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 1:59 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:59 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - June 19, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 42 [ 10274 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 42  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:13 am   Post subject: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - June 19, 10   

XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - June 19, 10






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

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XV. MAIN DISCUSSION, Jan 25 - March 4, 10

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Another day for PMF and I'd like to say thank you to Michael and Skep for everything here and I'd also like to extend a big thank you to the team of translators that are going to do a hugely important job in enabling us to all move forward from this point.

En garde FOA... fen-)

_________________
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 lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

YAY
We have a new room to play in!
Thnx!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world ... 5knox.html


Quote:
In a statement released by a family spokesman, Ms. Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, said the reasoning contained “a lot of conjecture” as well as “discrepancies,” “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” and “conclusions not supported by evidence.” They said they had instructed their lawyers to begin an appeal immediately.


Has anyone seen this statement by Curt/Edda? I'd like to read it.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"The Youtube video of Amanda drunk. If I remember correctly, it's just her and a bunch of guys."

"Ummmm...
Did you see the YouTube video?
Amanda is utterly blasted."

It's not just her and a bunch of guys - it's another girl behind the camera who is asking her the question - not all guys. Although Amanda refers to having drunk one and a half shots and makes this wiggly finger thing like she's off it, the guys in the vid are clearly pretty much next to sober. She looks like A.N.other girl pretending to be pissed when she's had almost nothing I'd say. Nothing to see there, really, imho.


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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Is it Karen Abbott or Barbie Nadeau who wrote this story??

Quote:
Amanda Knox was not convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher because she did cartwheels in the police station or owned a vibrator, as her supporters suggest. Knox, 22, along with her 25-year-old former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, were found guilty by a jury in Perugia, Italy, based on hard forensic evidence, according to the sentencing judge’s 427-page reasoning, which was issued Thursday and obtained by The Daily Beast.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-04/whyd-she-do-it/

It's nice to see some sensible types have also gained access to the report. :)

It's also good to see that Barbie Nadau's book is to be published as an e-book. So much easier to obtain.


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - OT more on Sonia Marra   


Umberto Bindella has taken the initiative and has met with journalists to insist on his innocence. Umbria Left reports him as saying “I have nothing to do with the disappearance. I did not kill Sonia Marra and I don’t know where she is.”
He was accompanied by his legal defenders, Silvia Egidi and Daniela Paccoi.
As far as his own absence over the last few days, Bindella said that he needed to be alone.
“I read that Umberto Bindella has killed a person and I consider all that to be a mistaken judgement, as well as being very serious.
Bindella also gave an interview to Il Messaggero reporter, Vanna Ugolini, which is translated below.


BINDELLA

Thursday March 3rd 2010
BINDELLA ON THE ATTACK: “I’VE GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.”
The young man from Marsciano says; “I’ll tell you the lot now.”
Sonia Marra and what happened at that time.

By VANNA UGOLINI

How did you meet Sonia Marra?

“At Montemorcino where I had rented a room to stay when I was in Perugia in 2005. I saw her now and again. Then in 2006 I enrolled in the Theology course where she was secretary. In October we were intimate, but we didn’t go all the way. And that was it. We were not seeing each other, were not going out together, I wasn’t her fiancé.”
What sort of a person was Sonia?
She was reserved; she had a complex because she didn’t feel that she was attractive. It’s not true that didn’t have reasons to disappear; in six years she done four exams, she had money problems, so much so that her bank account was in the red at the time of her disappearance. And just the next day her parents sent her 150 euros. She had relationship problems, having finished up with her first boyfriend, but still continuing to see him. And she disappeared after a long telephone conversation home which nobody remembers the content of.
Do you have an alibi for the day when Sonia disappeared?
“I have reconstructed the whole day and all my movements have been verified. The people, who were attending the English course with me, even after three years, remembered that I was present at lessons and almost always on time. The fellow I met afterwards has confirmed that.”
A witness tells of seeing a person coming out of Ms Marra’s home about 7.30 PM, with a jacket and a black beret and who is said to have had a build similar to yours.
“And like that of tens and tens of people who have shaved heads or very short hair.”
Why did you have your phone off the day of Sonia’s disappearance and why didn’t you have it with you?
“I didn’t have (the one) with me with the number I contacted Sonia with but I had another one.”
How come you bought the pregnancy tests for Sonia?
“To give her a hand. And anyway they were negative.”
In the period when you were seeing each other Sonia said that more things happened to her in that fortnight than in all her life.
“In that two weeks I was working outside Perugia for one week and all that is documented.”

“We would like to have access to all the documentation including that of the first investigation which was heading in very different directions – add the lawyers Paccoi and Egidi – because at this point we do not know why there were no tracings of the cell phones, elements which would exonerate our client and we would also like to see the video which shows Bindella with his friend at Fontivegge before going to dinner: we are certain that all these elements are in favour of our defence.”
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

ANSA News In English

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche ... 04697.html

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche ... 62539.html

An interesting tidbit from the second article:

Quote:
The case will be examined at the Chamber of Deputies on March 18 by US legal experts called by the Italy-US Foundation.
Foundation Chairman Rocco Ghirlanda said "it will not be a counter-trial but will have the sole aim of comparing Italian and US judicial
and trial systems and try to understand what a possible verdict might have been if a similar case had been tried in the United States".


As Tiziano pointed out (in her post below) there is a translation error in the second article.
The phrase "while Kercher had been drinking" is incorrect.
The correct translation is "the judges ruled out that Meredith was under the influence of alcohol".

[edited to provide links only and to point out translation error]


Last edited by Rebel on Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((


Bard, even allowing for differences in law, this sounds very confused. Killing without intent which is mentioned above as manslaughter is causing death without meaning to cause injury but then that eventuality comes about. Note you can be convicted of murder if you just went to assault someone meaning to punch them but they then hit their head and died.

The quote above appears to have confused pre-meditation / earlier motive with intent and they are simply not the same thing. If a spiralling out of control situation environment resulted in a very quick decision to wound and / or kill resulting in death, that would be entirely enough to result in intent leading to murder. The absence of an earlier pre-meditation or motive would be irrelevant. The court was talking about pre-meditation before they got to the flat. This has nothing to do with whether the murder charge was made out which they have confirmed it was!

I think the normally very good Barbie has picked up the totally wrong end of this tbh. No judge's summary, let alone a written one, would make such an elementary mistake.

_________________
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 Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... she-do-it/

Whoa..... I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Amanda read this for the first time.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-04/whyd-she-do-it/

Whoa..... I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Amanda read this for the first time.


I shall go to bed now and apologise for over-posting - it's been a big night. The one thing I would like to end with is this; the narcissist will spin over everything she has / will read. She'll go absolutely nuts. And the reason is that because of everything, the court report on the exact circumstances will be wrong in some or many details. Not on the overall but in exactly what transpired. And because she is so utterly self-focused, instead of thinking "I've been correctly found guilty of the murder of Meredith", she will get utterly frustrated and angry about the fact that "it didn't happen like that". And it will eat her up and she'll be going totally nuts about it. How dare they. That's not what happened. Me. Me. I.

Tant pis as our French friends say....

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((



Hmm...I think in this case, she's reading the killing without motive as...'crime of passion', which doesn't actually any longer exist on Italian statute books, but may be taken into consideration by a court when passing serntence. This was not a crime of passion and the Motivations effectively rule it out.

But...'IF' any discount at all can be gained from it, she's already got it, from the first degree. Let's see what she could/should have got:

Life, with up to 3 years solitary
Life
30 years
Some level below 30 years with a minimum of 23 for murder


She essentially, along with Raffaele (and Rudy, since his sentence had to be made to match theirs to be fair), got the lightest sentence possible, with full mitigation included.

What room is left for discount?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Now, we'll have to put up with nonsense such as this:

Sexporting an image of American women
Did MTV pave the way for Amanda Knox's guilty verdict?

GLOBAL POST


The above should be right up Windfall's ally. Sorry Windfall, I don't mean to pick on you, but it's so.

_________________
"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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Emerald wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-04/whyd-she-do-it/

Whoa..... I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Amanda read this for the first time.


I shall go to bed now and apologise for over-posting - it's been a big night. The one thing I would like to end with is this; the narcissist will spin over everything she has / will read. She'll go absolutely nuts. And the reason is that because of everything, the court report on the exact circumstances will be wrong in some or many details. Not on the overall but in exactly what transpired. And because she is so utterly self-focused, instead of thinking "I've been correctly found guilty of the murder of Meredith", she will get utterly frustrated and angry about the fact that "it didn't happen like that". And it will eat her up and she'll be going totally nuts about it. How dare they. That's not what happened. Me. Me. I.

Tant pis as our French friends say....


Amanda's Attorneys will be there for the big reveal. Probably something like, "That's not what happened!" The attorneys will need to turn a blind ear to her reaction. She's not very good at lying, so Curt/Edda will ignore her truth once again.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Emerald wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-04/whyd-she-do-it/

Whoa..... I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Amanda read this for the first time.


I shall go to bed now and apologise for over-posting - it's been a big night. The one thing I would like to end with is this; the narcissist will spin over everything she has / will read. She'll go absolutely nuts. And the reason is that because of everything, the court report on the exact circumstances will be wrong in some or many details. Not on the overall but in exactly what transpired. And because she is so utterly self-focused, instead of thinking "I've been correctly found guilty of the murder of Meredith", she will get utterly frustrated and angry about the fact that "it didn't happen like that". And it will eat her up and she'll be going totally nuts about it. How dare they. That's not what happened. Me. Me. I.

Tant pis as our French friends say....


Thanks for trying to explain the premeditated murder/manslaughter thing SA. I think it is too late for me to get my head around it! Will try again tm. As for the post above I absolutely agree. She will go mad inside, but won't be able to tell a soul about it. What a shame for her. I wonder if she will let a little something slip to Mom and Dad in her frustration. She needs to be thought well of. It is essential to her in order to keep the whole thing together. Without that she frays. Not telling the truth is eating them all up. They are suffering, I have no doubt.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...


Barbie Nadeau did not exprss a proper definition ('killing wihout motive') but I think she is a smart one and grasped the essence of the situation. The defence could seek for a breach for a strong extenuating circumstance taking advantege from the judges' reconstruction.

Yes a voluntary violent action that leads to death is a killing, no matter the motive. But let alone the precise conccept of 'motive' for a moment. Consider that, firstly, we know (and a judge knows) that when somebody strikes a 4 cm and an 8 cm stab wound blows on a person's neck, it cannot be interpreted an act 'not aimed' to kill the person. It is obviously a will to kill the person.

But, *whose* will? Who is the one who materially shows his/her will though this physical act? A second person who is nearby might be seen as fully involved in this crime. Or may be not. The degree of concurring in the crime is not obvious. Basically this could be deduced in this case from the subsequent behaviour of the two suspects, their denial and lies implicate they cannot distance themselves from the material perpetrator. But if the defensive line changes, things could change consequently.

in the U.S. there is "first and second degree" murder, manslaughter... In Italy the classification is partly different, maybe more complex. First there is volunatery crimes and non voluntary crimes (dolosi versus colposi: will versus guilt). This is the first actual difference that attorney could try to exploit. It is unlikely that works, because it requires a non-consciousness that a crime was being committed. But within voluntary murders there is a division: intentional murder, and murder beyond intention. The "beyond intention" case could be the most attractive for the defense strategy. Amanda could be portraied as an irresponsible and careless person who did not stop Guede, but the phisical actions that lead to murder were beyond her intention, unless proven the opposite. The defense may try to build this 'second line', behind the first apparent 'innocence' front.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((


Barbie is not a lawyer. rul-)

She is a Travel reporter and she is speculating with no legal background. co-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I think the students at the UW and in Seattle should take a hard look at Knox's drunken video and remember to never record yourself when you're acting like idiots or using racist/ anti-semitic language. I bet that clown probably blames this whole conviction on the Jews. Let's nuke'em and get princess back!

Plus what's up with being so plowed after 1.5 shots. Amanda aint that much of a light-weight drinker after getting so much practice while living in a party house. It just shows that something aint right with the girl.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
The Bard wrote:
From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((


Barbie is not a lawyer. rul-)

She is a Travel reporter and she is speculating with no legal background. co-)



I think Yummi's analysis is correct, however, and it corroborates Barbie's. In addition, and in her defense, I know that she has excellent sources - including legal experts - and consults them before publication. The problem may be in the language she used, but not in her analysis.

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mstev14420 wrote:
I think the students at the UW and in Seattle should take a hard look at Knox's drunken video and remember to never record yourself when you're acting like idiots or using racist/ anti-semitic language. I bet that clown probably blames this whole conviction on the Jews. Let's nuke'em and get princess back!

Plus what's up with being so plowed after 1.5 shots. Amanda aint that much of a light-weight drinker after getting so much practice while living in a party house. It just shows that something aint right with the girl.


Maybe she had had more than that, or maybe she was just "pretending" to be drunk and slurring her speech. Whichever it was, I find it strange. Not just AK, but these kind of geeky kids filming themselves drinking or pretending to drink in someone's kitchen, joking about Jews and about getting the video out on youtube. It's all so mindlessly narcissistic and sadly typical.

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
The Bard wrote:
From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((


Barbie is not a lawyer. rul-)

She is a Travel reporter and she is speculating with no legal background. co-)


Barbie Nadeau has taken misteps in the past; in particuar when she was relying on Joe Tacopina for legal advice and interpretation, and reporting from the leaked documents and information supplied by the defense teams. She may be able to provide some insights at this point, but these 427 pages of technical information cannot be quickly digested.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Here's the latest installment of "Rudy Guede: In His Own Words" from the "Corriere dell'Umbria."

Note from The 411: Some of the names of individuals have been removed/redacted by the paper. (¿¿why was this done???)

In this English translation, I’ve decided to maintain, as is, the Italian word “omertà” (i..e, a code of silence associated with, but not limited solely to the Mafia; a refusal to give evidence to the police about criminal activities) and its variations "Omertosi" (people who engage in “omertà”)

THE CRIME OF PERUGIA: RUDY’S LATEST APPEAL: “THOSE WHO KNOW--SPEAK UP”
Article by: Elio Clero Bertoldi

The young Ivorian has sent a letter from prison. He complains about the “omertà” of his former friends and reaffirms his acquaintance with Mez.

Perugia: March 4, 2010

The accused
: Rudy Hermann Guede is in prison in Viterbo.

“Sometimes I ask myself why is it that some people make themselves out to be bearers of the truth when in reality, there isn’t even the essence of truth in them. Only an empty superficial sound of consonants and vowels that are falsely flaunted vocally, as only deceitful people know how to do, when it suits them, in total hypocrisy.“

Rudy Guede again writes from the prison of Viterbo, where he is being held.

They say that he has not appreciated the statements that Amanda Knox’s parents and her family have released to a large American TV network.

But in the letter, Rudy mainly attacks his former friends. And he writes with his rambling sentence structure.

“What a magnificent word that this virtue contains within. Light. That light that I go , I look for, fighting against corrupt people, showing to the entire world, to all of Italy, in spite of people’s closed eyes, who in all of the world, and in this beautiful country persist in looking at the darkness within themselves, turning their back on what the truth really is."

"There are people who speak of the truth, who judge in the name of It, but when It is shown to them, by means of concrete evidence why aren’t they there, as I showed, proving, just as I have said-- or said-- or say-- the truth, all they do is suppress the truth, so I ask myself: what truth are they going around saying, if not injustice, the injustice that I’m now enduring."

"But in response to such an injustice, to such an abuse of power, I am not giving up. I only know how to live with my heart, my soul, my conscience is at peace, I live, fighting ,with hope at my side, hope that in this world, hoping in the name of truth, as soon as possible, that there are judges, peoples whose eyes, minds, and consciences, are prepared to look for the light: that they work hard to obtain clarity, working to analyze and verify the evidence, the expert testimony shown to them, all of it. And not just set it aside, which is what happened to me in the appeal with the statements of (REDACTED NAME) who, as was seen, at first, together with (REDACTED NAME) “omertosi people” in telling the truth, if not after contradicting themselves or admitting in the evidence to facts that were denigrated, none other than the truth, none other than the truth of facts, well documented evidence in the judgment of the judges. I can’t explain why these things weren’t part of the legal proceedings."

"Just as the “omertosi”, deceivers and liars, those that went around saying, knowing they were lying, that Meredith and I didn’t know each other, when in fact, in front of everyone’s eyes, they saw our mutual acquaintance, and that on the evening of October 31, 2007, together at the Domus, where these same liars’ eyes saw us chatting, talking to each other like all the other times that we would meet."

"Yet these people are silent, even knowing that there is an innocent person here, whose words, whose talk, according to their own knowledge, or they just know I’m telling the truth by their own testimony."

"To them, I hope, if it is really in their conscience and in respect of the truth, that they get out of their “omertosi” silence and speak out."

"Let them speak-- the (REDACTED NAMES) ones that are already speaking, already in the hands of justice, if they have any scruples at all."

"And finally, as I said before, that the judges decide that it’s really the truth that they are working for. That they work, judge, thoroughly examine, and analyze the testimony that has been offered, for the purpose of giving and doing justice to and for the name of a splendid, wonderful girl, and to give me the freedom of a free man, which I am."

"All of that in the name of our good Lord, in me, faith and hope.
Rudy Guede"
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The former basketball player, sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment—puts all his hopes in the Court of Appeal, that his legal experts, lawyers Niocodemo Gentile and Valter Biscotti will be presenting at the opportune time. As is seen, Rudy is aiming for full acquittal; he wants to have his non-involvement and his innocence recognized in the brutal and cruel murder of Meredith Kercher. His appeal “those who know, speak up” is eloquent.

Obviously there are no direct witnesses. Unless Rudy is referring to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (whom he indicates as being present at the scene of the crime, in particular, the Seattle student), urging them to tell everything they know.
_________________________________________________________________________


Last edited by The 411 on Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Am I the only one who sees "blame the black guy" once again raise its ugly head? Come on, People, the three were into the extreme experience, especially Raff and Amanda. Raff is the guy I am thankful I never met in college. I know we want to protect Meredith's memory and be sensitive to her wonderful family, but based on my experience with people, sometimes it take facts to force significant others to understand a situation. (For example, working with a sexually abused student: letting her teachers know why she was not coming to class/etc.) Please let the details of Meredith's trauma come into the public domain. Otherwise, we will onky hear the minimization of the entire crime: pokes and drugs. It's too easy to say " It was an accident."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
piktor wrote:
The Bard wrote:
From Barbie's article:


"None of the defense lawyers would comment until after they had a chance to study the lengthy legal document. But it appears to leave a wide opening for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. First, the reasoning barely skimmed over Knox's involvement in Kercher's sexual assault, so astute lawyers are likely to focus on that oversight and challenge her conviction for a sex crime. Likewise, the judge discounted motive, even though Knox and Sollecito were convicted of first degree murder, which by law requires intent to kill. Manslaughter, or killing without a motive, carries a lighter sentence. In Guede's appeal, his sentence was cut from 30 to 16 years due to extenuating factors, and now lawyers for Knox and Sollecito have plenty to work with in pursuit of a similar outcome. They have 45 days to file the official appeal. Then a new judge and jury will be assigned to review the evidence and determine whether to uphold or overturn the convictions."

Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...

n-((


Barbie is not a lawyer. rul-)

She is a Travel reporter and she is speculating with no legal background. co-)


Barbie Nadeau has taken misteps in the past; in particuar when she was relying on Joe Tacopina for legal advice and interpretation, and reporting from the leaked documents and information supplied by the defense teams. She may be able to provide some insights at this point, but these 427 pages of technical information cannot be quickly digested.


I for one was happy when she stopped using Joe as a source of on-the-record information. However, that collaboration produced at least one important item: Joe Tacopina, in his second interview, was quoted as saying that the best hope for Amanda Knox would be to tell the truth about her involvement. This was after his initial, knee-jerk, defense attorney analysis, and after he had become more acquainted with the case. Chris Mellas had an online meltdown over that one. Tacopina also said he was informally advising the family. After that, he moved on. But he never retracted those statements.

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Barbie Nadeau has taken misteps in the past; in particuar when she was relying on Joe Tacopina for legal advice and interpretation, and reporting from the leaked documents and information supplied by the defense teams. She may be able to provide some insights at this point, but these 427 pages of technical information cannot be quickly digested.


The last comment I read from Joe Tacopina about this case was something like 'don't commit a crime in Italy'. The gist was he thought Amanda was guilty.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

sam spade wrote:
Am I the only one who sees "blame the black guy" once again raise its ugly head? Come on, People, the three were into the extreme experience, especially Raff and Amanda. Raff is the guy I am thankful I never met in college. I know we want to protect Meredith's memory and be sensitive to her wonderful family, but based on my experience with people, sometimes it take facts to force significant others to understand a situation. (For example, working with a sexually abused student: letting her teachers know why she was not coming to class/etc.) Please let the details of Meredith's trauma come into the public domain. Otherwise, we will onky hear the minimization of the entire crime: pokes and drugs. It's too easy to say " It was an accident."

I totally agree, sam, especially with your first statement. Not sure about the revealing of the trauma, thought. But I do tend to think if I were the family, I'd want it known exactly what was done to my family member. I can't speak for the victim's family here, though.

If this judges' report is all about "blame the black guy because he wanted to get into her pants," I'll be disappointed. Raff and Amanda transported a deadly weapon to the location of the murder, with some sort of malicious intent, imho. They waved two knives threateningly at a passing motorist (Kokomani). They didn't "accidentally" "poke" the victim. They viciously stabbed her, imho with some sort of malice aforethought. I've never heard of any other kind of stabbing, myself.

Sorry, but again, if this is the gist of the judges' report, I'm very disappointed.

Thanks to the translators here, the moderators, and participants, especially SomeAlibi, I appreciate your legal insights here.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

sam spade wrote:
Am I the only one who sees "blame the black guy" once again raise its ugly head? Come on, People, the three were into the extreme experience, especially Raff and Amanda. Raff is the guy I am thankful I never met in college.

They also make it clear who the killers with the knives are. RG as the initiator is based on AK's initial statement I think. Could well be true and seems to me the reason for his lies.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - Truth hurts   

The 411 wrote:
Here's the latest installment of "Rudy Guede: In His Own Words" from the "Corriere dell'Umbria." ......

“Sometimes I ask myself why is it that some people make themselves out to be bearers of the truth when in reality, there isn’t even the essence of truth in them. Only an empty superficial sound of consonants and vowels that are falsely flaunted vocally, as only deceitful people know how to do, when it suits them, in total hypocrisy.“

But in the letter, Rudy mainly attacks his former friends. And he writes with his rambling sentence structure.

"There are people who speak of the truth, who judge in the name of It, but when It is shown to them, by means of concrete evidence why aren’t they there, as I showed, proving, just as I have said-- or said-- or say-- the truth, all they do is suppress the truth, so I ask myself: what truth are they going around saying, if not injustice, the injustice that I’m now enduring."


Etc.

It takes me a moment to extract a meaning from Rudy’s rambling message. The BS about truth belies his prowess for illusion and deception. He overuses the word "truth". Rudy can learn a thing a two from the Roman historian Marcellinus Ammianus, who said:

The language of truth is unadorned and always simple – Marcellinus Ammianus

RG is consciously deceiving himself. He should stop trying imposing his own hopes, wishes, wants, and needs onto others. Does it occur to him to take some responsibility for his actions? Nope. Instead, he is blaming others. Ahh, the truth hurts (literally):

The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"Ha," he said,
"I see that none has passed here
In a long time."
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other roads."

Stephen Crane "The Wayfarer" (1899)

nin-)
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:05 am   Post subject: SAM SPADE'S SIXTY!!   

OT
This got lost in the Chat Box chatter.
so, once more, with feeling...
IT was
SAMS SPADE's SIXTIETH CELEBRATION, birthday-wise!

Also celebrating their birthdays on March 4th) mul-)
Vivaldi (as was noted here earlier)
Giorgio Bassani (who wrote "Garden of the Finzi-Contini")
AND..in keeping with the Italian name theme, kinda, sorta...
Chastity Bono, the daughter of Sonny and Cher!

And yes, Spade is actually Italian....
Spade = SWORDS, in Italian. nin-)
So...HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Mr. Swords!!
411+ good wishes to you!
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/europe/05knox.html


Quote:
In a statement released by a family spokesman, Ms. Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, said the reasoning contained “a lot of conjecture” as well as “discrepancies,” “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” and “conclusions not supported by evidence.” They said they had instructed their lawyers to begin an appeal immediately.


Has anyone seen this statement by Curt/Edda? I'd like to read it.


Thanks for posting the link.

That statement caught my eye as well. My first thought was "how do they know what it says, they don't know Italian?" Of course the lawyers are going to begin an appeal, it's automatic and relies on the report for arguments. She makes it sound like an instruction had to be given to the lawyers to begin and appeal.

Did Amanda's lawyers sit back and claim this, or is Edda speaking out of the side of her face (whatever that expression is)? Side of her mouth? Lying? "Discrepancy, inconsistency, and contraction" seem a bit redundant when it comes to speaking clearly. Any one of those three words would say the same thing. Conjecture, of course. It's a murder trial and there are no living witnesses. It must be conjecture in some sense, but I would prefer inductive conclusion, or supposition based on evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
Now, we'll have to put up with nonsense such as this:

Sexporting an image of American women
Did MTV pave the way for Amanda Knox's guilty verdict?

GLOBAL POST


The above should be right up Windfall's ally. Sorry Windfall, I don't mean to pick on you, but it's so.


Interesting, thanks for the link. Not sure it's nonsense. It's an attention-grabbing headline, but the substance of the story is only fairly tenuously linked to Knox. In fact, the substantial paragraph about her is a quotation from Andrea Vogt who says that it really has no bearing on the case. I imagine there's a degree of truth in the article, and some of the factors it examines are vaguely relevant to Knox's situation, but (despite the headline) the article does not argue that Knox was convicted on the basis of her conforming to a certain stereotype of the young American female abroad. And I've never argued that, either. Sorry, but that's so, too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I think it's probably more deductive than inductive. With all the evidence it's impossible to come to a different conclusion. Induction implies a probability of fallacy in the conclusion which apparently the jury felt was not there (no gaps).
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From "La Repubblica":

"Il movente - scrivono i magistrati perugini - di natura erotica sessuale violento che, originatosi dalla scelta del male operata da Rudy, trovò la collaborazione attiva di Amanda e Raffaele". Dal carcere di Viterbo, dove è detenuto, Rudy ha scritto una lettera con un appello: "Chi sa, parli".

So, according to the judges it started because RG was unable to control his hormons. Didn't witnesses report that he always molested girls in the bars and discos? And this asshole dares to say that he had consensual sex with Meredith and tried to save her life! I hope that he will be sent back to the Côte d'Ivoire after serving his time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - Transl Corriere della sera   

Corriere
A TRANSLATION OF THE ARTICLE ON CORRIERE DELLA SERA WHICH HOMES IN ON THE MITIGATING FACT OF THE DEFENDANTS' YOUTH
The motivations for the sentence condemning Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
The crime against Meredith was not premeditated.

“An inevitable outcome which is strictly consequential, the guilty finding against the two defendants for the crimes of which they are accused.”

PERUGIA - “An comprehensive overall picture, without any gaps or contradictions” but not a premeditated crime. Thus write the Perugia judges in the motivations for the first stage judgement which condemned Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to 25 and 26 years of imprisonment respectively for the murder of Meredith Kercher. In fact, according to the judges, the picture which emerges “carries with it as its inevitable outcome, which is strictly consequential, the guilty finding against the two defendants for the crimes of which they are accused.” Meredith Kercher suffered sexual violence before being killed: motivating the judgement, the judges referred to the Y chromosome of Rudy Guede (condemned to 16 years in prison, in appeal, for complicity in the crime) found on the vaginal swab carried out on the victim during the autopsy. According to the Court it is an “objective fact” that “biological material of a subject of male sex came into contact with the body of Meredith Kercher, and with a definitively erogenous part of the body”. The judges then spoke of a “crescendo of violence” in the action which led to the death of the young English girl, and they then claimed that “the requests of an erotic-sexual nature found a proud opposition” in the victim. “The seizing of the throat was so violent that it caused bruises and that it was indicated as being the principal factor in the death by asphyxiation by some of the experts, - and it was also said in the motivations – must have had the aim, as it also limited the girl’s freedom of movement, to intimidate her, to convince her not to resist, and to consent to the person attacking her giving free rein to the impulses which in that moment sought to overcome her. The judges further excluded that Mez was under the influence of alcohol when she was killed.(see note below)

THE MOTIVATIONS – The motivations for the judgement, made up of 427 pages signed by the President of the Court, Giancarlo Massei, and assistant judge Beatrice Cristiani, were lodged in Perugia on Thursday. In the document it is also claimed that Amanda “freely accused Patrick Diya Lumumba of having killed Meredith, and accused him in the knowledge of the innocence of the same Lumumba”. From this (flows) the sentencing of the young American to an extra year in prison for the crime of defamation.

CONTRITION - The murder of Meredith was not premeditated, write the judges. On the contrary, straight afterwards Amanda and Raffaele repented and covered the body of the young English girl. It is therefore a crime carried out “without any planning at all, without any animosity or vindictive feeling against the victim”. For the lay judges, the crime developed “on the strength of merely chance contingencies which came together with one and other”, with “Amanda and Raffaele who find themselves unexpectedly together with nothing to do; by chance they meet Rudy Guede(there is no trace of the making of any appointment) and they find themselves together in the house in Via della Pergola, where just that evening Meredith was alone. According to the judges the fact of covering the body of the English student after the murder is evidence on the part of the perpetrators of “as well as a feeling of pity for the victim, the refusal of and therefore a sort of repentance for what has been done; refusal and repentance expressed in such a gesture of pity”. The judges remember how “both the accused are very young and they were even more so at the time of the events”. They write: ”The inexperience and immaturity which are typical of a young age were accentuated in the context in which both found themselves, because it was so different from what they had grown up with, and lacking any of the usual habitual points of reference which could be capable of providing continuing support, example and verification in the decisions of everyday life”. The judges continue: ”Thus Amanda Knox, who had arrived in Perugia not even two months earlier, acting only out of curiosity and the desire to have the most diverse experiences, finds herself living without that protection and shelter provided in particular by her family; similarly Raffaele Sollecito, whose father was continually ringing him, a sign of the necessity the son still had of a presence to continually listen to him, support him and direct him”.
NOTE: THE CONFIRMATION OF THE FACT THAT MEREDITH WAS NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. I have read elsewhere that she was, an obvious mistake in translation.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

So, Amanda was telling the truth. At the trial, she said they got it all wrong. Even patrick said that she was very jealous of meredith. not one person in italy backed up amanda's claim that she and Meredith were friends. on the contrary. I have a question. There is the possibility of two appeals. Can there be different motivation reports to each appeal? I believe there are different judges on each appeal. So, could each set of judges come up with their own reasoing as to what occurred?

_________________
"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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

And, I'm pretty sure that no alchohol was found in Meredith's system.

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

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

martin wrote:
From "La Repubblica":

"Il movente - scrivono i magistrati perugini - di natura erotica sessuale violento che, originatosi dalla scelta del male operata da Rudy, trovò la collaborazione attiva di Amanda e Raffaele". Dal carcere di Viterbo, dove è detenuto, Rudy ha scritto una lettera con un appello: "Chi sa, parli".

So, according to the judges it started because RG was unable to control his hormons. Didn't witnesses report that he always molested girls in the bars and discos? And this asshole dares to say that he had consensual sex with Meredith and tried to save her life! I hope that he will be sent back to the Côte d'Ivoire after serving his time.


Yes, but what about the towels he used to help her in stopping the bleeding? I have a hard time believing that Rudy drove this whole thing. Then when called in to help her roommate, she joins in on the attack with someone she barely knows. That shows high levels of aminosity against the victim from AK.

If you look at it, Merideth hooked up with Giacomo, the one Amanda was most attracted to. Amanda might have known about Meredith taking her job. Then the missing money plays in, maybe there was an argument first with Meredith threatening to throw Amanda out of the house for stealing her money. Then Rudy (the rapist) comes on to Merideth trying to be the hero but is rejected immediatly by MK. AK starts a cat fight. Rafaelle (the sadist) joins in because this is his fantasy and starts the sexual assault. Amanda (revenge) joined in to humiliate Meredith.

I just believe that losing her chance at Giacomo because of Meredith, then losing her job to Merideth, and losing her flat after being accused of stealing the money would drive her into an intense anger. It doesn't need to be pre-planned and might have happened after things just escalated out of control. Begun by Rudy, but finished by Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Mstev; I'm With your reasoning 100%. And, that it was Rudi who covered Meredith. AK has shown not one iota of remorse at ANY TIME since this tragic night.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Andrea Vogt:
"Jurors discounted as unreliable two eye witnesses -- an Albanian drug-dealer and another student. Both testified they had seen Knox, Sollecito and Guede together. "

So they are indeed Kokomani and Gioffreddi.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

So AK and RS are given 'credit' ie remorse points for covering the body??? after moving the body and posing it on pillows??? so create a possible different scenario for the crime??? So where in the report is information about the staging of the body?
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - brownie points?   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So AK and RS are given 'credit' ie remorse points for covering the body??? after moving the body and posing it on pillows??? so create a possible different scenario for the crime??? So where in the report is information about the staging of the body?


h9etc, it makes me very angry to see the mitigation implied in the sections of the motivations report referring to the so-called youth, inexperience and lack of familial influence and support "suffered" by Knox and Sollecito.

But I come from a generation who was confirmed in the church at the age of 12, deemed by the Anglican tradition to be the age of discretion, when a young person (aged 12 not over 20!!!!!) could discern the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Thus "remorse points" or "brownie points", as we say ironically in Australia, Brownies being the junior section of the Guiding movement, the under-twelves who have not yet reached years of discretion, but who are being helped along the learning path with points for good behaviour, are hardly valid when we are dealing with two ADULTS, even though they are young adults..
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The report is 400+ pages. All we've discussed is the motivation.

What does the remainder of the report contain?
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
Mstev; I'm With your reasoning 100%. And, that it was Rudi who covered Meredith. AK has shown not one iota of remorse at ANY TIME since this tragic night.


It's worth bearing in mind that AK is insisting on her innocence. That is the current strategy. To show remorse would be to admit guilt. I think it is hasty to assume that because AK has made no public show of remorse (she can't: she wants the court and her family and the world to believe she had nothing to do with it), the judges must be wrong to suggest that AK and RS covered the body. There may be other reasons why they have reached that conclusion. It's going to be a while before we have enough detail translated from the report to decide whether we think they are right or wrong.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"All we've discussed is the motivation.
What does the remainder of the report contain?"

The Italian name of the whole report is "motivazioni".
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
The report is 400+ pages. All we've discussed is the motivation.

What does the remainder of the report contain?


I may well be wrong, but I believe the report is called the "motivation" as a not-entirely-useful translation of the Italian term. Hence there is a tendency to assume that it is about the motives for the murder. As I understand it, the 420 page "motivation" document explains how the judges and jury reached the conclusion they did. So it is a motivation for the verdicts, not an attempt to understand the motives/motivation of the defendants, although that will certainly be a **part** of the report. Am I right or totally off target here?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Windfall:: I'm talking about *Having pizza during the memorial, * doing cartwheels, *saying s...t happens*, talking about wild sex, etc. As AK was found quilty, that shows NO remorse, either in words or action.

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
Windfall:: I'm talking about *Having pizza during the memorial, * doing cartwheels, *saying s...t happens*, talking about wild sex, etc. As AK was found quilty, that shows NO remorse, either in words or action.


OK, point taken.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Not only Rudy, but also Raffaele got into letter writing mode:

He prays God every day to shed light on this horrible case as he maintains his non-involvement.

SOLLECITO: "NON E' ANCORA FINITA" «Prego ogni giorno Dio perchè illumini i giudici e faccia luce su questa orribile vicenda. Vivo con la consapevolezza che non è ancora finita e che la verità è come l'olio viene sempre a galla». È quanto scrive Raffaele Sollecito in una lettera che ha indirizzato, a News Mediaset, l'agenzia di notizie tv del Gruppo Mediaset, in occasione del deposito delle motivazioni della sentenza che lo ha condannato in primo grado a 23 anni di carcere per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. «Questa via crucis che mi costringono a sopportare dura ormai da oltre due anni non sò quali siano le ragioni per le quali io sarei colpevole di questo efferato delitto del quale io non so nulla - scrive Raffaele sostenendo ancora una volta la sua estraneità all'omicidio di Meredith. E prosegue »Mi hanno tirato addosso fango, stupidaggini ma l'unica cosa su cui si può discutere seriamente sono le indagini biologiche e scientifiche«. Alle 18 di ogni mercoledì a casa della famiglia Sollecito a Bisceglie squilla il telefono e, dall'altro capo, dal carcere di Terni c'è Raffaele. Un appuntamento settimanale che si ripete ormai da oltre due anni.

http://www.leggo.it/articolo.php?id=50019
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

No -one else who knew Meredith exhibited any of those behaviours. And, I find it very telling that AK never contacted Meredith's family, BEFORE she was arrested. Not a shred of common decency, EVER. Never mind remorse. A callous disregard.

_________________
"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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Bollint, thanks for the link, but the translation, was , well, awful. Do you know what he meant when he says he threw mud at hiim? Is he saying that he spoke a load of rubbish,(he admitted that earlier to the carabieneri) and that only scientific data should count? He says he knows nothing of the murder: how does he explain his footprints, and the bra clasp. Talk about clutching at straws. I daresay AK is now feeling even more sorry for HERSELF, now that she has been portrayed as the judges as *sensitive* to Meredith, no feelings of anger, etc. no premeditation. Although there is obviously much more to come, and although prosecutors do not have to show motivation for a crime, people always want to know why, and have answers. From the testimony of people who knew AK, and Meredith, and the people who attended and wrote about the trial, motivation to me, was never in doubt, and in fact, well documented.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Thanks for trying to explain the premeditated murder/manslaughter thing SA. I think it is too late for me to get my head around it! Will try again tm. As for the post above I absolutely agree. She will go mad inside, but won't be able to tell a soul about it. What a shame for her. I wonder if she will let a little something slip to Mom and Dad in her frustration. She needs to be thought well of. It is essential to her in order to keep the whole thing together. Without that she frays. Not telling the truth is eating them all up. They are suffering, I have no doubt.


I'd also recommend patience.

I've read a fair amount of the press coverage--what I could get my hands on--from 02 NOV 2007 until Rudy's capture. There was a lot of speculation and outright inaccurate reporting.

The same applies here. In the rush to get a story out, there's no doubt in my mind that some of the content of the report has been mangled, muddled, overlooked--even mistranslated. I'd like to wait a couple weeks before forming an opinion. I'd even like to see real quotes from the defence lawyers rather than paraphrases. I can't imagine they would say much more than 'no comment' right now or some standard response that is essentially meaningless.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Of course the full translation will shed more light and not just highlight soundbites but is the present rendition saying that the jurors believed Rudy covered the body? How would they know who 'touched' the duvet and covered Meredith? Rudy is young too and has no parental input so he was credited with being 'young and lacking of familial influence too? So, since this is done by a formula 30 years (life) - immaturity - lack of previous convictions + accusing and innocent man ... I don't get this brownie points/ sympathy votes thing for murdering someone then staging the body then covering with a duvet and running???
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I believe they were referring only to AK and RS. Rudi's conviction seems to be a foregone conclusion. Most of the *extenuating* comments seem to be about AK and RS. As to Rudi's letter, referring to OMERTA> Top mafiosimi.e. Sammy Gravano and otheres, dropped the omerta code and sang like canaries when their life or freedom was on the line.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I still think this is an interesting comment from Pete:

A million-dollar tip here for any very smart TV network or any very smart TV host. Get a camera and crew over to Italy like yesterday and into Rudy Guede’s cell.

We are hearing that Rudy Guede’s anger knows almost no bounds now at being framed for the entire crime. We reckon that he is close to telling all - given
a guarantee to make quite sure that he is kept alive.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/23/10 at 10:47 PM | #

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... /#comments
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
And, that it was Rudi who covered Meredith. AK has shown not one iota of remorse at ANY TIME since this tragic night.


No, Rudi did not cover Meredith. Blood patterns show that RS's cutting of the bra strap happened after her death by which time Rudi was out dancing.

It's correct that there's been no explicit remorse as you would expect from someone claiming innocence but she has shown signs of being distressed at the consequences-the shaking fits, looking away from the photos,the changed demeanour during Mrs Kercher's evidence. Mignini himself stated he was close to getting a confession. I think there is a part of her that wants to admit it but her parents have hemmed her in.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

that was heartening to read those posts, h9. what a great idea. hope someone does interview rudi. immediately. ak will never tell. is in love with her image being perpetuated by idiots, and money hungry hangers on's. And in her delusions of self importance, she will never come to terms with the fact that she just simply cannot handle rejection, competition, or fault found with her in anyway. And, I don't believe she will ever change. I imagine that when she does get out of prison, if she is not kept in the public eye, and not sufficiently enriched (in her estimation) who knows what she will do. I see, down the road, a bitter, angry, vengeful person.

_________________
"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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Mike, the shaking, and seemingly to be distressed, is probably because she realized she might not get away with it. Distress at not being able to sway the carabieneri with hip thrusts etc. Even when she found out that RS was destroying her alibi, she was super quick to bring up PL. A good actress.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.king5.com/news/world/Italy-j ... 55402.html

David Marriott, a spokesman for the Knox family, e-mailed a statement from the Knox family to KING5 News. In the statement, the family said in their opinion "there is a lot of conjecture in these motivations, a number of discrepancies as well as a number of inconsistencies and contradictions as well as conclusion not supported by evidence....Based on our initial review of the motivations, we feel there is a substantial basis for the appeal and are confident that the appeal will result in a reversal of the wrongful conviction." the family's statement said.

Anne Bremner, Seattle attorney and former prosecutor who has been a Knox supporter, said "What they're basically saying is, we found her guilty but there was no evidence, at least what we see from some of these first excerpts to support that and in fact it wasn't pre meditated."

"The key thing was the fact, was that she knows that she did not murder Meredith Kercher and that Meredith was her friend," said Amanda's father.

Luca Maori, one of Sollecito's lawyers, said he will reject the ruling "point by point," according to the ANSA news agency.
Top Profile 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - Transl Corriere della sera   

Tiziano wrote:
NOTE: THE CONFIRMATION OF THE FACT THAT MEREDITH WAS NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. I have read elsewhere that she was, an obvious mistake in translation.


Thanks, Tiziano for clarifying this. I did a major edit to my previous post where I quoted two ANSA articles. I eliminated most of the text of the article that has the translation error in it and pointed out the incorrect phrase. Rebel
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thanks for the correction,Tiziano. So, seeing that Meredith had some alchohol, she may have felt loose enough to let rip at AK about the things that were bothering her. Including, the fact that Mstev is right on target about Meredith finding out about the missing money. If Meredith threatened to have Amanda evicted from the cottage well, let's see. On Amanda's video, she said she was PARANOID about finding a place to stay in Perugia.

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

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
Thanks for the correction,Tiziano. So, seeing that Meredith had some alchohol, she may have felt loose enough to let rip at AK about the things that were bothering her. Including, the fact that Mstev is right on target about Meredith finding out about the missing money. If Meredith threatened to have Amanda evicted from the cottage well, let's see. On Amanda's video, she said she was PARANOID about finding a place to stay in Perugia.


Tiziano's translation of the Corriere article is: "The judges further excluded that Mez was under the influence of alcohol when she was killed." There is an article in English at the ansa.it website that incorrectly states that Meredith had been drinking.


Last edited by Rebel on Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

oh, got it . thanks, rebel.

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

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The plants of the boys downstairs are still in the back of my mind.

This could explain the motivation to go to the cottage, the carriage of the knife (cut the plants), the involvement of the missing keys (Meredith had the key of the downstairs appartment) and the start of a fight between the 3 acused and meredith ('give us the keys, we want to smoke some dope').

Just a scenario, i know, but as probable as a fight about the missing money. Maybe Meredith caught her attackers while they were searching for the keys in the victim´s room and suprised them with her arrive.
Top Profile 

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

It´s quiet over there at frank´s since yesterday.

I guess they have to get instructed about the new talking points before they release something into the blogosphere.

FOA Briefing by Marriott all night long, they seem to be a bit tired now.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Meredith is not drinking or taking drugs. She is trying to prepare for her trip home. Her friends have stated Meredith cut the evening short because of being tired.

Picture RG, AK and RS partying. Their behavior quickly degenerates. To them it is F*U*N.

Is it possible Meredith asked them to hold it down. They decide she needs to join the party.

I have no problem visualizing Amanda goading Rudy that Meredith may be interested in a 'party'.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spokane ... well-react

Contrary to the day of the verdicts, the press release section of Cantwell's website makes no mention of the matter today. Instead it says the Senator received an award for Animal Welfare Legislation and that she was pleased with the airframe Boeing is offering for an Air Force tanker contract. Things in which you might expect a Senator to get involved.

Knox and Sollecito must have felt remorse, the judges wrote, because they covered Kercher's body and closed the door of the room where she lay. Poli

To those who condemn the Italian criminal court system, show us the written findings that have to back up a verdict rendered in the United States of America. There are none, once a judge finds evidence sufficient to go to a jury, all you hear after that is "guilty," "not guilty," or unable to reach a decision (hung jury.) The jury does not have to speak to anyone after the verdict if they choose in the U.S. and their exact reasoning can remain forever a mystery.

Issuing the written report, with the detail Knox and Sollecito don't want to hear, helps remind us that Meredith Kercher was a living, breathing, feeling, thinking person, until they came along. Instead of just a piece in a board game that Knox supporters play. ce had to force it open the next morning. The judges said that was "significant behavior."
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60502,peo ... r-meredith

However, in revealing that he saw no trace of animosity or premeditation in the crime, Judge Giancarlo Massei has raised hopes that Knox could see her 26-year sentence reduced on appeal.

The judge's account of Knox's "pity" towards the victim gives Knox's lawyers another angle of attack during the appeal process - and there is even the suggestion she could have her conviction reduced to manslaughter. Her lawyers will also hope a deal can be struck allowing her to serve the rest of a reduced sentence in the United States.

Knox can at least count on the moral - and possibly financial help - of Donald Trump. The publication of the judge's opinion comes two days after the billionaire called for Americans to boycott Italy until Knox is released. In an interview with KOMO-TV, a television station in Knox's native Seattle, Trump was vociferous in his protestations of her innocence.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... t=17Amanda Knox is a Convicted Murderess: She Doesn't Deserve Victim Status

How dare our press and television shows in America attempt to paint a murderer as a victim when real victims cover every neighborhood in this country.

Girls like Amber Dubois, Chelsea King, Morgan Harrington, and Meredith Kercher are dishonored when their murderers' parents are given platforms on which to espouse the virtures of their sinful children--and to talk about how much they miss them while they are in prison--or how hard it is on the incarcerated person.

Let us remember that the parents of real victims have it oh so much harder--and they will never see their child again. Amanda Knox's parents get to talk to their daughter on the phone every week; Amber Dubois' mom hasn't spoken to her daughter in over a year. Tell her how hard it is, if you dare.

So Americans, don't just insist that your local courts and judicial system put away sex offenders for the maximum length of time, with no early parole: also insist that Oprah and the Donald,
and our own State Department respect victims rights (and need) for press opportunities more than a murderers.

Your own daughters' life may depend upon it one day.
Top Profile 

Offline Woodrina


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:55 pm

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Is it possible that the judges explicitly said there was "no animosity" in order to quell the rumours that this was the only reason they convicted AK? In order to make it understood that the verdict was based on the evidence?
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Killing without motive carries a lighter sentence? huh-)

It's still killing. Surely this cannot be right. If the jury accepted the forensics on the knife then how do they account for its presence in the house? It was transported. That is intent to have a very large knife around that night. If they accept Koko's testimony, AK was waving it around, out of her head, threatening him. I don't see how premeditation cannot be accepted. Or intent to kill. Very confused...


Barbie Nadeau did not exprss a proper definition ('killing wihout motive') but I think she is a smart one and grasped the essence of the situation. The defence could seek for a breach for a strong extenuating circumstance taking advantege from the judges' reconstruction.

Yes a voluntary violent action that leads to death is a killing, no matter the motive. But let alone the precise conccept of 'motive' for a moment. Consider that, firstly, we know (and a judge knows) that when somebody strikes a 4 cm and an 8 cm stab wound blows on a person's neck, it cannot be interpreted an act 'not aimed' to kill the person. It is obviously a will to kill the person.

But, *whose* will? Who is the one who materially shows his/her will though this physical act? A second person who is nearby might be seen as fully involved in this crime. Or may be not. The degree of concurring in the crime is not obvious. Basically this could be deduced in this case from the subsequent behaviour of the two suspects, their denial and lies implicate they cannot distance themselves from the material perpetrator. But if the defensive line changes, things could change consequently.

in the U.S. there is "first and second degree" murder, manslaughter... In Italy the classification is partly different, maybe more complex. First there is volunatery crimes and non voluntary crimes (dolosi versus colposi: will versus guilt). This is the first actual difference that attorney could try to exploit. It is unlikely that works, because it requires a non-consciousness that a crime was being committed. But within voluntary murders there is a division: intentional murder, and murder beyond intention. The "beyond intention" case could be the most attractive for the defense strategy. Amanda could be portraied as an irresponsible and careless person who did not stop Guede, but the phisical actions that lead to murder were beyond her intention, unless proven the opposite. The defense may try to build this 'second line', behind the first apparent 'innocence' front.


This murder has two parts: the actual stabbing and then the victim's long agony and later cleanup and staging by Knox/Sollecito.

The prosecution can use the second part plus the staging to reinforce the callous disregard for the victim's life. They could have saved the victim. This death did not have to happen.

Instead the three did nothing. They left the victim to choke on her blood and die slowly. They chose to run away. This horror cannot go unnoticed.

Then the two came back to clean up and stage the crime scene. It is a second murder, so to speak, with premeditation and a a plan to conceal. This callousness should be emphasized by the prosecution.

The actual stabbing was definetely not planned. Having time to save the victim and do nothing is truly the worst part of their actions. They chose to let the victim die. This was no accident. It was a choice they made. The cleanup was their choice. The staging was their choice.

You cannot chalk this all to hashish.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Woodrina wrote:
Is it possible that the judges explicitly said there was "no animosity" in order to quell the rumours that this was the only reason they convicted AK? In order to make it understood that the verdict was based on the evidence?


That was my immediate thought as well. The words "with no animosity" nulls and void just about everything Curt/Edda have said.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
This murder has two parts: the actual stabbing and then the victim's long agony and later cleanup and staging by Knox/Sollecito.

The prosecution can use the second part plus the staging to reinforce the callous disregard for the victim's life. They could have saved the victim. This death did not have to happen.

Instead the three did nothing. They left the victim to choke on her blood and die slowly. They chose to run away. This horror cannot go unnoticed.

Then the two came back to clean up and stage the crime scene. It is a second murder, so to speak, with premeditation and a a plan to conceal. This callousness should be emphasized by the prosecution.

The actual stabbing was definetely not planned. Having time to save the victim and do nothing is truly the worst part of their actions. They chose to let the victim die. This was no accident. It was a choice they made. The cleanup was their choice. The staging was their choice.

You cannot chalk this all to hashish.


It shows they were scared of being caught. NOT scared a perpetrator would harm them.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
capealadin wrote:
And, that it was Rudi who covered Meredith. AK has shown not one iota of remorse at ANY TIME since this tragic night.


No, Rudi did not cover Meredith. Blood patterns show that RS's cutting of the bra strap happened after her death by which time Rudi was out dancing.

It's correct that there's been no explicit remorse as you would expect from someone claiming innocence but she has shown signs of being distressed at the consequences-the shaking fits, looking away from the photos,the changed demeanour during Mrs Kercher's evidence. Mignini himself stated he was close to getting a confession. I think there is a part of her that wants to admit it but her parents have hemmed her in.



In addition, Rudy himself says he didn't cover the body. He has said that the quilt was on the bed when he left. This is something that he'd have no reason to lie about.

I don't see why covering Meredith 'has' to be an 'act of remorse'. Could it not simply have been done to prevent her being seen had anyone looked through the keyhole? And whilst one may be happy to kill someone, it doesn't mean they'd be quite happy to have to look at their mutilated corpse afterwards or be constantly reminded of what they'd done and in what deep trouble they were in. I interpret the covering of Meredith as a purely selfish action which had nothing to do with pity for her.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.king5.com/news/world/Italy-judges-give-reasons-for-Knox-guilty-verdict-86355402.html

David Marriott, a spokesman for the Knox family, e-mailed a statement from the Knox family to KING5 News. In the statement, the family said in their opinion "there is a lot of conjecture in these motivations, a number of discrepancies as well as a number of inconsistencies and contradictions as well as conclusion not supported by evidence....Based on our initial review of the motivations, we feel there is a substantial basis for the appeal and are confident that the appeal will result in a reversal of the wrongful conviction." the family's statement said.

Anne Bremner, Seattle attorney and former prosecutor who has been a Knox supporter, said "What they're basically saying is, we found her guilty but there was no evidence, at least what we see from some of these first excerpts to support that and in fact it wasn't pre meditated."

"The key thing was the fact, was that she knows that she did not murder Meredith Kercher and that Meredith was her friend," said Amanda's father.

Luca Maori, one of Sollecito's lawyers, said he will reject the ruling "point by point," according to the ANSA news agency.



Well, Anne Bremner's talking out of her backside as usual. We know the Motivations have stressed that the judges except as proofs the bra clasp, the knife and the footprints and all the witnesses except two (Kokomani and Giofredi). That is called EVIDENCE.

_________________
"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 shuttlt


Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Perugia-shock just updated.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
capealadin wrote:
And, that it was Rudi who covered Meredith. AK has shown not one iota of remorse at ANY TIME since this tragic night.


No, Rudi did not cover Meredith. Blood patterns show that RS's cutting of the bra strap happened after her death by which time Rudi was out dancing.

It's correct that there's been no explicit remorse as you would expect from someone claiming innocence but she has shown signs of being distressed at the consequences-the shaking fits, looking away from the photos,the changed demeanour during Mrs Kercher's evidence. Mignini himself stated he was close to getting a confession. I think there is a part of her that wants to admit it but her parents have hemmed her in.



In addition, Rudy himself says he didn't cover the body. He has said that the quilt was on the bed when he left. This is something that he'd have no reason to lie about.

I don't see why covering Meredith 'has' to be an 'act of remorse'. Could it not simply have been done to prevent her being seen had anyone looked through the keyhole? And whilst one may be happy to kill someone, it doesn't mean they'd be quite happy to have to look at their mutilated corpse afterwards or be constantly reminded of what they'd done and in in how bad trouble they were in. I interpret the covering of Meredith as a purely selfish action which had nothing to do with pity for her.


The prosecution has as good a tale to counter the defence. The sheer callousness and disregard for their victim. She could have been saved. They did nothing to save her. They did nothing but cover their tracks.

There is no pity or remorse. There is no confession. They deserve the harshest sentence, nothing less.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline shuttlt


Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Perugia-shock seems to have a summary of the report. Particularly interesting to me is what Frank says about the knife. The blood tests weren't sensitive enough to rule out blood after all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

shuttlt wrote:
Perugia-shock just updated.



For a change, this is quite a good one from Frank. Most illuminating.


For new readers who may not know where it is: PERUGIA SHOCK

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

shuttlt wrote:
Perugia-shock seems to have a summary of the report. Particularly interesting to me is what Frank says about the knife. The blood tests weren't sensitive enough to rule out blood after all.



Yes of course, Frank is in Perugia. As soon as he heard the report was out he'd have rushed over to get 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 shuttlt


Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Another interesting thing seems to be that Raffaele did phone the police before the postal police turned up. And Franks post is only part 1.

Any chance of you getting a knock off copy handed to you Michael?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

shuttlt wrote:
Another interesting thing seems to be that Raffaele did phone the police before the postal police turned up. And Franks post is only part 1.

Any chance of you getting a knock off copy handed to you Michael?


Of the Motivations you mean? We're already working on it behind the scenes.

_________________
"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 mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Any word from Francesco Maresca? Or the Kercher family?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline shuttlt


Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
shuttlt wrote:
Another interesting thing seems to be that Raffaele did phone the police before the postal police turned up. And Franks post is only part 1.

Any chance of you getting a knock off copy handed to you Michael?


Of the Motivations you mean? We're already working on it behind the scenes.

Yes. I'm glad to hear it. The more pairs of eyes and different perspectives on this the better. Frank is a valuable source of information, but I wouldn't like to rely on him alone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline LucyJ


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:11 pm

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
capealadin wrote:
And, that it was Rudi who covered Meredith. AK has shown not one iota of remorse at ANY TIME since this tragic night.


No, Rudi did not cover Meredith. Blood patterns show that RS's cutting of the bra strap happened after her death by which time Rudi was out dancing.

It's correct that there's been no explicit remorse as you would expect from someone claiming innocence but she has shown signs of being distressed at the consequences-the shaking fits, looking away from the photos,the changed demeanour during Mrs Kercher's evidence. Mignini himself stated he was close to getting a confession. I think there is a part of her that wants to admit it but her parents have hemmed her in.



In addition, Rudy himself says he didn't cover the body. He has said that the quilt was on the bed when he left. This is something that he'd have no reason to lie about.

I don't see why covering Meredith 'has' to be an 'act of remorse'. Could it not simply have been done to prevent her being seen had anyone looked through the keyhole? And whilst one may be happy to kill someone, it doesn't mean they'd be quite happy to have to look at their mutilated corpse afterwards or be constantly reminded of what they'd done and in what deep trouble they were in. I interpret the covering of Meredith as a purely selfish action which had nothing to do with pity for her.



I hope regular posters will forgive me - primarily a long-time lurker - adding my twopenceworth.

I am surprised that the jurors judged RG as being the prime instigator of this terrible crime and will be interested to hear the reasoning that led them to this conclusion.

I recall AK describing Meredith's death as "yucky" - a most surprising and inappropriate choice of words, one would have thought, for describing a drawn-out and painful death.
On the other hand, I would imagine that the clean-up afterwards would have been "yucky" in the extreme - re-positioning a corpse, stepping in all that congealing blood...
Her choice of words shows, I would suggest, yet another example of AK's lack of empathy and narcissism. The primary emotion invoked in her by Meredith's murder being not remorse or guilt - but rather disgust and irritation at the "mess" AK had to clear up in an attempt to get away with it.

(apologies if this point has already been made)
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

LucyJ wrote:
I hope regular posters will forgive me - primarily a long-time lurker - adding my twopenceworth.

I am surprised that the jurors judged RG as being the prime instigator of this terrible crime and will be interested to hear the reasoning that led them to this conclusion.

I recall AK describing Meredith's death as "yucky" - a most surprising and inappropriate choice of words, one would have thought, for describing a drawn-out and painful death.
On the other hand, I would imagine that the clean-up afterwards would have been "yucky" in the extreme - re-positioning a corpse, stepping in all that congealing blood...
Her choice of words shows, I would suggest, yet another example of AK's lack of empathy and narcissism. The primary emotion invoked in her by Meredith's murder being not remorse or guilt - but rather disgust and irritation at the "mess" AK had to clear up in an attempt to get away with it.

(apologies if this point has already been made)


The only time Amanda could have seen the "yucky" crime scene was during the crime or clean up. She was not permitted into the bedroom after the locked door was broken down.
Top Profile 

Offline shuttlt


Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
The only time Amanda could have seen the "yucky" crime scene was during the crime or clean up. She was not permitted into the bedroom after the locked door was broken down.

I think the standard response is that she overheard police, ambulance crews etc... describing it rather than seeing it herself. One of the advantages of being there when the body was discovered I suppose is it being a little vague what you could or could not know without being the killer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

shuttlt wrote:
Michael wrote:
shuttlt wrote:
Another interesting thing seems to be that Raffaele did phone the police before the postal police turned up. And Franks post is only part 1.

Any chance of you getting a knock off copy handed to you Michael?


Of the Motivations you mean? We're already working on it behind the scenes.

Yes. I'm glad to hear it. The more pairs of eyes and different perspectives on this the better. Frank is a valuable source of information, but I wouldn't like to rely on him alone.


Yes, Frank must be treated with caution. He's at his best when relaying and explaining the strait facts from a court room or a report. It's when he starts injecting his own interpretations, opinions or using questionable sources that he becomes toxic. One then has to wade through the injected crap in order to filter out all the straight information.

But I will say again...this is the best from Frank that I've read for a very long time. Just the straight facts and arguments of logic by the judge from the report.

There are some very important things in there. Why Quintavalle and Curatolo are judged as good witneses. Why the break-in was certainly staged and why the photos didn't reveal the glass on top of Filomena's stuff.

There's also new stuff. I didn't know that Raffaele told his father about the leak in the kitchen when he called him at 20:40 on the evening of the murder. This puts their meal before 20:40. There's also some very important stuff about Meredith's door. Candace will be turning cartwheels. Does everyone remember how she used to constantly insist that when Amanda insisted Meredith always locked her door that she was simply misunderstood due to her poor Italian or the poor English of the others and that she didn't actually say that? Well, it turns out this certainly didn't happen because she told this to the Postal Police and Filomena and fiends via Raffaele who was interpreting for her. There's a lot more interesting stuff.

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
Instead the three did nothing. They left the victim to choke on her blood and die slowly. They chose to run away. This horror cannot go unnoticed.

Then the two came back to clean up and stage the crime scene. It is a second murder, so to speak, with premeditation and a a plan to conceal. This callousness should be emphasized by the prosecution.

The actual stabbing was definetely not planned. Having time to save the victim and do nothing is truly the worst part of their actions. They chose to let the victim die. This was no accident. It was a choice they made. The cleanup was their choice. The staging was their choice.


Yes I agree. But I am also putting the thing in a defense perspective. I think a defense second line strategy would be to seek extenuation. There is nothing justifiable in letting a person die and covering a crime, it is a murder, but it is a subsequent situation and there is also an extreme condition of stress and panic, there is an element of force, t may be seen (or sold as) no longer a a murder as voluntary as a decision to kill taken in a 'lucid' condition. This is what I think the defense could attempt. It is not that I subscribe to this view.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Thanks for trying to explain the premeditated murder/manslaughter thing SA. I think it is too late for me to get my head around it! Will try again tm. As for the post above I absolutely agree. She will go mad inside, but won't be able to tell a soul about it. What a shame for her. I wonder if she will let a little something slip to Mom and Dad in her frustration. She needs to be thought well of. It is essential to her in order to keep the whole thing together. Without that she frays. Not telling the truth is eating them all up. They are suffering, I have no doubt.


I'd also recommend patience.

I've read a fair amount of the press coverage--what I could get my hands on--from 02 NOV 2007 until Rudy's capture. There was a lot of speculation and outright inaccurate reporting.

The same applies here. In the rush to get a story out, there's no doubt in my mind that some of the content of the report has been mangled, muddled, overlooked--even mistranslated. I'd like to wait a couple weeks before forming an opinion. I'd even like to see real quotes from the defence lawyers rather than paraphrases. I can't imagine they would say much more than 'no comment' right now or some standard response that is essentially meaningless.


And so would I.

It wasn't until we got OUR hands on the Micheli report and translated it, that you began to realise the significance and logic of the points it made.

The press just pick up on the juicy quotes.

No way have any of them, even Italians, had time to read and digest over 400 pages.

I will however, note this paragraph from a story in La Nazione:

Quote:
The Court against the "too many lies" by Amanda

.........In its ruling explains the "elements that contradict the version of the American student about" a peaceful night of sleep and constant and prolonged that she and Raffaele had spent together; elements - is marked - that highlight a particular condition in which both Amanda Raffaele who had found themselves. At 5:32 he would urge the computer, listening to music for about half an hour and turn on your cell phone, at 7.45 Amanda was already out of the house and entered the shop Quintavalle (supermarket in Corso Garibaldi, ed) indicating a particular urgency to buy and do something. The trip to Gubbio was forgotten and when I call Francis phoned his son to 9.30 in order to know this trip, the boy was still in bed. "......Yet Amanda Knox has never talked about that phone call, because "at that time was already out," when the girl with "clear eyes" was noticed by the owner of the grocery store.


http://lanazione.ilsole24ore.com/umbria/cronaca/2010/03/05/300198-corte_contro.shtml

Unfortunately I can only provide a google translation.

The motivation report will provide countless other minutae such as this. The reasons why the judges reached their verdict.

Apparently, AK was unaware of another phone call made by RS father to RS at a time when she maintained she was still wrapped up in bed with him.(they say they didn't awake until around 10am)
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Instead the three did nothing. They left the victim to choke on her blood and die slowly. They chose to run away. This horror cannot go unnoticed.

Then the two came back to clean up and stage the crime scene. It is a second murder, so to speak, with premeditation and a a plan to conceal. This callousness should be emphasized by the prosecution.

The actual stabbing was definetely not planned. Having time to save the victim and do nothing is truly the worst part of their actions. They chose to let the victim die. This was no accident. It was a choice they made. The cleanup was their choice. The staging was their choice.


Yes I agree. But I am also putting the thing in a defense perspective. I think a defense second line strategy would be to seek extenuation. There is nothing justifiable in letting a person die and covering a crime, it is a murder, but it is a subsequent situation and there is also an extreme condition of stress and panic, there is an element of force, t may be seen (or sold as) no longer a a murder as voluntary as a decision to kill taken in a 'lucid' condition. This is what I think the defense could attempt. It is not that I subscribe to this view.


The sentence was as harsh as permitted by law.

The appeal jury for Guede endorsed the investigation.

The chances of the appeal judges for Knox/Sollecito finding extenuating circumstances is not that clear. This was a terrible crime that could have been avoided by calling for emergency medical help. They chose not to call for help. That is as clear as the death that followed.

I personally think this is the worst part of that night. The victim was not dead and they did exactly nothing to help her and save her from dying. We are not talking here about three-year-olds.

The judges might be tempted to reduce the sentences on the la_) plus the other la_) because Guede's was reduced by a big chunk.

Their true punishment is they have to live inside their skins and with their lies for the rest of their lives.

*Edited to add:

Yummi, I understand you are analysing the defence's possible arguments on appeal.

I am trying to predict how the appeal judges will read the Motivazioni and what they might do about it.


Last edited by piktor on Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just saw Edda on CBS. Live interview.

She said there are things in the report which were not discussed in court during the trial. That's illegal. Cause for overturn on appeal.

Okay, Edda did not say a word about the evidence. The polls I've seen (mostly US) are overwhelmingly guilty. If Amanda's guilty verdict is overturned on appeal, especially on a technicality, her transition back into the US will not be a smooth one. Not just for a little while, either.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

" And Franks post is only part 1."

Frank's favourite method has always been to state everything generously in the first part of his posts and then to try to refute them in the second part.
And then to praise the power of logic in the finishing paragraph. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
Just saw Edda on CBS. Live interview.

She said there are things in the report which were not discussed in court during the trial. That's illegal. Cause for overturn on appeal.

Okay, Edda did not say a word about the evidence. The polls I've seen (mostly US) are overwhelmingly guilty. If Amanda's guilty verdict is overturned on appeal, especially on a technicality, her transition back into the US will not be a smooth one. Not just for a little while, either.



Not so. Everything was presented, in document form. Every single element in the documents does not have to be discussed, either by the prosecution or defence. The prosecution and defence (and judges) 'choose' what they discuss. There's not a thing in the Motivations that the defence did not know about. If they didn't raise them in order to challenge them, that's their problem.

It's funny Edda has now resorted to arguing the trial on the basis of technicalities, rather then the actual case against her daughter. Desperate or what?

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


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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Amanda Knox Judges Offer "Lies, Nonsense" About Murder Guilty Verdict, Says CBS News Consultant

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04 ... 7820.shtml

Amanda Knox's Mom: We Can Win Appeal

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/ ... rPromoArea
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Couple of the "cherry picked" parts of the Motivation Report are aggravating me:

1) The blanket and 'remorse'.
After you have stabbed a person scores of times, and were present yet did nothing as her life blood gushed from her body, throwing a blanket over the lifeless corpse does little to impress me about any scintilla of remorse and certainly not a qualification for sentence amelioration.
Quite to the contrary, after some of the self induced drug degradation of sensibilities occurred, the body was *yucky* to us and we did not want to have to look at it as we were busy bleaching the scene.
Period, end of story.


2) Not premeditated and without animosity.
People who self describe themselves as so drugged up that every detail about the incident defies recollection, IMHO are hardly capable of any formulating any rational decision to do anything. Therefore absence of premeditation is irrelevant.

Finally if any of these highly heralded cherry picked circumstances in any way lessens the end result of a horrific murder, and therefore justifies any reduction of the sentence, please do let us all know.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"I didn't know that Raffaele told his father about the leak in the kitchen when he called him at 20:40 on the evening of the murder."

Be careful with that, Michael.
It is only Francesco Sollecito's claim.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
Amanda Knox Judges Offer "Lies, Nonsense" About Murder Guilty Verdict, Says CBS News Consultant

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04 ... 7820.shtml

Amanda Knox's Mom: We Can Win Appeal

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/ ... rPromoArea


Quote:
The CBS News consultant also said Knox is in jail "because she's an American and because she smoked dope."


I thought this was not allowed since the new attorney (Simon) was on board.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Any 'suppositions' bestowed upon us, the unwashed masses from the magesterial Curt and Edda's orchestrated dog and pony performances warrant about as much affection from me as a 'suppository'.

I highly recommend their audiences ask them to place their 'suppositions' in the same intended repository of the other close sounding and spelling noun.

Additionally, (their??) first 'statement' and instructions to their lawyers insults all of our intelligence if they proffer that carefully crafted and verbiage very vetted sentence as having been originated by an elementary level school teacher and/or an unemployed accountant.


Last edited by stint7 on Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Barrister Ted Simon:

"Conjecture and UNPROVEN FACTS"

pp-( Plus: pp-( THE DONALD's cameo appearance!!! pp-( ! pp-(

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ ... 3#35722953


Last edited by piktor on Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just a snarky observation.......

Does it seem to anyone else that Edda always has dirty, oily hair?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bolint wrote:
"I didn't know that Raffaele told his father about the leak in the kitchen when he called him at 20:40 on the evening of the murder."

Be careful with that, Michael.
It is only Francesco Sollecito's claim.



A claim Raffaele did not deny and the court has accepted.

_________________
"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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

No sympathy for the victim in any of the interviews. Barely a mention of Meredith Kercher anywhere.

Amanda is NOT the victim.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
No sympathy for the victim in any of the interviews. Barely a mention of Meredith Kercher anywhere.

Amanda is NOT the victim.


That's why this site exists.

We are here as Meredith's voice. We must all raise our voices. It is a good cause.

I have no doubt this site is read by all invloved in this case, including the prosecution team, the defence and assorted journalists and "experts".

We have to produce the best and truthful ideas to see justice served. Nothing less.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bolint wrote:
" And Franks post is only part 1."

Frank's favourite method has always been to state everything generously in the first part of his posts and then to try to refute them in the second part.
And then to praise the power of logic in the finishing paragraph. :D


The power of HIS logic you mean.

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
Meredith is not drinking or taking drugs. She is trying to prepare for her trip home. Her friends have stated Meredith cut the evening short because of being tired.

Picture RG, AK and RS partying. Their behavior quickly degenerates. To them it is F*U*N.

Is it possible Meredith asked them to hold it down. They decide she needs to join the party.

I have no problem visualizing Amanda goading Rudy that Meredith may be interested in a 'party'.



In fact, Meredith was planning a trip home the following weekend (Nov 9), not the weekend of Nov 2.

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
Mike, the shaking, and seemingly to be distressed, is probably because she realized she might not get away with it. Distress at not being able to sway the carabieneri with hip thrusts etc. Even when she found out that RS was destroying her alibi, she was super quick to bring up PL. A good actress.

I, too, don't see her as having any remorse. I don't necessarily see her as a dangerous person, though, as in the future she will be watched intently. Even after released from prison.... which looks, more and more, like that will happen very soon... after all, she didn't "intend" to murder poor Meredith, she just happened to be in the house when a nasty black man (whom she let in) tried to rape her! And just "happened" to have a large knife from her boyfriend's house! And her boyfriend and she just "happened" to be rageful and waving their knives at passing motorists! Oh no, it wasn't poor, innocent Amanda's fault at all!!! tu-))

I've learned to value Italy's (and Europe's) approach to crime in the past few months. I get it, the focus on rehabilitation, on extenuating circumstances, etc. But "no supporting parental influences"? What about Rudy's "supporting parental influences"? He hadn't had that for YEARS. Geez. So far, I'm very, very, VERY disappointed. May not even be reading for a while. Sheesh.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
Emerald wrote:
No sympathy for the victim in any of the interviews. Barely a mention of Meredith Kercher anywhere.

Amanda is NOT the victim.


That's why this site exists.

We are here as Meredith's voice. We must all raise our voices. It is a good cause.

I have no doubt this site is read by all invloved in this case, including the prosecution team, the defence and assorted journalists and "experts".

We have to produce the best and truthful ideas to see justice served. Nothing less.

Thanks, Piktor.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
Barrister Ted Simon:

"Conjecture and UNPROVEN FACTS"

pp-( Plus: pp-( THE DONALD's cameo appearance!!! pp-( ! pp-(

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ ... 3#35722953



I find it almost amusing to hear the chattering television lawyers in the US (Simon, Bremner) arguing the case post facto and from afar. Objection, your honor!

Another observation on the horrendous CBS coverage and US coverage in general. Back in the days when the press was mainly a print medium, shrewd and cynical people in the business said "no conflict, no copy". In other words, if the press just reported the facts objectively in this case, there would be no "story" to sell. This kind of thinking has helped to blur the line between information and entertainment. In this particular case, CBS has led the way in packaging this as the Innocent Abroad story. And once they switched to story mode, there were no limits in terms of what could be concocted. Preston and his fictional Judge Mignini were too good to leave out of the story.

I watched the local news last night and did not hear a word about the judges' report. I guess Edda and Co decided to do the national networks first. Lights! Cameras! Action!

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stint7 wrote:
Couple of the "cherry picked" parts of the Motivation Report are aggravating me:

1) The blanket and 'remorse'.
After you have stabbed a person scores of times, and were present yet did nothing as her life blood gushed from her body, throwing a blanket over the lifeless corpse does little to impress me about any scintilla of remorse and certainly not a qualification for sentence amelioration.
Quite to the contrary, after some of the self induced drug degradation of sensibilities occurred, the body was *yucky* to us and we did not want to have to look at it as we were busy bleaching the scene.
Period, end of story.

cl-)

Oh, and my violin plays for po' li'l Amanda, separated from family and friends in dastardly ugly and nasty Italy, with no "familial support," that led her to "accidentally" "poke" "her friend" with a 13-inch knife: v-))

[tantrum: ON]
ta-))
[OFF]
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From PS Article today:

Direct Quote:
Such behavior can be only explained with the fact that they already knew what was in that room.
I was shocked, Amanda told her mother, in jail, referring to the phone call they had before the breaking of the door.

And her mother: But that was before anything happened.
The perplexity showed by her mother suggests that Amanda, in that call, must have told her something she couldn't know yet if she wasn't involved.

My interpretation:
Frank's rendition of the Report suggests that the Judges concluded what many have suggested all along, i.e. Edda knows a lot more than she has admitted so far, even under her sworn testimony.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

And I have a serious question for us all: Have Marriot et al. done it? Has the spin gotten to the Italians? Has the endless Edda/Curt Express gotten them to revise their opinion of Amanda's character???

I'm sorry if I'm over-reacting. I know I tend to do that. We should all wait patiently for the final translation of the report. I know that. I just can't. I'm too impatient, been waiting too long (3 months). It's terrible, but I'm starting to wonder if the worldwide media machine has gotten to them. I sure hope not.

Bye for now. I can't take this anymore. I'm going to try and ring off now for the weekend. We'll see how successful I am! LOL.
Top Profile 

Offline Tommi


User avatar


Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:21 pm

Posts: 18

Location: Finland

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I strongly agree with some previous posts; I think RG should really be interviewed in prison. Somehow I think he is willing to talk.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

windfall wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The report is 400+ pages. All we've discussed is the motivation.

What does the remainder of the report contain?


I may well be wrong, but I believe the report is called the "motivation" as a not-entirely-useful translation of the Italian term. Hence there is a tendency to assume that it is about the motives for the murder. As I understand it, the 420 page "motivation" document explains how the judges and jury reached the conclusion they did. So it is a motivation for the verdicts, not an attempt to understand the motives/motivation of the defendants, although that will certainly be a **part** of the report. Am I right or totally off target here?


You are correct.
The term "MOTIVAZIONI" does mean "motivations" but it ALSO has a specific legal definition that translates as "the GROUNDS on which a legal judgment/decision was made"


"Grounds" is an odd word, though, isn't it?... one that invariably reminds me of coffee drin-)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The 411 wrote:
windfall wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The report is 400+ pages. All we've discussed is the motivation.

What does the remainder of the report contain?


I may well be wrong, but I believe the report is called the "motivation" as a not-entirely-useful translation of the Italian term. Hence there is a tendency to assume that it is about the motives for the murder. As I understand it, the 420 page "motivation" document explains how the judges and jury reached the conclusion they did. So it is a motivation for the verdicts, not an attempt to understand the motives/motivation of the defendants, although that will certainly be a **part** of the report. Am I right or totally off target here?


You are correct.
The term "MOTIVAZIONI" does mean "motivations" but it ALSO has a specific legal definition that translates as "the GROUNDS on which a legal judgment/decision was made"


"Grounds" is an odd word, though, isn't it?... one that invariably reminds me of coffee drin-)


Spot on. This is why these automatic translation tools need to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Not only the tools, but also the fools (excuse me for saying this) who are not translators but who know two languages. I'm not talking about anyone here, by the way. This report is not about the defendents' motives or the judges' motives. It is a detailed description and analysis of how and why the verdict was reached. It is the grounds for the verdict.

Note to Earthling: Don't despair. I think a lot is getting lost in translation right now. The judges and jury saw it all, day after day, in the courtroom. All they are saying is that there is nothing in particular that "explains" why three apparently relatively normal young people did this horrible thing to Meredith Kercher. Only the three perps can explain what they did, and they aren't talking, and even they might not know exactly why they did it.

As gruesome as it is to contemplate, I have thought for a long time that they hurt Meredith more than they intended and, seeing what they had done, decided to kill her rather than save her and risk getting into trouble. They were fucked up; they didn't think things through and realize that their selfish actions would cause trouble for them later on (those pesky police officers!). Raffaele, the doctor's son who likes to dress up like a butcher/surgeon, with his fascination for knives, thought he knew how to do it: strangulation/suffocation. AK, who is all about showing the guys that she is just as ballsy as they are, did not shrink from the task at hand. Again, they were fucked up, in more ways than 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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stint7 wrote:
From PS Article today:

Direct Quote:
Such behavior can be only explained with the fact that they already knew what was in that room.
I was shocked, Amanda told her mother, in jail, referring to the phone call they had before the breaking of the door.

And her mother: But that was before anything happened.
The perplexity showed by her mother suggests that Amanda, in that call, must have told her something she couldn't know yet if she wasn't involved.

My interpretation:
Frank's rendition of the Report suggests that the Judges concluded what many have suggested all along, i.e. Edda knows a lot more than she has admitted so far, even under her sworn testimony.



Like all of us, Edda was trying to figure out how, if AK was shocked, she could have taken a shower, etc. The cock and bull story, in other words.
I'm not sure the judges concluded that Edda knows more than she is letting on; I think they may have concluded from this phone call, its impact on Edda and AK's stubborn "forgetting" of it that someone was involved in a murder and trying to cover it all up. I can't say I blame them for coming to this conclusion; no one in AK's camp, least of all AK, have come up with anything reomotely plausible to explain it away.

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

shuttlt wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The only time Amanda could have seen the "yucky" crime scene was during the crime or clean up. She was not permitted into the bedroom after the locked door was broken down.

I think the standard response is that she overheard police, ambulance crews etc... describing it rather than seeing it herself. One of the advantages of being there when the body was discovered I suppose is it being a little vague what you could or could not know without being the killer.


I highly doubt, considering Amanda's basic Italian and her exhaustion that morning, that she was able follow much-- if anything-- of the fast-paced discussions of the police and first-responders on the scene. Not to mention being able to follow the "jargon" used by professionals.

And, no one but Amanda would say: "Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!"

I agree that "yucky" was her OWN insensitive response to the crime itself, or more likely, to the messy clean-up she and RS engaged in.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
"The Youtube video of Amanda drunk. If I remember correctly, it's just her and a bunch of guys."

"Ummmm...
Did you see the YouTube video?
Amanda is utterly blasted."

It's not just her and a bunch of guys - it's another girl behind the camera who is asking her the question - not all guys. Although Amanda refers to having drunk one and a half shots and makes this wiggly finger thing like she's off it, the guys in the vid are clearly pretty much next to sober. She looks like A.N.other girl pretending to be pissed when she's had almost nothing I'd say. Nothing to see there, really, imho.


One thing that is there for me is (and I probably should post some of the other pictures that I have seen that make me think this) given the likely small amount of alcohol she has consumed in this video, notice something about her eyes. If, as I speculate, AK has some neurological "issues" this amount of alcohol seems to have strongly changed her facial affect and in particular her eyes seem odd to me. If she is a person who is having trouble holding her personality together then small amounts of "additives" could have greater impact on her than on others.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jw


Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
that was heartening to read those posts, h9. what a great idea. hope someone does interview rudi. immediately.


Yes, before he gets beaten up in prison again.

jw
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The weird thing for me is, when Amanda concocted her story about being in the house while Patrick was attacking Meredith in her room and hearing the screams, she thought, presumably, it was normal to put her hands over her ears and do nothing else... not rush into the room to see what was happening and help Meredith, or call the police, or rush out of the house to get help, or whatever. No, stay there and cover your ears, maybe even go "la la la la la la la"? Is that a normal reaction in her book?
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:55 pm   Post subject: 411's 411th!!!!!!!!!   

OT:
FUN 411 FACT du JOUR

LET THE PMF RECORD REFLECT THAT...
I, THE 411, have just hit a PPM (Personal Posting Milestone) today...411 posts!!
b-(( I'm doin'' the banana happy dance!!

As some of you know, I was the 411th member to register on
4-11 (April 11) of last year...
at 4:11 PM (ok, not really, that LAST part about the time I just made up, but the other things ARE true---I WAS THE 411th on 4/11!!!)

I was #411! I was! I was!! It was Me-me-me-me-me-I-I-I!!!!!!

I can't help but notice that "après moi", there has been a "deluge" of new members...about 439 more, ever since I signed up--bringing PMF membership up to 850. Yay-)

This Megalomaniac Message Moment
has been brought to you by:
The 411 co-)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

observer wrote:
The weird thing for me is, when Amanda concocted her story about being in the house while Patrick was attacking Meredith in her room and hearing the screams, she thought, presumably, it was normal to put her hands over her ears and do nothing else... not rush into the room to see what was happening and help Meredith, or call the police, or rush out of the house to get help, or whatever. No, stay there and cover your ears, maybe even go "la la la la la la la"? Is that a normal reaction in her book?


It suggests that she (the storyteller) had nothing to fear from this murderous rapist, which in itself is very telling.

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

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Another hard hitting column by Bill Edelblute

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spokane ... ?#comments

"Issuing the written report, with the detail Knox and Sollecito don't want to hear, helps remind us that Meredith Kercher was a living, breathing, feeling, thinking person, until they came along. Instead of just a piece in a board game that Knox supporters play. "
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Earthling says:
"And I have a serious question for us all: Have Marriot et al. done it? Has the spin gotten to the Italians? Has the endless Edda/Curt Express gotten them to revise their opinion of Amanda's character??"

I think this is a fair question, but my own feeling is that the sentencing wasn't a result of spin.
For all the hanging loose ends and unanswered questions, it really doesn't seem to me that Meredith's death was a result of a pre-formulated, clearly laid out plan.
So not premeditated in the sense of a deeply laid plot.
So the meeting with Rudy is seen as accidental, and the violence something that they chose and allowed - hence their guilt - but not a pre-determined script they followed.
For me, the reason behind the appearance of the knife remains a real question.
It is to my mind a real sticking point, the thing I'd *really* like one of the three to explain.
I am, in fact, willing to believe that it wasn't brought as a potential murder weapon, but in that case why was it there at all?
All this doesn't mean that ,in the moment, an intent to harm did not arise.
It only means that the jury did not find evidence of a homocidal intent formulated in advance in a clear-minded state, but only confused later action arising from a morass of drugs and chaos.
Which does not equal innocence, but mitigates guilt somewhat.
Which is why the three are in prison, but not for life.
Which was not the result desired by the Marriot machine.

And, much as I find Amanda and Raffaele and both their families unsavory and morally questionable, it is true that the two young people were not previously known to be criminals.
Yes, there are threads of unsettling stories concerning them both - but *if they were not on trial already* none of the stories would in themselves amount to much, and are in fact within the range of normal student screw-ups.
People do worse and come out fine.
These are not two Mafia hitmen, nor yet abusive spouses with histories of violence, just two not quite fully-formed young adults making extremely poor use of their freedom in what seemed to them to be a sort of open city.
None of this perception is a result of Marriot spin, it's just who these two kids are, or were.
It doesn't make them innocent, it only places them in the category where they belong: guilty of a heinous crime, but quite young, and not habitual criminals.

Beyond that, my impression is - and correct me if I'm wrong - they've gotten all the mitigation for their youth and previous clean records that they are going to get.
That was why the the jury's sentence was for 30 years and not life, and then reduced from there.
I think they saw Amanda, and saw through her thoroughly.
Yes, I think she's something of a monster, but she is also much less intelligent than she thinks, much less effective as a femme fatale, much less appealing in general: it's an act, and not a very good one.
There's something wrong with the girl, as there is something wrong with Raphaele.
Not insanity, just something broken, and pathetic.

The adjustment Rudy received brought his sentence down to bring it in line with theirs, so it is unlikely that theirs would then be adjusted to his new term.
(That way lies an infinite series of ratcheting down sentences until they all walk free. No.)
I think it is unlikely any further sentence reductions for personal reasons are happening.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: SAM SPADE'S SIXTY!!   

The 411 wrote:
OT
This got lost in the Chat Box chatter.
so, once more, with feeling...
IT was
SAMS SPADE's SIXTIETH CELEBRATION, birthday-wise!

Also celebrating their birthdays on March 4th) mul-)
Vivaldi (as was noted here earlier)
Giorgio Bassani (who wrote "Garden of the Finzi-Contini")
AND..in keeping with the Italian name theme, kinda, sorta...
Chastity Bono, the daughter of Sonny and Cher!

And yes, Spade is actually Italian....
Spade = SWORDS, in Italian. nin-)
So...HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Mr. Swords!!


411+ good wishes to you!


411,
fen-) Thanks so much! It felt weird to be 60 yesterday, but I am the youngest of my siblings, so I always feel as if I am trying to catch up. They all listened to the radio back in the 40s, so when I was born they wanted to name me Sam Spade after the radio hero. Our mom said no, wrong gender, but it stuck as a nickname.
Thanks for the italian translation of 'spade", even cooler, as I married an italian-American.
To all of my online chums, thank you for this site and your comments.
Ms. Sam Spade hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: 411's 411th!!!!!!!!!   

The 411 wrote:
OT:
FUN 411 FACT du JOUR

LET THE PMF RECORD REFLECT THAT...
I, THE 411, have just hit a PPM (Personal Posting Milestone) today...411 posts!!
b-(( I'm doin'' the banana happy dance!!

As some of you know, I was the 411th member to register on
4-11 (April 11) of last year...
at 4:11 PM (ok, not really, that LAST part about the time I just made up, but the other things ARE true---I WAS THE 411th on 4/11!!!)

I was #411! I was! I was!! It was Me-me-me-me-me-I-I-I!!!!!!

I can't help but notice that "après moi", there has been a "deluge" of new members...about 439 more, ever since I signed up--bringing PMF membership up to 850. Yay-)

This Megalomaniac Message Moment
has been brought to you by:
The 411 co-)

dance-) mul-) drin-) band-) pp-( wor-)) kh-)) k-(( d-)) o-(( :lol: ;) :) :D :P ;) mike k-(( da-)) dm-) Yay-) cl-) bu-) beer-) ser-)
We are speechless at your feat of 411 for 411, begun on 4/11!!! Wowee, congratulations from the gang above and all of us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
shuttlt wrote:
Perugia-shock just updated.



For a change, this is quite a good one from Frank. Most illuminating.


For new readers who may not know where it is: PERUGIA SHOCK


If that's a true translation of the real report summary then AK and RS are hooped. Notice the care taken in confirming the witness testimony. The alibis sank them as I figured they would. Weak or no alibi that changes over time is almost always evidence of guilt.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bilko wrote:
Another hard hitting column by Bill Edelblute

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spokane ... ?#comments

"Issuing the written report, with the detail Knox and Sollecito don't want to hear, helps remind us that Meredith Kercher was a living, breathing, feeling, thinking person, until they came along. Instead of just a piece in a board game that Knox supporters play. "


Another great analysis from Edelblute. I noticed that one of the comments was made by "Marie Pace". I like what she said: that the hearts of lots of people in the US go out to Meredith Kercher, but that you won't see them on Oprah because they don't have a PR guru representing them.

HAPPY BD TO SAM SPADE!!!

_________________
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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: 411's 411th!!!!!!!!!   

sam spade wrote:
The 411 wrote:
OT:
FUN 411 FACT du JOUR

LET THE PMF RECORD REFLECT THAT...
I, THE 411, have just hit a PPM (Personal Posting Milestone) today...411 posts!!
b-(( I'm doin'' the banana happy dance!!

As some of you know, I was the 411th member to register on
4-11 (April 11) of last year...
at 4:11 PM (ok, not really, that LAST part about the time I just made up, but the other things ARE true---I WAS THE 411th on 4/11!!!)

I was #411! I was! I was!! It was Me-me-me-me-me-I-I-I!!!!!!

I can't help but notice that "après moi", there has been a "deluge" of new members...about 439 more, ever since I signed up--bringing PMF membership up to 850. Yay-)

This Megalomaniac Message Moment
has been brought to you by:
The 411 co-)

dance-) mul-) drin-) band-) pp-( wor-)) kh-)) k-(( d-)) o-(( :lol: ;) :) :D :P ;) mike k-(( da-)) dm-) Yay-) cl-) bu-) beer-) ser-)
We are speechless at your feat of 411 for 411, begun on 4/11!!! Wowee, congratulations from the gang above and all of us.



Dear Signora SEXAGENARIAN Sam:
Wow!
I am... overwhelmed by the 411 smilie salute.
And...Whenever I get a rabbit smiley from a PMF'er.., I just feel that ...well,
SOME BUNNY cares!! bu-) th-)
hugz-)
411
P.S. Enjoyed reading your sibling story.
So you're a last-born, like Meredith? Did you catch the birth order discussion....about 411 posts ago?
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

For those who really don't understand:

In this report we are going to get the direction in which the blood splashes went, where they fell, everything you'd get in CSI.

It's not nice, hence the reason people will not print all.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From TGCOM: Guede: "I know who killed Meredith"

Don’t know what this is all about. Desperation on the part of Raffaele’s defense team.

‘Raffaele Sollecito's defense has filed to the Prosecutor of Perugia the minutes of a deposition made by Alessi to the same legal defense, in surveys in which the builder reported that it had received from Rudy Guede, with which it is held in prison in Viterbo , confidences murder of Meredith Kercher. In particular the Ivorian exclude the liability of young Pugliese and Amanda Knox in the murder as being responsible for giving another man not yet identified.’

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 5741.shtml and repubblica.it


Last edited by DLW on Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Earthling wrote:
Even after released from prison.... which looks, more and more, like that will happen very soon... after all, she didn't "intend" to murder poor Meredith, she just happened to be in the house when a nasty black man (whom she let in) tried to rape her!


I'm not sure the 'repentance' or 'pity' aspects of the cover-up necessarily translate into a lighter sentence. I'd need to see similar cases in Italy before drawing any conclusions. It appears that this part of the summary is focusing on what RS and AK did to avoid being caught rather than to imply that they were unaware of their deeds or in any way in diminished capacity.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
shuttlt wrote:
Michael wrote:
shuttlt wrote:
Another interesting thing seems to be that Raffaele did phone the police before the postal police turned up. And Franks post is only part 1.

Any chance of you getting a knock off copy handed to you Michael?


Of the Motivations you mean? We're already working on it behind the scenes.

Yes. I'm glad to hear it. The more pairs of eyes and different perspectives on this the better. Frank is a valuable source of information, but I wouldn't like to rely on him alone.


Yes, Frank must be treated with caution. He's at his best when relaying and explaining the strait facts from a court room or a report. It's when he starts injecting his own interpretations, opinions or using questionable sources that he becomes toxic. One then has to wade through the injected crap in order to filter out all the straight information.

But I will say again...this is the best from Frank that I've read for a very long time. Just the straight facts and arguments of logic by the judge from the report.

There are some very important things in there. Why Quintavalle and Curatolo are judged as good witneses. Why the break-in was certainly staged and why the photos didn't reveal the glass on top of Filomena's stuff.

There's also new stuff. I didn't know that Raffaele told his father about the leak in the kitchen when he called him at 20:40 on the evening of the murder. This puts their meal before 20:40. There's also some very important stuff about Meredith's door. Candace will be turning cartwheels. Does everyone remember how she used to constantly insist that when Amanda insisted Meredith always locked her door that she was simply misunderstood due to her poor Italian or the poor English of the others and that she didn't actually say that? Well, it turns out this certainly didn't happen because she told this to the Postal Police and Filomena and fiends via Raffaele who was interpreting for her. There's a lot more interesting stuff.



I was absolutely blown away by this Perugia Shock post Michael provided from Frank. I haven't read him for quite awhile, so there may have been changes in his perspective lately I'm not aware of, but he sounds like a convert here (or a revert--I think he was suspicious of Amanda's guilt early on.) He is so reasoned, clear and compelling in his chronology and analysis in this post--much more so it seems than any journalist has been. This isn't a summary of the judges' "motivazione" at all, is it? Perhaps it's true he will knock down these arguments in the second part if that's his usual M.O., but I'm impressed by his presentation.
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"Such behavior can be only explained with the fact that they already knew what was in that room.
I was shocked, Amanda told her mother, in jail, referring to the phone call they had before the breaking of the door.

And her mother: But that was before anything happened.
The perplexity showed by her mother suggests that Amanda, in that call, must have told her something she couldn't know yet if she wasn't involved."

You know that's gotta be hard on Edda. Her split second of doubt helped put away Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Without knowing if this has ever been answered before and not wanting to sift through the past posts can someone answer this question for me?

Were all the locks in the cottage keyed the same? That is, would the key that opens the front door also open the locks on any of the bedrooms?

Thank you in advance.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

chives asked this question on Dec 08, 2009 and appears that it wasn't answered but I'll keep digging.
Did all the inside bedrooms have different keys?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I have a hard time believing that is was Rudy's evil action that started the rape/murder. If that was the case then surely Amanda would help her instead of helping Rudy. I have a feeling Amanda stole Merediths rent money to buy drugs or whatever and when Meredith discovered it missing a fight began. Maybe Meredith tried to call her bank (10:20 ish?) after discovering the missing money and card and was interrupted (call last only a few seconds) by the three. I think Amanda did feel animosity towards Meredith and knew if she brought Rudy over, Meredith may blame him for the stolen loot. Also, there is no innocent reason to bring a big knife from RS house. She had plenty of cooking knives at her house. I am sure some type of prank was in the works (not premeditated murder necessarily but surely she was the instigator in the whole scenario) and that is why she grabbed the knife and was seen scheming in the park with RS before the murder and after too!
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From Wed Nov 12, 2008

Bolint wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
what is your understanding of the keys? Mine is that the master key (which everyone had) opened all the doors in the cottage; but that may not be correct.
Even if it is, AK may not have known this to be the case.

But then we must also believe the Filomena, too, did not know that this supposed master key opens all rooms.
Anything against Amanda would hold also against Filomena.
So I don't think that this was the case.


Agreed. I am not comfortable speculating about such things because there is a simple and unambiguous answer, but we just don't have it.
What Brian noted may be correct and makes sense:

Quote:
It's been my understanding that ALL the keys would operate the front door but each had a minor difference in the cut which made each key specific to the owner's room door. Neither Amanda's nor Filomena's key would operate on Meredith's door.


I bet that both AK and Filomena knew their own keys would not open Meredith's door
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
chives asked this question on Dec 08, 2009 and appears that it wasn't answered but I'll keep digging.
Did all the inside bedrooms have different keys?


I would think so. If Amanda and Filomina were at the cottage, with police, with their keys, and they were locked out of Meredith's bedroom, it makes sense that their keys did not open Meredith's bedroom door.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jester wrote:
Macport wrote:
chives asked this question on Dec 08, 2009 and appears that it wasn't answered but I'll keep digging.
Did all the inside bedrooms have different keys?


I would think so. If Amanda and Filomina were at the cottage, with police, with their keys, and they were locked out of Meredith's bedroom, it makes sense that their keys did not open Meredith's bedroom door.

I can go with it makes sense but as far as my search shows in the old posts there hasn't been a proven answer to the question. Filomina, as far as I remember it being said, had lived in the cottage the longest but does that mean she knew how the all the keys for the cottage worked.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - re Mario Alessi   

DLW wrote:
From TGCOM: Guede: "I know who killed Meredith"

Don’t know what this is all about. Desperation on the part of Raffaele’s defense team.

‘Raffaele Sollecito's defense has filed to the Prosecutor of Perugia the minutes of a deposition made by Alessi to the same legal defense, in surveys in which the builder reported that it had received from Rudy Guede, with which it is held in prison in Viterbo , confidences murder of Meredith Kercher. In particular the Ivorian exclude the liability of young Pugliese and Amanda Knox in the murder as being responsible for giving another man not yet identified.’

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/ar ... 5741.shtml and repubblica.it


Mario Alessi is a bricklayer found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of a little boy called Tommy some years ago.
I'll translate this piece later today. It says (among other details) that Sollecito's defence has lodged in the Perugia prosecutor's office a statement by Alessi in which he alleges Guede told him another man was responsible for Meredith's murder.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Wow. The FOA are absolutely piling in on Frank's post. This has obviously deeply worried them. It's like an avalanche. There's proper family members and Madison and all of that happening in there imho. The deconstruction starts here.

P.s. who is posting stuff about 'Some alibi' - very naughty ;)

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

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
Jester wrote:
Macport wrote:
chives asked this question on Dec 08, 2009 and appears that it wasn't answered but I'll keep digging.
Did all the inside bedrooms have different keys?


I would think so. If Amanda and Filomina were at the cottage, with police, with their keys, and they were locked out of Meredith's bedroom, it makes sense that their keys did not open Meredith's bedroom door.

I can go with it makes sense but as far as my search shows in the old posts there hasn't been a proven answer to the question. Filomina, as far as I remember it being said, had lived in the cottage the longest but does that mean she knew how the all the keys for the cottage worked.


I don't know. What difference would it make? If I had 4 keys for one cottage, and was responsible for renting out rooms and distributing keys, I think I would know if one key opened all rooms, or not.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From Il Messaggero.
By: ITALO CARMIGNANI
and VANNA UGOLINI

Good kids who become killers for no reason. Lovers that in few minutes, were accomplices, probably, drugs, turn them into murderers who have no mercy, by striking the victim, the poor Meredith Kercher, two knives, pitiless and with the conscious awareness of being able even to kill her. Although if their primary intention was to break her resistance to have a sexual relation with Rudy.

In more than four hundred pages of reasoning, the judges of the Court of Assizes of Perugia, Beatrice Cristiani and Giancarlo Massei, shuffle the cards in the process, reconstructed again what happened that night between the 1-2 November 2007, when the English student Meredith Kercher was killed with three stab wounds to the throat in her house in Via della Pergola and provides a new dynamic of the murder. But changing the order of addends does not change the result: Amanda Knox, the American student who shared the flat with Meredith, Raffaele Sollecito, a student from Puglia who had an affair with her since 25 October, just little over a week, dazzled by the beauty of the American girl during a concert of classical music, are guilty.

They are the material killers of Meredith, they, who held their knives - now, in this reconstruction, emerges another (knife), with a blade four centimeters long, whom the judges put in the hands of Raffaele; it would be one that caused the smaller wounds in the neck of the victim and cut off her bra, in which hook the same Raffaele’s DNA was found. Amanda, however, is holding the other knife, the one considered to be the murder weapon, a kitchen knife that she, explain the judges, probably could carry in the bag with her for self-defense, as for the nights, when working, was quite late. Indeed, maybe it was the same Raffaele who advised her to carry it.

Here's how that night went, according to Massei and Cristiani: Amanda and Raffaele both have a commitment but then by fate they are free. Raffaele does not have to take a friend to the station, Amanda no longer needs to go to work. They are alone and not true that they stayed at home: they decide to go out. They go to piazza Grimana where they’re seen by the homeless man who sits there, Antonio Curatolo, from 21.30 to 23.30.
Then they decide to go to Amanda’s house. Come across Rudy, or maybe he arrives a few minutes later because he wants to go see the guys on the floor below, or because he is hungry or because he has to go to the bathroom. Meredith has already arrived home and is in her room. Amanda and Raffaele are secluded and begin to have sex in their (AK) room. They’re excited and without inhibitions because they smoked pot. Rudy, “it is likely that, coming out from the bathroom, allowes himself to be drag along by a situation perceived as a sexual urge and, yielding to his lust, had sought to satisfy his instincts, goes into Meredith’s bedroom, who was alone in her room, with the door at least half-close.”
Rudy, then, wants to have a relationship with the girl, but she puts up a resistance. She is a petite girl but athletic as her parents testified, she did sports. She has a "strong" character and rebels: "The reaction and the rejection of the girl had to be heard by Amanda and Raffaele (Amanda's room was very close to that of Meredith), whom, indeed, had to be disturbed and intervened, as per the sequence of events and their epilogue shows, they back up Rudy, whom themselves let him inside the house, and even they becoming, together with Rudy, the aggressors of Meredith, her killers. "

How do two good kids turn into ruthless killers? No one knows.

According to the judges “within the continuous exercise of the possibility of choice and this court can only record the choice of evilness that was made. It may be assume that this choice of evil began with the use of drugs that occurred that evening as stated by Amanda.”

Therefore, Amanda and Raffaele, instead of taking to defend their friend who was about to be rape by a known person that they themselves had let inside the house, they hold their knives and began to strike her.

For the judges there is no doubt that the motive is of "violent sexual erotic nature, which originated from the choice of evil, made by Rudy and found the active collaboration of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”

For the judges there is no doubt that to act were all three, because one single killer could not hold Meredith firmly, rape and cause all the wounds and defensive bruises that her body presented.

For the judges “the injuries and violence were carried out with the complicity of more persons,” even because surely the young victim posed "a fierce resistance,” like is clear from the testimony of the neighbour, who at about 23.30 (but until then Curatolo sees Amanda and Raffaele in the square, how could they have already killed Meredith?) hears a scream coming from outside. “It therefore seems inevitable to consider that the criminal act has been performed by several persons who together acted against Meredith, who was severely restricted in her movements and could not in any way defend or shield herself with her hands as to avoid vital parts of her body (neck) being repeatedly hit."

A reconstruction that collides with those made by the judges that, instead have sentenced Rudy Guede to 16 years on Appeal, giving him a discount of sentence of 14 years on the 30 with extenuating circumstances and believing his version: When the two of them killed Meredith I was in the bathroom, my only fault was that of not having rescue her. To Rudy it was granted all the extenuating circumstances, despite him not providing any new information to the reconstruction of what happened. Now, the courts of another process, put him, instead, in the center stage, like a trigger factor of the murder. It also reverses the figures of the two youngsters, especially Amanda's depicted as a huntress of men and a diabolic woman as per the accusors and defense lawyer for Patrick Lumumba, who was initially accused of being the murderer, according to Amanda’s indication. Here Amanda and Raffaele are two good kids who have interests, study and work to maintain themselves and occasionally, take drugs. Then, inexplicably on a winter's night, turn into two ruthless killers.
Il Messaggero
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

disinterested wrote:
Quote:
I was absolutely blown away by this Perugia Shock post Michael provided from Frank.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/
Very bizarre switcheroo. Frank's onset of rationality is a totally new phenomenon, and there is also no sign of his usual baroque prose style.
It's like a formerly dormant personality has emerged, or his site has been hijacked by somebody else entirely - either that, or he was a double agent mole in the FOA camp all along.
He's just added part 2, and he seems to hold to his new reasoned approach and sober prose style.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Frank Sfarzo from today (March 5): PERUGIA SHOCK

It's hard to sense his own opinion here but if it's just a summary of the report, it's very well stated.

(Edit: Me too slow. Same link as Tigerfish, above. I like the double agent mole interpretation.)
Top Profile 

Offline tigerfish


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 am

Posts: 235

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

It may be just Frank's redaction of the report, but he appears to be adding his opinion of guilt also.
There does seem to be some kind of contradiction in Frank's account of the bra-clasp cutting sequence. I always thought forensics had shown that happened some time after the attack - - or was that removal of the garment as opposed to the cutting of the strap?
Postscript: Re-reading Frank's version of the judge's report I'm beginning to get the sense that it's an apparently straight translation/precis, but he's tweaking it slightly to make it read less credible. My money's on the old Frank being alive and sick as ever.


Last edited by tigerfish on Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jester wrote:
Macport wrote:
Jester wrote:
Macport wrote:
chives asked this question on Dec 08, 2009 and appears that it wasn't answered but I'll keep digging.
Did all the inside bedrooms have different keys?


I would think so. If Amanda and Filomina were at the cottage, with police, with their keys, and they were locked out of Meredith's bedroom, it makes sense that their keys did not open Meredith's bedroom door.

I can go with it makes sense but as far as my search shows in the old posts there hasn't been a proven answer to the question. Filomina, as far as I remember it being said, had lived in the cottage the longest but does that mean she knew how the all the keys for the cottage worked.


I don't know. What difference would it make? If I had 4 keys for one cottage, and was responsible for renting out rooms and distributing keys, I think I would know if one key opened all rooms, or not.

I agree but there still isn't a clear answer. Why it is important to me is that just as Meredith was locked in the room after the murder she could have been locked in the room before and during the murder. Who's keys worked in what doors plays into that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the speculations brought in by judges and lay judges. Expecially the idea that Raffaele could have convinced Amanda to carry around a huge kitchen knife just for fun because he was a knife lover. Some elements like this appear to be unknown and left to improbable hypothesis.
I also think maybe some of the most compelling elements about the evidence from the process file - not credible declarations, footprinst and coroners' analysis - might have been not reported by the judges in ful detail.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

tigerfish wrote:
It may be just Frank's redaction of the report, but he appears to be adding his opinion of guilt also.
There does seem to be some kind of contradiction in Frank's account of the bra-clasp cutting sequence. I always thought forensics had shown that happened some time after the attack - - or was that removal of the garment as opposed to the cutting of the strap?
Postscript: Re-reading Frank's version of the judge's report I'm beginning to get the sense that it's an apparently straight translation/precis, but he's tweaking it slightly to make it read less credible. My money's on the old Frank being alive and sick as ever.



Based on earlier reports, *removal* was after death and cutting time not addressed as separate.


Quote:
Based on all this, Judge Micheli concluded that there could be no doubt that Meredith’s body was moved away from the wardrobe and her bra removed quite some time after her death.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _meredith/
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

tigerfish wrote:
Postscript: Re-reading Frank's version of the judge's report I'm beginning to get the sense that it's an apparently straight translation/precis, but he's tweaking it slightly to make it read less credible. My money's on the old Frank being alive and sick as ever.


That would be a fairly safe bet.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the speculations brought in by judges and lay judges. Expecially the idea that Raffaele could have convinced Amanda to carry around a huge kitchen knife just for fun because he was a knife lover. Some elements like this appear to be unknown and left to improbable hypothesis.


Same here. Another thing I don't understand (apologies if that has been discussed already, I haven't been able to follow very much lately) : Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Ava wrote:
Yummi wrote:
I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the speculations brought in by judges and lay judges. Expecially the idea that Raffaele could have convinced Amanda to carry around a huge kitchen knife just for fun because he was a knife lover. Some elements like this appear to be unknown and left to improbable hypothesis.


Same here. Another thing I don't understand (apologies if that has been discussed already, I haven't been able to follow very much lately) : Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.

Quoted from Miss Represented on Lies Our Mothers Told Us

As with the burglary, the staging of the rape implies a prior relationship between the defendants and the victim, this is further supported by the fact that Meredith was found partially clothed and not fully naked. Research and analysis of previous cases indicates that offenders who stage a crime scene to look like rape are extremely unlikely to leave the victim completely naked and are much more likely to cover the body than offenders who have committed violent sexual homicides. This is because the person/s staging the crime scene often knows the victim personally. This was not a random attack, whoever covered Meredith’s body didn’t want to look at her (or couldn’t).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=293943. I don't think the judges threw out the entire prosecution's case, as Edda suggests here. It's like she seems to be saying , "Look. Here's that report. We told you Amamnda was innocent all along and her and Meredith were BFF's." How thick is she?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Its interesting reading Frank's slog to see that some of the arguments coming forth on stuff that full information wasn't available on parallel the ones that have come through on this forum and other places. I'm particularly struck that he cites the report as stating that since the defence raised no questions on the DNA tests for guede and meredith, the defence really undermined their own objections on K/S DNA tests.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

satorimoon wrote:
I have a hard time believing that is was Rudy's evil action that started the rape/murder. If that was the case then surely Amanda would help her instead of helping Rudy. I have a feeling Amanda stole Merediths rent money to buy drugs or whatever and when Meredith discovered it missing a fight began. Maybe Meredith tried to call her bank (10:20 ish?) after discovering the missing money and card and was interrupted (call last only a few seconds) by the three. I think Amanda did feel animosity towards Meredith and knew if she brought Rudy over, Meredith may blame him for the stolen loot. Also, there is no innocent reason to bring a big knife from RS house. She had plenty of cooking knives at her house. I am sure some type of prank was in the works (not premeditated murder necessarily but surely she was the instigator in the whole scenario) and that is why she grabbed the knife and was seen scheming in the park with RS before the murder and after too!


Maybe the money was 'borrowed' in the short term of needing it RIGHT NOW. Rudy had no money. Raffaele was expecting a deposit from Daddy. Amanda most likely had a daily cash withdrawl limit on her ATM card.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.


On this detail I disagree a bit and I agree with the Court: the covering of a body is almost always - in Western civilisations - associated with respect and protection towards the victim. I think this is meaning istinctive in our cultures and the reason cannot be other than this istinct. The element of "denial" that you mean is the same in any context like accidents were lifeless bodies are found. Compare this one to the show of bodies and killings made by Afgan or Iraqui warriors, and you get the difference. The difference is in that 'denial' is a second degree emotion: to feel denial, before you have to feel a negative feeling with the human value of the action or the situation, you must feel that something looks unbearable, have some empathy in order to feel the necessity to perform denial. Indeed, Amanda's action did spare us the vision of pictures taken at the murder scene with a shilouette of the naked victim's body. She did protect her victim effectively at least in a sense.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

tigerfish wrote:
It may be just Frank's redaction of the report, but he appears to be adding his opinion of guilt also.
There does seem to be some kind of contradiction in the bra-clasp cutting sequence. I always thought forensics had shown that happened some time after the attack.


Agree.... the bra cutting bit had me going "huh?" given the evidence about the blood pattern.

While we're at it, I'd just like to mention that while a couple of jurors were in tears at the verdict because they were sentencing young people who had thrown their lives away for pointless excess and cost the life of a young girl for no reason, let's also not forget that judges writing a report are more than conscious of the political and emotional surroundings they are operating in.

IMHO the generosity of the judges to the defendants and the level of acknowledgement of their lack of pre-meditation is probably precisely that - generous. It costs them nothing to do it and it substantially shows the egalitarian approach of the court, undermining criticism against it. This is not to say that they are using any fiction but simply that there are ways and ways of saying things. Judges want their judgements to stand and there isn't a judge in any court on a high profile case who is writing a judgement who isn't thinking of the spectre of the appeal court. They may definitely think worse of the defendants, perhaps far worse, but they know where to plough a profitable furrow for a lasting result that won't open up lines of appeal. So for those of you thinking "for heaven's sake, it was worse than this", do bear that in mind. They ain't stupid.

As an aside, that consideration, made me think of the (largely disgraceful) days before audio-recorded tapes in court. In those days the judge's summing up in certain cases would READ well in transcript - absolutely appropriate. However when there were no tapes, the judge's verbal emphasis would be VERY different if they thought it was an open and shut case like so;

"The defendant says that he was not at the scene of the crime. His explanation was that he was at the snooker hall where he was with Honest Danny Jones and Manny 'Two Razors' Sharp"

was read instead as

"The defendant SAYS he was [downward inflection of disbelief] not-at-the-scene-of-the-crime. [Big pregnant pause and waggle of eyebrows]. His *explanation* was that [rising inflection of incredulousness] at-the-snooker-hall....... where-he-was-with [purse lips, look like going to cough up a fur-ball] "Honest" Danny Jones and Manny [I'm-going-to-be-sick tone] 'Two Razors' Sharp."

Different days. I did know a Manny "Two Razors" Sharp by the way. A defendant once referred to him as "one of the most integral (sic) people I've ever known". The judge honestly did look like he was going to throw up. Probably based on the fact that the person in question was doing 14 for an armed robbery!!!

_________________
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 Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.


On this detail I disagree a bit and I agree with the Court: the covering of a body is almost always - in Western civilisations - associated with respect and protection towards the victim. I think this is meaning istinctive in our cultures and the reason cannot be other than this istinct. The element of "denial" that you mean is the same in any context like accidents were lifeless bodies are found. Compare this one to the show of bodies and killings made by Afgan or Iraqui warriors, and you get the difference. The difference is in that 'denial' is a second degree emotion: to feel denial, before you have to feel a negative feeling with the human value of the action or the situation, you must feel that something looks unbearable, have some empathy in order to feel the necessity to perform denial. Indeed, Amanda's action did spare us the vision of pictures taken at the murder scene with a shilouette of the naked victim's body. She did protect her victim effectively at least in a sense.

Sorry not buying it. She covered that body during the staging to hide what she had done from herself. She did not want to look at what she had done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

windfall wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The report is 400+ pages. All we've discussed is the motivation.

What does the remainder of the report contain?


I may well be wrong, but I believe the report is called the "motivation" as a not-entirely-useful translation of the Italian term. Hence there is a tendency to assume that it is about the motives for the murder. As I understand it, the 420 page "motivation" document explains how the judges and jury reached the conclusion they did. So it is a motivation for the verdicts, not an attempt to understand the motives/motivation of the defendants, although that will certainly be a **part** of the report. Am I right or totally off target here?


I think the FOA is also equally confused.

Almost all news reports in the USA, seemingly underwritten by the Entourage, criticize this "summary of motivations" by calling out the conflicts between "motivations" as presented by the "Prosecutors" and the "motivations" as suggested by the "Judge and Jury" claiming that this presents obvious grounds for an appeal and eventual reversal of the wrongful conviction.

That's all they have to say about it.

Well, the appeal was going to happen regardless.

Who will be reporting on the actual evidence used to convict? Furthermore, reporters are not even bothering to ask about that evidence; apparently because they have been repeatedly told it simply does not exist.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just as there are good lawyers and not so good lawyers, there are good judges and not so good judges. Maybe we are getting an image like Micheli = good judge, Massei = well maybe not so good.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.


On this detail I disagree a bit and I agree with the Court: the covering of a body is almost always - in Western civilisations - associated with respect and protection towards the victim. I think this is meaning istinctive in our cultures and the reason cannot be other than this istinct. The element of "denial" that you mean is the same in any context like accidents were lifeless bodies are found. Compare this one to the show of bodies and killings made by Afgan or Iraqui warriors, and you get the difference. The difference is in that 'denial' is a second degree emotion: to feel denial, before you have to feel a negative feeling with the human value of the action or the situation, you must feel that something looks unbearable, have some empathy in order to feel the necessity to perform denial. Indeed, Amanda's action did spare us the vision of pictures taken at the murder scene with a shilouette of the naked victim's body. She did protect her victim effectively at least in a sense.


I disagree here. I think there was no thought of covering the body because she knew Meredith. The covering of the body was because of the horror and guilt of what they have done and they couldn't bear to look upon the lifeless bloodied body that was their doing. Meredith's body reminded them of the evil that they has unleased from within themselves, and then they turned away and desperately set out to do a heartless job of a cover up in an attempt to save themselves.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Ava wrote:
Same here. Another thing I don't understand (apologies if that has been discussed already, I haven't been able to follow very much lately) : Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.


Strongly agree, Ava.

Hard for me to imagine a person who has shed not a single tear about this tragic death, and to the contrary:
1) Canoodles with lover while body inside and police are investigating
2) does suggestive hip swivels to the Police Officer before entering the scene,
3) does cartwheels and infantile antics with lover while at the Police station,
4) mimics the deceased last sounds as "blegggh"
5) pronounces to the deceased's grieving broken hearted friends that "she fucking bled to death"

I fail to see any such individual suddenly being being blessed with such remorse and tenderness as a commendable impulse to prompt covering the body.
(Particularly a Jesuit educated self pronounced Agnostic)

*If* she in fact was the one to place the cover, IMHO it was just to shelter this "yucky" thing while I was there, trying to sanitize everything so I could "get on with my life".
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Ava wrote:
Yummi wrote:
I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the speculations brought in by judges and lay judges. Expecially the idea that Raffaele could have convinced Amanda to carry around a huge kitchen knife just for fun because he was a knife lover. Some elements like this appear to be unknown and left to improbable hypothesis.


Same here. Another thing I don't understand (apologies if that has been discussed already, I haven't been able to follow very much lately) : Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.


Excluding situations where the killer attempts to hide the victim, what I've heard is that if the killer knows the victims, there's an inclination to cover the victim ... more out of a sense of modesty, like a sense of not wanting the person to be seen as they are. If the killer doesn't know the victim, the victim is typically left uncovered.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
Just as there are good lawyers and not so good lawyers, there are good judges and not so good judges. Maybe we are getting an image like Micheli = good judge, Massei = well maybe not so good.


I don't see anything to support that yet. There's conjecture and speculation about a couple of items but so far I see a lot of this looking absolutely nailed-to-the-wall to me. We're probably seeing selective quotation on the other stuff and should wait on the final translations imho. However I like a lot of the rigour that is plainly here. Go back to the headline - "no holes, no inconsistencies" - the report writers know what the accusations will be and I'll be surprised if they've made any howlers in the report. Not impossible, sure, but I'm making longer odds on a successful appeal on what I've seen so far.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just read Frank's. Amazing. I'm loving it. I think it is the first time he has impressed me. And it reads well, doesn't it?! Tying up ends, explaining little niggling questions. Superb. I think Curt and Edda have taken a kicking here and must be feeling very battered right now. How can you argue with the mass of evidence? One or two bits here and there you might discard as conjecture, but the whole? The phonecall from Papa Sollecito on the morning I had not clocked - not mentioned by AK. Did this come up? I missed that. Very incriminating. The pair absenting themselves when the door is knocked down. Incriminating. Skep's earlier point about why AK should be concerned that the door was locked at all, if MK regularly locked it. Why should she want to knock it down in the first instance? You would have left a voicemail, not rung off after three seconds.

Oh dear oh dear little Amanda, will you be able to look Curt and Edda squarely in the eye after this bit of bedtime reading? Or more to the point, will they be able to look you in the eye, without a tiny voice somewhere inside saying 'We've been had'.

Appeal? Bring it on.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Macport wrote:
Just as there are good lawyers and not so good lawyers, there are good judges and not so good judges. Maybe we are getting an image like Micheli = good judge, Massei = well maybe not so good.


I don't see anything to support that yet. There's conjecture and speculation about a couple of items but so far I see a lot of this looking absolutely nailed-to-the-wall to me. We're probably seeing selective quotation on the other stuff and should wait on the final translations imho. However I like a lot of the rigour that is plainly here. Go back to the headline - "no holes, no inconsistencies" - the report writers know what the accusations will be and I'll be surprised if they've made any howlers in the report. Not impossible, sure, but I'm making longer odds on a successful appeal on what I've seen so far.

Agreed that time will tell on this thought.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Just read Frank's. Amazing. I'm loving it. I think it is the first time he has impressed me. And it reads well, doesn't it?! Tying up ends, explaining little niggling questions. Superb. I think Curt and Edda have taken a kicking here and must be feeling very battered right now. How can you argue with the mass of evidence? One or two bits here and there you might discard as conjecture, but the whole? The phonecall from Papa Sollecito on the morning I had not clocked - not mentioned by AK. Did this come up? I missed that. Very incriminating. The pair absenting themselves when the door is knocked down. Incriminating. Skep's earlier point about why AK should be concerned that the door was locked at all, if MK regularly locked it. Why should she want to knock it down in the first instance? You would have left a voicemail, not rung off after three seconds.

Oh dear oh dear little Amanda, will you be able to look Curt and Edda squarely in the eye after this bit of bedtime reading? Or more to the point, will they be able to look you in the eye, without a tiny voice somewhere inside saying 'We've been had'.

Appeal? Bring it on.



Bard - I am sure that Edda knows. I've become more and more sure of it all along. There are very few big pressure points where I have seen behaviour collapse on the part of the player but the key ones here are;

i) Amanda in-court testimony on the youtube video asked about prior frequency of contact with Rudy - her demeanour, blink frequency (sign of lying so well known it was used to monitor US presidential debates) and rising tone of voice is just so noticeable

ii) Edda's active-hands, agitation in the Morefour documentary when asked about the first call versus the second call

iii) The rapidity of the press-release and Edda's flight to Italy.

iv) The bizarre questioning then backing off and confusion on the tapped conversations with Amanda in jail with Edda.


Way I see it; Edda deep-down-knows and is emotionally in bits about it and yet also in denial. Curt doesn't. Chris is just a prurient idiot.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the speculations brought in by judges and lay judges. Expecially the idea that Raffaele could have convinced Amanda to carry around a huge kitchen knife just for fun because he was a knife lover. Some elements like this appear to be unknown and left to improbable hypothesis.
I also think maybe some of the most compelling elements about the evidence from the process file - not credible declarations, footprinst and coroners' analysis - might have been not reported by the judges in ful detail.



Yummi, I think that's simply down to the defence teams vigorous attempts to paint Amanda as an angel...Amelie, Ghirga bursting into tears, Amanda presenting herself as childish and girly. The judges could only offer a semi-innocent reason for the knife being in place (Raffaele made her carry it for protection), because otherwise, they would have had to rule that the knife was transported from Raffaele's with the intent of malice. They felt sorry for Raffaele and Amanda and desperately didn't want to sentence them to life. So, they thought that up so they could say it was not a crime born of any intent or malice. It was the only way they could justify giving them such light sentences.

Like you, I think the suggestion that Amanda was carrying a knife in her bag for protection under Raffaele's suggestion is a crock. They just didn't want to give them a life sentence and needed a way out. But of course, to treat them so lighltly, they also had to label someone else the main instigator...Rudy. Explaining the knife away in such a way allows them to do that. If they concluded the knife was taken from Raffaele's deliberately for use that night, it would then be impossible for them to blame Rudy. The court felt sorry for them. We know this is the one area the judges had difficulty in their deliberations...to give them life or a lesser sentence.

_________________
"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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Frank makes it sound as though the judges' report does not express belief that there was any staging at all in what concerns Meredith's body. It sounds as though many things that were thought to have happened well after her death (undressing, the bra, shifting the body, the pillow, the blanket) and thus constituted major elements of staging actually are considered by the judges as having happened before or just immediately after the murder and were not modified later.

I don't recall all of the details that filtered through over all these months that seemed to indicate that the body had been moved and repositioned quite some time after death, but one of them was a question of the imprint of the bra strap in a pool of congealed blood. I wonder what happened to this and the other pieces of evidence? I wonder how many other surprises the report will contain?

PS. I'll be happy to join a translating team if the document eventually becomes available to the moderators here and someone organizes a "distribution of portions" project.

Some Alibi -- thank you for humour. Those fur-ball days you describe are reminiscent of Perry Mason. So different from the expressionless (except for a shadow of gentle and universal benevolence) manner in which Massei made his remarks and read out the verdict.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
Like you, I think the suggestion that Amanda was carrying a knife in her bag for protection under Raffaele's suggestion is a crock. They just didn't want to give them a life sentence and needed a way out. But of course, to treat them so lighltly, they also had to label someone else the main instigator...Rudy. Explaining the knife away in such a way allows them to do that. If they concluded the knife was taken from Raffaele's deliberately for use that night, it would then be impossible for them to blame Rudy. The court felt sorry for them. We know this is the one area the judges had difficulty in their deliberations...to give them life or a lesser sentence.


On the other hand, or additionally, this alternative narrative still makes sense. It still fits the evidence. Isn't it interesting that the judges can supply an alternative narrative but the defence cannot without inventing or ignoring elements?

The two knife transport theories are still better than what the defence team has. And, assuming the translations or the summary aren't missing something, there is little or no evidence to support one theory over the other but plenty to prefer either over the fulminations of the defence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just adding in my 2 cents.

I tend to agree with the jury's explanation of events. The explanation fit a few holes I often wondered about.

Of course, it may just be translation, but to use the duvet and call it remorse - I think they meant pity. I also agree with this, that it was an act of pity. None of the 3 murderers displayed true remorse, or they would have told the truth by now and apologized to Meredith's family.

I have always believed that there was no premeditative intent in this crime.

After reading Rudy's recent writings and his co-inimate's statement, I believe that Rudy will absolutely go to his grave with his own lies.

I feel hopeful, that with AKs and RSs appeal, there will be no overturn in conviction. The jury has made it quite clear: no intent, combination of a bad mix of stuff, idiots who had become high, and accurate DNA evidence. The jury has made it clear that they support and believe in their police department, in their forensic department, and in the process and collection of evidence. I doubt that any appeals process will revisit the "contaminated DNA" theory, especially since this jury has been extraordinarily compassionate to the murderers.

If they are all looked at as equally guilty, then AK and RS should have a reduced sentence like RG, but without the fast track component. Correct? That would put them at 19 and 20 years respectively. Correct?

While I am more and more impressed with the Italian justice system (like what other country explains why they rendered a specific verdict?), I still do not believe these 3 will ever be rehabilitated because they continue to show no remorse through their own denial.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
Yummi wrote:
I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the speculations brought in by judges and lay judges. Expecially the idea that Raffaele could have convinced Amanda to carry around a huge kitchen knife just for fun because he was a knife lover. Some elements like this appear to be unknown and left to improbable hypothesis.
I also think maybe some of the most compelling elements about the evidence from the process file - not credible declarations, footprinst and coroners' analysis - might have been not reported by the judges in ful detail.



Yummi, I think that's simply down to the defence teams vigorous attempts to paint Amanda as an angel...Amelie, Ghirga bursting into tears, Amanda presenting herself as childish and girly. The judges could onlyoffer a semi-innocent reason for the knife being in place (Raffaele made her carry it for protection), because otherwise, they would have had to rule that the knife was transported from Raffaele's with the intent of malice. They felt sorry for Raffaele and Amanda and desperately didn't want to sentence them to life. So, they thought that up so they could say it was not a crime born of any intent or malice. It was the only way they could justify giving them such light sentences.

Like you, I think the suggestion that Amanda was carrying a knife in her bag for protection under Raffaele's suggestion is a crock. They just didn't want to give them a life sentence and needed a way out. But of course, to treat them so lighltly, they also had to label someone else the main instigator...Rudy. Explaining the knife away in such a way allows them to do that. If they concluded the knife was taken from Raffaele's deliberately for use that night, it would then be impossible for them to blame Rudy. The court felt sorry for them. We know this is the one area the judges had difficulty in their deliberations...to give them life or a lesser sentence.


It's an interesting distinction in Italian and UK law for me that has been talked about but is emerging here in practice; In Italian law, the whole court's purpose is to arrive at a collective description of events which seems to lend itself to what, to me, is perhaps a slightly overly 'certain' description of what they think happened. It's purely cultural conditioning, rather than an objectively correct feeling let me be clear on that! However;

By way of comparison, in a UK court, the judge would have no problem with saying "the reason for the presence of the larger knife at the flat is not entirely clear; the prosecution have suggested it may have been carried in self-defence, or the members of the jury may find it simpler to believe Mr Occam's suggestion that it had been truly transported to the apartment for the purposes for cooking, but had been in a large green bag because clearly one is not able to carry such a large knife in a pocket or in the open. It's presence was therefore explicable. However, whatever the truth of how the knife was in the apartment, it is indisputable that the DNA of the defendant was on the knife with that of the victim and that the prosecution say is clear evidence of the guilt of the defendants..."

So a UK court is easy in saying "not sure how stuff got there but the evidence is indisputable that stuff was involved in the offence". The degree of explanation that the FOA are jumping on and others are slightly hesitant about is slightly weird to me. But selective quotation may be at play here.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Wow. The FOA are absolutely piling in on Frank's post. This has obviously deeply worried them. It's like an avalanche. There's proper family members and Madison and all of that happening in there imho. The deconstruction starts here.

P.s. who is posting stuff about 'Some alibi' - very naughty ;)


Right now, it's the 2010 Mental Gymnastics Olympic Games over there. They are jumping around like cats on a hot tin roof...I'm loving 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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
Right now, it's the 2010 Mental Gymnastics Olympic Games over there. They are jumping around like cats on a hot tin roof...I'm loving it ;)


One of our new JREF members (self-described 'long-time lurker' who only posts about la_) ) is doing the same thing over there. I mean like ten posts since this morning.

dm-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Edda and Curt can now twist in the wind. They have and will continue to defend their daughter. OUT OF GUILT!. At some level, they must feel they are responsible. Amanda WAS dealt some bad cards. It manifested itself in very bad judgement, to say the least. If The Knoxes/Melles thought their *golden child* was going to bring them triumphs, they underestimated damage beyond their control. Amanda would never have amounted to anything. At the very best, she would have been a VERY ordinary person, achieving nothing. No humanitary causes, no good deeds. It would have always been about HER! The next step will be disillusion, imo.

_________________
"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: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
If they are all looked at as equally guilty, then AK and RS should have a reduced sentence like RG, but without the fast track component. Correct? That would put them at 19 and 20 years respectively. Correct?


No, all three got exactly the same sentence for the murder conviction...24 years. Rudy got an 8 year discount from that (1/3) for taking the fast track route giving him 16. Amanda and Raffaele got an extra year for the transportation of a knife and crime fabrication, bringing theirs up to 25 years and Amanda got an extra year for the criminal slander of Patrick, bringing her final sentence up to 26 years. They each got exactly the same for the murder conviction.

_________________
"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 hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
hikergirl99 wrote:
If they are all looked at as equally guilty, then AK and RS should have a reduced sentence like RG, but without the fast track component. Correct? That would put them at 19 and 20 years respectively. Correct?


No, all three got exactly the same sentence for the murder conviction...24 years. Rudy got an 8 year discount from that (1/3) for taking the fast track route giving him 16. Amanda and Raffaele got an extra year for the transportation of a knife and crime fabrication, bringing theirs up to 25 years and Amanda got an extra year for the criminal slander of Patrick, bringing her final sentence up to 26 years. They each got exactly the same for the murder conviction.


I thought Rudy started at 30. Went down to 24 with the appeal, then 1/3 of that for fast track? I guess, what I'm wondering, is, if the appeal judge for AK and RS treat them exactly the same as Rudy (plus the knife and the slander), will they retain their sentence? or will it be decreased like Rudy's was from 30 to 24?
Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I'm wondereing how Meredith's family must be feeling right now? No motive.. guilt by covering Meredith.. their youth.. then WHY! Just an unfortunate coming together.. I imagine there would would be some solace if one's child met an unfortunate accident.. But trying to come to terms with such a needless happistance.. Please!!!!

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Rudy knows. He has nothing to lose legally by telling the truth. BUT..... snitches are not treated well in prison.

So, what does he do?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
Michael wrote:
hikergirl99 wrote:
If they are all looked at as equally guilty, then AK and RS should have a reduced sentence like RG, but without the fast track component. Correct? That would put them at 19 and 20 years respectively. Correct?


No, all three got exactly the same sentence for the murder conviction...24 years. Rudy got an 8 year discount from that (1/3) for taking the fast track route giving him 16. Amanda and Raffaele got an extra year for the transportation of a knife and crime fabrication, bringing theirs up to 25 years and Amanda got an extra year for the criminal slander of Patrick, bringing her final sentence up to 26 years. They each got exactly the same for the murder conviction.


I thought Rudy started at 30. Went down to 24 with the appeal, then 1/3 of that for fast track? I guess, what I'm wondering, is, if the appeal judge for AK and RS treat them exactly the same as Rudy (plus the knife and the slander), will they retain their sentence? or will it be decreased like Rudy's was from 30 to 24?
Thanks.


Rudy started at 30 in his first trial because the judge was harsh and refused him a discount for mitigation. Raffaele and Amanda in their trial got a hefty discount for mitigation. Therefore, in his appeal, Rudy was granted a discount of 6 years for the mitigation he did not receive in his first degree. That gave him 24 years for the murder conviction, just as Amanda and Raffaele each got 24 years for their murder conviction...their sentences were brought into line with each other. That is part of the point of the process of trials and appeals, so at the end you have balance and justice. It would not have been fair to Rudy if he'd been given a longer sentence then the other two for the exact same crime.

_________________
"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 capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Are snitches treated the same in european prisons (as in american prisons)? Could not RG ask to be put in solitary until it gets resolved? Request a different prison? Would he get a lessor sentence? Would he get a new trial? Is it too late? Should he just roll the dice (which I think he has been doing). If he kept quiet, and AK and RS's appeal work, why upset the apple cart? If they lose their appeals, he may have nothing to lose by telling all. To be or not to be, that is the question....

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

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
I'm wondereing how Meredith's family must be feeling right now? No motive.. guilt by covering Meredith.. their youth.. then WHY! Just an unfortunate coming together.. I imagine there would would be some solace if one's child met an unfortunate accident.. But trying to come to terms with such a needless happistance.. Please!!!!


I thought about that too. However, I can't imagine anything but time relieving the burden on their hearts, but I have to say, the crime was senseless and needless, no matter if it happened with evil premeditative intent or because of stupid young drugged-up craziness. While I know I would never, myself, have the capability of "forgiveness" for something like this, I think it would be easier to relieve the burden on one's heart if there was no motivation in the crime - just stupid people doing stupid self-centered shit. I think it would be harder on the heart, if my loved one was a target of evil doers.

I don't know. I just hope that whatever transpires in this tragedy and during the appeals processes, the Kercher family find solace and find some sense of justice somewhere.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

My heart goes out to the Kercher family. The pain must just go on and on. This case will not go to rest. Perhaps they don't even care about justice. Maybe they just want to have time to grieve, in ananomity. (spelling) At the end of the line, they have have lost their darling child, their sister, their friend. and they have to listen and read about the *VICTIMS*. Cruelty upon cruelty. My heart bleeds for them.

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

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
My heart goes out to the Kercher family. The pain must just go on and on. This case will not go to rest. Perhaps they don't even care about justice. Maybe they just want to have time to grieve, in ananomity. (spelling) At the end of the line, they have have lost their darling child, their sister, their friend. and they have to listen and read about the *VICTIMS*. Cruelty upon cruelty. My heart bleeds for them.


ditto
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tiziano wrote:

‘Mario Alessi is a bricklayer found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of a little boy called Tommy some years ago.
I'll translate this piece later today. It says (among other details) that Sollecito's defence has lodged in the Perugia prosecutor's office a statement by Alessi in which he alleges Guede told him another man was responsible for Meredith's murder.’

CBS has got a hold of the story and they’ll rating this as a bombshell. I wonder if this bricklayer is trying to make news all on his own. The Sollecito’s were probably holding on to this to try and divert attention away from the judges report. Even Frank doesn't seem impressed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05 ... 1397.shtml
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Edda's Emotions   

SomeAlibi wrote:


Bard - I am sure that Edda knows. I've become more and more sure of it all along. There are very few big pressure points where I have seen behaviour collapse on the part of the player but the key ones here are;

...

ii) Edda's active-hands, agitation in the Morefour documentary when asked about the first call versus the second call

...


Hi, SomeAlibi:
This came across on Oprah's show, as well.

When discussing the phone calls on the show, Edda tells the story, a little staccato, like this: (a paraphrase here, because I don't remember the actual words, but I do remember the cadence.)
Edda: "So (agitated nervousness and a bit teary) uh, Amanda says it's ..a body....uh...her roommate's been found dead and uh...what could this mean!? I... didn't.... understand! (eyes filling up with tears}. But then Amanda explained to me, that she had spent the night at Raff's....And then I said ...."AHA!! OK!" Raised index finger for emphasis. Edda says the AHA! with a relieved smile and tone, and her faith about her daughter's seemingly hopeless situation seems restored.

It was when I heard Edda say "AHA, OK!" (that is actually the one part that I remember, verbatim) that sounded quite odd. What could EVER bring you to say THAT, in the first hour of learning that your daughter's roommate has JUST been savagely murdered in your daughter's home—especially, when you've just been woken from a sound sleep.

To me, it sounds as if Amanda spilled out some (or most) of the story of her involvement to her mother, and Edda, UNDERSTANDABLY became frantic, horrified and utterly despondent.

Then, evidently [i]something[/i] was said to appease Edda’s anguish. Perhaps Amanda said: "But, Mom, don't totally freak out--remember there was this black guy there, too. Not just me and Raff. And I know the black guy left his crap in the toilet."

AHA! OK! Phew! Dodged a bullet, thinks Edda. "AHA! OK!" Exhale… Not jubilently, but hey, at least it's not as bleak as Edda first thought.

A "Black guy found!"

I also think the main reason Edda is constantly crying is NOT sadness about missing her daughter, thinking of her daughter's plight.

I do think, that even the most "emotional" of people would have developed more composure after telling and retelling the story for the umpteen thousandth time, after two plus years on the media circuit. Not to say that she would have no emotion about the story, just that if it were that, it would not be as visible.

I think Edda’s unrelenting tears are real. They are not feigned.

I strongly believe —her crying is a response to the unbearable knowledge of her daughter being responsible for a cruel act of murder.

The tears continue to flow at the same rate since day one, because she hasn't had the opportunity to process this knowledge in any meaningful way. And because the FOA strategy is to continue --emphatically-- to deny what Edda knows is the terrible truth.

AND--clearly this creates HUGE cognitive dissonance for Edda's brain. Edda knows something, but she says, and is forced to think something else, She has to compel her brain to REPRESS what she knows, and to deny her feelings about this realization.

That said, Edda's emotional conflict notwithstanding, I’m sure Marriott has given a big stamp of approval to Edda for her constant display of emotion and tears.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Franks last piece only has THIRTEEN comments on it. This must be an all time low. I think there is shock at the KM camp. It doesn't look good does it. It kind of spells it all out, quite reasonably. A 'reasonable' person would see the case proved.

The child murderer I would not credit with anything. From his position the only way is up, frankly. If he thinks he can gain some credit/leverage/respect/redemption for giving away info like this he will find it in short supply. Since when do jailhouse tid bits carry water? What possible reason would Rudy have for telling him anyway? He's not completely stupid. It won't fly.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Rudy's ramblings are getting a lot of ink again today.

Suspicions that this 'bombshell' release was deliberately timed to offset the ill effects of the Motivation Report seem believable to me.

Maybe it is also just me, but the only really sensible thing that Rudy ever said was when asked to describe Amanda, he said she was just a "drugged up tart".
Top Profile 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

In their movie the FOAkers ignore the victim but choke on the evidence...

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
They felt sorry for Raffaele and Amanda and desperately didn't want to sentence them to life. So, they thought that up so they could say it was not a crime born of any intent or malice. It was the only way they could justify giving them such light sentences.


Undercuts the FOA "they were out to get her" talking point quite nicely. I think this (IMO) excessive show of compassion in the motivations (as well as in the sentences) is deliberate. The defense can hardly argue that the jury was a bunch of vidictive Mignini-pawns when they have bent over backwards to say they think Amanda was just a la_) caught in a bad situation.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stint7 wrote:
Rudy's ramblings are getting a lot of ink again today.

Suspicions that this 'bombshell' release was deliberately timed to offset the ill effects of the Motivation Report seem believable to me.

Maybe it is also just me, but the only really sensible thing that Rudy ever said was when asked to describe Amanda, he said she was just a "drugged up tart".

The supposedly 'bombshell' is just another rubbish story like the Francesca Bene's 'scoop' for GU, a very old story which FOA have recently revived and distort it to emphasize 'Mignini's madness'.

I guess this latest 'bombshell' will keep FOA and Sollecito's clan busy for a while as they hope that media will rather report on the child killer's fantasy instead of Massei's report.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Rudy's ramblings are getting a lot of ink again today.

Suspicions that this 'bombshell' release was deliberately timed to offset the ill effects of the Motivation Report seem believable to me.

Maybe it is also just me, but the only really sensible thing that Rudy ever said was when asked to describe Amanda, he said she was just a "drugged up tart".

The supposedly 'bombshell' is just another rubbish story like the Francesca Bene's 'scoop' for GU, a very old story which FOA have recently revived and distort it to emphasize 'Mignini's madness'.

I guess this latest 'bombshell' will keep FOA and Sollecito's clan busy for a while as they hope that media will rather report on the child killer's fantasy instead of Massei's report.



The judges and jury were not convinced by Kokomani, even though his cell phone indicated he was in the area, and he looks totally reliable compared to the lunatic child killer. Incidentally, this story is not even new. It already surfaced a few months ago.
I just read Frank's report. A couple of things stand out for me. First, I remember reading one report early on which put forth a scenario very similar to the one deduced by the judges and jury from the evidence. It makes perfect sense that they invited Rudy into the cottage, and in this scenario it doesn't matter whether or not Raffaele knew him. What matters is that AK did. She was the connector between them. Second, it has always made more sense to me that AK and RS ditched the phones, not Rudy. Rudy had lived in Perugia since he was 5 and would not have mistaken a garden for a ravine, as AK and RS did. Third, this scenario leaves room for a kind of jealous rage on the part of AK, elicited when she saw 2 guys -- one of them her boyfriend -- focusing all of their attention on someone else. She may have found herself involved in something that went quickly from edgy and exciting to excruciating and rage-inducing.

It is also interesting to note that AK herself provides an indication of the TOD, by stating that she and RS were eating dinner (fish) very late, at around 11 pm. Too bad RS told his father when he called at 8:40 pm that dinner was over and that he had broken the pipes while doing the dishes. Remember that RS initially told police his father called his land line at 11 pm, but this turned out to be false. It is also significant that AK told police (and friends on Nov 4 in an email) that she was at RS's when she got the SMS from Patrick, when in fact she was elsewhere. Why lie about this? In the same email, she also noted that she and RS did not go out all night.

The most compelling (but not the only) pieces of evidence against AK and RS are in fact their own lies. The wiretapped call is also interesting, even if we can't be sure whether AK said she was worried about the "knife" or the "night". It's just that one makes sense, while the other doesn't, not really. I'm worried about the night?

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skep wrote:
Quote:
The judges and jury were not convinced by Kokomani, even though his cell phone indicated he was in the area, and he looks totally reliable compared to the lunatic child killer. Incidentally, this story is not even new. It already surfaced a few months ago.


You're right the child killer sounds a real disgusting guy, who has been through his appeal and lost it and serving life sentence.
And how considerate of this lunatic instead of telling what RG said to him to any one in authority, he goes and tells Sollecito's lawyer, none other than the same one who also found a butter knife in the cottage garden! br-))
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
So a UK court is easy in saying "not sure how stuff got there but the evidence is indisputable that stuff was involved in the offence". The degree of explanation that the FOA are jumping on and others are slightly hesitant about is slightly weird to me. But selective quotation may be at play here.


I don't know. i don't think it's cultural difference. It is obviiously possible for a judge to highligth that for some areas they have insufficient information to estabilish the truth, and in fact this usually happens. But there is also often a necessity to show how there is at least one possibility that this happened, this goes by showing one possibility. It is the mechanism of appeals that tands to make a necessity to build a 'whole' picture, albeit only some parts of the picture are certain while others area a guess or speculation. It is easyer to nullify a trial for "insufficient" grounds (motivazioni) rather than for "non demonstrated" parts. That brings to this necessary construction of at least one possible entire narrative among the jurors. The improbable parts of scenario are always made of the ones the eight components put forward in their deliberation, so you can imagine how they are produced. The question here was explained by a membere of this court: "we agreed there was no prehemeidation, but now we have a problem with this knife". The less likely explanation is in fact still the most pro-reo, that is more favourable to the defendants than all scenarios implying prehemeditation. Hence, the more "legally-correct".
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Franks last piece only has THIRTEEN comments on it. This must be an all time low. I think there is shock at the KM camp. It doesn't look good does it. It kind of spells it all out, quite reasonably. A 'reasonable' person would see the case proved.
The child murderer I would not credit with anything. From his position the only way is up, frankly. If he thinks he can gain some credit/leverage/respect/redemption for giving away info like this he will find it in short supply. Since when do jailhouse tid bits carry water? What possible reason would Rudy have for telling him anyway? He's not completely stupid. It won't fly.



The comments at Frank's seem to have been made by a small group of posters who can't do much more than lash out at Italy and/or distort and then ridicule individual pieces in the puzzle. Charlie Wilkes is reduced to repeating clichés from his playbook, and it's beginning to sound as if he only half believes them.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Second, it has always made more sense to me that AK and RS ditched the phones, not Rudy. Rudy had lived in Perugia since he was 5 and would not have mistaken a garden for a ravine, as AK and RS did.

That is almost funny that they would mistake a garden for a ravine, but I can just imagine it when you are out there in the middle of the night. Too bad they didn't threw a knife or some more compelling evidence in that 'ravine'.

The barefooted scenario also makes sense to me although I don't think it fits with the witness that heard multiple footsteps running right after the scream.

Them making love and then help RG to attack MK with knives is a huge jump. But the attack with knives is hard to understand for me in any scenario. I can understand that RG is seen as the initiator. His lies and defense never made sense to me. He is hiding something and that could be the missing part concerning his part in the murder.

They did not cover MK completely. They left her foot sticking out to attract the attention, so not all that much 'pity' there IMO.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stint7 wrote:
Rudy's ramblings are getting a lot of ink again today.

Suspicions that this 'bombshell' release was deliberately timed to offset the ill effects of the Motivation Report seem believable to me.

Maybe it is also just me, but the only really sensible thing that Rudy ever said was when asked to describe Amanda, he said she was just a "drugged up tart".


Hi, Stint!
Just to be precise (pedantic?? :lol: ): the "drugged-up tart" term comes from Rudy's prison diary, but those are not words RUDY claimed to have said.

In the diary, RUDY attributes those words to MEREDITH.

He claims Meredith, realizing her rent money was missing, AND assuming it was stolen by Amanda -- called Amanda "quella troia di drogata."
Top Profile 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Guede & Alessi
TGCOM CRONACA 5/3/10



Guede: "I know who killed Meredith"
Disclosure to the assassin of Tommy


Strange judicial crossovers between two cases of crime news: the murder of Meredith Kercher and the brutal killing of Tommaso Onofri.

Rudy Guede, found guilty of the murder of the English student, is supposed to have said that he knows who the real murderer is.
“It wasn’t Amanda and Raffaele, but another man.” The person who received this piece of gossip was Mario Alessi, who is also in prison, and already condemned for having massacred little Tommy.

Raffaele Sollecito’s defence has lodged with the Perugia prosecutor’s office the statement made by Alessi to these same lawyers during investigations by the defence, when the bricklayer mentioned having received disclosures about the murder of Meredith Kercher from Guede, together with whom he is an inmate of the prison at Viterbo. In particular, the man from the Ivory Coast is said to have ruled out the responsibility of the young man from Puglia and of Amanda Knox for the crime, indicating another man, not yet identified, as the one responsible.

Guede has confirmed (as he always has done) his presence in the crime house, claiming to have never met Sollecito and to have met Knox only occasionally. The Ivorian, according to the disclosures received by Alessi, is said to have also mentioned that there was another man present in the house at Via della Pergola on the night between the first and second of November, 2007, and he murdered Ms Kercher.

“No comment" about the lodging of the acts on the part of lawyer Luca Maori, defence of the young man from Puglia, with Giulia Bongiorno.

“We are maintaining maximum discretion – Maori further said – because there are documents being evaluated by the prosecution which will act for the best.”
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Soooooo......

Some random child murderer says Rudy says that Rudy knows who killed Meredith.
(Funny thing, so do I.)
But Rudy says it wasn't Raphaele.
You mean, the one with connections in Italy?
Ah, well, um, what is Raphaele's DNA doing on the bra then?

We are supposed to pay attention to this nonsense, why?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I don't think Amanda told her mom what really happened. Edda's split second of doubt in the recorded prison conversation wouldn't have occured if she already knew Amanda did it. Now, deep down she might believe Amanda had some culpability. But it wouldn't really make a difference what Edda thinks happened because irregardless, she must defend her child.
Top Profile 

Offline Tommi


User avatar


Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:21 pm

Posts: 18

Location: Finland

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Now that were talking about keys and locks, I have one question. Im not sure if this topic is covered already, as I am a "late bloomer" on this forum (as Curt might describe me).
What are your thoughts on what could be seen through a keyhole of Merediths locked door? Paul Russells book "Darkness descending" points out that RS tried to look through a keyhole when Amanda and he returned to cottage and found that Merediths door was locked. All he could see was "a bag and open door (wardrobe)". There must be an error, it must have been (the door of a open) drawer next to Merediths bed. Because if he really could see open wardrobe and a bag, he must have see a whole lot more. Poor Merediths dead body was between the drawer and wardrobe. If you stydy a plan of a cottage you can see that when Merediths door is closed the view from keyhole opens between a bed and drawer. There might be a chance that body could also be seen - if it wasnt covered with the duvet. What else could be seen? Maybe (blood stained?) guilt that covered the bed according to RG (but was never found by investigators). I mean, whoever locked the door to hide the crime scene, most likely made sure that nothing can be seen through keyhole if the view was wide enough. Well, thats only if youre not in a hurry and you have plenty of time to stage the scene. Best way to "disable" the view would have been to close the shutters so that room was dark without any light.

The wide view might explain covered body and missing bloody? quilt. On the other hand, crime scene pictures shows a slightly bloody towel on a bed. Out of a view, perhaps?
If Im correct, Amanda has also testified that she tried to look through keyhole. They both pointed that out. Maybe thats because they were acting together and really made sure about that fact.

About door locks; Because there were "see trough" keyholes in bedroom doors, Im quite sure there was a seperate key to front door. These simplier key systems that leaves a open keyhole, they are not very safe and those are not usually used as a front door lock. Safe locks have a complecated key sylinder thats not open. Well, Im not sure hows the case in Italy.

Crime scene picture can be seen in Kermits powerpoint, heres a link http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/per ... orplan.pps
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Guede & Alessi
TGCOM CRONACA 5/3/10

(pic)

Guede: "I know who killed Meredith"
Disclosure to the assassin of Tommy


Strange judicial crossovers between two cases of crime news: the murder of Meredith Kercher and the brutal killing of Tommaso Onofri.

Rudy Guede, found guilty of the murder of the English student, is supposed to have said that he knows who the real murderer is.
“It wasn’t Amanda and Raffaele, but another man.” The person who received this piece of gossip was Mario Alessi, who is also in prison, and already condemned for having massacred little Tommy.

Raffaele Sollecito’s defence has lodged with the Perugia prosecutor’s office the statement made by Alessi to these same lawyers during investigations by the defence, when the bricklayer mentioned having received disclosures about the murder of Meredith Kercher from Guede, together with whom he is an inmate of the prison at Viterbo. In particular, the man from the Ivory Coast is said to have ruled out the responsibility of the young man from Puglia and of Amanda Knox for the crime, indicating another man, not yet identified, as the one responsible.

Guede has confirmed (as he always has done) his presence in the crime house, claiming to have never met Sollecito and to have met Knox only occasionally. The Ivorian, according to the disclosures received by Alessi, is said to have also mentioned that there was another man present in the house at Via della Pergola on the night between the first and second of November, 2007, and he murdered Ms Kercher.

“No comment" about the lodging of the acts on the part of lawyer Luca Maori, defence of the young man from Puglia, with Giulia Bongiorno.

“We are maintaining maximum discretion – Maori further said – because there are documents being evaluated by the prosecution which will act for the best.”



How did Rudy and the unknown killer get into the apartment? Where was the killer when Rudy was out dancing after the crimes? The thought did occur of there being an unknown assailant with Rudy that night. Maybe that's the reason for the discrepancy in the door of Filomena's room. He was still there when Amanda arrived, door closed. He left before Raffaele arrived, door open. But, there is absolutely no foreign DNA or other evidence to make even the shallowest of arguments for that.

If I'm wrong about Amanda, I'll be the first to admit it. I still have serious doubts about Raffaele's involvement.

But, that's just me.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tiziano wrote:
Guede & Alessi
TGCOM CRONACA 5/3/10

(pic)

Guede: "I know who killed Meredith"
Disclosure to the assassin of Tommy


Strange judicial crossovers between two cases of crime news: the murder of Meredith Kercher and the brutal killing of Tommaso Onofri.

Rudy Guede, found guilty of the murder of the English student, is supposed to have said that he knows who the real murderer is.
“It wasn’t Amanda and Raffaele, but another man.” The person who received this piece of gossip was Mario Alessi, who is also in prison, and already condemned for having massacred little Tommy.

Raffaele Sollecito’s defence has lodged with the Perugia prosecutor’s office the statement made by Alessi to these same lawyers during investigations by the defence, when the bricklayer mentioned having received disclosures about the murder of Meredith Kercher from Guede, together with whom he is an inmate of the prison at Viterbo. In particular, the man from the Ivory Coast is said to have ruled out the responsibility of the young man from Puglia and of Amanda Knox for the crime, indicating another man, not yet identified, as the one responsible.

Guede has confirmed (as he always has done) his presence in the crime house, claiming to have never met Sollecito and to have met Knox only occasionally. The Ivorian, according to the disclosures received by Alessi, is said to have also mentioned that there was another man present in the house at Via della Pergola on the night between the first and second of November, 2007, and he murdered Ms Kercher.

“No comment" about the lodging of the acts on the part of lawyer Luca Maori, defence of the young man from Puglia, with Giulia Bongiorno.

“We are maintaining maximum discretion – Maori further said – because there are documents being evaluated by the prosecution which will act for the best.”


What? I mean what?
Is this some kind of a joke or really a stupid rumour?
Can anyone explain if this is a big deal? Or is it another attempt (made by?) to save Knox and Sollecito? Or what?
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
If I'm wrong about Amanda, I'll be the first to admit it. I still have serious doubts about Raffaele's involvement. But, that's just me.


19 judges don't have serious doubts. In fact, they think the evidence against him is overwhelming. Do you know something that they don't?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:

19 judges don't have serious doubts. In fact, they think the evidence against him is overwhelming. Do you know something that they don't?


About this case, I'm sure they know more than I will ever know. My opinion is not official. It's just an opinion. I said I was not convinced. Doesn't mean I'm right.
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Emerald wrote:
The Machine wrote:

19 judges don't have serious doubts. In fact, they think the evidence against him is overwhelming. Do you know something that they don't?


About this case, I'm sure they know more than I will ever know. My opinion is not official. It's just an opinion. I said I was not convinced. Doesn't mean I'm right.


Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox have both claimed that he was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. Do you think he was somewhere else?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:

Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox have both claimed that he was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. Do you think he was somewhere else?


JMO

Amanda and Raffaele did not spend the night together in his apartment.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Why should the fact that they covered Meredith's body show anything like pity? It shows denial, as it was also stated, and maybe self-pity (AK and RS not wanting to 'wear the mask of a murderer').
Also I believe it's not such an uncommon thing to do, I've read it before in relation to quite a few other murder cases as well.


On this detail I disagree a bit and I agree with the Court: the covering of a body is almost always - in Western civilisations - associated with respect and protection towards the victim. I think this is meaning istinctive in our cultures and the reason cannot be other than this istinct. The element of "denial" that you mean is the same in any context like accidents were lifeless bodies are found. Compare this one to the show of bodies and killings made by Afgan or Iraqui warriors, and you get the difference. The difference is in that 'denial' is a second degree emotion: to feel denial, before you have to feel a negative feeling with the human value of the action or the situation, you must feel that something looks unbearable, have some empathy in order to feel the necessity to perform denial. Indeed, Amanda's action did spare us the vision of pictures taken at the murder scene with a shilouette of the naked victim's body. She did protect her victim effectively at least in a sense.



While I agree with you that denial is a second degree emotion, I would guess Amanda's first emotion was the horror of looking at what she had been able to do. If she protected anyone, it was herself (that's what I meant by self-pity/ self-protection), but I can't really imagine her showing signs of empathy/ respect towards Meredith in that hasty situation, not even instinctively. I assume her instinct would aim at herself first, some kind of survival mode. She just couldn't bear it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I think I'm agreeing with Ava. Covering the body could be just about the ickiness. If she was that sorry, she could have said a lot more about how wonderful Meredith was and actually named her in her last plea to the court. Her aversion to Meredith and her name speaks very loudly to me.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
While I agree with you that denial is a second degree emotion, I would guess Amanda's first emotion was the horror of looking at what she had been able to do. If she protected anyone, it was herself (that's what I meant by self-pity/ self-protection), but I can't really imagine her showing signs of dignity/ respect towards Meredith in that hasty situation, not even instinctively. I assume her instinct would aim at herself first, some kind of survival mode. She just couldn't bear it.


Yes but what I meant is that a callous criminal doesn't feel horror. This is an empathic feeling. She is not 'protecting herself' on a practical level, nor on a cognitive level, she is protecting herself on an emotional level, just as we protect ourself from the sight of similar cases (on a practical level she is protecting tonly he victim's image). But this emotional feeling is of a moral kind, implicates empathy. If she doesn't bear the sitgh of the dead victim, this can only be because she had an empathic memory of the victim being alive. Had she been indifferent to the living person, or hating the person, she wouldn't feel horror. People in Milan didn't feel any horror or necessity of denial when they hanged Mussolini for the whole city to see, they wanted to see him dead: that's what you do if you actually hate the person or if you acted coldly with no empathy. If you feel to act this kind of 'denial' you are also in disagreement with the human aspect of the action, you feel pain or sorrow for the person, a fear for yourself does not create a feeling of horror, it would make you reduce to the minimum the interaction with the situation. Survival mode does not bring you to take care of a feeling of horror related to another human being.
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I get the feeling that she felt the same way again when pictures of Meredith's body were shown at the trial and she was unable to look at them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mortytoad wrote:
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=293943. I don't think the judges threw out the entire prosecution's case, as Edda suggests here. It's like she seems to be saying , "Look. Here's that report. We told you Amanda was innocent all along and her and Meredith were BFF's." How thick is she?


Agreed.

Good Judge Cristiani "threw out" the state's narrative, writes a thick tome spelling out his motivazioni and then slaps Knox with 26 years.

. ss-) With results like this, who needs an Entourage... ss-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I think I'm agreeing with Ava. Covering the body could be just about the ickiness. If she was that sorry, she could have said a lot more about how wonderful Meredith was and actually named her in her last plea to the court. Her aversion to Meredith and her name speaks very loudly to me.


Yeah, it's almost like she was mad that Meredith caused all this drama that she's going through. Sometimes her statements seemed like that...like she's pissed that killing Meredith wasn't enough to make all the troubles go away, now she's on the stand, fighting for her life and yet, this Meredith girl still stands in her way.

But at the same time i kinda agree with Yummi. Very interesting points. Confusing, isn't it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

DLW wrote:
Tiziano wrote:

‘Mario Alessi is a bricklayer found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of a little boy called Tommy some years ago.
I'll translate this piece later today. It says (among other details) that Sollecito's defence has lodged in the Perugia prosecutor's office a statement by Alessi in which he alleges Guede told him another man was responsible for Meredith's murder.’

CBS has got a hold of the story and they’ll rating this as a bombshell. I wonder if this bricklayer is trying to make news all on his own. The Sollecito’s were probably holding on to this to try and divert attention away from the judges report. Even Frank doesn't seem impressed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05 ... 1397.shtml




Exactomundo! They were holding onto this point of no news in order to release it after the report to try and limit the damage and get the media back on mission. It's unbelievable how Marriott spoon feeds the US media bullshit and they keep lapping it up.

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


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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
While I agree with you that denial is a second degree emotion, I would guess Amanda's first emotion was the horror of looking at what she had been able to do. If she protected anyone, it was herself (that's what I meant by self-pity/ self-protection), but I can't really imagine her showing signs of dignity/ respect towards Meredith in that hasty situation, not even instinctively. I assume her instinct would aim at herself first, some kind of survival mode. She just couldn't bear it.


Yes but what I meant is that a callous criminal doesn't feel horror. This is an empathic feeling. She is not 'protecting herself' on a practical level, nor on a cognitive level, she is protecting herself on an emotional level, just as we protect ourself from the sight of similar cases (on a practical level she is protecting tonly he victim's image). But this emotional feeling is of a moral kind, implicates empathy. If she doesn't bear the sitgh of the dead victim, this can only be because she had an empathic memory of the victim being alive. Had she been indifferent to the living person, or hating the person, she wouldn't feel horror. People in Milan didn't feel any horror or necessity of denial when they hanged Mussolini for the whole city to see, they wanted to see him dead: that's what you do if you actually hate the person or if you acted coldly with no empathy. If you feel to act this kind of 'denial' you are also in disagreement with the human aspect of the action, you feel pain or sorrow for the person, a fear for yourself does not create a feeling of horror, it would make you reduce to the minimum the interaction with the situation. Survival mode does not bring you to take care of a feeling of horror related to another human being.


The door keyhole has been mentioned.

Maybe they closed the door took a peek and saw that from the keyhole angle the victim was fully splayed and in plain sight. Maybe one or both scene designers decided it was a gouche exhibit and placed the bed cover over the victim to make the tableaux "just right".

When the door was broken open, Filomena screamed about a leg. She did not say anything about blood. The quilt covered not just the victim. It also covered from view the large patches of blood on the floor next to the victim.


Last edited by piktor on Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tommi wrote:
Now that were talking about keys and locks, I have one question. Im not sure if this topic is covered already, as I am a "late bloomer" on this forum (as Curt might describe me).
What are your thoughts on what could be seen through a keyhole of Merediths locked door? Paul Russells book "Darkness descending" points out that RS tried to look through a keyhole when Amanda and he returned to cottage and found that Merediths door was locked. All he could see was "a bag and open door (wardrobe)". There must be an error, it must have been (the door of a open) drawer next to Merediths bed. Because if he really could see open wardrobe and a bag, he must have see a whole lot more. Poor Merediths dead body was between the drawer and wardrobe. If you stydy a plan of a cottage you can see that when Merediths door is closed the view from keyhole opens between a bed and drawer. There might be a chance that body could also be seen - if it wasnt covered with the duvet. What else could be seen? Maybe (blood stained?) guilt that covered the bed according to RG (but was never found by investigators). I mean, whoever locked the door to hide the crime scene, most likely made sure that nothing can be seen through keyhole if the view was wide enough. Well, thats only if youre not in a hurry and you have plenty of time to stage the scene. Best way to "disable" the view would have been to close the shutters so that room was dark without any light.

The wide view might explain covered body and missing bloody? quilt. On the other hand, crime scene pictures shows a slightly bloody towel on a bed. Out of a view, perhaps?
If Im correct, Amanda has also testified that she tried to look through keyhole. They both pointed that out. Maybe thats because they were acting together and really made sure about that fact.

About door locks; Because there were "see trough" keyholes in bedroom doors, Im quite sure there was a seperate key to front door. These simplier key systems that leaves a open keyhole, they are not very safe and those are not usually used as a front door lock. Safe locks have a complecated key sylinder thats not open. Well, Im not sure hows the case in Italy.

Crime scene picture can be seen in Kermits powerpoint, heres a link http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/per ... orplan.pps



Yes, this is part of the reason I suggested that Meredith had been covered. Should a housemate or visitor become worried at Meredith's absence, they may have looked through the keyhole after periods of knocking. If Meredith was covered then it wouldn't be possible to see her and would so delay her discovery further. Moreover, it covers Amanda and Raffaele's backsides so they could say after...'we were so concerned about her, we looked through the keyhole and everything'. You can't say that if the body or part of it can actually be seen through the keyhole.

I think it needs to be understood, the door was not only locked to prevent others stumbling on the body, but also to provide an excuse for Amanda and Raffaele to have been there themselves a good part of the morning and not discovered it themselves. It would be harder to believe that they didn't find the body if the door wasn't locked...or, if the body could be seen through the keyhole. They needed to give the impression as much as possible that not only did they not know about Meredith, but couldn't possibly know.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

It's who you kill that matters, according to new research
Mar 05, Other Sciences/Social Sciences


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

A defendant is much more likely to be sentenced to death if he or she kills a "high-status" victim, according to new research by Scott Phillips, associate professor of sociology and criminology at the University of Denver (DU).

According to his research published in Law and Society Review, (43-4:807-837), the probability of being sentenced to death is much greater if a defendant kills a white or Hispanic victim who is married with a clean criminal record and a college degree, as opposed to a black or Asian victim who is single with a prior criminal record and no college degree.

Recent discussions of the death penalty tend to focus on innocence and cost. Phillips' research says that arbitrariness has long been a concern.

"The concept of arbitrariness suggests that the relevant legal facts of a capital case cannot fully explain the outcome: irrelevant social facts also shape the ultimate state sanction" Phillips says. "In the capital of capital punishment, death is more apt to be sought and imposed on behalf of high status victims. Some victims matter more than others."

Phillips research is based on 504 death penalty cases that occurred in Harris County, Texas between 1992 and 1999.

Drawing on the same data, Phillips's previous research demonstrated that black defendants were more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants in Houston. The racial disparities revealed in the prior paper become even more acute after accounting for victim social status - black defendants were more apt to be sentenced to death despite being less apt to kill high status victims.

The combined results of the two papers call into question the meaning of justice.

"Should justice be defined according to the punishment a particular defendant deserves?" Phillips asks, "Or should justice be defined according to whether the judicial system can hand out lethal punishment in an even-handed manner? The question strikes at the heart of the death penalty debate."

Provided by University of Denver



PHYSORG


This we know. We have already seen how little Meredith Kercher matters to the US media...not the slightest! They don't give a damn about a mixed race British girl. Had it been the other way around and Meredith had murdered Amanda, shock...horror..an AMERICAN middle class white girl, they'd be screaming for her to be hung from the yard arm. The US media is living proof that some human beings are considered to be more important then others.

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Raffaele makes a chocolate tart.

He made it for fellow prisoners in the prison of Sabbione in Terni.

"It was a good chocolate cake, I let the others taste it. It was really good."

It was said during a phone call between Raffaele Sollecito, locked up in Sabbione prison, and some friends from Puglia when in his father’s house. Ordinary tales of things of everyday life but barely able to conceal the inner turmoil that the young guy is experiencing.

Now that the anxiety for the verdict of first degree is gone, the former boyfriend of Amanda Knox is trying to regain a state of normalcy, not easy behind bars. He studies, does sport, painting, working in the Terni library, and at least for now, has a single jail cell all to himself, in a protected section of the prison where the atmosphere is perhaps less harsh than elsewhere. Entitled to 6 calls per month and as many interviews.

Never gives up his appointment by telephone with family members. The last time he talked about his new tutor with his father Francesco. He is a professor from Perugia University who oversees his studies. Raffaele took his three-year bachelor's degree in computer science in jail, but now is going further because he wants to complete the entire course. And his knowledge in computer skills won him the job in the Sabbione prison library where he is in charge of cataloging all the books and where, with the due courtesy of the case, has also access to a computer.

On the phone the father asks him about the new tutor and Raffaele tells him that everything is OK and they're going ahead with the program but with some small delay in order to understand where to direct the studies. While the two talk there is an officer present that listens, but the calls are not recorded. Sollecito, now that he is no longer awaiting first degree verdict, lives life like other prisoners, even if the media notoriety gained in recent years causes him to receive hundreds of letters, also from abroad, mostly from unknown persons. The sentence of 23 years (remaining) in prison is a looming nightmare, but he has not lost the will to fight.

In a letter written by himself to the News Mediaset, Raffaele speaks of a ‘via crucis’ ((path of suffering)) that has lasted two years and a heinous crime of which he knows nothing of and refuses any responsibility. "They threw mud at me, gibberish but the only thing here which we can be seriously discuss -writes to Tgcom Mediaset- are biological and scientific investigations. I pray every day God will enlighten the judges and shed light on this horrible story. I live with the understanding that it is not over yet." Raffaele recalls that “the truth is like oil, it always floats"
By: Antonio Mosca
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=39
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

They also used the locked door to explain the damage at the door by saying that RS tried to kick it in. That story was nicely turned down by the judges because the guy that eventually kicked in the door had no trouble at all. So RS lied about that which indicates that the door was damaged during the attack on MK.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

donnie wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I think I'm agreeing with Ava. Covering the body could be just about the ickiness. If she was that sorry, she could have said a lot more about how wonderful Meredith was and actually named her in her last plea to the court. Her aversion to Meredith and her name speaks very loudly to me.


Yeah, it's almost like she was mad that Meredith caused all this drama that she's going through. Sometimes her statements seemed like that...like she's pissed that killing Meredith wasn't enough to make all the troubles go away, now she's on the stand, fighting for her life and yet, this Meredith girl still stands in her way.

But at the same time i kinda agree with Yummi. Very interesting points. Confusing, isn't it?


Edda has also made the same argument about Arline Kercher on a BBC Radio interview, of all places.

It is as if the Kerchers are out to get the la_) out of spite or because it is the Kercher family's royal whim.

Callousness runs deep in the Knox/Mellas arguments before mass media.

I chalk it all up to ignorance. They could not possibly really, really be that thick. They are Seattle Amelie's parents, after all. Kooky and ineffective...

. v-)) s-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
DLW wrote:
Tiziano wrote:

‘Mario Alessi is a bricklayer found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of a little boy called Tommy some years ago.
I'll translate this piece later today. It says (among other details) that Sollecito's defence has lodged in the Perugia prosecutor's office a statement by Alessi in which he alleges Guede told him another man was responsible for Meredith's murder.’

CBS has got a hold of the story and they’ll rating this as a bombshell. I wonder if this bricklayer is trying to make news all on his own. The Sollecito’s were probably holding on to this to try and divert attention away from the judges report. Even Frank doesn't seem impressed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05 ... 1397.shtml




Exactomundo! They were holding onto this point of no news in order to release it after the report to try and limit the damage and get the media back on mission. It's unbelievable how Marriott spoon feeds the US media bullshit and they keep lapping it up.

Rudy denies having ever discussed his trial with Alessi. His lawyers are filing against the guy. http://tinyurl.com/ycbmnf9 Corriere della Sera
A translation to follow

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Franks last piece only has THIRTEEN comments on it. This must be an all time low. I think there is shock at the KM camp. It doesn't look good does it. It kind of spells it all out, quite reasonably. A 'reasonable' person would see the case proved.


We are in deep doo-doo if our source of Motivazioni analysis is Sfarzo's abnegate, unbiased
. tu-)) "translation". tu-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

RUDY GUEDE: I NEVER SPOKE TO ALESSI ABOUT MY TRIAL;
The Ivorian defense team: An attempt by some desperates clinging onto other desperates

Perugia:- «I never spoke with Mario Alessi of my trial»: Rudy Guede said today to his lawyers Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile who met him in the Viterbo jail. The Ivorian, his lawyers say- « absolutely denies» having said what is written in the document deposited by Sollecito's defense
CALM BUT IRRITATED - Guede learned About Alessi's disclosures last night on TV. The two have been detained for a long time in the same section of the Viterbo jail reserved to sex offenders. Now they have been for some time in a different section of the jail. Attorneys Bisotti and Gentile said Rudy appears «calm but irritated by what is happening» The attorneys have announced they intend to sue Alessi as soon as the content of the document is disclosed«It is an attempt by desperate people hanging on to other desperates -Biscotti said-. There are hours and hours of phone tapped conversations between Rudy and his friends and our client never mention his trial. How could anyone think he did it with Alessi?».
EDIT TO ADD: For once, I agree with the duo Biscotti/Gentile: Sollecito 's defense must be really desperate. If this were the truth, Rudy would have spilled the beans as soon as he was caught in Germany.

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


Last edited by nicki on Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

nicki wrote:
RUDY GUEDE: I NEVER SPOKE TO ALESSI ABOUT MY TRIAL;
The Ivorian defense team: An attempt by some desperates clinging onto other desperates

Perugia:- «I never spoke with Mario Alessi of my trial»: Rudy Guede said today to his lawyers Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile who met him in the Viterbo jail. The Ivorian, his lawyers say- « absolutely denies» having said what is written in the document deposited by Sollecito's defense
CALM BUT IRRITATED - Guede learned About Alessi's disclosures last night on TV. The two have been detained for a long time in the same section of the Viterbo jail reserved to sex offenders. Now they have been for some time are in a different section of the jail. Attorneys Bisotti and Gentile said Rudy appears «calm but irritated by what is happening» The attorneys have announced they intend to sue Alessi as soon as the content of the document is disclosed«It is an attempt by desperate people hanging on to other desperates -Biscotti said-. There are hours and hours of phone tapped conversations between Rudy and his friends and our client never mention his trial. How could anyone think he did it with Alessi?».


Well, now it's theirs words against his(or his team). Obviously Mariott had its touch on the news, nevertheless, quite intersting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Guede's defense: RUDY NEVER SPOKE WITH ALESSI, NEWS IS A HOAX.

Lawyers to RAI:

"Rudy never spoke with Alessi or with any other detainee about his trial. This is a fabrication of this individual that probably was solicited by unknown persons to make this declaration or he is a compulsive liar"
http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__DIFES ... -ORA-.html
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
Edda has also made the same argument about Arline Kercher on a BBC Radio interview, of all places.



You're kidding? What did Edda say?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
Guede's defense: RUDY NEVER SPOKE WITH ALESSI, NEWS IS A HOAX.

Lawyers to RAI:

"Rudy never spoke with Alessi or with any other detainee about his trial. This is a fabrication of this individual that probably was solicited by unknown persons to make this declaration or he is a compulsive liar"
http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__DIFES ... -ORA-.html

Possibly this guy got paid by the Sollecito's family.Perfect timing for such a hoax.

TO DONNIE: I don't think it's "their word" against "his/their word". I think it's a bunch of crap. If this were the truth, Rudy would have spoken a very long time ago, had the murderer arrested, and got away with "omissione di soccorso", a crime that carries a much lighter penality than what he got. Rudy may be stupid but his lawyers surely aren't. They got him the best deal he could possibly get.

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

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
As gruesome as it is to contemplate, I have thought for a long time that they hurt Meredith more than they intended and, seeing what they had done, decided to kill her rather than save her and risk getting into trouble. They were fucked up; they didn't think things through and realize that their selfish actions would cause trouble for them later on (those pesky police officers!). Raffaele, the doctor's son who likes to dress up like a butcher/surgeon, with his fascination for knives, thought he knew how to do it: strangulation/suffocation. AK, who is all about showing the guys that she is just as ballsy as they are, did not shrink from the task at hand. Again, they were fucked up, in more ways than one.


Hello Skeptical,

The sentencing report is being viewed as "fair & balanced". It's reasonable. And it concludes that there is no evidence of premeditation on the part of Knox, Sollecito, and Guede.

My question is this: given the tone of the report, would it not be logical for the Knox / Sollecito legal time to fall back on "Plan B": a true confession regarding drug-crazed violence - but no intent to kill?

I presume that this would result in a lighter sentence. Or, is that a poor assumption? Given that the "unintended" murder was committed as part of the intended rape of Meredith, would there perhaps be no possibility for a reduced sentence?

Am trying to understand what's going through the minds of the defense and the FOA team. The guilt of their clients is obvious for all to see. Why rehash the details of the conviction during appeal? Why not plea for a chance at reform and possible early release?

Do you have any thoughts here?

TIA,
Norbert
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
Maybe they closed the door took a peek and saw that from the keyhole angle the victim was fully splayed and in plain sight. Maybe one or both scene designers decided it was a gouche exhibit and placed the bed cover over the victim to make the tableaux "just right".


maybe, but this should be proven. I tend to think it is not our case. A keyhole has a very narrow angle and the room is very small, almost impossible to see the floor less than 3-4 meters far, and there are other means to take a body off sight. Or to cover the hole. In this case the body was placed in that position. It is not a impossible theory, but not the more likely imho.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Maybe they closed the door took a peek and saw that from the keyhole angle the victim was fully splayed and in plain sight. Maybe one or both scene designers decided it was a gouche exhibit and placed the bed cover over the victim to make the tableaux "just right".


maybe, but this should be proven. I tend to think it is not our case. A keyhole has a very narrow angle and the room is very small, almost impossible to see the floor less than 3-4 meters far, and there are other means to take a body off sight. Or to cover the hole. In this case the body was placed in that position. It is not a impossible theory, but not the more likely imho.


It was a very small room Yummi. 3 - 4 metres vision of the floor would have been all that was required in order to see Meredith's legs. They need not even be seen clearly to assess it's a person, all it required was Raffaele and Amanda to 'fear' that she 'may' be seen. And yes, the keyhole could have been covered, but then it would have been obvious that the keyhole had been covered so nobody could look in. One may consider it possible that a random intruder may lock the door (to say, prevent Meredith from leaving the room to get help and raise the alarm), but they'd hardly bother with covering the keyhole. By the time anyone became worried enough to look through the keyhole, any outside intruder would be long gone anyway so delaying the discovery would not aid them. A delayed discovery beyond tens of minutes is only of help to a murderer who is a resident. Moreover, what outside murderer would go to the trouble of covering the keyhole, then happily leave their bloody trainer prints down the hall? That wouldn't make sense.

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


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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mortytoad wrote:
piktor wrote:
Edda has also made the same argument about Arline Kercher on a BBC Radio interview, of all places.



You're kidding? What did Edda say?



I can't give you a verbatim account because the BBC does not have transcription archives of all radio interviews.

It happened after the verdict. Edda was in Perugia and the BBC interviewer was live in London. The interview went on for about 20 minutes and at about 16 minutes into the interview, the BBC interviewer asked Edda some direct question and Edda answered that if putting away an innocent girl made Mrs. Kercher happy, Edda found no joy in it. It was a really callous comment completely out of place and totally misdirected.

You can look up in late December, around Dec. 20-23 or maybe a few days after Christmas, here at PMF.

The interviewer's last name is Covington, if I remember correctly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
Raffaele makes a chocolate tart.

He made it for fellow prisoners in the prison of Sabbione in Terni.

"It was a good chocolate cake, I let the others taste it. It was really good."

It was said during a phone call between Raffaele Sollecito, locked up in Sabbione prison, and some friends from Puglia when in his father’s house. Ordinary tales of things of everyday life but barely able to conceal the inner turmoil that the young guy is experiencing.

Now that the anxiety for the verdict of first degree is gone, the former boyfriend of Amanda Knox is trying to regain a state of normalcy, not easy behind bars. He studies, does sport, painting, working in the Terni library, and at least for now, has a single jail cell all to himself, in a protected section of the prison where the atmosphere is perhaps less harsh than elsewhere. Entitled to 6 calls per month and as many interviews.

Never gives up his appointment by telephone with family members. The last time he talked about his new tutor with his father Francesco. He is a professor from Perugia University who oversees his studies. Raffaele took his three-year bachelor's degree in computer science in jail, but now is going further because he wants to complete the entire course. And his knowledge in computer skills won him the job in the Sabbione prison library where he is in charge of cataloging all the books and where, with the due courtesy of the case, has also access to a computer.

On the phone the father asks him about the new tutor and Raffaele tells him that everything is OK and they're going ahead with the program but with some small delay in order to understand where to direct the studies. While the two talk there is an officer present that listens, but the calls are not recorded. Sollecito, now that he is no longer awaiting first degree verdict, lives life like other prisoners, even if the media notoriety gained in recent years causes him to receive hundreds of letters, also from abroad, mostly from unknown persons. The sentence of 23 years (remaining) in prison is a looming nightmare, but he has not lost the will to fight.

In a letter written by himself to the News Mediaset, Raffaele speaks of a ‘via crucis’ ((path of suffering)) that has lasted two years and a heinous crime of which he knows nothing of and refuses any responsibility. "They threw mud at me, gibberish but the only thing here which we can be seriously discuss -writes to Tgcom Mediaset- are biological and scientific investigations. I pray every day God will enlighten the judges and shed light on this horrible story. I live with the understanding that it is not over yet." Raffaele recalls that “the truth is like oil, it always floats"
By: Antonio Mosca
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=39


Oprah-the-lazy-ratings-grubber and others keep whinging about how one should do ones crimes in the US-- but what with all the pastry-baking, picture-painting, guitar-playing, cashmere-sweater-wearing, studies-continuing and myriad-of-other-privileges-getting that the due ragazzi are enjoying in their respective prisons, I plan to commit all of MY future criminal offenses in bella Italia.

And I will have my chance this Autumn!

Of course, I don't REALLY plan to fall foul of the law, but I just found out I WILL be visiting Italy in September!! Yay-) And I'll enjoy it all the MORE knowing that there no chance of running into Dazzled Chump and his magic combover.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Maybe they closed the door took a peek and saw that from the keyhole angle the victim was fully splayed and in plain sight. Maybe one or both scene designers decided it was a gouche exhibit and placed the bed cover over the victim to make the tableaux "just right".


maybe, but this should be proven. I tend to think it is not our case. A keyhole has a very narrow angle and the room is very small, almost impossible to see the floor less than 3-4 meters far, and there are other means to take a body off sight. Or to cover the hole. In this case the body was placed in that position. It is not a impossible theory, but not the more likely imho.


This is a circumstantial case. You do not have to prove all the theory of the crime. You need a credible explanation.

Barrister Ted Simon is all worked up about the prosecution's and now the Motivazioni's inferencings and hypothezisings.

Just stop and think about this:

Knox says she thought "somebody" had their period at the apartment and did not clean up the menstrual blood Knox saw in the bathroom.

The first thing you would see through the keyhole is a white towel on the victim's bed with a not-too-large blood mark on it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bea


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm

Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

nicki wrote:
Jools wrote:
Guede's defense: RUDY NEVER SPOKE WITH ALESSI, NEWS IS A HOAX.

Lawyers to RAI:

"Rudy never spoke with Alessi or with any other detainee about his trial. This is a fabrication of this individual that probably was solicited by unknown persons to make this declaration or he is a compulsive liar"
http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__DIFES ... -ORA-.html

Possibly this guy got paid by the Sollecito's family.Perfect timing for such a hoax.

TO DONNIE: I don't think it's "their word" against "his/their word". I think it's a bunch of crap. If this were the truth, Rudy would have spoken a very long time ago, had the murderer arrested, and got away with "omissione di soccorso", a crime that carries a much lighter penality than what he got. Rudy may be stupid but his lawyers surely aren't. They got him the best deal he could possibly get.


It will be fun watching Marriot and the FOAkers glom onto this mystery man as the "REAL" second killer. However will they deal with the fact that there is "no trace of (him) anywhere in the murder room"??????? oop-)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

OT, but just a bit excited here after finding a really nice neolithic blade today. This made me think of you forensic types out there and what 'stars' you are. There is alot of hard and detailed work that you have to do and when in a case like this, shed light on the truth of a crime and help see that justice is done. I think you forensics people are amazing!! And I hope the message gets to the Italians who are on this case especially.


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Bea wrote:
nicki wrote:
Jools wrote:
Guede's defense: RUDY NEVER SPOKE WITH ALESSI, NEWS IS A HOAX.

Lawyers to RAI:

"Rudy never spoke with Alessi or with any other detainee about his trial. This is a fabrication of this individual that probably was solicited by unknown persons to make this declaration or he is a compulsive liar"
http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__DIFES ... -ORA-.html

Possibly this guy got paid by the Sollecito's family.Perfect timing for such a hoax.

TO DONNIE: I don't think it's "their word" against "his/their word". I think it's a bunch of crap. If this were the truth, Rudy would have spoken a very long time ago, had the murderer arrested, and got away with "omissione di soccorso", a crime that carries a much lighter penality than what he got. Rudy may be stupid but his lawyers surely aren't. They got him the best deal he could possibly get.


It will be fun watching Marriot and the FOAkers glom onto this mystery man as the "REAL" second killer. However will they deal with the fact that there is "no trace of (him) anywhere in the murder room"??????? oop-)

Right Bea,Looks like this phantom killer didn't leave any trace behind...wow how did he /she manage to do so? A killer from Mars?

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
mortytoad wrote:
piktor wrote:
Edda has also made the same argument about Arline Kercher on a BBC Radio interview, of all places.



You're kidding? What did Edda say?



I can't give you a verbatim account because the BBC does not have transcription archives of all radio interviews.

It happened after the verdict. Edda was in Perugia and the BBC interviewer was live in London. The interview went on for about 20 minutes and at about 16 minutes into the interview, the BBC interviewer asked Edda some direct question and Edda answered that if putting away an innocent girl made Mrs. Kercher happy, Edda found no joy in it. It was a really callous comment completely out of place and totally misdirected.

You can look up in late December, around Dec. 20-23 or maybe a few days after Christmas, here at PMF.

The interviewer's last name is Covington, if I remember correctly.


That was the Victoria Derbyshire show on BBC Radio 5, I listened to the interview and remeber it being discussed at the time but as for the actual date I can't recall but I think it was in the week after the verdict. I was very disapointed with the interview as Edda was given free reign to blather on with the usual bollocks.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
mortytoad wrote:
piktor wrote:
Edda has also made the same argument about Arline Kercher on a BBC Radio interview, of all places.



You're kidding? What did Edda say?



I can't give you a verbatim account because the BBC does not have transcription archives of all radio interviews.

It happened after the verdict. Edda was in Perugia and the BBC interviewer was live in London. The interview went on for about 20 minutes and at about 16 minutes into the interview, the BBC interviewer asked Edda some direct question and Edda answered that if putting away an innocent girl made Mrs. Kercher happy, Edda found no joy in it. It was a really callous comment completely out of place and totally misdirected.

You can look up in late December, around Dec. 20-23 or maybe a few days after Christmas, here at PMF.

The interviewer's last name is Covington, if I remember correctly.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8426201.stm

In the first UK interview since Knox was jailed for 26 years, Ms Mellas told BBC Radio 5 Live her daughter was "still in disbelief".

She said she had had no contact with the Kercher family since the trial.

She said: "I wait for the day that they too know that Amanda had nothing to do with it... putting a girl in jail for a crime she didn't commit is not going to make them feel better.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9- I'm knocked out by your neolithic blade...jealous!! Where did you find it? :)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

btw, Forensics and archaeology....did any of you see the way the site where Caylee Anthony's body was found in Florida was analysed? It was excavated just like an archaeological dig. Stunning work.


Last edited by bucketoftea on Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Knox says she thought "somebody" had their period at the apartment and did not clean up the menstrual blood Knox saw in the bathroom.



But from what I've read about the forensic science, they are able to discern the difference between menstrual blood and , um, regular(?) blood and that there was definitely no menstrual blood present. I could be wrong. and thank you for the info on the BBC interview, the both of you
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yes it's possible to tell the difference (though not from 3metres away through a keyhole).
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mortytoad wrote:
piktor wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Knox says she thought "somebody" had their period at the apartment and did not clean up the menstrual blood Knox saw in the bathroom.



But from what I've read about the forensic science, they are able to discern the difference between menstrual blood and , um, regular(?) blood and that there was definitely no menstrual blood present. I could be wrong. and thank you for the info on the BBC interview, the both of you


YOU ARE CORRECT. For more info.: Just Google forensic/blood analysis
and read how forensic scientists can differentiate between:
1) venous blood (from the blood stream-i.e. from a stab wound)
2) menstrual blood
3) fetal blood

There are numerous cases where the analysis of blood stains of so-called "menstrual blood" turned out to be evidence of VENOUS blood, and led to a criminal investigation, and later a conviction.

Offhand, I remember reading about the murder of Helle Crafts (sp?). Her husband reported her missing . There was NO EVIDENCE in the home to think that anything violent had occurred there . Until one detective spotted a tiny (1cm.) drop of blood on the side of their mattress, which of course, the husband claimed was from Helle's "heavy menstrual flow." :roll: Well, from that 1 cm. stain they soon proved that it was venous blood, and you can almost guess the rest of the story.

Husband convicted to life in prison.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I found this photo claiming to be the duvet being inspected. Anyone able to confirm this is not a crime scene photo?


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
btw, Forensics and archaeology....did any of you see the way the site where Caylee Anthony's body was found in Florida was analysed? It was excavated just like an archaeological dig. Stunning work.



Actually, at least in the UK, when a burried murder victim is discovered, the police will actually get an archaeologist in to dig it. The forensic method for retrieving bodies is actually derived from archaeological practice. This is because, for many years, archaeologists have dug sites that are many hundreds or thousands of years old, so even the smallest remaining evidence is precious. Every fragment of soil is carefully sifted through, looking for things sometimes little bigger then a pinhead. Every item found is carefully bagged and catalogued and where it was found recorded to the inch. At the same time, it's dug very carefully, since everything is potentially very fragile as it's so old. These two factors made the method also perfect for crime scene analyses. For that reason, a large proportion of criminal forensics is actually born out of archaeology.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mortytoad wrote:
piktor wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Knox says she thought "somebody" had their period at the apartment and did not clean up the menstrual blood Knox saw in the bathroom.



But from what I've read about the forensic science, they are able to discern the difference between menstrual blood and , um, regular(?) blood and that there was definitely no menstrual blood present. I could be wrong. and thank you for the info on the BBC interview, the both of you



Yes. Menstrual blood isn't actually blood, strictly speaking. It contains blood but it also contains a whole range of things absent in normal blood and it's easily tested for. You need enough to test of course, but that wasn't a problem with the amounts in the bathroom. This is why the defence made no attempt to argue any of it actually was menstrual blood.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I found this photo claiming to be the duvet being inspected. Anyone able to confirm this is not a crime scene photo?




That might be tough to validate because photographs used at trial were never released, and I only ever saw one other color photograph (below) and another very grainy black and white of the scene.

Although the duvet color seems similar, as does the closet door decor in the background, I have to wonder about total lack of proper attire of the person holding the duvet.
All other scene investigators I have seen always had full route white coveralls, booties, hoods proper gloves, etc to prevent contamination.

If you have a source reference, that might help too.


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


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

H9A wrote:
I found this photo claiming to be the duvet being inspected. Anyone able to confirm this is not a crime scene photo?



Well, that's certainly Meredith's room (you can tell from the wardrobe in the background) and the date fits.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Stint7 wrote:
Although the duvet color seems similar, as does the closet door decor in the background, I have to wonder about total lack of proper attire of the person holding the duvet.


But, he's gloved though. And by that time, they'd most likely already swabbed down the duvet for samples and so forth.

In that picture, it looks like they've taken it out of the duvet cover, the cover probably having been bagged and taken for testing.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 42 [ 10274 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 42  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], The Machine and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,738 Views