. It came on TV as I was pming Bard, about something different. So, I was just relating what came on TV. Underneath this, of course, is a little bit of fear,that ultimately the verdict could change. There is obviously so much BS out there, and I was disappointed in Beth's report,as she is normally very good. My thinking is that she was just repeating a sound bite that had been given to her.


Awww, cape, the fault was mine for panicking and not reading your pm closely enough. If I had thought for two minutes I would have realised that there is no WAY the verdict can be thrown out. It shows how patient people here are tbh that I didn't get an eye roll after all this time! :roll:

I don't know what 'Court TV' is really - is it like Judge Judy? We get Judge Judy, and I kinda like da broad. She tells it how it is. I watched it only twice, and the cases she saw she was pretty sound and very fair. I think Skep and Michael could teach her a thing or two after the last few months however. It's been a bit of a roller-coaster hasn't it!

Michael, what time BST would the report be out do you think? AM or PM?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
When I do some arithmatic using the above stated statistics,, the *outcome* of the complete Appeals process will probably be rendered redundant.
Even with no reduction, the Italian prison system will have her 'rehabilitated' in 2016. (completion of 35% of 26 years).
Based on above durations and backlogs, this will probably be before the start/completion of the 2nd Appeals trial.

Am I oversimplifying or omitting ??


No, this "average" would be very misleading. For example a person who gets a 3 years sentence in most cases will do 0% of his prison terms. A person who gets less than 6 years in most cases would only do a short term like below 2 yr on probation or house arrest.
But a person who gets a term significantly higher will stay in jail for long before getting full "parole". For example a 14 yr sentence means in average a 9-10 years before freedom. External work and semi-freedom in average (today) are given after half the lenght of the term, but they are not a condition of freedom.
The comprehensive "average" that you see is like some clinical statistic, which means with little meaning since is made of a summmatory of cases and situations that are very different from each other.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

capealadin wrote:
I'm responsible for the info that Bard posted. Sorry, Bard, for any flack. Beth Karas, from Court TV was on , saying the report would be out tomorrow. She erroneosly stated the Guede had already confessed. Yeah, we know that is incorrect. She went on to say that these cases more often get thrown out on a technicality. And that that was expected here. She finished by saying AK continues to claim her *complete innocence*. It came on TV as I was pming Bard, about something different. So, I was just relating what came on TV. Underneath this, of course, is a little bit of fear,that ultimately the verdict could change. There is obviously so much BS out there, and I was disappointed in Beth's report,as she is normally very good. My thinking is that she was just repeating a sound bite that had been given to her.

. fen-) ***Controversy sells. ser-) ***
tou-) ************************.......... pf-)) .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

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


Think this was covered a while back, but can a prisoner be released before the sentence is up without acknowledging their guilt?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Think this was covered a while back, but can a prisoner be released before the sentence is up without acknowledging their guilt?


I don't know about this either but at the JREF there's a parallel case to this one being argued about Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper). It was spurred by this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7045967.ece

Appalling.

I cannot see much to distinguish AK and RS from this guy; I sincerely hope they are never released. Unless--and only unless--they both tell the entire truth about everything that happened. They could start by explaining where Meredith's keys are.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Bard, Court TV is in the courtroom filming actual trials. i.e. scott peterson, O.J.etc. They have hosts, who are actual attorneys, and guests, judges etc. They always show everything in court.. like whenever Casey Anthony is in court. That case will be huge!. Inbetween, they give updates on cases. Like this a.m. on AK. It can be frustrating, as they show defence attorneys, and prosecutors, debating. Err, and sometimes Ann Bremer. At which point, I change channels.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

BTW, Judge Judy is fantastic. She would have made mince meat out of AK.

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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stilicho wrote:
I don't know about this either but at the JREF there's a parallel case to this one being argued about Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper). It was spurred by this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7045967.ece

Appalling.

I cannot see much to distinguish AK and RS from this guy; I sincerely hope they are never released. Unless--and only unless--they both tell the entire truth about everything that happened. They could start by explaining where Meredith's keys are.


Hi Stillcho,

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should spend their rest of their lives in prison for what they did to Meredith. I don't think most people fully comprehend the sheer brutality and viciousness of the attack on Meredith. It was cruel and sadistic beyond words. I've seen some of the autopsy photographs, but not all of them. I'm told they're absolutely horrific.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Think this was covered a while back, but can a prisoner be released before the sentence is up without acknowledging their guilt?


I don't know about this either but at the JREF there's a parallel case to this one being argued about Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper). It was spurred by this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7045967.ece

Appalling.

I cannot see much to distinguish AK and RS from this guy; I sincerely hope they are never released. Unless--and only unless--they both tell the entire truth about everything that happened. They could start by explaining where Meredith's keys are.


I cannot believe that there is even a discussion about releasing The Yorkshire Ripper. He murdered THIRTEEN WOMEN. Honestly, I do give up sometimes. I am all for rehabilitation for some crimes/individuals, but his crime was beyond the pale. I am speechless. Will go over to JREF and look in on the debate. Unbelievable.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline French Mom


Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Hello everyone,

Just dropping by... Like all of you, I am eagerly waiting for the report on the verdict.

Quote:
Posted by Charlatan at 2/24/2010 7:33 a.m.

...

I fervently PRAY that all you bigoted, sensationalist scum who loudly trumpet your unfounded opinion that Amanda Knox is guilty someday have your son or daughter placed in the same situation. It would serve all you little, cowardly people right to have to watch your loved one sit in judgment for a thing you know full well they didn't do and read the mouthy trash like you've posted here. Karma, as we all know, is a Bee-yotch, and you're no more immune than anybody else.

My wife sits ten feet, all day every day, from Amanda's step-dad. This isn't reality TV, folks. These are REAL people - YOUR friggin' neighbors - who have had their lives ripped apart by an egomaniacal clown who is, himself, under indictment for EXACTLY the same crap as he's pulled during this whole process. The mere fact that he still has his job is all the proof we need of how effed up the Italian system is. This isn't Jerry Springer; lurid entertainment set out for your base, prurient interest. This is something that COULD happen to YOU.

You might want to remember that...


Seattle PI; Amanda's Parents Gain Sympathy on Oprah...

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


Do I sense desperation in the above post? When I went to look at the article in Seattle PI, I also looked at the accompanying poll, and I saw that, of the 2355 persons who have voted on whether Amanda Knox is guilty or not of killing Meredith Kercher, a majority think she is (43.1%, vs. 38.6% who think she is not and 18.4% who don't know). This is quite a result. In spite of the appearance on Oprah, the PR does not appear to have the intended result. Of course, the only verdict that truly matters is the one in the courtroom.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Another observation....

Every poll I've seen (mostly US) has been overwhelmingly 'guilty' for Amanda.

Therefore, I conclude IF the second level hearing allows her to leave Italy as a 'free' woman, she would return to US with most people suspicious of her. An outcast. Constantly under that dark cloud.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Interesting discussion piece in The Times about rehabilitation/release. Regarding Jon Venables, one of the two child murderers of two year old James Bulger who has been returned to prison following his release and change of identity. Home Sec refusing to say what he's done etc etc. Humane piece, but will not be to everyone's taste. I, like many, remain deeply troubled by this case. It sent the whole country into shock when it happened, without any exaggeration. This psychiatrist quoted made interesting observation about murderers.

"...According to Dr Bob Johnson, former consultant psychiatrist for five years at maximum-security Parkhurst prison, where he instituted a radical therapy regime for some of the most dangerous murderers in the country and where his methods achieved unprecedented results, "all murder is a tantrum/revenge, and when murderers 'grow up', they will/can/have no possible need to murder again – once the damage is cleaned out 100%, then it is gone for good. All murder is infantile in origin, the cure is emotional maturation. Once this is achieved it is better to exercise social skills than killing skills."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... n-venables

Apparently the boys had been rehabilitated well and have settled with partners. Venables is a born again Christian. I wonder if the police have to tell a new partner about their history, whether they are left to do it themselves, and just how that conversation would go. Not first date disclosure stuff is it. Do they wait till the girl has fallen in love with them? Then tell her? A horrible, tragic case. The shock waves are still being felt. So I wonder whether and to what extent Amanda will ever escape the label of murderer. Will she ever marry? Who would risk it? She has the mask of assassin on her face forever in that sense.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

French Mom wrote:
I also looked at the accompanying poll, and I saw that, of the 2355 persons who have voted on whether Amanda Knox is guilty or not of killing Meredith Kercher, a majority think she did (43.1%, vs. 38.6% who think she did not and 18.4% who don't know). This is quite a result. In spite of the appearance on Oprah, the PR does not appear to have the intended result. Of course, the only verdict that truly matters is the one in the courtroom.


If the Knox propaganda machine isn't working in her home town, the Knox/Mellas effort has been futile all the way to bankuptcy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

John Baniszewski (Blake), is another child-murderer who seemed to have been rehabilitated after taking part in the murder of Sylvia Likens. He never denied it and spent a good part of his life speaking out about what he had done in the hopes that he might prevent other kids from making similar tragic mistakes. I doubted his sincerity at first, but he really did come to seem genuinely remorseful and guilt-ridden about what he' d done, and hoped the Likens family could one day forgive him, but saying that he understood if they couldn't.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Quote:
Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!


I think the report is not going to be published online. At least not within days from its release. Some news will describe it and report some concepts of it, but the whole paper will stay at the clerk's office unless some newspaper or journalist takes the care to get a copy and release it. Or unless Maresca and the Kercher family decide to release it confidentially to a third.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

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


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

IMO, it will never happen.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

donnie wrote:
Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!



Same for me, Donnie.


co-)
Top Profile 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
donnie wrote:
Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!



Same for me, Donnie.


co-)


OT something to chill out to while we wait...its Vivaldi's birthday

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:20 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Don’t know if the video of the interview between KOMO news (Kathi Goertzen ) and Donald Trump has been linked to yet. He‘s still clueless..
examiner
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Emerald wrote:
donnie wrote:
Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!



Same for me, Donnie.


co-)


Hey, Emerald and Everybody:

Just to pass the time...

Here's something new and different (I *think* it's "new"...) to ponder, while waiting for the Motivazioni to be issued.

Actually, I don't believe the following topic has ever been discussed in attempting to understand Amanda's disturbed psyche, and more specifically, in understanding AMANDA'S disturbed motivations.

I was thinking about Meredith, whom I mentioned yesterday, was known for having a good sense of humor, and for having "a love for the ridiculous."
Then I began to think that this particular trait--a keen sense of humor--is often associated with a last-born child in a family.

Sure enough, Meredith WAS the YOUNGEST sibling in her family.

And then, I was reminded of psychiatrist Alfred Adler's theories on birth order of children in a family and the effects on interpersonal relationships.

As we know, Amanda was the FIRST-BORN of FOUR siblings.
Conversely, Meredith was the LAST-BORN of FOUR siblings.

Both young women, interestingly, were one of four kids in their respective families.

I know this is the sort of analysis that Yummi, Donnie and others have no interest in pursuing.

And I also realize that this is far from being an exact science, but the theories have been around for decades and there are understandable, fascinating and valid reasons to account for these theories. I certainly know that an individual, in an individual family, will always have an individual personality, shaped by an UNKNOWN NUMBER of different factors.

And yet, I bring up the topic of birth order because,,, maybe there are some insights
here relating to AK's role in her family that could attempt to explain Amanda’s malevolence and her resentment towards Meredith.

Amanda, although appearing to be a textbook self-absorbed narcissist, seems to have real no TRUE self-knowledge. Seems a contradiction, but it isn't.
Perhaps for someone like Amanda, the first step in criminal rehabilitation is for the person “to know thyself”—the real self (not the fictional fairy tale one painted by the FOA and others) and one's real motivations, before one can accept responsibility for “thine own crime.”

This site below is just one of an enormous number of articles and books on the subject of birth order, and the development of personality.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art13220.asp

I found this section about first-borns, like Amanda, to be of interest:


"Being the only child for a time, the first born is generally spoiled. However, unlike the only child, the first born eventually suffers “dethronement” when the second child comes along. For some firstborns, suddenly having to share their parent’s love and attention is an adjustment that is difficult to make, especially at a very young age. The effects of “dethronement” or feeling replaced can be varied as well as far reaching, even into adulthood.

"For instance, firstborns may become resentful towards his or her younger sibling. This can trigger unacceptable behaviors including regression (acting like a baby to get attention) which can manifest itself as neediness if it carries into adulthood. Other unwanted behavior could be aggression towards the second born and disobedience or “acting out” with the parents. The challenge for parents is learning how to address these behaviors without rewarding them."

Of course, these few lines barely scratch the surface of this vast topic, but...it may serve as a catalyst for discussion. While waiting...

In the words of SNL's Linda Richman:
"I gave you the topic. Now TAWK amongst yourselves!!"

Off to get some cawfee... drin-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
capealadin wrote:
I'm responsible for the info that Bard posted. Sorry, Bard, for any flack. Beth Karas, from Court TV was on , saying the report would be out tomorrow. She erroneosly stated the Guede had already confessed. Yeah, we know that is incorrect. She went on to say that these cases more often get thrown out on a technicality. And that that was expected here. She finished by saying AK continues to claim her *complete innocence*. It came on TV as I was pming Bard, about something different. So, I was just relating what came on TV. Underneath this, of course, is a little bit of fear,that ultimately the verdict could change. There is obviously so much BS out there, and I was disappointed in Beth's report,as she is normally very good. My thinking is that she was just repeating a sound bite that had been given to her.


Awww, cape, the fault was mine for panicking and not reading your pm closely enough. If I had thought for two minutes I would have realised that there is no WAY the verdict can be thrown out. It shows how patient people here are tbh that I didn't get an eye roll after all this time! :roll:

I don't know what 'Court TV' is really - is it like Judge Judy? We get Judge Judy, and I kinda like da broad. She tells it how it is. I watched it only twice, and the cases she saw she was pretty sound and very fair. I think Skep and Michael could teach her a thing or two after the last few months however. It's been a bit of a roller-coaster hasn't it!

Michael, what time BST would the report be out do you think? AM or PM?



Hi Bard. As Yummi has said, the whole report will probably never be released to the public. In the case of the Micheli Report, that was only ever published on an Italian online journal for lawyers and even there, it took weeks for it to show up. And they don't publish all reports. What will happen is the media will obtain it (or at least some of them), then they will have to go through it, translate it in the case of Anglo media (which most won't bother to do) and then, at best, all you will get is summaries and perhaps the odd short extract, accurate or not. Many here seem to think that when the report is published, they are going to be able to get their hands on it. It doesn't go down like 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

DLW wrote:
Don’t know if the video of the interview between KOMO news (Kathi Goertzen ) and Donald Trump has been linked to yet. He‘s still clueless..
examiner



I have to say, I am sick to the back teeth of all the ignorant bullshit Italy bashing, nationalism, ethnocentrism, pouring out of the FOA and their supporters.

Perhaps the Knox family, the FOA, the entourage and the bigoted journalists supporting their cause should all get together and have a sing song, in some beer garden somewhere, perhaps as a fundraiser. I have just the song for them to sing, they'll love it!!!




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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:56 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Deanna talked about it some, the 411. In Seattle, Amanda is the oldest sister who sets the standard for the younger siblings. They look to her for decision making. It was easy for her to bully, without accepting responsibility for her actions. Two different homes, with two sets of rules. Curt/spouse and Edda/spouse. Amanda, as the oldest, no doubt ran interference between the two, learning to play off each other.

When Amanda moved to Perugia, she was one 'adult' dealing with other adults. No longer the leader. The behaviors she had mastered in Seattle did not work in Perugia.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

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

Donald Trump The Fragrance

Discover the refined and sophisticated fragrance of Donald Trump's signature fragrance. The distinctive notes of mint, cucumber and black basil are at the heart of this fragrance.www.beautyencounter.com



///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

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

Michael wrote:
Hi Bard. As Yummi has said, the whole report will probably never be released to the public. In the case of the Micheli Report, that was only ever published on an Italian online journal for lawyers and even there, it took weeks for it to show up. And they don't publish all reports. What will happen is the media will obtain it (or at least some of them), then they will have to go through it, translate it in the case of Anglo media (which most won't bother to do) and then, at best, all you will get is summaries and perhaps the odd short extract, accurate or not. Many here seem to think that when the report is published, they are going to be able to get their hands on it. It doesn't go down like that.


But isn't this case big enough that someone's going to get their hands on it and publish it? The interest from overseas, the negative portrayal of the italian justice system, and the comments from Trump all place pressure for them to release it. And its unlikely that people interested in the case would really suffer seeing the full details piecemeal. The italian lawyers and prosecutors would also want to read first hand what has brought down The Wrath of Trump on their system.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

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

I was going to add something about the sibling birth order thing but now all I smell is Eau de Tramp Scalp.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:35 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

WHO wears that?!?!?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

pataz1 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Hi Bard. As Yummi has said, the whole report will probably never be released to the public. In the case of the Micheli Report, that was only ever published on an Italian online journal for lawyers and even there, it took weeks for it to show up. And they don't publish all reports. What will happen is the media will obtain it (or at least some of them), then they will have to go through it, translate it in the case of Anglo media (which most won't bother to do) and then, at best, all you will get is summaries and perhaps the odd short extract, accurate or not. Many here seem to think that when the report is published, they are going to be able to get their hands on it. It doesn't go down like that.


But isn't this case big enough that someone's going to get their hands on it and publish it? The interest from overseas, the negative portrayal of the italian justice system, and the comments from Trump all place pressure for them to release it. And its unlikely that people interested in the case would really suffer seeing the full details piecemeal. The italian lawyers and prosecutors would also want to read first hand what has brought down The Wrath of Trump on their system.

Pat



No. They aren't legally allowed to anyway. The law forbids digitising and publishing it in full. Journalists are only allowed to quote extracts and summarise it. Moreover, I can't see the American media going out of their way to bring attention to bad news that goes against their agenda in any case. The UK media may leave it, since they probably consider it to be a dead story (it's resolved as far as they are concerned, at least until the appeal and then they 'might' be interested again). As for your average members of the public, they won't be able to get hold of it in order to put it online...they would actually have to go to Italy to obtain a hard copy.

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


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:21 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The 411 wrote:
Emerald wrote:
donnie wrote:
Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!



Same for me, Donnie.


co-)


Hey, Emerald and Everybody:

Just to pass the time...

Here's something new and different (I *think* it's "new"...) to ponder, while waiting for the Motivazioni to be issued.

Actually, I don't believe the following topic has ever been discussed in attempting to understand Amanda's disturbed psyche, and more specifically, in understanding AMANDA'S disturbed motivations.

I was thinking about Meredith, whom I mentioned yesterday, was known for having a good sense of humor, and for having "a love for the ridiculous."
Then I began to think that this particular trait--a keen sense of humor--is often associated with a last-born child in a family.

Sure enough, Meredith WAS the YOUNGEST sibling in her family.

And then, I was reminded of psychiatrist Alfred Adler's theories on birth order of children in a family and the effects on interpersonal relationships.

As we know, Amanda was the FIRST-BORN of FOUR siblings.
Conversely, Meredith was the LAST-BORN of FOUR siblings.

Both young women, interestingly, were one of four kids in their respective families.

I know this is the sort of analysis that Yummi, Donnie and others have no interest in pursuing.

And I also realize that this is far from being an exact science, but the theories have been around for decades and there are understandable, fascinating and valid reasons to account for these theories. I certainly know that an individual, in an individual family, will always have an individual personality, shaped by an UNKNOWN NUMBER of different factors.

And yet, I bring up the topic of birth order because,,, maybe there are some insights
here relating to AK's role in her family that could attempt to explain Amanda’s malevolence and her resentment towards Meredith.

Amanda, although appearing to be a textbook self-absorbed narcissist, seems to have real no TRUE self-knowledge. Seems a contradiction, but it isn't.
Perhaps for someone like Amanda, the first step in criminal rehabilitation is for the person “to know thyself”—the real self (not the fictional fairy tale one painted by the FOA and others) and one's real motivations, before one can accept responsibility for “thine own crime.”

This site below is just one of an enormous number of articles and books on the subject of birth order, and the development of personality.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art13220.asp

I found this section about first-borns, like Amanda, to be of interest:


"Being the only child for a time, the first born is generally spoiled. However, unlike the only child, the first born eventually suffers “dethronement” when the second child comes along. For some firstborns, suddenly having to share their parent’s love and attention is an adjustment that is difficult to make, especially at a very young age. The effects of “dethronement” or feeling replaced can be varied as well as far reaching, even into adulthood.

"For instance, firstborns may become resentful towards his or her younger sibling. This can trigger unacceptable behaviors including regression (acting like a baby to get attention) which can manifest itself as neediness if it carries into adulthood. Other unwanted behavior could be aggression towards the second born and disobedience or “acting out” with the parents. The challenge for parents is learning how to address these behaviors without rewarding them."

Of course, these few lines barely scratch the surface of this vast topic, but...it may serve as a catalyst for discussion. While waiting...

In the words of SNL's Linda Richman:
"I gave you the topic. Now TAWK amongst yourselves!!"

Off to get some cawfee... drin-)

I studied siblingship as part of my degree. Excellent post - excellent thoughts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:27 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Macport wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Emerald wrote:
donnie wrote:
Is there anyone else that is going crazy over the report?
I mean, the waiting is kinda killing me. I'm here every 15 minutes sun-) hoping that i would see the news!



Same for me, Donnie.


co-)


Hey, Emerald and Everybody:

Just to pass the time...

Here's something new and different (I *think* it's "new"...) to ponder, while waiting for the Motivazioni to be issued.

Actually, I don't believe the following topic has ever been discussed in attempting to understand Amanda's disturbed psyche, and more specifically, in understanding AMANDA'S disturbed motivations.

I was thinking about Meredith, whom I mentioned yesterday, was known for having a good sense of humor, and for having "a love for the ridiculous."
Then I began to think that this particular trait--a keen sense of humor--is often associated with a last-born child in a family.

Sure enough, Meredith WAS the YOUNGEST sibling in her family.

And then, I was reminded of psychiatrist Alfred Adler's theories on birth order of children in a family and the effects on interpersonal relationships.

As we know, Amanda was the FIRST-BORN of FOUR siblings.
Conversely, Meredith was the LAST-BORN of FOUR siblings.

Both young women, interestingly, were one of four kids in their respective families.

I know this is the sort of analysis that Yummi, Donnie and others have no interest in pursuing.

And I also realize that this is far from being an exact science, but the theories have been around for decades and there are understandable, fascinating and valid reasons to account for these theories. I certainly know that an individual, in an individual family, will always have an individual personality, shaped by an UNKNOWN NUMBER of different factors.

And yet, I bring up the topic of birth order because,,, maybe there are some insights
here relating to AK's role in her family that could attempt to explain Amanda’s malevolence and her resentment towards Meredith.

Amanda, although appearing to be a textbook self-absorbed narcissist, seems to have real no TRUE self-knowledge. Seems a contradiction, but it isn't.
Perhaps for someone like Amanda, the first step in criminal rehabilitation is for the person “to know thyself”—the real self (not the fictional fairy tale one painted by the FOA and others) and one's real motivations, before one can accept responsibility for “thine own crime.”

This site below is just one of an enormous number of articles and books on the subject of birth order, and the development of personality.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art13220.asp

I found this section about first-borns, like Amanda, to be of interest:


"Being the only child for a time, the first born is generally spoiled. However, unlike the only child, the first born eventually suffers “dethronement” when the second child comes along. For some firstborns, suddenly having to share their parent’s love and attention is an adjustment that is difficult to make, especially at a very young age. The effects of “dethronement” or feeling replaced can be varied as well as far reaching, even into adulthood.

"For instance, firstborns may become resentful towards his or her younger sibling. This can trigger unacceptable behaviors including regression (acting like a baby to get attention) which can manifest itself as neediness if it carries into adulthood. Other unwanted behavior could be aggression towards the second born and disobedience or “acting out” with the parents. The challenge for parents is learning how to address these behaviors without rewarding them."

Of course, these few lines barely scratch the surface of this vast topic, but...it may serve as a catalyst for discussion. While waiting...

In the words of SNL's Linda Richman:
"I gave you the topic. Now TAWK amongst yourselves!!"

Off to get some cawfee... drin-)

I studied siblingship as part of my degree. Excellent post - excellent thoughts.

There is evidence in Amanda's own writing of her jealousy of her younger siblings. Viz. "Baby Brother":

Quote:
"I don't want to go home. My mom's all full up with my brother and they don't talk to me anymore. They just go to bed. Dad and her used to fight to read me stories…" Edgar squeezed the upper insides of his arms and winced. But he felt relieved, felt his shoulders fall a little, give a little slack. It was like he wasn't wound up as tight, wasn't busting at the seams. He felt Sandra wrap her floppy arms around his shoulders and he rested on the fleshy part above her collarbone.

[...]

Edgar stared into Sandra's face and watched her eyes drift towards the doorway. She leaned back, away from him, and he turned around.

"Thank God!" It was his father, heavy-shouldered, charging through the doorway of the classroom. Edgar felt his heavy hand squeeze his shoulder. He felt himself lifted up and turned around. "Excuse me," his father nodded at Sandra. His breath blew hot down Edgar's neck. "I've been looking all over for you. The baby's coming, so we're going to the hospital."

Edgar turned around and Sandra nodded towards the door. Edgar felt like he was deep inside his body, or as if this body was bigger than he had ever felt it to be, so that he felt it surround him and his soul was small and shrunk inside so that he could see his body around him. Sandra said she couldn't be with him.

This single thought occupied his mind in the waiting room. He was alone, and he felt waves of hot and cold pulsate in a spiral around him. Hot when he was angry and he dug his fingernails into his palms. Cold when he realized the hurt under his arms and the ache that pushed in the sides of his head. Then a nurse in a flowery scrub distracted him, held his hand, and led him into his mother's room.

His father picked him up onto his hip, like Edgar never thought he would again, so he could see over the bed to his mother and the baby. He could only see the face, which was light brown and pudgy. It reminded him of Sandra.

"This is Kyle," his father whispered into his neck. "Aren't you glad you're a big brother?"

Edgar felt relieved. He reached his arm slowly out and brushed the tip of Kyle's soft nose with his pointer finger. Kyle twitched his head to the side. The baby attracted him, and of what Edgar could see, it was pudgy like Sandra, and Edgar decided this was what she had meant. Edgar smiled, and he felt the inclination to coo at the baby, to make soft, encouraging noises at it, so Kyle would know who he was, and so Sandra would recognize him.


In another part of this story, Kyle (now grown-up) reveals that he has raped a girl. There are shifting timelines and unsignaled and unexpected flashbacks in this story. I find all of Amanda's writings to be rather jarring and difficult to follow, narrative-wise. But at least we can make out from the above that she was jealous of the attention younger siblings got when they were born.

Thanks for the topic; I think it's interesting to think about. Thanks 411, as we all wait on tenter-hooks for the motivazione.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:39 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

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


IMO

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

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Did you all notice the photo jools posted in the gallery? Check out Chris's T-shirt...

"Foxy Knoxy's Mom's Boy Toy"


That has got to be one of the most tacky and inappropriate things I have ever seen. A young girl is DEAD and Amanda's vile clan is yucking it up in matching t-shirts. Chris Mellas, not content to be merely gauche and insensitive, kicks his T up a notch and manages to insult both his daughter and his wife in the bargain. Yes, by all means party on, Knox/Mellas people! Murder is just one big frat party-- "been there, done that, got the T-Shirt!"

tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-)) tu-))
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

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

March 19 in ebook and April 6 in paperback:
Angel Face: The Real Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox

"Angel Face is a brilliant postmortem of the most fascinating and disturbing true crime in recent memory."
- LINDA FAIRSTEIN, author and former sex crimes prosecutor

"Well-researched and beautifully written, even if you’re not a true-crime buff, this book is a must-read!"
- MARCIA CLARK, former L.A. District Attorney and legal commentator

http://www.barbielatzanadeau.com/
Top Profile 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:23 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

Shirley wrote:
WHO wears that?!?!?


Pathetic losers with bad hair and delusions of studliness? "Comb on over to my place, ladies..."
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

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

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


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

IMO, it will never happen.


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

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

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:10 am   Post subject: Re: XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 -   

The Bard wrote:
Apparently the boys had been rehabilitated well and have settled with partners. Venables is a born again Christian. I wonder if the police have to tell a new partner about their history, whether they are left to do it themselves, and just how that conversation would go. Not first date disclosure stuff is it. Do they wait till the girl has fallen in love with them? Then tell her? A horrible, tragic case. The shock waves are still being felt. So I wonder whether and to what extent Amanda will ever escape the label of murderer. Will she ever marry? Who would risk it? She has the mask of assassin on her face forever in that sense.


I hesitate to quote it, since the Sun is the paper that caused most of the damage in the case that I was involved in which instigated my interest in media manipulation in cases like this, however you might want to look at this article; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... iller.html

Venables, the born-again Christian, has apparently a problem with cocaine and ectasy abuse. Also; "A separate source told ITV News that Venables had been suffering from drink and drugs problems which culminated in a violent incident."

Concerning the police, offenders, new partners; no, no-one will tell any new partner as part of their official role as it is prohibited under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act type legislation. The advice to people like this (Venables) will be not to tell the new partner either in general or to think incredibly incredibly carefully about it.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

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

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

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

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


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

I don't believe she will EVER admit what she's done.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 14 of 15 [ 3716 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], The Machine and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,512 Views