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 1:45 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:45 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 40 of 42 [ 10274 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next
Author Message

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
The convicted child killer and the convicted mobster haven't provided any credible evidence. Their accounts of what happened are completely contradicted by reality. Antonio Aviello claims that Rudy Guede is innocent. Do you really think that Meredith consented to sexual activity with Guede?


And he/they ordered Guede to take the cash from the victim's handbag?

The purpose of the break-in was to steal valuables. None were stolen.

This new guy waits 2 1/2 years to go tell the defence?

All this sounds so bland and gauzy as to be laughable grasping at straws.
As soon as the bloody jacket and the "bunch of keys" are produced, we shall all be believers... b-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
undecided wrote:
The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:
This case just gets 'curiouser and curiouser'.....


No, it doesn't. The fact that the defence teams are relying on the ridiculous claims of a convicted child killer and a convicted mobster shows that they are desperately clutching at straws.


---what I am not clear on is why two convicts have stepped forward
in an attempt to clear A.K. and R.S.---


I must admit I am baffled by this too. If the idea is to somehow curry favour with the authorities then how does flagrant lying/wasting police time endear them to the ILE? Surely it would have the opposite effect, once their stories prove to be a load of old bollocks. They may be charged with wasting time. I also don't really see how it does anything positive for AK or RS either, since once the evidence is shown to be nonsense it will just look like desperation, and siding with a baby murderer and a thug in order to try and paint Amanda as innocent; in fact it tarnishes them and her that they are using these fantasists in the defence.

Has anyone any idea WHY these convicts are volunteering this nonsense?

Mental illness? Attention seeking/nothing to lose?

I don't get it...


You'd be surprised if you knew how much little money is required to make these jailbirds sing any tune you wish.

This is an article from "Il Mattino". Naples' newspaper, Aviello's hometown:
http://www.ilmattino.it/articolo.php?id ... sez=NAPOLI

The article tells you what kind of trash this Aviello is.
Do you know why he ended up in jail the FIRST time?
Because he confessed to murder. A murder he had not committed.
But he had been promised some money (5 million Lire, really not much at the time of that "confession". A motorcycle I purchased back then cost me twice as much.), a lawyer and an annuity.

The article also mentions that Aviello has a history of making these "revelations".
They always turned out to be false !

Judge Federico Cafiero (who followed Aviello's case back then) defines Aviello as "completely unreliable".
Always coming out with these "revelations" that turned out to be "utter nonsense".

The "Il Mattino" article does not write that "Aviello is a piece of shit" because they cannot by law.
But it's quite clear what they think of him if you read the article.

AK and RS are getting really desperate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Funny picture

ETA don't know why its come up in a video screen, but there it is anyway.


EDIT: Michael ~ Removed Windows Media Player. See pic in post below.
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Funny picture

ETA don't know why its come up in a video screen, but there it is anyway.




Hello BoT,
you used the wrong tags. All you need to do (when you want to post a linked image) is place the link between IMG's
Code:
[img]place link here[/img]
;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

There's an article about false confessions at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7950613.stm.

Snippets:

"One of the most famous instances was in 1932, when 200 people came forward to claim responsibility for the kidnap and murder of the aviator Charles Lindbergh's baby in New Jersey.

"And 15 years later, in the "Black Dahlia" murder case, dozens of people said they killed Elizabeth Short, the aspiring actress whose mutilated body was found in a Los Angeles car park.

"This kind of behaviour shows a personality disorder best explained by looking at reality television stars and the craving some people have for fame, says Dr Ian Anderson, a chartered psychologist regularly called as an expert witness in court to expose false confessions.

"Someone who wants attention to the extent that even negative attention is better than no attention.

"The frequency of false confessions is unknown, although a US campaigning group called the Innocence Project estimates that of 235 convictions overturned due to DNA evidence in the last 15 years, a third involved false confessions."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

norbertc wrote:
There's an article about false confessions at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7950613.stm.

Snippets:

"One of the most famous instances was in 1932, when 200 people came forward to claim responsibility for the kidnap and murder of the aviator Charles Lindbergh's baby in New Jersey.

"And 15 years later, in the "Black Dahlia" murder case, dozens of people said they killed Elizabeth Short, the aspiring actress whose mutilated body was found in a Los Angeles car park.

"This kind of behaviour shows a personality disorder best explained by looking at reality television stars and the craving some people have for fame, says Dr Ian Anderson, a chartered psychologist regularly called as an expert witness in court to expose false confessions.

"Someone who wants attention to the extent that even negative attention is better than no attention.

"The frequency of false confessions is unknown, although a US campaigning group called the Innocence Project estimates that of 235 convictions overturned due to DNA evidence in the last 15 years, a third involved false confessions."


Not so many false accusations though. Remember, Amanda didn't confess to murdering Meredith, she falsely accused her boss of murder.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thank you Clander...I gradually learn... :)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Re false confessions. Exactly so. I note neither new witness is confessing, either.
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 10, 2010 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
What's amazing is that UK and US media give space to Aviello's story telling as told by Giangavino Sulas. Here is the front page of this week OGGI magazine which is where the 'story' originated from and Anglo journalists copied & pasted.
http://www.oggi.it/focus/06-2010/pentit ... 8131.shtml






Just in case anyone wants a laugh, this is what LondonJohn says about OGGI magazine:


LondonJohn wrote:
Only, Oggi is not a "glossy and gossipy Italian women's magazine". It's a fairly well-respected news and features magazine - covering politics, culture and society as well as lifestyle. Apparently, it's famous for its in-depth articles and its editorials:

http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/3/news/1/17417

I wonder where and why the idea arose that Oggi was essentially a gossip rag, with the implication of low editorial values and a focus on non-serious issues...?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=1699

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Deja vu.
Van der Sloot's lawyer also wants to forget the confession. :DD
It was the victim who attacked, he says.

"The attorney for Peru murder suspect Joran van der Sloot said he's going to ask the judge in charge of the case to strike down his client's confession because he was not being properly represented at the time he was interrogated, lawyer Maximo Altez told CNN affiliate Panamericana TV in an interview that aired Thursday.

Van der Sloot, a longtime suspect in the disappearance of U.S. teen Natalee Holloway five years ago in Aruba, was arrested last week in connection with the slaying of a 21-year-old Peruvian woman. The body of Stephany Flores was found in a hotel room registered to van der Sloot. Hotel surveillance video shows the pair entering his room and van der Sloot leaving alone more than three hours later.

Altez said Flores attacked van der Sloot first, after he confronted her for going through his computer. Police said Flores was badly beaten and suffered a broken neck."
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:

Just in case anyone wants a laugh, this is what LondonJohn says about OGGI magazine:


LondonJohn wrote:
Only, Oggi is not a "glossy and gossipy Italian women's magazine". It's a fairly well-respected news and features magazine - covering politics, culture and society as well as lifestyle. Apparently, it's famous for its in-depth articles and its editorials:

http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/3/news/1/17417

I wonder where and why the idea arose that Oggi was essentially a gossip rag, with the implication of low editorial values and a focus on non-serious issues...?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=1699



It explains the heavy weight nature of his posting on JREF :)

BTW anyone else have trouble with Bucket's post of the video? The picture flies all over my screen and in the way of other posts...
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 10, 2010 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

H9A wrote:
BTW anyone else have trouble with Bucket's post of the video? The picture flies all over my screen and in the way of other posts...


I've sorted it out.

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

sorry to make you clean up after me. Thanks Chief :)
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 868

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology. That probably made people feel it was nearly "here".


Hi SomeAlibi.

Sorry but yes you ARE wrong. I have been as detailed as Skep in explaining the process the report is going through. I have never made a simple unhedged statement like that you suggest.

"Looking at" ? I have explained that this is really tough going, and that a lot more than looking-at is going on. Also that two Italian posters on TJMK with legal background will be going through the entire document.

From the emails and comments, the readership of TJMK is highly impressed at the carefulness being taken, the fact that all translators are doing this on top of their day jobs, and so on.

Please do remember that I use my real name here, and on TJMK (I was asked to, by the BBC) and Skep does too, so both of us have a real interest in not becoming targets due to wrong translation.

And as I am named, having things correctly ascribed to me in future would be much appreciated.

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Oh for goodness sake, it wasn’t an RPG shoulder mounted rocket launcher and an S Class Mercedes that he needed to dispose of. It was a 4 cm knife and a few house keys. Why the hell would he have to engage the services of an active Mafiosi to dispose of these, you simply drop them down any nearby storm drain and they have disappeared for ever. If you want to be extra careful; boil the kettle and drop them in it for a few minutes and bobs your uncle.

Besides if the defence were reluctant to accept the bra clasp as admissible evidence because it wasn’t collected for 6 weeks (albeit in a contained crime scene) how do you expect them to present evidence that is out in a field for two and a half years with goats pissing on it every day. They do have standards you know.


Last edited by Hammerite on Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

LOL @hammerite
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:22 pm   Post subject: CONVICTED CAMORRA CLOWN CAPTURED--on tape!   

I'VE FOUND ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF ALLEGED ASSASSIN ANTONIO AVIELLO!

The convicted Camorra "clown" Antonio Aviello has been found, and now there is a videotape of him!
As expected, convicted Camorrista (Mafioso) Aviello was hiding out...and, not completely unexpectedly, Aviello was found to be -- IN DISGUISE!!!

But, as Italian speakers can confirm, Aviello simply could not disguise his Neapolitan accent. It was a dead give-away!

WARNING TO DONNIE AND ALL Coulrophobics:
As H9 often says: LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU CAN'T STAND c-l--o-w-n-s..."LOOK AWAY NOW!!"
nnn-))

"Ehhhhh, Guagliunaaaa!!!"

P.S. Aviello first appears around the 40 second mark, after the lovely rendition of "Torna a Surriento"
LOL!!
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Down the Storm Drain   

P.S. Hammerite explains why Aviello, the clown, was hiding where he was...
"you simply drop... down any nearby storm drain"
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jailed Italian Mobster Says Amanda Knox Is InnocentUpdated: 2 hours 6 minutes ago
.Print Text Size EmailMore
Dana Kennedy
Contributor

AOL News (June 10) -- A jailed Italian mobster has given a videotaped statement saying his brother, not Amanda Knox, killed 21-year-old Meredith Kercher in the sensational 2007 murder case in Perugia, Italy.

Luciano Aviello, 41, said he tried to contact the Perugia court three times last year with his story but never got a response, according to the Daily Mail. He gave his statement to lawyers for the Seattle-area college student last month when they visited him in prison near Turin. The statement will be used when lawyers for Knox appeal her murder conviction this fall.

Aviello claims that his brother, Antonio, who is believed to be somewhere in the Naples area, killed Kercher and then convinced him to hide the murder weapon and house keys, the Mail reported.


Fabrizio Troccoli, AP
Amanda Knox, photographed here in court June 1, is fighting her murder conviction and has been given a boost by a jailed Italian mobster.
"I know because my brother confessed to me that he had killed Meredith and he asked me to hide a blood-stained knife and set of keys," said Aviello, who is serving 17 years for association with the mafia and has testified against the mob in several criminal trials, always from behind a screen.

"I had everything under a little wall behind my house," he said. "I am happy to stand up in court and confirm all this and wrote to the court several times to tell them but was never questioned."

Kercher was found with her throat cut and half-naked in a home she shared with Knox, 22, in Perugia in 2007.

Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 25, were found guilty of the murder and are serving sentences of 26 and 25 years. A third man, Rudy Guede, originally from the Ivory Coast, was also convicted of the murder and is serving a 16-year prison sentence.

"This is either fantastic news or fantastical," Anne Bremner, a high-profile Seattle attorney and founder of Friends of Amanda, told AOL News today. "It's too early to tell how true this information is."

The Naples daily Il Mattino reported that Aviello has offered up information to prosecutors before on other crimes. It cited a provincial deputy prosecutor, Federico Cafiero, as saying that his testimony "was totally unreliable. ... What he called a revelation turned out to be total nonsense."

Aviello, who comes from Naples and is a member of the Mariano crime family, said in his statement that at the time of Kercher's death, he was living in Perugia and his brother Antonio was staying with him.

"When he came to my house he had a bloodstained jacket on and was carrying a flick knife. He said he had broken into a house and killed a girl and then he had run away, " Aviello said in his statement, the Mail said.

"My brother told me that he and an Albanian friend of his called Florio were breaking into a house to steal some pictures. The house they broke into didn't have any pictures and instead they found the poor English girl who started screaming like mad. Antonio stabbed her in the throat then he tried to stifle her screams. Meredith defended herself like mad, scratching and hitting out at him."

Antonio Aviello's whereabouts are not known, but he is thought to be in Naples.

Knox's Italian lawyers say Aviello's information is significant and worth investigating because the keys to the house where Kercher and Knox lived have never been found.

Giuliano Mignini, the lead prosecutor in the case, said he was aware that Aviello wrote to the judge in the Knox case several times but the judge dismissed it. "There is nothing else to say," Mignini told the Mail.

Aviello has testified in several Mafia trials but always from behind a screen so as to protect his identity for fear of retaliation. The only known pictures of him are police mugshots from his late teens.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology. That probably made people feel it was nearly "here".


Hi SomeAlibi.

Sorry but yes you ARE wrong. I have been as detailed as Skep in explaining the process the report is going through. I have never made a simple unhedged statement like that you suggest.

"Looking at" ? I have explained that this is really tough going, and that a lot more than looking-at is going on. Also that two Italian posters on TJMK with legal background will be going through the entire document.

From the emails and comments, the readership of TJMK is highly impressed at the carefulness being taken, the fact that all translators are doing this on top of their day jobs, and so on.

Please do remember that I use my real name here, and on TJMK (I was asked to, by the BBC) and Skep does too, so both of us have a real interest in not becoming targets due to wrong translation.

And as I am named, having things correctly ascribed to me in future would be much appreciated.

Peter Quennell



Peter

As you quoted, I said "I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology."

I took this from your post to my Knives article of 28th May where you said in part "Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge..."

but my post was about their misinterpretation of your statement because some people in other forums latched on to the word "completed" without reading the extensive explanation you then posted about all the work that remains. As you say Skep has done so extensively and in fact so have I. We're all on the same page. I am one of the people in the data examination forum who has been making odd contributions to legal terminology and taking a few questions from Clander and others since the off. Perhaps I could have made clearer and apologies since it appears to have made you feel otherwise but I have been completely clear on the size of the task that remains here, just as you have on TJMK.

The mistake is those who wish to wilfully misconstrue or can't be bothered to read what has been clearly stated. There's no scope for anyone who reads either TJMK or PMF who is operating in good faith to misunderstand the very clear position and utter transparency put forward by all concerned, consistently about the extensive checking and validation that is going on.

_________________
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 modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Michael wrote:
Administrator Note - Massei Report Translation Project Progress Report:

Hello everyone. I am happy to report we are now in the final phase of translating the report...it's almost now completely translated with only a couple more sections to go. Once they are done, the next phase will be the translators going over the report and cleaning up the translation. It will then be passed onto our editing team for proofreading and editing. The final stage will be the formatting and it will then be posted :)


Progress updates like this one a few weeks ago certainly made it sound as if the Massei translation would be ready presently, and it is taking a little longer than one might have expected from the tone of this post (and the celebratory posts that followed the announcement). But what's the big deal? Maybe the process of checking and proofreading the technical/legal language is proving more time consuming than expected, whatever the case it will still be an amazing achievement for this to be done as a non-profit enterprise.

Waiting patiently and gratefully. drin-)
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: CONVICTED CAMORRA CLOWN CAPTURED--on tape!   

The 411 wrote:
I'VE FOUND ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF ALLEGED ASSASSIN ANTONIO AVIELLO!

The convicted Camorra "clown" Antonio Aviello has been found, and now there is a videotape of him!
As expected, convicted Camorrista (Mafioso) Aviello was hiding out...and, not completely unexpectedly, Aviello was found to be -- IN DISGUISE!!!

But, as Italian speakers can confirm, Aviello simply could not disguise his Neapolitan accent. It was a dead give-away!

WARNING TO DONNIE AND ALL Coulrophobics:
As H9 often says: LOOK AWAY NOW IF YOU CAN'T STAND c-l--o-w-n-s..."LOOK AWAY NOW!!"
nnn-))

"Ehhhhh, Guagliunaaaa!!!"

P.S. Aviello first appears around the 40 second mark, after the lovely rendition of "Torna a Surriento"
LOL!!


Oh dear God! Thanks for the warning, but still...i'm so scardd of this movie. Is there anything more creepy than this clown?! wa-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Don't worry donnie, I couldn't watch it either!

Coulrophobics Unite!

("...it's just a man dressed up, it's just a man dressed up...")

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

OT OT donnie, I saw this story the other day and thought of you. It's on the news lite site ("It barely counts as news"). How SICK is this. I suggest you do not click on the link as there are pictures of the Danish sicko concerned, in full costume. Yuck.


Evil Clown service to scare at birthday parties
April 14, 2010 1:27 PM

A bizarre service has launched in Switzerland where people can hire an 'Evil Clown' to stalk (and presumably terrify) their friends and family.

Dominic Deville says his Evil Clown service has been extremely popular as a birthday 'treat' since he launched it late last year.

For £400 (an ominous 666 Swiss francs) one of his terrifying-looking clowns will follow their victim for a week playing tricks on them.

Pranks include late night phone calls, leaving 'odd items' in your letterbox and generally lurking around where-ever you go… Personally I would head for the nearest circus.

Then, on the victim's birthday, the clown will throw a cake into their face and end their week of terror.

Speaking of how he came up with the idea Deville said: "Last year I was looking for a spooky birthday present for a friend and couldn't find anything, so I came up with this.

"I've always been a huge fan of stephen Kings "it" with Pennywise the clown and "The Game" with Michael Douglas -- so the idea just evolved from there.

"My pal was scared to death, but he loved every minute of it. So I decided to make it into a business."

Deville added that as the service can get a bit scary, it is only open to those over 18-years-old.

http://newslite.tv/2010/04/14/evil-clow ... re-at.html

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
OT OT donnie, I saw this story the other day and thought of you. It's on the news lite site ("It barely counts as news"). How SICK is this. I suggest you do not click on the link as there are pictures of the Danish sicko concerned, in full costume. Yuck.


Evil Clown service to scare at birthday parties
April 14, 2010 1:27 PM

A bizarre service has launched in Switzerland where people can hire an 'Evil Clown' to stalk (and presumably terrify) their friends and family.

Dominic Deville says his Evil Clown service has been extremely popular as a birthday 'treat' since he launched it late last year.

For £400 (an ominous 666 Swiss francs) one of his terrifying-looking clowns will follow their victim for a week playing tricks on them.

Pranks include late night phone calls, leaving 'odd items' in your letterbox and generally lurking around where-ever you go… Personally I would head for the nearest circus.

Then, on the victim's birthday, the clown will throw a cake into their face and end their week of terror.

Speaking of how he came up with the idea Deville said: "Last year I was looking for a spooky birthday present for a friend and couldn't find anything, so I came up with this.

"I've always been a huge fan of stephen Kings "it" with Pennywise the clown and "The Game" with Michael Douglas -- so the idea just evolved from there.

"My pal was scared to death, but he loved every minute of it. So I decided to make it into a business."

Deville added that as the service can get a bit scary, it is only open to those over 18-years-old.

http://newslite.tv/2010/04/14/evil-clow ... re-at.html


I just couldn't help it and clicked the link.
Oh boy! A fan of Kings "It"?! Whoa! They would make a great deal of money if my friends would pull a prank like this on me. There is nothing more creepy that a man dressed up as a clown. I mean, what's in his mind to even dress up like this and then go around (as a good clown) and entertain kids or haunt people (evil version). I, personally, can't think what's more scary. The good or evil one. Im hyperventilating.

BTW i just learned that Weather Service just released a tornado warning for tommorow for my city. Yikes. Clowns and tornadoes, what a day!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline macca


Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fast Pete said "Please do remember that I use my real name here, and on TJMK (I was asked to, by the BBC) and Skep does too, so both of us have a real interest in not becoming targets due to wrong translation".

Can you say why the BBC asked you to use your real name ?

If no, NO will do :-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
Fast Pete said "Please do remember that I use my real name here, and on TJMK (I was asked to, by the BBC) and Skep does too, so both of us have a real interest in not becoming targets due to wrong translation".

Can you say why the BBC asked you to use your real name ?

If no, NO will do :-)


The BBC has a policy of not attributing direct quotes to individuals unless they use their real names.

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

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 868

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
As you quoted, I said "I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology."

I took this from your post to my Knives article of 28th May where you said in part "Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge..."

but my post was about their misinterpretation of your statement because some people in other forums latched on to the word "completed" without reading the extensive explanation you then posted about all the work that remains.


SomeAlibi

I know what most of your post was about. Actually it was about two other things. But your first sentences about me definitely misled people. You claimed I said people were merely "looking at" some legal and medical terms. Implying it was just minutes away. Then you said "The fact is..." as if I had said something completely different from you. You did not say people misinterpreting, or not reading all of me.

Above you quote my comment just partially. That too misleads. For the record, this below is the COMPLETE comment.

Quote:
Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge.

Several Italian lawyers on our team who were not part of the translating will have more or less the last word on when it is ready to go online. This would have been a $100,000 task done commercially and it may not have taken much less time.

The translators dont want to go public, but I was previously in the UN where translation and interpretation were ceaseless, and I never experienced dedicated work like this. The Meredith Effect once again.


That hardly reads like the report was minutes away. There are many other comments explaining how tough and important this is, too.

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
As you quoted, I said "I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology."

I took this from your post to my Knives article of 28th May where you said in part "Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge..."

but my post was about their misinterpretation of your statement because some people in other forums latched on to the word "completed" without reading the extensive explanation you then posted about all the work that remains.


SomeAlibi

I know what most of your post was about. Actually it was about two other things. But your first sentences about me definitely misled people. You claimed I said people were merely "looking at" some legal and medical terms. Implying it was just minutes away. Then you said "The fact is..." as if I had said something completely different from you. You did not say people misinterpreting, or not reading all of me.

Above you quote my comment just partially. That too misleads. For the record, this below is the COMPLETE comment.

Quote:
Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge.

Several Italian lawyers on our team who were not part of the translating will have more or less the last word on when it is ready to go online. This would have been a $100,000 task done commercially and it may not have taken much less time.

The translators dont want to go public, but I was previously in the UN where translation and interpretation were ceaseless, and I never experienced dedicated work like this. The Meredith Effect once again.


That hardly reads like the report was minutes away. There are many other comments explaining how tough and important this is, too.

Peter Quennell


I think you are missing Some Alibis point, Pete. He wasn't blaming you for other people thinking the report was minutes away. It is true that the actual translation is done, and it is true that you made a statement to this effect, which SomeAlibi provided. As he goes on to note, this may have created the expectation that the report would be forthcoming very soon.

This may be a good time to reiterate a key point: The only people who know how close the translation is to being finalized are those who are actually working on it. As one of the members of the proofreading team, I have been careful NOT to give a deadline to the translators and proofreaders and NOT to promise the report by a certain date.

There are very good reasons for this, and I am not going to provide them yet again.

The report will be issued when it is ready.

I would really appreciate it if no further questions were asked about when. That way, no one will be tempted to give a status report, which only creates expectations.

_________________
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: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skep said "The BBC has a policy of not attributing direct quotes to individuals unless they use their real names".

Cheers, Skep, I didn't think the reason was sinister...............still interested though.

BTW, don't understand why there's such a rush for the translation. Given the focus and need for integrity on this site I'm lost as to why some people need the translation NOW ! Chill dudes, it'll be ready when it's ready, and there'll be no other translation like it.

And I think that's the point.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I meant to post the translated OGGY story yesterday as it originated from there. I just realized that I didn't, so here it goes:
A mafia informant exonerates Amanda, Sollecito and Guede.
Perugia, June
09.06.2010

“To killed Meredith, the evening of the 1st November 2007, was my brother. Amanda, Raffaele and Guede are innocent. I know because it was my brother to confessed the murder to me and to give me the knife still dirtied with blood and a bunch of keys. I hid them under a ‘muretto’ [dividing fence wall], behind my house, covering it with earth, plaster and lime sand. If the Perugia Law Court decides to hear me, I will be able to find the murder weapon and those keys”.
This is just the summary of the sensational revelations made in the Ivrea prison by the 41 year old Napolitan prisoner Luciano Aviello.
A supergrass with a tumultuous past (17 years prison on his back for camorra crimes, and more others still to serve), Aviello has written three times to the president of the Perugia Court of Assizes. However, the presiding judge did not retained necessary to interrogate him, judging it as evidently unreliable revelations. Therefore, Aviello spoke with lawyers Carlo della Vedova and maria Del Grosso, who defend Amanda Knox together with Luciano Ghirga. In a video tapped interrogation recorded last March 31, Aviello recounted his own truth on the murder of Meredith Kercher. Exonerating Rudy Guede (sentenced to 16 years), Raffaele Sollecito (sentenced to 25) and Amanda Knox (to 26) and pointing the finger against his brother Antonio Aviello. It was Antonio who killed Mez in Via della Pergola the evening of the 1st November 2007.

“I used to live in that road”
How come you know? Aviello explained it to Amanda’s defence:
“Because in those months I used to lived in the same road, in an apartment rented to Salvatore Mezza, another police informant. In that period my mother beg me to return home, in Secondigliano, because my brother Antonio had lots of problems in the neighborhood. Rather than returning to my mother, I asked my brother to meet me in Perugia. Would be easier [calmer] for all of us. And in instead…” And instead? “One evening Antonio came home with his jacket stained with blood. He had a wound in his right arm and a bundle [wrapped] inside was a clasp knife and a bunch of keys. He told me that he had sniffed cocaine and that he had hurt himself climbing a wall. I forced him to tell me the truth. He told me that him and an Albanian friend of his named Florio, were commissioned by someone to steal paintings from a [villa] house, specifying times of when to act”.

"Rudy was in the bathroom"
At this point, Aviello’s story becomes confused. It is not understood if the breaking was in the wrong house where his brother and accomplice were, or whether it was mistaken information provided by the one who commissioned the theft. As the fact stands Antonio Aviello and Florio found themselves in Meredith’s house where there are no paintings to steal. The poor English girl in front of those two characters started to scream. Antonio Aviello first grabbed her by the throat then in an attempt to prevent her scream obstructed her mouth with one hand. Meredith defended herself, scratching and kicking. The two [accomplices] lost their minds and Aviello covered in scratches and wounded, struck her with one [knife] stab. Then they both escaped, but not before discovering the presence of Rudy Guede in the bathroom and forcing him into silence by death threats. These statements could exonerate Amanda and Raffaele, who would not have been even present at the crime scene. Not just that. It would also confirm Guede’s version: coming out of the bathroom and finding Meredith already stabbed to death. Terrified by the threats of the two, Guede fled, seeking shelter in Germany. Certainly, the revelations of Luciano Aviello, like all informants, must be examined carefully. On several occasions this particular character has not proved to be reliable; but, in others, has told things to magistrates that checked out. But why the President of the Court of Assize did not accept his testimony? In the Perugia trial there have been so many statements that then after proved to be unreliable. One for instance, that of the Albanian Kokomani: He told of having met Amanda in July 2007 whereas the girl arrived in Perugia at the end of October. Why then Aviello is not given any credence? Yet still, says that he is able to retrieve the murder weapon.

The missing key
It is the reason why Amanda’s defence asked that Aviello be heard in the Court of Appeals. Even because from his revelations, emerges an untold and very important detail: a bunch of keys. No one has ever spoken of it. But the house keys belonging to Meredith have never been found. To enter and exit the house, the keys were necessary: the spring lock was faulty; to open and shut it was always necessary to turn the keys. If the killers are not Amanda and Raffaele, as Aviello maintains, whoever broke into the house in Via della Pergola that evening was forced to seize the victim’s keys to escape. Otherwise would have remained locked inside. Is Meredith’s bunch of keys that Aviello says to have hidden under a wall? Will it be establish perhaps by the judges in the autumn, at the appeal trial.
By: Giangavino Sulas
http://www.oggi.it/focus/06-2010/pentit ... 8131.shtml


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

macca wrote:
Skep said "The BBC has a policy of not attributing direct quotes to individuals unless they use their real names".

Cheers, Skep, I didn't think the reason was sinister...............still interested though.

BTW, don't understand why there's such a rush for the translation. Given the focus and need for integrity on this site I'm lost as to why some people need the translation NOW ! Chill dudes, it'll be ready when it's ready, and there'll be no other translation like it.

And I think that's the point.


Actually, the BBC is not alone in requiring that people use their real names if they wish to be quoted (or that the standard clause about speaking only on condition of anonymity be used). When Andrea Vogt published her story in the Seattle PI about my police complaint against Chris Mellas's friends for online harassment, one of the people she spoke to was "Frank Sfrazo", who actually made the cut even though that is not his real name. She made an exception for him, but specified that this was not his real name.

As for the translation, I can understand why people want to read it but it is not a time sensitive document in the short run. It presents numerous challenges for any translator, no matter how experienced, and all of our translators and experts who are validating certain parts have full-time jobs. Many concepts and sentences have been debated and lots of research and revising have been done and are being done. This is a time-consuming process. There is no way around it.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
macca wrote:
Skep said "The BBC has a policy of not attributing direct quotes to individuals unless they use their real names".

Cheers, Skep, I didn't think the reason was sinister...............still interested though.

BTW, don't understand why there's such a rush for the translation. Given the focus and need for integrity on this site I'm lost as to why some people need the translation NOW ! Chill dudes, it'll be ready when it's ready, and there'll be no other translation like it.

And I think that's the point.


Actually, the BBC is not alone in requiring that people use their real names if they wish to be quoted (or that the standard clause about speaking only on condition of anonymity be used). When Andrea Vogt published her story in the Seattle PI about my police complaint against Chris Mellas's friends for online harassment, one of the people she spoke to was "Frank Sfrazo", who actually made the cut even though that is not his real name. She made an exception for him, but specified that this was not his real name.

As for the translation, I can understand why people want to read it but it is not a time sensitive document in the short run. It presents numerous challenges for any translator, no matter how experienced, and all of our translators and experts who are validating certain parts have full-time jobs. Many concepts and sentences have been debated and lots of research and revising have been done and are being done. This is a time-consuming process. There is no way around it.


I think everyone on PMF has been very respectful towards the translation process. It's only on other sites where they are trying to wind people up that the matter is mentioned. 'Rise above it' as my father used to say; if the FOA want it quicker they can do it themselves.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
macca wrote:
Skep said "The BBC has a policy of not attributing direct quotes to individuals unless they use their real names".

Cheers, Skep, I didn't think the reason was sinister...............still interested though.

BTW, don't understand why there's such a rush for the translation. Given the focus and need for integrity on this site I'm lost as to why some people need the translation NOW ! Chill dudes, it'll be ready when it's ready, and there'll be no other translation like it.

And I think that's the point.


Actually, the BBC is not alone in requiring that people use their real names if they wish to be quoted (or that the standard clause about speaking only on condition of anonymity be used). When Andrea Vogt published her story in the Seattle PI about my police complaint against Chris Mellas's friends for online harassment, one of the people she spoke to was "Frank Sfrazo", who actually made the cut even though that is not his real name. She made an exception for him, but specified that this was not his real name.

As for the translation, I can understand why people want to read it but it is not a time sensitive document in the short run. It presents numerous challenges for any translator, no matter how experienced, and all of our translators and experts who are validating certain parts have full-time jobs. Many concepts and sentences have been debated and lots of research and revising have been done and are being done. This is a time-consuming process. There is no way around it.


I think everyone on PMF has been very respectful towards the translation process. It's only on other sites where they are trying to wind people up that the matter is mentioned. 'Rise above it' as my father used to say; if the FOA want it quicker they can do it themselves.


I remain blissfully unaware.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
macca wrote:
Skep said "The BBC has a policy of not attributing direct quotes to individuals unless they use their real names".

Cheers, Skep, I didn't think the reason was sinister...............still interested though.

BTW, don't understand why there's such a rush for the translation. Given the focus and need for integrity on this site I'm lost as to why some people need the translation NOW ! Chill dudes, it'll be ready when it's ready, and there'll be no other translation like it.

And I think that's the point.


Actually, the BBC is not alone in requiring that people use their real names if they wish to be quoted (or that the standard clause about speaking only on condition of anonymity be used). When Andrea Vogt published her story in the Seattle PI about my police complaint against Chris Mellas's friends for online harassment, one of the people she spoke to was "Frank Sfrazo", who actually made the cut even though that is not his real name. She made an exception for him, but specified that this was not his real name.

As for the translation, I can understand why people want to read it but it is not a time sensitive document in the short run. It presents numerous challenges for any translator, no matter how experienced, and all of our translators and experts who are validating certain parts have full-time jobs. Many concepts and sentences have been debated and lots of research and revising have been done and are being done. This is a time-consuming process. There is no way around it.


I think everyone on PMF has been very respectful towards the translation process. It's only on other sites where they are trying to wind people up that the matter is mentioned. 'Rise above it' as my father used to say; if the FOA want it quicker they can do it themselves.


I remain blissfully unaware.


:lol:

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
As you quoted, I said "I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology."

I took this from your post to my Knives article of 28th May where you said in part "Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge..."

but my post was about their misinterpretation of your statement because some people in other forums latched on to the word "completed" without reading the extensive explanation you then posted about all the work that remains.


SomeAlibi

I know what most of your post was about. Actually it was about two other things. But your first sentences about me definitely misled people. You claimed I said people were merely "looking at" some legal and medical terms. Implying it was just minutes away. Then you said "The fact is..." as if I had said something completely different from you. You did not say people misinterpreting, or not reading all of me.

Above you quote my comment just partially. That too misleads. For the record, this below is the COMPLETE comment.

Quote:
Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge.

Several Italian lawyers on our team who were not part of the translating will have more or less the last word on when it is ready to go online. This would have been a $100,000 task done commercially and it may not have taken much less time.

The translators dont want to go public, but I was previously in the UN where translation and interpretation were ceaseless, and I never experienced dedicated work like this. The Meredith Effect once again.


That hardly reads like the report was minutes away. There are many other comments explaining how tough and important this is, too.

Peter Quennell


I think you are missing Some Alibis point, Pete. He wasn't blaming you for other people thinking the report was minutes away. It is true that the actual translation is done, and it is true that you made a statement to this effect, which SomeAlibi provided. As he goes on to note, this may have created the expectation that the report would be forthcoming very soon.

This may be a good time to reiterate a key point: The only people who know how close the translation is to being finalized are those who are actually working on it. As one of the members of the proofreading team, I have been careful NOT to give a deadline to the translators and proofreaders and NOT to promise the report by a certain date.

There are very good reasons for this, and I am not going to provide them yet again.

The report will be issued when it is ready.

I would really appreciate it if no further questions were asked about when. That way, no one will be tempted to give a status report, which only creates expectations.



The reason for my original post was that FOA had started weaving a conspiracy theory or three around the report's publication date and we were wondering why they were saying that it had already been completed and why they were inventing conspiracy-theory-nuts-reasons for its "delay" (note inverted commas of industrial strength). The fact is, they picked up Pete's phrase "that the translation was completed several weeks ago" and chose to go to town on it to their own ends. That was already fully in train. Pete did NOT mispeak because he completely qualified it - it took bad faith to completely ignore the rest of what he said. But it was all out there already and it had nothing to do with my post which followed several posts I've made here about the enormity of the task as has everyone else, just like Pete clearly did on TJMK. I was simply explaining where I thought they had had chosen to take their quotation-out-of-context, not saying anything about my own personal view. I wouldn't claim or imply anything anyone else said about it simply because my own personal view was and is that it's completely impossible to misread (unless you deliberately choose to do so) what everyone has made utterly crystal clear on PMF and TJMK time and time again. It's done when it's done and there's a huge task left of looking at in painstaking detail "multi hundreds" of pages of legal and forensic language which was in my original post so it's impossible for anyone to read in "minutes away" either. It isn't. It'll be done when it's done and it'll be bloody good too.

_________________
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: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
As you quoted, I said "I may be wrong but I think it was Peter Q who said that the translation was finished and experts were looking at (particularly) medical and legal terminology."

I took this from your post to my Knives article of 28th May where you said in part "Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge..."

but my post was about their misinterpretation of your statement because some people in other forums latched on to the word "completed" without reading the extensive explanation you then posted about all the work that remains.


SomeAlibi

I know what most of your post was about. Actually it was about two other things. But your first sentences about me definitely misled people. You claimed I said people were merely "looking at" some legal and medical terms. Implying it was just minutes away. Then you said "The fact is..." as if I had said something completely different from you. You did not say people misinterpreting, or not reading all of me.

Above you quote my comment just partially. That too misleads. For the record, this below is the COMPLETE comment.

Quote:
Hi Paddy. You presumably know that the translation was completed several weeks ago. The process now is to get all of the the legal and medical terminology correct to the point of not being challengeable and in particular to reflect the careful and highly refined tone of the lead judge.

Several Italian lawyers on our team who were not part of the translating will have more or less the last word on when it is ready to go online. This would have been a $100,000 task done commercially and it may not have taken much less time.

The translators dont want to go public, but I was previously in the UN where translation and interpretation were ceaseless, and I never experienced dedicated work like this. The Meredith Effect once again.


That hardly reads like the report was minutes away. There are many other comments explaining how tough and important this is, too.

Peter Quennell


I think you are missing Some Alibis point, Pete. He wasn't blaming you for other people thinking the report was minutes away. It is true that the actual translation is done, and it is true that you made a statement to this effect, which SomeAlibi provided. As he goes on to note, this may have created the expectation that the report would be forthcoming very soon.

This may be a good time to reiterate a key point: The only people who know how close the translation is to being finalized are those who are actually working on it. As one of the members of the proofreading team, I have been careful NOT to give a deadline to the translators and proofreaders and NOT to promise the report by a certain date.

There are very good reasons for this, and I am not going to provide them yet again.

The report will be issued when it is ready.

I would really appreciate it if no further questions were asked about when. That way, no one will be tempted to give a status report, which only creates expectations.



The reason for my original post was that FOA had started weaving a conspiracy theory or three around the report's publication date and we were wondering why they were saying that it had already been completed and why they were inventing conspiracy-theory-nuts-reasons for its "delay" (note inverted commas of industrial strength). The fact is, they picked up Pete's phrase "that the translation was completed several weeks ago" and chose to go to town on it to their own ends. That was already fully in train. Pete did NOT mispeak because he completely qualified it - it took bad faith to completely ignore the rest of what he said. But it was all out there already and it had nothing to do with my post which followed several posts I've made here about the enormity of the task as has everyone else, just like Pete clearly did on TJMK. I was simply explaining where I thought they had had chosen to take their quotation-out-of-context, not saying anything about my own personal view. I wouldn't claim or imply anything anyone else said about it simply because my own personal view was and is that it's completely impossible to misread (unless you deliberately choose to do so) what everyone has made utterly crystal clear on PMF and TJMK time and time again. It's done when it's done and there's a huge task left of looking at in painstaking detail "multi hundreds" of pages of legal and forensic language which was in my original post so it's impossible for anyone to read in "minutes away" either. It isn't. It'll be done when it's done and it'll be bloody good too.


I think your meaning was perfectly clear SA. Incidently, don't think the 'Round Britain Quiz' teaser has been forgotten. It served only to make me realise I would NEVER win the RBQ even if my life depended on it. When are you posting the answer pls? We need another SA masterwork.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Knox episode got shown in rerun on the Oprah show in USA again today; its the front page of the website as well; here comes another round of "boycott italy":

http://www.oprah.com/index.html

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

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

Michael wrote:

Which is the point both Massei and I made. The luminol prints weren't cleaned. they are not the result of visible bloody footprints that were then cleaned away. Their method of production was different. I'm not sure how much more plainly I can say this.


Sorry, I was just exploring the general argument of whether or not you can accurately measure prints revealed by luminol.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Walter Biscotti: “Aviello’s revelations have no basis. In the murder they’re no other persons involved”


WB: "No comment. These statements were already in the files. they are not a new thing. From my point of view, they are phrases without basis. I do not want to be deceive and I do not want to deceive anyone. The prison population is filled with people who know at least half of the perpetrators of murders committed in Italy. And these letters written by Aviello were already available in the file case documents. Nothing has changed in fact. If lawyers for Amanda believe are useful for their defence they will ask for the mafia informant testimony. But for now, seeing the convictions, there are no traces of other people."
http://www.affaritaliani.it/cronache/wa ... 80610.html
:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Ken5287


Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:55 am

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Here a questions I never saw asked but it one that often comes up of killers or people who cause others death. what is everyone take on if AK et all. would kill again?

Myself I really don't know. On the one hand I think maybe there was something to the mob or group mind set.Then again I suppose if you are some kind of psycopathic or narssicistic personallity then there is mostly no diffrence. If iwas forced to choose I would say no. I support strongly the idea of some people not being killers with out meeeting that partner. but that is if I had to pick otherwise it I don't know.
and before I am misunderstood or thought of as trying to soften the guilt on one or all of them. This in no way changes the horrible and sad death of MK. or my thoughts on AK et all certain guilt.

Kenny


Last edited by Ken5287 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

This is the only part of any case where "motive" has relevance, I think. The question is irrelevant to a conviction, but it has meaning when considering parole. That is one of the reasons that parole is difficult to get if one does not admit guilt. As has been pointed out, that is not absolute, at least in Canada and maybe other places. But in the UK it is quite close to absolute; and it is catch 22 for the truly innocent who have been wrongly convicted. It is not easy to resolve because parole decisions are very serious and very difficult (close to impossible IMO if one wishes to base those decisions on scientific research: like a lot of things). But unless Knox et al give a true account of what happened and why it happened I do not think we can begin to make a judgement about the likelihood of re-offending. Parole boards will err on the side of caution because without full disclosure there is no evidence on which to make a judgement: and so if forced to choose (and they will be) I think they will most likely come to a different conclusion than your own
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/ THE GIFT And Michael Heavey's Wrong Letterhead

Behind a great man there's always a great woman.
We came to know who enlightened judge Heavey about the case of Amanda Knox: his daughter Shanna, who was Amanda's classmate in high school (as reported by the West Seattle Herald). Apparently Heavey understood that the case against Knox was all wrong when Shanna guaranteed to him that Amanda doesn't have a mean bone in her body, and thought he had to do something to impose that innocent verdict that his daughter had reached thanks solely to her own, endowed intuition.

But Shanna, then, became an intern with Seattle senator Maria Cantwell. And Maria, too, fell for the vision of innocence brought by the very sensitive girl.

They should have let this very special girl talk to Mignini.


Last edited by H9 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/ PLAY IT AGAIN, LUCIANO

Meanwhile, it seems that old Perugia Shock little stories are headlines in the journalism of copy-and-paste.
And of course. How could they know about Luciano Aviello and l'organizzazione, the war between the Picuozzo and the Faiano in the Quartieri Spagnoli of Naples. How could they know the chronology of his clamorous revelations. Like when he indicated where to find Rosalinda Celentano (she's still missing), or when he disclosed where to go nab the bosses of Castellammare (there was no one), or when he knew that the president of the Commission of Justice was colluded (it wasn't true), or... or... or...
He's even improving, compared to when he accused himself for a murder he didn't commit. Now he accuses just his brother.
But let's not wake up the supporters of the three defendants from their sweet dreams. Illusions are free to ride.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

RS appeal information: (from Kevad)

Meredith left for home at about 8:45pm. Don't forget the tow truck driver and occupants of the broken down car testified overall that from 10:30pm until 11:35/11:40pm the lights were all out, nobody screamed, nobody came or left, and the gate was open that whole time. They were located right near the gate that whole time. This testimony really messes up the Judges Motivation and those who claim they heard a scream around 11:00 to 11:30. Not according to these witnesses who were right there by the gate!

In RS's Appeal they point out that more expert examination using newer methods of RS's computer shows he interacted with a file at about 9:35pm (right around there), this was not addressed by the court, and I believe it is new info. They argue this shows he was at his place until at least that time.

Also, per the phone records there was activity on Meredith's phone (not a call but data transmitted) at almost 10:15 which shows it consistent with where the phones were found the next morning. The Judge discounted this because it is possible for such a signal for that type of data to have reached the cottage, but it is more probably due to it being where found the next morning. This is in RS's Appeal.

Per the Appeal of RS, including info. from experts on Meredith's time of death, she was attached and killed sometime between minutes before 9:00pm and about 10:00pm. There was a phone activity just before 10:00pm which shows without much doubt that the phone was at the cottage then. The next call about 15 mins. later shows it most likely very near or at the location it was found the next morning. It would take about 10mins. to walk from the cottage to that location.

RS also points out that the two witnesses have many issues. They describe the yell differently, Naro goes back to sleep without saying anything to her daughter, then claims she learned of the death the next morning, despite the body not being found till about 1:15pm. The other witness claimed to have told parents who testified that no he did not. There is more, but the Appeal argues either their timing is wrong, or they heard something else not related.



REPLIES:

Kevad you analysis misses one important point:

who screamed well after 11pm then? Two people heard it but not the tow truck driver. Obviously, since it was after 11pm for sure, it must have happened after the tow truck driver (and the stranded family) left.

Two motivations reports (Micheli's and Massei's) mention that the tow truck driver arrived at about 11pm and that within 10 minutes they were gone. Therefore I can't substantiate your claim that the tow truck was still there at 11:35-11:40pm.

Unless you can substantiate this claim, I'll have to stick to the motivations' version of the events, both of which state that the tow truck left by 11:10 pm.

According to the motivations, the 10:13pm cell phone activity pinged on a cell which was not compatible with the garden in via Sperandio. That cell was compatible with the house in via Pergola or nearby.

Nobody could determine with certainty the time of death. The range was very wide: from 9pm till 4:50 am the next morning, so you can't pin point it necessarily to a time between 9 and 10pm.


Kevad said...

The judge did not factor in the car occupants testimony in late June. They called at 10:40pm after the car broke down at 10:30pm. They said it took 40 to 45 mins. after the call for him to arrive. He talked with them and checked the car for 5 mins. Then took 10 mins. before they left. Records showed it took 10 mins after the call to assign it, and it took the driver just over 30 mins. To drive and find them. He didn't get there till 11:20 /11:25pm. The Appeal of Amanda argues the judge made a mistake.

(Kevad obviously FOA.. the reply from a sceptic)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Amanda appeal info:

The Appeal of Amanda indicates that the tow truck driver got called while he was in Bastia and that it took him 30 mins. or more to travel to and find the car. This appears on page 191. They spend about 4 pages going over this issue as there looks to be the tow truck driver and 3 in the car. One witness said it was at least 30 to 40 mins. after the call, but others said 40 to 45 mins. The service records show the call started to the Milan center at 10:40pm but it took a few minutes and then they contacted a driver. Their times are all set forth from records and witnesses. They were there per the Appeal until 11:35 to 11:40pm.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Oprah in reruns for the summer. Today was the Curt/Edda show.

I felt a lot of sympathy as a parent, but also feel too much energy is being used to ignore the obvious facts. If they came across as likable people, then maybe just MAYBE I could understand the PR drive. Edda said la_) said "thank you" to everyone for letters of support and donations. Of course la_) cannot respond to all. Too busy? la-)

This is the interview Curt says "We still have a chance with Amanda. It's too late for their daughter" ( ham-) )

Don't have a clue why I subjected myself to this again. hb-))

Anyone know if Curt has a job yet?
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Cassandra said at the Candace Dempsey book thingy that it was nice for the family (the girls) to have Curt 'home'


"One daughter gets very angry and another just talks a lot about it," added Cassandra. "They have different ways of handling it. Curt's home now so it keeps everything good at home."

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/0 ... s-emotions
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Daily Mail trying hard to keep Knox back in its pages.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... l?ITO=1490
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:

I think your meaning was perfectly clear SA. Incidently, don't think the 'Round Britain Quiz' teaser has been forgotten. It served only to make me realise I would NEVER win the RBQ even if my life depended on it. When are you posting the answer pls? We need another SA masterwork.


Dunno about another since there ain't never been a first! I will do it Bard, it's just a big job on the pics front and I'm sneakily trying to work in a trip to Perugia at the moment so I can take the relevant pics first hand rather than rely on google streetcar. I want to go while it's still hot but when the student's are back to try to get the proper feel of the place. Anyone Italian tell me when they return from their summer break? I want to go and hang out at the square around 10/11 at night and trace the steps etc, since this has become an experience rather than a job following the case.

Even if I wasn't trying that on, I couldn't do it this weekend. As I speak to you, I am sat on the Flying Scotsman (sadly not looking like the real one anymore) heading to Edinburgh for a stag do, enjoying the free wi-fi. Quick! Someone get on at Peterborough or York and try and spot the Alibi! Shouldn't be too hard - I've got one arm, every time I get out of the train I'm nearly knocked over by a bi-plane and I keep on shouting "No! I'm Alibi!" all the time. :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.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

pataz1 wrote:
The Knox episode got shown in rerun on the Oprah show in USA again today; its the front page of the website as well; here comes another round of "boycott italy":


I do not think that a TV show on a murder case can really make people decide to "boycott Italy" (if it does, it's their loss).
Some people see Italy only as "Machiavelli".
Other people see it as "Michelangelo".

Smart people know it's both.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Dunno about another since there ain't never been a first! I will do it Bard, it's just a big job on the pics front and I'm sneakily trying to work in a trip to Perugia at the moment so I can take the relevant pics first hand rather than rely on google streetcar. I want to go while it's still hot but when the student's are back to try to get the proper feel of the place. Anyone Italian tell me when they return from their summer break? I want to go and hang out at the square around 10/11 at night and trace the steps etc, since this has become an experience rather than a job following the case


If you want to get the full action, you must go when university classes resume: end of September/early October.
Let me know if/when you go to Perugia. It's only a couple hours drive from Rome (you'd probably have to fly into Rome anyway and then catch a train to Perugia).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
The Knox episode got shown in rerun on the Oprah show in USA again today; its the front page of the website as well; here comes another round of "boycott italy":


I do not think that a TV show on a murder case can really make people decide to "boycott Italy" (if it does, it's their loss).
Some people see Italy only as "Machiavelli".
Other people see it as "Michelangelo".

Smart people know it's both.



Ah the two Italys. Reminds me of a sorry tale I heard;

Francesco and Guido have returned to Perugia on the passing of their dear Mama. On going through her extensive possessions, they find that she has been a hoarder of the family's treasures of many years past. During their exploration, they become incredibly excited at a discovery and call in the assistance of a specialist valuer of historic fine pieces.
"So how can I help you?" asks the valuer when he arrives.
"In the next room," says Guido hoarsely "We've checked, the signatures, the marks... there's a Da Vinci and a Stradivarius!!!"
"My god!" says the valuer and hurries to the next room.
Minutes pass. The valuer returns to the room looking thoughtful.
"Yes? Yes???" say Francesco and Guido together.
"Well the thing is boys - " says the valuer.
"Yes???? Yessss?????"
"Well the thing is," says the valuer, sitting down heavily, "Stradivari was a rubbish painter and frankly, Leonardo made fucking terrible violins..."

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
The Knox episode got shown in rerun on the Oprah show in USA again today; its the front page of the website as well; here comes another round of "boycott italy":


I do not think that a TV show on a murder case can really make people decide to "boycott Italy" (if it does, it's their loss).
Some people see Italy only as "Machiavelli".
Other people see it as "Michelangelo".

Smart people know it's both.


Damn..I thought it was Chianti.... drin-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
"Well the thing is," says the valuer, sitting down heavily, "Stradivari was a rubbish painter and frankly, Da Vinci made fucking terrible violins..."


LOL v-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Stan wrote:
Clander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
The Knox episode got shown in rerun on the Oprah show in USA again today; its the front page of the website as well; here comes another round of "boycott italy":


I do not think that a TV show on a murder case can really make people decide to "boycott Italy" (if it does, it's their loss).
Some people see Italy only as "Machiavelli".
Other people see it as "Michelangelo".

Smart people know it's both.


Damn..I thought it was Chianti.... drin-)



The Chianti definitely goes under "Michelangelo" :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

LOL @SA....sounds like you're in the party mood. Online beats the crossword.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Appeal of Amanda indicates that the tow truck driver got called while he was in Bastia and that it took him 30 mins. or more to travel to and find the car. This appears on page 191. They spend about 4 pages going over this issue as there looks to be the tow truck driver and 3 in the car. One witness said it was at least 30 to 40 mins. after the call, but others said 40 to 45 mins. The service records show the call started to the Milan center at 10:40pm but it took a few minutes and then they contacted a driver. Their times are all set forth from records and witnesses. They were there per the Appeal until 11:35 to 11:40pm.

This calculation seems very odd.
Even if the truck was within Bastia citi boundaries, this does not mean ti would take 30 minutes to geto to Perugia. In fact, even if it was in the centre of Bastia, the whole route starting from very the centre of Bastia to via della Pergola in Perugia would take 16 - 17 minutes, in average. It is less than 16 kilometres, and it was night, empty roads.
But even if we give it for 30 minutes, the call was logged in at 10:40 by ACI.
The ACI service guarantees a very short time of response. It is not that they wait 20 minutes to have a truck on route. If the stranded car is on a highway (Autostrada), ACI (even through its private associated companies) wil guarantee that the tow truck will be on the highway within 15 minutes at day, or within 30 minutes at night. But this call was within in the city, this makes the intervention time shorter.
Between 10:40 and 11:35 there is a frame of 55 minutes. This waiting time for a city call is not likely. Even with a 30 minutes travel time, a whole time waiting for the truck above 35 minutes would be impossible.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona

I was just looking at your last post on the other site, when I was working in the states there was a charge called depraved indifference which dealt with those who failed to help in similar circumstances to Amanda claiming to have heard Patrick murder Meredith but do nothing. I'm not sure if it is still used but it may be worth a look up.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Brogan wrote:
Fiona

I was just looking at your last post on the other site, when I was working in the states there was a charge called depraved indifference which dealt with those who failed to help in similar circumstances to Amanda claiming to have heard Patrick murder Meredith but do nothing. I'm not sure if it is still used but it may be worth a look up.



Hey Brogan - 'crimes of omission' to use a generic term, generally are not committed (and therefore charges are not brought) or have a perfect defence where the person omitting to act would have placed themselves in harms way or there was a reasonable suspicion on their part that they might have done so. So if one hears a blood-curdling scream, no-one is under an obligation to investigate it because the sound gives a strong indication that something awful is happening and no one is required to put themselves in harms way.

The depraved indifference charge is an interesting phrase because of the two legs - one that you were indifferent in the sense of taking no action and two that you indifference was depraved i.e. that your indifference / inaction was based on a depraved outlook on the importance of the outcome of the event that would eventuate from your inaction.

An example illustrating two points is that if you see someone point a gun at another and threaten to shoot them, you are under no obligation to act to try to prevent it if to do so would put you in harms way. Alternatively, if someone points to a mounted gun pointed at another person and says "that person will be shot in twenty seconds but you can prevent it, at no negative outcome or risk to safety to yourself, if you press that button on the wall to stop the timer" and you don't act, then you under many systems, you would be charged with homicide even though you didn't create the circumstances that put the person in harms way.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yummi wrote:
The Appeal of Amanda indicates that the tow truck driver got called while he was in Bastia and that it took him 30 mins. or more to travel to and find the car. This appears on page 191. They spend about 4 pages going over this issue as there looks to be the tow truck driver and 3 in the car. One witness said it was at least 30 to 40 mins. after the call, but others said 40 to 45 mins. The service records show the call started to the Milan center at 10:40pm but it took a few minutes and then they contacted a driver. Their times are all set forth from records and witnesses. They were there per the Appeal until 11:35 to 11:40pm.

This calculation seems very odd.
Even if the truck was within Bastia citi boundaries, this does not mean ti would take 30 minutes to geto to Perugia. In fact, even if it was in the centre of Bastia, the whole route starting from very the centre of Bastia to via della Pergola in Perugia would take 16 - 17 minutes, in average. It is less than 16 kilometres, and it was night, empty roads.
But even if we give it for 30 minutes, the call was logged in at 10:40 by ACI.
The ACI service guarantees a very short time of response. It is not that they wait 20 minutes to have a truck on route. If the stranded car is on a highway (Autostrada), ACI (even through its private associated companies) wil guarantee that the tow truck will be on the highway within 15 minutes at day, or within 30 minutes at night. But this call was within in the city, this makes the intervention time shorter.
Between 10:40 and 11:35 there is a frame of 55 minutes. This waiting time for a city call is not likely. Even with a 30 minutes travel time, a whole time waiting for the truck above 35 minutes would be impossible.




Others question this as well :

Perugia may have a pop. of 160k, but it's very densely packed in a small area. It's a small town, it's not Los Angeles.
I don't know where the tow truck company was located exactly in Perugia (and it would be interesting to know that address), but even assuming, as you say, that the truck driver didn't leave before 10:50pm, there is no way it is going to take him more than 10-15 minutes to reach via della Pergola. There is no traffic on a November night at 10-11pm. So the only way it's going to take him 30 min. to get there is if he departed from Assisi or Passignano or some other town just as distant. So if he left the car shop at 10:50pm and the car shop was located within the city of Perugia (I don't care where), 15 minutes would be more than enough to get there, even if he was on the opposite side of town.

Also every source I have, from the motivations to the Italian media newspapers, mention that the family said they were out of there within 30-40 min. from the moment their car broke down. So 11:15-11:20pm is probably the latest they were there.


and again:

When you're stranded in an unfamiliar city in the middle of the night even 5 minutes wainting for help seem to last forever. I think the only reliable times would be the time the ACI (Italian Automobile Club) Call Center contacted the driver. That information should be available from the phone records. If he drove from Bastia than it took him about 20 min. Let's be generous and say 30 to give him time to find the exact location. So the key is what time he received the call from the call center. Add 25-30 min. and that's the time he was there. Add another 10 min. to look at the car and hook it up, and you have the time they departed.

another comment:

So it is entirely possible that by 11:30 pm nobody was in front of the house anymore. Knowing at what time the truck driver was notified would be key. I've driven between Perugia and Assisi more times than I can count, as a matter of fact I go to that area nearly every year, and it takes less than 30 minutes. Bastia is in between Assisi and Perugia, so you figure it out how long it takes. I'm sure the truck driver is more familiar with the area than most, it's his job, and at that time at night there would be no traffic. If he said he took him almost 30 minutes from Bastia to the car? That's about right, by the time you get upthere on top of the hill from the freeway. The question is: what time did he leave from Bastia? He probably headed to Perugia as soon as he received the call, and that information should be available and precise. Add 45 minutes from the call he received from the call center and you have the latest time they cleared the scene. If it's before 11:30pm, the 11:30 to Midnight attack is still possible.



FOA response:

The problem is you are saying this is possible, or that is possible, then again maybe something else is possible. It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and never will be. You can't make people stay in prison for 26 years based upon possibilities.
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 11, 2010 11:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

True crime writer in town Saturday for book signing

By Michelle Dupler, Herald staff writer
Published: 06/11/10 1:34 am | Updated: 06/11/10 1:34 am

THE NEWS TRIBUNE

_________________
"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 Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Brogan wrote:
Fiona

I was just looking at your last post on the other site, when I was working in the states there was a charge called depraved indifference which dealt with those who failed to help in similar circumstances to Amanda claiming to have heard Patrick murder Meredith but do nothing. I'm not sure if it is still used but it may be worth a look up.



Hey Brogan - 'crimes of omission' to use a generic term, generally are not committed (and therefore charges are not brought) or have a perfect defence where the person omitting to act would have placed themselves in harms way or there was a reasonable suspicion on their part that they might have done so. So if one hears a blood-curdling scream, no-one is under an obligation to investigate it because the sound gives a strong indication that something awful is happening and no one is required to put themselves in harms way.

The depraved indifference charge is an interesting phrase because of the two legs - one that you were indifferent in the sense of taking no action and two that you indifference was depraved i.e. that your indifference / inaction was based on a depraved outlook on the importance of the outcome of the event that would eventuate from your inaction.

An example illustrating two points is that if you see someone point a gun at another and threaten to shoot them, you are under no obligation to act to try to prevent it if to do so would put you in harms way. Alternatively, if someone points to a mounted gun pointed at another person and says "that person will be shot in twenty seconds but you can prevent it, at no negative outcome or risk to safety to yourself, if you press that button on the wall to stop the timer" and you don't act, then you under many systems, you would be charged with homicide even though you didn't create the circumstances that put the person in harms way.


Thanks for the clarification on that SA, I remember the term being touted during a child protection investigation while I was working in Denver but that was early 90's. Are you there yet, are you there yet, are you there yet.
Have nice time in Edinburgh while your there round your night off with a deep fried battered Mars Bar, it may be bad for you but is actually very tasty .
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
True crime writer in town Saturday for book signing

By Michelle Dupler, Herald staff writer
Published: 06/11/10 1:34 am | Updated: 06/11/10 1:34 am

THE NEWS TRIBUNE


Candy is to true crime writting what Stephen Hawking's is to marathon running.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"


So this means every sniper in "The battle of Stalingrad", who shot an enemy during the house to-house-fighting wasn`t a murderer?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I like how she says she "tried" to put Amanda in the murder room, but couldn't. We can all go home now.
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I like how she says she "tried" to put Amanda in the murder room, but couldn't. We can all go home now.


I wonder if Candace Dempsey has tried to put Rudy Guede in Filomena's room or the blood-spattered bathroom.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"



Banality, thy name is Dempsey. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute, you'd have learnt that you can only call someone a murderer when they've been convicted of the charge. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute and not one with a student award in a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness when no-one else was running, you would know that your subjective views on the categorisation of someone as a "murderer" or "not a murderer" outside of that dictated by a court's verdict would have got you fired.

Go and stick a biscotti in it dear. You're embarrassing yourself (again).

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

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

I'd like to nominate (I know what it means now ;) ) SA for

"...a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness.." lol
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3
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 11, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3



Yeah, I notice Marriott weighs in.

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


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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3



Yeah, I notice Marriott weighs in.


The redneck hordes are also weighing in with racist comments about Italy and inaccurate and ignorant comments about the case.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: Location, Location, Location...   

florist wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"


So this means every sniper in "The battle of Stalingrad", who shot an enemy during the house to-house-fighting wasn`t a murderer?


Also, in Judge Candace's "reality"...

--Someone who arranges a murder-for-hire... isn't a murderer either. br-))

--Someone who tampers with pharmaceuticals leading to deadly results, (for example, adding a touch of cyanide to the Tylenol capsules before returning the product to the drug store shelves...)
IS NOT A MURDERER if the culprit is NOT IN THE ROOM when the Tylenol is ingested! br-))

Well, at least, so says The Honorable Candace Dempsey !!

Just imagine how many convicted murderers would be "exonerated" by the application of Candace's legal wisdom! Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-)

Candace could single-handedly solve our prison overpopulation problem !! gh-)) gh-)) gh-)) gh-))

When it comes to convicting someone of a murder charge, it's all about location, location, location, folks!! rul-)
Or...is it... When it comes to selling real estate????....

Anyone, it's one or the other.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I'd like to nominate (I know what it means now ;) ) SA for
"...a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness.." lol

* tt-) SomeAlibi's Sentence tt-) *

Attachment:
Dempsey's prize.jpg


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


Last edited by piktor on Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:23 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: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"



Banality, thy name is Dempsey. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute, you'd have learnt that you can only call someone a murderer when they've been convicted of the charge. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute and not one with a student award in a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness when no-one else was running, you would know that your subjective views on the categorisation of someone as a "murderer" or "not a murderer" outside of that dictated by a court's verdict would have got you fired.

Go and stick a biscotti in it dear. You're embarrassing yourself (again).



Hu! She can leave some poisened biscottis on the kitchen table - convienently murdering her husband while reading on her famous book tt-) in an Oregon book-store!

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3


I am glad to hear that there are at least one or two nice and useful Italian guys. dm-)

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

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

piktor wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I'd like to nominate (I know what it means now ;) ) SA for
"...a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness.." lol

* tt-) SomeAlibi's Sentence tt-) *

Attachment:
Dempsey's prize.jpg



An article on TJMK, some terribly nice PM's and now the triple with being Piktored! Ace! (And no, I haven't started drinking heavily yet).

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Pelerine wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"



Banality, thy name is Dempsey. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute, you'd have learnt that you can only call someone a murderer when they've been convicted of the charge. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute and not one with a student award in a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness when no-one else was running, you would know that your subjective views on the categorisation of someone as a "murderer" or "not a murderer" outside of that dictated by a court's verdict would have got you fired.

Go and stick a biscotti in it dear. You're embarrassing yourself (again).



Hu! She can leave some poisened biscottis on the kitchen table - convienently murdering her husband while reading on her famous book tt-) in an Oregon book-store!


I always try to look for the good in people. What I have always appreciated about Candace is how well her antics and compulsive self-reinvention lend themselves to caricature and comedy. She makes me laugh!

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

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

piktor wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I'd like to nominate (I know what it means now ;) ) SA for
"...a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness.." lol

* tt-) SomeAlibi's Sentence tt-) *

Attachment:
Dempsey's prize.jpg


At last Candace IS an award-winning journalist!!! (and food blogger)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

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

(Curt) also admitted: ‘We have not contacted Meredith's family.

‘During interviews we have tried to express our condolences and our sorrow for the loss of their daughter.’

Ms Mellas added: ‘Our lawyers have said now is not the time to make contact.’




For crying out loud...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hey they're using piktor's work over at freeamanda.com!!!!

http://freeamanda.livejournal.com/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
"Van der Sloot's newly hired attorney, Maximo Altez, has asked Judge Buendia to declare his client's Monday confession void on the grounds he made it in the presence of a defense lawyer appointed by police.

Reached by the AP, Altez refused to discuss the case. He said Van der Sloot's schoolteacher mother, Anita, would be arriving early next week with the family's own "media adviser.""
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 11, 2010 6:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
Hey they're using piktor's work over at freeamanda.com!!!!

http://freeamanda.livejournal.com/



'They' is Harry Wilkens, that's his site, the same Harry Wilkens that published a book of 'poetry' called 'Venereal Disease' and was banned from PMF for posting a pornographic picture of a girl defecating. It should come as no surprise that the man's a thief as well. A rather stupid thief I might add, since he seems to think the girl on the horse is supposed to be Amanda. Clearly, he's unable to tell the difference between the US Stars and Stripes and the British Union flags.

_________________
"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 disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


I've come to the conclusion Barbie likes to hedge her bets pretty much in her articles/book. I don't think she actually believes this has legs for a moment. I think it's just about being a popular journalist, and being seen to give fair comment on both sides of the argument, whist not appearing too partisan. Anyone (and I cannot believe this does not apply to Barbie) who knows this man's history of confessing and attention-seeking cannot possibly take him seriously. He is 'eccentric' to say the least. The court were not interested and nor were RS's defence. If there had been a simple way out of this whole mess you can bet the court would have seized it - why go through the vilification if you don't have to? Just find the keys and knife. But of course there ARE no keys, there IS no knife. It's rubbish, and Barbie knows that as well as we do.

I actually feel a bit sad that this is what they have come up with, after all this time. It's not even 'new' information. If it had been that compelling they would have pushed it before now.

It's beginning to feel a bit mawkish watching Amanda and Raffaele heading for a 26 year stretch. I feel like a woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Seriously, if this is all they have Amanda and Raffaele are toast...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


I've come to the conclusion Barbie likes to hedge her bets pretty much in her articles/book. I don't think she actually believes this has legs for a moment. I think it's just about being a popular journalist, and being seen to give fair comment on both sides of the argument, whist not appearing too partisan. Anyone (and I cannot believe this does not apply to Barbie) who knows this man's history of confessing and attention-seeking cannot possibly take him seriously. He is 'eccentric' to say the least. The court were not interested and nor were RS's defence. If there had been a simple way out of this whole mess you can bet the court would have seized it - why go through the vilification if you don't have to? Just find the keys and knife. But of course there ARE no keys, there IS no knife. It's rubbish, and Barbie knows that as well as we do.

I actually feel a bit sad that this is what they have come up with, after all this time. It's not even 'new' information. If it had been that compelling they would have pushed it before now.

It's beginning to feel a bit mawkish watching Amanda and Raffaele heading for a 26 year stretch. I feel like a woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Seriously, if this is all they have Amanda and Raffaele are toast...


And let's not forget that every time she writes one of these follow-up stories there sits the ad for her book, at just $14.95, conspicuously placed within the body of the text.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Candeece's World Tour of Washington (and maybe some Oregon).

Quote from MIchael's link:
"As a journalist, I've been taught I can't call someone a murderer if I can't put them in the murder room"



Banality, thy name is Dempsey. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute, you'd have learnt that you can only call someone a murderer when they've been convicted of the charge. As a journalist, if you were one of any repute and not one with a student award in a parochial sub-category of a regionalist nothingness when no-one else was running, you would know that your subjective views on the categorisation of someone as a "murderer" or "not a murderer" outside of that dictated by a court's verdict would have got you fired.

Go and stick a biscotti in it dear. You're embarrassing yourself (again).

Haha well said SA

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast



It's beginning to feel a bit mawkish watching Amanda and Raffaele heading for a 26 year stretch. I feel like a woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine...


I love the image. Occasionally something will come up and you'll be distracted and drop a stitch, ending with a holey sweater...
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

That's a good point, Macport. Keeping interest up.
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 11, 2010 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
The Bard wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


I've come to the conclusion Barbie likes to hedge her bets pretty much in her articles/book. I don't think she actually believes this has legs for a moment. I think it's just about being a popular journalist, and being seen to give fair comment on both sides of the argument, whist not appearing too partisan. Anyone (and I cannot believe this does not apply to Barbie) who knows this man's history of confessing and attention-seeking cannot possibly take him seriously. He is 'eccentric' to say the least. The court were not interested and nor were RS's defence. If there had been a simple way out of this whole mess you can bet the court would have seized it - why go through the vilification if you don't have to? Just find the keys and knife. But of course there ARE no keys, there IS no knife. It's rubbish, and Barbie knows that as well as we do.

I actually feel a bit sad that this is what they have come up with, after all this time. It's not even 'new' information. If it had been that compelling they would have pushed it before now.

It's beginning to feel a bit mawkish watching Amanda and Raffaele heading for a 26 year stretch. I feel like a woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Seriously, if this is all they have Amanda and Raffaele are toast...


And let's not forget that every time she writes one of these follow-up stories there sits the ad for her book, at just $14.95, conspicuously placed within the body of the text.



Yeah but, at least she's not going out pan handling, performing book readings everywhere possible and making sure the press are there to report it each time. And to be fair to Barbie, it's not down to her what appears on the page, she only writes the story, what appears on the page is down to the editor. The journalist has no say in that at all.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

disinterested wrote:
The Bard wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast



It's beginning to feel a bit mawkish watching Amanda and Raffaele heading for a 26 year stretch. I feel like a woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine...


I love the image. Occasionally something will come up and you'll be distracted and drop a stitch, ending with a holey sweater...



Well, you shouldn't feel that way, that's not why we're here.

Let me tell you something. I've been following the case since a couple of days after the story broke. An animated discussion began...this was on the Seattle PI. I read peoples posts and had a perspective, but I didn't post. My problem was that all these people had found themselves in a terrible unfortunate situation, whether of their own making or not and at that time I felt that to jump in and start adding my views would be is some part akin to throwing rotten tomatoes at someone locked in the stocks in the village square. That isn't who I am. At some point after two or three weeks I couldn't keep quiet. This was down to two things...that there was an actual 'mystery' here (and I value the solving of puzzles...I value truth and how could the victim, Meredith, ever be layed to rest if she doesn't have that?). The second, but most important reason, was because of the rising hysteria...it seemed reason was being cast aside in favour of all that is base...racism, ethnocentrism, ignorance, pathetic excuses....

Far from that state of affairs dissipating, it escalated, into a full PR campaign, constructed like some political campaign authored by Tricky Dicky himself. And what of truth? What of Meredith that poor girl that was butchered? What of her family that have suffered something no family should ever suffer and have shown nothing in response but grace? I'm not here to knit in front of the guillotine...I know why I'm here and why PMF is here.

_________________
"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 nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

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

PERUGIA - Dopo le rivelazioni del pentito Luciano Aviello, che pochi giorni fa aveva rivelato che ad uccidere Meredith era stato il fratello, un altro detenuto italiano ha dichiarato l'innocenza di Amanda Knox.
Trattasi di Mario Alessi, condannato all'ergastolo per l'omicidio del piccolo Tommaso Onofri, il quale afferma di aver parlato in carcere con Rudy Guede.
Quest'ultimo avrebbe confessato ad Alessi che al momento dell'omicidio Sollecito e la Knox non erano in casa. Secondo le affermazioni di Guede ad uccidere Meredith sarebbe stato un amico dell'ivoriano, rifiutato dalla studente inglese.
http://tinyurl.com/3434wly

" After the revelations of the repented Luciano Aviello, who a few days ago said Meredith was killed by his brother, another Italian convict has stated Knox's innocence. It's Mario Alessi, who is serving a life term for killing littleTommaso Onofrio. Alessi said he has spoken to Guede in jail, and Rudy allegedly confessed to him that when the murder happened, Knox and Sollecito weren't home. According to Alessi, Guede said Meredith was murdered by a friend of him, someone the English student refused to have sex with"

So now it seems that as per Mr Alessi revelations, Rudy's friend- the one Meredith refused to have sex with, and for which she lost her life-is the murderer. Well I think I'm starting to get lost here: I thought the murder happened because Aviello's brother was off to steal valuable paintings but he broke into the wrong apartment, only to find a scared English student, whom he killed because she wouldn't shut up. So, if these two gentlemen- key defense witnesses-, are both speaking the truth, Rudy's friend must be Aviello's brother, who broke into the -wrong-apartment in order to steal valuable paintings, but instead of the prized loot, he found a scared English girl, with whom he decided to have sex, but she refused and therefore was murdered. I guess the whole thing may even make sense, as long as defense is able to show that Rudy's friend is Aviello's brother, and Rudy confirms the story...oh perhaps some forensic evidence of Aviello's brother around the murder scene would also help...

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


Last edited by nicki on Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

nicki wrote:
PERUGIA - Dopo le rivelazioni del pentito Luciano Aviello, che pochi giorni fa aveva rivelato che ad uccidere Meredith era stato il fratello, un altro detenuto italiano ha dichiarato l'innocenza di Amanda Knox.
Trattasi di Mario Alessi, condannato all'ergastolo per l'omicidio del piccolo Tommaso Onofri, il quale afferma di aver parlato in carcere con Rudy Guede.
Quest'ultimo avrebbe confessato ad Alessi che al momento dell'omicidio Sollecito e la Knox non erano in casa. Secondo le affermazioni di Guede ad uccidere Meredith sarebbe stato un amico dell'ivoriano, rifiutato dalla studente inglese.
http://tinyurl.com/3434wly

" After the revelations of the repented Luciano Aviello, who a few days ago said Meredith was killed by his brother, another Italian convict has stated Knox's innocence. It's Mario Alessi, who is serving a life term for killing littleTommaso Onofrio. Alessi said he has spoken to Guede in jail, and Rudy allegedly confessed to him that when the murder happened, Knox and Sollecito weren't home. According to Alessi, Guede said Meredith was murdered by a friend of him, someone the English student refused to have sex with"

So now it seems that as per Mr Alessi revelations, Rudy's friend- the one Meredith refused to have sex with, and for which she lost her life-is the murderer. Well I think I'm starting to get lost here: I thought the murder happened because Aviello's brother was off to steal valuable paintings but he broke into the wrong apartment, only to find a scared English student, whom he killed because she wouldn't shut up. So, if these two gentlemen- key defense witnesses-, are both speaking the truth, Rudy's friend must be Aviello's brother, who broke into the -wrong-apartment in order to steal valuable paintings, but instead of the prized loot, he found a scared English girl, with whom he decided to have sex, but she refused and therefore was murdered. I guess the whole thing may even make sense, as long as defense is able to show that Rudy's friend is Aviello's brother, and Rudy confirms the story...oh perhaps some forensic evidence of Alessi's brother around the murder scene would also help...

cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Goodness Michael, that's not what I meant at all. I was just making a reference to the apparent weakness of the defence appeal case. I don't imagine anyone here is actually enjoying the suffering of Amanda and Raffaele. It is, as you say, a search for truth; anger at their lies, yes, but no pleasure in their obvious guilt. I suppose I am a little disappointed that these convicts are the best they can come up with for the Appeal. I was hoping for something more substantial - for Amanda and Raffaele's sake really. I wish they did have more than this in a way. But they don't, it seems, so it is beginning to look like a hopeless case to win on appeal. That's not a pretty sight, and one I instinctively turn away from. I hated watching Curt walk through that crowd. I hate the pain and humiliation of the whole awful thing. I just don't have the stomach for it. I guess that's what I was trying to express. I don't think anyone would doubt your motives in this matter for a moment. I certainly haven't.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


Barbie Nadeau is an interesting person.

In "Angel Face" she suggests that Sollecito and Knox committed the murder, but that it was probably drug & alcohol fueled and that the two may really not have remembered what happened in the morning. Hence all the confusion and double talk. Barbie essentially opens the door to a second-degree murder plea: unplanned, done under the influence. No 26-year sentence; probably something far less.

But the Sollecito / Knox defense teams never once have indicated that they'd like to walk through this door. So far they're gone for broke. In my opinion, that's the biggest mystery of all. Why? They've read the judge's report and understand what they're dealing with.

Now Barbie is opening a new door: she accepts the defense theory that some stranger did it - and that by an amazing coincidence, Guede found himself in jail with his brother (if I'm following all this correctly). So, as Barbie states, "there are many more questions than answers". For example, it means dismissing the Knox / Sollecito argument that Guede is the killer. Plus why the clean-up and why all the lies?

So, walking through this door has serious implications for the defense too. Barbie acknowledges that the letter could change everything ... but also invites everyone to think about the other evidence ... and reconcile it all.

I think that she's basically calling their bluff.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

norbertc wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


Barbie Nadeau is an interesting person.

In "Angel Face" she suggests that Sollecito and Knox committed the murder, but that it was probably drug & alcohol fueled and that the two may really not have remembered what happened in the morning. Hence all the confusion and double talk. Barbie essentially opens the door to a second-degree murder plea: unplanned, done under the influence. No 26-year sentence; probably something far less.

But the Sollecito / Knox defense teams never once have indicated that they'd like to walk through this door. So far they're gone for broke. In my opinion, that's the biggest mystery of all. Why? They've read the judge's report and understand what they're dealing with.[pdfview][/pdfview]

Now Barbie is opening a new door: she accepts the defense theory that some stranger did it - and that by an amazing coincidence, Guede found himself in jail with his brother (if I'm following all this correctly). So, as Barbie states, "there are many more questions than answers". For example, it means dismissing the Knox / Sollecito argument that Guede is the killer. Plus why the clean-up and why all the lies?

So, walking through this door has serious implications for the defense too. Barbie acknowledges that the letter could change everything ... but also invites everyone to think about the other evidence ... and reconcile it all.

I think that she's basically calling their bluff.


I think she's doing that and also what's been mentioned here above:

1) hedging her bets/covering all sides

2) following a new angle to attract readers, sell her book, by being a bit simplistic and sensationalistic.

I admire her and I've been grateful for her coverage as she's one of the best journalists covering the case, but I wish she'd just be objective about the findings and honest about her opinions. After she determined that A & R had really forgotten it all in a drug stupor, I lost a little faith. If she really did that to open the verdict to 2nd degree murder, I don't think that's her place as a journalist.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Peter's interesting article:

There is a rumor (just a rumor at the moment) out of Italy that Sollecito might - might - be separating himself out. He just might have offered to talk, and to do some sort of a deal.

Our lawyers suspect that Della Vedova and Ghirga might have wanted to try to deal for Amanda Knox too - maybe a psychological or hard-drugs based defense.

But that the hard-liners on the Knox bandwagon in Seattle and elsewhere (Preston, Ciolino, Anne Bremner, Michael Heavey, John Q Kelly, and so on) seem to have duped the Knoxes and Mellases into thinking that an innocence outcome was a very high probability with a hard-line PR campaign and defense.

In our lawyers’ views, what is the worst move of all moves that the Knox bandwagon drivers and the AK groupies have made?

Arguing that this was simply a lone-wolf attack, and probably only by a seemingly very very very nimble Rudy Guede.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
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 11, 2010 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Errors & Omissions: Another hackneyed phrase deserves to be laid to rest

By Guy Keleny


THE INDEPENDENT

_________________
"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: Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Amanda appeal info:



Knox's "appeal"; can make men half a world away fall in love, but will it set her free???

Pat
(sorry.. just couldn't resist...)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3



Yea, its the splash graphic on the main CNN Justice page:
http://www.cnn.com/JUSTICE/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I like how she says she "tried" to put Amanda in the murder room, but couldn't. We can all go home now.


Of course, if you thoroughly debunk and undermine the prosecution's evidence on every introduction, yet let the defence's evidence stand, its nigh impossible to put any suspect at the scene of a crime.

"At 12:54 PM, Raffaele redialed 112 (...) From this point on, all was conflict and contradiction."

Really? From that point on? Its only -after- establishing Raffaele's actions as the baseline that she introduces the argument of the postal police's earlier arrival.. and -then- goes on to brush that aside by saying in the end "the two accounts would differ only by five minutes."

Nara Capezzali is introduced as the last witness of the evening, living in an apartment with "double-glazed windows and faced away from the cottage, but she did have a bathroom window that looked out in that direction."

And of course there is no mention in the initial timeline of Knox & Sollecito being spotted by the court earlier that evening. And later she says that both Curatolo and Capezzali "got confused" during their testimony.

All of the forensic evidence at the trial gets sidestepped, and instead there are only 5 paragraphs on the Knife and LCN DNA testing. And two on the bra clasp and the paper written by the "international group of scientists".

I think almost every criminal would pay good money to have Candace on their jury.

Pat


Last edited by pataz1 on Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

nicki wrote:
PERUGIA - Dopo le rivelazioni del pentito Luciano Aviello, che pochi giorni fa aveva rivelato che ad uccidere Meredith era stato il fratello, un altro detenuto italiano ha dichiarato l'innocenza di Amanda Knox.
Trattasi di Mario Alessi, condannato all'ergastolo per l'omicidio del piccolo Tommaso Onofri, il quale afferma di aver parlato in carcere con Rudy Guede.
Quest'ultimo avrebbe confessato ad Alessi che al momento dell'omicidio Sollecito e la Knox non erano in casa. Secondo le affermazioni di Guede ad uccidere Meredith sarebbe stato un amico dell'ivoriano, rifiutato dalla studente inglese.
http://tinyurl.com/3434wly

" After the revelations of the repented Luciano Aviello, who a few days ago said Meredith was killed by his brother, another Italian convict has stated Knox's innocence. It's Mario Alessi, who is serving a life term for killing littleTommaso Onofrio. Alessi said he has spoken to Guede in jail, and Rudy allegedly confessed to him that when the murder happened, Knox and Sollecito weren't home. According to Alessi, Guede said Meredith was murdered by a friend of him, someone the English student refused to have sex with"

So now it seems that as per Mr Alessi revelations, Rudy's friend- the one Meredith refused to have sex with, and for which she lost her life-is the murderer. Well I think I'm starting to get lost here: I thought the murder happened because Aviello's brother was off to steal valuable paintings but he broke into the wrong apartment, only to find a scared English student, whom he killed because she wouldn't shut up. So, if these two gentlemen- key defense witnesses-, are both speaking the truth, Rudy's friend must be Aviello's brother, who broke into the -wrong-apartment in order to steal valuable paintings, but instead of the prized loot, he found a scared English girl, with whom he decided to have sex, but she refused and therefore was murdered. I guess the whole thing may even make sense, as long as defense is able to show that Rudy's friend is Aviello's brother, and Rudy confirms the story...oh perhaps some forensic evidence of Aviello's brother around the murder scene would also help...

:lol: :lol:
I'm betting now that neither Alessi nor Aviello will ever step foot inside the appeals court! I will be very surprise if it happens. No judge will consider hearing in person these two characters and obvious testimony lies. When the Appeals court reads what K/S defence are presenting as ‘key witness testimony’ of these known professional liars, the court will deem them unreliable.

Alessi and Aviello are not only jailed criminals but also mythomaniacs, they’ve been inserting themselves in one way or another in horrific crime cases for years and always have had a go at the most publicised crimes. They don’t waste time with silent cases, must be the ones that feature big in the news. The crimes they gone for in the past are: gruesome bloody murders, rape, kidnapping, extortion with morbid plots and hideous crimes involving little kids.

Aviello’s PDF letter [BN’s article] sent to judge Massei last year, tells a completely different story from the one he is supposedly telling now to AK’s defence. Clearly Bongiorno and co didn’t like it and went for Alessi’s. Instead Della Vedova and co with lots of adjustments to Aviello’s first story now will use it. Super-witnesses? More like Super-Fakes!

Michael or anyone else:
Aviello’s hand written letter is difficult to read, is there a way that the PDF can be turn into a better, clearer image? Thanks!
Here is Barbie Nadeau PDF link:
http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2010/06/11/ ... 173395.pdf

P.S. Apparently Aviello has a blog, one post only February 2007. co-)
"Stories of an ex-camorrista"
http://lucianoaviello.blogspot.com/2007 ... rista.html
Top Profile 

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

John Q. Kelly is an interesting fella.

Has anyone seen him comment on Joran Van Der Sloot recently? He's been involved with the Natalee Holloway case for years, and is absolutely convinced of Van Der Sloot's guilt based on the evidence there is, which prosecutors decided was too little.

Yet, with respect to Amanda Knox, against whom there is at least as much evidence as there is against Van Der Sloot, he's equally convinced that she's innocent.

Funny, that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

norbertc wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


Barbie Nadeau is an interesting person.

In "Angel Face" she suggests that Sollecito and Knox committed the murder, but that it was probably drug & alcohol fueled and that the two may really not have remembered what happened in the morning. Hence all the confusion and double talk. Barbie essentially opens the door to a second-degree murder plea: unplanned, done under the influence. No 26-year sentence; probably something far less.

But the Sollecito / Knox defense teams never once have indicated that they'd like to walk through this door. So far they're gone for broke. In my opinion, that's the biggest mystery of all. Why? They've read the judge's report and understand what they're dealing with.

Now Barbie is opening a new door: she accepts the defense theory that some stranger did it - and that by an amazing coincidence, Guede found himself in jail with his brother (if I'm following all this correctly). So, as Barbie states, "there are many more questions than answers". For example, it means dismissing the Knox / Sollecito argument that Guede is the killer. Plus why the clean-up and why all the lies?

So, walking through this door has serious implications for the defense too. Barbie acknowledges that the letter could change everything ... but also invites everyone to think about the other evidence ... and reconcile it all.

I think that she's basically calling their bluff.



Right! I didn't even think of that. What are the odds??!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline YorkieGirl


Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:04 am

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

#1 - all this beyond a reasonable doubt crap : that's in the united states. You're in italy, do some research on the laws there prior to commiting a crime.


2: amanda should just give it up and let oxygen do an epsiode of snapped.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

probably already published here:

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/06/0 ... ffice.html

Charge: Wash. judge used office on Knox's behalf
The Associated Press

SEATTLE The state's Judicial Conduct Commission has filed a complaint against a King County judge, saying he improperly used the power of his office to lobby on behalf of Amanda Knox.

Knox is the 22-year-old former University of Washington student convicted in the 2007 slaying of her flatmate in the Italian town of Perugia. The commission says King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey (HEE'-vee') wrote letters on court stationery to Italian judicial officials on Knox's behalf, used court staff to type those letters, and spoke out publicly in an attempt to influence the case.

Ethical rules forbid judges from lending the prestige of their office to private causes.

Heavey is required to file an answer with the commission within 21 days. He declined to speak with The Associated Press on Tuesday, but said he expected to release a statement later.

Read more: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/06/0 ... z0qbhY2FOx
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Buzz wrote:
John Q. Kelly is an interesting fella.

Has anyone seen him comment on Joran Van Der Sloot recently? He's been involved with the Natalee Holloway case for years, and is absolutely convinced of Van Der Sloot's guilt based on the evidence there is, which prosecutors decided was too little.

Yet, with respect to Amanda Knox, against whom there is at least as much evidence as there is against Van Der Sloot, he's equally convinced that she's innocent.

Funny, that.


John Q Kelly is a patriotic American. Amanda is innocent because she's American and the victim is not. Joran is guilty because he's Dutch and his victim is American. You have to dumb it down for many US viewers, and John Q Public -- oops, I mean Kelly -- does a glorious job of that. I think he should run for President, with Glen Beck as his running mate.

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3


_________________________

It gets worse. From that CNN article:

"Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 25, were found guilty in December 2009 of Kercher's murder and are serving sentences of 26 and 25 years, respectively. A third person, Rudy Guede, a drifter originally from the Ivory Coast, plead guilty to the murder and is serving a 16-year prison sentence."

///
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 12, 2010 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Why I believe a Mafia supergrass will help clear Foxy Knoxy's name
By Bob Graham
Last updated at 4:20 AM on 12th June 2010


THE DAILY MAIL

_________________
"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 Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Well, that is at least an explanation of why the defence is going to raise the issue at all: that was puzzling me. It seems a risky strategy to me. On the one hand it is is possible they can show that the investigation did not include even a cursory search of the place this person said the keys were hidden. That might well be true because the whole tale is absurd on its face: though it is equally possible they did look and I do not know if they did or not. On the other hand I would think that many people would react as The Bard has: they would think "if that is the best they can do they have no case at all"
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: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:10 am   Post subject: Aviello letter transcript (version 1 story)   

Jools wrote:


Michael or anyone else:
Aviello’s hand written letter is difficult to read, is there a way that the PDF can be turn into a better, clearer image? Thanks!
Here is Barbie Nadeau PDF link:
http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2010/06/11/ ... 173395.pdf



Jools,

It's written hastily in pencil (and is almost as bad as my writing), and he has had it with Chiacchiera "and his men", shame on them!

However, "an Albanian friend" entrusted a letter to him (which he's kept safe), in which the real murderer is named and the true facts are set out.

He's willing to make himself available to the US to hand over the letter.
Raffaele Sollecito is innocent and doesn't know he (Aviello) has taken it upon himself to carry out his civic duty to inform the court of the real facts.


And anyone who uses brackets and exclamation marks is immediately suss (=suspicious), straight out of the box. :) (But he's right about the media-circus surrounding the trial!)


For what it's worth: CatOCR scan, first pass, line-by-line, with corrections required (by better eyes):

Transcription of Aviello letter

Pages 4-8 of a fax dated 2 May 2009:

[Page 1 of 5 of the letter]

Al Tribunale Penale
Corte di Assise
Presidente Dr. Giancarlo Massei
Perugia

Oggetto: Processo a carico di
Sollecito Raffaele + &

Io sottoscritto Aviello Luciano,
nato a Napoli il 28.04 1969, attualmente
rsitretto, per motivi di giustizia, presso
la casa circondariale di Catanzaro,
con la presente, spontaneamente, denuncio
e chiarisco quanto segue:
Premesso cioè, sono molto disgustato
di come sia state speculata e distorta
dalla stampa e TG quando da me
e stato notiziato la S.U. circa
l’irruzione e il furto che vi è
stato nella casa di via della Pergola
dove e finita la ragazza , da me (- -?)sanizzato.
Sapevo dai primo giorno in cui
ho parlato con Raffaele Sollecito
nei carcere di Terni, che purtroppo
la sua vicenda giudiziaria era
diventato un farzo(?) mediatico, ma
non ho mai nascosto al Sollecito
tutto il mio stupore di ciò co(s?)e
apprendevo dai Dr. Marco Chiacchiera,
Dirigente dello S.C.O. Squadra

[page 2 of 5]
Mobila della Questura di Perugia
e alcuni suoi collaboratori.
In effetti, con totale cortezza,
ero, e sono certo dell’innocenza
di Raffaele Sollecito, non tanto
per ciò che lui può dire, ma
pensi da ciò che erano le
conoscenza mie e di persone che
co(- - ?), me avevano interessi illeciti.
A Perugia, e poi da più(?) che
apprendevo, e con molte stupore,
dal Dr. Chiacchiera e alcuni suoi
uomini in presenza dei sostituto
procuratore della Procura di
Perugia, Dr. Gabriele Pali(?),
infatti nel Marzo 2008 stavo iniziando
a collaborare con il Dr. Pali(?) e
il Dr. Chiacchiera, poichè era
stato ucciso un mio ed amico
di more(?) Salvatore Conte. In punte
avevano creato un gruppo mafioso
di ex pentiti(?) con a capo un
Siciliano e un Pugliese, ma
a seguito di comportare - - -?
scorrenti dei Dr. Chiacchiera
e di alcuni suoi uomini, non
decido più di collaborare e
sopratutto non vellevo più dare
il prove su alcuni delitti
ancora irrisolti a Perugia e
provincia.

[page 3 of 5]
Più volte ho ta(- -?)gato con il
Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, in punto,
dopo aver letto une missiva che
Raffaele Sollecito , mi donò con
un fazzoletto come ricordo della
nostra amicizia, voleva a tutti
i costi sequestare sia la missiva
che il fazzoletto, mi opposi porchè
nulla aveva at(o?)nenza con l’inca(-?)esta
dove Sollecito era indagato.
Il Dr. Chiacchiera e alcuni suoi
uomini sostenevano di conoscere
l’innocenza di Raffaele Sollecito
ma quest’ultimo, a detta dalla
Polizia dello S.C.O., stava coprendo
la sua fidanzata che sarebbe
(- -?) la vera autrice del delitto
M eredit.
Siccome avevo, e (h?)ò diversa
conoscenza del luogo di Perugia
sia perchè vi h(?)ò abbitato.-
(o?) sia perchè ho diversi amici
anche Albanesi, ho pensato
che voleva mandare un messaggio,
non solo a Dr. Marco Chiacchiera,
ma anche al Dr. Gabriele Pali,
che ero nelle disponibiltà
di poter mandare qu(- - ?) mio
amico nella casa di via della
Pergola a fra prendere alcuni
oggetti, ma sopratutto violando

[page 4 of 5]
[i] sigilli, cosa che è accaduto
come avevo ordinato.
Tale azione sta (- - - -?) a direstrare(?)
che un poco di buono core(?) me più
colpire quando vuole, infatti ve
lo sto dicendo, ma vi dico pure
che Raffaele Sollecito e innocente
e nulla a comesso poichè e un
bravo ragazzo, ma sarò poi chiaro.
Di sicuro pal(e?) credibilità sarà
datta alla mia persona sopratutto
per alcune vicende che mi hanno
visto coinvolto, ma anche assolto
con formula Lapini, ma di sicuro
me ne sono sempre assunto la
responsabilità quando ho ritrattato(?)
in (-- -?)une dichiarazioni:
non desidero alcuna pubblicità
ho notorietà ginech(?) in questo
delitto c’è solo da vergognarsi,
ma avevo le anni quando fui
arrestato per un delitto di
Camorra e dopo 18 mesi fui
assolto, quanto(?) seppur sono
stato un Camorista e quindi
colpevole di ciò che avevo fatto,
non lo ero per omicidio, così
come non lo è Sollecito!
In fine, esirio(?) Presidente, desidero
far presente che, all’ins(-?)pita
di Raffaele Sollecito, ho chiesto

[page 5 of 5]
ai miei amici (--?) capire se
qu(- - -?) balordo abbia mai
scassinato e uccisa Meredit, ebbano
un mio fratorno amico Albanese
mi comunicò in una missiva (che
conservo con vigore) che quel
delitto era opera di uno straniero
che abbita in Perugia, mi chiesero
se serviva una punizione ma io
ho detto di non muoversi.
Ebbe perchè(?) Raffaele Sollecito
è innocente, ma lui non sà
di questa mia iniziativa e
tanto meno che io scrivessi
alla U.S., ma a me poca importa
se liu è dall(- - ?) o meno, io
ero in dovere non tanto perchè
questo purtroppo è un caso mediatico,
me bensì perchè la Giustizia
Italiana se si (s?)en(t-?)ie(?) nei
confronti dei vari Dr. Chailchiera(?)
e i suoi collaboratori, è solo
da vergognarsi!
Resto a disposizione solo della U.S.
qun(-?)ora mi si chiede di consegnare
le varie missive del mio
amico Albanese dove mi racconta
il nome del vero assassino di
Meredit e i fatti veri!
Mi perdonino il disturbo ma
era mio dovere notiziarvi.

Catanzaro
30/04/2009
[signed]
Luciano Aviello
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Didn't they say there were 19 unidentified or not identifyables fingerprints in Merediths room.
I assume that the investigators checked this fingerprints with the all the fingerprint-files available?
Does anyone knows more about this?**

Another thing, that bothers me is that new story with Aviellos brothers burglary. Look at the fotos - never in 100 years a burglared room - that little dresser beside the bed - not even touched! All the books and other things on the table! Not even touched as well!
How will the defense explain: how Aviellos brother and his albanian burglar-friend
a) entered the house trough Filomenas window with leaving zero trace
b) why they thought there would have been precious paintings in this tiny little cottage
c) why didn't they break in the house like normal burglars do nowadays - cracking the front door key is a matter of less than one or two minutes I have been told. (only avoiding this way when the house has a burglar alarm)
d) normally a burglar starts immediately to rob the valuables. If he would be disturbed he would promptly try to escape, probably some of the stuff he already has, falling down.
e) as they decided, not to flee, and instead raped and killed Meredith, why was no sign of any fight either in Filomenas room nor in the hall or the kitchen.
What would have done Meredith allone in the house confronted with burglars! Yes! jump back in her room and lock her in and immediately call 112!

Any signs of such has occured?

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The fingerprints found were not useable, iirc, so they could not have been checked against a file
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
disinterested wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Barbie really gives much credence to the Aviello "confession" ( but she sounds like she does here):
The Daily Beast


I've come to the conclusion Barbie likes to hedge her bets pretty much in her articles/book. I don't think she actually believes this has legs for a moment. I think it's just about being a popular journalist, and being seen to give fair comment on both sides of the argument, whist not appearing too partisan. Anyone (and I cannot believe this does not apply to Barbie) who knows this man's history of confessing and attention-seeking cannot possibly take him seriously. He is 'eccentric' to say the least. The court were not interested and nor were RS's defence. If there had been a simple way out of this whole mess you can bet the court would have seized it - why go through the vilification if you don't have to? Just find the keys and knife. But of course there ARE no keys, there IS no knife. It's rubbish, and Barbie knows that as well as we do.

I actually feel a bit sad that this is what they have come up with, after all this time. It's not even 'new' information. If it had been that compelling they would have pushed it before now.

It's beginning to feel a bit mawkish watching Amanda and Raffaele heading for a 26 year stretch. I feel like a woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Seriously, if this is all they have Amanda and Raffaele are toast...


There are worse shows to be seen knitting at...

http://tinyurl.com/274v37z
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

fine wrote:
The Machine wrote:
There is a new article about Luciano Aviello on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/11 ... ox/?hpt=T3


_________________________

It gets worse. From that CNN article:

"Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 25, were found guilty in December 2009 of Kercher's murder and are serving sentences of 26 and 25 years, respectively. A third person, Rudy Guede, a drifter originally from the Ivory Coast, plead guilty to the murder and is serving a 16-year prison sentence."

///


Hada Messia and Mallory Simon have covered the case for a long time which makes their incompetence and unprofessionalism staggering. Rudy Guede didn't plead guilty even casual followers of the case know this basic fact.

It seems that it is obligatory for Innocentisti journalists to refer to Rudy Guede as a drifter but not to attach any value laden terms to Knox and Sollecito.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
EDIT: Michael ~ this post would make a great basis for an article on TJMK. Up for it Fiona?


Michael, I have just noticed this edit. I have never written an article of any kind for any purpose and I am not sure what would be entailed or why you think it worthwhile. But if you think I can do something I am very happy to help. You would have to give me some notion of what is required though
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Did anyone else notice that CNN referred to Marriott as one of Amanda's lawyers? (When they quoted him!)
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:17 pm   Post subject: Re: Aviello letter transcript (version 1 story)   

Catnip wrote:
Jools wrote:


Michael or anyone else:
Aviello’s hand written letter is difficult to read, is there a way that the PDF can be turn into a better, clearer image? Thanks!
Here is Barbie Nadeau PDF link:
http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2010/06/11/ ... 173395.pdf



Jools,

It's written hastily in pencil (and is almost as bad as my writing), and he has had it with Chiacchiera "and his men", shame on them!


For what it's worth: CatOCR scan, first pass, line-by-line, with corrections required (by better eyes):


Thank you Catnip!
cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:12 pm   Post subject: Knox - Van Sloot Defense Strategy Alignment   

Here's a useful table for reviewing key aspects of the Knox and Van der Sloot defense strategies ...

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: Knox - Van Sloot Defense Strategy Alignment   

norbertc wrote:
Here's a useful table for reviewing key aspects of the Knox and Van der Sloot defense strategies ...




Norbert:
There are actually quite a few parallels in the two cases.

Don't forget the all-important hiring of media advisers to TRY to shape public opinion. :roll: If you want to call that a "legal strategy."

Joran and Amanda... also...
...both claim to have been under the influence of marijuana during the time that the crime took place.

Assorted Trivia:
...Both Joran and Amanda are the first-born child in their respected families.
...Both Joran and Amanda have 2 or 3 younger siblings of their same gender.
...Both Joran and Amanda were born in the summer of 1987, less than one month apart (July 9 for Amanda and August 6 for Joran.)
...Both were "Honors Students"
...Both have mothers who are school teachers.

BOLINT'S POST:
"Van der Sloot's newly hired attorney, Maximo Altez, has asked Judge Buendia to declare his client's Monday confession void on the grounds he made it in the presence of a defense lawyer appointed by police.

Reached by the AP, Altez refused to discuss the case. He said Van der Sloot's schoolteacher mother, Anita, would be arriving early next week with the family's own "media adviser.""
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Amanda's minder/mentor fills us in on the latest personal chat. LOOK AWAY NOW if this isn't your sort of thing to read on PMF



I encourage all of you to check out the June 11th broadcast from ABC's 20/20 program; it's posted on the board below. As they did a few weeks ago with their story on Amanda Kelley, this week 20/20 details the false accusation case of Kevin Fox who was jailed for months facing the death penalty for the murder of his 3-year old daughter. An out of control prosecutor running for reelection, overzealous detectives, a 14-hour interrogation, physical intimidation during the interrogation, and a confession. But DNA evidence ultimately clears Kevin Fox just as Amanda Kelley was cleared by a closer examination of the actual evidence.

These mistakes happen in the US, they are not unique to Italy. Let's keep that in mind as we demand Amanda Knox's immediate release.

As for Amanda, I have not posted anything from her since May 19th. She and I are engaged in a frank discussion about certain issues. This is not our first such discussion. What I can share with you is that Amanda maintains a mature and emotionally appropriate style even when engaged in a difficult conversation. She retains her ability to be constructive and she listens very well. She is hardly the person prone to anger that prosecutors portray her to be, even though I sometimes challenge her and give her opportunities to be angry. It is simply not Amanda's way. Instead, she listens and forms her views and shares her views in a rational way. She's a rather normal person and I remain baffled at how anyone could think she is angry, violent, or capable of aggression. She is not aggressive, even at an intellectual level.

The story on Kevin Fox shows how a person like Amanda can be manipulated into a false confession. The community turned against him too. DNA ultimately saved his life, let's hope that the independent review of the DNA in Amanda's case sets her free too.

I'll be back to you with Amanda's next comments for this group.


signed Kelly
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:06 pm   Post subject: Don't look now   

Not that it relates to anything relevant in the grand scheme of things, but if you're googling around, you'll find that Mignini was obliged to ask for continued custody of an Hungarian "pornodiva" who was judged as somewhat too exhibitionistic at an Umbrian disco recently, where undercover detectives were ready and waiting after complaints by local mothers had been lodged at the Questura back in February. The Penal Code does not allow any discretion where under-age (i.e. under-18s, technically "minors") are involved, because the penalty is quite severe.

Panorama (of course) has an investigative blog entry up, complete with "exclusive" phone footage (of course) , here: "Brigitta Bulgari: Danger to the Public" -- WARNING for those who blush easily: both page and footage contains images of women in various states of undress (and there are also links to transgender articles and so on - the usual gossip mag stuff).

For US readers: nudity is often classified as "lewd and obscene" or "pornographic", depending on which state (and decade) you are in, so European tans often cause a kerfluffle, and films like Porky's are always so popular.


The connection is that Mignini has now become embedded into the public consciousness as the magistrate who led the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher. That's how he is described in the article.

The shock of one youngster killing another is still too great to fathom or to even begin to understand. It will take a while to come to terms with it. It's as if the innocent have lost their innocence.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:17 pm   Post subject: PREDICTIONS?   

Today, (June 12, 2010) marks the 16th anniversary of the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman murders outside Nicole's Los Angeles home .

Sixteen years have come and gone since the commission of those two brutal murders. It's staggering to look at everything that has happened to ALL the players in that "Trial of the Century" drama, ever since that infamous, tragic night.

Who could have predicted any of it, sixteen years ago?

Anyone here want to make (even vague) predictions about how things might end up playing out, 16 years from the date Meredith's murder?

That would be November 1, 2023. Just thirteen "short" years from now, folks!

The FOA's strategy is premised on the naive belief that one day Innocent Honors Student Little Angel Amanda will be released back into her family's loving arms. A ticker tape parade in Seattle led by Maria Cantwell. Then off with her agent Candace Dempsey, to do all the talk shows, showered with money and attention. Ain't life grand?

And then, she'll just "get on with her life," and with Amanda and her family acting as though all of this Perugia stuff was just a bad dream.

Sadly, that's just not likely to happen as planned.

Tragically, the FOA are just reinforcing Amanda's negative traits of denial, lying, and blaming others.

What are these traits going to look like... in a woman of 36 years of age? In someone who, like OJ and Joran IS ACCUSTOMED TO AND JUST ADORES being in the public spotlight, and hasn't acknowledged responsibility for anything?!

And, I don't mean to be macabre, but... in life, as we know from
Amanda's observation-- "Shit happens." Death and taxes. And other unpleasant, unexpected "stuff."

Of course, whoever could have predicted OJ's recent criminal conviction?
Or the untimely deaths of two important members of OJ's defense "Dream Team" Robert Kardashian, Johnnie Cochran?

Or perhaps OTHER key support people in a murderer's life....dying, (think of Joran Van Der Sloot's father, the influential judge, dying prematurely from a heart attack) ?

Her friends and family are doing nothing to prepare her for REAL ADULT LIFE. My prediction is that, if Amanda (as well as Raffaele) doesn't get REAL HELP--help that originates from their families-- she (and he) is just a ticking time bomb...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:54 pm   Post subject: Location, Location, Location!   

Pelerine wrote:
Didn't they say there were 19 unidentified or not identifyables fingerprints in Merediths room.
I assume that the investigators checked this fingerprints with the all the fingerprint-files available?
Does anyone knows more about this?**

Another thing, that bothers me is that new story with Aviellos brothers burglary. Look at the fotos - never in 100 years a burglared room - that little dresser beside the bed - not even touched! All the books and other things on the table! Not even touched as well!
How will the defense explain: how Aviellos brother and his albanian burglar-friend
a) entered the house trough Filomenas window with leaving zero trace
b) why they thought there would have been precious paintings in this tiny little cottage
c) why didn't they break in the house like normal burglars do nowadays - cracking the front door key is a matter of less than one or two minutes I have been told. (only avoiding this way when the house has a burglar alarm)d) normally a burglar starts immediately to rob the valuables. If he would be disturbed he would promptly try to escape, probably some of the stuff he already has, falling down.
e) as they decided, not to flee, and instead raped and killed Meredith, why was no sign of any fight either in Filomenas room nor in the hall or the kitchen.
What would have done Meredith allone in the house confronted with burglars! Yes! jump back in her room and lock her in and immediately call 112!

Any signs of such has occured?


These must have been the world's two most idiotic and amateur burglars on the planet. You would think that someone who had commissioned the heist of a few paintings would have chosen professionals for the job. And how they could even have thought for one minute that this cottage would contain valuable paintings is beyond me. Moreover, having somehow miraculously wound up in the wrong house, and seeing no valuable paintings on the wall, why not at least take some jewelry, designer sunglasses and at least two laptops sitting in plain view?

There was an interesting article in the mail online (dated 8/8/07) about the theft of a painting from a £1m home that had been seen on a television program. Here is an excerpt, and here are photos of the house from outside and the painting that was taken. At least this story makes basic sense:

Quote:
Viewers last Wednesday saw presenters Kirstie Allsopp and Phil Spencer tour the home in Langenhoe, Essex, in a bid to persuade a couple to buy it.
Two days later, intruders broke in through the window while the owners' 26-year-old daughter was in the kitchen and stole a £2,000 oil painting of a horse.


As for the unusable prints, they were smudged. BN wrote that they had probably been smudged in the wipe-down during the clean-up. If these guys were professional thieves for hire, they were likely wearing gloves. But who would ever pay these two ding-dongs to steal anything? And why didn't they simply jack open the front door? It was already faulty and would have taken no time at all, as Pelerine notes. Super inept thieves.


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

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

Offline tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I'd really love to know Rudy Guede's reaction to the Aviello claims. Any chance?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

From Kelly's update:

Quote:
As for Amanda, I have not posted anything from her since May 19th. She and I are engaged in a frank discussion about certain issues. This is not our first such discussion. What I can share with you is that Amanda maintains a mature and emotionally appropriate style even when engaged in a difficult conversation. She retains her ability to be constructive and she listens very well. She is hardly the person prone to anger that prosecutors portray her to be, even though I sometimes challenge her and give her opportunities to be angry. It is simply not Amanda's way. Instead, she listens and forms her views and shares her views in a rational way. She's a rather normal person and I remain baffled at how anyone could think she is angry, violent, or capable of aggression. She is not aggressive, even at an intellectual level.


How are these discussions being conducted? In writing, I suppose. And what do you suppose they could be about? I am assuming -- and hoping -- that Kelly is not engaging AK in discussions of a graphic nature about her sex life. It is more likely that he is trying to convert her to the Lord's way. I think Kelly belongs to some kind of proselytizing church and he has that missionary zeal that I associate with deeply creepy people, like the evil preacher in Night of the Hunter.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Kevin Fox case mentioned above.

Quote:
On a June night six years ago, Riley was sleeping in her Wilmington living room near her 6-year-old brother when she vanished, her blanket still on the couch. Her body, bound with duct tape and with signs of defensive wounds, was found in a nearby creek later that day.

Her father, Kevin Fox, was charged with murder and rape that October, but released after spending eight months in jail when DNA testing his family paid for cleared him. A federal jury later awarded Kevin and Melissa Fox $15.5 million, which an appeals court recently cut to $8 million.

The FBI began investigating the case about a year ago and were led to Eby by someone who knew him, Zellner said.

Eby is serving two consecutive seven-year sentences for a 2005 sex-assault conviction after forcing a relative to have sex with him while her husband slept in another room.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

More on art heists:

Here's en excerpt from an article that quotes a renowned expert based in Rome after a bunch of paintings were recently stolen from the Musée d'art moderne in Paris:


Quote:
But maybe the thief has a buyer already lined up — could the theft have been commissioned by a rich and unscrupulous art collector? Rykner is dubious. "That is something we almost never see, simply because billionaires have no problem finding Picassos and Braques on the art market, so why take the risk?" Théfo agrees: "This idea of a mad collector commissioning thefts to fill his home with works he can't show anyone mostly remains a myth," he says. "On the contrary, experience has shown that with this type of theft there are many possible explanations."

And those explanations probably involve organized crime and insurance company extortion scams or black market arms deals, according to Noah Charney, art history professor at the American University of Rome and founder of ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes against Art, Rome-based non-profit think tank. "The theft has all the markings of organized crime which, since the 1960s, has been responsible for most art crime worldwide," he says. "There is no market for such works, and they are most likely to either be ransomed, or to be used for trade or collateral on a closed black market, traded for other illicit goods such as drugs or arms between criminal groups." This, says Charney, is the "very serious and sinister side" of the thousands of art crimes reported annually worldwide. "Because of the involvement of organized crime groups, art theft fuels other crime types, from the drug and arms trades to terrorism."
(See the top 10 art accidents.)

To the dismay of art lovers everywhere, the Wednesday night heist was just the latest in a series of thefts of major works that France has seen over the past year, with Picasso proving to be a popular target. In January, some 30 paintings by Picasso and other artists — together valued at an estimated $1.5 million — were stolen from a private villa in the Cote d'Azur. And last June, a sketchbook containing more than 30 drawings and worth an estimated $4 million was stolen in the middle of the day from the Picasso Museum in Paris. "Picasso is far and away the most frequently stolen artist in history," says Charney.

Art historian Rykner finds the recent thefts maddening, but won't accept that "the only option left is to stop showing these works and keep everything locked up in safes." For now, though, that is just what the Museum of Modern art in Paris has had to do. On May 20, visitors to the museum found the doors closed, and on them a note saying the collections were closed to the public "due to technical difficulties."


Does anyone know if there were any amateur art collectors with decent collections (or at least one valuable painting) living in villas located in this section of Perugia?

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

More on the Kevin Fox case ...

Chicago Tribune, June 21, 2005
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/ar ... entid=1947

Quote:
"The Fox case is particularly significant because, unlike Bell, Fox does not suffer from mental illness or have a low IQ, two factors that experts say frequently contribute to suspects making false confessions.

Drizin said the tactics police used in the Fox case are often used in interrogations. The Fox case "should put to rest the myth that is promoted by law enforcement officers that false confessions are not the result of interrogation techniques," he said. "Law enforcement officials would like the public to believe only the mentally retarded or juveniles or other vulnerable suspects are likely to falsely confess when pressured by police."

Fox's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, said his interrogation began after he had worked all day. He had not eaten dinner. While he was being questioned, day had turned to night and back to day again.

The detectives, according to Zellner, said that Fox would be raped in the County Jail, showed him photos of the dead girl bound with duct tape, and told him if he did not confess he risked losing his only chance at a deal with the prosecutors.

Officers told him that his wife and family were abandoning him, Zellner said.

"He was so hopeless. He felt like there was no way out," said Zellner, who has represented other men who have made false confessions and been exonerated. "But he figured he'd bond out and then prove he was innocent.

"They said, you're going down for this, one way or the other," she added. "They told him there was a train leaving and he could either get on or get off. ... And they turned the cameras on for just the last 20 minutes."

In the videotape, said Zellner, Fox appears with his head down and his hand over his mouth, mostly mumbling. He does not explain how the murder happened in a narrative; instead he mostly gives brief assents.

What is missing from Fox's confession, according to Zellner, is mention of a key element of the crime that might have indicated that Fox was involved: the location of the underwear and capri pants his daughter was wearing the day she died.

The clothes, said Zellner, were not recovered. The real killer, she said, could have told police where they are. But the police do not ask Fox about them.

"It didn't have the crucial detail: Where were her underpants and her capri pants," Zellner said. "That would have been the thing that would have nailed it. That was the one thing the killer could have told them that they didn't already have.

"Everything else, they already knew about and fed to him."
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I've noticed that vociferous Knox supporters like Steve Moore and London John are claiming that Amanda Knox was coerced into making her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba. They seem to be forgetting three very important details:

1. They weren't actually present when Knox questioned.

2. They are relying on the word of Amanda Knox, a compulsive liar who has lied deliberately and repeatedly to the police, and her family and friends instead of the corroborative testimony of numerous witnesses, including Knox's interpreter.

3. They haven't provided any proof whatsoever that Knox was coerced into making her false allegation against Diya Lumumba.

Amanda Knox stated on at least four separate occasions that Lumumba had killed Meredith despite the fact that she knew he was completely innocent. She didn't recant this allegation the whole time he was in prison.

She asked for pen and paper on 6 November 2007, and reiterated everything she had told the police the night before. Nobody asked her to do this and nobody told her to repeat her accusation against Diya Lumumba.

She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007. She was aware that her accusation was unjust and that she was to blame for this accusation.

Knox must have realised the police were suspicious of her and Sollecito on 5 November and was clearly agitated. This would explan why she was hitting herself on the head when Sollecito was being questioned.

When she was informed that Sollecito had admitted they had lied to the police and that he was no longer providing her with an alibi, she must have known the game was up.

She was asked whether she had responded to Lumumba's text message. She told the police she hadn't replied to him. The police knew this wasn't true because they had her phone records. It was at this point that Knox broke down and first made her false accusation against Diya Lumumba.

If you read her two witness statements which were ruled inadmissible, you'll see that she unequivocally accuses Lumumba of murdering Meredith. She only raises the possibility that she might have seen and heard the events at the cottage in her five-page memorandum.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:

These mistakes happen in the US, they are not unique to Italy. Let's keep that in mind as we demand Amanda Knox's immediate release.

signed Kelly


Kelly,

Yes, mistakes do happen. A certain Joran van der Sloot was freed due to lack of evidence in Aruba and we now have another victim.

Based on the evidence I've seen, I'm very happy that Sollecito and Knox were denied house arrest and are now behind bars. In case you have not followed my posts, please know that I was originally outraged at the Knox conviction - and not just because my wife is from Seattle (Magnolia). No way could she have done this! But then I looked more closely. Yes, charming, smart kids with nice families can do very bad things.

If you actually are in contact with Amanda Knox, the best thing you could do for her is encourage her to tell the truth. I believe that an honest, complete confession would be a first step towards rehabilitation and eventual freedom; and it would provide Meredith's family with a measure of peace.

We can debate the hard evidence as much as we want, but I know in my heart that an innocent person would have acted very, very differently in that Perugia courtroom. She's not only a killer, but a liar - and a poor one at that.

Norbert


Last edited by norbertc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

England v USA about to kick off. If it goes quiet for a bit, that's why. If England lose I don't guarantee any of this 'being a good loser' business. How DO the male population manage to persuade the female population that this actually MATTERS? I have no idea. I just know I feel very nervous right now, and am wondering why David James has not been put in goal...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Bard wrote:
"England v USA about to kick off."

Yes. Also In Seattle. :D

Quote:
“We needed extra staff,” says Gerry Leonard, the general manager of Fado Irish Pub in Seattle. “We’ve already hired extra guys for the kitchen, extra guys for the front of the house.”

So does this indicate that the nation is turning the fiscal corner?

Not really.

It just means that plenty of people in Seattle like watching corner kicks. Seattle is a city in which support for Major League Soccer’s Sounders is as strong as — or stronger than — it is for Major League Baseball’s Mariners, with average crowds greater than 35,000 per match. And Fado’s is ranked the No. 1 soccer bar by the U.S. Soccer Federation.

So the World Cup is responsible for this job creation.

Soccer is the stimulus.

“We’re going to show every single game live,” Leonard says.

In that effort, Fado’s managers, cooks, bartenders and servers promise sleeplessness, virtually from the start of the World Cup’s month-long South Africa run. The tournament begins Friday, and Saturday, matches commence as early as 4:30 a.m. PT. Leonard will open the doors 15 minutes before that, seven hours earlier than usual. During most of the day, Leonard is expecting crowds close to the pub’s 400-person capacity, especially during the United States’ highly anticipated matchup with England (which starts at 11:30 a.m. PT). The pub will close at 2 a.m., as usual.

“Then it’s time to clean the place up, and start all over again,” Leonard says.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

As I'm from Cape Town, am feeling very homesick.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
England v USA about to kick off. If it goes quiet for a bit, that's why. If England lose I don't guarantee any of this 'being a good loser' business. How DO the male population manage to persuade the female population that this actually MATTERS? I have no idea. I just know I feel very nervous right now, and am wondering why David James has not been put in goal...


Maybe because of his uniqueness? :lol: :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud9ev2dp5xw

Capello is a wise man!

GO ENGLAND! pp-( pp-( pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Amanda's appeal info:

Amanda's Appeal has a very detailed attack on Quintavalle that goes into testimony of 2 officers. He only spoke about the day or two after the murder. Amanda's Appeal really goes after Quintavalle because he was also shown & asked about Amanda in mid November. He told 2 officers she came there on 2 or so occasions, always with RS, and not on Nov 02, 2007. He was shown pictures of both and he said she was not there that morning. In his Oct. 2008 statement & tv appearance he said she had a grey coat on, and they never found it. It's different then the red coat guy. He also told them in Oct. He only saw the side of her face, then at trial says her dark blue eyes he'll never forget. He is really attacked hard by Amanda in the Appeal.




and advice what to do with the criminal's testimony:

But yes. I think they should take Aviello to dig his backyard to find both keys and knife. However if he can't find anything, they should bury him alive in the hole, like Cosa Nostra sometimes does with their enemies. That will stop these people from continually make these claims. It's becoming ridiculous overthere.
Top Profile 

Offline gardner


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:37 pm

Posts: 46

Location: Ohio USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I am having some perverse pleasure in watching the progress of the upcoming release of the Massei Report. I would think the Friends of Amanda are watching this site, if only to know when to release their canned comments on the report. I hope the suspense is maddening and that they have the good sense to wait an appropriate length of time before making any comments; remembering seeing Edda commenting within hours of the release of the Italian version. I was surprised to read that Edda Mellas has not read the Candace Dempsey book, so I can only imagine she will not be reading the Massei report. I really don’t expect the release of the translated report to have any effect on the people who are ardent supporters of the innocence of Amanda. The FOA will just keep ignoring the facts and repeating their lies. But the press will have a chance to have a go at it, and there have been several keen reporters of this case.

I have no sympathy for Amanda, Raffaele, Curt Knox , Edda Mellas and some of the high profile FOA’s. My main reason is their “head in the sand” approach to this trial. I remember being struck when I first learned early on, that Knox and Mellas hired the Marriott Public Relations firm to handle this case. And was even more irritated that no one hired a translator to sit with them through the trial. I do have sympathy for the children. It is a pity that the children must watch such behaviors of not taking responsibility for your actions…..none of them are taking responsibility. It makes me ill thinking about the lies Curt and Edda have told. They never bought a plane ticket for Amanda to bring her home after the verdict. I remember Curt telling that lie with such emotion…and even back then I remember saying “show me the ticket!”, the cynic that I am..
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

gardner wrote:
I am having some perverse pleasure in watching the progress of the upcoming release of the Massei Report. I would think the Friends of Amanda are watching this site, if only to know when to release their canned comments on the report. I hope the suspense is maddening and that they have the good sense to wait an appropriate length of time before making any comments; remembering seeing Edda commenting within hours of the release of the Italian version. I was surprised to read that Edda Mellas has not read the Candace Dempsey book, so I can only imagine she will not be reading the Massei report. I really don’t expect the release of the translated report to have any effect on the people who are ardent supporters of the innocence of Amanda. The FOA will just keep ignoring the facts and repeating their lies. But the press will have a chance to have a go at it, and there have been several keen reporters of this case.

I have no sympathy for Amanda, Raffaele, Curt Knox , Edda Mellas and some of the high profile FOA’s. My main reason is their “head in the sand” approach to this trial. I remember being struck when I first learned early on, that Knox and Mellas hired the Marriott Public Relations firm to handle this case. And was even more irritated that no one hired a translator to sit with them through the trial. I do have sympathy for the children. It is a pity that the children must watch such behaviors of not taking responsibility for your actions…..none of them are taking responsibility. It makes me ill thinking about the lies Curt and Edda have told. They never bought a plane ticket for Amanda to bring her home after the verdict. I remember Curt telling that lie with such emotion…and even back then I remember saying “show me the ticket!”, the cynic that I am..


You are absolutely right. Within 48 hours, Edda Mellas was on television denouncing the Massei report as being filled with contradictions, suppositions, etc. She could not possibly have read it in Italian because she doesn't read Italian; she canno possibly have read a translation of it because no such document was available within 48 hours; it is very likely that her main sources for its content (IMO Simon and Marriott) had not read it themselves for similar reasons. Let's assume that in the meantime Simon, Marriott et al have gotten it translated. Don't you think this would be the reasonable thing to do, so that they can address its contents and reasoning? Yet the document seems not to exist or be available in English; at any rate, no one appears to be interested in making the English version available to a wider public. It doesn't sound to me as if ANY of the non-Italian speaking journalists have read it in English.

As for the alleged plane ticket home, let's just say that Curt Knox was probably exaggerating. No one in the family had personally gone out and purchased this ticket, but it made for such a nifty soundbite that they couldn't resist. And besides, having secured an exclusive or two, we can imagine that under the terms of this excluisive or two would be footage of the happy travelers flying home to celebrate the victory. Surely those who got the coveted exclusive or two would be paying for everyone's airfare. So the ticket was as good as purchased as far as Curt Knox was concerned.

Many people would find his statement dishonest under the circumstances and I too would be more willing to believe it if I saw the actual ticket and a receipt for its purchase.

In much the same way, Knox and Mellas vehemently deny that any negotiations took place for a paid interview with AK in prison.

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
gardner wrote:
I am having some perverse pleasure in watching the progress of the upcoming release of the Massei Report. I would think the Friends of Amanda are watching this site, if only to know when to release their canned comments on the report. I hope the suspense is maddening and that they have the good sense to wait an appropriate length of time before making any comments; remembering seeing Edda commenting within hours of the release of the Italian version. I was surprised to read that Edda Mellas has not read the Candace Dempsey book, so I can only imagine she will not be reading the Massei report. I really don’t expect the release of the translated report to have any effect on the people who are ardent supporters of the innocence of Amanda. The FOA will just keep ignoring the facts and repeating their lies. But the press will have a chance to have a go at it, and there have been several keen reporters of this case.

I have no sympathy for Amanda, Raffaele, Curt Knox , Edda Mellas and some of the high profile FOA’s. My main reason is their “head in the sand” approach to this trial. I remember being struck when I first learned early on, that Knox and Mellas hired the Marriott Public Relations firm to handle this case. And was even more irritated that no one hired a translator to sit with them through the trial. I do have sympathy for the children. It is a pity that the children must watch such behaviors of not taking responsibility for your actions…..none of them are taking responsibility. It makes me ill thinking about the lies Curt and Edda have told. They never bought a plane ticket for Amanda to bring her home after the verdict. I remember Curt telling that lie with such emotion…and even back then I remember saying “show me the ticket!”, the cynic that I am..


You are absolutely right. Within 48 hours, Edda Mellas was on television denouncing the Massei report as being filled with contradictions, suppositions, etc. She could not possibly have read it in Italian because she doesn't read Italian; she canno possibly have read a translation of it because no such document was available within 48 hours; it is very likely that her main sources for its content (IMO Simon and Marriott) had not read it themselves for similar reasons. Let's assume that in the meantime Simon, Marriott et al have gotten it translated. Don't you think this would be the reasonable thing to do, so that they can address its contents and reasoning? Yet the document seems not to exist or be available in English; at any rate, no one appears to be interested in making the English version available to a wider public. It doesn't sound to me as if ANY of the non-Italian speaking journalists have read it in English.

As for the alleged plane ticket home, let's just say that Curt Knox was probably exaggerating. No one in the family had personally gone out and purchased this ticket, but it made for such a nifty soundbite that they couldn't resist. And besides, having secured an exclusive or two, we can imagine that under the terms of this excluisive or two would be footage of the happy travelers flying home to celebrate the victory. Surely those who got the coveted exclusive or two would be paying for everyone's airfare. So the ticket was as good as purchased as far as Curt Knox was concerned.

Many people would find his statement dishonest under the circumstances and I too would be more willing to believe it if I saw the actual ticket and a receipt for its purchase.

In much the same way, Knox and Mellas vehemently deny that any negotiations took place for a paid interview with AK in prison.


Isn’t Edda’s reaction just reflecting the tone of every interview before the verdict and since? They rely on the vast majority of people not knowing very much about the case so their spin can work. The same will go for the translation of the report; they can spin it how they like as only those with an interest will bother to read it. The usual talking heads will be free to misquote as they please as very few people will bother to look for the report. You only have to look at the comments sections after any news paper report to see how the spin has worked.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:54 am   Post subject: State of the World   

Brogan wrote:
.... The usual talking heads will be free to misquote as they please as very few people will bother to look for the report. You only have to look at the comments sections after any news paper report to see how the spin has worked.





The spin rule is, I think:

-- "If I can see the propellor turning, then the spin machine has not worked and is just blowing hot air."

If we don't have the spin rule, then everyone has to pretend we are playing the "emperor has no clothes on" game, and (re)act accordingly.

Not many people "out there" will have the luxury or the naivety to devote time to playing pretend games, let alone real games.

I find the current state of the world to be summarised quite well by this blog post:


RomoloR wrote:


A new look for Amanda Knox: very short hair, no smile on her face, plumped up visage, like that of her mother Emma Mendes (sic). The freshness has vanished: now 22 years old, the young lady (ragazza) found guilty in the first instance [trial] of the murder of Meredith Kercher has lines on her forehead. Here’s the young American, who wore in court a décolleté yellow top, buttoned, short-sleeved. Her slacks (US: trousers, pants) are white, like the reputation she has to rebuild.

Yesterday: laughing, loose hair, clear lipstick, eyes bright and sparkling. A look the lay jury would not have liked. And, maybe on the advice of her lawyers, Knox gave in to a penitent air.

The girl (ragazza) has been unable to find prison work and spends all her time writing letters and translating texts.

In England, the victim’s home country, there are people beginning to feel sorry for her: “if she were here with us, she’d be out on parole after 4 years; in Italy, instead, she’s languishing in gaol” – so a reader of one of the dailies comes to her defence.

But most people think that if Amanda had not told lies in her initial statements, she would not have been found guilty. And that her pain and suffering is small in comparison to that of Meredith’s family.

– [ Blog ], 01 June 2010
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:33 am   Post subject: Who's looking at you?   

As an aside,


The Injustice crew (here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/) seems to have fallen into the “Mirror Reflection” fallacy.

First thing, they should change their name to reflect their true goal, otherwise careful readers will conclude from their comments that their goal really is injustice, rather than justice.

For example, at Doug Berman’s blog, [ here ] (he’s a law professor at Ohio State and blogs about law and sentencing), when he posted about the conviction news: “I know next to nothing about Italian criminal procedure and sentencing, but I am intrigued to learn that the high-profile murder prosecution of American Amanda Knox concluded today with a conviction and the imposition of a stiff sentence”, and then quoted a CNN report, the comment put up by Injustice’s Questor in response to Harry Rag’s brief of evidence, beginning with the words:

The lengthy list of half truths above sounds very damning until you look closer and find that it is just a laundry list of prosecution and even tabloid leak factoids. ...

– Questor | May 18, 2010 2:21:59 PM


reveals that Questor has not realised yet that there is a difference between “the import of (an idea or meaning)” and “the purport of (an idea or meaning)” – plus, also, the lack of any cited authority or evidence supporting the “factoids” part of the submission is also a giveaway in terms of naïvety, but that is another matter.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that every case is “just a laundry list” of agreed facts and disputed facts, whether from the prosecution or the defence, Questor’s “oratory-of-the-soap-box”-style is a case of fielding a working tactic (the “Here’s a laundry list of reasons why Amanda should be freed” clause) to the detriment of the strategy (satisfactorily objectively answering the inevitable mirror “But…” clause).

The use of weasel words is also a sign of ethical naïvety, but that, too, is another matter. (e.g., a list of exactly one half-truth is as damaging as a swarm of them; it is not compulsory for it to be a “lengthy list” – witness Marilyn and the communists; conversely, having a bunch of half-truths does not reinforce the “half-truthiness” of something like a bunch of truths does to the “truthiness” of something).

The import of my wanting, and presenting a case, to free Amanda does not carry the purport that what I am saying must be accepted without question, and that the case has the intrinsic merits to stand on its own legs.

It could stand on its own legs, but not by the way the Injustice crew are going about it.

Another example from the same set of blog comments:

Let's documents (sic) what commentators in the US are saying:

Barbie Latza Nadeau (Author, Newsweek Correspondent,7-Apr-10 )
"I was in Perugia when those op-ed pieces came out [Tim Egan New York Times Jun-09] and they were not helpful to Amanda. The prosecutor was angry, the jury members were insulted.”

Judge Michael Heavey (Seattle area Superior Court Judge)
“The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda. A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions.”
– PhanuelB | May 19, 2010 6:42:06 AM


Barbie said: “not helpful to Amanda”.

This does not mean that the prosecution’s case must be dismissed.

It means that Tim Egan’s piece was not helpful to Amanda. (In fact, Tim Egan’s intemperate lambasting is not helpful to anybody, including his paper’s bottom line, but that is another matter.)

And Judge Heavey’s remark about being caught up in false speculation, of making illegal and false statements to the press, and of these false reports wrongfully poisoning the well of public opinion against Amanda, all of that will only work for the Free-Amanda case if you trust him 110% and believe in him forever and ever, amen. (His words are coming back to haunt him, or, as we say here in Oz, “coming back to bite him on the bum”, like a dog you just kicked; but that is another matter.)

Now, to go completely and utterly Machiavellian for a moment:

If I wanted to bring down my most bitter enemy, from a distance, and without being seen, I would do exactly what the person who put the flea into the ear of the honorable judge did (and into the ear of the ostensible lawyer on TV and a few others): I would “help”, with suggestions and "facts" and information, and let the wheels of “justice” turn, and the Furies would be unleashed. What better revenge? What better victory? Almost a counter-prank, in fact, of the uttermost standard.

That would be the import of my actions. Who is to deny that that is also not their purport?

But that is another matter.

I am not like that.
Not usually, anyway. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I really cannot understand, what drives all this FOA-people. Is it the wish to be in the limelight (no matter from what direction that light comes). I don't adjudge people for having another point of view, as long as their opinion has something to do with rationality. Maybe there has been some sort of reality at the very beginning - but I doubt it.
Can it be that they really believe what they are talking about? It's getting more and more grotesque
with every new blog or comment. Seams that everybody now is in rivalry to be 'the' hero to 'rescue the girl' out of the claws of this italian monsters.
No assertion too false, no insult too severe, no bias too riduculous - the whole process has gained his momentum - all about guilters, Amanda-haters, third world people, boycott Italia-movements, kangaroo-courts and on and on rolls this avalanche.

But besides all the anger about this folks we should not let us mislead - This is only a circle (circus) of maybe few hundred (if!) persons, the louder they sing, the falser the tune!

As one italian comment was so refreshing to read:
Una definizione che spesso sento dare del nostro paese è: “dove tutto funziona anche se non funziona nulla”. La mia impressione è che la stampa del mondo civile si stia stufando di capirci e che alla fine ci lasceranno cuocere nel nostro brodo più preoccupati del fatto che il nostro esempio non si estenda nei loro paesi.

Meaning that the Italians say about their country: "Where everything works well when even nothing works at all." The media of the world are getting tired to understand and is worried that our system could spread out in their countries. Finally they must let us cook our own soup!
(a bumpy translation - but hopefully the meaning comes across).

***

And there is something, I would like to write into the FOA-album: From the Scott Peterson case:

In later press appearances, members of the jury stated that they felt that Peterson's demeanor—specifically, his lack of emotion, and the phone calls to Amber Frey in the days following Laci's disappearance—indicated that he was guilty. They based their verdict on "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence that came out during the trial, from the location of Laci Peterson's body to the myriad of lies her husband told after her disappearance." They also decided on the death penalty because they felt Peterson betrayed his responsibility to protect his wife and son.[27]

Sounds somewhat similar, doesn't it ?

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
undecided wrote:
The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:
This case just gets 'curiouser and curiouser'.....


No, it doesn't. The fact that the defence teams are relying on the ridiculous claims of a convicted child killer and a convicted mobster shows that they are desperately clutching at straws.


---what I am not clear on is why two convicts have stepped forward
in an attempt to clear A.K. and R.S.---


I must admit I am baffled by this too. If the idea is to somehow curry favour with the authorities then how does flagrant lying/wasting police time endear them to the ILE? Surely it would have the opposite effect, once their stories prove to be a load of old bollocks. They may be charged with wasting time. I also don't really see how it does anything positive for AK or RS either, since once the evidence is shown to be nonsense it will just look like desperation, and siding with a baby murderer and a thug in order to try and paint Amanda as innocent; in fact it tarnishes them and her that they are using these fantasists in the defence.

Has anyone any idea WHY these convicts are volunteering this nonsense?

Mental illness? Attention seeking/nothing to lose?

I don't get it...


You'd be surprised if you knew how much little money is required to make these jailbirds sing any tune you wish.

This is an article from "Il Mattino". Naples' newspaper, Aviello's hometown:
http://www.ilmattino.it/articolo.php?id ... sez=NAPOLI

The article tells you what kind of trash this Aviello is.
Do you know why he ended up in jail the FIRST time?
Because he confessed to murder. A murder he had not committed.
But he had been promised some money (5 million Lire, really not much at the time of that "confession". A motorcycle I purchased back then cost me twice as much.), a lawyer and an annuity.

The article also mentions that Aviello has a history of making these "revelations".
They always turned out to be false !

Judge Federico Cafiero (who followed Aviello's case back then) defines Aviello as "completely unreliable".
Always coming out with these "revelations" that turned out to be "utter nonsense".

The "Il Mattino" article does not write that "Aviello is a piece of shit" because they cannot by law.
But it's quite clear what they think of him if you read the article.

AK and RS are getting really desperate.


Well, although (in light of your post, Clander), it does seem as if
A.K. and R.S. are clutching at straws in putting this sort of thing
in their appeal, A.K. and R.S. didn't seem to influence this particular
person to come forward. If that were the case, pretty stupid move
indeed. Why would this person come forward to defend R.S. and A.K.?
That's the part that makes me wonder.

As for Alessi--well, convicts talk to convicts.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Guede mentioned a few things to
Alessi. Even more interesting that Alessi has been moved to another prison.
Him and Guede must not be 'getting along'...! I

I'm not sure that R.G. didn't tell Alessi some story or other,
being serious or bragging, who knows. This alleged 'coming clean' to Alessi may not have
happened at all.

What I'm not clear on is why two separate people have come forward to
give information. In some cases, if a convict provides useful information to
authorities, their prison sentence can be reduced. Other times not.
I have read that it depends on the 'level' of the informant's cooperation.
One thing I do know, is that police/federal governments rely on convicts
to snitch on each other.

As Bard mentioned, I'd be interested to know what kind of punishment these
men could receive for wasting time and man power?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Amanda's minder/mentor fills us in on the latest personal chat. LOOK AWAY NOW if this isn't your sort of thing to read on PMF



I encourage all of you to check out the June 11th broadcast from ABC's 20/20 program; it's posted on the board below. As they did a few weeks ago with their story on Amanda Kelley, this week 20/20 details the false accusation case of Kevin Fox who was jailed for months facing the death penalty for the murder of his 3-year old daughter. An out of control prosecutor running for reelection, overzealous detectives, a 14-hour interrogation, physical intimidation during the interrogation, and a confession. But DNA evidence ultimately clears Kevin Fox just as Amanda Kelley was cleared by a closer examination of the actual evidence.

These mistakes happen in the US, they are not unique to Italy. Let's keep that in mind as we demand Amanda Knox's immediate release.

As for Amanda, I have not posted anything from her since May 19th. She and I are engaged in a frank discussion about certain issues. This is not our first such discussion. What I can share with you is that Amanda maintains a mature and emotionally appropriate style even when engaged in a difficult conversation. She retains her ability to be constructive and she listens very well. She is hardly the person prone to anger that prosecutors portray her to be, even though I sometimes challenge her and give her opportunities to be angry. It is simply not Amanda's way. Instead, she listens and forms her views and shares her views in a rational way. She's a rather normal person and I remain baffled at how anyone could think she is angry, violent, or capable of aggression. She is not aggressive, even at an intellectual level.

The story on Kevin Fox shows how a person like Amanda can be manipulated into a false confession. The community turned against him too. DNA ultimately saved his life, let's hope that the independent review of the DNA in Amanda's case sets her free too.

I'll be back to you with Amanda's next comments for this group.


signed Kelly



Argh - Kelly_post, sound the klaxons - epic levels of inbound smugness alert!

I love the hypocrisy of the man. We've seen several posts from Kelly, aka the Minister for Truth & Information, exhorting, nay instructing the peons to keep it lightweight and insubstantial in their messages for Amanda. And yet here we see him, once again (and he does this an awful lot) enjoying telling the peons that he can't tell them the substance of his serious and deep conversations with Amanda. He's in a "frank" conversation with her so he's obviously giving her the benefit of his considered life experience and correcting something 'wrong' on her part. You, you lowly peasants, tell her your nice personal stories, nothing heavy allowed, keep it to one side, use coloured pencils to keep it happy. But me and Mandy, well we got serious stuff that's going on. Watch and wonder children because the adults are talking.

I've tried to refrain from using too much lawyerly technical jargon when posting on the board but in this case I think it's merited; He's what we call a "grade A prat".

_________________
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 Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Don't you wonder what these hard discussions that challenge AK are all about? There's only one topic that should be at the top of the list. Just what does she need challenging about if not her lies?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Don't you wonder what these hard discussions that challenge AK are all about? There's only one topic that should be at the top of the list. Just what does she need challenging about if not her lies?



I'm with Skep - I think it is indeed probably an evangelical "outretch" on the part of the Minister. Sorry, outreach I mean.

Sat here on the train going South, poorer, lightly hungover, I was reminded of a song by my fave band ever, Jane's Addiction, called "Ted, Just Admit It" which is about Ted Bundy and features a sample of him being interviewed while he was still denying it all. One of the verses in it struck me again looking at the latest Kelly_post;

You talk too much
To your scapegoat
That's what I say
He tells you everyone is stupid
That's what he thinks!

Amanda has Kelly to entertain her while she's stuck in chokey. This unreconstructed rocker \m/ \m/ has free wi-fi and a hangover correcting glass of white wine on the go. Frankly, I fancy my version :)

_________________
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: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Kelly is so propriatorial towards Amanda. I am happy to repeat my 'outrageous' criticisms of Amanda's parents in expressing extreme disquiet about allowing this leech to get his claws into her. She's in a vulnerable situation and he's exploiting it. He's exploiting his position. 'He's a religious man!!!!'. Yeah, they're often the worst. Nuff said. Any spiritual guidance should come from the prison chaplain alone. Having this creep exploit AK in the way he does is disturbing IMO. Controlling what people can/can't write to her??? That is the job of her parents if anyone (it's not like Curt and Chris have a full time paying job or anything). Nah, it's just more negligence. Charlie, Kelly, and a mafia fantasist. It's becoming clearer by the day how AK became foolish enough to get herself into this mess. With parents this careless with their children it's no wonder. They clearly have never taught her to be cautious who they mix with.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Don't you wonder what these hard discussions that challenge AK are all about? There's only one topic that should be at the top of the list. Just what does she need challenging about if not her lies?



I'm with Skep - I think it is indeed probably an evangelical "outretch" on the part of the Minister. Sorry, outreach I mean.

Sat here on the train going South, poorer, lightly hungover, I was reminded of a song by my fave band ever, Jane's Addiction, called "Ted, Just Admit It" which is about Ted Bundy and features a sample of him being interviewed while he was still denying it all. One of the verses in it struck me again looking at the latest Kelly_post;

You talk too much
To your scapegoat
That's what I say
He tells you everyone is stupid
That's what he thinks!

Amanda has Kelly to entertain her while she's stuck in chokey. This unreconstructed rocker \m/ \m/ has free wi-fi and a hangover correcting glass of white wine on the go. Frankly, I fancy my version :)


Hi SA! I guess the hangover is due to drowning sorrows after the abysmal performance by the England team last night. Where was Rooney? Who was the amateur goalie, and why didn't they bring Dafoe on? These are just a few of the unanswered questions in my mind today. In the glorious (but allowed on PMF!!!) words from The Thick Of it 'Come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off'*. The team have lots to do to win back the (always misplaced) confidence of the nation next Friday, or I am done with international football forever. At least Liverpool provided man of the match Gerrard.

*Apologies for any offence, but ref a private ongoing expletive discussion thread between me and SA on pm. I love words, me.

Have another glass on me SA!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Take your filthy football talk out of my face!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
Take your filthy football talk out of my face!!


Are you an ABE????!!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Just been scanning back over some news articles and came across this quote from December 2009:

Amanda Knox has hit out at American criticism of the Italian judicial system and said she received a fair trial. The 22-year-old from Seattle - sentenced to 26 years for the sex murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21 - was speaking to Italian MP Walter Verini from her cell at Capanne jail, near Perugia.

Knox, known by her internet nickname of Foxy Knoxy, said her rights were respected, adding: 'It was a fair trial. I am not happy with the verdict but my lawyers are appealing it. I have faith in the Italian justice system. I have heard about the reaction in America and from a human point of view it's appreciated, but it doesn't help me...I was able to defend myself in my trial and my rights were respected.'


Was this the incident that Curt and Edda denied ever happened? Does anyone remember?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Kelly is so propriatorial towards Amanda. I am happy to repeat my 'outrageous' criticisms of Amanda's parents in expressing extreme disquiet about allowing this leech to get his claws into her. She's in a vulnerable situation and he's exploiting it. He's exploiting his position. 'He's a religious man!!!!'. Yeah, they're often the worst. Nuff said. Any spiritual guidance should come from the prison chaplain alone. Having this creep exploit AK in the way he does is disturbing IMO. Controlling what people can/can't write to her??? That is the job of her parents if anyone (it's not like Curt and Chris have a full time paying job or anything). Nah, it's just more negligence. Charlie, Kelly, and a mafia fantasist. It's becoming clearer by the day how AK became foolish enough to get herself into this mess. With parents this careless with their children it's no wonder. They clearly have never taught her to be cautious who they mix with.



Completely agree. He's come from the charity / foundation / organisation that supports American prisoners abroad so he had "credentials" to the family. But I feel sorry for them now. He's made his evangelical play for her once already (see his own previous posts) and anyone who can take a step back for a second ought to find, I really feel, these egotistical and proprietorial posts of his pretty worrying indeed.

There is a lot of value in having an independent, impartial voice for a long-term prisoner to talk to, both in the prison and outside of it. However the outside person should be (in my opinion) a qualified counsellor or trained psychotherapist. Introducing a personal religious conviction into the conversation, as we know he has done already, should be a flagrant breach of the charter of any non-faith based charitable organisation aimed to deliver this support. If, on the other hand, the organisation was set up on faith-based precepts, Amanda's family should have been highly alert to the dangers of evangelical "support".

You get do-gooders trying to associate themselves with famous cases. They really can't help themselves. But Amanda is in a bad spot and is probably fairly vulnerable at the moment. The family should give the control of other people's letters to her to DJ or Madison or any of the other legion of *known* friends and family if Amanda can't handle opening negative letters. Personally, I can't believe she receives any of these any more. (We note of course, Edda's flagrent untruth in her television interview that Amanda had only received one negative letter and that was with an english postmark - if that were true, this mechanism wouldn't have been needed to be put in place. Why *do* they have to lie about stuff like this? It's just *odd*). Then they should make available a qualified counsellor or psychotherapist who would observe professional rules of the road in their interaction with Amanda and pursue a trained and structured approach to improving her mental well being. That's what she actually needs.

I've been working with a number of charities over the past five or six years and given the day job and that experience, I'm pretty informed now on the codes of conduct for such organisations. Like I said, if the organisation is faith-based, the family should be wise to it. If it is not and even if he is acting in a personal category and not representing the organisation, what Kelly is doing by introducing his personal religious beliefs into this dialogue is, to me, offside. Of course, he won't understand that for a minute because he's doing the lord's work p-)) wan-) . The family should be protecting her from it. Hate it :(

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Take your filthy football talk out of my face!!


Are you an ABE????!!!!


Per the english chant at the football last night when the USA team appeared;

Are you Scotland?
Are you Scotland?
Are you Scotland in disguise....
Are you Scaw-ut-land in..dis..guise....

I think Fiona's an ABF. Anything But Footie.... :)

_________________
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: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
You get do-gooders trying to associate themselves with famous cases. They really can't help themselves.


Remember Lord Longford making a fool of himself over Myra Hindley...? I think doing good is a compulsion for some, and it comes with a weighted agenda very often.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Pelerine wrote:

In later press appearances, members of the jury stated that they felt that Peterson's demeanor—specifically, his lack of emotion, and the phone calls to Amber Frey in the days following Laci's disappearance—indicated that he was guilty. They based their verdict on "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence that came out during the trial, from the location of Laci Peterson's body to the myriad of lies her husband told after her disappearance." They also decided on the death penalty because they felt Peterson betrayed his responsibility to protect his wife and son.[27]

Sounds somewhat similar, doesn't it ?


I'm in the middle of a much longer comparison with the Peterson trial then my first one I did last december (http://wp.me/pJxTV-4). Its quite revealing; almost scary in how much matches up. Its really the Peterson case that's a parallel for this, not the Van Der Sloot one..

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Michael wrote:
Jools wrote:
What's amazing is that UK and US media give space to Aviello's story telling as told by Giangavino Sulas. Here is the front page of this week OGGI magazine which is where the 'story' originated from and Anglo journalists copied & pasted.
http://www.oggi.it/focus/06-2010/pentit ... 8131.shtml






Just in case anyone wants a laugh, this is what LondonJohn says about OGGI magazine:


LondonJohn wrote:
Only, Oggi is not a "glossy and gossipy Italian women's magazine". It's a fairly well-respected news and features magazine - covering politics, culture and society as well as lifestyle. Apparently, it's famous for its in-depth articles and its editorials:

http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/3/news/1/17417

I wonder where and why the idea arose that Oggi was essentially a gossip rag, with the implication of low editorial values and a focus on non-serious issues...?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=1699

Yes, it's the stuff that one finds at most hairdressors for the clients to peruse while waiting or getting their hair done.

It is definitely a "glossy and gossipy Italian women's magazine". My girlfriend buys it sometimes.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
You get do-gooders trying to associate themselves with famous cases. They really can't help themselves.


Remember Lord Longford making a fool of himself over Myra Hindley...? I think doing good is a compulsion for some, and it comes with a weighted agenda very often.



And Longford, too, always seemed to give the impression of making Myra out to be a victim of Ian Brady. Thank God for people like Ann West, who I feel never hastened to remind him of who the real victims were.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
It doesn't sound to me as if ANY of the non-Italian speaking journalists have read it in English.


We can safely say that Candace Dempsey hasn't read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report. She makes several false claims in her latest piece on her reader's blog for The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

"Then there was Nara, the elderly super witness who said she heard a blood-curdling scream that same night, but didn't look at her watch or call police. In court she became confused and said she couldn't remember what night she heard the scream. Ditto for Toto, the homeless man who said in his witness statement that he saw Amanda and her ex-boyfriend casing the cottage, amid witches and masked students, meaning it had to be Halloween. Under skillful prosecution guidance during the trial, he decided that he'd seen the events on November 1, the night of the murder."

Nara Capezzali made it clear that she heard the loud scream on the night before Meredith's body was discovered. Antonella Monacchia corroborated Nara Capezzali's claim that there was a loud scream and said it came from the cottage.

Antonio Curatolo specified that he saw Knox and Sollecito the night before Meredith's body was discovered.

Stewart Home confirmed that there were people wearing costumes and masks on 1 November 2007:

"Give me a break! In Curatolo’s original deposition, he says he saw the buses for the disco and now and again he looked up (because of the noise) and saw the students passing by some with masks or dressed in black and some like witches, etc. This in fact matches Piazza Gimana that night perfectly. It’s is Thursday that the disco buses are there at 11:30 or so, and it was between Halloween and festa dei morti, there were tons of kids around that night in masks and costumes still. No doubt he was talking about November 1st. So he left out the masks and witches... big deal, it was not wrong. I was in Perugia… I don’t see any details in his testimony and/or deposition that were WRONG. In fact he was pretty darn on the mark!"

Dempsey erroneously claims The Daily Mail article about Amanda Knox getting fined is a fact free story and asserts that there was no riot:

"This is a judge, after all, who even allowed in a fact-free story by the Daily Mail about a fake riot in Seattle that made Amanda Knox sound like a girl gone wild."

It's an indisputable fact that Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident - Crime No: 071830624. She was also warned about the rock throwing.

Dempsey manages to write a fact free sentence:

"Meanwhile we've got a murder weapon that doesn't fit, shoddy DNA, no motive, no trace of Amanda Knox in the murder room and ..."

It defies belief that Dempsey is still claiming that the double DNA knife "doesn't fit" when it was widely reported in the media and the judges' report categorically states that the knife is compatible with the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck.

What on earth is "shoddy DNA"? The defence experts were unable to prove there had been any contamination.

If Dempsey had read the judges' report, she would have known that the judges believe the motive was "sexual erotic violence" and that Knox and Sollecito were acting under the influence of drugs.

It's not true that there was no trace of Knox in Meredith's room. Professor Vinci and Dr. Stefanoni found Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra, and Vincenzo Pascali hinted that the bra contained Knox's DNA. Two imprint experts testified that the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow was compatible with Knox's foot size.

Dempsey completely ignores the forensic evidence that places Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room and her own room.


Last edited by The Machine on Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Just been scanning back over some news articles and came across this quote from December 2009:

Amanda Knox has hit out at American criticism of the Italian judicial system and said she received a fair trial. The 22-year-old from Seattle - sentenced to 26 years for the sex murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21 - was speaking to Italian MP Walter Verini from her cell at Capanne jail, near Perugia.

Knox, known by her internet nickname of Foxy Knoxy, said her rights were respected, adding: 'It was a fair trial. I am not happy with the verdict but my lawyers are appealing it. I have faith in the Italian justice system. I have heard about the reaction in America and from a human point of view it's appreciated, but it doesn't help me...I was able to defend myself in my trial and my rights were respected.'


Was this the incident that Curt and Edda denied ever happened? Does anyone remember?



Yes, they actually issued a press release from Seattle, denying that she had said any such thing and blaming it on their favorite scapegoat the tabloids. In a press release! In part, they had to do so to help Heavey's pal Maria Cantwell, who was beginning to look like a right fool. In my opinion, this was one of the key moments in the PR spin campaign, where it showed its seams and we saw how easily they could just rip apart. Lots of scrambling to cover bottoms and divert attention.

_________________
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: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Dempsey's new blog: Can a Naples wiseguy spring Amanda Knox?

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Friends of Scott offer a reward.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/Reward.html

"The family and friends of Scott Peterson are offering a $250,000 reward for specific information leading to an arrest and conviction for the abduction and murder of Laci and Conner Peterson, or for specific information leading to the exoneration and release of Scott Peterson."



"We know Scott is innocent and that he has been unjustly convicted. Our pursuit of justice for Laci, Conner and Scott remains steadfast. We want to keep you informed as to the specifics of the case, the appeal, and related topics. We also want you to know how grateful we are for your prayers and support. "
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Don't you wonder what these hard discussions that challenge AK are all about? There's only one topic that should be at the top of the list. Just what does she need challenging about if not her lies?



I'm with Skep - I think it is indeed probably an evangelical "outretch" on the part of the Minister. Sorry, outreach I mean.

Sat here on the train going South, poorer, lightly hungover, I was reminded of a song by my fave band ever, Jane's Addiction, called "Ted, Just Admit It" which is about Ted Bundy and features a sample of him being interviewed while he was still denying it all. One of the verses in it struck me again looking at the latest Kelly_post;

You talk too much
To your scapegoat
That's what I say
He tells you everyone is stupid
That's what he thinks!

Amanda has Kelly to entertain her while she's stuck in chokey. This unreconstructed rocker \m/ \m/ has free wi-fi and a hangover correcting glass of white wine on the go. Frankly, I fancy my version :)


Hi SA! I guess the hangover is due to drowning sorrows after the abysmal performance by the England team last night. Where was Rooney? Who was the amateur goalie, and why didn't they bring Dafoe on? These are just a few of the unanswered questions in my mind today. In the glorious (but allowed on PMF!!!) words from The Thick Of it 'Come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off'*. The team have lots to do to win back the (always misplaced) confidence of the nation next Friday, or I am done with international football forever. At least Liverpool provided man of the match Gerrard.

*Apologies for any offence, but ref a private ongoing expletive discussion thread between me and SA on pm. I love words, me.

Have another glass on me SA!



I was amused by the respective headlines in the NY Times and Le Monde:

For the NYT, US & England "tie, 1-1"

For Le Monde, l'Angleterre "tenue en échec" par les américains

That's the old "détente cordiale" talking!
Perfide Albion!

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Question Of The Week

The Bard wrote:
am wondering why David James has not been put in goal...

Attachment:
take your filthy football out of my face.jpg


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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Please!! Don't rub salt into the wounds of our sorely afflicted British Members!

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I have noticed that the FOA-erruptions come and go within certain cycles.
Can it be that there is a connection with the $$$-in-payment on the defense-fund?
This very time everybody is under full activity!
No illness, nor holidays or other absence is allowed.
Mr.Mariot himself on the time-stamp-clock ?

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skep wrote:
"I was amused by the respective headlines in the NY Times and Le Monde:
For the NYT, US & England "tie, 1-1"
For Le Monde, l'Angleterre "tenue en échec" par les américains"

My favourite:
(George Mikes: How to te an alien)

Quote:
"Journalism, or the Freedom of the Press
--- The Fact ---
There was some trouble with the Burburuk tribe in the Pacific Island, Charamak. A party of ten English and two American soldiers, under the command of Capt. R. L. A. T. W. Tilbury, raided the island and took 217 revolutionary, native troublemakers prisoner and wrecked two large oil-dumps. The party remained ashore an hour-and-a-half and returned to their base camp without loss to themselves.

How to report this event? It depends on which newspaper you work for.

--- The Times ---
... It would be exceedingly perilous to overestimate the significance of the raid, but it can be fairly proclaimed that it would be even more dangerous to underestimate it. The success of the raid clearly proves that the native defences are not invulnerable; it would be fallacious and deceptive, however, to conclude that the defences are vulnerable. The number of revolutionaries captured cannot be safely stated, but it seems likely that the number is well over 216 but well under 218.

--- In the House ---
You may become an M.P. (Nothing is impossible - this would not be even unprecedented.) You may hear then the follow statement by a member of His Majesty's Government:

"Concerning the two wrecked oil-dumps I can give this information to the House. In the first half of this year the amount of native oil destroyed by the Army, Navy and the R.A.F. - excluding however, the Fleet Air Arm - is one half as much as three times the amount destroyed during the corresponding months of the previous year, seven and a half times as much as the two-fifths destroyed two years ago and three quarters as much again as twelve times one-sixth destroyed three years ago. (Loud cheers from the Government benches.)

You jump to your feet and ask this question:

You: Is the Right Hon. Gentleman aware that people in this country are puzzled and worried by the fact that Charamak was raided and not Ragamak?

The Right Hon Member: I have nothing to add to my statement given on the 2nd August, 1892.

--- Evening Standard (Londoner's Diary) ---
The most interesting feature of the Charamak raid is the fact that Reggie Tilbury is the fifth son of the Earl of Bayswater. He was an Oxford Blue, a first-class cricketer and quite good at polo. When I talked to his wife (Lady Clarisse, the daughter of Lord Elasson) at Claridges to-day, she wore a black suit and a tiny block hat with a yellow feather in it. She said: "Reggie was always very much interested in warfare." Later she remarked: "It was clever of him, wasn't it?"

You may write a letter to the editor of "The Times":

"Sir, - In connection with the Charamak raid I should like to mention as a matter of considerable interest that it was in that little Pacific Island that the distinguished English poet, John Flat, wrote his famous poem 'The Cod' in 1693.
Yours, etc. ..."

You may read this answer on the following day:

"Sir, - I am very grateful to Mr. ... for calling attention to John Flat's poem 'The Cod.' May I be allowed to use this opportunity , however, to correct a widespread and in my view very unfortunate error which the great masses of the British people seem to share with your correspondent. 'The Cod,' although John Flat started writing it in 1693, was only finished in the early days of 1694.
Yours, etc. ..."

If you are the London correspondent of the American paper

--- The Oklahoma Sun ---
simply cable this:

"Yanks Conquer Pacific Ocean" "
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: Don't look now   

Catnip wrote:
Not that it relates to anything relevant in the grand scheme of things, but if you're googling around, you'll find that Mignini was obliged to ask for continued custody of an Hungarian "pornodiva" who was judged as somewhat too exhibitionistic at an Umbrian disco recently, where undercover detectives were ready and waiting after complaints by local mothers had been lodged at the Questura back in February. The Penal Code does not allow any discretion where under-age (i.e. under-18s, technically "minors") are involved, because the penalty is quite severe.

Panorama (of course) has an investigative blog entry up, complete with "exclusive" phone footage (of course) , here: "Brigitta Bulgari: Danger to the Public" -- WARNING for those who blush easily: both page and footage contains images of women in various states of undress (and there are also links to transgender articles and so on - the usual gossip mag stuff).

For US readers: nudity is often classified as "lewd and obscene" or "pornographic", depending on which state (and decade) you are in, so European tans often cause a kerfluffle, and films like Porky's are always so popular.


The connection is that Mignini has now become embedded into the public consciousness as the magistrate who led the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher. That's how he is described in the article.

The shock of one youngster killing another is still too great to fathom or to even begin to understand. It will take a while to come to terms with it. It's as if the innocent have lost their innocence.



Can't help but feel Mignini is likely being a total arse on this. If the arrest was mandatory then fair enough, she had to get arrested, but the idea that she has to stay on remand because "she could come into contact with other minors", I mean please! It's a darkened nightclub with 15 year olds who probably look 20. I suspect there's an extremely tiny chance that she would have thought they looked liked minors and thought "yes, fine, I'll let them have a grope despite them being minors". But being a strict liability offence, then fine she gets arrested. However, whatever the original offence, the chances of her re-offending are absolutely bugger all given the context of the first offence unless there's a huge amount of missing information. On the face of it, this looks idiotic.

_________________
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 Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

undecided wrote:
Clander wrote:
You'd be surprised if you knew how much little money is required to make these jailbirds sing any tune you wish.

This is an article from "Il Mattino". Naples' newspaper, Aviello's hometown:
http://www.ilmattino.it/articolo.php?id ... sez=NAPOLI

The article tells you what kind of trash this Aviello is.
Do you know why he ended up in jail the FIRST time?
Because he confessed to murder. A murder he had not committed.
But he had been promised some money (5 million Lire, really not much at the time of that "confession". A motorcycle I purchased back then cost me twice as much.), a lawyer and an annuity.


Well, although (in light of your post, Clander), it does seem as if
A.K. and R.S. are clutching at straws in putting this sort of thing
in their appeal, A.K. and R.S. didn't seem to influence this particular
person to come forward. If that were the case, pretty stupid move
indeed. Why would this person come forward to defend R.S. and A.K.?

That's the part that makes me wonder.

As for Alessi--well, convicts talk to convicts.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Guede mentioned a few things to
Alessi. Even more interesting that Alessi has been moved to another prison.
Him and Guede must not be 'getting along'...! I

I'm not sure that R.G. didn't tell Alessi some story or other,
being serious or bragging, who knows. This alleged 'coming clean' to Alessi may not have
happened at all.

What I'm not clear on is why two separate people have come forward to
give information. In some cases, if a convict provides useful information to
authorities, their prison sentence can be reduced. Other times not.
I have read that it depends on the 'level' of the informant's cooperation.
One thing I do know, is that police/federal governments rely on convicts
to snitch on each other.

As Bard mentioned, I'd be interested to know what kind of punishment these
men could receive for wasting time and man power?


Hello undecided,
Twenty years ago Aviello confessed to a murder he did not commit for two bananas and some peanuts.
I do not see why he would not do it again. (IMHO, of course).
Keep in mind that this "gentleman" has a history of falsely accusing others of various crimes.
Regarding the "A.K. and R.S. didn't seem to influence this particular person to come forward", I definitely do not expect papà Sollecito to go on TV and tell us all how he "convinced" Aviello to accuse his brother.
As for the "If that were the case, pretty stupid move indeed", it would not be the first one, would it?

Alessi is a rapist and a 17-month old baby killer. I will never forget when he said on TV "babies are angels. No one should touch them". A few days later he led the Carabinieri to where he had buried the baby. Enough said.

Regarding your last question, Aviello could be charged with "calunnia"* (art. 368 Italian Criminal Code). Two to six years plus/minus the mitigating/aggravating circumstances.

* Calunnia is the crime of reporting false criminal accusations against someone that the accuser knows to be innocent.


Last edited by Clander on Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hey guys. I just want to tell you that it's better with my stomach problems and i'm almost fine. It will take some time to heal completely, due to the antibiotics damage that i suffered(my family is considereing a lawsuit against my doctor-no kidding!), but i'll be fine. However, i'll be off the boards for a few days and as far as i can remember there is a translated report on its way. So will anyone be so kind and sent me an email when the report will be online?

here's my "work" mail:
kbu@interia.eu

btw, stint, where are you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
The Knox episode got shown in rerun on the Oprah show in USA again today; its the front page of the website as well; here comes another round of "boycott italy":


I do not think that a TV show on a murder case can really make people decide to "boycott Italy" (if it does, it's their loss).
Some people see Italy only as "Machiavelli".
Other people see it as "Michelangelo".

Smart people know it's both.

You left out Valentino (and lots of others).

I was in Tavullia on Friday, beautiful hilltop town.

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Here is Stefano Nazi's take on the latest news, not his blog this time.

Il Post. Article by Stefano Nazzi.
12 June 2010

There are two dangerous individuals [thugs] that somehow are becoming players in the case of the Perugia murder. In autumn there will be the appeal trial for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, sentenced respectively to 26 and 25 years for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, which occurred during the night between 1 and 2 November 2007. Well, there are two characters, real criminals, who somehow are disrupting the cards, reshuffling motives and main characters. They are making a proper mess.

The first one is Mario Alessi, serving a life sentence. His name is linked to one of the ugliest events of recent years: the kidnapping and murder of Tommy Onofri, the18 month toddler taken from his home in Casalbaroncolo, a few kilometers from Parma on the 2 March 2006 and found dead a month later, covered by some leaves and a bit of soil near the Enza river. Alessi and his accomplice, Salvatore Raimondi, keep rebounding the responsibility on each other. Both of them say that to murder the baby was the other one. Alessi recently has also apologized to Tommy's mother (she replied that Alessi should keep them to himself. In short, in a jail cell he’s in the right place).

The second one is called Luciano Aviello, a ‘camorrista’ in his forties, an ex guy from the ‘quartieri spagnoli’ district [dangerous mafia territory] in Naples. Now he is in prison for extortion in Ancona, he’s served 16 years for crimes related to mafia association. He is a grass informant, or an ex-informant, its not very clear. He’s knocked on a few judges’ doors but apparently has never revealed anything important.

And what have these two characters got to do with the Perugia murder? Yeah. Well, Mario Alessi will do because he was in prison in Viterbo sharing a cell with an Ivorian young guy, Rudy Guede, who was also convicted in the first and second trial intance for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Guede apparently told Alessi, who in turn then told the magistrates, that to have done the murder of the English girl was his accomplice, but for which Alessi says he does not know his name. However, Guede told him that he and his friend went inside the house in Via della Pergola, in Perugia, to steal, and then as Meredith surprised them, she was killed. That is, to kill her would’ve been the other one. Guede held her firmly. This Mario Alessi is willing to repeat this in the appeal trial, in doing so exonerating Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Which, according to Alessi’s, and therefore, according to Guede’s words, they have nothing to do with it.

And Aviello? He instead tells that, to kill Meredith Kercher was his brother. Aviello says: "I was living in Perugia and to removed my brother from the dangerous gangs in Naples I made him come to me, in Umbria”. One evening Aviello’s little brother returns home stained with blood. He says he injured himself climbing a wall. But then, at the insistence of Luciano, the youngster tells the truth. Having entered the house on Via della Pergola by mistake because in reality he wanted to steal from a villa of the wealthy. He was with an accomplice. When they were discovered they killed Meredith. Aviello says he has the evidence. And tells that he had buried the knife used for the murder near his house, covering it with earth and lime. And says also that he had buried the keys of that house, which his brother took away.
Now, the strange thing here is that the keys have really never been found and this detail had not been disclosed. Or so say the defenders of Amanda Knox.

Thus far the story. It must be said that Rudy Guede, interrogated about it, has denied of ever spoken with Mario Alessi (although two other detainees confirm it). And then Luciano Aviello as well in the past claimed to have fundamental revelations about the disappearance of Angela Celentano, the little girl who vanished into thin air in August 10, 1996 on Mount Faito. In short, he is one that from time to time appears in the midst of investigations of the worst crimes and claims to know a lot of things.

The fact is or Alessi or Aviello are lying or either just one of them is telling some kind of truth. Both no. The two stories contradict each other. For Alessi, Guede practically confessed. For Aviello instead to confess was his brother. Well, either one or the other.

It was already horrible enough the story of Perugia, complicated and still full of things to clear and reexamine. At the moment it risks becoming a big mess, in waiting for extraordinary revelations from someone else (possibly a lifer).
http://www.ilpost.it/stefanonazzi/2010/ ... h-kercher/
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

donnie wrote:
btw, stint, where are you?


That scary clown pulled me down the sewer with him... :D

Seriously, still here; got the e-mail addy and will use that to let you know if translation comes on line before you return.

Glad to hear your food processing mechanisms are pretty well mended.

All best to you, my good friend.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Just been scanning back over some news articles and came across this quote from December 2009:

Amanda Knox has hit out at American criticism of the Italian judicial system and said she received a fair trial. The 22-year-old from Seattle - sentenced to 26 years for the sex murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21 - was speaking to Italian MP Walter Verini from her cell at Capanne jail, near Perugia.

Knox, known by her internet nickname of Foxy Knoxy, said her rights were respected, adding: 'It was a fair trial. I am not happy with the verdict but my lawyers are appealing it. I have faith in the Italian justice system. I have heard about the reaction in America and from a human point of view it's appreciated, but it doesn't help me...I was able to defend myself in my trial and my rights were respected.'


Was this the incident that Curt and Edda denied ever happened? Does anyone remember?



Yes, they actually issued a press release from Seattle, denying that she had said any such thing and blaming it on their favorite scapegoat the tabloids. In a press release! In part, they had to do so to help Heavey's pal Maria Cantwell, who was beginning to look like a right fool. In my opinion, this was one of the key moments in the PR spin campaign, where it showed its seams and we saw how easily they could just rip apart. Lots of scrambling to cover bottoms and divert attention.


Yes, an interesting incident. The quote seems both authentic and yet slightly too pat to be verbatim from AK. I was reading the Steve Moore's piece on interrogation techniques over at Bruce's and besides thinking 'Yep, that's how I'd hope they question the prime suspect in a murder case...' I was struck by the highlighting of AK's 'identification' with her questioners. These comments she made about the police do sound like the words of someone very frightened (as one might expect). She's made them several times, thanking the police, stating she understands why they are acting the way they are, wanting to 'help' them. These comments of hers to the MP I believe were hers, polished slightly in the reporting, but genuine nevertheless.

They make me uncomfortable however. I don't think it is a normal or natural response to the situation she finds herself in. It makes me think how young she is. It makes me think of those hostage statements you hear, where they speak with a gun leveled at their head. These comments about her fair treatment and conciliatory comments about the police are the only bits of her testimony that strike a dull note for me - if she is guilty and subconsciously reconciled to it, it is normal maybe. I can understand why the PR machine howled at it. For me (an AK-ism I seem to have adopted, despite hating it) these comments would be very worrying if I was someone convinced of her innocence. But they also worry me as someone convinced of her guilt.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

donnie wrote:
Hey guys. I just want to tell you that it's better with my stomach problems and i'm almost fine. It will take some time to heal completely, due to the antibiotics damage that i suffered(my family is considereing a lawsuit against my doctor-no kidding!), but i'll be fine. However, i'll be off the boards for a few days and as far as i can remember there is a translated report on its way. So will anyone be so kind and sent me an email when the report will be online?

here's my "work" mail:
kbu@interia.eu

btw, stint, where are you?


We got ya back donnie! Rest well, and be good to yourself while you recover. Plenty of time while our outstanding translators beaver away in the background. Forget the board and get yourself well.

hugz-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
donnie wrote:
Hey guys. I just want to tell you that it's better with my stomach problems and i'm almost fine. It will take some time to heal completely, due to the antibiotics damage that i suffered(my family is considereing a lawsuit against my doctor-no kidding!), but i'll be fine. However, i'll be off the boards for a few days and as far as i can remember there is a translated report on its way. So will anyone be so kind and sent me an email when the report will be online?

here's my "work" mail:
kbu@interia.eu

btw, stint, where are you?


We got ya back donnie! Rest well, and be good to yourself while you recover. Plenty of time while our outstanding translators beaver away in the background. Forget the board and get yourself well.

hugz-)



Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard.....Bard

We got yer back....yer.... for heaven's sake gel!

_________________
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 bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hurry back, Donnie
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
donnie wrote:
Hey guys. I just want to tell you that it's better with my stomach problems and i'm almost fine. It will take some time to heal completely, due to the antibiotics damage that i suffered(my family is considereing a lawsuit against my doctor-no kidding!), but i'll be fine. However, i'll be off the boards for a few days and as far as i can remember there is a translated report on its way. So will anyone be so kind and sent me an email when the report will be online?

here's my "work" mail:
kbu@interia.eu

btw, stint, where are you?


We got ya back donnie! Rest well, and be good to yourself while you recover. Plenty of time while our outstanding translators beaver away in the background. Forget the board and get yourself well.

hugz-)



Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard, Bard.....Bard

We got yer back....yer.... for heaven's sake gel!


Sorry, sorry, sorry...I know I know I know....it just slipped out...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

SA, you anywhere near Westminster around 6 pm tm?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Van Der Sloot had previously invoked a reverse Guede defence (the robbers were in the bathroom):

"In the version offered to Chilean investigators, Van der Sloot said he and Flores were surprised in the early morning by two robbers in an apparent assault. "A man came out of the bathroom blocking the access door with a knife in his hand. On the bed was another man with a gun," the Spanish-language report quotes him as saying. "The man with the knife said to be quiet, but Stephany began talking in a loud voice and he hit her in the face, making her nose bleed."" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/1 ... 10502.html)

Pat


Last edited by pataz1 on Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
They make me uncomfortable however. I don't think it is a normal or natural response to the situation she finds herself in. It makes me think how young she is. It makes me think of those hostage statements you hear, where they speak with a gun leveled at their head. These comments about her fair treatment and conciliatory comments about the police are the only bits of her testimony that strike a dull note for me - if she is guilty and subconsciously reconciled to it, it is normal maybe. I can understand why the PR machine howled at it. For me (an AK-ism I seem to have adopted, despite hating it) these comments would be very worrying if I was someone convinced of her innocence. But they also worry me as someone convinced of her guilt.


Amanda Knox was not an innocent civilian who was taken hostage in Iraq, making statements with a gun held to her head. She took part in the horrific sexual assault, torture and exceptionally brutal murder of an innocent young woman.

Knox and Sollecito did their level best to get away with Meredith's murder.

They staged the break-in in Filomena's room to make it look like a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.

They locked Meredith's door and took Meredith's mobile phones in order to delay the discovery of Meredith's body, so they could remove any incriminating traces of themselves from the cottage.

They both lied repeatedly to the police in attempt to divert attention away from themselves.

When Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi, she accused an innocent man of Meredith's murder despite the fact that she knew he was completely innocent. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007. She didn't recant this allegation the whole time Lumumba was in prison. Lumumba lost his business as a direct result and Knox has never apologised.

If you think Knox was frightened or intimidated by her interrogation, imagine how Meredith felt when she was being sexually violated, tortured and stabbed repeatedly.

You may find Knox's comments about her fair treatment and conciliatory comments worrying. The reality is she a cunning and manipulative murderer who is trying to appear to be ever so reasonable and understanding in the hope that it wins her sympathy.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
You may find Knox's comments about her fair treatment and conciliatory comments worrying. The reality is she a cunning and manipulative murderer who is trying to appear to be ever so reasonable and understanding in the hope that it wins her sympathy.


Oh I totally agree, as you know. I think she is both cunning and manipulative not to mention being a murderess and a liar. These comments disquiet me for the very reasons you cite. They are less cunning, less manipulative and less self-serving than all the other statements she makes. That's the whole point.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I don't see that in the same way. She wasn't identifying with the police, she was trying to appear cooperative, and she was scared, no doubt, but not afraid they would hit her or starve her. She was scared because she murdered Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I may be misunderstanding what is being said here: is the suggestion that Knox developed something like "stockholm syndrome"? If so, and if wiki is correct (dodgy proposition, I know) as to how that arises, then I do not really see how it could be. I am a bit confused
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Yes Fiona, I am imagining something along the lines of Stockholm. I don't think that implies that there need be any undue coercion, just that it is a natural psychological manifestation of accusee/accuser. For any suspect I think it 'could' be normal. In a case where there is the suggestion of undue pressure it is 'disquieting'. It is perhaps more likely in a situation of coercion? Don't know enough about it academically. Personally, I think it is 'worrying', and I am entitled to feel it so, and express it. I am happy with a degree of cognitive dissonance, even if others are not. I don't need to 'imagine' what Meredith went through in order to hold an opinion. I don't think anyone would be embarked upon this endeavor had they not. I don't feel the need to spell out my insight into this one, but I have it if needs be. Stockholm exists very, very much so, very strongly. That is not to say I think Amanda was 'tortured' or treated unfairly given her (to me) obvious guilt. Stockholm exists in the guilty as well as the innocent.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I don't see that in the same way. She wasn't identifying with the police, she was trying to appear cooperative, and she was scared, no doubt, but not afraid they would hit her or starve her. She was scared because she murdered Meredith.


Totally agree. Does not exclude Stockholm however. I think she WAS scared because she was guilty. I also think she was scared because she knew OTHERS knew she was guilty. i.e the police. Given that both she and they KNEW she was guilty she would have been more susceptible to Stockholm. I just would have preferred a cleaner affair. NO suggestion of Stockholm whatsoever. I just dislike the presence of it. If anything it points to deeper guilt, not the opposite. That's my take anyway...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

In several posts here and from "Angel Face" I have read about Amanda's bad body odor the day she was standing outside of the cottage with RS. Then I recently read about Rudy's bad body odor the night he went dancing (after the murder).
A book I am reading by a psychiatrist says this about terror/fear and body odor;

"There are two types of sweat: the more watery kind, eccrine, that results from overheating, and the hormone-laden kind, apocrine, that comes from terror. Fear sweat smells a whole lot worse than exercise sweat." eee-)
Weekends at Bellevue by Julie Holland, M.D.
I find the gazillion details in this case fascinating ( and disturbing) and is why I continue to come back to PMF. Looking forward to the sentencing report! d-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I am not saying you are wrong The Bard. I just don't follow your reasoning. I had been aware that she has made statements saying she had a fair trial and that the police were just doing their job. That does not suggest to me that she was identifying with them. What I thought was that she had realised how much damage the rampant xenophobia displayed by her supporters might be doing, and she was trying to mitigate that. I imagine her lawyers might have advised her of this and that she had the wit to listen. For myself, I do not think that the effect of such xenophobia would have been very significant in the context of the trial or the appeal: but I cannot blink the fact that it might have had an adverse effect on the judges, and that in her shoes I would not be comfortable with that possibility: we can assume, I think, that such influence can be in play, and further that Knox believes that to be more true than it is (else why the PR campaign). I did not see any more to it than that
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

My thoughts are that Amanda is nothing but self serving. Her comments about the trial, the prosecutor, being fair..another lie. She knew her case was lost, and was hoping to win points for further down the line. Her disrespect to Meredith, and Meredith's family.. not caring about Patrick, that's who Amanda is. The instigator. And a weasel. Her insiduous e-mail speaks volumes. Everything she does is manipulative. E.V.E.R.T.H.I.N.G.

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I just had a real "EEEWWW! GROSS!" moment when I fully realized something re-reading over some trial testimony...

"that's when I saw the bloody stain that was on the bathmat. And
I thought "Hm, strange." Maybe someone had a problem with menstruation that didn't get cleaned up right away. I used the mat to kind of hop over to
my room and into my room".

She must -really- wanted to not have her wet feet to hit the floor to use that bathmat.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
For Le Monde, l'Angleterre "tenue en échec" par les américains

That's the old "détente cordiale" talking!
Perfide Albion!


Well, in this case I think the point is that England performed a visible better game. The French notice that. Maybe they enjoy seeing how they encountered difficulty anyway, maybe they just enjoy it because this is the show after all, or maybe because they are Albione... England dominated on both sides and US had weak and unprecise shots, you could expect the team to make it more easily, there is an expectation, and so it's thrill...
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Those Stinkin' Criminals!   

sam spade wrote:
In several posts here and from "Angel Face" I have read about Amanda's bad body odor the day she was standing outside of the cottage with RS. Then I recently read about Rudy's bad body odor the night he went dancing (after the murder).
A book I am reading by a psychiatrist says this about terror/fear and body odor;

"There are two types of sweat: the more watery kind, eccrine, that results from overheating, and the hormone-laden kind, apocrine, that comes from terror. Fear sweat smells a whole lot worse than exercise sweat." eee-)
Weekends at Bellevue by Julie Holland, M.D.
I find the gazillion details in this case fascinating ( and disturbing) and is why I continue to come back to PMF. Looking forward to the sentencing report! d-))



I'm glad you didn't mistakenly call it the "Scent-encing Report"... ;)

...(I mean, considering that main the topic was "body odor!!") ss-)

Speaking of bad body odor...in the world of forensics, did you know there is now "Body Odor Profiling."

"There has been CCTV, finger printing and eye recognition. Now comes body odour profiling. In its ongoing efforts to nail the bad guys, the US Department of Homeland Security is investing heavily in the sniff test: "odourprint".

Plans have quietly appeared on the American government website to announce some serious funding of a study looking at the potential of using people's individual smell to identify criminals and to uncover when they are lying.

There are scientists who claim our smell is just as unique as our DNA, and the work to be funded will look into the chemical nature of the human scent as utilised by crime fighters in the form of the bloodhound."

Read more:
http://current.com/news/89929532_homela ... minals.htm

Also:

"Body odor to sniff out criminals. It is now possible to use body odor as a biometric identifier to nab a culprit. A police canine research center in China is creating a unique database of people with criminal records. The center is collecting body odor of criminals so that they can be later used to match the smell in a crime scene with the help of their ace canines."

Of course, you can imagine the chorus of FOA now: "Of course her odorprint was in the cottage! She lived there!"

http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/top ... ologies-ii

Even more amazing, at the Canine Research Center, dogs have also been trained to discern the distinctive smell of FOAKer thinking, rationalization, fabrication... EVEN THROUGH A COMPUTER screen! Here are the actual canines at work. (Jool's Maltipoo missing from the group photo.)

Note: pay particular attention to the dog in the rear of the group who shakes his head to indicate: "No! No! No!" whenever he hears "Lies, Damn Lies and FOAker Statistics." :D
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
I've noticed that vociferous Knox supporters like Steve Moore and London John are claiming that Amanda Knox was coerced into making her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba. They seem to be forgetting three very important details:

.....

Knox must have realised the police were suspicious of her and Sollecito on 5 November and was clearly agitated. This would explan why she was hitting herself on the head when Sollecito was being questioned.

When she was informed that Sollecito had admitted they had lied to the police and that he was no longer providing her with an alibi, she must have known the game was up.

She was asked whether she had responded to Lumumba's text message. She told the police she hadn't replied to him. The police knew this wasn't true because they had her phone records. It was at this point that Knox broke down and first made her false accusation against Diya Lumumba.

If you read her two witness statements which were ruled inadmissible, you'll see that she unequivocally accuses Lumumba of murdering Meredith. She only raises the possibility that she might have seen and heard the events at the cottage in her five-page memorandum.


Another thing they continue to overlook (although it's been pointed out many many many times) is that AK was not there at the Questura because the police had some kind of nefarious plan to break her down. Raffaele was the guest of the police officers and he was the one who, upon presented with contradiction after contradiction, told them that Amanda was not with him after approximately 21:00. This represents a big problem for the coerced confession idea.

It means that calling Raffaele in in the first place was a part of an elaborate ruse to frame Patrick through Amanda. Even though Raffaele said nothing whatsoever about Patrick, the police goaded him into lying about Amanda so that they could then goad her into lying about Patrick. All of this happened among the police contingent at the Questura without any input from Mignini (unless he was secretly phoning in directions from his home).

And, afterwards, the same police who had coerced Amanda publicly stated that they had the three killers even though they only had two of them because Rudy had not entered their picture yet. In other words, the police coerced a false accusation (not a confession) from the wrong person. And then they had to explain later that they had the wrong guy.

How can anyone support such a Rube-Goldberg-Marx-Brothers scenario?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Fiona wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong The Bard. I just don't follow your reasoning. I had been aware that she has made statements saying she had a fair trial and that the police were just doing their job. That does not suggest to me that she was identifying with them. What I thought was that she had realised how much damage the rampant xenophobia displayed by her supporters might be doing, and she was trying to mitigate that. I imagine her lawyers might have advised her of this and that she had the wit to listen. For myself, I do not think that the effect of such xenophobia would have been very significant in the context of the trial or the appeal: but I cannot blink the fact that it might have had an adverse effect on the judges, and that in her shoes I would not be comfortable with that possibility: we can assume, I think, that such influence can be in play, and further that Knox believes that to be more true than it is (else why the PR campaign). I did not see any more to it than that


It could be either of course. Or both! There's just something about those statements (not the comments about xenophobia, but the ones where she is sort of creeping to the authorities) that makes me wonder.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
They make me uncomfortable however. I don't think it is a normal or natural response to the situation she finds herself in. It makes me think how young she is. It makes me think of those hostage statements you hear, where they speak with a gun leveled at their head. These comments about her fair treatment and conciliatory comments about the police are the only bits of her testimony that strike a dull note for me - if she is guilty and subconsciously reconciled to it, it is normal maybe. I can understand why the PR machine howled at it. For me (an AK-ism I seem to have adopted, despite hating it) these comments would be very worrying if I was someone convinced of her innocence. But they also worry me as someone convinced of her guilt.


Amanda Knox was not an innocent civilian who was taken hostage in Iraq, making statements with a gun held to her head. She took part in the horrific sexual assault, torture and exceptionally brutal murder of an innocent young woman.

Knox and Sollecito did their level best to get away with Meredith's murder.

They staged the break-in in Filomena's room to make it look like a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.

They locked Meredith's door and took Meredith's mobile phones in order to delay the discovery of Meredith's body, so they could remove any incriminating traces of themselves from the cottage.

They both lied repeatedly to the police in attempt to divert attention away from themselves.

When Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi, she accused an innocent man of Meredith's murder despite the fact that she knew he was completely innocent. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007. She didn't recant this allegation the whole time Lumumba was in prison. Lumumba lost his business as a direct result and Knox has never apologised.

If you think Knox was frightened or intimidated by her interrogation, imagine how Meredith felt when she was being sexually violated, tortured and stabbed repeatedly.

You may find Knox's comments about her fair treatment and conciliatory comments worrying. The reality is she a cunning and manipulative murderer who is trying to appear to be ever so reasonable and understanding in the hope that it wins her sympathy.


This is an excellent post that goes straight to the heart of the story.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Strange that Luciano Avielle’s earlier letter to the Court of Assise (link below) does not contain any reference to his brother or of the keys. From what I understand Avielle states in it that he asked some of his friends if they knew if any bad guy might have committed the murder; and a good friend of his, an Albanian, told him that the real assassin was a foreigner (Al F Y on www. IIP). It appears that LA must have changed his story to include the knife, house keys and blames his brother as the murderer in a subsequent letter. Obviously slipped his mind here. And the defence is relying on this gentleman to save their client? eek-)

It is likely that we will need the services of the hard pressed translators soon to give an English version of Aviells’s fourth letter to the Court of Assise. This is the one where he states that not alone did his brother commit the murder but his mother actually drove the getaway car. He hasn’t written it yet but because the previous three letters didn’t get the desired response from the court then they will definitely have to take notice of this new one. Of course if this fails then the fifth letter will absolutely boggle the mind with its details when it is produced and most likely include the involvement of “his sisters and his cousins and his aunts” with all of them escaping in a souped up HMS Pinafore. Gives a whole new meaning to police informers “singing”. :)

ps. making water run uphill is not as big a deal as it sounds, piece of cake really when you have enough money. Now where is that overdue cheque from Dr Frank?

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2010/06/11/ ... 173395.pdf

ETA; would appreciate it if anyone with a knowledge of Italian (I have none) could have a look over the attached letter to see if my understanding is correct. Thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

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


This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.




This page was last modified on 14 June 2010 at 03:09.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

http://www.economist.com/node/16335802? ... d=16335802

Italy's gagging law
Private lives
A controversial bill that should worry investigators more than reporters

Bad motives are one thing; bad law another. Something else to which Italians are largely oblivious is the routine trampling on the rights of suspects and others caught up in investigations. Information is selectively leaked to reporters before the accused come to trial, often creating a presumption of guilt that is difficult to reverse, whether in court or in the public mind. An example is the case of Amanda Knox, an American student, and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, who were convicted last year of the murder of Ms Knox’s British flatmate. Much of what was published before the pair’s trial (heard by lay as well as professional judges) was irrelevant to the case. But it gave an impression of two young people lusting after extreme thrills. Since bugged conversations can be leaked, blameless citizens recorded talking to suspects can find intimate secrets released to the media.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Apologies if already posted


radio programme:

Amanda Knox Defender Faces Charges http://www.kuow.washington.edu/program.php?id=20517

Local Judge Faces Charges Over Knox Letter King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey is an outspoken defender of convicted murderer Amanda Knox. He's facing administrative misconduct charges related to a letter he sent to an Italian judge protesting Knox's treatment by authorities there. A representative of Washington's Commission on Judicial Conduct tells us where they think the judge crossed the line.

Guest(s)

Reiko Callner is the executive director of Washington's Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Strange that Luciano Avielle’s earlier letter to the Court of Assise (link below) does not contain any reference to his brother or of the keys. From what I understand Avielle states in it that he asked some of his friends if they knew if any bad guy might have committed the murder; and a good friend of his, an Albanian, told him that the real assassin was a foreigner (Al F Y on www. IIP). It appears that LA must have changed his story to include the knife, house keys and blames his brother as the murderer in a subsequent letter. Obviously slipped his mind here. And the defence is relying on this gentleman to save their client? eek-)

It is likely that we will need the services of the hard pressed translators soon to give an English version of Aviells’s fourth letter to the Court of Assise. This is the one where he states that not alone did his brother commit the murder but his mother actually drove the getaway car. He hasn’t written it yet but because the previous three letters didn’t get the desired response from the court then they will definitely have to take notice of this new one. Of course if this fails then the fifth letter will absolutely boggle the mind with its details when it is produced and most likely include the involvement of “his sisters and his cousins and his aunts” with all of them escaping in a souped up HMS Pinafore. Gives a whole new meaning to police informers “singing”. :)
.


:D

This is incredible. So not only do we have a new mafia thug/fantasist 'super witness', but we have one that has changed his story several times. Ouch. This is surely desperation. It's going to to dilute any other serious objection that the defence have and be nothing but a distraction. Do they seriously think the court would simply have ignored a credible witness had one genuinely existed?

Bizarre tactic on behalf of defence. But I guess they want to offer the AK and parents 'something'. A little hope. This previous letter shows what an empty hope it is. He'll be laughed out of court.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

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

This article is going through a major rewrite which was outsourced to a subpage. You are welcome to assist by editing it. Further information can be found at the talkpage.


This page was last modified on 11 June 2010 at 21:24.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito also filed a lengthy appeal of his conviction comprising over 270 pages. His lawyer Luca Maori said: "An innocent man has been convicted and has spent three years behind bars for something he did not do. We aim to fight this conviction and free him on appeal."[161] The appeal will proceed as a trial de novo (new trial). This new trial is expected to take place in autumn 2010 before the Appellate Court of Assizes, presided over by Judge Emanuele Medoro.[162]


Joint meeting with President Asks Appeal Court in Perugia to discuss the situation in the court of Foligno

http://www.folignocity.com/news-on.asp?id=521

Verrà chiesto un incontro con il presidente della Corte d'Appello di Perugia, Emanuele Medoro, per manifestare le difficoltà in cui si trova la sezione distaccata di Foligno del Tribunale di Perugia per la carenza di personale: è quanto emerso da un incontro, svoltosi nel pomeriggio in Comune, tra il sindaco Mismetti, alla presenza del vicesindaco Massimiliano Romagnoli, e il presidente dell'ordine degli avvocati di Perugia, Giovanni Dean ei due consiglieri dell'ordine, Pierluigi Iantaffi e Sabrina Santarelli. You will be asked for a meeting with the President of the Court of Appeals of Perugia, Emanuele Medoro, to show the difficulties is the sub-office of the Court of Foligno Perugia for the shortage is what emerged from a meeting held in afternoon in the town, including the mayor Mismetti the presence of Deputy Mayor Massimiliano Romagnoli, and the chairman of the Bar of Perugia, John Dean and two members of the order, Pierluigi Iantaffi and Sabrina Santarelli. Erano presenti anche gli avvocati folignati Messini, Galligari, Mazzoli, Congiunti, Ferocino, Franceschini, Bacino, Cesaro e Filipponi. Also present were lawyers Messini Foligno, Galligari, Mazzoli, Kindred, Ferocino, Franceschini, Basin, Cesaro and Filipponi. Nel corso dell'incontro si è registrata la condivisione sui problemi che affliggono la sezione distaccata folignate del tribunale perugino (per la 'storica' carenza di personale) che “rappresenta una vera emergenza per la situazione della giustizia a Foligno – ha detto il sindaco, Nando Mismetti – con conseguenze pesanti per la cittadinanza”. During the meeting there was sharing on issues affecting the sub-office of the court Foligno Perugia (for 'historical' staff shortages), which "represents a true emergency situation of justice in Foligno - said the mayor, Nando Mismetti - with serious consequences for citizenship. "
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox


This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

This page was last modified on 14 June 2010 at 03:09.


"Her trial and subsequent conviction have been controversial in the UK and the United States with several investigators, such as Paul Ciolino[4] or veteran FBI Agent Steve Moore,[5][6] and legal experts stating that the charges were unfounded."


n-((

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Quote:
This article is going through a major rewrite which was outsourced to a subpage. You are welcome to assist by editing it. Further information can be found at the talkpage.


Some contribution could focus for example on this part:



The Carabinieri police attended the Perugia flat, and the forensic lab in Rome was contacted to process the scene.

Knox and Sollecito were interviewed several times by the police in the days immediately after the murder. On 5 November 2007, Sollecito made a statement, in which he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder, and the police then proceeded to question Knox, who had accompanied him to the police station.[23] Starting at 11pm that evening,[23] she was questioned firstly by the police alone and then, later that night, in the presence of a prosecutor.[24] During these interviews, which were conducted without a lawyer present, Knox made statements implicating Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar-restaurant named Le Chic,[15] at which she occasionally worked.[25] She said that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's flat and had been in the kitchen while he committed the murder. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time.[26]

Knox later claimed that both statements were made under duress and that she had been coerced into implicating Lumumba: she said that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during the questioning, called a "stupid liar" and told that she would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years.[27] Knox repeated these claims during her trial, while a female police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely".[28] [something might be added here, like: soon after Knox wrote a hsndwritten note in which she repeated that maybe her memories about Patrick were true; and in court she stated at the time she still had memories; the defence called an expert psychiatrist to testify about fase memeries, etc ... ] The conduct of these interviews remains an area of controversy in the case, with Knox's lawyer, when summing up at the end of her trial, stating that they lasted a total of 53 hours, a stressful and frightening experience for Knox.[29] Support for Knox's claims have comes from another of the police officers present, who has testified that Knox was so pressured during the intense interrogation that she started screaming.[citation needed] The police have continued to deny that Knox was mistreated and, as a result, she has been charged with slander, which has led to a further criminal trial, due to be concluded in October 2010.[30]
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I don't see that in the same way. She wasn't identifying with the police, she was trying to appear cooperative, and she was scared, no doubt, but not afraid they would hit her or starve her. She was scared because she murdered Meredith.


Totally agree. Does not exclude Stockholm however. I think she WAS scared because she was guilty. I also think she was scared because she knew OTHERS knew she was guilty. i.e the police. Given that both she and they KNEW she was guilty she would have been more susceptible to Stockholm. I just would have preferred a cleaner affair. NO suggestion of Stockholm whatsoever. I just dislike the presence of it. If anything it points to deeper guilt, not the opposite. That's my take anyway...


Hello again!
I don't think it has to be either or, to add my two cents, it can also be partly Stockholm, partly fear and manipulation. Apart from the known reasons that lead to a Stockholm syndrome behavior, I read an interesting and very simple interpretation in relation to another murder case the other day: The human mind just always tries to make sense of any situation, also the worst and most absurd, to not completely loose touch with reality. So it could indeed point to deep guilt and confusion over a very extreme situation (being a murderess).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

An interesting little update at Frank's site. He has replaced the photo of Judge Heavey's daughter with a photo of the judge himself. I wonder if he was getting a bit of flack for the photo of the judge's daughter even though she seemed to be part of the connection between Amanda and the judge, the daughter 'convincing' her dad that Amanda couldn't have been involved in the death of Meredith Kercher. The daughter 'happened' to then meet Cantwell then 'happened' to get an internship with her as I recall?


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/
Top Profile 

Offline sam spade


User avatar


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: Those Stinkin' Criminals!   

Even more amazing, at the Canine Research Center, dogs have also been trained to discern the distinctive smell of FOAKer thinking, rationalization, fabrication... EVEN THROUGH A COMPUTER screen! Here are the actual canines at work. (Jool's Maltipoo missing from the group photo.)

Note: pay particular attention to the dog in the rear of the group who shakes his head to indicate: "No! No! No!" whenever he hears "Lies, Damn Lies and FOAker Statistics." :D
[/quote]


Love those noses! Down boys, down! 
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Ava wrote:
The Bard wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I don't see that in the same way. She wasn't identifying with the police, she was trying to appear cooperative, and she was scared, no doubt, but not afraid they would hit her or starve her. She was scared because she murdered Meredith.


Totally agree. Does not exclude Stockholm however. I think she WAS scared because she was guilty. I also think she was scared because she knew OTHERS knew she was guilty. i.e the police. Given that both she and they KNEW she was guilty she would have been more susceptible to Stockholm. I just would have preferred a cleaner affair. NO suggestion of Stockholm whatsoever. I just dislike the presence of it. If anything it points to deeper guilt, not the opposite. That's my take anyway...


Hello again!
I don't think it has to be either or, to add my two cents, it can also be partly Stockholm, partly fear and manipulation. Apart from the known reasons that lead to a Stockholm syndrome behavior, I read an interesting and very simple interpretation in relation to another murder case the other day: The human mind just always tries to make sense of any situation, also the worst and most absurd, to not completely loose touch with reality. So it could indeed point to deep guilt and confusion over a very extreme situation (being a murderess).


It's time for a reality check. Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response in hostages, in which they come to identify with their captors. Amanda Knox was not taken hostage by the Perugia Flying Squad. She went voluntarily to the police station on 5 November 2007 and after less than three hours she made a false and malicious accusation against an innocent man which led to his arrest and imprisonment, and ultimately ruined his business. She's never apologised to Diya Lumumba.

Knox wasn't threatened at gunpoint. She was given water, camomile tea, cakes and some breakfast. The police actually comforted her. Knox admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with mother on 10 November 2007. She knew her accusation was unjust and that she was responsible for it. However, she didn't recant the allegation the whole Lumumba was in prison. She then tried to put the blame on the police by falsely accusing one of the officers of hitting her.

Knox and Sollecito wiped Meredith from existence. Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, and Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi all believe that Knox inflicted the fatal wound.

Knox has done all she possibly can to deflect attention away from herself and Sollecito. She removed incriminating traces of herself and Sollecito from the cottage, but intentionally didn't clean up Sollecito's bloody footprints or flush his faeces.

She knew that Meredith had two mobile phones. She took these phones and locked Meredith's door, so that she could delay the discovery of Meredith's body. The next day she phoned Filomena and pretended she was concerned about Meredith. It's no wonder that Judge Massimo Riccarelli described her as "crafty and cunning" with a "multi-faced personality".

When Sollecito stopped providing her with an alibi, she made a false and malicious accusation against Lumumba and then blamed the police for it. She doesn't care who she destroys: Meredith, Meredith's family, Diya Lumumba and his family. She's never shown any flicker of remorse or regret.

When Knox lies, she speaks her native language. She told her mother in prison that she couldn't remember calling her in the middle of the night before anything had actually happened. Knox then claimed she couldn't remember having this conversation with her mother. I don't understand how anyone could claim that she sounded genuine when you consider her track record for lying deliberately and repeatedly.

Some people can't see past Knox's age, appearance or gender. They remind me of the simpletons who climb into the lion enclosure at the zoo, so they can stroke the cute lions.

One of the reasons some of the judges refused to grant Knox bail was because they thought there was a very real possibility that she could reoffend. She is a disturbed and dangerous killer. She is not a victim.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Machine wrote:
Ava wrote:
The Bard wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I don't see that in the same way. She wasn't identifying with the police, she was trying to appear cooperative, and she was scared, no doubt, but not afraid they would hit her or starve her. She was scared because she murdered Meredith.


Totally agree. Does not exclude Stockholm however. I think she WAS scared because she was guilty. I also think she was scared because she knew OTHERS knew she was guilty. i.e the police. Given that both she and they KNEW she was guilty she would have been more susceptible to Stockholm. I just would have preferred a cleaner affair. NO suggestion of Stockholm whatsoever. I just dislike the presence of it. If anything it points to deeper guilt, not the opposite. That's my take anyway...


Hello again!
I don't think it has to be either or, to add my two cents, it can also be partly Stockholm, partly fear and manipulation. Apart from the known reasons that lead to a Stockholm syndrome behavior, I read an interesting and very simple interpretation in relation to another murder case the other day: The human mind just always tries to make sense of any situation, also the worst and most absurd, to not completely loose touch with reality. So it could indeed point to deep guilt and confusion over a very extreme situation (being a murderess).


It's time for a reality check. Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response in hostages, in which they come to identify with their captors. Amanda Knox was not taken hostage by the Perugia Flying Squad. She went voluntarily to the police station on 5 November 2007 and after less than three hours she made a false and malicious accusation against an innocent man which led to his arrest and imprisonment, and ultimately ruined his business. She's never apologised to Diya Lumumba.

Knox wasn't threatened at gunpoint. She was given water, camomile tea, cakes and some breakfast. The police actually comforted her. Knox admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with mother on 10 November 2007. She knew her accusation was unjust and that she was responsible for it. However, she didn't recant the allegation the whole Lumumba was in prison. She then tried to put the blame on the police by falsely accusing one of the officers of hitting her.

Knox and Sollecito wiped Meredith from existence. Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, and Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi all believe that Knox inflicted the fatal wound.

Knox has done all she possibly can to deflect attention away from herself and Sollecito. She removed incriminating traces of herself and Sollecito from the cottage, but intentionally didn't clean up Sollecito's bloody footprints or flush his faeces.

She knew that Meredith had two mobile phones. She took these phones and locked Meredith's door, so that she could delay the discovery of Meredith's body. The next day she phoned Filomena and pretended she was concerned about Meredith. It's no wonder that Judge Massimo Riccarelli described her as "crafty and cunning" with a "multi-faced personality".

When Sollecito stopped providing her with an alibi, she made a false and malicious accusation against Lumumba and then blamed the police for it. She doesn't care who she destroys: Meredith, Meredith's family, Diya Lumumba and his family. She's never shown any flicker of remorse or regret.

When Knox lies, she speaks her native language. She told her mother in prison that she couldn't remember calling her in the middle of the night before anything had actually happened. Knox then claimed she couldn't remember having this conversation with her mother. I don't understand how anyone could claim that she sounded genuine when you consider her track record for lying deliberately and repeatedly.

Some people can't see past Knox's age, appearance or gender. They remind me of the simpletons who climb into the lion enclosure at the zoo, so they can stroke the cute lions.

One of the reasons some of the judges refused to grant Knox bail was because they thought there was a very real possibility that she could reoffend. She is a disturbed and dangerous killer. She is not a victim.


I think we are talking about two different things here. I have never denied that AK is a murderess, and not a victim (or if so, maybe a victim of her own screwed up self, if you'd like).
My point was, that human perception and behavior and its motives are rarely black and white, but often quite irrational and multifaceted, and hard to fully grip from the outside, or even inside. That is, I was not talking about the well-known facts or the moral impact of the murder, but trying a psychological speculation, with Stockholm syndrome in a wider psychological sense of course (where the term in fact might not even be suitable any more).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Ava wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Ava wrote:
The Bard wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I don't see that in the same way. She wasn't identifying with the police, she was trying to appear cooperative, and she was scared, no doubt, but not afraid they would hit her or starve her. She was scared because she murdered Meredith.


Totally agree. Does not exclude Stockholm however. I think she WAS scared because she was guilty. I also think she was scared because she knew OTHERS knew she was guilty. i.e the police. Given that both she and they KNEW she was guilty she would have been more susceptible to Stockholm. I just would have preferred a cleaner affair. NO suggestion of Stockholm whatsoever. I just dislike the presence of it. If anything it points to deeper guilt, not the opposite. That's my take anyway...


Hello again!
I don't think it has to be either or, to add my two cents, it can also be partly Stockholm, partly fear and manipulation. Apart from the known reasons that lead to a Stockholm syndrome behavior, I read an interesting and very simple interpretation in relation to another murder case the other day: The human mind just always tries to make sense of any situation, also the worst and most absurd, to not completely loose touch with reality. So it could indeed point to deep guilt and confusion over a very extreme situation (being a murderess).


It's time for a reality check. Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response in hostages, in which they come to identify with their captors. Amanda Knox was not taken hostage by the Perugia Flying Squad. She went voluntarily to the police station on 5 November 2007 and after less than three hours she made a false and malicious accusation against an innocent man which led to his arrest and imprisonment, and ultimately ruined his business. She's never apologised to Diya Lumumba.

Knox wasn't threatened at gunpoint. She was given water, camomile tea, cakes and some breakfast. The police actually comforted her. Knox admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with mother on 10 November 2007. She knew her accusation was unjust and that she was responsible for it. However, she didn't recant the allegation the whole Lumumba was in prison. She then tried to put the blame on the police by falsely accusing one of the officers of hitting her.

Knox and Sollecito wiped Meredith from existence. Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, and Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi all believe that Knox inflicted the fatal wound.

Knox has done all she possibly can to deflect attention away from herself and Sollecito. She removed incriminating traces of herself and Sollecito from the cottage, but intentionally didn't clean up Sollecito's bloody footprints or flush his faeces.

She knew that Meredith had two mobile phones. She took these phones and locked Meredith's door, so that she could delay the discovery of Meredith's body. The next day she phoned Filomena and pretended she was concerned about Meredith. It's no wonder that Judge Massimo Riccarelli described her as "crafty and cunning" with a "multi-faced personality".

When Sollecito stopped providing her with an alibi, she made a false and malicious accusation against Lumumba and then blamed the police for it. She doesn't care who she destroys: Meredith, Meredith's family, Diya Lumumba and his family. She's never shown any flicker of remorse or regret.

When Knox lies, she speaks her native language. She told her mother in prison that she couldn't remember calling her in the middle of the night before anything had actually happened. Knox then claimed she couldn't remember having this conversation with her mother. I don't understand how anyone could claim that she sounded genuine when you consider her track record for lying deliberately and repeatedly.

Some people can't see past Knox's age, appearance or gender. They remind me of the simpletons who climb into the lion enclosure at the zoo, so they can stroke the cute lions.

One of the reasons some of the judges refused to grant Knox bail was because they thought there was a very real possibility that she could reoffend. She is a disturbed and dangerous killer. She is not a victim.


I think we are talking about two different things here. I have never denied that AK is a murderess, and not a victim (or if so, maybe a victim of her own screwed up self, if you'd like).
My point was, that human perception and behavior and its motives are rarely black and white, but often quite irrational and multifaceted, and hard to fully grip from the outside, or even inside. That is, I was not talking about the well-known facts or the moral impact of the murder, but trying a psychological speculation, with Stockholm syndrome in a wider psychological sense of course (where the term in fact might not even be suitable any more), maybe I should have added that.


Shhhh....It's alright Ava, we all know you weren't...!!!

Interestingly the syndrome is most often seen in situations where people being questioned are treated well, I discover. So there you go, we learn something every day don't we. I think it is an interesting subject. It traditionally applies to hostage situations, but is a well known set of responses to other situations of psychological stress, so quite legitimate to discuss in the context of a police interrogation. In this instance it probably implies that Amanda was treated well during her interrogation, but was very frightened - probably because she had just murdered someone. I think I find it uncomfortable because I sense that emotion of fear behind her words. This has nothing whatever to do with thinking Amanda is a victim. :roll:

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

GOOD LUCK ITALY!!! Just about to kick off!!! Fingers crossed for Clander and all our other Italian posters!

Yay-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

A one chapter excerpt from the book "The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook"

This was obtained freely from this location: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/12/04708446/0470844612.pdf


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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Forza Italia!
tt-) tt-) tt-)

Another question about FBI-agent Steve Moore (retired 2008) - and FOA member:

but my Steve Moore was at least active FBI Member by November 16, 2009.

Maybe another Steve Moore??? Can you have a look at the 2nd foto
http://newyork.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/nyfo111609.htm

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Macport wrote:
A one chapter excerpt from the book "The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook"

This was obtained freely from this location: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/12/04708446/0470844612.pdf


Ooo! Thanks Mac. Good truffling. I can't seem to get it to download though. Is it my 'Mac' do you think? I am right clicking and nothing happening - same with the web page...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Macport wrote:
A one chapter excerpt from the book "The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook"

This was obtained freely from this location: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/12/04708446/0470844612.pdf


Ooo! Thanks Mac. Good truffling. I can't seem to get it to download though. Is it my 'Mac' do you think? I am right clicking and nothing happening - same with the web page...

Just left click.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Macport wrote:
A one chapter excerpt from the book "The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook"

This was obtained freely from this location: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/12/04708446/0470844612.pdf


Ooo! Thanks Mac. Good truffling. I can't seem to get it to download though. Is it my 'Mac' do you think? I am right clicking and nothing happening - same with the web page...


Hi Bard

Not nerd expert, but me thinks:

That is a pdf file so you need to be set up with 'adobe' or 'fox it' to make it open after download
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thanks chaps. Now downloaded it FIVE TIMES by mistake!!! I didn't see the Download window come up...(Duh...)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Macport wrote:
A one chapter excerpt from the book "The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook"

This was obtained freely from this location: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/12/04708446/0470844612.pdf


Ooo! Thanks Mac. Good truffling. I can't seem to get it to download though. Is it my 'Mac' do you think? I am right clicking and nothing happening - same with the web page...


Hi Bard

Not nerd expert, but me thinks:

That is a pdf file so you need to be set up with 'adobe' or 'fox it' to make it open after download

True that. You will need Adobe Reader. http://get.adobe.com/reader/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

If I could have figured out how to, I would have voted to delete. It's the terrible murder, nothing else.

Bard, there's lots similar, like enumerating the times Amanda and Meredith did things together. Lots of mistakes, no mention of the calumny against Lumumba conviction.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
If I could have figured out how to, I would have voted to delete. It's the terrible murder, nothing else.

Bard, there's lots similar, like enumerating the times Amanda and Meredith did things together. Lots of mistakes, no mention of the calumny against Lumumba conviction.


Sorry bucket - not sure I quite follow what you're saying...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Further to Catnip's transcription of Aviello's letter. Thanks Catnip 8-)
Here is my tanslation:

Pages 4-8 of a fax dated 2 May 2009:

[Page 1 of 5 of the letter]

To the Penal Court of Assize
President Dr. Giancarlo Massei
Perugia

Subject: Trial against Sollecito Raffaele + &


I the undersigned Aviello Luciano born in Naples on 28/04/1969, currently confined, for juridical motives, in the prison of Catanzaro, here by, on my own accord, I denounce and clarify the following:

Given that, I am very disgusted of how it is been speculated and distorted by the press and TV newscast when I watched it last night about the intrusion and theft organized by me which took place in the house on Via della Pergola, where the girl was finished [murdered]. I knew from the first day I spoke with Raffaele Sollecito in prison in Terni, that unfortunately his legal case has become a media circus, but I have never hidden from Sollecito all my astonishment of what I understood from Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, Chief of the S.C.O. Mobile Police station of Perugia and some of his colleagues. Indeed, with total certainty, I was, and I am certain of Raffaele Sollecito’s innocence, not so much for what he can say, but I think of things that were known to me and to people who like me had illicit interests in Perugia, and then from what I understood, and with much astonishment, from Dr. Chiacchiera and some of his men in the presence of the substitute prosecutor of Perugia, Dr. Gabriele Paci.

In fact in March 2008 I was to begin to collaborate [as informer] with Dr. Paci and Dr. Chiacchiera, because a friend of mine whose name was Salvatore Conte had been murdered, thus far they created a mafia group of ex [repentants] informers headed by a Sicilian and a Pugliese, but following unfair behaviours of Dr. Chiacchiera and some of his men, I decided to no longer collaborate [as informer] and above all I no longer wanted to give the proof on certain unresolved crimes in Perugia and in the province.
Many more times I collided with Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, thus far, after reading one letter that Raffaele Sollecito, gave me with a handkerchief as a reminder of our friendship, he wanted at all cost to sequester both the letter and handkerchief, I opposed because it had no connection with the investigation where Sollecito was a suspect.
Dr. Chiacchiera and some of his men claimed to know of Raffaele Sollecito innocence, but the latter, according to the S.C.O. police, was covering for his girlfriend who would be the real author of Meredit [sic] murder.

Since I had and have local knowledge of Perugia because I lived there and because I have some Albanian friends also, I thought I would like to send a message, not just to Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, but also to Dr. Gabriele Paci, that I had the ability to send some friend of mine to the house in Via della Pergola to take a few items, but above all breaking the official seals, which is what happened, just like I ordered.
This action was to demonstrate that some good can be done by me when I want, [?] in fact I'm telling you, but I will also say that Raffaele Sollecito is innocent and he has not done anything because he is a nice guy, but I will be more clear. For sure little credibility will be given to me especially because of some incidents that I have been involved in, but also by fully acquitted formula, but for sure I have always taken the responsibility when I retracted some declarations:

I do no wish for any publicity to have fame [in general??] in this crime there is only shame to have. But I was 18 years old when I was arrested for a Camorra crime and after 18 months I was acquitted, even though I was a camorrista and therefore guilty of what I had done it was never for murder, just like Sollecito is not either!

Lastly, Distinguished President, I wish to present things, known by me of Raffaele Sollecito, I have asked my friends to find out if some fool had burglarized and killed Meredit, [sic] and so an Albanian brotherly friend of mine informed me in a letter (which I vigorously keep) that this
murder was the work of a foreigner that was living in Perugia, he asked me if it needed a punishment but I said not to make a move.
This is why Raffaele Sollecito is innocent, however he does not know of my initiative and much less that I am writing to Your Honor, but I don’t care much if he agrees or not, It was an obligation not so much because unfortunately this is a media case, but rather if Italian justice prides it self being cool [??] towards Dr.Chiacchiera and his collaborators ways, it is just shameful!

I remain available only to Your Honor in case I’m asked to hand over the various letters from my Albanian friend where he tells me the name of Meredit [sic] real killer and the true facts!

Excuse me for disturbing you but it was my duty to notify you.

Catanzaro
30/04/2009
[signed]
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
Further to Catnip's transcription of Aviello's letter. Thanks Catnip 8-)
Here is my tanslation:

Pages 4-8 of a fax dated 2 May 2009:

[Page 1 of 5 of the letter]

To the Penal Court of Assize
President Dr. Giancarlo Massei
Perugia

Subject: Trial against Sollecito Raffaele + &


I the undersigned Aviello Luciano born in Naples on 28/04/1969, currently confined, for juridical motives, in the prison of Catanzaro, here by, on my own accord, I denounce and clarify the following:

Given that, I am very disgusted of how it is been speculated and distorted by the press and TV newscast when I watched it last night about the intrusion and theft organized by me which took place in the house on Via della Pergola, where the girl was finished [murdered]. I knew from the first day I spoke with Raffaele Sollecito in prison in Terni, that unfortunately his legal case has become a media circus, but I have never hidden from Sollecito all my astonishment of what I understood from Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, Chief of the S.C.O. Mobile Police station of Perugia and some of his colleagues. Indeed, with total certainty, I was, and I am certain of Raffaele Sollecito’s innocence, not so much for what he can say, but I think of things that were known to me and to people who like me had illicit interests in Perugia, and then from what I understood, and with much astonishment, from Dr. Chiacchiera and some of his men in the presence of the substitute prosecutor of Perugia, Dr. Gabriele Paci.

In fact in March 2008 I was to begin to collaborate [as informer] with Dr. Paci and Dr. Chiacchiera, because a friend of mine whose name was Salvatore Conte had been murdered, thus far they created a mafia group of ex [repentants] informers headed by a Sicilian and a Pugliese, but following unfair behaviours of Dr. Chiacchiera and some of his men, I decided to no longer collaborate [as informer] and above all I no longer wanted to give the proof on certain unresolved crimes in Perugia and in the province.
Many more times I collided with Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, thus far, after reading one letter that Raffaele Sollecito, gave me with a handkerchief as a reminder of our friendship, he wanted at all cost to sequester both the letter and handkerchief, I opposed because it had no connection with the investigation where Sollecito was a suspect.
Dr. Chiacchiera and some of his men claimed to know of Raffaele Sollecito innocence, but the latter, according to the S.C.O. police, was covering for his girlfriend who would be the real author of Meredit [sic] murder.

Since I had and have local knowledge of Perugia because I lived there and because I have some Albanian friends also, I thought I would like to send a message, not just to Dr. Marco Chiacchiera, but also to Dr. Gabriele Paci, that I had the ability to send some friend of mine to the house in Via della Pergola to take a few items, but above all breaking the official seals, which is what happened, just like I ordered.
This action was to demonstrate that some good can be done by me when I want, [?] in fact I'm telling you, but I will also say that Raffaele Sollecito is innocent and he has not done anything because he is a nice guy, but I will be more clear. For sure little credibility will be given to me especially because of some incidents that I have been involved in, but also by fully acquitted formula, but for sure I have always taken the responsibility when I retracted some declarations:

I do no wish for any publicity to have fame [in general??] in this crime there is only shame to have. But I was 18 years old when I was arrested for a Camorra crime and after 18 months I was acquitted, even though I was a camorrista and therefore guilty of what I had done it was never for murder, just like Sollecito is not either!

Lastly, Distinguished President, I wish to present things, known by me of Raffaele Sollecito, I have asked my friends to find out if some fool had burglarized and killed Meredit, [sic] and so an Albanian brotherly friend of mine informed me in a letter (which I vigorously keep) that this
murder was the work of a foreigner that was living in Perugia, he asked me if it needed a punishment but I said not to make a move.
This is why Raffaele Sollecito is innocent, however he does not know of my initiative and much less that I am writing to Your Honor, but I don’t care much if he agrees or not, It was an obligation not so much because unfortunately this is a media case, but rather if Italian justice prides it self being cool [??] towards Dr.Chiacchiera and his collaborators ways, it is just shameful!

I remain available only to Your Honor in case I’m asked to hand over the various letters from my Albanian friend where he tells me the name of Meredit [sic] real killer and the true facts!

Excuse me for disturbing you but it was my duty to notify you.

Catanzaro
30/04/2009
[signed]


Crivvens!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
An interesting little update at Frank's site. He has replaced the photo of Judge Heavey's daughter with a photo of the judge himself. I wonder if he was getting a bit of flack for the photo of the judge's daughter even though she seemed to be part of the connection between Amanda and the judge, the daughter 'convincing' her dad that Amanda couldn't have been involved in the death of Meredith Kercher. The daughter 'happened' to then meet Cantwell then 'happened' to get an internship with her as I recall?


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

Probably he was told to remove it. The girl suffers from dwarfism, so I doubt she or her parents would approved of her picture being display in his blog where loonies are allow to post obscene insults all the time.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
If I could have figured out how to, I would have voted to delete. It's the terrible murder, nothing else.

Bard, there's lots similar, like enumerating the times Amanda and Meredith did things together. Lots of mistakes, no mention of the calumny against Lumumba conviction.
* * * * *

Sorry bucket - not sure I quite follow what you're saying...
* * * * *

The wikipaedia page. I'm sorry. It's the painkillers I think. I thought you were quoting the wikipaedia AK page, and I was chiming in with how I would vote on the proposed deletion of th AK page, the Murder of Meredith Kercher page is adequate. In my view. At this moment LOL!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
If I could have figured out how to, I would have voted to delete. It's the terrible murder, nothing else.

Bard, there's lots similar, like enumerating the times Amanda and Meredith did things together. Lots of mistakes, no mention of the calumny against Lumumba conviction.
* * * * *

Sorry bucket - not sure I quite follow what you're saying...
* * * * *

The wikipaedia page. I'm sorry. It's the painkillers I think. I thought you were quoting the wikipaedia AK page, and I was chiming in with how I would vote on the proposed deletion of th AK page, the Murder of Meredith Kercher page is adequate. In my view. At this moment LOL!


Oh no! Why painkillers????? cu-))

I see what you mean now. The bit I quoted was from the Amanda Knox page. I was just commenting on the fact that Paul and Steve Moore both seem to have got themselves a mention whilst seeming to know virtually nothing about the case!!! Yes, I'd vote to delete it too. She's not a celebrity, she's a murderer!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thanks for the translation Jools!!! You're a star.

Verrrry interesting...there are mysterious Albanians cropping up all over the place in this case. Are there a lot in the area, hence easy to blame???

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
GOOD LUCK ITALY!!! Just about to kick off!!! Fingers crossed for Clander and all our other Italian posters!

Yay-)


Thanks TB.
I wrote this earlier today: "I think it is going to be a complete snore fest against Paraguay. The weakest Italy team I've seen in my lifetime against the most "Italian" of all South American teams. I placed €10 on a 0-0".
It's worse than I thought and I also lost 10 Euros !!! m-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Clander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
GOOD LUCK ITALY!!! Just about to kick off!!! Fingers crossed for Clander and all our other Italian posters!

Yay-)


Thanks TB.
I wrote this earlier today: "I think it is going to be a complete snore fest against Paraguay. The weakest Italy team I've seen in my lifetime against the most "Italian" of all South American teams. I placed €10 on a 0-0".
It's worse than I thought and I also lost 10 Euros !!! m-))

Be patient Clander, this is how Italy always starts the World Cup! On the other hand if you want your money back place your bet for Spain to win. :lol: tt-)
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

The Bard wrote:
Thanks for the translation Jools!!! You're a star.

Verrrry interesting...there are mysterious Albanians cropping up all over the place in this case. Are there a lot in the area, hence easy to blame???

By reading the It. press I think there is a big Albanian community in Italy and few of them seem to be competitors for the local thugs in many crimes.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I wrote this earlier today: "I think it is going to be a complete snore fest against Paraguay. The weakest Italy team I've seen in my lifetime against the most "Italian" of all South American teams. I placed €10 on a 0-0".

Nooo... I was feeling the 1-1.
But maybe Clander you earsed memories like Sacchi's team playing against Ireland, or Azeglio Vicini, or Cesare Maldini in some of his born-to-defend episodes. Tehrapeutic removals.
I think Italy was good to watch. If only there were 11 players in their roles instead of 8, it would be better. Unless there is some death toll among the players of Spain and Germany, I think these teams are the most likely to reach the final, anyway among the strongest.

"Paraguay" is a word has a peculiar sound in Italian, exactly para-guai, which can be translated as "to keep off problems" - or "bring your ass back home".
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:28 pm   Post subject: Who is Luciano Aviello?   

I don't think this information was in the "Oggi" piece; my apologies if it was.

So..what kind of person Luciano Aviello?

A June 9, 2010 "Il Mattino" (daily newspaper) article tells us a little more about the latest "informant" to come forward with a story.

Twenty years ago, Aviello felt comfortable going to the editorial offices of “Il Mattino"because he wanted to talk about his life as a "smart young guy in the Mariano gang of the Camorra." [411 note: Camorra= the mafia-like criminal organization in Naples and its surrounding areas].

I've only had time to translate the important points in the middle three paragraphs of this "Mattino" article.
____________________________________________________________________________________
“[Aviello was wearing] contact lenses, [and had] a slight build. His cousin had been killed for being a member of the Mariano Gang. When Aviello spoke, he revealed himself to be a peripheral character in the underworld of boasting/braggadocio. Continually [finding himself] on the fringe of deals, and violence carried out by the formerly powerful "Quartieri Gang" . He ended up in prison, having pled guilty to murder.

It wasn’t true, but they had promised [Aviello] 5 million, his own attorney and an income. The gang ended up not honoring the agreement, and he began to talk freely. Dazzled by the [lure] of the beautiful life, and the easy money, he had begun to be the “errand boy/gofer” to sell the “receipts” from illegal lottery gambling . He felt important. He was earning 500 thousand lire a week.

It wasn’t so bad. Then, [Aviello did] “message deliveries” small acts, but never great leaps into criminal activity. The gang considered him to be “not trustworthy.” He was involved in the investigation of the Camorra in the Spanish districts, sentenced. Today, Federico Cafiero is Assistant District Attorney [Prosecutor], and Coordinator of the Dda [411 note: =Direzione Distrettuale Antimafia= District Antimafia Office] concerning the evidence on the Provence of Caserta criminal organization.

[Prosecutor Caffiero said of him that]“ [Luciano Aviello] was completely unreliable, notwithstanding the fact that every so often he’d make up a real doozy, a real whopper of a story. A revelation, according to him, but that later was determined to be total and utter nonsense.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, dear. What does it say when your own "hometown paper" publishes such things about your "credibility problem." ss-)
I guess he won't be nominated as Naples' Hometown Hero any time soon.
AND-I suppose his "valuable information" won't end up absolving the three convicted killers.

As I frequently comment, you always have to "read between the lyin's." Between the lyin's...Aviello says NOTHING.

Arrivederci, Aviello!! wg-))

http://www.ilmattino.it/articolo.php?id ... sez=NAPOLI
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Aviello wrote:

Quote:
For sure little credibility will be given to me especially because of some incidents that I have been involved in, but also by fully acquitted formula, but for sure I have always taken the responsibility when I retracted some declarations:


Aviello is 42 years old, he was arrested the first time when he was 18. Up to now he has spent alread 17 years overall in jail or under house arrest. I think this was because of the some incidents with justice he happened to be involved in.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Mafioso Music?   

And now, I'd like to dedicate this next song to Luciano Aviello... p-(((

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GOYYbiEul0&feature=related[/youtube]
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Pelerine wrote:
Forza Italia!
tt-) tt-) tt-)

Another question about FBI-agent Steve Moore (retired 2008) - and FOA member:

but my Steve Moore was at least active FBI Member by November 16, 2009.

Maybe another Steve Moore??? Can you have a look at the 2nd foto
http://newyork.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/nyfo111609.htm


Steve Moore is a very common name, but it is interesting that the man in the picture is described as FBI and a "legal attache" based in Rome, and the photo taken in Nov. 2009. Good find, Pelerine. sun-)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

...and thanks for your concern, Bard, but it's no biggie. :) just the usual postmenopausal decline.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

You know The Bard when ever we post consecutively I always worry that the proximity of my avatar will negatively influence Mungo. To assuage my concerns regarding the potential sway my bunny may exert, will you keep a close eye on any changes in Mungo's mood, behavior and/or group of friends over the next couple of days. Thank you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:50 am   Post subject: Aviello Attributes Part II   

P.S. One more thing from "Il Mattino" article I referenced a few posts ago...
His local newspaper also reports that Aviello has a 20+ year reputation for being a
a longstanding "egocentric mythomaniac," and "a publicity-seeker who gets a thrill by showing off as a witness to 'important facts.''" la_)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Jools wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Thanks for the translation Jools!!! You're a star.

Verrrry interesting...there are mysterious Albanians cropping up all over the place in this case. Are there a lot in the area, hence easy to blame???

By reading the It. press I think there is a big Albanian community in Italy and few of them seem to be competitors for the local thugs in many crimes.


A long, long time ago, when we first became acquainted with Kokomani, I did a little research on that Albanian name and discovered that it is like "Smith" in English or "Martin" in French. Very, very common. In fact, Albania has a former PM or President named Kokomani; he is no relation as far as I know to our Kokomani.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

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

"Van der Sloot's newly hired attorney, Maximo Altez, ..."

Van der Sloot's mother sent message to her son through this lawyer: She can't travel to Peru before gathering the necessary resources. "Heard of your problem in Peru, it was on the TV here, people call me. Be strong and brave, trust God and everything is going to be all right"

This newly hired attorney has resigned since then.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Thanks Jools...

So reading closely I note;

Aviello claims to have instructed the break-in at the flat after that investigation, breaking official crime seals and nicking stuff. Writing to a judge to claim responsibility for a burglary and disturbance of a crime scene is a mark of rare genius.

He says he has letters to substantiate his claim and yet these have not been impounded by the authorities. Either complete balls or an admirable effort to put a balsawood construct around the claim. I can't decide. Decisions, decisions :)

Raffaele buddied up with a mafia grass who has spent half his life in jail. Good to see that legendary judgement of good character is still in place.


Oh, while we're at it, new question for the day; How many innocent people smoke joints before being questioned by the police "to take the edge off"? I can't think of a single one I've ever known apart from the smack heads fixing but that's survival not elective choice.

_________________
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 capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Hi, Bolint. The response of Johan's mother is frightening in it's emotional distance. Edda at least rushed back to Perugia. Her daughter's flatmate had been murdered. " I heard about your problem, trust G-d , everything will be alright" is just COLD. Something is very wrong in Denmark. A mother would run, hitchhike, borrow money, to find out what the hell is going on. Johan' mother is not surprised about this developement, IMO.

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

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

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".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
"The response of Johan's mother is frightening in it's emotional distance. Edda at least rushed back to Perugia. Her daughter's flatmate had been murdered."

Certainly it is stunning, that's why I put it in.

But now it is quite clear that Van der Sloot was broke, in a fresh video on CNN (Nancy Grace show) a US friend of his (John Ludwick), though supporting him, shows an e-mail in which Joran asks money urgently from him by Western Union to buy ticket to go home. This was on May 29, the eve of the murder.
I think that the family was not doing well either, after the death of the father. No income.
There is a reason why Tacopina said something that his relationship with the family has recently cooled. :D

His mother has two other sons and she had to decide if she wants to kill the the fatted (or not so fatted) calf for the prodigal son.
She decided not to and I agree.
In such a clear case only rich families can afford to try to wash out their siblings by lawyers.

The recently hired and resigned Peruvian lawyer undestood that if traveling to Peru was a problem for the family then there wouldn't much to be expected from this case.

The Knox case is quite different, however.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

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.
Top Profile 

Offline florist


Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

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-)
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 9:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

I agree with what you're saying, Bolint. No money, no interest. No PR firm here.. the deck is already stacked. And not in Johan's favour. At least Amanda had family support her. No one for this **************. I wa shocked to hear that in Peru, if you say that it was on the spur of the moment, you get 6-8 years,...WTF???????????????

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

" 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."
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

Heyyyy, Fine. We've both been deleted!!!! Must have struck a nerve:) YOU make em nervous:)

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -   

capealadin wrote:
" I wa shocked to hear that in Peru, if you say that it was on the spur of the moment, you get 6-8 years,...WTF???????????????"

It is like this in many countries not only in Peru. But it is not based simply on your declaration. :D
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

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

Nick Pisa's article again but in Hispanic Business News

Comments allowed

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/20 ... oxy_is.htm
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 40 of 42 [ 10274 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], The Machine and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,586 Views