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 1:48 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:48 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 41 of 42 [ 10274 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next
Author Message

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Oh, I hope not. Isn't it true that in U>S>A. ..if you kill for gain.. I guess I mean robbery during the commission of a crime,... that is more severe? as also happens if you lie in wait?? Why is it always in favour of the accused.. and not the victim??

_________________
"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: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

On thursday, will they will hear the case or decide if there is a case? Or will this be another 10 minute in and out and no decision?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100614/wl_csm/307883

The slander case, which is ongoing despite the appeal against her murder conviction, will next be heard on Thursday, June 17. If found guilty of slander, Knox could face another six years in jail, on top of the 26 years she is currently serving.

During evidence she gave in court last summer, she demonstrated how a woman police officer had allegedly twice hit her around the head and called her a “stupid liar.”

She was saying ‘Come on, come on, remember’ and then – slap – she hit me. Then ‘come on, come on’ and – slap – another one.”

Italian police have strenuously denied that Knox was subjected to any physical abuse.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I think that this case will be a draw. No harm, no foul. For each party. The prosecution really doesn't want to be derailed from the real deal here. That Amanda should serve at least 10 years for the crime. The rest is just window dressing. But, I'm laying odds here. Yep.. I'm a gamblin woman...Raffaele WILL spill the beans if this appeal fails..i'm laying 10 to 1.!!!

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I'm not so sure. If, as I believe, they didn't strike her they absolutely (imo) should not back down.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"Firm guilter" London John wrote the following on JREF:

"I think that the interrogations of the 5th/6th were carefully planned. I think that the first job was to use sophistry to get RS to admit that he couldn't be sure where AK was while he was asleep. I believe that the plan was then to present this to AK as the "devastating" news that her boyfriend had now changed his story, and was now saying that she might have left the apartment during the murder night. I believe that the police then asked to see the text message, and engaged in further "scenario fulfillment" when they saw what it said. For the police, the text confirmed their belief that AK been involved with Lumumba. And the fact that AK was denying that she'd made plans to meet anybody that night, coupled with at least an initial uncertainty over who she'd sent the text to, further cemented the police's beliefs."

The police called Sollecito in for further questioning on 5 November 2007 because they had the phone records that he and Knox had lied previously.

When Knox and Sollecito were confronted with the phone records they immediately changed their stories.

"Confronted with records showing that the cell phones of both suspects were turned off at the same moment the night before the murder and then turned on again the next morning about 6—Knox and Sollecito told police that they slept until after 10 a.m.—the two changed their story." (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/14/monkey-trial.html#

"She had denied responding to an SMS message from Mr Lumumba telling her there was no need to come to work because there were few customers, leaving her free for the evening. But she broke down when police said phone records showed that she had done so, Ms Donnino said.

She showed extreme emotional involvement – she was crying and visibly shocked, saying 'It was him, it was him. He's bad'," Ms Donnino added.(Richard Owen, The Times).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 912206.ece

Sollecito then wrote a witness statement which categorically stated that Knox went out at 9.00pm and didn't come back until about 1.00am.

“Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don’t remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn’t remember if they had sex." (Aislinn Simpson, The Daily Telegraph).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -case.html

Sollecito has refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment since then.

"Knox maintains that she spent the night of Nov. 1, 2007, at Sollecito's house. Sollecito did not take the stand during this trial, and his lawyer told NEWSWEEK that it was, at least in part, because he could not corroborate Knox's alibi." (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/06/the-italian-job.html
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

It will propab;y be a draw, though, BoT. Saving grace for the police. Prosecution hoping for the 26 years, ( real time 12 years). Losing?? here, allows the prosection to win the appeal. My thoughts anyway.

_________________
"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: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

By that I mean, losing or drawing the slander case..staying on course with the sentence. 26 years. You lose the battle, but win the war.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
On thursday, will they will hear the case or decide if there is a case? Or will this be another 10 minute in and out and no decision?



Hi H9,

The 17th is the Court of Appeal hearing (and also deciding? -- I'm not sure) on why Matteini should not be the judge hearing the slander trial (she validated Amanda and Raffaele's continued incarceration, instead of granting house arrest); the appeal move was done for Amanda's sake.

I expect two hours max for each side (probably much less, even 10-15 minutes each) - there is really not all that much to talk about when discussing why, or why not, someone should hear a case.

If there are reasons published for the appeal decision, I expect it will be by the usual 90-day time limit, which will take it to mid-September. But I'm speculating here.

The slander trial is scheduled to resume in October, either 1 October (with Matteini), or end October (with another judge) -- depends on the appeal decision.


By the way, where do these things about the defence appeal grounds, with the note numbers, like [162] etc, come from? Is there a link?
Parts of them sound like cherry-picking (in terms of their phrasing), rather than the full context.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

It turns out LondonJohn is good for something. And I don't mean as a lead weight for a ship's anchor or as a crash test dummy. Hi John! Love your work baby - almost as much as you do! Of course, the Italian police didn't need any sophistry to convince Raffaele that maybe Amanda went out. Raffaele's diary of the 7th of November contains an extensive internal dialogue on his part about whether she did or not and how bad is memory was because he had too many pipes.

However, re-reading that, he also helped me re-discover something I'd forgotten to do with the explanation of the knife's presence in the flat. I know opinions were pretty split on my theory that perhaps the knife was transported to the flat at lunchtime when Raffaele prepared lunch for Amanda. I note the following from the diary therefore;

Nov 16 2007
Last night I saw on television that the knife that I had at home (the
one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent) ...
my heart jumped in my throat and I was in total panic because I
thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or had helped someone in the
enterprise. But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me
that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the
legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take
it and and carry it from my house to her house because the girls
didn't have a knife
so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing ... I
live in a reality show nightmare, the 'nightmare reality show'.
Unbelievable!


I'd love to know if that was Tiziano's theory or if it's Raffaele's explanation to his family.

By the way. Has anyone here ever had sight of the full diary of Amanda - was it 200 pages or so? I bet there's some good stuff in there.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
It turns out LondonJohn is good for something. And I don't mean as a lead weight for a ship's anchor or as a crash test dummy.

:D :D :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
On thursday, will they will hear the case or decide if there is a case? Or will this be another 10 minute in and out and no decision?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100614/wl_csm/307883

The slander case, which is ongoing despite the appeal against her murder conviction, will next be heard on Thursday, June 17. If found guilty of slander, Knox could face another six years in jail, on top of the 26 years she is currently serving.

During evidence she gave in court last summer, she demonstrated how a woman police officer had allegedly twice hit her around the head and called her a “stupid liar.”

She was saying ‘Come on, come on, remember’ and then – slap – she hit me. Then ‘come on, come on’ and – slap – another one.”

Italian police have strenuously denied that Knox was subjected to any physical abuse.



No, it's just the hearing ti decide whether Judge Matteini can hear the case on October 1st or whether a new judge shoyld be appointed.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
No, it's just the hearing ti decide whether Judge Matteini can hear the case on October 1st or whether a new judge shoyld be appointed.


There is absolutely no reason why Judge Matteini should not hear the case.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
No, it's just the hearing ti decide whether Judge Matteini can hear the case on October 1st or whether a new judge shoyld be appointed.


There is absolutely no reason why Judge Matteini should not hear the case.
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

florist wrote:
Hello,
one thing I find quite "funny" and a bit telling about AK is her constant talk about love and how she obviously applied it in her time in Italy. If I remember correctly, Barbie Nadeau wrote in her book, that AK went to bed with Daniele de L. during the first few days of her relationship with RS.
So AK, the person, who always wants to know, that she`s loved, and according to her friends "gives more care and attention to others than she does to herself", betrays her new boyfriend, of whom she knew he was obsessive of her, just after a couple of days :D .
I`m not the person, who has the right to judge AK`s personality, as I`ve never met or talked to her, but just looking at this little "episode" (and of course other facts, like the things she said to MK`s friends in the questura) makes me think, that Mr. Mignini wasn`t that wrong in his closing arguments, when he described AK as a person, "who didn`t care much of the feelings of other people".


florist wrote:
bolint wrote:
florist wrote:
"If I remember correctly, Barbie Nadeau wrote in her book, that AK went to bed with Daniele de L. during the first few days of her relationship with RS."

It was earlier, Oct 20.
She met RS on Oct 25.


Yes, as far as I can remember, she "met" him twice. On Oct 20. and during the week with RS. If you have Barbie`s book and there is no mention of the second meeting with Daniele de L., then I`m really sorry for posting this false-information and I hope my post will be deleted.
Otherwise you should do a better research 8-)


bolint wrote:
" she "met" him twice. On Oct 20. and during the week with RS."

Yes she met him twice, Oct 20 was the second time.

The testimonies as reported by Frank:

"Red Zone, that's the place where girls become approachable, it seems, maybe with some chemical help. The boys confirmed that in the same famous night at Red Zone Giacomo kisses Meredith and Daniel Amanda. When they come home Meredith goes to sleep with Giacomo and Daniel with Amanda (Daniel is a friend who was sometimes coming over and had met Amanda on a previous occasion). Miss Comodi was particularly interested about Amanda's sex life, What have they done?. --Probably they didn't fall asleep immediately, Giacomo speculated.-- What does it mean? --Probably they made love, Giacomo had to say to get rid of the question. They had a sexual intercourse, sexpert Stefano specified out of Daniel's kiss-and-tell."


I`m sorry for you, but either you or Barbie Nadeau is misinformed:

modest_ex wrote:

"Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she hooked up again with Daniel de Luna.........Nevertheless Raffaele bragged to friends that he and Amanda were having sex three or four times a day, usually under the influence of marijuana or hashish."


modest_ex got that info from Barbie`s book and I tend to trust rather Barbie than you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

As predicted, London John is slowly creeping out of the closet:

"It should be obvious that I'm a firm "guilter", prejudiced as I am towards scientific analysis, circumstantial evidence, and logical inference hehe." (London John, PMF, 11 April 2010).

"Again speaking purely personally, I don't even know whether Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are culpable or non-culpable of these crimes." (London John, 15 June 2010, JREF).
Top Profile 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
"Firm guilter" London John wrote the following on JREF:

"I think that the interrogations of the 5th/6th were carefully planned. I think that the first job was to use sophistry to get RS to admit that he couldn't be sure where AK was while he was asleep. I believe that the plan was then to present this to AK as the "devastating" news that her boyfriend had now changed his story, and was now saying that she might have left the apartment during the murder night. I believe that the police then asked to see the text message, and engaged in further "scenario fulfillment" when they saw what it said. For the police, the text confirmed their belief that AK been involved with Lumumba. And the fact that AK was denying that she'd made plans to meet anybody that night, coupled with at least an initial uncertainty over who she'd sent the text to, further cemented the police's beliefs."


Of course that ignores the fact that no amount of "sophistry" by the police would compel an innocent person to tell a bunch of lies about their whereabouts and actions. And anyway, isn't it part of the job of the police to use whatever tricks or maneuvers they can to trip up suspects who are lying? Do FOAKERs really think that the police should do no more than ask politely "did you do it?" and if the suspect is pretty or appealing (or an HONORS student) and says "no, it wasn't me." they should just back off and leave it at that? Would any crime in history have ever been solved if the police couldn't meet attempted sophistry by suspects with some sophistry of their own?
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I don't think RoseMontague will mind this being posted here from her mentioning it on JREF. It is interesting
ROSE:
This is a transcript of an intercepted phone call that is contained in Amanda's appeal. To me, it seems to indicate that she was already under quite a bit of pressure from the police questioning on 4 November. It is possible that I am misreading or the google translation does not accurately reflect the meaning. I am providing both the Italian and English version
here:

The reports on a conversation intercepted.

Nel resoconto su una conversazione, intercettata “ambientale”, avvenuta
domenica 4 novembre 2007 nella Questura di Perugia si legge:
<<Nel momento in cui inizia l’ascolto della conversazione, da parte della
scrivente, AMANDA PARLA AL TELEFONO, e dice: “Io ero l’unica che stava
con lei e quindi loro mi vogliono spremere il cervello per farmi dire delle
cose…”.
Poi la ragazza riferisce all’interlocutore che lì, insieme a lei, c’è un ragazzo che
la sta aiutando, è carino e parla un po’ anche il tedesco; dopodiché passa il
telefono a Raffaele per farlo parlare con la persona dell’altro capo. Raffaele (in
inglese): “Io non posso fare niente, siamo in questura, le stanno spremendo la
mente” (letteralmente: prendendo a calci la mente), dopodichè il ragazzo passa
nuovamente il telefono ad Amanda.
Amanda: “Non c’è niente che tu possa fare. Ieri con le ragazze che abitavano
nella casa, abbiamo cercato di capire cosa è successo”.>>
Ed inoltre: <<E ancora riprendendo il discorso degli interrogatori a cui è stata
sottoposta): “Mi sto sentendo male… Loro che mi urlavano contro… Ho dormito
solo due ore, la scorsa notte…sono molto stressata…”.>>
E ancora: <<Una delle due ragazze esordisce subito, dicendo: “Non mi sento
bene in questo periodo, salto per qualsiasi cosa”, e poi:”Come stai, Amanda?”.
Amanda: “Non bene mi trattano come una criminale”. >>

The reports on a conversation intercepted.
Sunday, November 4, 2007 Police in Perugia says:
<<When will start listening to the conversation, by
writer, AMANDA SPEAKS THE PHONE, and says: "I was the only one that was
with her and then they want me to squeeze my brain for me to say the
things .... "
Then she relates that the interlocutor there, along with her, there is a boy
is helping, he's cute and talks a bit 'too German, then pass
Raffaele phone for him to talk with the person on the other end. Raphael (in
English): "I can not do anything, we in the police station, the are squeezing the
mind "(literally kicking the mind), then the guy goes
the telephone again to Amanda.
Amanda: "There is nothing you can do. Yesterday the girls who lived
in the house, we tried to understand what happened. ">>
And also: <<It still recovering speech questioning that was
subject): "I'm feeling bad ... They were shouting against me ... I stayed
only two hours last night ... I'm very stressed .... ">>
And again: <<One of the girls begins immediately, saying: "I do not feel
well in this period, jumping to anything "and then" How are you, Amanda? ".
Amanda: "Do not treat me well as a criminal." >>
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

No problemo, h9

I am not good with the Italian here. I can't be certain if the "shouting" she is referring to here is the police shouting at her or the other flat-mates she said she met with. A better translation would be helpful.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

modest_ex wrote:
And anyway, isn't it part of the job of the police to use whatever tricks or maneuvers they can to trip up suspects who are lying?


The police didn't need to use any tricks to trip up Knox and Sollecito. They had their mobile phone records that contradicted their versions of what happened on 1 and 2 November 2007.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Too easy. I was panicked, I wasn't bovered.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

modest_ex wrote:
The Machine wrote:
"Firm guilter" London John wrote the following on JREF:

"I think that the interrogations of the 5th/6th were carefully planned. I think that the first job was to use sophistry to get RS to admit that he couldn't be sure where AK was while he was asleep. I believe that the plan was then to present this to AK as the "devastating" news that her boyfriend had now changed his story, and was now saying that she might have left the apartment during the murder night. I believe that the police then asked to see the text message, and engaged in further "scenario fulfillment" when they saw what it said. For the police, the text confirmed their belief that AK been involved with Lumumba. And the fact that AK was denying that she'd made plans to meet anybody that night, coupled with at least an initial uncertainty over who she'd sent the text to, further cemented the police's beliefs."


Of course that ignores the fact that no amount of "sophistry" by the police would compel an innocent person to tell a bunch of lies about their whereabouts and actions. And anyway, isn't it part of the job of the police to use whatever tricks or maneuvers they can to trip up suspects who are lying? Do FOAKERs really think that the police should do no more than ask politely "did you do it?" and if the suspect is pretty or appealing (or an HONORS student) and says "no, it wasn't me." they should just back off and leave it at that? Would any crime in history have ever been solved if the police couldn't meet attempted sophistry by suspects with some sophistry of their own?



Did you read this link posted by Macport yesterday?
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/exc ... 844612.pdf
(Though it also says that it varies from country to country.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hello everybody I am new here but have been interested in this case since the beginning.
How many times have you heard that! I have decided now to give my two penneth's worth (I hope thats the correct english) in anticipation of the motivation report when it is published here.
Then we can talk and debate!
Kudos to all involved in producing this document.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Right, I've opened the book on LondonJohn's full conversion date. PM me if you want to nominate a date by which he changes from full guilter, now somewhat undecided *cough* to "probably" or "almost certainly" or "definitely" not guilty. Whoever is closest to that fateful day wins. Judge's decision is final and may even be somewhat arbitrary. Don't complain - I like to railroad in my jackboots with the best of them. Prize? A free drink and eternal plaudits on PMF. On C-day aka Conversion Day, we will give three hallelujahs and a "can I get a witness"* for the miraculous, evangelical experience. Priv me now to snap your date up!

SA

*convicted lying child murderers and mafia snitches who would grass their own brother up need not apply...

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Right, I've opened the book on LondonJohn's full conversion date. PM me if you want to nominate a date by which he changes from full guilter, now somewhat undecided *cough* to "probably" or "almost certainly" or "definitely" not guilty. Whoever is closest to that fateful day wins. Judge's decision is final and may even be somewhat arbitrary. Don't complain - I like to railroad in my jackboots with the best of them. Prize? A free drink and eternal plaudits on PMF. On C-day aka Conversion Day, we will give three hallelujahs and a "can I get a witness"* for the miraculous, evangelical experience. Priv me now to snap your date up!

SA

*convicted lying child murderers and mafia snitches who would grass their own brother up need not apply...


*Hem* I think I spotted it a couple of weeks ago, but no-one commented. I will look back for it. If anyone can find a reference before then (must be definite firm innocenti statement) then I will stand corrected. I think my quote was 'I don't believe they had a fair trial' - but I could be wrong. Does that qualify?

I need a date on that, don't I judge.

p.s I have not killed anyone or been in prison for grassing up the mafia. Honest.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Right, I've opened the book on LondonJohn's full conversion date. PM me if you want to nominate a date by which he changes from full guilter, now somewhat undecided *cough* to "probably" or "almost certainly" or "definitely" not guilty. Whoever is closest to that fateful day wins. Judge's decision is final and may even be somewhat arbitrary. Don't complain - I like to railroad in my jackboots with the best of them. Prize? A free drink and eternal plaudits on PMF. On C-day aka Conversion Day, we will give three hallelujahs and a "can I get a witness"* for the miraculous, evangelical experience. Priv me now to snap your date up!

SA

*convicted lying child murderers and mafia snitches who would grass their own brother up need not apply...




You are assuming he is not posting under multiple personas?


Last edited by H9 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:50 pm   Post subject: TELEPHONE TALK TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION   

H9 and Rose M:

Here's my translation.

I broke up the paragraphs to make it more readable.

Just one question: In the transcript we see the Italian
"(LETTERALMENTE: PRENDENDO A CALCI LA MENTE)"..which translates:
"(LITERALLY: THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN)"

I assume these are Raffaele's original words, said in English??? Or maybe not?

Anyway...here's The 411's Translation. Hope this helps.
_______________________________________________________________________________

AMANDA TALKS ON THE TELEPHONE , and says: “I was the only one who was with her and so they want to rack my brain, to make me say things…”

Then [Amanda] makes reference to the person she is talking to, who is with her, there is a guy that is helping her, he’s cute ( 411 editorial smiley comment :roll: )and also speaks a bit of German: after which, she passes the telephone to Raffaele to have him speak with the person on the other end of the phone .

Raffaele says (in English): “ I can’t do anything , we’re at the police station, they’re racking our brains (LITERALLY THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN hb-)) hb-)) ), after which the guy [i.e., Raffaele] passes the phone back to Amanda.

Amanda: “There’s nothing that you can do. Yesterday, with the girls that lived in the cottage, we tried to understand what happened.”

And also: {Amanda, returning to the subject of the interrogation that she was subject to} “I’m feeling bad…They were shouting at me …I only slept two hours last night….I’m really stressed…”

And more: {One of the two girls starts in immediately saying: “I’m not feeling well these days, I jump at the littlest thing.”

And then: “How are you, Amanda?”

Amanda says: “Not well: they're treating me like a criminal.” eee-)
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Black Dog wrote:
Hello everybody I am new here but have been interested in this case since the beginning.
How many times have you heard that! I have decided now to give my two penneth's worth (I hope thats the correct english) in anticipation of the motivation report when it is published here.
Then we can talk and debate!
Kudos to all involved in producing this document.


At that point, what makes you think there will be anything left to debate? :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From the off Amanda Knox seems to be indignant regarding her contact with the police. How dare they not believe her?
I can't understand why someone who is innocent would talk about the police in this way.
Personally, I would understand why the police were like the way they were, considering that my roommate had just been murdered in my house.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:05 pm   Post subject: Black Dog CUTENESS ALERT!!   

Black Dog wrote:
Hello everybody I am new here but have been interested in this case since the beginning.
How many times have you heard that! I have decided now to give my two penneth's worth (I hope thats the correct english) in anticipation of the motivation report when it is published here.
Then we can talk and debate!
Kudos to all involved in producing this document.


Welcome Black Dog! ARF!! ARF!!!

I do hope your chosen moniker "Black Dog" is a reference to some beloved dark-haired/dark-furred canine,

and not the kind of "Black Dog" chronic depression that Winston Churchill suffered from... :cry:
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Sorry Fly By Night, perhaps the wrong choice of word there...
In my mind there is nothing to debate.
I just cant wait what the Knox groupies will come up with after the motivation report is posted,more of the same I suspect but I feel (and obviously I haven't seen it yet) that this will really nail it and will shed the hangers on away from the hardcore loonies like Kelly13 et al.People like him will never be convinced of the truth even if it does hit them in the face which is what I am hoping the report will do.


*Oops.. edited to change Kerry to Kelly.


Last edited by Black Dog on Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thank you for your welcome 411 and yes, it is of the canine variety.
Lovely dog in your pic by the way!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:53 pm   Post subject: Rabbit Mafia???!!!   

The Bard wrote:



p.s I have not killed anyone or been in prison for grassing up the mafia. Honest.


Uh-huh. Yeah... sure, Bard.

Maybe * YOU* haven't, Bard...

But an undercover, heavily-disguised snitch in the rabbit warren has come forward to disclose incriminating information about a character named "Mafioso Mungo" (and his Carrot-Crunching Cronies...)



Looks like "somebunny" may be in big trouble. bu-)

I hate to point a finger in your direction, but...
Would there be any reason to suspect that YOU might be the inspiration behind THEIR LOGO?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

If you swap "Sicily" for "Italy", you get a particularly apposite quote from the Godfather and Don Mungleone;

"In Italy, women are more dangerous than shotguns"

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: TELEPHONE TALK TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION   

The 411 wrote:
H9 and Rose M:

Here's my translation.

I broke up the paragraphs to make it more readable.

Just one question: In the transcript we see the Italian
"(LETTERALMENTE: PRENDENDO A CALCI LA MENTE)"..which translates:
"(LITERALLY: THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN)"

I assume these are Raffaele's original words, said in English??? Or maybe not?

Anyway...here's The 411's Translation. Hope this helps.
_______________________________________________________________________________

AMANDA TALKS ON THE TELEPHONE , and says: “I was the only one who was with her and so they want to rack my brain, to make me say things…”

Then [Amanda] makes reference to the person she is talking to, who is with her, there is a guy that is helping her, he’s cute ( 411 editorial smiley comment :roll: )and also speaks a bit of German: after which, she passes the telephone to Raffaele to have him speak with the person on the other end of the phone .

Raffaele says (in English): “ I can’t do anything , we’re at the police station, they’re racking our brains (LITERALLY THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN hb-)) hb-)) ), after which the guy [i.e., Raffaele] passes the phone back to Amanda.

Amanda: “There’s nothing that you can do. Yesterday, with the girls that lived in the cottage, we tried to understand what happened.”

And also: {Amanda, returning to the subject of the interrogation that she was subject to} “I’m feeling bad…They were shouting at me …I only slept two hours last night….I’m really stressed…”

And more: {One of the two girls starts in immediately saying: “I’m not feeling well these days, I jump at the littlest thing.”

And then: “How are you, Amanda?”

Amanda says: “Not well: they're treating me like a criminal.” eee-)

What Rose posted is a short excerpt of hours of recorded conversations in the bugged police waiting room [“ambientale’]. Police as part of their investigation were listening on everyone that lived in the house, not just Knox and Sollecito also the other two housemates were recorded. All of this is very old news [Nov 2007] and already in the 10000 pages investigation file and therefore was debated in the main trial.

How is the outcome of presenting this again in the appeals trial going to change anything? Do foakers really believe that regurgitating the same evidence will actually change anything? I do hope the new judges in the appeals actually look at this tapped conversations, because there is no way that anything in there that was said by Knox or Sollecito will help them at all in their appeal, it will have the opposite effect!

Here is just one more article, there're more around the web on parts of those conversations between AK, RS, Laura and Filomena, plus also AK moment she's on the phone with her mother asking her to bring her nickers as she didn't seem to have any and was wearing Raffaele's underpants. eek-) tu-))
Sorry no time to translate, Brazil's game is about to start! pp-(

«Come stai Amanda?». «Non bene, mi trattano come una criminale». Prima ancora di scrivere il memoriale in cui afferma che la polizia le ha messo pressione, l'ha stressata e le ha anche dato «un colpo in testa», Amanda Knox accusa il modo in cui l'hanno trattata gli investigatori in questura nei giorni immediatamente successivi all'omicidio di Meredith Kercher, prima del fermo. Un'accusa riportata nei verbali delle intercettazioni ambientali fatte nel corso delle ore trascorse in questura da Amanda, ma anche dal suo fidanzato Raffaele Sollecito e dalle altre persone che abitavano in via della Pergola. Nelle intercettazioni, fatte il 4 novembre, Amanda e Raffaele discutono delle insistenti domande dei poliziotti («mi vogliono spremere il cervello» dice Amanda ad un certo punto), parlano di quanto accaduto tre giorni prima, dei ragazzi che frequentavano la casa di Meredith, ma anche di cose più futili, scherzando e ridendo. Come ad esempio, è scritto nei verbali, quando Raffaele traduce in inglese alla fidanzata alcune parolacce italiane, o come quando sempre Sollecito, parlando al telefono di Amanda, promette che «farà una foto di loro due così». O, ancora, quando Amanda parla al telefono con la madre chiedendole che le porti delle cose assolutamente necessarie per lei, cioè alcuni capi di vestiario, ma soprattutto delle mutandine, perché negli ultimi giorni aveva usato le mutande di Raffaele. Ecco alcuni passi delle intercettazioni. 1) Amanda parla con Laura e Filomena (le sue coinquiline) A: «La polizia mi ha chiesto di Maurizio, perché lui è venuto nella casa». L: «Come fanno a sapere di Maurizio» A: «Non lo so...volevano sapere chi è alto tra tutte le persone che sono venute. Sei sicura che Giorgio non sia alto?». L: «Si». 2) Amanda risponde ad una domanda di una delle sue coinquiline (non indicata chi, tra Filomena e Laura) D: «Non mi sento bene in questo periodo, salto per qualsiasi cosa. Come stai Amanda?». A: «Non bene, mi trattano come una criminale... di non mentire... sta per venire mia madre». 3) Amanda e Raffaele, mentre mangiano una pizza, parlano di un ragazzo, probabilmente uno di quelli che frequentava la casa in via della Pergola. A: «Non mi piace più, francamente. Voglio dire: lui è stato carino a trovarmi un lavoro ed è stato carino a suonare la chitarra con...(la parola non si capisce, potrebbe essere "con me" o "con Meredith") quando sono andata a casa...». R: »Oh aspetta, stiamo parlando... (esita) del tuo amico del "Le Chic" oppure...». A: «Amico del Le Chic?». R: «Io sto parlando del tipo che...(esita)». A: «Chi?». R: «Parlo del tipo...». A: «Spiros« R: »No, Shaky, Shaky, eh eh». A: «Oh. Lui non mi piace. Lui non è...lo detesto quell'uomo (ridacchia). Lui provato con me».
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo_app ... &desc_sez=
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

florist wrote:
"I`m sorry for you, but either you or Barbie Nadeau is misinformed:"

That's true. :D


"modest_ex wrote:
"Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she hooked up again with Daniel de Luna.........Nevertheless Raffaele bragged to friends that he and Amanda were having sex three or four times a day, usually under the influence of marijuana or hashish."
modest_ex got that info from Barbie`s book and I tend to trust rather Barbie than you."

These are my sources (plus the one quoted above):

Quote:
The TImes:
"Daniel de Luna, a Rome student, has testified he slept with Knox at her home on October 20"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 113087.ece

Quote:
Amy Frost on the trial as reported by Frank:

"Amy went out with Meredith and Amanda only one time for a pizza and another time to the Red Zone (a discotheque known for techno music and the presence of synthetic drugs). That's were Meredith first kissed Giacomo.
Meredith said a guy from downstairs, Daniel De Luna, liked Amanda. He had an herpes on his mouth which made him attractive at Amanda's eyes because she said if he had a herpes it meant he does good sex. Indeed they will kiss that night at Red Zone."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_ ... chive.html

What is Barbie's version based on?
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Joolsw said.....Here is just one more article, there're more around the web on parts of those conversations between AK, RS, Laura and Filomena, plus also AK moment she's on the phone with her mother asking her to bring her nickers as she didn't seem to have any and was wearing Raffaele's underpants.

What ??? what did AK do with her knickers ? Give them away to her boyfriends a souvenirs ?

Do many women wear mens drawers in an emergency or just go to the local supermarket and get a few pairs of, er pants ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:05 pm   Post subject: Carrot-Crunching Criminal "Capo dei Capi"   

SomeAlibi wrote:
If you swap "Sicily" for "Italy", you get a particularly apposite quote from the Godfather and Don Mungleone;

"In Italy, women are more dangerous than shotguns"


Hey, Some:
I believe you're referring to the infamous Big Bunny Boss?
That's..."Don Mungolino". bu-)

You know...."Capo dei Capi" of the Carrot-Crunching Criminal Clan. bu-)
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bolint wrote:
florist wrote:
"I`m sorry for you, but either you or Barbie Nadeau is misinformed:"

That's true. :D


"modest_ex wrote:
"Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she hooked up again with Daniel de Luna.........Nevertheless Raffaele bragged to friends that he and Amanda were having sex three or four times a day, usually under the influence of marijuana or hashish."
modest_ex got that info from Barbie`s book and I tend to trust rather Barbie than you."

These are my sources (plus the one quoted above):

Quote:
The TImes:
"Daniel de Luna, a Rome student, has testified he slept with Knox at her home on October 20"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 113087.ece

Quote:
Amy Frost on the trial as reported by Frank:

"Amy went out with Meredith and Amanda only one time for a pizza and another time to the Red Zone (a discotheque known for techno music and the presence of synthetic drugs). That's were Meredith first kissed Giacomo.
Meredith said a guy from downstairs, Daniel De Luna, liked Amanda. He had an herpes on his mouth which made him attractive at Amanda's eyes because she said if he had a herpes it meant he does good sex. Indeed they will kiss that night at Red Zone."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_ ... chive.html

What is Barbie's version based on?


Hi, I don`t posses Barbie`s book. I just relied on the things, that were written here on the board about her book.
I personally don`t understand, why everyone on the board, who has Barbie`s book refuses to confirm this.
But, you know what, let`s forget this; it wasn`t my intension to speak about AK`s sex life in Italy, but rather about the discrepancy of her acting in Italy and her "character-description".
But as I seem to be the only one, who finds this funny, let`s end this whole discussion. :lol:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: Rabbit Mafia???!!!   

The 411 wrote:
The Bard wrote:



p.s I have not killed anyone or been in prison for grassing up the mafia. Honest.


Uh-huh. Yeah... sure, Bard.

Maybe * YOU* haven't, Bard...

But an undercover, heavily-disguised snitch in the rabbit warren has come forward to disclose incriminating information about a character named "Mafioso Mungo" (and his Carrot-Crunching Cronies...)



Looks like "somebunny" may be in big trouble. bu-)

I hate to point a finger in your direction, but...
Would there be any reason to suspect that YOU might be the inspiration behind THEIR LOGO?

Umm, my cats (one of which was a Maine Coon, since diceased) were scared shitless of our rabbit, which is why she moved to the garden.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: Carrot-Crunching Criminal "Capo dei Capi"   

The 411 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
If you swap "Sicily" for "Italy", you get a particularly apposite quote from the Godfather and Don Mungleone;

"In Italy, women are more dangerous than shotguns"


Hey, Some:
I believe you're referring to the infamous Big Bunny Boss?
That's..."Don Mungolino". bu-)

You know...."Capo dei Capi" of the Carrot-Crunching Criminal Clan. bu-)

I think it's a myth that rabbits eat carrots, ours certainly won't!

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
"Firm guilter" London John wrote the following on JREF:

Quote:
"I think that the interrogations of the 5th/6th were carefully planned. I think that the first job was to use sophistry to get RS to admit that he couldn't be sure where AK was while he was asleep. I believe that the plan was then to present this to AK as the "devastating" news that her boyfriend had now changed his story, and was now saying that she might have left the apartment during the murder night. I believe that the police then asked to see the text message, and engaged in further "scenario fulfillment" when they saw what it said. For the police, the text confirmed their belief that AK been involved with Lumumba. And the fact that AK was denying that she'd made plans to meet anybody that night, coupled with at least an initial uncertainty over who she'd sent the text to, further cemented the police's beliefs."


The police called Sollecito in for further questioning on 5 November 2007 because they had the phone records that he and Knox had lied previously.

When Knox and Sollecito were confronted with the phone records they immediately changed their stories.


Everybody knows the sequence of events. At no point is it plausible that the police conspired to fool everyone (including the PM it may be added) to coerce poor RS and AK into naming another completely unconnected individual.

There is no evidence the police talked to Patrick prior to his arrest.
There is no evidence Meredith's British friends mentioned her working for Patrick.
There is no evidence that the surveillance teams connected Patrick with Meredith.
There is nothing in any of AK's questioning before the phone records were revealed that they had any interest at all in Patrick.
There is no evidence that they could have predicted at, say, 22:00 05 NOV 2007 that within four short hours, RS would roll on AK and that AK would not only name Patrick but also sign a declaration that he was the murderer.

All by herself, Amanda abandoned all the hard work put into the staged burglary and the unflushed toilet story. Trapped by her own lies.

Very simply, and it's a lot easier to get it through here than over there, naming Patrick could not conceivably have been anybody's idea except Amanda's. She goes to great lengths--including inventing some kind of mystical vision quest that nobody takes seriously--to explain away the fact that it was her idea and hers alone to implicate Patrick in Meredith's murder.

I still feel terrible for Patrick having had the misfortune to cross paths with this remorseless liar, Amanda Knox. And shame on those people who play down her responsibility for ruining his life.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Right, I've opened the book on LondonJohn's full conversion date. PM me if you want to nominate a date by which he changes from full guilter, now somewhat undecided *cough* to "probably" or "almost certainly" or "definitely" not guilty. Whoever is closest to that fateful day wins.


He's a slippery devil. He often appears ready to say something but then veers off into oblivion. I have asked him over and over again for the slightest bit of evidence of any of his speculations but he still doesn't have any.

At least Bruce bothers himself enough to make up some evidence and then attribute it to his 'expert' Steve Moore. Chris Halkides posts an irrelevant link once in a while to make it seem that he has read a book or two in his life.

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

By the way, one of the recent tropes has been about the jury selection process in Italy and how it apparently unfairly caused Amanda to be convicted. I was reminded about the jury selection in the case of child murderer Clifford Sleigh. I lived in Alberta when the little girl was abducted and found murdered and I have to wonder how many of Amanda's supporters would sling mud at the police and prosecutor like they do in the case of Meredith's murder.

Sources:
http://www.ewu.edu/groups/chemistry/Sleigh_Part1.pdf
http://www.ewu.edu/groups/chemistry/Sleigh_Part2.pdf

JURY SELECTION:

Track rejected five people, eliminating anyone who looked rough around the edges. "I will do that always, always," he says. "Cowboys, bar fighters, people who look like they have a criminal record, they never sit on any of my juries."

FINDING THE KILLER:

Alm realized that without the DNA profile of the killer, the Punky case would likely never be solved. Even if one day Alm got a valid confession from Punky's killer, he might well be faced in court with a defence lawyer armed with the police's own massive tip file. The lawyer could pull out dozens of names of sex offenders capable of raping and killing a little girl. "A defence lawyer could go, 'What about this guy? What about that guy? What about this guy?' " Alm says.

DNA TECHNIQUES:

The EPS had expected PCR testing of DNA to be in place by 1993, but the RCMP made a last-minute decision to do a different, more effective form of PCR tests. This delayed PCR in Canadian forensic labs until 1995.

KILLER JUST WANTED TO HELP THE COPS:

He willingly complied, showing the kind of co-operation that investigators expected only from a man with
nothing to hide. Along with a strong alibi for Sept. 6, 1992, provided by Sleigh's common-law wife Gail Smith and her in-laws, Sleigh's handing over of his DNA led the police to set him aside as a suspect at that time.


WITNESSES UNRELIABLE:

Only two of the eyewitnesses seemed somewhat credible, the first being Lindsay Moosewah, who was interviewed right after the abduction and several times later. In these interviews, the little girl tried to please the police as much as she could. She told them many things, only some of which were true.

KILLER CONFESSES BUT MINIMISES OWN RESPONSIBILITY:

The killer played down his involvement in Punky's slaying by skipping over gory details of the assault, claiming that he had no premeditated plan and that he had left her alive in the trucking yard on Edmonton's outskirts.

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

Now how many of the FOA types would similarly jump to Sleigh's defence? All the elements are there. DNA, confession, reduced responsibility, police unable to instantly find the killer, unreliable witnesses, etc. I think Clifford Sleigh should be the poster boy for the FOA 'justice-seekers'. Bruce should feature Sleigh on his site's home page.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
Joolsw said.....Here is just one more article, there're more around the web on parts of those conversations between AK, RS, Laura and Filomena, plus also AK moment she's on the phone with her mother asking her to bring her nickers as she didn't seem to have any and was wearing Raffaele's underpants.

What ??? what did AK do with her knickers ? Give them away to her boyfriends a souvenirs ?

Do many women wear mens drawers in an emergency or just go to the local supermarket and get a few pairs of, er pants ?


IMO no woman would do such a thing, but I'm only a backward European!

eek-) How disgusting is that! eek-)
However, since Knoxy set this trend... I'm sure Foaker women will tell you that they do it all the time and there's nothing unusual there. Foaker men will also agree that they often lend their underpants to their women or men and this, in the US is OK to do. :lol:

Apparently AK didn't have any nickers because her own were at the cottage where she was not allowed to retrieve anything from the house after the murder, so she borrowed Sollecito's underpants hence why she tells her mother who was coming over from the US to bring her some clothes and specially nickers. Incidently, the underpants were part of a number of items collected from Sollecito's flat for tests by forensics as they were bloodstained. The results only revealed mixed DNA of RS+AK.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I don't find the idea disgusting at all. But I happen to know that when short of knickers it has never occurred to me to wear anybody else's. You just don't, do you? You do without till you can get to a shop. Well I do
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
I happen to know that when short of knickers it has never occurred to me to wear anybody else's. You just don't, do you? You do without till you can get to a shop. Well I do

I think everyone I know would sooner go without as well, myself included!

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Chris Halkides posts an irrelevant link once in a while to make it seem that he has read a book or two in his life.
:oops:
And that one sole book he's read in his life is the cook's MurderinItalyincludesphotos or so it seems!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

What a bizarre knicker discussion! I don't think I have ever found myself sans knickers to the extent that I would have to borrow a blokes pants. The idea is strange in the context of AK, since it would have been no issue at all to just go and buy some more from the nearest shop. Interesting that she makes an issue of it at all. Why ask her mother to 'bring knickers' with her from the US? What's wrong with Italian knickers? And why mention the RS pant situation??? More attention seeking? Very strange. I like to keep my knicker status to myself as a general rule! But I expect, yes, Mary will start telling us that she wears her husband's boxer shorts 'regularly' now, and it is totally normal, so normal in fact that she actually wears them over her clothes...

SA, perhaps you can see if there is a shortage of Italian knicker stockists in Perugia when you go. Is the frilly underwear shop the only option. Phew...those Italian women...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
But I expect, yes, Mary will start telling us that she wears her husband's boxer shorts 'regularly' now, and it is totally normal, so normal in fact that she actually wears them over her clothes...


eek-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: TELEPHONE TALK TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION   

The 411 wrote:
H9 and Rose M:

Here's my translation.

I broke up the paragraphs to make it more readable.

Just one question: In the transcript we see the Italian
"(LETTERALMENTE: PRENDENDO A CALCI LA MENTE)"..which translates:
"(LITERALLY: THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN)"

I assume these are Raffaele's original words, said in English??? Or maybe not?

Anyway...here's The 411's Translation. Hope this helps.
_______________________________________________________________________________

AMANDA TALKS ON THE TELEPHONE , and says: “I was the only one who was with her and so they want to rack my brain, to make me say things…”

Then [Amanda] makes reference to the person she is talking to, who is with her, there is a guy that is helping her, he’s cute ( 411 editorial smiley comment :roll: )and also speaks a bit of German: after which, she passes the telephone to Raffaele to have him speak with the person on the other end of the phone .

Raffaele says (in English): “ I can’t do anything , we’re at the police station, they’re racking our brains (LITERALLY THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN hb-)) hb-)) ), after which the guy [i.e., Raffaele] passes the phone back to Amanda.

Amanda: “There’s nothing that you can do. Yesterday, with the girls that lived in the cottage, we tried to understand what happened.”

And also: {Amanda, returning to the subject of the interrogation that she was subject to} “I’m feeling bad…They were shouting at me …I only slept two hours last night….I’m really stressed…”

And more: {One of the two girls starts in immediately saying: “I’m not feeling well these days, I jump at the littlest thing.”

And then: “How are you, Amanda?”

Amanda says: “Not well: they're treating me like a criminal.” eee-)


Thanks 411. That last sentence is certainly subjective on Amanda's part. However, if she felt that way she should have gotten a lawyer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

For my part, I am most concerned about the well being of Skep. I sent her a mail enquiring after her health but received no reply. Is she alright?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
What a bizarre knicker discussion! I don't think I have ever found myself sans knickers to the extent that I would have to borrow a blokes pants. The idea is strange in the context of AK, since it would have been no issue at all to just go and buy some more from the nearest shop. Interesting that she makes an issue of it at all. Why ask her mother to 'bring knickers' with her from the US? What's wrong with Italian knickers? And why mention the RS pant situation??? More attention seeking? Very strange. I like to keep my knicker status to myself as a general rule! But I expect, yes, Mary will start telling us that she wears her husband's boxer shorts 'regularly' now, and it is totally normal, so normal in fact that she actually wears them over her clothes...

SA, perhaps you can see if there is a shortage of Italian knicker stockists in Perugia when you go. Is the frilly underwear shop the only option. Phew...those Italian women...


Well, it's not uncommon in my experience, for girls to want to wear your clothes...not out of need, but rather a desire to be 'close' (when lads do that they get called 'kinky'). But, from personal experience, I have lost 'many' favourite t-shirts and shirts (they only want your favourite ones) to various ladies in my life. No underwear so far though. Indeed, Meredith herself was remarked upon for wearing jeans that had belonged to her previous boyfriend.

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


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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Chris Halkides posts an irrelevant link once in a while to make it seem that he has read a book or two in his life.
:oops:
And that one sole book he's read in his life is the cook's MurderinItalyincludesphotos or so it seems!


No, he probably just looked at the pictures... wan-)
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mul-) mul-) mul-) mul-) mul-) mul-)

Ok folks, listen up. Gallery Administrator here. *Hem*. I would like to announce the creation of a long overdue facility in the Gallery Section. Prompted by the delightful artwork produced by our resident artists we have created an album for PMF Member Created Content! It's called 'PMF Member Album'. I will go hunting for creative posts in a couple of days, but in the mean time do feel free to post up any content you have created and would like to share.

bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Did Amanda actually say "underpants"? I thought she said she borrowed "pants" from Raff, which I think she meant trousers. Isn't pants American for trousers? As in pantsuit? It's not American to call underpants pants, I'm pretty sure.
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hello,
actually, I said I don`t want to ask again; but just out of personal curiousity and desbelief, why everyone is ignoring this:
IS IT TRUE, THAT AK ENDED UP IN BED WITH DANIELE DE L. AGAIN, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE STARTED A RELATIONSHIP WITH RS ?

And don`t get me wrong, as I`ve said above, I`m not interested in AK`s sex life, but rather in getting a picture of her personality.
I would be pleased with a simple: yes/no.


Strange people in here...
See you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Ye gods, I go away for a few days and when I come back the place is ahem.. awash with knickers. I don’t know how to put this more diplomatically but sometime soon could you just err.. well drop the knickers? sp-)) :D :D :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
For my part, I am most concerned about the well being of Skep. I sent her a mail enquiring after her health but received no reply. Is she alright?


Oh, this is not good. Maybe someone from the Seattle area might make a brief enquiry?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Did Amanda actually say "underpants"? I thought she said she borrowed "pants" from Raff, which I think she meant trousers. Isn't pants American for trousers? As in pantsuit? It's not American to call underpants pants, I'm pretty sure.



Yes, she wore them...while on her period as I recall,

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


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Right, I've opened the book on LondonJohn's full conversion date. PM me if you want to nominate a date by which he changes from full guilter, now somewhat undecided *cough* to "probably" or "almost certainly" or "definitely" not guilty. Whoever is closest to that fateful day wins. Judge's decision is final and may even be somewhat arbitrary. Don't complain - I like to railroad in my jackboots with the best of them. Prize? A free drink and eternal plaudits on PMF. On C-day aka Conversion Day, we will give three hallelujahs and a "can I get a witness"* for the miraculous, evangelical experience. Priv me now to snap your date up!

[wave=][/wave]SA

*convicted lying child murderers and mafia snitches who would grass their own brother up need not apply...


Hey SA, put me in for a Tenner (again I will fax one on to you soonest). Will PM you with the date once I have given serious consideration to the entrails of a chicken which BTW is as much fun as reading LondonJohns posts at the moment; “Pure Offal” so to speak. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
What a bizarre knicker discussion! I don't think I have ever found myself sans knickers to the extent that I would have to borrow a blokes pants. The idea is strange in the context of AK, since it would have been no issue at all to just go and buy some more from the nearest shop. Interesting that she makes an issue of it at all. Why ask her mother to 'bring knickers' with her from the US? What's wrong with Italian knickers? And why mention the RS pant situation??? More attention seeking? Very strange. I like to keep my knicker status to myself as a general rule! But I expect, yes, Mary will start telling us that she wears her husband's boxer shorts 'regularly' now, and it is totally normal, so normal in fact that she actually wears them over her clothes...

SA, perhaps you can see if there is a shortage of Italian knicker stockists in Perugia when you go. Is the frilly underwear shop the only option. Phew...those Italian women...


Well, it's not uncommon in my experience, for girls to want to wear your clothes...not out of need, but rather a desire to be 'close' (when lads do that they get called 'kinky'). But, from personal experience, I have lost 'many' favourite t-shirts and shirts (they only want your favourite ones) to various ladies in my life. No underwear so far though. Indeed, Meredith herself was remarked upon for wearing jeans that had belonged to her previous boyfriend.


Maybe it's a Seattle thing (you know, since this is where Grunge music began and everything...) but it is not uncommon at all for girls to wear men's boxer shorts underwear. They wear them as shorts, over leggings; many different ways. But I highly doubt one would wear them after they've already been worn by someone else.


Tom_ch said:

Quote:
Umm, my cats (one of which was a Maine Coon, since diceased) were scared shitless of our rabbit, which is why she moved to the garden.

Tom


Hi Tom,

I'm so sorry to hear about your Maine Coon cat - I am very partial to this breed as they are the BEST! I have a tuxedo Maine Coon ironically named TOM! (Tommy)

mike

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

Offline amber2670


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

florist wrote:
Hello,
actually, I said I don`t want to ask again; but just out of personal curiousity and desbelief, why everyone is ignoring this:
IS IT TRUE, THAT AK ENDED UP IN BED WITH DANIELE DE L. AGAIN, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE STARTED A RELATIONSHIP WITH RS ?

And don`t get me wrong, as I`ve said above, I`m not interested in AK`s sex life, but rather in getting a picture of her personality.
I would be pleased with a simple: yes/no.


Strange people in here...
See you.


Yes you are right about it being said in Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau....it is said the exact quote on page 34 if anyone else wants to check.
Now whether she is correct on this or where she got this info I do not know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
mul-) mul-) mul-) mul-) mul-) mul-)

Ok folks, listen up. Gallery Administrator here. *Hem*. I would like to announce the creation of a long overdue facility in the Gallery Section. Prompted by the delightful artwork produced by our resident artists we have created an album for PMF Member Created Content! It's called 'PMF Member Album'. I will go hunting for creative posts in a couple of days, but in the mean time do feel free to post up any content you have created and would like to share.

bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-) bu-)


Hey Bard, great idea. There certainly are many exceptional creations posted over time, it is fitting they are preserved. Don’t forger my masterpiece of Mungo, reconstructed (at great personal effort) below for your ease.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tara wrote:
Maybe it's a Seattle thing (you know, since this is where Grunge music began and everything...) but it is not uncommon at all for girls to wear men's boxer shorts underwear. They wear them as shorts, over leggings; many different ways. But I highly doubt one would wear them after they've already been worn by someone else.


Well, I can't speak for the girls who stole my shirts, they weren't into grunge (okay, maybe one was)...the why, you'd have to ask them (well, more importantly, I'd rather like my shirts back). I've not heard of the grunge thing extending this to male underwear though. And anyway, grunge is rather old fashioned now...isn't it? I recall the whole grunge thing...but I don't remember it having anything to do with underpants.

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


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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
Tara wrote:
Maybe it's a Seattle thing (you know, since this is where Grunge music began and everything...) but it is not uncommon at all for girls to wear men's boxer shorts underwear. They wear them as shorts, over leggings; many different ways. But I highly doubt one would wear them after they've already been worn by someone else.


Well, I can't speak for the girls who stole my shirts, they weren't into grunge (okay, maybe one was)...the why, you'd have to ask them (well, more importantly, I'd rather like my shirts back). I've not heard of the grunge thing extending this to male underwear though. And anyway, grunge is rather old fashioned now...isn't it? I recall the whole grunge thing...but I don't remember it having anything to do with underpants.


Well, i doubt we're talking about tighty-whiteys... but for boxers, yes, its not an overly unusual thing. Particularly for a hippie-earthy girl from Seattle. Usually as pajamas or around the house casual wear though.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Michael wrote:
For my part, I am most concerned about the well being of Skep. I sent her a mail enquiring after her health but received no reply. Is she alright?


Oh, this is not good. Maybe someone from the Seattle area might make a brief enquiry?



I'm sorry Michael, and anyone else who is worried about me. I am fine, just absolutely overwhelmed with work right now, not to mention finals and board duties (I am on the board of a non-profit). I apologize for the absence and for being way behind on my emails.

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

amber2670 wrote:
florist wrote:
Hello,
actually, I said I don`t want to ask again; but just out of personal curiousity and desbelief, why everyone is ignoring this:
IS IT TRUE, THAT AK ENDED UP IN BED WITH DANIELE DE L. AGAIN, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE STARTED A RELATIONSHIP WITH RS ?

And don`t get me wrong, as I`ve said above, I`m not interested in AK`s sex life, but rather in getting a picture of her personality.
I would be pleased with a simple: yes/no.


Strange people in here...
See you.


Yes you are right about it being said in Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau....it is said the exact quote on page 34 if anyone else wants to check.
Now whether she is correct on this or where she got this info I do not know.



Take your pick:
Angel Face; Page XII, "A note on the sources"
"Most of the material in this book comes directly from official court materials, which are available only in italian. All references to forenisc evience are based on the transcripts of court testimony and the ten-thousand page crime dossier known as the Digital Archive. The archive includes police reports, photos, and most of the interrogation transcripts, as well as Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's prison writings and intercepts of their visiting-room conversations. (...)The rest of the information about the trial was garnered by my attendance at every session of the eleven-month trial (...) except for two sessions in Mid-June 2009. (I) listened to audiotapes of Amanda's and Raffaele's interrogation in prison (...) I obtained Amanda's personal e-mails to friends through sources in Seattle. "

It seems the two possible sources are Daniel's testimony or Knox's prison diary, since the full quote from the book is "Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she also hooked up once more with Daniel de Luna, the friend of her downstairs neighbors, and later included him on the list of sex partners in her prison diary."


It does set up an interesting sequence of events.
Sometime mid-october, Guede asks the boys downstairs on two separate occasions about amanda
19th/20th(?) red zone club,
20th- sleeps with daniel (saturday, after clubbing?)
25th- R&A meet. M goes home early. (thursday)
26th- raf is at the apartment; Laura remembers, “Raffaele was especially tender and sometimes, to me, seemed almost a bit possessive” (friday)
27th-Guede stops by downstairs. Raf is at the apartment. Amanda sleeps with daniel. (saturday, is this after clubbing again?)
28th-30th- Amanda sleeps at Raf's

The red zone is a dance club "a dozen k's" away from perugia, so its likely it was a friday/saturday night club...Guede was known to hang out there.

Amanda had just gotten back to the apartment in late september after Germany. Her sister was with her in Germany, and she left an internship abruptly.

Sounds like she was bored in Germany and wanted to live it up a bit- after all, she's living overseas for the first time. If she was a heavy partier on the weekend typical of american college students (I call it a weekend warrior), then its likely she was craving that kind of action living overseas.

Just the third or forth weekend in the apartment she's sleeping with a guy she met through the neighbors downstairs. Then sleeps with him again the next week, -after- meeting another guy, raf, who comes across as "possessive". Then either Raf's around or they're at his place, and she sleeps at his place, including on holloween night.

I could see a serious culture clash between a studious girl from england with a partying girl from an american college; in addition given M's karate training, she probably was aghast at amanda bringing people she just met (that night clubbing?) home and sleeping with them. Only 3-4 weeks after moving in.

The difference between the two is also clear in their choice of partners; M's romantic interest required a level of trust-it was someone that she knew fairly well, lived downstairs, and she wanted that trust returned. Amanda's were all based on excitement; its the diffence between a romance and a bodice-ripper.

In short, everything about M was comfort and security, and amanda was about thrill.

And if amanda thought that with everyone gone from the apartment she could have herself a little party reminiscent of the ones back home...

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: TELEPHONE TALK TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION   

RoseMontag wrote:
The 411 wrote:
H9 and Rose M:

Here's my translation.

I broke up the paragraphs to make it more readable.

Just one question: In the transcript we see the Italian
"(LETTERALMENTE: PRENDENDO A CALCI LA MENTE)"..which translates:
"(LITERALLY: THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN)"

I assume these are Raffaele's original words, said in English??? Or maybe not?

Anyway...here's The 411's Translation. Hope this helps.
_______________________________________________________________________________

AMANDA TALKS ON THE TELEPHONE , and says: “I was the only one who was with her and so they want to rack my brain, to make me say things…”

Then [Amanda] makes reference to the person she is talking to, who is with her, there is a guy that is helping her, he’s cute ( 411 editorial smiley comment :roll: )and also speaks a bit of German: after which, she passes the telephone to Raffaele to have him speak with the person on the other end of the phone .

Raffaele says (in English): “ I can’t do anything , we’re at the police station, they’re racking our brains (LITERALLY THEY ARE KICKING OUR BRAINS IN hb-)) hb-)) ), after which the guy [i.e., Raffaele] passes the phone back to Amanda.

Amanda: “There’s nothing that you can do. Yesterday, with the girls that lived in the cottage, we tried to understand what happened.”

And also: {Amanda, returning to the subject of the interrogation that she was subject to} “I’m feeling bad…They were shouting at me …I only slept two hours last night….I’m really stressed…”

And more: {One of the two girls starts in immediately saying: “I’m not feeling well these days, I jump at the littlest thing.”

And then: “How are you, Amanda?”

Amanda says: “Not well: they're treating me like a criminal.” eee-)


Thanks 411. That last sentence is certainly subjective on Amanda's part. However, if she felt that way she should have gotten a lawyer.


Hello Rose,

In response to this post and to cover a subsequent post of yours elsewhere that has moved the debate on to the suggestion that “as early as the 3rd indicates to me that the police were already going after her as a prime suspect” I propose the following possible scenario.

I don’t think for a minute that before the questioning in the Questura on the night of 5 Nov the Perugia police believed that AK was a prime suspect in Meredith’s murder. It was at that time then a MAN crime, ie. sexual assault, strangulation, throat cutting, body bruising, knifes, theft etc.. They likely were looking towards RS or another male and felt that AK probable knew (boy friend, staged break in, dodgy bathmat shuffle etc) who that male was. I don’t believe in their wildest dreams that they expected AK to place herself as a party to the crime. If they were turning up the heat progressively on AK it was IMO to get her to tell them who that MAN was. They likely suspected she knew. It would contravene accepted criminal profiling if they targeted AK, a woman, at that time (prior to assembling and evaluating all of the evidence).

If RS featured high on their radar it is likely because he was a MAN, he was first on the scene, he phoned it in, he was familiar with the victim, he carried a knife (tapped phone conversation with Dr FS telling him not to carry his knife to the Questura), etc.. Remember that the line of questioning of AK on the night of Nov 5/6 was NOT ‘did you do it’ …it was ‘who do you think did it’? and who are you protecting’? I believe that the police were absolutely incredulous (as I was when seeing the news then) that AK had placed herself in the crime. Standard criminal profiling would NOT have them looking for a woman as the prime suspect, it would definitely have been a MAN as their unknown prime suspect. This admission by AK would have been a bombshell revelation and knocked them for six. They did think however IMO that she knew who the villain was and were trying to get this information from her.

You would expect these officers like any police force in the world to try to solve the crime, they are not the Samaritans, and they have a tough job to do at times. Thankfully they had the backbone to see it through for the sake of the present victim and also he next possible victim if they didn’t apprehend the killers. Criminals and murderers trying to evade detection can be extremely ruthless, deceptive and manipulative. Investigative police have a duty to be resourceful and vigorous in getting to the truth; ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ will not work here. Ask the parents of Stephany Flores in Peru how they feel about the efficacy of the justice system in Aruba right now.

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
It turns out LondonJohn is good for something. And I don't mean as a lead weight for a ship's anchor or as a crash test dummy. Hi John! Love your work baby - almost as much as you do! Of course, the Italian police didn't need any sophistry to convince Raffaele that maybe Amanda went out. Raffaele's diary of the 7th of November contains an extensive internal dialogue on his part about whether she did or not and how bad is memory was because he had too many pipes.

However, re-reading that, he also helped me re-discover something I'd forgotten to do with the explanation of the knife's presence in the flat. I know opinions were pretty split on my theory that perhaps the knife was transported to the flat at lunchtime when Raffaele prepared lunch for Amanda. I note the following from the diary therefore;

Nov 16 2007
Last night I saw on television that the knife that I had at home (the
one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent) ...
my heart jumped in my throat and I was in total panic because I
thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or had helped someone in the
enterprise. But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me
that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the
legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take
it and and carry it from my house to her house because the girls
didn't have a knife
so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing ... I
live in a reality show nightmare, the 'nightmare reality show'.
Unbelievable!


I'd love to know if that was Tiziano's theory or if it's Raffaele's explanation to his family.

By the way. Has anyone here ever had sight of the full diary of Amanda - was it 200 pages or so? I bet there's some good stuff in there.



Hi S.A.--
well, although the English version may look incriminating,
the grammar isn't correct. That leads me to believe that the
translation of the original Italian is off. I'm assuming the
translation would be more like, "Amanda could have taken
the knife..." Especially in light of the previous sentence:
"...could not have been the murder weapon..."

As for R.S. saying "because the girls didn't have a knife"..
well, obviously we know there were knives in the cottage.
A.K. had an entire set of them under her bed....

Why the sudden change in grammatical structure/tense?
It seems like this was either a deliberate mistranslation,
or a huge mistake. If not, my bad.

Anyone able to go back to the Original Italian and translate
for us? Would be greatly appreciated.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

undecided wrote:
Hi S.A.--
well, although the English version may look incriminating,
the grammar isn't correct. That leads me to believe that the
translation of the original Italian is off. I'm assuming the
translation would be more like, "Amanda could have taken
the knife..." Especially in light of the previous sentence:
"...could not have been the murder weapon..."

As for R.S. saying "because the girls didn't have a knife"..
well, obviously we know there were knives in the cottage.
A.K. had an entire set of them under her bed....

Why the sudden change in grammatical structure/tense?
It seems like this was either a deliberate mistranslation,
or a huge mistake. If not, my bad.

Anyone able to go back to the Original Italian and translate
for us? Would be greatly appreciated.


here's the italian

Ieri sera in televisione ho visto che il coltello che avevo in casa (quello da cucina) ha tracce di Meredith e Amanda (latenti)... Mi è salito il cuore in gola ed ero anche in panico totale perché pensavo che Amanda avesse ucciso Meredith o avesse comunque aiutato qualcuno nell’impresa. Ma oggi ho visto Tiziano che mi ha tranquilizzato: mi ha detto che quel coltello non può essere stata l’arma del delitto secondo il medico legale, quindi non c’entra niente in quanto Amanda poteva prenderlo e portarlo da casa mia a casa sua perché le ragazze non avevano un coltello così, stanno facendo un polverone per nulla... Mi sembra di vivere in un reality show da incubo, il ‘nightmare reality show’. Incredibile!

poteva prenderlo

prendere (transitive)

1. To take, to hold.
2. To get, to buy.
3. To pick up.

poteva

1. third person singular imperfect tense of potere


potere (transitive) or (intransitive)

1. can, could; be able to
2. may, might; be possible to


Looks like the 2nd definition is more appropriate, "its possible she took" or "she may have took"?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:18 am   Post subject: Raffaele Re-translated   

Here's how I would have translated that passage, which I've broken up for clarity. Notice I've also changed a few other words.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"Last evening on television I saw that the knife that I had at home (the kitchen one) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (hidden)…My heart jumped into my throat and I was also in a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith, or she had somehow helped someone to do the deed.

But today I saw Tiziano* who calmed me down; he told me that that particular knife couldn’t have been the weapon in the crime according to the medical examiner, so it has nothing to do with it, insomuch as Amanda could have taken it and transported it from my home to her home because the girls didn’t have a knife like that, they’re making a big fuss over that for nothing…I feel like I’m living in a nightmare reality show, The Nightmare Reality Show, Incredible."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
*By the way...The 411 wonders: where is "OUR" TIZIANO??? I believe she celebrated a birthday recently!!!
TANTI AUGURI (in ritardo), TIZIANO!!!!! hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline mstev14420


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:23 am

Posts: 99

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hey, where's the translated report. A couple of months ago you guys were saying a few more days. It's not the Warren Report or the 9/11 Commission here. Come on, just post the damn thing already. Who cares about a few grammatical errors.
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

pataz1 wrote:
undecided wrote:
Hi S.A.--
well, although the English version may look incriminating,
the grammar isn't correct. That leads me to believe that the
translation of the original Italian is off. I'm assuming the
translation would be more like, "Amanda could have taken
the knife..." Especially in light of the previous sentence:
"...could not have been the murder weapon..."

As for R.S. saying "because the girls didn't have a knife"..
well, obviously we know there were knives in the cottage.
A.K. had an entire set of them under her bed....

Why the sudden change in grammatical structure/tense?
It seems like this was either a deliberate mistranslation,
or a huge mistake. If not, my bad.

Anyone able to go back to the Original Italian and translate
for us? Would be greatly appreciated.


here's the italian

Ieri sera in televisione ho visto che il coltello che avevo in casa (quello da cucina) ha tracce di Meredith e Amanda (latenti)... Mi è salito il cuore in gola ed ero anche in panico totale perché pensavo che Amanda avesse ucciso Meredith o avesse comunque aiutato qualcuno nell’impresa. Ma oggi ho visto Tiziano che mi ha tranquilizzato: mi ha detto che quel coltello non può essere stata l’arma del delitto secondo il medico legale, quindi non c’entra niente in quanto Amanda poteva prenderlo e portarlo da casa mia a casa sua perché le ragazze non avevano un coltello così, stanno facendo un polverone per nulla... Mi sembra di vivere in un reality show da incubo, il ‘nightmare reality show’. Incredibile!

poteva prenderlo

prendere (transitive)

1. To take, to hold.
2. To get, to buy.
3. To pick up.

poteva

1. third person singular imperfect tense of potere


potere (transitive) or (intransitive)

1. can, could; be able to
2. may, might; be possible to


Looks like the 2nd definition is more appropriate, "its possible she took" or "she may have took"?


Thanks very much, Pataz!
I was curious as to whether it was the perfect tense,
or the imperfect!
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 am   Post subject: Re: Raffaele Re-translated   

The 411 wrote:
Here's how I would have translated that passage, which I've broken up for clarity. Notice I've also changed a few other words.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"Last evening on television I saw that the knife that I had at home (the kitchen one) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (hidden)…My heart jumped into my throat and I was also in a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith, or she had somehow helped someone to do the deed.

But today I saw Tiziano* who calmed me down; he told me that that particular knife couldn’t have been the weapon in the crime according to the medical examiner, so it has nothing to do with it, insomuch as Amanda could have taken it and transported it from my home to her home because the girls didn’t have a knife like that, they’re making a big fuss over that for nothing…I feel like I’m living in a nightmare reality show, The Nightmare Reality Show, Incredible."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
*By the way...The 411 wonders: where is "OUR" TIZIANO??? I believe she celebrated a birthday recently!!!
TANTI AUGURI (in ritardo), TIZIANO!!!!! hugz-)


Thanks to you too, 411!
Top Profile 

Offline DriveByDoc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 43

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mstev14420 wrote:
Hey, where's the translated report. A couple of months ago you guys were saying a few more days. It's not the Warren Report or the 9/11 Commission here. Come on, just post the damn thing already. Who cares about a few grammatical errors.


I and others have already posted to you before, but since nothing seems to have penetrated your skull, here's the bottom line again:

It will be ready when it is ready, with due care for technical accuracy. You obviously have no comprehension of the scope of what is involved in such a huge task despite previous attempts to enlighten you, but that still doesn't excuse you from being snotty.

Whining won't get it to you any faster, and disparaging remarks about the translation team's efforts with coupled with pissy entitlement attitude posting might just get you whacked on the nose by a moderator.

Feel free to pay for a private translator if that doesn't suit you. stup-)

Sitting here with my popcorn, waiting for the next indignant whine.... wh-)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

via Rose

Raffaele appeal document info about the computer



The sentence of First Instance based its considerations on
interactions on the computer-MacBook Pro Raffaele Sollecito on
advice produced by the police post.
This technical activity, however, as demonstrated by the defense counsel,
can not be regarded as methodologically sound:
1. Is based on prior selection of some files through the software
EnCase which operates using only three dates (among the five found in
Mac), and a subsequent investigation of some of the info
file resulting from this selection using "Spotlight" and / or the Finder, ie
the GUI operating system (eg see report on "The fantastic
World Amelie ").
2.43 Not analyzed information outside of the period 1 November
2007 18:00 - November 2, 2007 8:00, so do not detect any cases
alteration of info on the period of interest, and also not
detect subsequent events caused by actions occurred during the period of interest.
3. The log analysis is restricted to the og Fastweb, the other logs are ignored
(Eg keyboard log indicating the start and end of activity
computer).
4. Is not mentioned one activity of listening to music occurred
between the hours of 5:41 and 6:38.
5. No mention of a media file att CALLS Opening Naruto
episode 101 "on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 21:26.
Obviously, that method, if a file is not found during
initial selection (ie if three dates are not in the interest period), it
is excluded from the search results later restricted, even if he has a
the other two dates during the period of interest.
30
Following further investigation made by defense counsel,
after the definition of first instance, using for the first
Once a system and built the same version as the one used by Raffaele
Dunning, ie Mac OS X 10.4.10 (Build 8R2232), it was possible to obtain
correct data display key information acquiring
importance for the decision.
Like to point out, in fact, that the judgment placed at 21:10:32
the last operation performed by Raffaele Sollecito in the day of 1
November 2007.
Indeed, searching with Spotlight in version 10.4.10 was
detected at least one file "Naruto ep 101.avi" which is not present in
advice of the police post, but whose date of last opening is Thursday
1 November 2007 at 21:26 (ie in the period examined by the police
Postal: 1st November 2007 18:00 - November 2, 2007 8:00 am).
The date of their last (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 10:18:38) and last
editing this file (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 13:28:09) corresponds to a
period coinciding with the removal of the laptop from the home of Raffaele
Dunning, during which activities are detected on that laptop
witnessed by the file system logs.
In light of the circumstances, it requires further investigation
computer Raffaele Sollecito to ascertain interactions
actually occurred on his computer, between 1 and 2 November 2007, under
Article. 603, first paragraph, cppInquiry EXPERTISE ON COMPUTER AC M-PRO BOOK RAFFAELE
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Um...any techies fancy putting that into English? Is there anything there?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

pataz1 wrote:
amber2670 wrote:
florist wrote:
Hello,
actually, I said I don`t want to ask again; but just out of personal curiousity and desbelief, why everyone is ignoring this:
IS IT TRUE, THAT AK ENDED UP IN BED WITH DANIELE DE L. AGAIN, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE STARTED A RELATIONSHIP WITH RS ?

And don`t get me wrong, as I`ve said above, I`m not interested in AK`s sex life, but rather in getting a picture of her personality.
I would be pleased with a simple: yes/no.


Strange people in here...
See you.


Yes you are right about it being said in Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau....it is said the exact quote on page 34 if anyone else wants to check.
Now whether she is correct on this or where she got this info I do not know.



Take your pick:
Angel Face; Page XII, "A note on the sources"
"Most of the material in this book comes directly from official court materials, which are available only in italian. All references to forenisc evience are based on the transcripts of court testimony and the ten-thousand page crime dossier known as the Digital Archive. The archive includes police reports, photos, and most of the interrogation transcripts, as well as Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's prison writings and intercepts of their visiting-room conversations. (...)The rest of the information about the trial was garnered by my attendance at every session of the eleven-month trial (...) except for two sessions in Mid-June 2009. (I) listened to audiotapes of Amanda's and Raffaele's interrogation in prison (...) I obtained Amanda's personal e-mails to friends through sources in Seattle. "

It seems the two possible sources are Daniel's testimony or Knox's prison diary, since the full quote from the book is "Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she also hooked up once more with Daniel de Luna, the friend of her downstairs neighbors, and later included him on the list of sex partners in her prison diary."


It does set up an interesting sequence of events.
Sometime mid-october, Guede asks the boys downstairs on two separate occasions about amanda
19th/20th(?) red zone club,
20th- sleeps with daniel (saturday, after clubbing?)
25th- R&A meet. M goes home early. (thursday)
26th- raf is at the apartment; Laura remembers, “Raffaele was especially tender and sometimes, to me, seemed almost a bit possessive” (friday)
27th-Guede stops by downstairs. Raf is at the apartment. Amanda sleeps with daniel. (saturday, is this after clubbing again?)
28th-30th- Amanda sleeps at Raf's

The red zone is a dance club "a dozen k's" away from perugia, so its likely it was a friday/saturday night club...Guede was known to hang out there.

Amanda had just gotten back to the apartment in late september after Germany. Her sister was with her in Germany, and she left an internship abruptly.

Sounds like she was bored in Germany and wanted to live it up a bit- after all, she's living overseas for the first time. If she was a heavy partier on the weekend typical of american college students (I call it a weekend warrior), then its likely she was craving that kind of action living overseas.

Just the third or forth weekend in the apartment she's sleeping with a guy she met through the neighbors downstairs. Then sleeps with him again the next week, -after- meeting another guy, raf, who comes across as "possessive". Then either Raf's around or they're at his place, and she sleeps at his place, including on holloween night.

I could see a serious culture clash between a studious girl from england with a partying girl from an american college; in addition given M's karate training, she probably was aghast at amanda bringing people she just met (that night clubbing?) home and sleeping with them. Only 3-4 weeks after moving in.

The difference between the two is also clear in their choice of partners; M's romantic interest required a level of trust-it was someone that she knew fairly well, lived downstairs, and she wanted that trust returned. Amanda's were all based on excitement; its the diffence between a romance and a bodice-ripper.

In short, everything about M was comfort and security, and amanda was about thrill.

And if amanda thought that with everyone gone from the apartment she could have herself a little party reminiscent of the ones back home...

Pat


Oh great,
the only "feedback" to my first post was a schoolmarmish comment on the validity of the basis fact of it. Then after waiting the whole day to get this fact comfirmed with no reply, I try to ask a bit more explicitly and what do I get instead of a simple yes/no:
A 50 lines long description of AK`s party and man habits compared to MK`s :lol:

I`m outta here.
See you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: TELEPHONE TALK TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION   

Hammerite wrote:
I don’t think for a minute that before the questioning in the Questura on the night of 5 Nov the Perugia police believed that AK was a prime suspect in Meredith’s murder. It was at that time then a MAN crime, ie. sexual assault, strangulation, throat cutting, body bruising, knifes, theft etc.. They likely were looking towards RS or another male and felt that AK probable knew (boy friend, staged break in, dodgy bathmat shuffle etc) who that male was. I don’t believe in their wildest dreams that they expected AK to place herself as a party to the crime. If they were turning up the heat progressively on AK it was IMO to get her to tell them who that MAN was. They likely suspected she knew. It would contravene accepted criminal profiling if they targeted AK, a woman, at that time (prior to assembling and evaluating all of the evidence).

H


I agree with this. I also mentioned that it was Raffaele's presence at the cottage that must have instantly raised some interest in him. Again, we're all different, but I can't see visiting a woman I was interested in, noticing bloodstains, noticing signs of a break-in, seeing one door locked, and essentially doing nothing. I think men are very protective of the women they know--whether intimate or not. Phone the police. Break down the door. You know--do something.

Why would the Perugia police view his presence there and his inactivity as anything except suspicious?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

florist wrote:
Oh great,
the only "feedback" to my first post was a schoolmarmish comment on the validity of the basis fact of it. Then after waiting the whole day to get this fact comfirmed with no reply, I try to ask a bit more explicitly and what do I get instead of a simple yes/no:
A 50 lines long description of AK`s party and man habits compared to MK`s :lol:

I`m outta here.
See you.


Bye....

wh-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Anyone know who this unidentified male/female is making unprofessional physical contact with AK is?

They can't keep their hands off her can they that defence team...(puke)


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

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The hand looks Ghirga-ish.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Anyone know who this unidentified male/female is making unprofessional physical contact with AK is?

They can't keep their hands off her can they that defence team...(puke)

Is Maria del Grosso, the female lawyer in AK's team. See this other photo which is of the same day/time as yours.


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Um...any techies fancy putting that into English? Is there anything there?


Well basically they are saying that there is another media file played later than the "last activity" on Raffaele's computer in the trial. This is Naruto which is a benign kid's japanese cartoon with a martial arts theme. The first trial had the last activity at 21.10 on the night of the first. Using different software they suggest 21.32 for Naruto but there's no information about for how long.

They also say activity on the computer should have been examined north and south of the time period it was looked at.

They say that the activity on the computer could have been examined by looking at other system files on the computer not just the web-based activity via his ISP.

There's also a suggestion, unsunsubtantiated in its detail, that the Naruto file was accessed (it wouldn't have been edited) on 6th of November when the laptop was being removed by the police - maybe clicking recent files to see what was played and leaving a "last accessed" stamp on the file. The suggestion would then be, presumably, why was that not in the forensic report? The answer is because the people doing the forensic examination of the laptop didn't examine the time outside of the evening of the 1st / 2nd.

Oh by the way, episode 101 of Naruto is the one where the kids in it are obsessed with trying to get to see behind the mask of their sensei who is a ninja. I always wondered where Amanda got the 'mask of the assassin' in her head from! :)

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stilicho wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Right, I've opened the book on LondonJohn's full conversion date. PM me if you want to nominate a date by which he changes from full guilter, now somewhat undecided *cough* to "probably" or "almost certainly" or "definitely" not guilty. Whoever is closest to that fateful day wins.


He's a slippery devil. He often appears ready to say something but then veers off into oblivion. I have asked him over and over again for the slightest bit of evidence of any of his speculations but he still doesn't have any.


There is no substance to London John's posts. He just endlessly speculates about what might have have happened without ever providing any proof to support his various conspiracy theories.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

florist wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
amber2670 wrote:
florist wrote:
Hello,
actually, I said I don`t want to ask again; but just out of personal curiousity and desbelief, why everyone is ignoring this:
IS IT TRUE, THAT AK ENDED UP IN BED WITH DANIELE DE L. AGAIN, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE STARTED A RELATIONSHIP WITH RS ?

And don`t get me wrong, as I`ve said above, I`m not interested in AK`s sex life, but rather in getting a picture of her personality.
I would be pleased with a simple: yes/no.


Strange people in here...
See you.


Yes you are right about it being said in Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau....it is said the exact quote on page 34 if anyone else wants to check.
Now whether she is correct on this or where she got this info I do not know.



Take your pick:
Angel Face; Page XII, "A note on the sources"
"Most of the material in this book comes directly from official court materials, which are available only in italian. All references to forenisc evience are based on the transcripts of court testimony and the ten-thousand page crime dossier known as the Digital Archive. The archive includes police reports, photos, and most of the interrogation transcripts, as well as Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's prison writings and intercepts of their visiting-room conversations. (...)The rest of the information about the trial was garnered by my attendance at every session of the eleven-month trial (...) except for two sessions in Mid-June 2009. (I) listened to audiotapes of Amanda's and Raffaele's interrogation in prison (...) I obtained Amanda's personal e-mails to friends through sources in Seattle. "

It seems the two possible sources are Daniel's testimony or Knox's prison diary, since the full quote from the book is "Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she also hooked up once more with Daniel de Luna, the friend of her downstairs neighbors, and later included him on the list of sex partners in her prison diary."


It does set up an interesting sequence of events.
Sometime mid-october, Guede asks the boys downstairs on two separate occasions about amanda
19th/20th(?) red zone club,
20th- sleeps with daniel (saturday, after clubbing?)
25th- R&A meet. M goes home early. (thursday)
26th- raf is at the apartment; Laura remembers, “Raffaele was especially tender and sometimes, to me, seemed almost a bit possessive” (friday)
27th-Guede stops by downstairs. Raf is at the apartment. Amanda sleeps with daniel. (saturday, is this after clubbing again?)
28th-30th- Amanda sleeps at Raf's

The red zone is a dance club "a dozen k's" away from perugia, so its likely it was a friday/saturday night club...Guede was known to hang out there.

Amanda had just gotten back to the apartment in late september after Germany. Her sister was with her in Germany, and she left an internship abruptly.

Sounds like she was bored in Germany and wanted to live it up a bit- after all, she's living overseas for the first time. If she was a heavy partier on the weekend typical of american college students (I call it a weekend warrior), then its likely she was craving that kind of action living overseas.

Just the third or forth weekend in the apartment she's sleeping with a guy she met through the neighbors downstairs. Then sleeps with him again the next week, -after- meeting another guy, raf, who comes across as "possessive". Then either Raf's around or they're at his place, and she sleeps at his place, including on holloween night.

I could see a serious culture clash between a studious girl from england with a partying girl from an american college; in addition given M's karate training, she probably was aghast at amanda bringing people she just met (that night clubbing?) home and sleeping with them. Only 3-4 weeks after moving in.

The difference between the two is also clear in their choice of partners; M's romantic interest required a level of trust-it was someone that she knew fairly well, lived downstairs, and she wanted that trust returned. Amanda's were all based on excitement; its the diffence between a romance and a bodice-ripper.

In short, everything about M was comfort and security, and amanda was about thrill.

And if amanda thought that with everyone gone from the apartment she could have herself a little party reminiscent of the ones back home...

Pat


Oh great,
the only "feedback" to my first post was a schoolmarmish comment on the validity of the basis fact of it. Then after waiting the whole day to get this fact comfirmed with no reply, I try to ask a bit more explicitly and what do I get instead of a simple yes/no:
A 50 lines long description of AK`s party and man habits compared to MK`s :lol:

I`m outta here.
See you.



Hehehehehe. Floored Florist flounces off. Thanks for the laugh!


SA

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tonight on Italian television channel ‘La 7’ there will be a new programme shown called “L'altra metà del crimine” [‘The other half of the crime’] will run fo five weeks, based on crime cases that shocked the public. Five reconstructions that will explore the complex phenomenon of female crime where it involved a woman in the role of victim or executioner.

To do so, TV channel La7 has assigned a specialist, Luciano Garofano - a retired general and former commander of the Carabinieri Ris in Parma.

The first episode tonight will deal with the Meredith Kercher murder case. Garofano will reconstruct the facts and consider the possible dynamics that led to the killing of 'Mez'. It will do so with the help of Andrea Vogt, an American journalist living in Italy who has repeatedly written about the public interest of the case in her country of origin. During the episode Vogt gathers video testimonies of some of the protagonists including Luciano Ghirga (Knox defense attorney), Walter Biscotti (Guede's lawyer) and Francesco Maresca (Kercher family lawyer). Garofano instead will deal with the laboratory tests issues, elements of the crime and will explain the dynamics of investigations by clarifying the technical investigation, explicit expressions and technical terms often served up to the general public (such as luminol, staging, Crimescope, DNA amplification).
http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/spet ... 78365.html
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I felt it necessary to re-open the knicker debate since it's wake-up time here in the US and I have missed the fun.

I understand that AK no longer had access to her knicker drawer at the cottage due to Police intervention, and I can just about comprehend the concept of borrowing a pair of Raffs drawers as an emergency measure but I do not understand why AK neeeded to ask her Mum to bring some knickers all the way from the West coast of the USA. Did she leave a stock at home, despite being away for a concerted period of time ? European knickers are far more (shall we say) appealing than american knickers and would surely get Raff's vote, so was AK's request to her Mum for more knickers some kind of coded message ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: Raffaele Re-translated   

undecided wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Here's how I would have translated that passage, which I've broken up for clarity. Notice I've also changed a few other words.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"Last evening on television I saw that the knife that I had at home (the kitchen one) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (hidden)…My heart jumped into my throat and I was also in a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith, or she had somehow helped someone to do the deed.

But today I saw Tiziano* who calmed me down; he told me that that particular knife couldn’t have been the weapon in the crime according to the medical examiner, so it has nothing to do with it, insomuch as Amanda could have taken it and transported it from my home to her home because the girls didn’t have a knife like that, they’re making a big fuss over that for nothing…I feel like I’m living in a nightmare reality show, The Nightmare Reality Show, Incredible."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
*By the way...The 411 wonders: where is "OUR" TIZIANO??? I believe she celebrated a birthday recently!!!
TANTI AUGURI (in ritardo), TIZIANO!!!!! hugz-)


Thanks to you too, 411!



Thanks to Pataz and 411 for that.

Undecided - so we get

1. Amanda could take it and carry it from my house to her house because the girls didn't have a knife

becomes

2. Amanda could have taken it and transported it from my home to her home because the girls didn’t have a knife like that

.. which is basically what I was reading into the first translation anyway. When you say 'huge mistake' or a deliberate mistranslation, I don't understand what it is that you are reading into the first version?


My question, which will remain unanswered I suspect (because we'd all be guessing) is whether the "because the girls didn't have a knife like that" is Tiziano's suggestion or Raffaele's words. I can't take this very far and it is all circumstancial but if they are Raffaele's words, we have support for the idea he could have taken it over at lunchtime on the 1st when we know he was preparing lunch for Amanda because he thought they were lacking the right kind of knife (whether that was right or wrong - it would be his impression, giving him a reason to take it). If they are Tiziano's words, Raffaele could always have added "which is wrong, because they did have a lot of knives like that" in his diary if he knew that. But he doesn't.

In any event, per the timeline above from Pataz / Barbie, Raffaele meets meets her on the 25th, he's at the apartment on the 26th and 27th, the latter of which when Rudy stops by downstairs and Amanda is being her train-loving alter-ego Randy Mandy with Daniel again even though she screwed Raffaele on the first day with him two days before per her court testimony. Then on the 28th, 29th and 30th, Amanda is sleeping at Raffaele's.

All I'm saying is that there is a perfectly good, perhaps likely chance he had no time to form a view as to what sort of knives the girls did or didn't have. Which supports the lunch preparation theory. Which goes to lack of pre-meditation per the court and Amanda's huge reaction to the knife drawer when shown it. I think the knife, however it got there was almost certainly taken from that drawer immediately preceding the attack and that suggests a benign reason for its presence in the flat.

All rather specualtive. What is certain is that the ridiculous pricking Meredith while cooking story from Raffaele (wrong place for the DNA sunshine - lame attempt at an alibi) is there in that diary and for that reason alone, Raffaele isn't getting in the box to testify unless he's going to splurge. The chances of which I think are unfortunately really rather low indeed.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mstev14420 wrote:
Hey, where's the translated report. A couple of months ago you guys were saying a few more days. It's not the Warren Report or the 9/11 Commission here. Come on, just post the damn thing already. Who cares about a few grammatical errors.



Do you have any idea of the size of the task? No.
Do you have any idea what is being done at the moment by volunteers who are working their butts off? No.
Did you read the multiple posts here in the last week that would have already answered your question? No.
Do you think that your post advanced the production of the report in any way? No.
Is there anyone remotely interested in listening to your whining? No.

Know what? Go PM Florist. You two can be the founding members of Whinging Wednesday, an international organisation for people who lack social skills or the appropriate gratitude due to people who are contributing literally thousands of hours of their free time for the advancement of understanding of this case. If you hold your inaugural meeting down a mine shaft, hopefully the rest of us won't have to listen to you p-((( .

_________________
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 windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Knickers as coded messages. This'll be good.

Where's a popcorn smiley when you need one?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
I felt it necessary to re-open the knicker debate since it's wake-up time here in the US and I have missed the fun.

I understand that AK no longer had access to her knicker drawer at the cottage due to Police intervention, and I can just about comprehend the concept of borrowing a pair of Raffs drawers as an emergency measure but I do not understand why AK neeeded to ask her Mum to bring some knickers all the way from the West coast of the USA. Did she leave a stock at home, despite being away for a concerted period of time ? European knickers are far more (shall we say) appealing than american knickers and would surely get Raff's vote, so was AK's request to her Mum for more knickers some kind of coded message ?



You don't understand, Italy is a third world country, we don't have knickers and things available sh-)) here...
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
florist wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
amber2670 wrote:
florist wrote:
Hello,
actually, I said I don`t want to ask again; but just out of personal curiousity and desbelief, why everyone is ignoring this:
IS IT TRUE, THAT AK ENDED UP IN BED WITH DANIELE DE L. AGAIN, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE STARTED A RELATIONSHIP WITH RS ?

And don`t get me wrong, as I`ve said above, I`m not interested in AK`s sex life, but rather in getting a picture of her personality.
I would be pleased with a simple: yes/no.


Strange people in here...
See you.


Yes you are right about it being said in Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau....it is said the exact quote on page 34 if anyone else wants to check.
Now whether she is correct on this or where she got this info I do not know.



Take your pick:
Angel Face; Page XII, "A note on the sources"
"Most of the material in this book comes directly from official court materials, which are available only in italian. All references to forenisc evience are based on the transcripts of court testimony and the ten-thousand page crime dossier known as the Digital Archive. The archive includes police reports, photos, and most of the interrogation transcripts, as well as Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's prison writings and intercepts of their visiting-room conversations. (...)The rest of the information about the trial was garnered by my attendance at every session of the eleven-month trial (...) except for two sessions in Mid-June 2009. (I) listened to audiotapes of Amanda's and Raffaele's interrogation in prison (...) I obtained Amanda's personal e-mails to friends through sources in Seattle. "

It seems the two possible sources are Daniel's testimony or Knox's prison diary, since the full quote from the book is "Two nights after Amanda and Raf got involved, she also hooked up once more with Daniel de Luna, the friend of her downstairs neighbors, and later included him on the list of sex partners in her prison diary."


It does set up an interesting sequence of events.
Sometime mid-october, Guede asks the boys downstairs on two separate occasions about amanda
19th/20th(?) red zone club,
20th- sleeps with daniel (saturday, after clubbing?)
25th- R&A meet. M goes home early. (thursday)
26th- raf is at the apartment; Laura remembers, “Raffaele was especially tender and sometimes, to me, seemed almost a bit possessive” (friday)
27th-Guede stops by downstairs. Raf is at the apartment. Amanda sleeps with daniel. (saturday, is this after clubbing again?)
28th-30th- Amanda sleeps at Raf's

The red zone is a dance club "a dozen k's" away from perugia, so its likely it was a friday/saturday night club...Guede was known to hang out there.

Amanda had just gotten back to the apartment in late september after Germany. Her sister was with her in Germany, and she left an internship abruptly.

Sounds like she was bored in Germany and wanted to live it up a bit- after all, she's living overseas for the first time. If she was a heavy partier on the weekend typical of american college students (I call it a weekend warrior), then its likely she was craving that kind of action living overseas.

Just the third or forth weekend in the apartment she's sleeping with a guy she met through the neighbors downstairs. Then sleeps with him again the next week, -after- meeting another guy, raf, who comes across as "possessive". Then either Raf's around or they're at his place, and she sleeps at his place, including on holloween night.

I could see a serious culture clash between a studious girl from england with a partying girl from an american college; in addition given M's karate training, she probably was aghast at amanda bringing people she just met (that night clubbing?) home and sleeping with them. Only 3-4 weeks after moving in.

The difference between the two is also clear in their choice of partners; M's romantic interest required a level of trust-it was someone that she knew fairly well, lived downstairs, and she wanted that trust returned. Amanda's were all based on excitement; its the diffence between a romance and a bodice-ripper.

In short, everything about M was comfort and security, and amanda was about thrill.

And if amanda thought that with everyone gone from the apartment she could have herself a little party reminiscent of the ones back home...

Pat


Oh great,
the only "feedback" to my first post was a schoolmarmish comment on the validity of the basis fact of it. Then after waiting the whole day to get this fact comfirmed with no reply, I try to ask a bit more explicitly and what do I get instead of a simple yes/no:
A 50 lines long description of AK`s party and man habits compared to MK`s :lol:

I`m outta here.
See you.



Hehehehehe. Floored Florist flounces off. Thanks for the laugh!


SA


Exactly,
away from nerds like you, dedicating thier whole life to a stranger.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
was AK's request to her Mum for more knickers some kind of coded message ?


Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

florist wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
florist wrote:
...what do I get instead of a simple yes/no:
A 50 lines long description of AK`s party and man habits compared to MK`s :lol:

I`m outta here.
See you.



Hehehehehe. Floored Florist flounces off. Thanks for the laugh!


SA


Exactly,
away from nerds like you, dedicating thier whole life to a stranger.



Hmmmmm - exactly who is the stranger here dictating demands; not wanting to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?!?!?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
via Rose

Raffaele appeal document info about the computer



The sentence of First Instance based its considerations on
interactions on the computer-MacBook Pro Raffaele Sollecito on
advice produced by the police post.
This technical activity, however, as demonstrated by the defense counsel,
can not be regarded as methodologically sound:
1. Is based on prior selection of some files through the software
EnCase which operates using only three dates (among the five found in
Mac), and a subsequent investigation of some of the info
file resulting from this selection using "Spotlight" and / or the Finder, ie
the GUI operating system (eg see report on "The fantastic
World Amelie ").
2.43 Not analyzed information outside of the period 1 November
2007 18:00 - November 2, 2007 8:00, so do not detect any cases
alteration of info on the period of interest, and also not
detect subsequent events caused by actions occurred during the period of interest.
3. The log analysis is restricted to the og Fastweb, the other logs are ignored
(Eg keyboard log indicating the start and end of activity
computer).
4. Is not mentioned one activity of listening to music occurred
between the hours of 5:41 and 6:38.
5. No mention of a media file att CALLS Opening Naruto
episode 101 "on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 21:26.
Obviously, that method, if a file is not found during
initial selection (ie if three dates are not in the interest period), it
is excluded from the search results later restricted, even if he has a
the other two dates during the period of interest.
30
Following further investigation made by defense counsel,
after the definition of first instance, using for the first
Once a system and built the same version as the one used by Raffaele
Dunning, ie Mac OS X 10.4.10 (Build 8R2232), it was possible to obtain
correct data display key information acquiring
importance for the decision.
Like to point out, in fact, that the judgment placed at 21:10:32
the last operation performed by Raffaele Sollecito in the day of 1
November 2007.
Indeed, searching with Spotlight in version 10.4.10 was
detected at least one file "Naruto ep 101.avi" which is not present in
advice of the police post, but whose date of last opening is Thursday
1 November 2007 at 21:26 (ie in the period examined by the police
Postal: 1st November 2007 18:00 - November 2, 2007 8:00 am).
The date of their last (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 10:18:38) and last
editing this file (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 13:28:09) corresponds to a
period coinciding with the removal of the laptop from the home of Raffaele
Dunning, during which activities are detected on that laptop
witnessed by the file system logs.
In light of the circumstances, it requires further investigation
computer Raffaele Sollecito to ascertain interactions
actually occurred on his computer, between 1 and 2 November 2007, under
Article. 603, first paragraph, cppInquiry EXPERTISE ON COMPUTER AC M-PRO BOOK RAFFAELE



This sounds like a repeat of what was presented at trial by RS's team and rejected by the court for reasons detailed in the sentencing report.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

mstev14420 wrote:
Hey, where's the translated report. A couple of months ago you guys were saying a few more days. It's not the Warren Report or the 9/11 Commission here. Come on, just post the damn thing already. Who cares about a few grammatical errors.



I don't know anyone called "you guys" who posts here. Are you sure you aren't hallucinating or merely quoting yourself? Don't call us, we'll call you when the report is ready. Try and keep busy. Take up a hobby, like knitting or bowling. Or go on vacation and send us a postcard or two. b-))

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

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Maybe I'm just being a bit dozy, but as far as I can tell AK would have been much better off with Italian knickers rather than an good ol' Hanes US contraceptive knickers, so why does she need Mum to bring some US knickers..............the only thing I'd ask a relative living on another continent to bring would be stuff i couldn't get there.......proper bacon, sharp cheddar cheese etc......you get the point, anyway.

And finally, who's the dork moaning on about the sentencing report ? Tosser.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Relax, Florist. It's not like Amanda boinked Daniel and Raffaele on the same day or anything. She's a free agent and I'm sure she didn't promise Raffaele fidelity.

I'm all for dropping knickers, but I would think if I was not wearing any and could not get to my own pair and I suddenly began menstruating (some women are irregular, particularly at Amanda's age) and only had pads and no tampons, I would be very eager to borrow a pair, even a man's, until I could get my hands on some of my own. Hippies!

Oh Michael, mea culpa. I am one who has nicked my boyfriend's shirt/s and yes, their favorite one bee-cause? It's their favorite one. Only the good boyfriends lose their shirts...

Give your lawnmowers a break, folks and let the clover g-r-o-w. Bee good to the bees...
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I keep trying to tell people AK is the new Catherine Tramell, but no-one takes any notice.

Knickers to the lot of ya, as we say in Blighty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Corrina,

I can easily understand shirts; very much a girl thing to do but even in an emergency a bloke's drawers don't help much, I don't think.

As for AK being boinked by 2 different blokes in a matter of a few days doesn't set much of an example to your new(ish) flatmates does it ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:37 pm   Post subject: Flounder   

florist wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
florist wrote:

Oh great,
the only "feedback" to my first post was a schoolmarmish comment on the validity of the basis fact of it. Then after waiting the whole day to get this fact comfirmed with no reply, I try to ask a bit more explicitly and what do I get instead of a simple yes/no:
A 50 lines long description of AK`s party and man habits compared to MK`s :lol:

I`m outta here.
See you.



Hehehehehe. Floored Florist flounces off. Thanks for the laugh!


SA


Exactly,
away from nerds like you, dedicating thier whole life to a stranger.



Oh, dear!
I was going to ask what "the basis fact of it" meant, since I've never heard the phrase before.

I've also never heard of "schoolmarmish" either, to say nothing of it being used together with "validity" in the same sentence.

Believe it or not, the answer really is "a simple yes/no", but that probably won't help.

Sideways, looking for "a simple yes/no": sounds like it means knowing the answer already (so why ask?), or willing to do the research to find out (so why not do it?).

What was the question again? And the answer being one way or the other means what, exactly, for the prosecution and/or defence? You could ask our steamed-elves Cook. She seems to know a lot.

Talkiing of a lot, have you checked Wikipedia, or yahooAnswers? Would they know?
How many flounces does it take?
Bring a plate?
Who is the stranger?

And why does "nerds" (plural) go with "thier whole life" (singular). Just a linguistic puzzle, not an anti-anti-nerd thing (I've never seen a nerd either, but apparently they're on TV).

By the bye, there's a cow-guy in Switzerland who has a spare spell-checker that might help.
Ah, the memories!
Can't do anything for the logic-checker or the sapper instead of the zapper thing going on. Oh, well.
I'd better flounce off myself now (or should that be, "flounce off, myself, now"?). The sun will be up soon, and there are so many questions.

Always questions.
Will there never be an end of them?

I'm off to the Flounder and Wail for a late tipple, or early morning pick-me-up, depending on your longitude and attitude.
Anyone care to join me?
We might find the answer.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
Corrina,

I can easily understand shirts; very much a girl thing to do but even in an emergency a bloke's drawers don't help much, I don't think.

As for AK being boinked by 2 different blokes in a matter of a few days doesn't set much of an example to your new(ish) flatmates does it ?


Macca,

I guess it comes down to: boxers or briefs? In an emergency situation, the feminine product will stay put better in a pair of briefs, though boxers, if you sort of roll up the waistband, can do in a pinch. Comfort is not the concern, avoiding a very embarrassing visual IS.

I think Amanda's behavior in regards to sex is the least of her problems. She seems a genuinely annoying personality. Even without her alleged promiscuity, my guess is a little of her goes a long way and the only example she could set with said flatmates would be an obnoxious one. There are a lot of Amanda types out there. Any attention is better than no attention.
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Corrina,

probably correct, end of drawers discussion.

As for AK's personality, it seems she might have been fun to be with for the first 20 minutes, and then became tiresome rapidly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Alright, I'll bite. Who is Catherine Tramell? I'd google it, but it sounds like this is somebody everyone must know, and looking silly has never concerned me bee-fore...
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Corrina,

Sharon Stone played Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct. You are in excellent company since I didn't know either and googled the name.

Do I look silly ? All I remember from that film was Ms. Stone crossing and uncrossing her legs. Hmmmmm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Okay, I wouldn't have bee-n any the wiser having never seen the film.

I like silly.
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I don't think I'm alone in remembering the leg crossing scene. Like AK, Ms. Stone had parted company with her knickers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
Maybe I'm just being a bit dozy, but as far as I can tell AK would have been much better off with Italian knickers rather than an good ol' Hanes US contraceptive knickers, so why does she need Mum to bring some US knickers..............the only thing I'd ask a relative living on another continent to bring would be stuff i couldn't get there.......proper bacon, sharp cheddar cheese etc......you get the point, anyway.



Reality check here guys...

1. if Amanda's mom brings the knickers... no financial outlay on her part

2. btw, i still get my 'knickers' stateside because, 1. not available here 2. they are perfect and besides being dead sexy, comfortable, great fit, they are reasonably priced, and no one has ever complained about mine or mentioned I should switch to UK brand


and yes... stealing/borrowing guys shirts is de rigueur....
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:51 pm   Post subject: Risk Addiction   

windfall wrote:
I keep trying to tell people AK is the new Catherine Tramell, but no-one takes any notice...



Wind:
Not so! Duly "noticed"-- now. :)

What I didn't know was there was also a "Basic Instinct"-- Part Deux, a sequel --resurrecting the Tramell character.

Here's the "psychological diagnosis" of the character which seems to support Windfall's thesis.


"In Basic Instinct 2, Tramell is diagnosed by Dr. Michael Glass as possessing a "risk addiction." He explains, "Inside I believe she vacillates between a feeling of god-like omnipotence and a sense that she simply doesn't exist, which of course is intolerable. I believe Ms. Tramell's behavior is driven by what we might call a risk addiction. A compulsive need to prove to herself that she can take risks and survive dangers that other people can't. Especially the subsequent encounters with the police, the powers that be. The greater the risk, the greater the proof of her omnipotence. Her existence really. All addiction is progressive, the addict will always need to take greater and greater risks. I suspect the only limit for her would be her own death."

Does that strike a familiar chord with anyone??? ss-) v-))
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Is Sharon Stone the one who raises her own chinchillas to make coats out of? Maybee I'm confusing her with someone else as I'm not too good with tv and celebrities and the like. I'm still stuck on older movies and here's a recommendation: Harold and Maude. Best. Movie. Ever. And the whole soundtrack is Cat Stevens. What could bee better? No crotch shots, though Maude is arguably the cutest thing you've ever seen.
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

H9,

I never suggested it was UK knickers that were better than American, but european knickers, and stuff you get in Italy is most definitely not of the passion killer variety. Anything I've seen in the Hanes catalogue or Victoria's Secret doesn't measure up to Euro knickers !
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:26 pm   Post subject: "HAIRY RAG" DOG AVATAR   

windfall wrote:
but no-one takes any notice.



Yeah, well how do you think *I* feel? After all, it *is* ALL ABOUT ME!! huff-))
No one has taken notice of my new avatar! dis-)) wa-))

As a great animal lover, I wanted to join in solidarity, with all the other PMF pet people, by choosing a cat or dog or raccoon or rabbit or ferret or lion or tiger...

But, after much careful consideration, I chose a Puli-- jumping over a hurdle.
So what's so great about "that?", you may ask. sh-))

Well, the (Hungarian) Puli dog breed (...and BTW, isn't there a Hungarian poster here?) for many people looks very much like a "HAIRY RAG"...

So, my avatar is my homage to Harry Rag who "doggedly" hurdles every obstacle out there--in the information war for truth and justice for the true victim, Meredith Kercher!

No one, (not even an agile hairy-rag-like Puli!!!) can match Harry Rag for speed, accuracy, and sheer hard work! cl-)

Now, my second choice for a PMF Avatar was going to be the dog that looks like a large floor mop, and hence, would ALSO BE VERY Perugia-murder evidence- case-related! mop-)

It's yet another Hungarian canine, the Komondor!



Really, now, enough about me and my new avatar....

But-what do YOU think about me and my new avatar? b-((
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"An angry Italian man has been arrested for shooting at his neighbour's underwear with a rifle. Massimo Lazzaretti, 69, shot holes in the woman's undergarments as they hung on a clothesline. Police said the two neighbours had fallen out, and Lazzaretti thought leaving bullet holes in the underwear would frighten her enough to leave him alone."

The London Paper, Monday 21 July 2008, p.7


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
"An angry Italian man has been arrested for shooting at his neighbour's underwear with a rifle. Massimo Lazzaretti, 69, shot holes in the woman's undergarments as they hung on a clothesline. Police said the two neighbours had fallen out, and Lazzaretti thought leaving bullet holes in the underwear would frighten her enough to leave him alone."

The London Paper, Monday 21 July 2008, p.7



Frankly, since they've been folded over to hide their parachutine size, shooting may well have been appropriate IMHO.

This debate is fascinating although I am slightly worried about the possibility of a full blown transatlantic kecks' dispute breaking out, as led by arch insurrectionist H9 whose old avatar of the M16 building shows she is well versed in such matters.

Of course, as a man with a keen interest in co-operation between nations, peace, harmony and good-will to all mankind, I mused over lunch that it might be good to take a sabbatical to investigate the relative merits of the claims for US and non-US based items-delicate. However, Lady Alibi's counter-balancing point of view on the matter, delivered through the medium of an astonishingly accurate karate chop to the back of the neck and a swift sweep of the legs has enabled me to garner a new perspective on the matter. I relate it to you, live, via the medium of an iPad which I was able to retrieve by crawling some distance across the floor into my current position at the foot of the drinks' cabinet. If someone could send a long straw and a packet of mixed nuts, I'd be very grateful...

_________________
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: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I thought we needed to clarify the character's identity.


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

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I am sorry in advance and I don't know what actually happened but my intuition says to me that Sollecito or a.n. other kicked the door in to attack Meredith on the fateful night.
Methinks that the reason the door was locked was the only way that it could be closed having been kicked in to facilitate the attack on poor Meredith.
Considering the lies that the two murderers are famous for I can't help thinking that the story regarding Sollecito "trying" to kick the door in (considering he was training in kick boxing or something) was basically bullshit.
I myself am not a kickboxer or martial arts student but I would as sure as hell made that door matchwood if I was worried about the wellbeing of my housemate.
Kind of conjecture on my part but I would be interested to what people of this board think of this.


Last edited by Black Dog on Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: HOLY UNDERPANTS!!   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
"An angry Italian man has been arrested for shooting at his neighbour's underwear with a rifle. Massimo Lazzaretti, 69, shot holes in the woman's undergarments as they hung on a clothesline. Police said the two neighbours had fallen out, and Lazzaretti thought leaving bullet holes in the underwear would frighten her enough to leave him alone."

The London Paper, Monday 21 July 2008, p.7


:shock: HOLY UNDERPANTS!! p-))
H9 has unearthed the crime perpetrated by a MANIACO delle MUTANDE!!

And they said THE CASE AGAINST AMANDA had a lot of holes in it!!!!!!!
sor-)
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Sharon Stone has a vagina?
Gosh! Who would have known it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: "HAIRY RAG" DOG AVATAR   

The 411 wrote:
windfall wrote:
but no-one takes any notice.



Yeah, well how do you think *I* feel? After all, it *is* ALL ABOUT ME!! huff-))
No one has taken notice of my new avatar! dis-)) wa-))

As a great animal lover, I wanted to join in solidarity, with all the other PMF pet people, by choosing a cat or dog or raccoon or rabbit or ferret or lion or tiger...

But, after much careful consideration, I chose a Puli-- jumping over a hurdle.
So what's so great about "that?", you may ask. sh-))

Well, the (Hungarian) Puli dog breed (...and BTW, isn't there a Hungarian poster here?) for many people looks very much like a "HAIRY RAG"...

So, my avatar is my homage to Harry Rag who "doggedly" hurdles every obstacle out there--in the information war for truth and justice for the true victim, Meredith Kercher!

No one, (not even an agile hairy-rag-like Puli!!!) can match Harry Rag for speed, accuracy, and sheer hard work! cl-)

Now, my second choice for a PMF Avatar was going to be the dog that looks like a large floor mop, and hence, would ALSO BE VERY Perugia-murder evidence- case-related! mop-)

It's yet another Hungarian canine, the Komondor!



Really, now, enough about me and my new avatar....

But-what do YOU think about me and my new avatar? b-((

For a moment I thought you found a picture of "il Mocio" :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Knox and Tramell...

both characterised here and there as femme fatales.
Both allegedly underwent famous interogations.
Both allegedly behaved inappropriately in the presence of police.
Both allegedly used sharp implements in their murderous acts.
Both allegedly fancied themselves as authors and wrote stories more or less related to their crimes.
Both allegedly knicker-free at different times (see also the story about AK having no pants on in jail... a great Sun headline from a while back).
Both allegedly manipulated unwary men in the interests of furthering their nefarious plots.
Both allegedly have assorted lesbian or allegedly alleged lesbian connections.
Just tell me when to stop.

Oh....Nice avatar, 411!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

What happens when women wear mens underwear.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From CU another delay this time is the trial against the Sollecito family:

The Sollecitos submit declarations of recusal of the GUP [judge].

The trial is for the showing on television the battered naked body of Meredith Kercher.

Defence for the Sollecito family go on the attack. This morning for the pre-trial hearing, they submitted a statement objection of the preliminary hearing judge Marina De Robertis. In fact, the request was already filed in the appeals court last Saturday by lawyers Marco Brusco, Francesco Crisi, Francesco Mastro on behalf of Giuseppe Sollecito, Rosaria Achille and Mara Papagni, the paternal uncle, aunt and the stepmother of [RS] the student from Giovinazzo accused of murder together with former girlfriend Amanda Marie Knox. The three penal lawyers argue that Dr. De Robertis is incompatible, since within the same case, she served as a magistrate GIP in particular by providing validation and signing decrees and request of the interceptions. The lawyers' arguments are that the related count of charges against them "are based primarily if not exclusively on these telephone wiretaps”. Even the defence of Franco Sollecito, the urologist from Bari, Raffaele's father, entrusted to lawyers Donatella Donati and Luca Maori, will submit a request connected to the acquisition of a report related to two takes selected from articles in the press.
The case is related to the televising by Telenorba -Bari- the video recorded work carried out by forensic and judiciary police and aired showing the tortured body of Meredith Kercher inside her own room in the cottage in Via della Pergola. This recording was provided to the television channel by Raffaele’s relatives.

In this trial the plaintiffs are the family of the English student, represented by Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna. The prosecutors are the same as the main trial: Prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi.
Crime Tonight at midnight, channel La 7 will address the Perugia murder with General Garofano.
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=41
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: Risk Addiction   

The 411 wrote:
windfall wrote:
I keep trying to tell people AK is the new Catherine Tramell, but no-one takes any notice...



Wind:
Not so! Duly "noticed"-- now. :)

What I didn't know was there was also a "Basic Instinct"-- Part Deux, a sequel --resurrecting the Tramell character.

Here's the "psychological diagnosis" of the character which seems to support Windfall's thesis.


"In Basic Instinct 2, Tramell is diagnosed by Dr. Michael Glass as possessing a "risk addiction." He explains, "Inside I believe she vacillates between a feeling of god-like omnipotence and a sense that she simply doesn't exist, which of course is intolerable. I believe Ms. Tramell's behavior is driven by what we might call a risk addiction. A compulsive need to prove to herself that she can take risks and survive dangers that other people can't. Especially the subsequent encounters with the police, the powers that be. The greater the risk, the greater the proof of her omnipotence. Her existence really. All addiction is progressive, the addict will always need to take greater and greater risks. I suspect the only limit for her would be her own death."

Does that strike a familiar chord with anyone??? ss-) v-))


The sequel's so dire I've tried to blank it out. I have half a book written on the first movie. Bit more than half maybe. Nice spot, though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Black Dog wrote:
Sharon Stone has a vagina?
Gosh! Who would have known it?


as Shazza herself once said, "if you have a vagina and an attitude, that's a dangerous combination in Hollywood".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
From CU another delay this time is the trial against the Sollecito family:

....

In this trial the plaintiffs are the family of the English student, represented by Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna. The prosecutors are the same as the main trial: Prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi.
Crime Tonight at midnight, channel La 7 will address the Perugia murder with General Garofano.
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=41


What's the maximum penalty if they're found guilty?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Back to knickers; the girl in the video carries off the blokes underwear thing excellently. I liked the beer/milk substitute particularly.

I still can't see how AK, 5 feet 3 inches, can wear Raff's drawers 5 feet 10 inches, until the lovely Edda arrives with an online purchase of Hanes drawers/substitute tablecloths, irrespective of the financial gain which surely is minimal. In Europe, less knickers costs more, but is that really going to break the bank, even at the rate AK was going through cash ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Amanda wasn't girlie knickerless for long... she and Raf made a shopping trip and the purchase of european underwear was caught on camera
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9,

that wasn't a bulk purchase though was it ? more of an interim measure, measured in hours rather than weeks.........
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

European sexy knickers (non parachute sized ones!) can be washed in a sec and dried with a hairdrier in a couple of minutes or dried over night... only need a couple pair to survive.

The reason she borrowed Raf's, if she did was for the 'closeness' thing Michael alluded to or to keep Raf's interest like all you guys on here interested in knickers :)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Black Dog wrote:
I am sorry in advance and I don't know what actually happened but my intuition says to me that Sollecito or a.n. other kicked the door in to attack Meredith on the fateful night.
Methinks that the reason the door was locked was the only way that it could be closed having been kicked in to facilitate the attack on poor Meredith.
Considering the lies that the two murderers are famous for I can't help thinking that the story regarding Sollecito "trying" to kick the door in (considering he was training in kick boxing or something) was basically bullshit.
I myself am not a kickboxer or martial arts student but I would as sure as hell made that door matchwood if I was worried about the wellbeing of my housemate.
Kind of conjecture on my part but I would be interested to what people of this board think of this.



Blackdog - I'll answer you because it is hard when you are new on a case with so much background and history and prior discussion. You'll get told to read the history of the board. It is the best advice but it's a major commitment.

On your question - is there any evidence to support your hunch? That's the key issue to me. We know that Raffaele said he tried to kick the door down. Now I spent most of my teenage years doing Wado Ryu Karate and I took more than a passing interest in other martial arts, for interest and also because the "my-style / martial-art-is-cooler-or-more-effective-than-yours" was a pretty frequent debate. Raffaele had been doing kick-boxing (specifically) and trained for some years. Now kick-boxing always came pretty high up the most effective and practical martial arts. It is overwhelmingly to do with kicking, with knee strikes featuring strongly, elbows when you can get 'em and punching hardly ever. I watched it on TV a fair bit and I also watched it in Bangkok for a couple of weeks when travelling in my year off before university.

Raffaele said he tried to kick the door down but only cracked it in his diary and police testimony. Now, as you say, the idea that a 5'10 physically fit young man who had done kickboxing for some time was unable to kick in a student flat door with a bog standard lock is absolutely, ridiculously laughable. It is one of those pieces of semi-circumstancial / semi-direct pieces of evidence that the FOAkers stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you." It does NOT stand up to any kind of scrutiny and if you put his ex-dojo (or whatever the correct Thai boxing term is) classmates and sensei (ditto) in court and said "could he have failed to kick that door down if he wanted to?", the answer would be a resounding no. It is absolute total nonsense. FOA won't see past the end of their nose on what this implies about that action though of course because anything that leads to uncomfortable feelings, they hastily retreat away from.

But on the theory that they had to lock because it was the only way to close? I don't know of evidence that supports that. If they had busted the normal door mechanism so that only the key-turn lock would close the door, it would have been strongly noted in the forensics since it would have been an extremely direct 'tell' on the course of events. In the absence of such evidence, it doesn't stand up I'm afraid. Amanda and Raffaele either didn't know when the other two girls might return to the flat or they needed an alibi for why Amanda could return to the flat and have a look around in day light (remembering they had been cleaning up at night, under poor lighting conditions) without "noticing" what had happened, Meredith's room being next to Amanda's.

When the postal police turned up unexpectedly at the flat with Meredith's recovered phones and Amanda and Raffaele were outside with the mop, planning what to do next, they got a horrible surprise and had to go into cover-up mode fast. This is why Raffaele and Amanda's testimony directly contradicts each other at several points about whether the fact the door was closed was;

1. Absolutely normal - said by Amanda to the police at the scene, contradicted there and then by Filomena
2. Absolutely not normal - Amanda in her diary said she was panicking and ran round to the balcony
3. Absolutely panic making - Raffaele to the British journalist who interviewed him on the 2nd when Papa Raffy phoned him mid interview and tried to get him to stop talking to the journalist but received a petulant response from Raffaele of "I can talk to a journalist if I want to". Papa knew best because he had talked to Raffaele for 262 seconds after 9 o'clock on the morning of the 2nd and knew something serious was up. (This at a time when Amanda says they were asleep for another hour / hour and a half). Why on earth would the father of the boyfriend of a flatmate of a victim admonish his son to stop talking to a journalist a few hours later that day when Raffaele hadn't even been questioned in any serious way yet? The answer is, Papa doesn't view Amanda as an innocent or that she and Raffaele has been caught up in this by bad luck. Very much directly something else - he has said in interview that he absolutely curses the day Raffaele met Amanda and that he absolutely cannot stand up for Amanda's innocence. Papa's wrath is direct and bitter and it's because he knows or very strongly suspects he knows that both of them were responsible for this. Otherwise he would be cursing the fates, but not Amanda. Again, a very telling reaction. Cue more ear plugs for the FOA.

Good luck with looking at the case. It isn't easy to get up to speed but you have the added advantage of being close to the publication of the translation of the report whenever it is done. It will be distributed to a mailgroup called "Nowhiners@gmail.com" - let me know if you want to be added to it ;)

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

H9,

clearly I've overlooked the practicality of hairdriers and euro knickers vs. the parachute version you can get in the US, but I should like to comment strongly at this point that my interest in this subject is Amanda's question to Edda and the need for more underwear (please note underwear) and not knickers in general.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Seriously I do think it is as simple as
1. having underwear you know and are used to and
2. mom is paying
Top Profile 

Offline Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Your new Avatar bowls me over 411. wor-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Seriously I do think it is as simple as
1. having underwear you know and are used to and
2. mom is paying



It ain't 2. because Amanda had over 4,000 bucks in her personal bank account and had no problem buying lingerie (rather than functional knicks) with Raffaele. It's 1. because it's stuff from home which is what you long for when you are fearful about what's going to happen to you and you want to talk about things from home and the banal, not items / questions that will stray dangerously close to the murder you just committed per Amanda cutting her mother off about the first phonecall she didn't recall.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The camera didn't show who paid did it? Not that it is important, but of some interest if Raf paid.

(it looks like she was paying in the photo stint put in the gallery)

Definitely agree that correspondence with mom about normal home stuff and focusing on her arrival helped the mind to keep away the memories of the murder. The essay for school about shopping is also along those lines of attempts to mask the guilt, or at least a rest from the mind games.


Last edited by H9 on Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SA,

functional because you're fearful.......ok, I'll buy that one. Never been that concerned about anything so I bow to your superior knowledge (and I do mean that). I can't imagine how either of them coped as the next few days unfolded and they watched their worlds unravel.Their hearts must have been ready to burts out of their chests; how did they sleep ? I suppose the easy answer is they didn't cope because they continuously tripped themselves up, but you may get the gist of what I'm going on about.

Never thought a pair of comfy pants could be so reassuring......................
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Saw this SA and knew you'd want a copy. ;)


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
SA,

functional because you're fearful.......ok, I'll buy that one. Never been that concerned about anything so I bow to your superior knowledge (and I do mean that). I can't imagine how either of them coped as the next few days unfolded and they watched their worlds unravel.Their hearts must have been ready to burts out of their chests; how did they sleep ? I suppose the easy answer is they didn't cope because they continuously tripped themselves up, but you may get the gist of what I'm going on about.

Never thought a pair of comfy pants could be so reassuring......................



Well stuff from home rather than the practicalities of functional ;) . We know one way that they coped with their worlds falling apart - they got stoned before going into the Questura "to take the edge off". Who, in their right minds, gets stoned before going for police questioning on their flatmate's murder? It is simply astonishingly stupid. Or an indication of an inability to face the crushing tsunami of their own guilt coming their way. Anyone like a bet on which.

Placeholder for Blackdog replaced with post above btw.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
Saw this SA and knew you'd want a copy. ;)



Hah! Cheeky - I like it! When you say copy, is that a MacPort original or have I been FOAked? :)

_________________
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: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Not good enough to be a piktor so I guess I have to claim it. Good fun - hope it helped your day.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
Not good enough to be a piktor so I guess I have to claim it. Good fun - hope it helped your day.



It's good stuff and it gave me a laugh! I can take the heat for wanting to posit that the most likely way a cooking / food preparation knife gets to a location is for cooking / food preparation when one of the suspects records in his diary that he engaged in an act of cooking / food preparation for one of the other suspects earlier on the day of the murder at the location of the crime!

Or hang on! A new one! Raffaele knew his 80 and 120 dollar tactical knives just wouldn't cut it for what he wanted to do that evening and he needed something with scale for the task he had in mind. c-))

(I admit it - I just wanted to use that smiley)

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
The camera didn't show who paid did it? Not that it is important, but of some interest if Raf paid.

(it looks like she was paying in the photo stint put in the gallery)

Definitely agree that correspondence with mom about normal home stuff and focusing on her arrival helped the mind to keep away the memories of the murder. The essay for school about shopping is also along those lines of attempts to mask the guilt, or at least a rest from the mind games.



If we complete Knickergate, then Amanda's trial testimony says she had the cash and she bought them;

AK: So, I had worked a lot to pay for this...adventure, here in Italy [little
laugh], to study, and I had saved eight thousand dollars in my bank, and my family
had also helped me.

LG: Here it says 4457.

AK: After I did some shopping [little laugh].

////

AK: So, I didn't have any more clothes, so I went with Raffaele to this store
to get underwear, because I didn't even know when I would be able to go back
into my own house and get my things back. So we went there and looked at
some clothes, and in the end I bought a pair of underwear.

_________________
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: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Macport wrote:
Not good enough to be a piktor so I guess I have to claim it. Good fun - hope it helped your day.



It's good stuff and it gave me a laugh! I can take the heat for wanting to posit that the most likely way a cooking / food preparation knife gets to a location is for cooking / food preparation when one of the suspects records in his diary that he engaged in an act of cooking / food preparation for one of the other suspects earlier on the day of the murder at the location of the crime!

Or hang on! A new one! Raffaele knew his 80 and 120 dollar tactical knives just wouldn't cut it for what he wanted to do that evening and he needed something with scale for the task he had in mind. c-))

(I admit it - I just wanted to use that smiley)

No, no, no Raffy just didn't want to share one of his pricey flick knives with that flighty Amander. She'd trundle off and drop it or give it to one of her one night stands or . . .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:39 pm   Post subject: Smiles   

Stan wrote:
Your new Avatar bowls me over 411. wor-))

Thank you, Stan! Obviously, you've got great taste!

Evidently, my Puli avatar ALSO knocked your Samoyed off his feet, too!...I mean, knocked him off his paws!

Your avatar is a "Sammy", is it not?

Love those Samoyed grins!

Here's a big smile... from my dog to yours!

And Jools: (aka Ms. Mocio) : This is just for you!
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: "HAIRY RAG" DOG AVATAR   

The 411 wrote:
No one has taken notice of my new avatar! dis-)) wa-))

. cu-))

Attachment:
new avatar.jpg


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I can take the heat for wanting to posit that the most likely way a cooking / food preparation knife gets to a location is for cooking / food preparation when one of the suspects records in his diary that he engaged in an act of cooking / food preparation for one of the other suspects earlier on the day of the murder at the location of the crime!

Hey it's all good but wait, although it appears in his diary do we know that it was written on the day in question or could it have been written a day or two later? Nah he wouldn't write in it there later in an attempt to provide some kind of cover for how the knife got to the cottage. These people don't lie, obfuscate, twist or in anyway deviate from the truth. I mean this is the guy that pricked Meredith's finger and owned up to it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macport said,

"the guy that pricked Meredith's finger and owned up to it".

the dog ate my homework

i got aids off the toilet seat

my drink was spiked

my mum said it was ok to take it

i never took my knickers off at his house yesterday, how did they get there ?

hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
macport said,

"the guy that pricked Meredith's finger and owned up to it".

the dog ate my homework

i got aids off the toilet seat

my drink was spiked

my mum said it was ok to take it

i never took my knickers off at his house yesterday, how did they get there ?

hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You would have had to have read my history of posts to know how thick my bullshit can get.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thank you for your reply SA, I feel welcome already. I found Papa Sollecitos stance very interesting and telling in bullet 3 of your response.
I am busy reading the essays on TJMK at the mo, I've picked a few out but will read through them all in time.
Outstanding are Finn's 'the devils that lurk in the details' which is masterful, your piece regarding Sollecitos knife fetish and deathfish 2000's 'does the defence have any plan b?'
Great reading all told and I am going to read The Machines essays next.
Interesting that you mentioned Bangkok, I just returned from there a couple of days ago.I live a few hundred clicks south in Pattaya and I'm just in the process of buying a bigger house as baby number 3 will be arriving next year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Welcome Black Dog, and congratulations on your exciting family news :D
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

What Kelly co-) feels like sharing with all of us today : Again, you have been warned what might be coming...




In her most recent letter to me Amanda has included two items that she wanted me to share with all of you. The first is a comment on Italy and the Italian people and the second is a direct message to this Cause Group.

"(Kelly) what you took from my last letter about not blaming all of Italy or the Italian government for the mistakes of a few is absolutely how I feel. It's ridiculous and unreasonable to say that Italy in general has it out for me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like Italy. Those who have accused me and condemned me are wrong and my conviction is unacceptable, but I would be living without hope if I couldn't believe justice could happen here in Italy. That is my hope. You can most definitely post this from me if you should like".

Amanda also added the following:

"My dear Facebook fam,

First of all, thank you so much for being on the other side of this line. c-)) It means so much to me to have a connection with people who believe in me, and I must thank you all for your encouragement and support. I think I'm so much more hopeful because I'm never alone. Thank you for remembering me and caring so much. cu-))

The most awesome of news! Somehow, just somehow, Don Saulo brought a piano into the prison!!! Yesterday we were playing and talking music, since I help him out by playing the guitar (he helps me by putting a guitar in my hands), v-)) when I recognized a Hebrew song that one of the nuns had put on for us to listen to. It led to a great conversation about religious music and also popular culture. I recalled for him when I performed in 'Fiddler on the Roof' and I had fun explaining for him the song 'Matchmaker', one of my favorites from that play.

Kind of random, but a fun moment for me here. pp-(

I hope all of you are doing well, and again, I can't thank you enough for the difference you make in my life.

Your friend, Amanda :)" la_)
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Italy-USA Foundation met the President of the Seattle-Perugia Association

A delegation of the Italy-USA Foundation lead by the Hon. Rocco Girlanda, President of the Foundation, met in Perugia the President of the Seattle-Perugia Sister City Association, Mike James. Below is a summary of the press release.

“I agree with the stand Mike James took: it is not against the city of Perugia we have to fight against, but against a miscarriage of justice. I hope a more positive picture is forming, recreating the friendship which ideally should be everywhere”. These were the words of Amanda Knox in a letter she addressed some days ago to the to the Italy-USA Foundation on the debate that ensued following the decision to put the naming of a Seattle park in honor of Perugia on hold and during the tour of the President of the Seattle-Perugia Sister City Association, Mike James.
A delegation of the Italy-USA Foundation recently went to Seattle and also met with Mike James, who was in Perugia as a guest of the President of the Italy-USA Foundation, Hon. Rocco Girlanda.
“I had hoped that Seattle, of all places, could make the distinction between a long friendship, a sister-city relationship, and a verdict - said Mike James -. I believed we could honor that friendship and at the same time freely critique a verdict many of us found deeply disappointing. I believed we could, through the park, begin to see the real Perugia beyond the headlines. I hope we still can”.
“Italy and the US have always had a very strong bond of friendship of which history bears fitness - said the Hon. Rocco Girlanda -. I think that anyone wishing to really help Amanda should appeal to the friendship between our two countries rather than trying to destroy it. The relationship Seattle and Perugia embody such values and I sincerely hope the City of Seattle will choose this path, proceeding with the naming of the Seattle Park in honor of the city of Perugia. Amanda herself has repeatedly written to the Italy-USA Foundation and has personally stated her disagreement with those who are using her and the events to launch messages of hatred towards Italy”.
http://www.italiausa.org/index.php?lang=en
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What Kelly co-) feels like sharing with all of us today : Again, you have been warned what might be coming...

"(Kelly) what you took from my last letter about not blaming all of Italy or the Italian government for the mistakes of a few is absolutely how I feel. It's ridiculous and unreasonable to say that Italy in general has it out for me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like Italy. Those who have accused me and condemned me are wrong and my conviction is unacceptable, but I would be living without hope if I couldn't believe justice could happen here in Italy. That is my hope. You can most definitely post this from me if you should like".



There's absolutely no reason to apologize. It's always interesting to read Knox's writings. My thanks to Kelly. Please keep them coming. Any chance that you could get a new Knox short story? Or, some diary excerpts?

This new quote is unfortunately rather typical. The words "I", "me", and "my" occur 13 times by my count. Not bad, but with practice I'm confident she could hit 25 or even 50.

As usual, no mention of the victim or her family. Amanda gets an "A" for consistency. Good work.

The rhetorical flourishes are a nice touch too. For example: "I've said it before and I'll say it again". The character of Ferris uses that in the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off": "I've said it before & I'll say it again: life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." This phrase is also used multiple times in the "Diamonds are Forever" lyrics. Very nice touch by Amanda.

I also liked the basic theme of her statement: not blaming all of Italy for the "mistakes" of a few. That's very noble. It makes me think of Churchill.

But, why not take it one step further? Express hope that the Italian football team can succeed in South Africa? Provide a photo of the Italian flag she has hung in her jail cell? Explain that she loves Italy so much that she feels it would be an honor and privilege to spend the next 26 years there?

I also think the moment has come for Amanda to express her deep, newly-found religious convictions to the public. Italy is a Catholic country and I'm confident that a few choice Biblical quotations would be well received. (Or, is this technique being saved for the appeal hearings?) Perhaps Kelly could help her out in the religious hypocrisy department?


"Look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under it."

- Macbeth, Act I, Scene v
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I don't have the energy but if someone is at a loose end they can reply line for line here ( see link) though it is the same old thing. But maybe a chance to enlighten some new readers chez Brucie

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/ ... entPage=11


FOA talking points:

Why can’t those who hate Amanda Knox with so much passion sit back and consider the facts which prove that Amanda Knox wasn’t as blasé as they would like to have us believe:

-Amanda Knox was interrogated for 50+ hours over a 4 day period

-One must realize that Amanda Knox did not walk in the front door of the police station and make a statement

-Amanda was interrogated by 12 people on the night of Nov. 5 into Nov. 6. One more time, 12 people ganging up on a 20 year old female who couldn’t speak Italian

-Amanda was not free to leave—i.e., she could not say “enough” and get up and walk out

-Amanda was suffering from lack of sleep. In addition she was denied food, water, and rest room breaks

-Edgardo Giobbi had already declared her to be guilty by means of his astute observation powers which equate the sharing of a pizza with one’s boyfriend to be a sure sign of guilt

-Amanda was denied an attorney when she was obviously a ‘suspect’, not a ‘witness’ as declared by the police

-Raffaele was denied an attorney when he was obviously a ‘suspect’, not a ‘witness’ as declared by the police—-he was interrogated without shoes after the police had confiscated both his shoes and pocket knife

-Amanda was told that Raffaele (after being coerced) no longer supported her presence at his apartment the night of Nov. 1, 2007

-Patrick Lumumba’s and Amanda’s SMS exchange was interpreted incorrectly. Interrogators believed that Lumumba/Knox were to meet later on the night of Nov. 1

-Amanda’s written statement does not confirm what was said in her previous two statements—contrary to what Judge Massei writes in his Motivations Report.

-Perugian police chief Arturo De Felice declared that they had ‘broken’ Amanda Knox

-Judge Claudia Matteini stated “Your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid flight."

-Both Amanda and Raffaele were detained in solitary confinement after their arrests with no access to attorneys until their hearings—-again, they had no access to attorneys until their hearings

- Amanda and Raffaele were accused of murder and sexual assault while being part of a conspired group sex activity with no (zero) supporting evidence
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Oh, I forgot to add from Kelly....



Well, a very nice letter from Amanda. You can write to her by sending an e-mail to:

youknowwho@comcast.net

Please keep them upbeat, do not bash Italy, keep them to one page or less, it's OK and encouraged to add a couple of jpeg pictures (please keep them to 1 or 2). Amanda loves hearing stories of everyday life in your town as well as travel stories. And expression of hope and support are obviously a big deal to her. I think you can see how meaningful your messages are and I organize them into a weekly mini-magazine that is quite colorful and entertaining for her. It's hard for her to thank everyone individually but if you send something in and it conforms to the rules above she will definitely see it and it will be very important to her.


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

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I don't have the energy but if someone is at a loose end they can reply line for line here ( see link) though it is the same old thing. But maybe a chance to enlighten some new readers chez Brucie

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/ ... entPage=11


FOA talking points:

Why can’t those who hate Amanda Knox with so much passion sit back and consider the facts which prove that Amanda Knox wasn’t as blasé as they would like to have us believe:

-Amanda Knox was interrogated for 50+ hours over a 4 day period

blah blah blah


I posted -

Anonymous said...
Bob, what's with this "those who hate Amanda" business? There are many who have followed this case from the beginning and who agree with the verdict, it's got nothing to do with hating anyone, just seeing justice done.

As for your points, it is tedious in the extreme to keep having to tackle such blatant distortions over and over again. Just take one example -

"-Edgardo Giobbi had already declared her to be guilty by means of his astute observation powers which equate the sharing of a pizza with one’s boyfriend to be a sure sign of guilt"

Why do you not add the important information that they were found eating pizza DURING THE MEMORIAL VIGIL BEING HELD FOR AMANDA'S RECENTLY MURDERED FRIEND, MEREDITH, which they didn't attend?

June 17, 2010 6:24 AM
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What Kelly co-) feels like sharing with all of us today : Again, you have been warned what might be coming...




In her most recent letter to me Amanda has included two items that she wanted me to share with all of you. The first is a comment on Italy and the Italian people and the second is a direct message to this Cause Group.

"(Kelly) what you took from my last letter about not blaming all of Italy or the Italian government for the mistakes of a few is absolutely how I feel. It's ridiculous and unreasonable to say that Italy in general has it out for me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like Italy. Those who have accused me and condemned me are wrong and my conviction is unacceptable, but I would be living without hope if I couldn't believe justice could happen here in Italy. That is my hope. You can most definitely post this from me if you should like".

Amanda also added the following:

"My dear Facebook fam,

First of all, thank you so much for being on the other side of this line. c-)) It means so much to me to have a connection with people who believe in me, and I must thank you all for your encouragement and support. I think I'm so much more hopeful because I'm never alone. Thank you for remembering me and caring so much. cu-))

The most awesome of news! Somehow, just somehow, Don Saulo brought a piano into the prison!!! Yesterday we were playing and talking music, since I help him out by playing the guitar (he helps me by putting a guitar in my hands), v-)) when I recognized a Hebrew song that one of the nuns had put on for us to listen to. It led to a great conversation about religious music and also popular culture. I recalled for him when I performed in 'Fiddler on the Roof' and I had fun explaining for him the song 'Matchmaker', one of my favorites from that play.

Kind of random, but a fun moment for me here. pp-(

I hope all of you are doing well, and again, I can't thank you enough for the difference you make in my life.

Your friend, Amanda :)" la_)


Either Kelly is editing her letters before posting them or Amanda's spelling has greatly improved. Perhaps prison life is good for her after all.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Pictures from today's court appearance:
http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/set/1118613
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bolint wrote:
Pictures from today's court appearance:
http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/set/1118613


Kudos to her handlers; must more respectful attire-wise. Better late than never...
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Raunch culture and the virgin-whore dichotom

The author, Elizabeth Switaj, highlights how this classic dichotomy was used in the case of convicted murder Amanda Knox who was found guilty of killing her (sexually innocent) roommate. Knox's defenders framed her as a child-like innocent, an 'Amelie of Seattle' whereas her detractors claimed she was as a sexually insatiable "she-devil" with each camp denying the obvious, that she was most likely neither, but rather a human being, capable of both and good. As we all are.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2929589.htm
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bolint wrote:
Pictures from today's court appearance:
http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/set/1118613


Thanks for the link. Is there a story that goes with the pictures? What happened in court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:44 pm   Post subject: ROARING with laughter!!   

piktor wrote:
The 411 wrote:
No one has taken notice of my new avatar! dis-)) wa-))

. cu-))

Attachment:
new avatar.jpg


Piktor:
HAHAHAHA! You made me ROAR with laughter!!

Here's a visual of my reaction after looking at your collage...



In fact, I laughed so hard... I think "PULi-ed" a few stomach muscles in the process! You are a PMF treasure! hugz-)


th-) for the Piktor validation and, more importantly, the Piktor creation!!
(For the record, my previous Piktor favorite was "Don't Stir the Mushrooms!")
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=129&sid=333185


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

RosaMontag wrote:
" Is there a story that goes with the pictures? What happened in court?"

At that time there was no story on the net yet.
Now there is one:

ansa.it:
Amanda Knox: volevo solo difendermi
Davanti corte appello per udienza ricusazione gup
17 giugno, 17:01

Guarda la foto1 di 1 (ANSA) - PERUGIA, 17 GIU - 'Volevo solo difendermi'. Cosi' Amanda Knox di nuovo in un'aula di tribunale, ma questa volta per calunnia. 'Mi dispiace che la questione sia arrivata a questo punto': ha detto ancora Amanda davanti alla Corte d'appello di Perugia che entro cinque giorni decidera' sulla richiesta della sua difesa di ricusare il gup Claudia Matteini nel processo in cui la studentessa di Seattle e' accusata di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti della polizia.


No decision today.
This was actually an appeal hearing. They handed it in against judge Matteini's rejection to recuse herself from the slander case GUP role.
Decision is expected in five days.
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
Tonight on Italian television channel ‘La 7’ there will be a new programme shown called “L'altra metà del crimine” [‘The other half of the crime’] will run fo five weeks, based on crime cases that shocked the public. Five reconstructions that will explore the complex phenomenon of female crime where it involved a woman in the role of victim or executioner.

To do so, TV channel La7 has assigned a specialist, Luciano Garofano - a retired general and former commander of the Carabinieri Ris in Parma.

The first episode tonight will deal with the Meredith Kercher murder case. Garofano will reconstruct the facts and consider the possible dynamics that led to the killing of 'Mez'. It will do so with the help of Andrea Vogt, an American journalist living in Italy who has repeatedly written about the public interest of the case in her country of origin. During the episode Vogt gathers video testimonies of some of the protagonists including Luciano Ghirga (Knox defense attorney), Walter Biscotti (Guede's lawyer) and Francesco Maresca (Kercher family lawyer). Garofano instead will deal with the laboratory tests issues, elements of the crime and will explain the dynamics of investigations by clarifying the technical investigation, explicit expressions and technical terms often served up to the general public (such as luminol, staging, Crimescope, DNA amplification).
http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/spet ... 78365.html


Here is the link to yesterday's episode:
http://www.la7.tv/richplayer/?assetid=50182491
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Più bianco di così non si può!!   

Woooooooh!!! I hardly recognized Amanda Knox. :shock:

Can it be....she's finally starting to act and dress....dare I say....APPROPRIATELY for her court appearances?!?!?!

But, just wow, I mean, how many of those pure innocent lily-white-colored la_) blouses does she own in prison?

I certainly hope she has access to good bleach-- to keep those whites really white!

Which reminds me of an old Italian advertising slogan... for bleach, was it? "Più bianco di così non si può!!"
i.e., "YOU CAN'T GET WHITER THAN THAT!!"

"Little Angel White!" ---That could be the name of new wall paint color, to honor AK's "innocence." n-((



Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Are those pearl earrings with a white blouse? And was that "spontaneous" statement pre-approved by her defense team?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

It would also appear from the photos that she is being coached to keep her eyes down and not look directly into the camera lens.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bolint wrote:
RosaMontag wrote:
" Is there a story that goes with the pictures? What happened in court?"

At that time there was no story on the net yet.
Now there is one:

ansa.it:
Amanda Knox: volevo solo difendermi
Davanti corte appello per udienza ricusazione gup
17 giugno, 17:01

Guarda la foto1 di 1 (ANSA) - PERUGIA, 17 GIU - 'Volevo solo difendermi'. Cosi' Amanda Knox di nuovo in un'aula di tribunale, ma questa volta per calunnia. 'Mi dispiace che la questione sia arrivata a questo punto': ha detto ancora Amanda davanti alla Corte d'appello di Perugia che entro cinque giorni decidera' sulla richiesta della sua difesa di ricusare il gup Claudia Matteini nel processo in cui la studentessa di Seattle e' accusata di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti della polizia.


No decision today.
This was actually an appeal hearing. They handed it in against judge Matteini's rejection to recuse herself from the slander case GUP role.
Decision is expected in five days.



I'm not understanding. I thought that Matteini, tho refusing to be recusing, was passing it to a higher court to decide whether she will preside or not. If I've got that right, why would the defense appeal? Seems a bit pointless/redundant Help?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Google Translation:

Amanda Knox: I just wanted to defend
Appeal for hearing before the court objecting GUP

(ANSA) - Perugia, 17 June - 'I just wanted to defend myself'. So 'Amanda Knox back in court, but this time for defamation. 'I'm sorry that the matter has reached this point,' he says Amanda still before the Court of Appeals of Perugia that within five days will decide 'on the request of his defense to reject the preliminary hearing judge Claudia Matteini in the process where a student in Seattle and 'accused of slander against some police officers.



ANSA

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


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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

"Experts" are also bunching Knox and VD Sloot in the same sentence:

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Are those pearl earrings with a white blouse? And was that "spontaneous" statement pre-approved by her defense team?



Quote from Psychology Today:
The influence of appearance in the courtroom is so great, in fact, that an entire industry has emerged to advise lawyers, plaintiffs, and defendants on their aesthetic choices.
Jury consultants, often trained in both psychology and law, counsel their clients on how to speak, when to gesture—and not least, what to wear.
"The jury is going to form impressions of you based on subtle characteristics of personality and attitude, and dress is one important element," says Robert Gordon, a Dallas-based psychologist and jury consultant.
"Whether you dress casually or formally, wear a tie or a dress, choose bright or dark colors, all make a difference in terms of how you are perceived.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... appearance
^^^^^^^^^

I personally suspect the half million dollar media darling, Counsellor Simon, in addition to dramatically, directly, diametrically contradicting *his own* opinion regarding Amanda's innocence as soon as he received his BIG retainer fee$$$, he also has influenced her dramatic diametric demeanor and dress change.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

FOA delusion sufferers speak out, but this example is particularly unhelpful to Amanda's cause I think.

Ted Simon should suggest these social networking sights be taken down to help Amanda's cause.



Amanda's mom and dad are scheduled to appear in a Perugian court for slander a mere three days before Amanda's 23rd birthday on July 9th...is this an attempt by those who persecute this innocent girl to cast a cloud and cause her to become depressed by threatening her parents with serious prison time and doing it less ...than a hundred hours before she celebrates her birthday???

So, what's next???
Will they go after one of Amanda's three little sisters, who have so bravely stood by their big sister's side and defended her on TV shows and in newspaper interviews during her time of sorrow when so many hated her so much? Do they still hate Amanda so much that they'd try to destroy her by threatening harm to the children in... See More her family? Do they come to her in her cell and tell her that if she will falsely confess to crimes she didn't commit that they will take no actions against her family?
We've seen Amanda's tormentors in action, and to tell you honestly, I don't find that I have to stretch my imagination much to have a strong mental image in my mind of their telling Amanda that this is exactly what she must do to keep her family safe!
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: Più bianco di così non si può!!   

The 411 wrote:
Which reminds me of an old Italian advertising slogan... for bleach, was it? "Più bianco di così non si può!!"
i.e., "YOU CAN'T GET WHITER THAN THAT!!"


I googled "joan of arc bob":

Attachment:
joan of arc bob.jpg


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

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

On seeing these pictures and the ones from June 1st I think she is going for the Joan of Arc part now.
I would imagine that her mindset while appearing in court being tried for murder (totally living a lie and spurred on by the coaching and counsel she received) is very much different now she has actually been convicted and sentenced to 26 years in prison for murder and sexual assault.
In other words reality may have finally started to hit her. Gone are the days when her family and friends and lawyers supported her lies and convinced her she was walking out of the courtroom and into the world a free woman.
I have to say it is beyond my comprehension how anyone could flounce into a courtroom at their own murder trial (of her housemate and friend) and smack bang right in front of the jury and the victims family be seen repeatedly (everyday) laughing grinning smirking and smiling.
From the bulletin posted by Kelly it looks like a damage limitation excercise is now in progress but alas poor Knox, now is a little too late to ACT normal.
Reading what Kelly proclaims to his disciples it appears that Amanda knox has access to the internet now and so therefore can see what is really being said about the case and that the entire world is not behind her?


Last edited by Black Dog on Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The impression I had from the trial, that she really enjoyed beeing in the center of interest,
a 'media-star' - and I remember having read somewhere, that Edda told her proudly that she was in the Google-ranking over Tiger Woods.
I think Amanda did feel quite happy beeing the 'star' - the trial - sort of reality-show, starring Amanda Knox!

and never in 100 years she thought that she would be convicted.
The verdict knocked her really down!

**
I cannot immagine what she thinks about the appeal - but she looks like she had learned to behave herself in apropriate manners.

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Someone posted on the Injustice website -

"LAURA AND FILOMINA DIDN'T ATTEND IT EITHER. WHY IS IT ONLY AMANDA WHO IS GUILTY AND CALLOUS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE VIGIL ? "

Anyone know about this?

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote from Pelerine:
I cannot immagine what she thinks about the appeal - but she looks like she had learned to behave herself in apropriate manners.


Hi Pelerine,
She does appear like that now but emphasis on the word 'appear'.
Having said that and my last comment above, I wouldn't hold my breath.
It kind of reminds me about the joke about the MP visiting a mental hospital and is shown a model patient building a beautiful brick wall.
After conversation with the patient the MP quickly comes to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with him now and is obviously rehabilitated so he tells him that he will recommend his immediate release back into society.
On walking away a brick hits the MP square on the back of his head and the sheer force of it knocks him flat onto his face. On getting up dazed, the MP looks back at the man building the brick wall to hear him shout: "you won't forget, will you!"


Last edited by Black Dog on Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Più bianco di così non si può!!   

piktor wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Which reminds me of an old Italian advertising slogan... for bleach, was it? "Più bianco di così non si può!!"
i.e., "YOU CAN'T GET WHITER THAN THAT!!"


I googled "joan of arc bob":

Attachment:
joan of arc bob.jpg


All these vain attempts to send subliminal (or as George W. Bush struggled to pronounce it:
" SUBLIMINABLE" ss-) ) messages to the world about AK's supposed innocence! Do they really think they'll be effective? Does it make anyone change their mind at this point?

"Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio."

or in Piktor-friendly language..
"A tiger can change his stripes..."

There really should be an analogous proverb about a FOX. ..

External embellishments won't change a thing. They won't undo Amanda's evil deeds in November 2007.

Trying to create a more appealing image to the world won't make her lies more believable.

Simply painting over the decay, will only allow it to flourish underneath. It's only camouflage, and will only keep Amanda as sick as ever.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
-Patrick Lumumba’s and Amanda’s SMS exchange was interpreted incorrectly. Interrogators believed that Lumumba/Knox were to meet later on the night of Nov. 1


This one is my new candidate for stupidest FOA talking point. tt-)

There was no reason at all for the police to suspect Patrick:

1] Neither Amanda nor Meredith were paid by Patrick for their work.
2] There was no other connection between Patrick and either woman or the cottage where they lived.
3] The police didn't interview Patrick prior to his arrest.
4] The SMS message in and of itself did not connect Patrick to either Meredith or to the cottage.
5] The SMS message did not place Amanda outside of Raffaele's apartment; Raffaele did.
6] A translation error does not account for the connection of Patrick to the cottage.

There has been so much made of the SMS message and the 'implanted false memories' and yet there is no plausible explanation for the police connecting Amanda and the SMS message or Patrick to Meredith's murder or to the cottage location. For those six simple reasons above, it can only have been Amanda who invented the story out of thin air.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Raunch culture and the virgin-whore dichotom

The author, Elizabeth Switaj, highlights how this classic dichotomy was used in the case of convicted murder Amanda Knox who was found guilty of killing her (sexually innocent) roommate. Knox's defenders framed her as a child-like innocent, an 'Amelie of Seattle' whereas her detractors claimed she was as a sexually insatiable "she-devil" with each camp denying the obvious, that she was most likely neither, but rather a human being, capable of both and good. As we all are.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2929589.htm


There are several appropriate quotes from Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky but I like this one best:

From good to evil is one quaver, says the proverb. And correspondingly, from evil to good.

Amanda wasn't convicted of murder because of her sexual habits any more than Raffaele and Rudy were.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
Jools wrote:
Tonight on Italian television channel ‘La 7’ there will be a new programme shown called “L'altra metà del crimine” [‘The other half of the crime’] will run fo five weeks, based on crime cases that shocked the public. Five reconstructions that will explore the complex phenomenon of female crime where it involved a woman in the role of victim or executioner.

To do so, TV channel La7 has assigned a specialist, Luciano Garofano - a retired general and former commander of the Carabinieri Ris in Parma.

The first episode tonight will deal with the Meredith Kercher murder case. Garofano will reconstruct the facts and consider the possible dynamics that led to the killing of 'Mez'. It will do so with the help of Andrea Vogt, an American journalist living in Italy who has repeatedly written about the public interest of the case in her country of origin. During the episode Vogt gathers video testimonies of some of the protagonists including Luciano Ghirga (Knox defense attorney), Walter Biscotti (Guede's lawyer) and Francesco Maresca (Kercher family lawyer). Garofano instead will deal with the laboratory tests issues, elements of the crime and will explain the dynamics of investigations by clarifying the technical investigation, explicit expressions and technical terms often served up to the general public (such as luminol, staging, Crimescope, DNA amplification).
http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/spet ... 78365.html


Here is the link to yesterday's episode:
http://www.la7.tv/richplayer/?assetid=50182491

th-) Clander for the link! Yay-)
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Today's court news! :lol:

Sollecitos family hearing suspended till July 14.

The hearing in front of the preliminary judge Marina De Robertis in which five family members of the accused Raffaele Sollecito and two journalists from Telenorba Bari lasted just a few minutes. Just enough time to read the decision of the court of appeal that suspends the proceedings after lawyers Marco Brusco, Francesco Crisi and Francesco Mastro deposited a few days ago a declaration of recusal of the magistrate. The lawyers reasoning the request on the grounds that judge De Robertis had signed and disposed a series of rules of validation and extensions for interceptions against Sollecito’s family members which then had been added to the request for trial. If the appeals court will recognize reasons of incompatibility, the presiding judge will appoint a new judge. The hearing, with De Robertis (if the request for recusal should be unheeded and rejected) or with a new judge, a court day has been set for July 14. In the proceedings lawyers Luca Maori and Donatella Donati defend some family members. Counselling the family of Meredith Kercher- who are assisted by lawyers Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna. Precisely the film of the forensics showing Mez murdered and naked, aired by Telenorba, is central to the accusation.
On the prosecution bench, public prosecutors Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini (who at present is Prosecutor General of the Perugia Prosecutors Office, as Dr. Federico Centrone is enjoying a period of leave).
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=39

Amanda Knox in court again, in Perugia. "I just wanted to defend myself, I am sorry that the matter has got to this point" this is what Amanda Knox in a short spontaneous statement said today in the Court of appeal, which within five days will decide on the request of her defense to reject the preliminary hearing judge Claudia Matteini in the trial in which the Seattle student is accused of slander against some police officers.

Matteini was the judge for preliminary investigation that dealt with the initial phase of the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher. Crime for which convicted at first instance trial were Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito (to 26 and 25 years in prison, even though both have always claimed to be innocent).

In particular Matteini, signed the order of detention in prison against both youngsters. Defenders of Knox, Luciano Ghirga lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova and Maria Del Grosso, asked the judge to abstain. Because their request was not accepted the lawyers have formalized the recusal request to the Court of Appeal.
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... -solo.html
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

True Justice post http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

The Knox campaign seems to have divided out into three pieces, none of them seemingly at all effective.

The ludicrously shrill David Marriott campaign, the ludicrously shrill Anne Bremner/FOA campaign, and the adolescent internet rantings of the Knox groupies. All three seem to be painting themselves into a corner.

Meanwhile, Amanda Knox’s two lawyers in Italy seem to be going their own sweet way, quite impervious to the above, and it is clear that the Massei sentencing report has given them very much food for thought.

Italian-language reports as they have mostly done for two-plus years vary between strict neutrality and the occasional caustic comment on Knox or Sollecito.

Italy’s biggest English-language internet outlet, read by tens of thousands of residents and visitors who don’t speak very much Italian. has also adopted the same cool objective tone.


links to the video Sex, Lies and The Murder of Meredith Kercher
This is today’s thoughtful, well written commentary by Rome Journal contributor Rebecca.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

observer wrote:
Someone posted on the Injustice website -

"LAURA AND FILOMINA DIDN'T ATTEND IT EITHER. WHY IS IT ONLY AMANDA WHO IS GUILTY AND CALLOUS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE VIGIL ? "

Anyone know about this?

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA


I know this...it's a claim that's been made by the FOA for a long time, first started by Candace Dempsey. Yet, not a single one of them have offered a single peice of EVIDENCE to support that claim, despite numerous requests to do so. They continue to assert it.

It all started, because shortly after Meredith's murder, many of her English friends were so distraught, they went home (those who were allowed that is...Sophie Purton for example, had to stay in Italy for two months under police orders). So, because some of the English friends went home, obviously they couldn't be there for the memorial. 'Someone' (Candace Dempsey) somehow, took this and extrapolated that this meant that also Filomena and Laura didn't attend the vigil either, which is complete bunk. Somehow, this assertion embedded itself as FOA lore. Of course, they desperately want it to be so, since, in their minds, it excuses Amanda and Raffaele not attending it. But, the whole basis for this argument is a lie. When one raises it, they get all defensive and demand one offers proof they attended. However, they can't offer proof they did not...but no matter, if you are unable to prove they did, that's all that's needed for them to assert as a 'fact' that they did not. Do not expect integrity from the FOA. But understand, this isn't an attack on Filomena and Laura, but a desperate defence of Amanda. It's rather transparent.

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


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

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thanks Michael.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
Amanda Knox in court again, in Perugia. "I just wanted to defend myself, I am sorry that the matter has got to this point" this is what Amanda Knox in a short spontaneous statement said today in the Court of Appeal...


Is Chris Mellas, well-intentioned as ever, trying to fix the situation by intervening again and edging Amanda on to 'defend herself'? Every time he is ‘on duty’ in Perugia, she makes a spontaneous statement detrimental to her defense. Do you remember her 'Puro fantasia' statement, undoubtably inspired by CM?

Keep him away from her, FOA, get a restraining order. tou-)

Here is vers libre that could have been written by Marie Pace:

I sense the vibes from dark corners as I enter…
The disapproving minds frown and judge, → GUILTERS
- MY PEOPLE, my reason for attending –
Shimmer in genuine joy and radiate respect and awe, →INNOCENTISTI
New guests peer quizzically; intrigued by my influence,
Pondering my position, my role here, where I fit in.
STRUTTING around then, I review my audience
And BASK in my potential power of persuasion.

My lifestyle tends to be a little wild, by choice
I choose my own way forward; often
Experimenting with the forbidden jewels
That infest your perceptions and tilt your views.
Perhaps my physical victories are declared unacceptable…
By society… still I continue uncaring.

The dreams of others become almost possible
When the extent of my achievements gained is unveiled…
Or if you were to hear of my present fortune
Even looking to the far future promises success… for me
The life I lead looks so balanced, so easy
I am a working, drug using, and sex crazy SUCCESS story!
And “any one can do it” they all think
But it seems that only I have been granted this leniency.

I promote no part of my personal preferences…
…Nor will I deny any truthful accusations of my actions…
I will ABSOLUTELY never beg as newbie for a trial
Offer evil to an innocent…
Or in any way be of any influence to the decisions others make.
I LIVE MY LIFE AS I CHOOSE AND EXPECT OTHERS TO ACCEPT ME
I am who I am because of what I’ve been.
You too have your own life…
Make your own decisions now… Carefully….

My dear FRIENDS, do not praise my strength →FRIENDS OF AMANDA
When you too have fallen hard and survived…
While watching you suffer and fight the demon,
Those that cared turned their blame and anger onto me
- the thought of a conscious choice made, a myth, scoffed -
My most recently earned title is my most commonly used one these days……. →MURDERESS

They say I will INFLUENCE you BADLY….
They tell you I’m no good
But what you live, you have to love…. As I do.
My life is mine alone…. and you too shall find your own
NOTE: no influential phrases, no leading clues to dark requests!!
To justify their claims: I am NOT a bad influence.
I accept a large variety of restricted ideas personally…
I don’t MAKE you do anything bad… I just make bad things possible.

(All-capital emphasis in original).

Bad Influence
gotpoetry.com

(Working title of her next poem: She Walks in Beauty, A Narcissist’s Ode to Herself, or All Eyes on ME) ;)
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:09 am   Post subject: Well, Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse Me!   

guermantes wrote:
Jools wrote:
Amanda Knox in court again, in Perugia. "I just wanted to defend myself, I am sorry that the matter has got to this point" this is what Amanda Knox in a short spontaneous statement said today in the Court of Appeal...


Is Chris Mellas, well-intentioned as ever, trying to fix the situation by intervening again and edging Amanda on to 'defend herself'? Every time he is ‘on duty’ in Perugia, she makes a spontaneous statement detrimental to her defense. Do you remember her 'Puro fantasia' statement, undoubtably inspired by CM?

Keep him away from her, FOA, get a restraining order. tou-)




Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me--but, is that supposed to be. . . an apology from Amanda? huh-)

It so contrived, and insincere and what does it mean, anyway? There's no taking responsibility for her actions, for "this matter", for her lie. There is no empathy for any of the people her lie hurt. It's not even meant for anybody in particular.

Essentially she's saying:
"I wish things didn't turn out this way. Cause it's a real pain in the ass, for me and my family. Especially so, since *I* was in the right here. I was just doing what I should have been doing for MY SURVIVAL- I WAS DEFENDING MYSELF. "

In other words, she's playing the victim card, again. She's still competing with Meredith, HERE--as most aggrieved victim in this trial!!! nnn-))

Just more classic self-righteous, self-centered Amanda Knox behavior, I'm afraid. And, Guermantes, yes, inspired by or "mis-managed" by Chris Mellas.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Running out of gas on the subject of handwriting, but still going strong.

To fill the gap between now and the release of the Motivations Document, let’s put Amanda’s signature 'under the microscope'. If you are not interested, then by all means skip over my post and ignore it. I don’t want to contribute to the spread of pseudo-science. It’s just for your -- or basically my own -- entertainment... :)

From the transcripts of Amanda Knox’s Nov. 5/6 statements, we now know what her normal, everyday signature looks like. She has a style of signature that is particularly decipherable; it is simple in design. There is a superfluous stroke that ‘cuts’ through the ‘x’ at the end of her surname.

Attachment:
Amanda's signature 05.45 - cr.jpg


Does anyone else find this as bizarre as I do? I have seen signatures that abound in ornamental flourishes, ending with a wavy or straight line under them, or a hook turned upward, but nothing like that. Some writers finish with an almost imperceptible dot, as if the pen had been stabbed into the paper, others continue the line till it becomes finer and sharper to vanishing point. Amanda finishes up with a vertical stroke, or whatever you want to call it, that passes through the ‘x’ in ‘Knox’. It’s strange, unusual, and quite unique.

Attachment:
Amanda's signature 01.45 - cr.jpg


Note that I do NOT attach any particular meaning to that ‘flourish’. I’m merely pointing out the ‘oddness’ of the stroke and some of the ‘anomalies’ in her handwriting.

* I have my own interpretation of the stroke but will keep it to myself, since it is based on an intuitive approach, and most of us favor scientific explanations over other kinds. ;)


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


Last edited by guermantes on Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

(((OT)))

Now take, for example, the signature of Charles Dickens, who was fond of concluding with a more or less bold and expansive underline running horizontally with the signature. It’s very striking and artistic.

Attachment:
Charles Dickens signature - 7.png


Facsimile No. 4 (written in 1831):

Attachment:
Charles Dickens signature - 4.png


'The easy curves below the signature are cleverly made, and while they indicate much energy, they also point to a useful confidence in self, owing to the deliberate way of accentuating the most personal part of a letter—its signature.'

Facsimile No. 5 (written in 1832):

Attachment:
Charles Dickens signature - 5.png


'Its force and energy are great, but we shall see even more pronounced developments of this flourish before it takes the moderated and graceful form of confident and assured power.'

You can read more about CD’s beautiful signature here:

The Signatures of Charles Dickens

Permit me this as a tentative conclusion (accepting it pro tem, meaning that it can be withdrawn at any time):

MARIE PACE IS NO CHARLES DICKENS!!!

AK seems significantly less artistic, creative, and imaginative.

Beyond this shrewd guess and fertile hypothesis, I’m prepared to say little… :)

Ok, enough silliness for the day.


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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
observer wrote:
Someone posted on the Injustice website -

"LAURA AND FILOMINA DIDN'T ATTEND IT EITHER. WHY IS IT ONLY AMANDA WHO IS GUILTY AND CALLOUS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE VIGIL ? "

Anyone know about this?

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA


I know this...it's a claim that's been made by the FOA for a long time, first started by Candace Dempsey.


In her book, she addresses this by stating "No photographs exist" of any of the three of them at the vigil.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Did the Camorristi intimidate Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy? Camorra


"Luciano Aviello’s testimony is compelling, even for this case which has hardly lacked surprising twists. * * * Still, Knox’s attorneys believe that Aviello is the key to Amanda’s freedom and they have listed him as a super witness in her appeal, which is expected to be heard some time this fall." --- Barbie Nadeau New Evidence

I wonder whether Barbie knows something she is not mentioning. In particular, I wonder whether Knox's attorneys will argue during the appeal that all three suspects have been intimidated by members of the Camorra, Antonio Aviello and his Albanian accomplice. Luciano's story doesn't mention who was at the cottage when his brother Antonio and the Albanian broke in..........but maybe it was all three suspects. And after killing Meredith---itself an act of silencing a witness---the two Camorristi threatened the three suspects with DEATH. Mama Mia! Under the circumstances, not an idle threat. And maybe also threats to harm the suspects' families.

If it happened that way it would explain a lot. The suspects had no motive...but the two Camorristi sure did. And all three of the suspects have been lying "through their teeth," just what you'd expect if too afraid to tell the truth. There's evidence that the suspects cleaned the bathroom, and moved the body, yeah, but maybe under supervision by the two Camorristi! (If the Camorristi took the keys, after locking Meredith's door, they must have stayed around after the murder.) The burglary staging, I suppose, would have been invented by the suspects to divert attention from themselves.

At present this is just a baseless scenario ...or is it?

Consider this....

>>> Why is Barbie---of all people---calling Aviello's story "compelling"????

>>> Several months ago Rudy was attacked in jail by two Albanians. No apparent motive. (But maybe a reminder.) Rudy decided to forgive them, pressing no charges against his assailants. Rudy is such a forgiving guy.

>>> Papa Sollecito may know something about a Camorra connection, too. Barbie writes of Doctor Sollecito: "He showed up at court with an entourage that included bodyguards and a driver for his armored car." (Barbie Nadeu, ANGEL FACE, page 32) Sorta suggests that he too might be scared.

>>> And one of those mysteries that was never resolved. On the night of the murder a "dark car" was seen parked in the cottage driveway at about the time of the murder. Raffaele lived just a five minute walk from the cottage, so no need to drive, and his auto was examined by the cops and found to be free of evidence. The two Camorristi, however, were out to steal oil paintings, in which case they would be in need of a vehicle. Hmmm.

>>> And why was this picture found nailed to the front door of the cottage the morning after the murder?





(Okay, I made up this part.)

///


Last edited by fine on Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:49 am, edited 7 times in total.
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 Jun 18, 2010 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

guermantes wrote:
Note that I do NOT attach any particular meaning to that ‘flourish’. I’m merely pointing out the ‘oddness’ of the stroke and some of the ‘anomalies’ in her handwriting.

* I have my own interpretation of the stroke but will keep it to myself, since it is based on an intuitive approach, and most of us favor scientific explanations over other kinds. ;)


My own view of handwriting analysis is summarised here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/grapho.html

The sceptic has some very important points about physical manifestations of mental or emotional states or habits. Do we similarly attach significance to ascending sets of stairs with the left foot rather than the right? Eating a bite of steak with the left hand after cutting or changing hands to use the right hand? Paying by cash or debit card?

I think it's a lot more revealing that Amanda is continuing to make statements in court that make her appear to be the victim instead of a heartless murderer and an incorrigible liar.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

fine wrote:
Did the Camorristi intimidate Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy? Camorra


"Luciano Aviello’s testimony is compelling, even for this case which has hardly lacked surprising twists. * * * Still, Knox’s attorneys believe that Aviello is the key to Amanda’s freedom and they have listed him as a super witness in her appeal, which is expected to be heard some time this fall." --- Barbie Nadeau New Evidence

I wonder whether Barbie knows something she is not mentioning. In particular, I wonder whether Knox's attorneys will argue during the appeal that all three suspects have been intimidated by members of the Camorra, Antonio Aviello and his Albanian accomplice. Luciano's story doesn't mention who was at the cottage when Antonio and the Albanian broke in..........but maybe it was all three suspects. And after killing Meredith---itself an act of silencing a witness---the two Camorristi threatened the three suspects with DEATH. Mama Mia! Under the circumstances, not an idle threat.

If it happened that way it would explain a lot. The suspects had no motive...but the two Camorristi sure did. And all three of the suspects have been lying "through their teeth," just what you'd expect if too afraid to tell the truth. There's evidence that the suspects cleaned the bathroom, and moved the body, yeah, but maybe under supervision by the two Camorristi! (If the Camorristi took the keys, after locking Meredith's door, they must have stayed around after the murder.) The burglary staging, I suppose, would have been invented by the suspects to divert attention from themselves.

At present this is just a baseless scenario ...or is it?

Consider this....

>>> Why is Barbie---of all people---calling Aviello's story "compelling"????

>>> Several months ago Rudy was attacked in jail by two Albanians. No apparent motive. (But maybe a reminder.) Rudy decided to forgive them, pressing no charges against his assailants. Rudy is such a forgiving guy.

>>> Papa Sollecito may know something about a Camorra connection, too. Barbie writes of Doctor Sollecito: "He showed up at court with an entourage that included bodyguards and a driver for his armored car." (Barbie Nadeu, ANGEL FACE, page 32) Sorta suggests that he too might be scared.

>>> And one of those mysteries that was never resolved. On the night of the murder a "dark car" was seen parked in the cottage driveway at about the time of the murder. Raffaele lived just a five minute walk from the cottage, so no need to drive, and his auto was examined by the cops and found to be free of evidence. The two Camorristi, however, were out to steal oil paintings, in which case they would be in need of a vehicle. Hmmm.



///


Do you believe you believe in aliens and the Loch Ness monster?

I really hope you've never received an e-mail, saying that a wealthy businessman in Nigeria needs your help or a phone call from someone telling you that you've won a foreign lottery.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

piktor wrote:
"Experts" are also bunching Knox and VD Sloot in the same sentence:

(Video)


With good reason. They're both narcissistic psychopaths. Thanks for the YouTube link. The danger is that both of them are on the streets again before they're 30.

VD Sloot realizes that he's been caught red-handed, so he's going for a 2nd degree murder charge. Amanda Knox still thinks she can walk without resorting to a 2nd degree, drugs & alcohol-related charge.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... olice.html

old picture, same story..

Knox said: "I just wanted to defend myself. I've always told the truth regarding my position."


comments allowed
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.nwcn.com/news/Judge-in-Amand ... 73034.html

Knox's attorneys say Claudia Matteini is prejudice because she also decided Knox should be tried for the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I JUST DEFENDED MYSELF'Screaming her Innocence even at a Technical HearingIt was not the trial for slander, not the preliminary hearing, nothing about facts. Today it was a fully technical hearing at the Corte d'Appello. But she was there.We can understand that every occasion is good to go out of the fortress and its days made of nothing.

http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/artic ... MANDA+KNOX

can leave comments


but it refers to this:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -knox.html

Today was nothing about slander, but at the end of the lawyers' discussion, made of articles of law, citations of Supreme Court, rulings of Constitutional Court, Amanda wanted to have her voice heard. I think the judge must change --technical Amanda explained-- because she already judged me in other occasions. She learned the concept of competence. She's becoming a lawyer too.

Then she screamed her innocence even for the slander. She couldn't wait for the trial, not even for the pre-trial. She had to say it there and then, even if the hearing was about something else.
Amanda explained that she didn't mean to accuse anyone, she was just trying to defend herself.

Things don't change in Perugia, it's always no for the defendant, the defendant is always a liar. When it's always no, when there is hostility, when ideas never change, when doubt is dead... better finding another solution.
Florence is close, they have a court of Appeals too, and it works very well.


Last edited by H9 on Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I see. A judge rules that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, so that must mean prejudice...?
She didn't proclaim them guilty. *That* would be prejudice.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

FOA message for all those of you who check in on a regular basis...

July 9 is Knox's Birthday. Send her a Birthday greeting at the following address:

Amanda Knox
c/o Casa Circondariale
Strada Pievaiola
06100 Capanne (PG)
Italy
mul-)

Be civil and resist the temptation to trash Italy.
Continue, however, to boycott Italian products
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6-IE5m0 ... re=related

the photos of her arriving in court. These are the same as posted previously and are in the gallery
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I see. A judge rules that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, so that must mean prejudice...?
She didn't proclaim them guilty. *That* would be prejudice.


The FOA also argue that DNA or forensic expert who thinks that Knox and Sollecito are guilty isn't independent.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hi Machine :)

Interesting interpretation above about the Commora theory. Unlikely, though, huh? Things would have played out much differently. Amanda would have actually appeared terrified, so too Raff. They would have told someone way before now, and a great reason to ask to be repatriated. I don't think professional art thieves would've done anything but
1. broken in somewhere more convenient than Filomena's window
2. scarpered immediately they knew someone was in.

Still, I bet Amanda will have wished she'd thought of these scapegoats. Mmmmm bigger drama.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
FOA message for all those of you who check in on a regular basis...

July 9 is Knox's Birthday. Send her a Birthday greeting at the following address:

Amanda Knox
c/o Casa Circondariale
Strada Pievaiola
06100 Capanne (PG)
Italy
mul-)

Be civil and resist the temptation to trash Italy.
Continue, however, to boycott Italian products
#


Oh boy. Oh *boy*. You've done it now! Trying to circumvent The Minister for Truth & Information's weekly comic (sic)? Kelly's gonna go plenty mad on yo'ass for that!! Breaking up his special relationship where he gets to pass or fail all communications according to his criteria (see last post) and allowing him to maintain his 'adult' evangelical position as the one allowed to communicate in an substance with Amanda? He's gonna do his flippin' nana with you H9! ham-)

Forward wind to July 7th - I see Kelly trying to position himself in front of Capanne to make sure nothing gets past his process. In fact, strangely a clip of him doing so, in all his evangelical fervour, just fell out of a space-time wormhole right onto my desk;





wh-)

_________________
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 Jun 18, 2010 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.nwcn.com/news/Judge-in-Amanda-Knox-slander-trial-may-step-aside-96573034.html

Knox's attorneys say Claudia Matteini is prejudice because she also decided Knox should be tried for the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher.



Only she didn't, it was judge Micheli who sent Knox to trial.

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


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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hey guys, i just checked my email and there was a latter titled "Hearing today". Unfortunetely, by a mistake, i erased it, and i also didn't notice who was the sender and i have no idea if this was even PMF's related oop-) So did anyone send me an email? Was there a hearing and what was the reason for it and the outcome? Cheers, Donnie.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Today Show (MSNBC) report with interview with Chris Mellas aired this morning:

MSNBC/TODAY SHOW

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Michael wrote:
observer wrote:
Someone posted on the Injustice website -

"LAURA AND FILOMINA DIDN'T ATTEND IT EITHER. WHY IS IT ONLY AMANDA WHO IS GUILTY AND CALLOUS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE VIGIL ? "

Anyone know about this?

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA


I know this...it's a claim that's been made by the FOA for a long time, first started by Candace Dempsey.


In her book, she addresses this by stating "No photographs exist" of any of the three of them at the vigil.

Pat


And this is the basis for the claim? Were Laura and Filomena seen out buying undies and having pizza too?

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
Michael wrote:
observer wrote:
Someone posted on the Injustice website -

"LAURA AND FILOMINA DIDN'T ATTEND IT EITHER. WHY IS IT ONLY AMANDA WHO IS GUILTY AND CALLOUS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE VIGIL ? "

Anyone know about this?

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA


I know this...it's a claim that's been made by the FOA for a long time, first started by Candace Dempsey.


In her book, she addresses this by stating "No photographs exist" of any of the three of them at the vigil.

Pat


And this is the basis for the claim? Were Laura and Filomena seen out buying undies and having pizza too?



I'm sure LOTS of people were at the vigil for whom no photos exist. Hundreds, if not thousands attended throughout the evening. And I don't see why anyone would have photographed Laura and Filomena anyway, since it was not common knowledge at that point of who they were and what they looked like. It's also worth remembering Patrick was at the vigil and he wasn't photographed either. Indeed, he was one of the organisers of the vigil, since it was he that had been giving out flyers for it that day and the day before. It is ironic to think that the very day he's organising and attending Meredith's vigil Amanda would be down the police station accusing him of raping and murdering Meredith, leading to his arrest at 7 am the very next morning.

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


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Tara wrote:
The Today Show (MSNBC) report with interview with Chris Mellas aired this morning:

MSNBC/TODAY SHOW



Chris Mellas says, "She'll make it through this. She is strong."


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just a quick note to Piktor: a PM is sitting in your Inbox waiting to be opened. Please check your PMs.

th-)
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:45 pm   Post subject: "Women Who Kill" "Wicked Attraction" ="Unlikely Suspects"???   

:shock: :shock: TV ALERT for US viewers, especially for the CANDACE DEMPSEYs of the world, and for those still convinced that the culprit is virtually always a black drifter, and not "two good white kids":

The Investigation Discovery Channel has a NEW SUMMER SERIES entitled "UNUSUAL SUSPECTS" ] - exposing crime stories with so-called "unlikely criminals."

Here's the promo for the show, which begins Monday, June 21:

"(Silver Spring, Md.) - The All-American boy next door. A church-going grandmother. A devoted brother. They were respected role models and trusted members of their community - until the day each of them was charged with a shocking crime. This summer, Investigation Discovery shines a light on some UNUSUAL SUSPECTS, showing that even the nicest neighbor can have a sinister side. From vengeful family members to a corrupt officer patrolling the roads, UNUSUAL SUSPECTS profiles those you would least expect to be capable of committing such dark deeds. Investigation Discovery, America's leading investigation network presents UNUSUAL SUSPECTS beginning Monday, June 21 at 10 PM (ET).

Each one-hour episode of UNUSUAL SUSPECTS showcases some of the most baffling and challenging cases in contemporary law enforcement, and commends the unwavering investigations that led to the arrest of these unlikely culprits. Featuring in-depth interviews from some of America's top investigative forces, viewers find out how these illusive offenders evaded justice for years, and how persistent police work and a passion for justice ultimately got them caught."



To the Amy Jenkins of the world (see the "Independent" article referenced here by The Machine, some weeks back) who had done no serious studying of this case. But Amy was willing to bet everything she has that a woman could NOT be involved in Meredith's murder... who also stated "The truth is, Amanda Knox's great crime was to be a young woman."

Amy, if youth and female gender were exculpatory, FREE THE FEMALE FELONS!!!
Another great idea from another writer at the "Independent"http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-bakewell/joan-bakewell-how-to-solve-the-prisons-crisis-free-all-the-women-419837.html

Amy's colleague Joan Bakewell writes "How to solve the prison problem...:
"It is quite simply this. Let the women go! The Government should close women's prisons down, forthwith. They could then use the buildings to house the male prisoners who are currently to be placed at great expense, inconvenience and the irritation of the police service, in the police cells of your local police station."

:roll:

Amy: You will find it most educational if you can find a way to watch
Investigation Discovery's series: entitled "Deadly Women" about all kinds of women who kill!
http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/deadly-women/

Oh, and guess what? Discovery Investigation also has another series entitled "Wicked Attraction" about "deadly duos" who kill. CAN IT BE?????????? eee-) eee-)
Even "good white kids", like the two below ...(who, let's agree... kinda look like you-know-who!!! surp-) surp-) ), are featured in the series...



Last edited by The 411 on Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
I'm sure LOTS of people were at the vigil for whom no photos exist. Hundreds, if not thousands attended throughout the evening. And I don't see why anyone would have photographed Laura and Filomena anyway, since it was not common knowledge at that point of who they were and what they looked like. It's also worth remembering Patrick was at the vigil and he wasn't photographed either. Indeed, he was one of the organisers of the vigil, since it was he that had been giving out flyers for it that day and the day before. It is ironic to think that the very day he's organising and attending Meredith's vigil Amanda would be down the police station accusing him of raping and murdering Meredith, leading to his arrest at 7 am the very next morning.


The audacity. The biggest lies are those which state the exact inversion of the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

guermantes wrote:
Just a quick note to Piktor: a PM is sitting in your Inbox waiting to be opened. Please check your PMs.

th-)



Oh, and guermantes, i added the pictures of the signatures to gallery as they are definitely worth saving and referring to. Thanks for sourcing!
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: "Women Who Kill" "Wicked Attraction" ="Unlikely Suspects"???   

The 411 wrote:
Oh, and guess what? Discovery Investigation also has another series entitled "Wicked Attraction" about "deadly duos" who kill. CAN IT BE?????????? eee-) eee-)
Even "good white kids", like the two below ...(who, let's agree... kinda look like you-know-who!!! surp-) surp-) ), are featured in the series...



Here are three more "good white kids":

[/quote]


Last edited by The Machine on Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:35 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

observer wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'm sure LOTS of people were at the vigil for whom no photos exist. Hundreds, if not thousands attended throughout the evening. And I don't see why anyone would have photographed Laura and Filomena anyway, since it was not common knowledge at that point of who they were and what they looked like. It's also worth remembering Patrick was at the vigil and he wasn't photographed either. Indeed, he was one of the organisers of the vigil, since it was he that had been giving out flyers for it that day and the day before. It is ironic to think that the very day he's organising and attending Meredith's vigil Amanda would be down the police station accusing him of raping and murdering Meredith, leading to his arrest at 7 am the very next morning.


The audacity. The biggest lies are those which state the exact inversion of the truth.


No one--no one-- has established that Filomena and Laura did not attend the vigil.

What's really important here is KNOWING THE REASON for any of Meredith's close Perugia friend's non-attendance.
i.e., Why did Amanda and Raffaele NOT attend? Were they out of town because of even more pressing matters? Disabled by illness?
Or, rather did they simply deem it more important in that moment, to eat pizza rather than attend the vigil for one of Amanda's "good friend."
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The 411 -

Just in case it wasn't obvious, I am in complete agreement with you.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: "Deadly Duos"   

Forgot to post a link for the program: "Wicked Attraction"...for Amy and Candace's benefit.

Here is "Investigation Discovery Channel''s site-- featuring their " list of :twisted: :evil:
"Top 10 Deadly Deadly Duos." And this is just their TOP ten!

http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/w ... -duos.html
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Knox's appeal is scheduled for 23 November 2010.

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=333780
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: "Women Who Kill" "Wicked Attraction" ="Unlikely Suspects"???   

The Machine wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Oh, and guess what? Discovery Investigation also has another series entitled "Wicked Attraction" about "deadly duos" who kill. CAN IT BE?????????? eee-) eee-)
Even "good white kids", like the two below ...(who, let's agree... kinda look like you-know-who!!! surp-) surp-) ), are featured in the series...

(PIC)


Here are three more "good white kids":



(PIC)
[/quote]

Oh, that's right, Machine. Look at those sweet smiles. So heartwarming. Who wouldn't want to take them home to meet the parents. eee-) eee-) eee-)

Certainly Doug Preston would be the first to tell you that by him "just looking at them" HE could tell they're innocent.Do you have any idea why they even bothered with a trial, when Doug could have been judge and jury, and saved the US taxpayers all that time and money ? wh-)

Oh, and FYI, for Candace and Amy re: the photo of the AK-RS-like look-alike killers pictured above in the black and white photos.

NOTE: Despite the "tender ages" of the "little angel" killers, Elizabeth (age 20) got a 90 years sentence (45 YEARS--for each murder victim.) And honors student Jens (age 18) received TWO LIFE SENTENCES.

"Jens Soering, an 18-year-old honor student at University of Virginia, met 20-year-old Elizabeth Haysom at the university in 1984, and the pair became fast friends and eventually romantically involved. Haysom’s parents, however, disapproved of the relationship, and this disapproval would eventually cost the Haysoms their lives. In March 1985, Soering had dinner with Haysom’s parents before brutally stabbing them to death. He and Haysom then fled the scene and escaped to Europe, where they were intercepted by authorities. Soering protested extradition, fearing the death penalty, but eventually he was returned to the US with Haysom. Soering received two life terms in prison, while Haysom received 90 years (45 years for each murder)."
_________________________________________________________________________________________
OYEZ! OYEZ!! Machine, PMF'ers one and all : If it pleases the Board...
I really think we should have a PMF file to catalog cases that disprove many of the the oft-repeated boring, unsubstantiated FOA and Candace-type biases... Once and for all, put the silly notions to rest, with real-life examples, forcing everyone to look at this case, and each case, on its OWN merits. rul-)

Tired old baseless claims, that we've all heard over and over such as:

pro-) "It's always the black drifter.""Black man found, black man guilty" (then provide examples to disprove the "rule" : Charles Stuart murder case in Boston, Susan Smith murder case....)Honors students wouldn't just kill." (loads of examples there!!! gang-) ) "Good white middle/upper-class girls don't just murder." etc. etc.

________________________________________________________________________________
So...Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, Honorable List Moderators: What say ye? rul-)

dance-)
I hereby nominate the highly capable H9 and/or someone of H9's organizational prowess to oversee said project!! H9, you don't mind me offering you to do extra work tou-) ---
for the cause of justice, do ya? kh-))
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

There's a new piece about Amy Jenkins on TJMK:

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about Amy Jenkins on TJMK:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php


Great job, as usual, TM.
I hope you send the link to Amy Jenkins so she will read it. That might wipe the silly grin off her face.:)

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

TM, nice piece of work about a nasty piece of work. Lazy, lazy woman, what a joke. I will try to email the link to the Independent and other UK newspapers as well.

Actually, a tidy file with criminal cases having similarities to this one in one place with a PMF link that can be posted in places like JREF and chez Brucie and Kelly's might not be such a bad idea. The baseless ridiculous claims about the middle class nice honor students only doing time for white collar crimes is sooo tedious. I vote for 411's idea.
Top Profile 

Offline flowers


Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:40 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

thanks so much machine - that jenkins article was so awful but i just couldn't stomach even writing a comment about it - it was just like..."jeez, where do i start?!"

xxxx
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 Jun 18, 2010 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: "Women Who Kill" "Wicked Attraction" ="Unlikely Suspects"???   

The 411 wrote:
Amy, if youth and female gender were exculpatory, FREE THE FEMALE FELONS!!!
Another great idea from another writer at the "Independent"http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-bakewell/joan-bakewell-how-to-solve-the-prisons-crisis-free-all-the-women-419837.html

Amy's colleague Joan Bakewell writes "How to solve the prison problem...:
"It is quite simply this. Let the women go! The Government should close women's prisons down, forthwith. They could then use the buildings to house the male prisoners who are currently to be placed at great expense, inconvenience and the irritation of the police service, in the police cells of your local police station."


In all fairness to the author, she was not talking about the Kelly Ellards, Karla Homolkas and Amanda Knoxes of the world. She was largely talking about the working poor serving sentences for drug-related crimes or petty economic offenses. I am quite certain she wasn't arguing to let loose remorseless killers.
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 Jun 18, 2010 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The 411 wrote:
So...Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, Honorable List Moderators: What say ye?



That would be a tricky one to organise. The basic idea is simple. Putting it into practice on the board is not. Someone would need to maintain and update the list...but they can't, since members can only edit posts within 24 hours. The forum software doesn't allow me to change that limit for an individual...it has to be everyone or nobody. I'd need some time to think of a workaround...which I can't see right now.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: "Women Who Kill" "Wicked Attraction" ="Unlikely Suspects"???   

The 411 wrote:
Tired old baseless claims, that we've all heard over and over such as:

pro-) "It's always the black drifter.""Black man found, black man guilty" (then provide examples to disprove the "rule" : Charles Stuart murder case in Boston, Susan Smith murder case....)Honors students wouldn't just kill." (loads of examples there!!! gang-) ) "Good white middle/upper-class girls don't just murder." etc. etc.


Don't forget murderers always have a prior history of violence.

I don't even know if one needs an encyclopaedia of exceptions. The basic fact is that there are many degrees and penalties for causing the death of another human being. There are many causes too. To list all of them would require a new web site.

Fortunately, most police investigations aren't encumbered by sheer incredulity. If they were, they'd rarely get a rightful conviction. Don't these FOA nutters think that--at any point--even the police investigators had those among them who couldn't believe what the evidence was gradually revealing? They wanted RS and AK under surveillance because they were suspicious but surely some of them thought the pair could have been covering for a third party.

On the other hand, of course, we rarely hear publicly from Amanda's Seattle buddies who suspected her right away.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about Amy Jenkins on TJMK:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php



...three traces of Meredith's blood were found in Amanda's room? Is this new information or did I really miss this? I would imagine the official FOA line is that this happened during the bathmat shuffle...
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
The 411 wrote:
So...Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, Honorable List Moderators: What say ye?



That would be a tricky one to organise. The basic idea is simple. Putting it into practice on the board is not. Someone would need to maintain and update the list...but they can't, since members can only edit posts within 24 hours. The forum software doesn't allow me to change that limit for an individual...it has to be everyone or nobody. I'd need some time to think of a workaround...which I can't see right now.


Hello Michael,
if you use a dedicated subforum, you could use this MOD:
http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=1657145
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Corrina wrote:
The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about Amy Jenkins on TJMK:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php



...three traces of Meredith's blood were found in Amanda's room? Is this new information or did I really miss this? I would imagine the official FOA line is that this happened during the bathmat shuffle...


That's news to me, too, Corrina. I'm of the opinion that she and Raff *did* perform a kind of bathmat/towels shuffle, but it had nothing to do with a shower.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
Michael wrote:
The 411 wrote:
So...Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, Honorable List Moderators: What say ye?



That would be a tricky one to organise. The basic idea is simple. Putting it into practice on the board is not. Someone would need to maintain and update the list...but they can't, since members can only edit posts within 24 hours. The forum software doesn't allow me to change that limit for an individual...it has to be everyone or nobody. I'd need some time to think of a workaround...which I can't see right now.


Hello Michael,
if you use a dedicated subforum, you could use this MOD:
http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=1657145



I know. I don't want to use a dedicated sub-forum...just for a list. That's not enough reason to create a forum. We have enough as it is, which makes it confusing enough for members and visitors as it is already. Not to mention, it would be yet another forum that would have to be administered. The creation of a new sub-forum requires serious justification...and as a workaround to solve a problem doesn't qualify. That's not the way to go.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote the following on JREF:

"The information that we have does not come from blogs. We have the court testimony. We know what evidence was presented in court."

Really? I'd like to know on which court ruling or testimony Bruce Fisher based his assertion that Amanda Knox's interrogation was illegal on.

I feel embarrassed for him when he pretends he knows something about Italian law.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories


Talking of just so stories, "Firm guilter" London John came up with a fairy tale that Hans Christian Andersen would have been proud of:

"My theory* would go something like this:

1) Guede kills Meredith;
2) Guede goes to get towels from bathroom to clean up blood, and washes blood off his hands at the same time (leaving some of Meredith's blood in the batchroom);
3) Guede goes from the bathroom to Filomena's room to stage the break-in;
4) Guede goes to the front door to exit the house, but it's locked and he can't see any keys (lots of footprints in the kitchen/lounge, perhaps as Guede looks for keys there);
5) Guede re-enters Meredith's room, to get Meredith's keys from her handbag (leaving her blood and his DNA on the bag;
6) Guede takes the keys from the bag, and also opportunistically takes the purse and the mobile phones;
7) Guede exits Meredith's room for a second time since the murder, but this time he steps in her blood with one of his shoes on his way out;
8) Guede closes and locks Meredith's door behind him, and exits the front door - leaving the bloody shoeprint trail behind him."
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories


I gave up reading there some time ago for the same reason. I am sorry that you and others like you have been drowned out by propagandists like Bruce, Mary, LondonJohn, etc.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories


Did Kipling write bald-faced unsupportable assertions? I suppose he did in a way.

I am serious about pursuing this entire allegation about the cops knowing anything about Patrick before 06 NOV 2007. None of them have shown anything to support it.

As with the staged break-in, I think it's one of the "uber-circumstances" that forms the framework into which all the other evidence fits.

It makes all the "suggestion" talk moot. My previous view on the 'implanted false memories' was that the waving of the mobile phones might have meant something to the cops. Now I'm quite certain the whole episode was created by Amanda. I think they were just going through her story interval by interval and she seized the opportunity of the SMS message to create a new story on the fly.

And I'd still love to read Amanda's three declarations before 06 NOV 2007. Are they posted anywhere? I assume none of them mention Patrick.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stilicho wrote:
And I'd still love to read Amanda's three declarations before 06 NOV 2007. Are they posted anywhere? I assume none of them mention Patrick.


Version 2:

“I can’t remember if my friend Meredith was there or if she came later. We were all separate,” she said.

“He (Lumumba) wanted her (Meredith).

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

“Diya wanted her. Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams.

“Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith’s bedroom while I think I stayed in the kitchen.

“I can’t remember how long they were together in the bedroom but the only thing I can say is that at a certain point I remember hearing Meredith’s screams and I covered my ears.

“Then I don’t remember anything else. There is such a lot going on in my head.“

“I can’t remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard thuds but I could imagine what was going on.’

....Later, she contradicts herself, saying: “I can’t remember if Raffaele was there that night.

“I remember waking up in his bed at his house and that I went back to my house where I found the door open.”

Version 3:

This is the version The London Times reported on 7 November 2007. In this version Amanda Knox is not sure whether Raffaele Sollecito was with her at the house or not.

She seems to have said that she met Mr Lumumba on the evening of November 1 after sending a text message in reply to his with the words “Let’s meet up” (“Ci vediamo”).

“We met around nine o’clock at the basketball court at Piazza Grimana and we went back to my house. I don’t remember if my friend Meredith was already there or whether she came later. What I can say is that the two of them (Meredith and Patrick) went off together.”

She seems to have said she and Mr Lumumba had told Ms Kercher they wanted to “have some fun”. “Patrick wanted her (Ms Kercher),” she said.

“Patrick and Meredith went off together into Meredith’s room while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I can’t remember how long they were in the bedroom together, I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I was so frightened I put my fingers in my ears. I don’t remember anything after that, my head is really confused.”

“I don’t remember if Meredith called out or if I heard thuds because I was upset, but I can imagine what was happening.” She claimed she had had a lot to drink and had fallen asleep.

She added: “I’m not sure whether Raffaele was there too that evening but I do remember waking up at his house in his bed and that in the morning I went back to where I lived, where I found the door open.”
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories


I gave up reading there some time ago for the same reason. I am sorry that you and others like you have been drowned out by propagandists like Bruce, Mary, LondonJohn, etc.


It is not a debate or exchange: it is a test of patience. Mine has run out :(
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 Jun 18, 2010 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
And I'd still love to read Amanda's three declarations before 06 NOV 2007. Are they posted anywhere? I assume none of them mention Patrick.


Version 2:

“I can’t remember if my friend Meredith was there or if she came later. We were all separate,” she said.

Version 3:

This is the version The London Times reported on 7 November 2007. In this version Amanda Knox is not sure whether Raffaele Sollecito was with her at the house or not.


Actually I mean the earlier declarations Ghirga mentioned during her testimony. These were made on the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th.
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 Jun 18, 2010 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories


I gave up reading there some time ago for the same reason. I am sorry that you and others like you have been drowned out by propagandists like Bruce, Mary, LondonJohn, etc.


It is not a debate or exchange: it is a test of patience. Mine has run out :(


I found it interesting as a social experiment. When provided with a moderated platform, a pseudoscientific cult appears to be unwilling to move beyond the talking points and engage any interested parties. I think the thread will die out due to the moderation and the fact that nothing is being accomplished.

I also think all those FOA people are really going to be upset when the sentences are confirmed by the appeals court. They seem to believe that the appeal will be successful. Based on what I really don't know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

To be honest I do not really think some of them share a set of assumptions about the nature of debate. I think that folk like MaryH and Bruce Fisher are engaged in something quite different
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
To be honest I do not really think some of them share a set of assumptions about the nature of debate. I think that folk like MaryH and Bruce Fisher are engaged in something quite different


Totally agree. I have given up reading over there as it seems to be a pointless exercise (with all due respect to yourself and stilicho and Fulcanelli). The FOA have no real interest in engaging in debate, they merely stick (quite impressively) to their talking points whatever the nature of the evidence presented. I've learned a lot about how to avoid answering a question, how to side-step issues, how to deflect attention, how to set up a straw man, how to ignore people when they prove you wrong...but aside from this (most of which I already knew) there is nothing new to learn from this crowd. It's all been done over here before, much better to be honest. You and the other stalwarts have done a superb job in holding back the tide of BS emanating from the 'New FOA', and for that I applaud you. No-one will even care if that discussion thread becomes a MaryH/Bruce/LJ love in. They must have bored most of their (limited) audience into submission by now.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
To be honest I do not really think some of them share a set of assumptions about the nature of debate. I think that folk like MaryH and Bruce Fisher are engaged in something quite different

I've heard it referred to as blathering : to talk foolishly at length.
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 Jun 18, 2010 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
To be honest I do not really think some of them share a set of assumptions about the nature of debate. I think that folk like MaryH and Bruce Fisher are engaged in something quite different

Or another way of stating it would be through this Monty Python one sentence quote where the operative word is drone : to talk in a persistently dull or monotonous tone.

Quote:
And then some adenoidal typists from Birmingham with flabby white legs and diarrhoea trying to pick up hairy bandy-legged wop waiters called Manuel and once a week there's an excursion to the local Roman Ruins to buy cherryade and melted ice cream and bleeding Watney's Red Barrel and one evening you visit the so called typical restaurant with local colour and atmosphere and you sit next to a party from Rhyl who keep singing 'Torremolinos, torremolinos' and complaining about the food - 'It's so greasy here, isn't it?' - and you get cornered by some drunken greengrocer from Luton with an Instamatic camera and Dr. Scholl sandals and last Tuesday's Daily Express and he drones on and on and on about how Mr. Smith should be running this country and how many languages Enoch Powell can speak and then he throws up over the Cuba Libres.
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 Jun 18, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
To be honest I do not really think some of them share a set of assumptions about the nature of debate. I think that folk like MaryH and Bruce Fisher are engaged in something quite different

Not to belabor the point or blather or drone in anyway, shape or form but one more excellent definition for drone : to intone without informing, alarming, alerting or intriguing, as custom compels and customers compensate.

Ahhhhh now I'll quit.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Don Paulo


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:10 pm

Posts: 45

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I am missing one thing here: the discussion of the almost 60 minutes long documentary in La7 of June 6 with Andrea Vogt. The direct link to it has been posted above by somebody. I watched it several times in order to fully understand what they are up to... Andrea Vogt, like Barbie Nadeau, Candace Dempsey and many others, including Amanda herself, are resigned to have the sentence cut into half at the 1st appeal... sor-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Don Paulo


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:10 pm

Posts: 45

PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Here you have the link again. It's almost 60 minutes duration:
http://www.la7.tv/richplayer/?assetid=50182491
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 Jun 19, 2010 1:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Don Paulo wrote:
I am missing one thing here: the discussion of the almost 60 minutes long documentary in La7 of June 6 with Andrea Vogt. The direct link to it has been posted above by somebody. I watched it several times in order to fully understand what they are up to... Andrea Vogt, like Barbie Nadeau, Candace Dempsey and many others, including Amanda herself, are resigned to have the sentence cut into half at the 1st appeal... sor-)


Welcome to PMF. To be honest with you, I don't have the slightest idea why these people seem to think this. Either the appeal court believes they are innocent or they believe they are guilty. If they believe they are innocent (unlikely), then they'll be allowed to walk free. If they conclude that they murdered Meredith, then how would any court be able to justify giving them only 12 or 13 years as a starting sentence, for the murder? They've both already had mitigation taken into account, hence why they didn't get life or 30 years, but 25 and 26 years respectively...what more mitigation can there be? Moreover, the prosecution themselves are appealing against what they see as overly lenient sentences as it is. On what basis will any court halve the sentences of people they believe to be guilty of a violent sexual murder? The only explanation seems to be 'Well, Rudy Guede got his sentenced as good as halved'. Yet, in so saying, they fail to take into account that he only got such a discount because he was given the mitigation discount he wasn't afforded in his original trial and then a 1/3 discount for taking the fast track trial option. In the case of Raffaele and Amanda, they've already had their mitigation and they didn't take the fast track trial route and so are not eligible for the 1/3 discount, so on what possible basis would they have their sentence halved?

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I have more or less given up at JREF. It is almost completely subsumed in just so stories


I gave up reading there some time ago for the same reason. I am sorry that you and others like you have been drowned out by propagandists like Bruce, Mary, LondonJohn, etc.


It is not a debate or exchange: it is a test of patience. Mine has run out :(


I found it interesting as a social experiment. When provided with a moderated platform, a pseudoscientific cult appears to be unwilling to move beyond the talking points and engage any interested parties. I think the thread will die out due to the moderation and the fact that nothing is being accomplished.

I also think all those FOA people are really going to be upset when the sentences are confirmed by the appeals court. They seem to believe that the appeal will be successful. Based on what I really don't know.



One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the nearly religious fervor with which its adherents stick to a set of defined talking points that support the core belief, presented as fact. Another is the uncanny ability to absorb both X and not X into the mix of supportive proof, depending on circumstances. The fact is that pseudoscience begins with unshakable belief in that which is in fact to be tested and then manages to skirt any serious tests to that belief. Real inquiry into the truth starts with no set belief but several different hypotheses, which can be abandoned or refined based on data and induction. The JREF forum is interesting in that it appears to set standards of logic, but these (excuse me) fervent nuts seem to have worked around them and, in the process, shut down serious discussion. The only good thing to come out of it is that they are like subjects in a vast experiment (let's say our interest is in finding out the lengths to which individuals can twist logic and use sophistry in the service of their belief), so all the world is able to watch how it works. Recruiters for scientology, beware!

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

Offline Don Paulo


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:10 pm

Posts: 45

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

According to all the information gathered by Barbie, there will be further mitigation because of the drug/alcohol influence under which at least Amanda and Raffaele were supposed to have acted.
However, like I agree with many of my correspondents, among them Italian lawyers and other insiders, drug+alcohol might lead to strange and atypical behaviour, but there is an important inhibition when it comes to rape and murder. If there is no natural predisposition, they can't perform such acts.
I know, many people lose their inhibition when they are under group pressure, but WHO did put pressure on them? Rudy? There is no real proof of his guilt; petting is not a crime. Raffaele? He is not the guy to rape or kill somebody, and Amanda is just a normal American chick who wants to have fun, but in a non-violent way. She has other ways to shake it out...
I see only that there are 3 scapegoats: a black guy who acted foolishly, a white naive American chick who acted foolishly too, and an Italian nerd who doesn't really understand what is happening to him.
Something happened to Amanda during her sojourn in jail. It started with her thanking the Tribunal for all they had done, and these days again with her regret that she was mis-understood, despite the fact that even Lumumba admitted to have been mistreated in Questura. Amanda reminds me more and more Jack Nicholson in his movie "One flew over the cuckoo's net", ending with his lobotomization, thus death. Therefore I am very worried for Amanda, and about what will happen to her next...
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 41 of 42 [ 10274 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,637 Views