Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:50 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:50 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JUNE 19 - JULY 22, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:38 pm   Post subject: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JUNE 19 - JULY 22, 10   

XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - July 22, 2010






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

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 - June 19, 10

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)
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 19, 2010 1:09 pm   Post subject: The World   

Another of those iconic coincidences, the University for Foreigners was holding a round table discussion on the internationalisation of universities, in the context of the Marco Polo/Turandot programmes, in the Great Hall of Gallenga Palace, starting at 10:30am, the morning of the 17th June (their events page here, and the session poster here).

This would have been about the same time that the Court of Appeal of Perugia was hearing the request by the Knox defence to remove judge Matteini from hearing the slander trial.

I often think of internationalisation and the Internet as the same coin -- both are good and bad at the same time.

With boards, you get trolls. But the vistas are extensive and expansive.

And nothing beats being there, but there's nothing worse than not being able to come home*.


"I am a friend of Google[Bot], and a companion to owls."



*Unless an extended sojourn is what you subconsciously yearn for, of course.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Interesting addition to Amanda's recent quote from her court appearance a few days ago. Was the full quote reported elsewhere because I do not recall seeing it?

Quote:
Knox said: "I just wanted to defend myself. I've always told the truth regarding my position."


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... olice.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks Catnip... It is the end date when she would have come home that I am really wondering about. Point of the question is the "burn rate" on her cash. Machine's TJMK article says she was running disastrously low on cash and I am seeking to make the distinction of absolute versus relative. It doesn't figure in the absolute sense since she had 4.4k in the bank when she was arrested, but could of course be disastrous in the budgeting sense depending on time frame i.e. relative ... Just another "to be fair" attempt to contextualise...

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Dear Catnip, I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. One would have to be a close acolyte and follower of yours to decipher the deep meaning of it all in your postings. Anyway, this- but a humble contribution to your sparkling ideas and words:


"The present dramatisation of the ancient fable-
a modest attempt to cast good metal anew-
closely follows the Italian of the sardonic nobleman
whose bones have been mouldering
by the blue lagoons
for over a hundred years."


Attachment:
blue lagoons and stuff.jpg


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

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I wanted to respond to The Machine's post from the prior thread.

The Machine wrote:

Quote:
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:23 am Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -


Bruce Fisher seems to think that Filomena kept her clothes on the floor:

"If the clothes were thrown on the floor to stage a break in, tell me where the clothes came from. Where were they? There is no logical place for them to go. They were on the floor to begin with."

If he had read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, he would have known that the clothes were in the closet. It must be a nightmare for Bruce and his gang to rely on Google Translate.


I don't know if y'all have been following along over at Bruce's relatively new forum, but it's entertaining at times. I wanted to post his sample copy and paste posts for his lemmings to place in the comment sections of every online article, but he has since hidden those threads. Darn!

Anyway, to get back the translation topic, they have a thread to address just that, and you can read about it here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA IN ITALIAN?

They are soliciting donations and volunteers to help with translations. Here is what one of the followers had to say:

Quote:
Re: InjusticeInPerugia in Italian?
by Sean2010 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Another thought. If there are no volunteers for translation services, then why not ask for donations from the members and hire a translator. I doubt it would be all that expensive.


You can read more hilarity just like this here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA MEMBER FORUM

Apologies if this has already been hashed out and posted before! b-((

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


Last edited by Tara on Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi Tara! Thanks for the link (I think). LOL my security settings didn't like Bruce's site.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:01 pm   Post subject: Delusions & Deep Pockets   

Tara wrote:
I wanted to respond to The Machine's post from the prior thread.

The Machine wrote:

Quote:
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:23 am Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -


Bruce Fisher seems to think that Filomena kept her clothes on the floor:

"If the clothes were thrown on the floor to stage a break in, tell me where the clothes came from. Where were they? There is no logical place for them to go. They were on the floor to begin with."

If he had read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, he would have known that the clothes were in the closet. It must be a nightmare for Bruce and his gang to rely on Google Translate.


I don't know if y'all have been following along over at Bruce's relatively new forum, but it's entertaining at times. I wanted to post his sample copy and paste posts for his lemmings to place in the comment sections of every online article, but he has since hidden those threads. Darn!

Anyway, to get back the translation topic, they have a thread to address just that, and you can read about it here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA IN ITALIAN?

They are soliciting donations and volunteers to help with translations. Here is what one of the followers had to say:

Quote:
Re: InjusticeInPerugia in Italian?
by Sean2010 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Another thought. If there are no volunteers for translation services, then why not ask for donations from the members and hire a translator. I doubt it would be all that expensive.


You can read more hilarity just like this here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA MEMBER FORUM

Apologies if this has already been hashed out and posted before! b-((



TARA:

AS FAR AS ITS COMEDIC VALUE, this site is .. JUST PRICELESS!!

On the subject of The Camorra's Supergrass Aviello: a poster on this site named ajackson writes:

"Still, the new witness is billed as a mafia police informant. They must think he is credible or he wouldn't be much of an informant! They have apparently used him in trials. If they believe he is not reliable, they risk suborning perjury by using him. [b]My thought is that if the two new people were there, it is most likely Rudy was with them

Oh yeah, "THEY" (who's "THEY"?).. WHO? WHO? WHO? is "THEY?"
think he's "REALLY CREDIBLE"...
(WHO-WHO-WHO-WHO_WHO???

Whooooooo...SAID HE WAS "REALLY CREDIBLE?") WHO0000000???????!!!
__________________________________________________________________________
No matter what how faulty the logic, no matter how flimsy the evidence is, no matter what straws they're grasping at...notice with the Innocentisti...that the conclusion reached is ALWAYS the same...
...IT WAS MOST LIKELY RUDY!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and about that brilliant idea to "hire a translator. I doubt it would be all that expensive."

Is this naiveté or just plain stupidity?

If they want a full-time, high-quality, hard-working translator, I certainly hope they have..

"DEEP POCKETS!!"


(This is the only known photo of "Deep" taken by The 411, surreptitiously, when I last met with him in that D.C. underground garage...It may not be appropriate for our Gallery; I'll let Bard and H9 decide... ss-) )
Top Profile 

Offline gardner


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:37 pm

Posts: 46

Location: Ohio USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I wanted to thank h9 for Amanda's address in prison. I mailed a letter to her today.....along the lines of suggesting she consider telling the truth for everyone's long term well being. I had long mulled over writing to Amanda and am glad I just did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: The World   

Catnip wrote:
And nothing beats being there, but there's nothing worse than not being able to come home*.

I have often wanted to honor stilicho's avatar. Catnip has provided the means. Being There one of my all time favorites.


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The LA7 episode linked by Clander ( http://www.la7.tv/richplayer/?assetid=50182491 ) starts with Sollecito’s first call to the carabinieri.
It is interesting, beacuse we never knew why it was actually interrupted. Only Kevin(?) heard a playback of it on a TV.

This is the transcript based on he subtitles that seem to agree literally with what they say.

Quote:
Police: Carabinieri Perugia
RS: Pronto buongiorno senta ... qualcuno è praticamente entrato in casa sfondando la finestra e ha messo molto disordine c'è una porta chiusa .. la via è....
AK: via della Pergola
RS: via della pergola 7
Police: via..
RS: della Pergola 7, a Perugia
Police: abitazione signor?
RS: ehmm... .. Amanda ..
Police: eh??
RS: la...chi ci abita dentro ..ehmm .. sono un gruppo di studenti
Police: mi dia il nome ad il cellulare di uno degli affittuari
RS: Amanda
Police: si..
RS: il cognome k, n, o, x
Police: furto in abitazione eh?
RS: no, non c'è furto.. hanno rotto...
Police: allora guardi, praticamente sono entrati .. hanno rotto un vetro .. e come sa che sono entrati?
RS: si vede dai segni... ci sono pure le macchie di sangue nel bagno
Police: cioè sono entrati. .. perché sono rotti ... si sono tagliati rompendo il vetro?
RS: ehmm...
Police: pronto??




Length of this playback is 97 seconds
The length of the full first call was 169 seconds. This excerpt clearly does not contain the part when Raffaele gives Amanda’s phone number and maybe some other parts ar missing, too, but that cant’ be much.

Now we see how it was interrupted (if it is indeed the end of the call):

When the operator asks Raffaele how it is known that someone entered the house Raffaele says that the bathroom is full of blood stains. Then the operator asks the natural question if the burglars cut themselves with the broken glass and Raffaele can’t answer immediately and the operator seems to see that the call is finished.

An innocent man would simply say „I don’t know”, Raffaele, however, seems to be caught by that question, he has to think what to answer.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I think an innocent me may well hesitate while I thought it through. I don't think I'd hang up, though.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Do I remember correctly that RS at some time said the police on the phone *told him* to hang up and call back? That may be missing in this version?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: The World   

Macport wrote:
Catnip wrote:
And nothing beats being there, but there's nothing worse than not being able to come home*.

I have often wanted to honor stilicho's avatar. Catnip has provided the means. Being There one of my all time favorites.


Thanks, Macport. At the JREF I use the same one and a signature line from another of my favourite movies, Repo Man:

"Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue. No explanation and there's no point in looking for one either. It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness."

I like both of those movies because they are full of explanations about what language means and how words don't always convery their intent. A lot what's gone on in this case, and especially in the epilogue since the verdict, revolves around what people say, what they meant to say, how it was interpreted, and the result of the communication.

I find it astonishing that the FOA folks diminish everything that Knox and Sollecito say and write (except when convenient) and tend to handwave the technical and legal communications from the courts to the public. It's as though Raffaele really didn't say or mean to say that Amanda wasn't with him. It's as though Amanda didn't really say or mean to say that she was in the cottage while Patrick murdered Meredith. So they invent a scenario in which these statements make sense to their idealised versions of the killers. The cops beat them. Or the cops misinterpreted an SMS message. Or this. Or that.

Yet Amanda and Raffaele weren't talking in riddles. They were responding directly to challenges to statements they'd made before 05 NOV 2007. They weren't talking about gardening (Being There) or a plate of shrimp (Repo Man). There was nothing ambiguous about their statements leading up to the final interviews before their arrests. I've read and re-read Amanda's alibi email of 04 NOV 2007, and I don't detect one iota of confusion or drug-addled memory loss. I am absolutely certain this made an enormous impact on the investigators and the prosecutor.

In the movies, of course, there are plot devices that can whisk away the protagonist so that all the language, the misinterpretation, and even the lies and the deceit, are rather moot. That actually happens in both movies and it's a little unfair to all the other cast members who, in the end, are pretty much foils for the inevitable rescue of the hero.

In real life, though, and try as they may, their lawyers can't just make all the lies, the contradictions, or the evidence simply vanish. The cast of characters is still there doing their jobs. They won't even be able to make the judges disappear although that's been the focus of Amanda's most recent court appearances. On appeal, they're apparently going to try to make the witnesses vanish--especially Curatolo and Quintavalle. And they're trying to rewrite the whole script--after post-production--by introducing prison snitches and convicted child killers.

They ought to start by having Raffaele recover his voice and having Amanda recover her memory. The mime and the idiot are supposed to be peripheral characters!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I'm convince that this is more Foaker's lies to keep troops interests alive, but here it is:

"Have you met my friend?"
http://2for176.wordpress.com/2010/06/18 ... my-friend/
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
I'm convince that this is more Foaker's lies to keep troops interests alive, but here it is:

"Have you met my friend?"
http://2for176.wordpress.com/2010/06/18 ... my-friend/



Looks like someone who may have known Amanda from the UW. I am amazed at how different the world is now from the brief time ago that I attended university:

http://depts.washington.edu/rhsa/documents/legislation/Legislation%200607-005%20(changed).pdf

Stacey appears to have been involved with residence regulations. We used to have discussions about whether apples qualified as a salad or a dessert, to allow resident students to take two apples with their meal. Now it's about whether they need to build entirely separate bathroom facilities for transvestites. I wonder if apples are still considered a salad, though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
I'm convince that this is more Foaker's lies to keep troops interests alive, but here it is:

"Have you met my friend?"
http://2for176.wordpress.com/2010/06/18 ... my-friend/



Yes...


Quote:
While I feel fairly sure that the case is and will be of historical and judicial significance for quite some time, and that she deserves all the support of friends and strangers alike, I hope that when you read this you think not about the social and historical implications of the case, but about the fantastic, intelligent, caring woman waiting for freedom. She is someone worth knowing, worth loving, worth everything you might give, because she would gladly give it all back to you and then some. Her name is Amanda Knox and it is a pleasure to know her and I am glad to call her a friend.



Let's just not bother thinking about whether she murdered Meredith at all, just let's decide whether we think she's a nice girl or not. Who needs courts, trials and evidence when we can decide the nature of a person after meeting them a couple of times? :roll:

_________________
"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 SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
I'm convince that this is more Foaker's lies to keep troops interests alive, but here it is:

"Have you met my friend?"
http://2for176.wordpress.com/2010/06/18 ... my-friend/



Looks like someone who may have known Amanda from the UW. I am amazed at how different the world is now from the brief time ago that I attended university:

http://depts.washington.edu/rhsa/documents/legislation/Legislation%200607-005%20(changed).pdf

Stacey appears to have been involved with residence regulations. We used to have discussions about whether apples qualified as a salad or a dessert, to allow resident students to take two apples with their meal. Now it's about whether they need to build entirely separate bathroom facilities for transvestites. I wonder if apples are still considered a salad, though.



Yeah she's a Washington grad, Facebook friend of Madison Paxton with 750+ Facebook friends(!) and is happy to have her info public. Which means, in reverse order, that she is trusting and not terribly discerning about who she is friends with imvho, not trying to be horrible about it. Currently on a round-the-world trip. But it did lead me to a bit of a lol moment - I clicked through to Madison from Stacey's Facebook idly and there was a section "Notes about Madison" which Madison has public. I clicked one of them and it linked through to Ben Parker who is a friend of Amanda and was in the house at the verdict. Ben's note was one of those questionnaire-about-your-life type things with 50 vaguely racy questions which get a tiny bit suggestive in parts. The comments underneath made me laugh;


Attachment:
Ermmm.JPG

(No I didn't photoshop it - it's real - http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?subj=10728311 :) )

Steady Edda! I know it's an innocent comment to your daughter's fit friend but he is half your age and those haters'll be looking for cougars in the wilds of Seattle!


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

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Mind you, Edda's keeping her mind on relevant stuff. Ben's just being Ben on the other stuff - what's the big deal?

(excerpt from 50 qustions)

Been arrested? YES but never charged. woot!

Been suspended from school? YES

Fired somebody? YES. its a great feeling.

Pointed a gun at someone? YES

Had a close brush with death (your own)? YES

Skipped school? YES most definitely!

Lied to avoid a ticket? YES

Drank straight from a liquor bottle? YES

Killed an animal when not hunting? YES.

Snuck into a movie without pay? YES

Been in handcuffs? YES


Good close friend of Mandy and the family. Nuff said really. I swear they try and make this easy sometimes :)

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Mind you, Edda's keeping her mind on relevant stuff. Ben's just being Ben on the other stuff - what's the big deal?

(excerpt from 50 qustions)

Been arrested? YES but never charged. woot!

Been suspended from school? YES

Fired somebody? YES. its a great feeling.

Pointed a gun at someone? YES

Had a close brush with death (your own)? YES

Skipped school? YES most definitely!

Lied to avoid a ticket? YES

Drank straight from a liquor bottle? YES

Killed an animal when not hunting? YES.

Snuck into a movie without pay? YES

Been in handcuffs? YES


Good close friend of Mandy and the family. Nuff said really. I swear they try and make this easy sometimes :)

... And this is what Ben would call his relevant stuff:

"December 4, 2008

Religion
Disclaimer: I wrote this originally as a letter to one of my best friends who is currently incarcerated, then later realized that I would like to share my views with more people. This blog is simply a copy + paste from that letter. I have no intentions of offending any of you and would love some constructive feedback.

The letter goes as follows:

So for a long time now when it comes to religion I have had conflicting views. As you may or may not recall I was raised fervently Christian. My dad used to be a pastor and simply muttering the words "dang" or "fart" was punishable by death, with no chance of possible explanations. I bought into this. I was very involved in my church and I was very involved in my religion, all without question. As a child, what my parents said was law, and I just believed it; if they told me that watching TV was heathenistic I would throw out my set on blind faith.
After coming to college I made a conscious decision to live a certain way; to be objective and open, looking at things from a logical standpoint and questioning authority. This mindset led me to a point where I was looking back at my childhood, now from the outside, and wondering what I was doing and why I did it. This "outside view" really opened my eyes to all of the extreme holes in religion, and also made me realize my true disdain for how my parents forced it into me. This constant, always pushing pressure of religion, from my dad especially, only made me hate it more. I just wish that parents could see that. As I become more and more educated, learning exponential amounts of useful and logical information, the concept of Christianity appears more and more illogical. Now, I am not saying that it doesn't make sense why it exists, it totally does make sense, but I am saying that actually placing blind faith in something that I am now 99.999% sure did not occur is simply idiotic. These poor unfortunate souls, so blinded and ignorant…
For some time now, not to my family of course, but to others, when asked about my religion I have said I don't know. .. that I just don't know any more what's up.
Today while I am walking through campus and approaching Red Square, I observe several large signs sticking high above the crowds of seemingly meaningless students as they hurriedly scatter about trying to find the best path to their next class all whilst texting on their i-phones, and these signs read phrases resembling "Repent Now or Else!" and "Judgment Day is Coming! Are you Prepared?" In the past I have always enjoyed stopping by these crazy-preacher-men for a good laugh or two, and today I assumed would be no different. I slow my pace as I approach and open my ears for a few brief moments until I need to move on to my history lecture, as I stop I pick up the man's argument as he was basically attempting to prove the Bible's legitimacy by stating it's age. I listen. And, I listen some more. The more I hear, the more I realize that I have a solid and fact based rebuttal for everything the crazy-preacher-man is saying. This is a man that believes in his faith so passionately that he is confident enough to stand in the forum of one of the most liberal universities in the nation and speak to all that will hear. One would assume that a person like this would know his stuff, and, the crazy thing is that he did. He knew it, however, that does not mean he is right…
As I tore myself away and moved on to my next destination, I suddenly had a revelation: I don't believe in it any more. If I was listening to him and the only things running through my mind were counter arguments, than really,, how can this be true? I've been saying the last couple years that I am just confused and don't know what I believe, and while is still definitely the case, I now realize that I don't believe the Bible.
Lets look at this from a logical standpoint (we'll see if I can attempt to clearly and effectively convey my thoughts on this, most likely not): From the beginning of time man has looked to a higher deity to explain, well, everything. This makes sense. These ancient and uncivilized people had no science, no modern thought, no Socrates to guide their thoughts, so they needed something to turn to for an explanation of their existence and the world surrounding them. Bam, religion. gods. deities. all placed into man's thought-train from the beginning. Thing is, it was not "God" whom they worshipped, it was other gods, many gods, gods of the sun and the earth and war and rain and fire and birth. This tradition became a benchmark for civilization; the earliest settlements back in ancient Mesopotamia were centered around temples in praise of that particular clan's favored god. Every different race and ethnicity developed their own religious system. Now, if you were to tell them to just stop worshiping Mardu and instead to worship the god of your choice, stating that your's is the one and true god, they would give you the finger and tell you to be gone. In early Athens a person would have been stoned or exiled for this kind rhetoric. As a matter of fact this was attempted once by the king Akhenaton in the 18th dynasty Egypt as he tried to lessen the worship of the god Amon in order to create a monotheistic worship of the god Aton, and even went as far as to move the capital (remember, the center for praise) from Thebes to Amarna. This attempt failed. The construction of the new city was never completed and upon the death of Akhenaton the people returned to their polytheistic views. One of the most intriguing things about this story to me is this: The literature of Akhenaton's "Hymn to Aton" is strikingly similar to that of Psalm 104 in the Hebrew Bible.. it may as well be a word for word translation.
And let's take a moment to go over a few things, the most prominent of which is that there is no empirical or archeological evidence to support most of the claims made in the Bible. One of the staples of the Christian religion comes from the beginning, from The Exodus: according to the Bible the Hebrews were held as captive slaves in Egypt until Moses led them out through a 40 year march in the Sinai desert, all while crazy miracles occurred, until they eventually reached the Holy Land. There is no evidence of them ever being slaves in Egypt. There is no evidence of any of the stuff that happened in the desert or that they were even there. Most of the towns mentioned do not seem to have ever existed. As a story, this works out great. It is entertaining and gives hope, but as a historical document (as I was taught it was) it simply cannot be proven at all.
This all being said, who has the right to say that Yahweh, or "God" is the one and true king? All of these other people have their faiths; even today there are more religions than I could even attempt to understand, what says that Christianity, or even belief in God, is the right choice? What says that the worship of Hitiashinesshe isn't actually the true god? Nothing. Nothing except blind faith. blind Amanda blind. This boggles my mind how people can simply take something because they were told it was the answer and simply regurgitate the same bs they were fed their whole lives.
If you want to look at religion for what it has done for us as a people however, you will see that it has been nothing but good. Well, it has started wars and stuff yes, but religion all instills an inherent integrity, a morality, a forum to discuss ones views, all kinds of good things. I am thankful for how I was raised, I think that having that in my background has built me into a much better person than I probably would have been otherwise. But now that I can look at it again I can see that is simply wrong. I don't know where we came from, I don't know how this world came to exist and why we are here, I cannot answer those questions; but that is Exactly why religion was developed (yes developed) from the get-go, as an attempt to calm people down and give them something solid to explain why they existed. Ancient Greek texts say that man was created because the gods were bored and wanted entertainment.
There have been so many religions over time, so many gods created and worshiped until the next big fad came along, why are we to believe today that Yahweh is the answer? Most of the Bible is just stories. And that's another thing (lol, sorry), the Bible was pieced together over centuries, from dozens of different (possibly questionable?) authors, it was initially translated so that it could be recorded and has since been translated who knows how many times. It is not credible. It was written by uncivilized people who were writing the stories their grandfather passed on to them. The way I raised, the Bible was true. 100%. No question. True. Today I know for a fact that a lot of it is not. Jesus could have very well existed, he probably did, but his stories may be a little, uh, "embellished" from what I gather.
So, apparently for me, it took 4 years of college education and a crazy preacher man shouting redemption in Red Square to finally come to my realization that I do not believe. I still cannot answer that question for you, nor can anyone else in my opinion, but I am fairly confident that the Bible is simply a great text to teach us how to be good people. It has done both great and destructive things for society as we've developed, and I am thankful for all of it, but I will no longer call myself a Christian or by any other title… maybe in the future my views will change again, they always do, but for the moment I am content in my knowledge, and just figured I would share."
bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Uh-oh. The Minister is going to be REALLY pissed Jools. How dare someone talk to Amanda about that stuff. And away from the path of the lord!

_________________
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 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:11 am   Post subject: Dimmi con chi vai...   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Mind you, Edda's keeping her mind on relevant stuff. Ben's just being Ben on the other stuff - what's the big deal?

(excerpt from 50 qustions)

Been arrested? YES but never charged. woot!

Been suspended from school? YES

Fired somebody? YES. its a great feeling.

Pointed a gun at someone? YES

Had a close brush with death (your own)? YES

Skipped school? YES most definitely!

Lied to avoid a ticket? YES

Drank straight from a liquor bottle? YES

Killed an animal when not hunting? YES.

Snuck into a movie without pay? YES

Been in handcuffs? YES


Good close friend of Mandy and the family. Nuff said really. I swear they try and make this easy sometimes :)



Let's continue, with some more questions for Ben, shall we?

Glib and superficial? YES

Egocentric and grandiose? YES

Lack of remorse or guilt? YES

Lack of empathy? YES

Deceitful and manipulative? YES

Shallow emotions? YES

Enjoy trying to shock people? YES

Poor behavior controls? YES

Constant need for excitement? YES

Lack of responsibility? YES

CONGRATULATIONS, BEN! Answering "yes" to all of the above questions means that you've just won the "Psychopath of the Week" award!! tt-) You are a loser, but just for today you're a winner-- for being such a loser. cl-)

AND-- Ben, you sound *just* like your convicted murder friend! kh-))

A narcissistic need for attention may be characteristic of many of your Generation Y peers,
but a lot of the above-cited behavior--AND THE NEED TO MAKE THE INFORMATION PUBLIC--is more than a bit concerning.

Two of your most disturbing "yes" answers, imo,

"Fired somebody? YES. its a great feeling.

"Killed an animal when not hunting? YES."
tu-))
________________________________________________________
So.....What does Ben's behavior really say about Amanda and family?

Well, as they say in Italian,
"Dimmi con chi vai e ti diro` chi sei."
="Tell me who you hang out with, and I'll tell you who you are."
ghu-))

A man/woman/murder defendant/little angel, etc... is known by the company he/she keeps.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:33 am   Post subject: Bored Birthday Boy OJ aka "Daddy Juice"   

In addition to Amanda, also celebrating a birthday on July 9 will be another "Murderer of (another) Century", the infamous OJ Simpson. Like Amanda, O.J is finding prison life dull, but he keeps working on his "appeal" (double entendre intended).

The latest from the tabloids:
"According to an ex inmate who went bumping his gums to the National Enquirer says OJ. Simpson is adapting to prison life and being turned out at Nevada's Lovelock Correctional Facility. The snitch says, OJ is being take care of very well by the gays and trannies :shock: :shock: , catering to his every need and calling him by his prison nickname "Daddy Juice." drin-) :shock: OJ gets "special" privileges from "the girls" :P like clean socks, massages, the whole nine!!" wh-)

Also:

"O.J. Simpson has been grousing to pals that he's "bored out of his mind" p-((( at Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada, where he's serving 33 years for armed robbery. So to pass the time, The Juice has returned to the playing field -- although not the gridiron. "He's playing baseball," says our source. "As a kid, O.J. loved baseball even more than football. Now he's got plenty of time to perfect his game."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/batters ... z0rLcYFqHm
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Has a decision been made in Amanda's 'abuse' hearing?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Mind you, Edda's keeping her mind on relevant stuff. Ben's just being Ben on the other stuff - what's the big deal?

(excerpt from 50 qustions)

Been arrested? YES but never charged. woot!
Pointed a gun at someone? YES
Lied to avoid a ticket? YES
Killed an animal when not hunting? YES.
Been in handcuffs? YES


Good close friend of Mandy and the family. Nuff said really. I swear they try and make this easy sometimes :)


Now this is the spokesperson Marriott should be trotting out. Points guns at people, lies, cruel to animals...

Why do they pretend this person isn't the kind of guy Amanda hangs with?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: Dimmi con chi vai...   

The 411 wrote:
Two of your most disturbing "yes" answers, imo,

"Fired somebody? YES. its a great feeling.

"Killed an animal when not hunting? YES."


I overlooked that one because I didn't pay attention to the additional comment. I've fired people and truthfully it's one of the most gut-wrenching decisions I could ever make. Anyone who takes pleasure firing people probably has a lot wrong with them. The person you are letting go is, perhaps, only an employee to the company but they are also a human being, with loved ones, with feelings, and with desires of their own. Nobody should ever find pleasure in firing someone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Tara wrote:
I wanted to respond to The Machine's post from the prior thread.

The Machine wrote:

Quote:
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:23 am Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -


Bruce Fisher seems to think that Filomena kept her clothes on the floor:

"If the clothes were thrown on the floor to stage a break in, tell me where the clothes came from. Where were they? There is no logical place for them to go. They were on the floor to begin with."

If he had read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, he would have known that the clothes were in the closet. It must be a nightmare for Bruce and his gang to rely on Google Translate.


I don't know if y'all have been following along over at Bruce's relatively new forum, but it's entertaining at times. I wanted to post his sample copy and paste posts for his lemmings to place in the comment sections of every online article, but he has since hidden those threads. Darn!

Anyway, to get back the translation topic, they have a thread to address just that, and you can read about it here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA IN ITALIAN?

They are soliciting donations and volunteers to help with translations. Here is what one of the followers had to say:

Quote:
Re: InjusticeInPerugia in Italian?
by Sean2010 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Another thought. If there are no volunteers for translation services, then why not ask for donations from the members and hire a translator. I doubt it would be all that expensive.


You can read more hilarity just like this here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA MEMBER FORUM

Apologies if this has already been hashed out and posted before! b-((



It didn't take long for a godwin to emerge:

"it didn't take the Nazis who persecuted the jews long to get over any natural empathy or horror at their first murder or the first group they gassed at the camps."


Yep because Italian prosecutors are totally like death camp guards.
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: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

piktor wrote:
Dear Catnip, I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. One would have to be a close acolyte and follower of yours to decipher the deep meaning of it all in your postings.



That wasn’t the intention. Plus, it is probably more surface froth and bubble, rather than deep.

In the Italian proverb Dimmi con chi vai, I am known by the friends I keep. In the Internet worldspace, I am what I Google.

Many times, when I am on the board and the rest of the world is sleeping (like now), there is just me and a Google[Bot] scanning the threads, and an owl outside the window.

That reminded me of the evocative saying by Job, when he was all alone in the desert, “I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls” (sometimes translated as “I am a brother to jackals, And a companion to ostriches” (!) – [ translations ] ).


Quote:
Saturday November 29, 2003. A few months ago, I misheard "Olive Garden" as "Owl Garden". I now have a fictional bar-restaurant called the Owl Garden.

It occurred to me that the Biblical phrase "I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls" would go well with that name. And that I really ought to look the quote up before using it.

I googled on the phrase "companion to owls". A high percentage of the results was references to Jane Lindskold's novel Brother to Dragons, and Companion to Owls. (Not to be confused with books titled Brother to Dragons by Charles Sheffield, Robert Penn Warren, and at least three others.)

– Dan Goodman, [ Blog ]


There are also
  • – a Hugo winning 1975 novelette by Kate Wilhelm ([ Wikipedia ], [Fantastic Fiction ] )
  • – a short story by Chris Roberson (March 2006) [ here ]
  • – a novel by Tessa West, about ([ her site ] ) a Huguenot family in The Fens of East Anglia in the 17th century
  • – a book of poems by Kentuckian Maurice Manning ([ link ], [ review ] , [ Amazon ] )

    Quote:
    Poetry can be difficult to describe; for one thing, the most important part of poetry is what happens around and between the words, those meanings to which the words are clues, but seldom anything as clear as signposts. – Robert Tilendis, 2005 [ link ]

  • – a book of poems by Hungarian born Toronto poet Andrea Jarmai ([ link ]
    Quote:
    “This book of poems is like that rock crystal. To be found within it, page after page, are small dark caves. Some of these caves are caverns large enough to hold a ‘blue planet.’ Others are fissures that reach back in time and space to the era of Akhenaten, Gilgamesh, and Lucifer. There are cavities and grottos for Umberto Eco, Jean-Louis Barrault, George Faludy, Gwendolyn MacEwen…not to mention dragons and owls…and some especially scary ‘wolf dreams.’
    – John Robert Colombo


It turns out that there is some serendipity regarding Jane Lindskold’s first novel, Brother to Dragons, Companion to Owls (1994), ([ her site ] , [ Amazon ] )

Rowena Morrill’s cover art

The story is (from the Amazon page):
  • “Sarah is insane. After all, she talks to walls, rubber dragons, and other inanimate objects. What no one else knows is that the inanimate answers her back.”
  • Sarah “is able to communicate somewhat by repeating more or less appropriate quotes from literature” (customer review Arthur Jordin).
  • She “cannot form her own words and must thus speak by repeating literary quotes (Shakespeare, Bacon, the Bible, etc.)”…I gotta admit: when I first read the book years ago, 75% of Sarah's quotes went over my head; I wasn't much of a Shakespeare guy.” (H Bala)
  • Sarah is affected by “the inability to speak in her own words. Instead, she must rely on an (impressive) array of quotes drawn primarily from classic literature (most of the ones I recognized came from Shakespeare and the Bible, but I'm sure there were others I missed.)” (J Griffin)
  • “Despite her serious handicap, Sarah herself is a bright and cheerful person and her friends are loyal and brave.” (Arthur Jordin)

Christina Schulman wrote:

“…Sarah's viewpoint gives it a fairy-tale atmosphere that prevents it from becoming grim or sordid…”
“didn't strike me as particularly plausible; it pegged my "Yeah, right," meter a few times. But it's a very enjoyable read, full of memorable characters.”
[ Epiphyte Book Review ]



A bright and cheerful person, with a fairy-tale viewpoint, with friends who are brave and loyal, and with a story that does not strike one as “particularly plausible”, begins to conjure up images of an Amelie-like person (“Who? Who?” said the owl).

Time to go back to the cave in my grain of sand, and to wondering about the next sparkle of thought, like how many Marriott-style “journalists” will be pulled in, for example, by Googling “Rudy the Drifter”.

To someone who uses and likes words, and the ideas that they enwrap and lovingly hint at, the unethical act of hiding behind someone else’s words (and presenting them as your own) can be quite revealing (to say nothing of the legal consideration of royalty payments for usage of trademarked phrases that must be flowing through the ether and laying down a lasting money trail “all over the place”, as the template has it).

And it's interesting to observe how the bouquets of constructed alibis stand out in such strong contrast to the real alibis, like artificial flowers stand out when placed beside real flowers.


A beautifully evocative picture, Piktor. :)




– “It is something of a truism that writers tend to be solitary people.” – Jane Lindskold
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 20, 2010 4:20 am   Post subject: Vigilant vigil   

pataz1 wrote:
In her book, she [CD] addresses this by stating "No photographs exist" of any of the three of them at the vigil.

– [ link to post ] 18 Jun, 2010


Pat,

There is also a prior question: Did she mix up the words “vigil” and “funeral"?

It's easily done.

If there are "people-on-the-street" who think that a thesaurus is a dictionary, or that synonyms are interchangeable, it is not so surprising, then, that “journalists” make the same mistake – it’s not as if the journalists have gone on any special course or had professional training relating to words, after all.


An example sentence, chosen totally at random, is:

Quote:
The flimsy evidence – the weak DNA results and the lack of a clear motive – remained unassailed by the closing speeches.

– Russell & Johnson, Darkness Descending, p426: the context was the closing defence speeches at the first-instance trial – the prior sentence reads: “But despite valiant efforts, none of the lawyers was able to find a thread that could be tugged on to unravel the prosecution’s case.”


If my “flimsy” battlements remain “unassailed” by the attacking hordes, I’m sending a very peculiar picture to my readers. If the “weak DNA evidence” remains “unassailed”, then what is that saying about the competence of the defence teams? I can hear a libel suit brewing in the wings, there.

Who knows what Russell and Johnson actually meant?

But it sounds breathlessly exciting, all this valiantly unassailed flimsiness. They might even win an award!


---
There's an Australian schoolyard expression, applied to people full of their own pretentious flim-flam: "He couldn't even fight his way out of a wet paper bag."
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 20, 2010 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

A bit of context :):

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Catnip and 0 guests
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Van der Sloot's mom: 'Joran is sick in his head' MSNBC


Anita Van der Sloot

///


Last edited by fine on Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

user browsing, me too :-)
Catnip, great post in the previous thread.
Fine, the article is sad, she is delusional.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

But this is the truth!

(a wonderful Freud-verbal-error)

The flimsy evidence – the weak DNA results and the lack of a clear motive – remained unassailed by the closing speeches.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: Vigilant vigil   

Catnip wrote:
Quote:
The flimsy evidence – the weak DNA results and the lack of a clear motive – remained unassailed by the closing speeches.

– Russell & Johnson, Darkness Descending, p426: the context was the closing defence speeches at the first-instance trial – the prior sentence reads: “But despite valiant efforts, none of the lawyers was able to find a thread that could be tugged on to unravel the prosecution’s case.”


If my “flimsy” battlements remain “unassailed” by the attacking hordes, I’m sending a very peculiar picture to my readers. If the “weak DNA evidence” remains “unassailed”, then what is that saying about the competence of the defence teams? I can hear a libel suit brewing in the wings, there.

Who knows what Russell and Johnson actually meant?


This is one of the reason I don't want to read any of the popular books about Meredith's murder. I might read her father's.

How in the world does one apply the adjective 'flimsy' to the mountain of evidence that convicted these two? Let's see: We have contradictory statements, weak alibis that became no alibis, DNA and print evidence, blood in places it shouldn't be, a staged burglary, witness statements, and--oh right--they were standing right there at the crimescene without a care in the world when her roommate's friends had to break down the door for the police.

Flimsy...right.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

fine wrote:
Van der Sloot's mom: 'Joran is sick in his head' MSNBC


Anita Van der Sloot

///



I know this picture very well. Far, far too well. This picture is all you need to understand why Amanda's family can never contemplate why she did it while they still have the option to convince themselves otherwise.

_________________
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 bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
"Do I remember correctly that RS at some time said the police on the phone *told him* to hang up and call back? That may be missing in this version?"

In his diary Raffaele writes:

Quote:
I call the cell of my sister and she tells me to call 112. I call and leave the name of
Amanda as the address and try to explain briefly the situation. They
say that I would have to call again
. We pause to wait outside and
suddenly there are two types who tell us to be the postal police



In the Italian: "Dicono che mi avrebbero richiamato."

I'm not sure that the translation is good. I understand it that they said that Raffaele would be called back.
Italian experts help!




So far all I know from the calls are:


Quote:
First call
Start: 12:51:40
Length 169 seconds
Leaked: 99 seconds

Police: Carabinieri Perugia
RS: Pronto buongiorno senta ... qualcuno è praticamente entrato in casa sfondando la finestra e ha messo molto disordine c'è una porta chiusa .. la via è....com’è la via
AK: via della Pergola
RS: via della pergola 7
Police: via..
RS: della Pergola 7, a Perugia
Police: abitazione signor?
RS: ehmm... .. Amanda ..
Police: eh??
RS: la...chi ci abita dentro ..ehmm .. sono un gruppo di studenti
Police: mi dia il nome ad il cellulare di uno degli affittuari
RS: Amanda
Police: si..
RS: il cognome k, n, o, x
(… Raffaele is probably giving Amanda’s phone number here)
Police: furto in abitazione eh?
RS: no, non c'è furto.. hanno rotto...
Police: allora guardi, praticamente sono entrati .. hanno rotto un vetro .. e come sa che sono entrati?
RS: si vede dai segni... ci sono pure le macchie di sangue nel bagno
Police: cioè sono entrati. .. perché sono rotti ... si sono tagliati rompendo il vetro?
RS: ehmm...
Police: pronto??




There is a break of 70 seconds between the two calls



Quote:
Second call
Start: 12:54:39
Length:: 57 seconds
Published: 20 seconds

(... beginning of the second call missing)

Police: Cosa hanno asportato? (not in he published recording but quoted in the Massei report)
RS: Non hanno portato via niente. Il problema e che c'e la porta chiusa e ci sono machhie di sangue..
Police: C'e una porta chiusa .. qual'e la porta chiusa?
RS: Di una delle coinquiline che non c'e e non sappiamo dove sia

(... there seems to be a cut here)

RS: Si, abbiamo cercato di chiamarla ma non risponde da nessuna parte
Police: Va bene adesso mando una pattuglia cosi verifichiamo la situazione

(... end of the second call is missing)
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
In his diary Raffaele writes:

Quote:
I call the cell of my sister and she tells me to call 112. I call and leave the name of
Amanda as the address and try to explain briefly the situation. They
say that I would have to call again. We pause to wait outside and
suddenly there are two types who tell us to be the postal police




I don't understand why the police operator would tell Sollecito to call again. It makes no sense. Is there any proof that the police operator told Sollecito to call again?

It seems that Sollecito is claiming that the postal police arrived before his second call to 112.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
"I don't understand why the police operator would tell Sollecito to call again. It makes no sense."

Sure.
But as I wrote the translation may not be good. If they said that they would call him back then it makes some sense.

"Is there any proof that the police operator told Sollecito to call again?"

None that I know of.
The two calls were played back in the courtroom but the media did not report them in detail.
Nor did the defences or the prosecution.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

But one thing is sure: Raffaele in both calls says very clearly, answering specific questions, that there was no theft.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Couple of interesting clips from Ben Parker's piece (originally to Amanda) on closer examination;

"So, apparently for me, it took 4 years of college education and a crazy preacher man shouting redemption in Red Square to finally come to my realization that I do not believe. I still cannot answer that question for you, nor can anyone else in my opinion"

So Amanda's been asking the question about religion to her friend. No doubt the conversations with the priests, nuns and Minister Kelly's inbound conversion vibes have been playing on her mind. Religion; always there for people in their hour of need and / or always ready to pick up the saved when they are their most vulnerable - a quantum truth if ever there was one.

Interesting he says "nor can anyone else in my opinion". Could be a blind statement but since we know he's answering Amanda's question and we know that people have been trying to convert her (her version of conversations with the priests and nuns where it is after all their job and Kelly's own proxy-papal Bulls ((latest; Ad exstirpanda Guilterandi) to the Pe0n faithful where he tells us he has tried to save her, well THEN I wonder if he's telling her not to get led by the nose by Kelly and others...

And point 2. A quote from him that frankly I'm going to adopt as my new sig since it sums up the entirety of EITHER side of the debate who won't look at the EVIDENCE;

"Nothing except blind faith. blind Amanda blind. This boggles my mind how people can simply take something because they were told it was the answer and simply regurgitate the same bs they were fed their whole lives."

Amen


(Right - I'm off to New York - don't break it while I'm gone ;) SA )

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
"Do I remember correctly that RS at some time said the police on the phone *told him* to hang up and call back? That may be missing in this version?"

In his diary Raffaele writes:

Quote:
I call the cell of my sister and she tells me to call 112. I call and leave the name of
Amanda as the address and try to explain briefly the situation. They
say that I would have to call again
. We pause to wait outside and
suddenly there are two types who tell us to be the postal police



In the Italian: "Dicono che mi avrebbero richiamato."

I'm not sure that the translation is good. I understand it that they said that Raffaele would be called back.


You're right. The translation is wrong.

"They say that I would have to call again" is an incorrect translation.

This is the correct translation for " Dicono che mi avrebbero richiamato."

"They say that they would call me back again."
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:28 pm   Post subject: Felon Families   

SomeAlibi wrote:
fine wrote:
Van der Sloot's mom: 'Joran is sick in his head' MSNBC


Anita Van der Sloot

///



I know this picture very well. Far, far too well. This picture is all you need to understand why Amanda's family can never contemplate why she did it while they still have the option to convince themselves otherwise.


And furthermore...
Anita V.D. Sloot says: huff-))
"I can't cry for Joran like I did for Paul. I hope that he gets psychological help." huff-))
"But if he killed Stephany, he'll have to pay the price. I won't visit him in his cell, I cannot embrace him," huff-))
she was quoted saying.
********************************************************************************************************
I'm sure that's the SAME TOXIC family "message" Amanda has gotten.

"Amanda, we love you BECAUSE you're innocent. Our love for you is premised on YOUR INNOCENCE--got that, kid? Always remember, Amanda: We would NEVER be showering you with all this attention, time, and love if you were guilty. We wouldn't have made all these FINANCIAL SACRIFICES FOR YOU m-))<----Curt-"Retirement-Losing"-Smiley... if you had actually been involved in Meredith's killing. If you actually did what you're accused of, we'd shun you like Joran's mother is doing now." rt-))

angel-)

Notice that once again,in the mind of the criminal's parents--THE MEDIA is partially to blame for Joran VD Sloot's "mental problems."

"She[Anita] said Joran's mental health had deteriorated steadily from the time of the Holloway disappearance.
She attributed his decline in part to intense media scrutiny."

Soooo....It's the media scrutiny that contributed to the mental decline... that subsequently led to the murder???!!? huh-)

If this is true.... what's in store for AMANDA KNOX now, and in the future? ...with her (preexisting, hitherto UNTREATED) MENTAL PROBLEMS and the INTENSE MEDIA SCRUTINY? eee-)

And surely NONE of Joran's problems originated from his BLAMELESS family, did they? :roll:

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Both Mellox and Van der Sloot families are every bit as sick as their criminal offspring. nnn-))
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Catnip: SIAMO QUATTRO GATTI   

Hey, Catnip:

I thought you'd appreciate this:

I've just now noticed that there are :

Users browsing this forum: The 411 and 3 guests



I guess you could say...

"SIAMO QUATTRO GATTI !!!"




For non-Italian speakers: The expression "Siamo quattro gatti" ("We are four cats.") really means

"There are only a few of us."
here...

Meow for now,
Feline Fan Forever,
411
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Bruce Fisher, June 18,2010 at JREF wrote:
Quote:
Filomena could not remember if she closed her shutters. The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario.

Anyone who has visited the cottage will tell you that the climb would have been an easy one for Rudy. We have two members of our group that have seen the window in person and both have stated that the window would have been easy to enter.

Here are the photographs showing the rock after it was thrown through the window.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html



I believe it is important for these ardent supporters of Amanda Knox to have all the facts at hand so they can provide a factual website for their deciples.

Therefore, Bruce, please listen and learn. IF you had read Judge Micheli's precise and thorough sentencing report for Rudy Guede, you would have read that there were indeed TWO rocks found in Filomena's room. Please share which one Rudy threw through the window?

Either one would be a miracle shot indeed. Do you honestly believe that Rudy threw one of the rocks which then sailed through the window (shutters were closed though, but we'll pretend they were open; just for you, Bruce), left NO shards of glass on the ground below yet had enough force to leave an obvious nick in the wood of an irregular shape, cm. 2 or so, with fraying of the fibers and some small wood splinters of glass stuck there, then continue it's journey to incredibly alight INSIDE a paper bag with some clothes in it? Or, if it was the 2nd rock found, make it's descent and fantastic landing OUSIDE the paper bag, yet next to the other rock?

Wow, just WOW!

ham-)

Round up those donations - translators are big BIG dollars Bruce.

I'll help you out with the part from Judge Micheli's report:

Quote:
“La stanza prende luce da una finestra, ubicata nel terzo medio della parete anteriore prospiciente
il viale d’accesso alla casa. La stessa è protetta esternamente da una persiana fiorentina in legno
di colore verde, in atto rinvenuta semiaperta e priva di effrazioni. L’anta di destra della persiana, è
munita di un congegno di chiusura denominato ‘a spagnoletta’. La finestra è costituita da due
imposte in legno bianco, con pannelli in vetro, apribili verso l’interno, ciascuna munita
all’interno di scuro di legno di colore bianco. Lo scuro dell’imposta di destra, è munito di un
piccolo chiavistello di chiusura, in atto agganciato alla rispettiva asola a sua volta fissata
all’imposta sottostante, e di un secondo congegno di chiusura, denominato ‘a spagnoletta’ munito
di un chiavistello più grande del precedente, in atto aperto regolarmente (..). L’imposta di
sinistra presenta il vetro infranto nella metà inferiore ed un foro passante di forma irregolare, che
misura cm. 53 di lunghezza e cm. 27 di larghezza. Il davanzale interno ed esterno della finestra è
cosparso di frammenti di vetro di varie dimensioni, presenti anche all’interno della stanza. Il lato
interno dello scuro dell’imposta di sinistra, in corrispondenza del foro praticato nel vetro,
presenta un’evidente scalfittura nel legno di forma irregolare, di cm. 2 circa, con sfilacciamento
delle fibre legnose ed alcune piccole schegge di vetro ivi conficcate (..). Il davanzale esterno della
finestra dista dal terreno sottostante mt. 3,78 (..).
Sul quadrante anteriore del pavimento, sottostante la finestra, a mt. 0,93 dalla parete destra e mt.
0,66 dalla parete anteriore e mt. 2,31 dalla parete posteriore, è una busta di carta di media
grandezza (..), contenente capi di abbigliamento ed un sasso della misura di cm. 20 x cm. 15 x cm.
15 circa; un secondo frammento di pietra, di piccola dimensione, poggia sul pavimento, fuori della
busta, accanto al sasso (..)”


Details, details... oop-)

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


Last edited by Tara on Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: Felon Families   

The 411 wrote:
I'm sure that's the SAME TOXIC family "message" Amanda has gotten.
"Amanda, we love you BECAUSE you're innocent. Our love for you is premised on YOUR INNOCENCE--got that, kid?
....
And surely NONE of Joran's problems originated from his BLAMELESS family, did they? :roll:
It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Both Mellox and Van der Sloot families are every bit as sick as their criminal offspring. nnn-))


You've got that right bang on. Whatever happened to the unconditional love of a parent for their children? Is this also the message they've given to Deanna and the other two?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario. "

As I see the image in this attachment it doesn't seem so easy.


Image
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi Bolint - Your gigantic picture makes a mockery of Bruce in this post of his:

Quote:
18th June 2010, 01:29 PM #2162
Bruce Fisher
Graduate Poster




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,057

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey
The problem, Bruce, is that the glass shards are on the window sill where Rudy supposedly pulled himself over. There is every reason to believe this was a staged break-in.



Your statement is false. The glass was off to one side of the sill. The glass was not where Guede pulled himself through the window.
There is no evidence that this was a staged break in. Just a lot of talk.


hb-))

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Doesn't he refer to the right side of the sill where the big O sign is placed?

Anyway, it is interesting that the internal wooden plates were closed on both sides.
That means that the alleged burglar had to smash the window either by forcing it open with the stone or by pressing it with hand because he could not open it by the handle.

But if the wooden plates were in the way how could the glass pieces get to the nightstand?
Also, the position of the glass pieces on the sill around a relatively small circle suggests the use of a stone much smaller than the one under the stool.

If it was a staging then It is not sure that the stone was used at all.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

This window is about 3 and a half meter above the ground (there has been not the slightes track on that ground, neither on the soil, nor on the vegetation.


So if nobody climbed from outside, who opened that window??

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It seems that DamascusJohn aka LondonJohn is incapable of cutting ties to PMF. He is now getting restless for the publication of the PMF translation of the Massei motivations. What is the poor chaps rush, this case is set to run for years yet, what is a few weeks in the grand scheme of things? He should relax, chill out, enjoy the summer and watch more cricket. It will be resolved without him. He really is not in any way important in contributing to the truth of what happened to dear Meredith and why.

Regrettably LJ does not deal in the facts of this case. Instead he only put forward his “superior” opinions which are tainted by his support for AK and his obvious FOA bias. In turn he summarily dismiss others views as inferior and unworthy of consideration. In the matter of opinions; other people’s views are just as important to them as LJ’s are to him. He really should respect other people’s intelligence if in turn he wants them to respect him.

By all means he should state his case but, sheese, he really needs to get over himself.

ETA @ SA; any chance of getting another tenner on a date when LJ completes his FOA transformation? I have a feeling that the time is nigh.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario. "

As I see the image in this attachment it doesn't seem so easy.


@bolint and tara:

Bruce is simply in Wonderland, Never-Never-Land or Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Charlie is too. They begin with completely false premises and establish their opinions on top of them.

Among some of their assertions:

- There was no investigation of the outside of the cottage.
- Filomena was lying when she said the shutters were drawn closed.
- Entry through that point is simple.

None of those assertions are supportable by any of the evidence. Their claims are pure pseudoscience.

My own pet peeve about their continued allegations about the staged burglary is their impugning of Filomena's character. Not content with mocking Meredith's and Patrick's suffering, they've decided that Filomena lied in her statements to the police and lied under oath on the stand.

How many people have they now called liars to fit their preconceived notion that Raffaele and Amanda were truthful?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
It seems that DamascusJohn aka LondonJohn is incapable of cutting ties to PMF. He is now getting restless for the publication of the PMF translation of the Massei motivations. What is the poor chaps rush, this case is set to run for years yet, what is a few weeks in the grand scheme of things? He should relax, chill out, enjoy the summer and watch more cricket. It will be resolved without him. He really is not in any way important in contributing to the truth of what happened to dear Meredith and why.

Regrettably LJ does not deal in the facts of this case. Instead he only put forward his “superior” opinions which are tainted by his support for AK and his obvious FOA bias. In turn he summarily dismiss others views as inferior and unworthy of consideration. In the matter of opinions; other people’s views are just as important to them as LJ’s are to him. He really should respect other people’s intelligence if in turn he wants them to respect him.

By all means he should state his case but, sheese, he really needs to get over himself.

ETA @ SA; any chance of getting another tenner on a date when LJ completes his FOA transformation? I have a feeling that the time is nigh.


Mebbe I should plonk a tenner down, too.....on his waiting to misinterpret the "Motivations" for his final "conclusion". wan-)
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
bolint wrote:
In his diary Raffaele writes:

Quote:
I call the cell of my sister and she tells me to call 112. I call and leave the name of
Amanda as the address and try to explain briefly the situation. They
say that I would have to call again. We pause to wait outside and
suddenly there are two types who tell us to be the postal police




I don't understand why the police operator would tell Sollecito to call again. It makes no sense. Is there any proof that the police operator told Sollecito to call again?

It seems that Sollecito is claiming that the postal police arrived before his second call to 112.



Hi Machine,

Why don't you ask the Italian Lawyer, Cesare Beccaria....? haha.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
bolint wrote:
"The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario. "

As I see the image in this attachment it doesn't seem so easy.


@bolint and tara:

Bruce is simply in Wonderland, Never-Never-Land or Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Charlie is too. They begin with completely false premises and establish their opinions on top of them.

Among some of their assertions:

- There was no investigation of the outside of the cottage.
- Filomena was lying when she said the shutters were drawn closed.
- Entry through that point is simple.

None of those assertions are supportable by any of the evidence. Their claims are pure pseudoscience.

My own pet peeve about their continued allegations about the staged burglary is their impugning of Filomena's character. Not content with mocking Meredith's and Patrick's suffering, they've decided that Filomena lied in her statements to the police and lied under oath on the stand.

How many people have they now called liars to fit their preconceived notion that Raffaele and Amanda were truthful?


I do not believe Filomena is lying. Raffaele's appeal does point out that in another statement Filomena indicated that there was glass not only on top of the clothes but in the middle of the clothes and underneath the clothes. Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed. I do believe Filomena is telling the truth about the vast piles of clothes on the floor and I don't think that all of that is the result of Filomena making a mess before she left.

That high resolution blow up of the glass on the window sill is nice. The Motivations report mentions a nail underneath the window in the bricks that a climber should have bent or disturbed if he crawled in the window, yet I have not seen evidence of this nail in the photo's. If you got one of that nail, I would appreciate it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
bolint wrote:
"The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario. "

As I see the image in this attachment it doesn't seem so easy.


@bolint and tara:

Bruce is simply in Wonderland, Never-Never-Land or Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Charlie is too. They begin with completely false premises and establish their opinions on top of them.

Among some of their assertions:

- There was no investigation of the outside of the cottage.
- Filomena was lying when she said the shutters were drawn closed.
- Entry through that point is simple.

None of those assertions are supportable by any of the evidence. Their claims are pure pseudoscience.

My own pet peeve about their continued allegations about the staged burglary is their impugning of Filomena's character. Not content with mocking Meredith's and Patrick's suffering, they've decided that Filomena lied in her statements to the police and lied under oath on the stand.

How many people have they now called liars to fit their preconceived notion that Raffaele and Amanda were truthful?



This is one of the defining factors of the FOA and their supporters. Everyone but everyone is at fault, they are all liars, they are all corrupt....everyone except our darling angels Raffaele and Amanda (and those who support them) of course.

I remember some time back, on Dempsey's and Franks, they were even blaming Sophie Purton...it was all her fault, she only walked Meredith half way home. Why didn't she walk her all the way home to her door instead of only half way? If she'd done so, this would never have happened...blah, blah, blah. Not a single one of them them stopped to think about who was supposed to walk Sophie home of course.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
The Machine wrote:
bolint wrote:
In his diary Raffaele writes:

Quote:
I call the cell of my sister and she tells me to call 112. I call and leave the name of
Amanda as the address and try to explain briefly the situation. They
say that I would have to call again. We pause to wait outside and
suddenly there are two types who tell us to be the postal police




I don't understand why the police operator would tell Sollecito to call again. It makes no sense. Is there any proof that the police operator told Sollecito to call again?

It seems that Sollecito is claiming that the postal police arrived before his second call to 112.





Hi Machine,

Why don't you ask the Italian Lawyer, Cesare Beccaria....? haha.



Hmm...why the "haha"? What's the joke?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
I do not believe Filomena is lying. Raffaele's appeal does point out that in another statement Filomena indicated that there was glass not only on top of the clothes but in the middle of the clothes and underneath the clothes. Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed. I do believe Filomena is telling the truth about the vast piles of clothes on the floor and I don't think that all of that is the result of Filomena making a mess before she left.


That's the whole point, it wasn't a 'burglar' who did it, was it? It was done by people trying to stage a burglary, people who'd never themselves ever burgled anywhere and had most probably never been burgled themselves.

'Who' rips out of their wardrobe their own perfectly tidy clean clothes then slings them down on the floor at the foot of the wardrobe? 'If' someone has clothes lying about their room, normally they are clothes they've worn and they tend to be dotted in various places about the room, or key in one particular place, like over the back of a chair or the like. These were all deliberately thrown to the floor just in front of the wardrobe. That is not a pattern of 'normal' mess....it's clearly a staged mess and we know why that mess was staged.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Among some of their assertions:

- There was no investigation of the outside of the cottage.
- Filomena was lying when she said the shutters were drawn closed.
- Entry through that point is simple.

None of those assertions are supportable by any of the evidence. Their claims are pure pseudoscience.

My own pet peeve about their continued allegations about the staged burglary is their impugning of Filomena's character. Not content with mocking Meredith's and Patrick's suffering, they've decided that Filomena lied in her statements to the police and lied under oath on the stand.

How many people have they now called liars to fit their preconceived notion that Raffaele and Amanda were truthful?


I do not believe Filomena is lying. Raffaele's appeal does point out that in another statement Filomena indicated that there was glass not only on top of the clothes but in the middle of the clothes and underneath the clothes. Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed. I do believe Filomena is telling the truth about the vast piles of clothes on the floor and I don't think that all of that is the result of Filomena making a mess before she left.

That high resolution blow up of the glass on the window sill is nice. The Motivations report mentions a nail underneath the window in the bricks that a climber should have bent or disturbed if he crawled in the window, yet I have not seen evidence of this nail in the photo's. If you got one of that nail, I would appreciate it.


They can try to sugar-coat it but they really are calling Filomena a liar. She told the police that the room was not like that when she left and that the shutters were not open. The prosecution case doesn't rest only on Filomena's word, either. It doesn't rest only on a single nail on the wall outside.

The appeal is a different business altogether. If the FOA people want to state now that they'll agree fully with the court's ruling on appeal then that's fine with me. But you and I both know that's not what they're arguing. They're using the points in the appeal as some sort of mystic incantation to support their belief in Raffaele's and Amanda's innocence. Those points (poorly translated as they seem to be) are a mixed assortment of stuff that lawyers typically drag out. None of it addresses the known lies that the two convicted murderers told the police. None of it changes all those "can't remembers" and "don't knows" in Amanda's testimony.

And that isn't even including the physical evidence.

The lawyers might be compelled to call Filomena a liar--however gracefully--but I see no reason why Amanda's virulent cheerleading squad has to chime in. It's a sickening smokescreen designed only to impugn her character. I find it revolting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
I do not believe Filomena is lying. Raffaele's appeal does point out that in another statement Filomena indicated that there was glass not only on top of the clothes but in the middle of the clothes and underneath the clothes. Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed. I do believe Filomena is telling the truth about the vast piles of clothes on the floor and I don't think that all of that is the result of Filomena making a mess before she left.


That's the whole point, it wasn't a 'burglar' who did it, was it? It was done by people trying to stage a burglary, people who'd never themselves ever burgled anywhere and had most probably never been burgled themselves.

'Who' rips out of their wardrobe their own perfectly tidy clean clothes then slings them down on the floor at the foot of the wardrobe? 'If' someone has clothes lying about their room, normally they are clothes they've worn and they tend to be dotted in various places about the room, or key in one particular place, like over the back of a chair or the like. These were all deliberately thrown to the floor just in front of the wardrobe. That is not a pattern of 'normal' mess....it's clearly a staged mess and we know why that mess was staged.


I do not believe that Rudy entered by that window. I think the only times he could have staged it would be before the murder or if he returned later that night after the murder. I can see no convincing reason that he would do either. The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Among some of their assertions:

- There was no investigation of the outside of the cottage.
- Filomena was lying when she said the shutters were drawn closed.
- Entry through that point is simple.

None of those assertions are supportable by any of the evidence. Their claims are pure pseudoscience.

My own pet peeve about their continued allegations about the staged burglary is their impugning of Filomena's character. Not content with mocking Meredith's and Patrick's suffering, they've decided that Filomena lied in her statements to the police and lied under oath on the stand.

How many people have they now called liars to fit their preconceived notion that Raffaele and Amanda were truthful?


I do not believe Filomena is lying. Raffaele's appeal does point out that in another statement Filomena indicated that there was glass not only on top of the clothes but in the middle of the clothes and underneath the clothes. Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed. I do believe Filomena is telling the truth about the vast piles of clothes on the floor and I don't think that all of that is the result of Filomena making a mess before she left.

That high resolution blow up of the glass on the window sill is nice. The Motivations report mentions a nail underneath the window in the bricks that a climber should have bent or disturbed if he crawled in the window, yet I have not seen evidence of this nail in the photo's. If you got one of that nail, I would appreciate it.


They can try to sugar-coat it but they really are calling Filomena a liar. She told the police that the room was not like that when she left and that the shutters were not open. The prosecution case doesn't rest only on Filomena's word, either. It doesn't rest only on a single nail on the wall outside.

The appeal is a different business altogether. If the FOA people want to state now that they'll agree fully with the court's ruling on appeal then that's fine with me. But you and I both know that's not what they're arguing. They're using the points in the appeal as some sort of mystic incantation to support their belief in Raffaele's and Amanda's innocence. Those points (poorly translated as they seem to be) are a mixed assortment of stuff that lawyers typically drag out. None of it addresses the known lies that the two convicted murderers told the police. None of it changes all those "can't remembers" and "don't knows" in Amanda's testimony.

And that isn't even including the physical evidence.

The lawyers might be compelled to call Filomena a liar--however gracefully--but I see no reason why Amanda's virulent cheerleading squad has to chime in. It's a sickening smokescreen designed only to impugn her character. I find it revolting.


If we are allowed to show the conflicting statements of Amanda and Raffaele then the same goes for the witnesses, does it not? Personally, I think the question raised about the location of the glass was not properly explored by the defense team on cross examination. Nor does it appear they did a very good job with getting at the exact nature of the "mess" in her room. It seems to me this part of the appeal is more about correcting some mistakes that the defense team made. Personally, I don't care if she is lying or not but I don't believe she is. I just don't think the defense did very well at getting at the details on this issue. I am still more interested in what is the real truth about the location of the glass and the state of the mess in her room.

The questions about two of the other witnesses that I mentioned at JREF who were challenged in the appeal are a different story, in my opinion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed.


Bruce Fisher can't possibly know what state Filomena's room was in on 1 November 2007 or how tidy she is.

From the judges' report:

1. Filomena is very tidy.

2. Filomena testified that "everything was all over the place..."

3. Various objects had been scattered on the floor.

RoseMontag wrote:
The Motivations report mentions a nail underneath the window in the bricks that a climber should have bent or disturbed if he crawled in the window, yet I have not seen evidence of this nail in the photo's. If you got one of that nail, I would appreciate it.


Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani wouldn't have mentioned the nail if it didn't exist.

Gioia Brocci, of the Perugia forensic police, took photographs the crime scene starting from the outside of the house. I assume that she took a photograph of the nail when she was taking photographs of the wall outside Filomena's window.

The judges and jurors also went to the cottage to see it for themselves.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.


That doesn't require any 'assumptions', only the evidence, plain logic and deduction.

For me, on this case, I never began with any assumptions of guilt. Instead, I followed the evidence and went where that led. That's how it should be done. The FOA and their supporters in contrast have started with a plain 'assumption' and then try and shoe horn the evidence in or disregard/hand wave away evidence that can't be shoe horned in, in order to keep up the illusion of that assumption.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RsieMontag wrote:
If we are allowed to show the conflicting statements of Amanda and Raffaele then the same goes for the witnesses, does it not?


Yes, but only if they actually DO conflict. And it must be remembered, the defence's job is to try and make things appear as though they conflict when they do not...in other words, play around with semantics and then exaggerate them. A final point, is that the written statements cannot be seen on their own as definitive, but rather the cross examination on the stand served to clarify points in the written statements. A good example is Curatolo's written statements and testimony on the stand. In both, it sounded as though Curatolo observed Raffaele and Amanda from jist after 9:30 until about 11:30 which gave the 'impression' that he observed them continuously throughout that time. It did not become apparent until he was cross examined however, that he did not observe them continuously, but that he only looked up and over to their position twice. This is important, because it means they could have gone anywhere and done anything in between. But, the defence are tryng to argue that this is a 'contradiction', rather then a 'clarification'. Remember, Filomena went through cross examination, the same clarification process as Curatolo.

Amanda, in contrast, while on the stand reinforced her earlier contradictions and created some new ones as well. No 'clarification' came out of her cross examination.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
The questions about two of the other witnesses that I mentioned at JREF who were challenged in the appeal are a different story, in my opinion.


You haven't read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, which means you're speaking from a position of ignorance. You should wait until you read it before making any assumptions.

Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani found Antonio Curatolo and Marco Quintavalle to be credible witnesses and the defence lawyers presented no credible evidence that contradicted their testimonies. In fact, defence witness, Ana Maria Chiriboga, confirmed that Marco Qunitavalle had spoken about seeing Knox that morning.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Rose, you have it the wrong way around. We don't have to start from prior belief in their guilt to conclude that they AK and RS are the stagers. Amanda is the only one who *needs* the staging. That excludes any Italian or Albanian convicts you care to mention.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The questions about two of the other witnesses that I mentioned at JREF who were challenged in the appeal are a different story, in my opinion.


You haven't read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, which means you're speaking from a position of ignorance. You should wait until you read it before making any assumptions.

Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani found Antonio Curatolo and Marco Quintavalle to be credible witnesses and the defence lawyers presented no credible evidence that contradicted their testimonies. In fact, defence witness, Ana Maria Chiriboga, confirmed that Marco Qunitavalle had spoken about seeing Knox that morning.


I think Rose has fallen into the same trap the FOA have fallen into. They are focusing on the appeal document (a bad translation of one at that) while completely ignoring the Massei Report on which the appeal is based. One can only judge the strength of the points in the appeal when looking at them in tandom with the Massei Report. One can only judge the strength of an argument against something, when one can see the strength of what it is they are arguing against.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

For those of you having problems logging in/staying logged into PMF, please view the following post: viewtopic.php?p=26660#p26660

_________________
"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 Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Rosemontag says:
The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.
--------------------------------------

As Bucketoftea has pointed out to you, no 'assumption' of RS and AK being guilty is required to:

1. Come to the conclusion that the postal police and experienced murder squad detectives came to immediately they saw the crime scene that it was a staging (with not knowing at that point in time who the main players were after they had just set foot in the house) and -

2. It doesn't take a prior 'assumption' of guilt to come to the conclusion that the only person or persons to simulate a crime such as this would undoubtedly be someone who lived in the house.

3. Rudy Guede had no reason whatsoever to stage a break-in.

It's a bit of a no brainer really.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
I do not believe Filomena is lying. Raffaele's appeal does point out that in another statement Filomena indicated that there was glass not only on top of the clothes but in the middle of the clothes and underneath the clothes. Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. [b]It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed. I do believe Filomena is telling the truth about the vast piles of clothes on the floor and I don't think that all of that is the result of Filomena making a mess before she left.


That's the whole point, it wasn't a 'burglar' who did it, was it? It was done by people trying to stage a burglary, people who'd never themselves ever burgled anywhere and had most probably never been burgled themselves. [/b]
'Who' rips out of their wardrobe their own perfectly tidy clean clothes then slings them down on the floor at the foot of the wardrobe? 'If' someone has clothes lying about their room, normally they are clothes they've worn and they tend to be dotted in various places about the room, or key in one particular place, like over the back of a chair or the like. These were all deliberately thrown to the floor just in front of the wardrobe. That is not a pattern of 'normal' mess....it's clearly a staged mess and we know why that mess was staged.


The first time I was burgled, every drawer and curpboard was left open and the contents were all over the floor.

The second time, cupboards were open but the contents were left inside. As for the drawers, they had clearly been rifled through but nothing was thrown on the floor.

I don't see any reason to doubt Filomena's testimony about what state her room was in when she left and what state she found it in, including her testimony about valuables in plain sight that were not taken.

Once again, the only way to make this fly is to assume that Filomena would have a reason to lie.

It isn't that hard to stage a fake break-in; but it is hard to get away with it. Insurance policyholders have been known to try, which is why loss adjustors and inspectors are trained to look for the red flags of property insurance fraud. This one would probably have raised a number of red flags for a well-trained adjustor or inspector.

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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The questions about two of the other witnesses that I mentioned at JREF who were challenged in the appeal are a different story, in my opinion.


You haven't read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, which means you're speaking from a position of ignorance. You should wait until you read it before making any assumptions.

Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani found Antonio Curatolo and Marco Quintavalle to be credible witnesses and the defence lawyers presented no credible evidence that contradicted their testimonies. In fact, defence witness, Ana Maria Chiriboga, confirmed that Marco Qunitavalle had spoken about seeing Knox that morning.


I think Rose has fallen into the same trap the FOA have fallen into. They are focusing on the appeal document (a bad translation of one at that) while completely ignoring the Massei Report on which the appeal is based. One can only judge the strength of the points in the appeal when looking at them in tandom with the Massei Report. One can only judge the strength of an argument against something, when one can see the strength of what it is they are arguing against.



Exactly. How do they think the appeal is working??? - Discussing the same points over and over like on JREF?? rul-)

It is very telling, that the defenses had some +200 pages each (I believe) - and the PM about 13 pages.

**
Anyway, I am reading the Massei report - I do not see much to attack for. It is all clear and logical from A-Z.

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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The questions about two of the other witnesses that I mentioned at JREF who were challenged in the appeal are a different story, in my opinion.


You haven't read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, which means you're speaking from a position of ignorance. You should wait until you read it before making any assumptions.

Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani found Antonio Curatolo and Marco Quintavalle to be credible witnesses and the defence lawyers presented no credible evidence that contradicted their testimonies. In fact, defence witness, Ana Maria Chiriboga, confirmed that Marco Qunitavalle had spoken about seeing Knox that morning.


I think Rose has fallen into the same trap the FOA have fallen into. They are focusing on the appeal document (a bad translation of one at that) while completely ignoring the Massei Report on which the appeal is based. One can only judge the strength of the points in the appeal when looking at them in tandom with the Massei Report. One can only judge the strength of an argument against something, when one can see the strength of what it is they are arguing against.


That is certainly one possibility and one that you know I have no problem admitting. I will be happy when the Massei report is ready, in the meantime here is what the appeal has to say about Quintavalle:

Quote:
L’ulteriore riprova delle innumerevoli contraddizioni in cui è incorsa la decisione
di I grado, emerge con indubbia evidenza anche da ulteriori passaggi della
motivazione.
Secondo la Corte, “la versione fornita da Amanda Knox e secondo la quale
sarebbe rimasta insieme a Raffaele Sollecito nella casa di Corso Garibaldi dalla
sera del 1° novembre alle ore 10,00 della mattina successiva” (p. 73)
risulterebbe smentita dalle dichiarazioni rese da Marco Quintavalle all’udienza
del 21 marzo 2009.
In quella sede il teste ha riferito di aver visto Amanda entrare nel suo negozio di
Corso Garibaldi la mattina del 2 novembre intorno alle ore 7,45.
Nonostante fosse stato ascoltato nella immediatezza del fatto (trascrizioni
udienza 21 marzo 2009, p. 82), Quintavalle ha rivelato questa circostanza per la
prima volta solo nel novembre del 2008, ossia a distanza di un anno
dall’omicidio!
Già le circostanze che hanno condotto all’emersione di questo nuovo teste,
avrebbero dovuto, quanto meno, consigliare grande prudenza nel valutarne la
attendibilità.
In realtà, tale precauzione non è stata minimamente osservata.
La testimonianza è stata, infatti, ritenuta credibile perché “l.ispettore Volturno
non risulta che chiese al Quintavalle se la mattina del 2 novembre vide Amanda
Knox nel proprio negozio. Gli chiese – così ha ricordato il Quintavalle – in
ordine ad acquisti effettuati da Sollecito Raffaele. Il Quintavalle non disse di
aver visto Amanda Knox la mattina del 2 novembre sia perché non gli fu chiesto
e sia perché, come dallo stesso Quintavalle affermato riteneva non significativa
tale circostanza (…) il teste ha fornito descrizione precisa di quanto notato la
mattina del 2 novembre ed inoltre talune caratteristiche somatiche della ragazza
(occhi azzurri e viso bianchissimo) unitamente all.ora insolita, possono ben aver
fissato nella memoria quanto il Quintavalle ha dichiarato di aver visto” (pp. 75 e
76 sentenza).
Quanto appena riportato altro non è che il risultato contraddittorio di una lettura
parziale della deposizione del testimone.
Nello specifico, all’udienza del 21.03.2009 (trascrizioni, p. 83), alla domanda
della difesa Sollecito “La domanda precisa è questa. L.ispettore Volturno è
venuto con delle foto di Raffaele e Amanda?”, Quintavalle ha risposto “Delle foto
no, mi sembra di no”. L’Ispettore Volturno interrogato sulla stessa circostanza,
invece, ha dichiarato “Dopo alcuni giorni rintracciammo il negozio che era un
negozio Conad-Margherita sito subito all.inizio di Corso Garibaldi, dove sia il
titolare che le commesse riconobbero nelle fotografie che noi ponemmo in visione,
Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito era cliente abituale di
questo negozio, mentre la ragazza era stata vista due o tre volte in sua
compagnia” (trascrizioni udienza 13.03.2009, pp. 177 e 178).
Ancora, alla domanda “Le ha chiesto l.ispettore Volturno se lei conosceva
Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Knox?”, Quintavalle ha replicato: “A me di Amanda
non me l.hanno chiesto, cioè se fossero venuti al negozio io a me di Amanda non
me l.hanno chiesto” (trascrizioni udienza 21.03.2009, p. 83). Tale circostanza è
stata contraddetta da quanto dichiarato dalla sua commessa, Ana Marina
Chiriboga, la quale, alla domanda della difesa Knox, “E. venuta la polizia, parla
con Marco Quintavalle, non parla con voi la prima volta. Marco Quintavalle che
cosa vi ha detto di questo colloquio? Di che cosa avevano parlato?”, ha risposto
“Niente, lui ci ha detto che gli hanno detto se conosceva Amanda e Raffaele. Dato
che noi già avevamo visto un po. per la TV, così, commentavamo” (trascrizione
udienza del 26.06.2009, p. 54). Ed ancora, all’interrogazione della difesa “E fin
qui c.eravamo arrivati. Lui che cosa ha detto?”, “Che li conosceva”, la Chiriboga
ha precisato “Sì, ah, voleva sapere se lui conosceva? Lui sì, lui ha detto che lui
conosceva, ma io ho detto non conoscevo, anche la mia collega perché dato
che…” (trascrizioni udienza 26.06.2009, p. 55), nonché, alla ulteriore domanda
“Quintavalle ha risposto che conosceva Amanda e Raffaele, è così?”, la teste ha
risposto “Sì” (trascrizioni udienza 26.06.2009, p. 56).
Pertanto, non si vede come sia stato possibile affermare in sentenza che
Quintavalle non abbia riferito all’Ispettore di aver visto Amanda Knox la mattina
del 2 novembre solo perché non gli venne chiesto (pp. 75 e 76 sentenza).
A tal proposito si impongono due osservazioni.
Se è vero che Quintavalle ha fornito una descrizione precisa della ragazza entrata
nel negozio (che si assume essere Amanda Knox), risulta strano che una persona
con la memoria visiva “Forte” (dichiarazioni Quintavalle, udienza 21.03.2009, p.
78), alla domanda “Lei ha notato colore degli occhi del Sollecito?” (trascrizioni
udienza 21.03.2009, p. 115) abbia risposto “Ma credo che ce l.abbia castani, ma
non ne sono sicurissimo, io veramente no, non l.ho notato, non l.ho notato mai,
non me lo ricordo non”, nonostante Raffaele fosse un suo cliente abituale. A
rimarcare l’importanza di tale circostanza, inoltre, si deve dare atto che se a
Quintavalle è rimasta impressa la fisionomia di Amanda, perché caratterizzata da
occhi cerulei su un volto bianchissimo, analogamente gli sarebbe dovuta restare
impressa anche quella di Sollecito: un ragazzo con occhi azzurri molto chiari e
carnagione altrettanto chiara.
Per di più, Quintavalle ha ricordato tutto ciò nonostante avesse visto Amanda non
frontalmente, bensì girata di tre quarti “Si allora lei è entrata, io l.ho vista
diciamo così, 3 quarti sinistra, 3 quarti del lato sinistro. Non l.ho vista
frontalmente (…)” (trascrizioni udienza del 21.03.2009, p. 75).
La sentenza, inoltre, sembra aver trascurato un dato fondamentale: nelle sue
dichiarazioni Marco Quintavalle ha affermato di aver visto Amanda nel proprio
esercizio commerciale anche un paio di settimane prima del 2 novembre
(trascrizioni udienza 21.03.2009, p. 76), questa volta in compagnia di Raffaele.
A tal riguardo non si può fare a meno di notare come la circostanza non possa in
alcun modo essere veritiera, posto che Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito si sono
conosciuti - e questo è dato certo ed inconfutato - appena una settimana prima
dell’omicidio.
Nonostante ciò, il ricordo del teste è stato talmente nitido da consentirgli di
descrivere anche gli abiti indossati in quell’occasione dai due ragazzi: “[Raffaele]
Era vestito di chiaro, aveva una maglia chiara, beige, qualche colore simile,
anche i pantaloni chiari. Poi ho notato che stranamente non aveva gli occhiali
quella sera (…). Lei aveva jeans, poi aveva un paio di scarponcini diciamo tipo
Timberland (…) aveva una maglia (…) di lana o di cotone pesante (…) un rosso
o qualcosa simile” (trascrizioni udienza 21 marzo 2009, p. 77).
A questo proposito, volendo seguire lo stesso ragionamento della Corte, anche
quell’episodio – visto l’orario insolito (“una sera, io avevo chiuso il negozio,
erano da pochi minuti passate le 8”: p. 76) e i particolari tratti somatici della
ragazza (occhi celesti e carnagione chiara) – avrebbe dovuto rimanere impresso
nella memoria del teste. Eppure, stranamente, così non è stato, visto che
Quintavalle ha raccontato di non aver riconosciuto Amanda la mattina del 2
novembre (solo qualche giorno dopo quel primo incontro), in quanto era come se
la vedesse per la prima volta, “per me non la conoscevo questa ragazza io”
(trascrizioni udienza del 21 marzo 2009, p. 72).
La motivazione ha minimizzato la circostanza che Quintavalle abbia deciso di
interloquire con gli inquirenti solo dopo un anno dalla commissione del delitto.
A parere della difesa, tuttavia, tale dato è sintomatico – oltre a quelli già esposti –
dell’inattendibilità del teste.
Quintavalle si sarebbe determinato a prendere contatti con la Procura solo a
seguito di una forte pressione esercitata dal giornalista Antioco Fois, avventore
abituale del suo negozio. Queste dichiarazioni hanno poi consentito al teste di
partecipare a trasmissioni televisive su reti nazionali. Un fatto che, in sede di
deposizione, Quintavalle ha cercato di sminuire. Infatti, alla domanda “Non si
ricorda una intervista fatta al TG2?” egli ha risposto “TG2? Il TG2 sono venuti
mi hanno ripreso di nascosto, io gli ho detto: guardi io non ho nulla da dire, nulla
da dichiarare. Loro con la telecamera mi hanno ripreso il bancone del negozio e
gli avevo detto che non dovevamo fare niente, dovevano andare via” (trascrizioni
udienza 21.03.2009, p. 111); mentre a tal riguardo, la commessa Chiriboga ha
affermato che Quintavalle le aveva riferito di aver rilasciato la detta intervista e,
alla domanda del Presidente “Allora il Quintavalle che cosa vi dice in merito
all.intervista?”, la teste ha risposto “Ha detto: «Sono stato intervistato», noi
abbiamo detto: «Ma a che ora?» Lui ha detto che è stato intervistato dopo che
siamo uscite a pranzo” (trascrizioni udienza 26.06.2009, p. 70).
È chiaro, quindi, che un ricordo esternato a distanza di oltre un anno dal fatto
avrebbe dovuto imporre molta cautela nella valutazione della sua attendibilità,
rendendo al contempo necessario trovare ulteriori riscontri probatori.
In realtà, la testimonianza di Quintavalle risulta del tutto inattendibile poiché non
è stata confermata neppure dalle dichiarazioni delle sue dipendenti, al lavoro la
mattina del 2 novembre.
In definitiva, Quintavalle, al pari di Curatolo, altri non è che un testimone massmediatico.
Non di rado, a seguito del clamore suscitato da un determinato episodio di
cronaca, emergono testimoni le cui dichiarazioni, più che essere il frutto di
cognizioni dirette, veicolano la “sintesi massmediateca” di quanto appreso
sull’argomento dai giornali e dalla televisione.
Nonostante ciò la Corte ha erroneamente ritenuto attendibile il teste, estrapolando
ed enfatizzando soltanto alcune delle sue affermazioni e dimenticando, invece,
quelle che avrebbero portato a conclusioni diametralmente opposte.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:17 pm   Post subject: Another COERCED CONFESSION!!!?   

IN THE NEWS TODAY...
" Joran van der Sloot, the main suspect in the 2005 disappearance of U.S. teen Natalee Holloway, has retracted his confession in the killing of a young Peruvian woman, according to a Dutch newspaper.

Speaking from his cell in Lima, Peru, to a journalist from De Telegraaf, the 22-year-old Dutchman said that Peruvian police pf-)) "tricked" him into signing papers admitting the murder of Stephany Flores. Van der Sloot claims he was falsely promised that he would be extradited back to the Netherlands if he agreed to the statement.

"I was scared and confused during the interrogation and wanted to leave," van der Sloot told the paper. "In my blind panic, I signed everything but didn't know what it said." The Dutchman also complained about the poor conditions at Lima's infamous Castro Castro prison, saying that a rat had climbed out of a toilet in his cell during the night."

That poor rat!!!
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Bruce makes a good point with the apparent messiness of the room. It does seem to me that some of the stuff is not something a burglar drug out and threw on the floor or bed.


Bruce Fisher can't possibly know what state Filomena's room was in on 1 November 2007 or how tidy she is.

From the judges' report:

1. Filomena is very tidy.

2. Filomena testified that "everything was all over the place..."

3. Various objects had been scattered on the floor.

RoseMontag wrote:
The Motivations report mentions a nail underneath the window in the bricks that a climber should have bent or disturbed if he crawled in the window, yet I have not seen evidence of this nail in the photo's. If you got one of that nail, I would appreciate it.


Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani wouldn't have mentioned the nail if it didn't exist.

Gioia Brocci, of the Perugia forensic police, took photographs the crime scene starting from the outside of the house. I assume that she took a photograph of the nail when she was taking photographs of the wall outside Filomena's window.

The judges and jurors also went to the cottage to see it for themselves.


Yes,
I believe the nail exists and they saw it. I had hope to see it as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
That is certainly one possibility and one that you know I have no problem admitting. I will be happy when the Massei report is ready, in the meantime here is what the appeal has to say about Quintavalle:


You keep reharshing this list as if is one provided by the defense for the Appeal Court and it is not. Your list consists of excerpt from Massei's report, it is what defense already argued without success. is not as you call it an appeal list.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Black Dog wrote:
Rosemontag says:
The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.
--------------------------------------

As Bucketoftea has pointed out to you, no 'assumption' of RS and AK being guilty is required to:

1. Come to the conclusion that the postal police and experienced murder squad detectives came to immediately they saw the crime scene that it was a staging (with not knowing at that point in time who the main players were after they had just set foot in the house) and -

2. It doesn't take a prior 'assumption' of guilt to come to the conclusion that the only person or persons to simulate a crime such as this would undoubtedly be someone who lived in the house.

3. Rudy Guede had no reason whatsoever to stage a break-in.

It's a bit of a no brainer really.


Yes, all excellent points. The staged break-in is important. My reading of the translation that was provided by someone over at JREF shows just how important it was viewed. If it is not clear that I still view the break in as staged, consider this a clarification.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
That is certainly one possibility and one that you know I have no problem admitting. I will be happy when the Massei report is ready, in the meantime here is what the appeal has to say about Quintavalle:


You keep reharshing this list as if is one provided by the defense for the Appeal Court and it is not. Your list consists of excerpt from Massei's report, it is what defense already argued without success. is not as you call it an appeal list.


I have not called it an appeal list. Please show where I did. That is a direct quote from Raffaele's appeal (In Italian) which I do have a copy of.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Black Dog wrote:
Rosemontag says:
The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.
--------------------------------------

As Bucketoftea has pointed out to you, no 'assumption' of RS and AK being guilty is required to:

1. Come to the conclusion that the postal police and experienced murder squad detectives came to immediately they saw the crime scene that it was a staging (with not knowing at that point in time who the main players were after they had just set foot in the house) and -

2. It doesn't take a prior 'assumption' of guilt to come to the conclusion that the only person or persons to simulate a crime such as this would undoubtedly be someone who lived in the house.

3. Rudy Guede had no reason whatsoever to stage a break-in.

It's a bit of a no brainer really.


Yes, all excellent points. The staged break-in is important. My reading of the translation that was provided by someone over at JREF shows just how important it was viewed. If it is not clear that I still view the break in as staged, consider this a clarification.


Raffaele himself noted in his diary that Filomena's room was turned upside down. Presumably, he would have seen it the day before, when it was not turned upside down. Though this does raise the issue of whether her door was closed or open. AK says it was closed when she took her shower and she did not open it; RS says it was open (and turned upside down) when they arrived together at the cottage.

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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Jools wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
That is certainly one possibility and one that you know I have no problem admitting. I will be happy when the Massei report is ready, in the meantime here is what the appeal has to say about Quintavalle:


You keep reharshing this list as if is one provided by the defense for the Appeal Court and it is not. Your list consists of excerpt from Massei's report, it is what defense already argued without success. is not as you call it an appeal list.


I have not called it an appeal list. Please show where I did. That is a direct quote from Raffaele's appeal (In Italian) which I do have a copy of.


A clarification. It is the appeal that is quoting the sentencing report, and disputing certain sections.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Jools wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
That is certainly one possibility and one that you know I have no problem admitting. I will be happy when the Massei report is ready, in the meantime here is what the appeal has to say about Quintavalle:


You keep reharshing this list as if is one provided by the defense for the Appeal Court and it is not. Your list consists of excerpt from Massei's report, it is what defense already argued without success. is not as you call it an appeal list.


I have not called it an appeal list. Please show where I did. That is a direct quote from Raffaele's appeal (In Italian) which I do have a copy of.


A clarification. It is the appeal that is quoting the sentencing report, and disputing certain sections.



So, exactly what is it that Massei reasoned that they are disputing...on the basis/grounds of what?

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


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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Jools wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
That is certainly one possibility and one that you know I have no problem admitting. I will be happy when the Massei report is ready, in the meantime here is what the appeal has to say about Quintavalle:


You keep reharshing this list as if is one provided by the defense for the Appeal Court and it is not. Your list consists of excerpt from Massei's report, it is what defense already argued without success. is not as you call it an appeal list.


I have not called it an appeal list. Please show where I did. That is a direct quote from Raffaele's appeal (In Italian) which I do have a copy of.


A clarification. It is the appeal that is quoting the sentencing report, and disputing certain sections.



So, exactly what is it that Massei reasoned that they are disputing...on the basis/grounds of what?


You said I had a poor translation (true-it is my Google tranlation), so I was giving it to you in the original Italian, asking for your clarification, it would seem.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
You said I had a poor translation (true-it is my Google tranlation), so I was giving it to you in the original Italian, asking for your clarification, it would seem.


In other words, you're asking for a translation?

_________________
"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 RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
You said I had a poor translation (true-it is my Google tranlation), so I was giving it to you in the original Italian, asking for your clarification, it would seem.


In other words, you're asking for a translation?


Please.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Filomena should have been quite happy, normally a ransacked room looks like that:
(And all the cops are aware of this fact - burglary is their bread-and-butter-work)


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

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Pelerine wrote:
Filomena should have been quite happy, normally a ransacked room looks like that:
(And all the cops are aware of this fact - burglary is their bread-and-butter-work)

(PICTURE)


Hey! This looks just like my daughter's room before its weekly cleaning.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
You said I had a poor translation (true-it is my Google tranlation), so I was giving it to you in the original Italian, asking for your clarification, it would seem.


In other words, you're asking for a translation?


Please.



Well, that's down to whether one of our translators has the time and feels it to be important enough. I suppose, the part that quotes Massei can be taken straight from the translation of the report, leaving only the defence objection part in need of translation. Maybe one of our translators will do that for you...you'll have to wait and see. We don't have so many translators to perform translations in the main discussion thread at the moment, since quite a few are now helping out in editing the Massei Report and all their spare time is going into that.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The following may be of interest to those who have been toying with the idea of creating videos in connection to the case:


YouTube adds online video editing tool
Jun 17, Technology/Internet


YouTube users can now edit their own videos online. The Google-owned video-sharing site added an online editing tool this week that allows YouTube users to combine multiple videos, shorten a video or add soundtracks from songs in the AudioSwap library.

The newly created video can be published to YouTube directly from the editing site.

To edit a video, a user drags a thumbnail of the video they want to edit into an empty timeline. The video can then be trimmed or other videos added to make it longer.

YouTube users can only edit videos they have uploaded themselves and not the videos of other users.

The new video editor is located at youtube.com/testtube.



PHYSORG

_________________
"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: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It seems to me that those at JREF who are using the appeal are presuming that everything raised in the appeal is strong and valid. But I would think that the defence would raise every possible point no matter how strong or how logical because the aim has to be to chip away at the evidence piece by piece. This is what we have seen throughout and I do not think it works because it is the totality of the evidence which led to the conviction. I am not expert in how a defence is constructed but I would have thought that if there were clear and demonstrable flaws which were sufficient to establish reasonable doubt then the strategy would be to focus on those.

For example, as I said in an earlier post, if the defence could cast real doubt on the proposition there was more than one attacker then I think the prosecution case would be seriously undermined. If they have such evidence then would they not concentrate on that rather than using a pepper pot? Or indeed if they had really strong evidence which undermined any important part of the evidence?

To me, what I have learned about the appeal at JREF seems to indicate they have nothing much of use: and so we see this series of possible but improbable assertions as we have done from the start. The certaintly with which these are asserted (as, for example, the idea that Filomena's room was as she left it, despite the fact that she testified it was not; Amanda said it was not; Raffaele said it was not) just does not impress me nor does it make me think they have a point to make. I know this is not what the defence are doing: I think there is a good reason for that.

Perhaps SA can comment on whether the defence would normally proceed with a pepper pot or whether, assuming they had something strong, they would rather concentrate on a few telling bits of evidence?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I certainly don't think it is the most important argument contained in the appeals but it was the subject that we were discussing at the time and it does appear to give a point/counter-point in conjunction with the Massei report so it may be a good example if nothing else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SA....

I know you think Kelly is the minister but actually, in real life his is CEO at Vapore Inc.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kelly-brodbeck/6/7b8/817

(Medical Devices industry)

March 2004 — Present (6 years 4 months)

Inventors and manufacturers of Capillary Force Vaporization (CFV) technolgy(sic!!) that converts unpressurized liquids into gas or aerosols powered only by heat and with no moving parts. Commercial focus regards controlled medical humidification and consumer product applications.
http://www.vapore.com/



and he did that because previously he was:

Director
Enron North America

(Utilities industry)

2000 — 2004 (4 years )

and we all know about Enron......

However.. here is the connection with Amanda...

Project Leader
The Clorox Company

1986 — 1997 (11 years )

Do we know someone else with a possible BLEACH connection???



PS

View Kelly Brodbeck’s full profile:

* See who you and Kelly Brodbeck know in common
* Get introduced to Kelly Brodbeck
* Contact Kelly Brodbeck directly


I am still looking for other "Americans Abroad' he is interested in....
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kelly-brodbeck/6/7b8/817


Last edited by H9 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
It seems to me that those at JREF who are using the appeal are presuming that everything raised in the appeal is strong and valid. But I would think that the defence would raise every possible point no matter how strong or how logical because the aim has to be to chip away at the evidence piece by piece. This is what we have seen throughout and I do not think it works because it is the totality of the evidence which led to the conviction. I am not expert in how a defence is constructed but I would have thought that if there were clear and demonstrable flaws which were sufficient to establish reasonable doubt then the strategy would be to focus on those.

For example, as I said in an earlier post, if the defence could cast real doubt on the proposition there was more than one attacker then I think the prosecution case would be seriously undermined. If they have such evidence then would they not concentrate on that rather than using a pepper pot? Or indeed if they had really strong evidence which undermined any important part of the evidence?

To me, what I have learned about the appeal at JREF seems to indicate they have nothing much of use: and so we see this series of possible but improbable assertions as we have done from the start. The certaintly with which these are asserted (as, for example, the idea that Filomena's room was as she left it, despite the fact that she testified it was not; Amanda said it was not; Raffaele said it was not) just does not impress me nor does it make me think they have a point to make. I know this is not what the defence are doing: I think there is a good reason for that.

Perhaps SA can comment on whether the defence would normally proceed with a pepper pot or whether, assuming they had something strong, they would rather concentrate on a few telling bits of evidence?


If you read my post on this at JREF, I don't think either appeal has tackled the staged break in very well. The best thing I got out of it from a defense standpoint was the previous statement from Filomena regarding the location of the glass in the clothes and underneath as well as on top. Amanda's appeal makes a very weak attempt (in my opinion); Raffaele's gives it a shot, in any case. There is much in the appeals contesting the DNA and forensic evidence and much as far as strictly legal arguments. Bruce will say that the appeal covers this and that in general but does not give much detail. It is probably from me that you get the impression you currently have regarding the appeal as I have quoted from both in regards to specific witnesses or specific evidence in dispute. Others may comment on the legal and DNA aspects of it eventually, that is not something I feel the best qualified to comment on, other than my general opinion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
It seems to me that those at JREF who are using the appeal are presuming that everything raised in the appeal is strong and valid. But I would think that the defence would raise every possible point no matter how strong or how logical because the aim has to be to chip away at the evidence piece by piece. This is what we have seen throughout and I do not think it works because it is the totality of the evidence which led to the conviction. I am not expert in how a defence is constructed but I would have thought that if there were clear and demonstrable flaws which were sufficient to establish reasonable doubt then the strategy would be to focus on those.


Well, exactly. The FOA are presenting the appeal objections along the lines of 'Argument made, therefore argument won', which is not the case at all. Indeed, as you say, we've seen this all the way through...they did the same with the defence arguments made during the trial, touting that because the defence had argued a thing it therefore equated to their having proved a thing 'The defence debunked the footprint on the mat'...'The defence proved there had been a break-in'...'The defence debunked all the witnesses' and so on, when they had done no such thing. We will continue to see the same mode of thinking from them throughout the appeals process and beyond.

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


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Bruce is running a school now for those interested in discussing cases online and last I heard it is a new business venture..."How to mount your own defense in several easy lessons" His new business will probably go viral soon, but at the moment he is doing market research in his injustice sandbox.


Propose a new outrageous theory to counter commonsense : post detailed instructions of how to do a staged reconstruction and ask everyone to join in at home : video and then post on youtube.

Kevad who posts chez Brucie says...

If you understand that the prosecution expert is wrong, that the footprint is Rudy's, then as a Judge, you could easily accept that he had a bloody sock and shoe that soaked to the bottom of his foot, while wearing his sock. He took the shoe and sock off which put blood over the entire bottom of his foot, then stepped on the Mat. Come on, you can do it if you try, and most likely that is exactly what happened!



Now even the self proclaimed lawyer, Kevad, who expounds on the appeal doccuments is copying his mentor...

Come on!! you can do it if you try!!!

The question now is how many FOA are doing this right now as we speak....taking their wet shoe and sock off( after drenching in food colored liquids) and hopping on their bathmats at home.


Last edited by H9 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:00 pm   Post subject: Clean Get-Away   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Project Leader
The Clorox Company

(Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; CLX; Consumer Goods industry)

1986 — 1997 (11 years )


Do we know someone else with a possible BLEACH connection???





mop-) You mean those two in Perugia who wanted to make a clean get-away?
ss-) ss-)
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Black Dog wrote:
Rosemontag says:
The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.
--------------------------------------

As Bucketoftea has pointed out to you, no 'assumption' of RS and AK being guilty is required to:

1. Come to the conclusion that the postal police and experienced murder squad detectives came to immediately they saw the crime scene that it was a staging (with not knowing at that point in time who the main players were after they had just set foot in the house) and -

2. It doesn't take a prior 'assumption' of guilt to come to the conclusion that the only person or persons to simulate a crime such as this would undoubtedly be someone who lived in the house.

3. Rudy Guede had no reason whatsoever to stage a break-in.

It's a bit of a no brainer really.


Yes, all excellent points. The staged break-in is important. My reading of the translation that was provided by someone over at JREF shows just how important it was viewed. If it is not clear that I still view the break in as staged, consider this a clarification.


Raffaele himself noted in his diary that Filomena's room was turned upside down. Presumably, he would have seen it the day before, when it was not turned upside down. Though this does raise the issue of whether her door was closed or open. AK says it was closed when she took her shower and she did not open it; RS says it was open (and turned upside down) when they arrived together at the cottage.



Interesting point SB and well spotted.
A minor point here but when I was a student in London in the late 70's early 80's ( yes I am that old) I never left my door open in the house we all shared.
I had my beloved Gibson Les Paul guitar and my stereo and all my albums in there.Long story short, near enough everything I owned at that point in my life.
Having said that, I never locked my door and neither did anyone else.
Everyone in the house did keep their doors closed most/all of the time and we had a common room which was the lounge with a tv in there.
I know I am new to this board (as a commentor) but I have no recall at this moment as to whether RS was ever at the house while Filomena was there previously, eg. he was there while Filomena was there and she had her door open.
I do remember thinking it was a bit strange AK never mentioned Filomenas room had been turned over,("it was closed" she says, [I think she's flying on the seat of her pants here]) but RS did, especially since she maintained she'd had a shower in the house and so therefore must have walked past Filomenas room a minimum of at least 4 times.
In this respect it is interesting regarding your comment of RF from his diary.
Just to add, it is equally as interesting that AK never saw Filomenas shutters open and the window broken when the said window is in full view of anyone walking up the drive to enter the house through the front door.
It just doesn't ring true to me.


Last edited by Black Dog on Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
It seems to me that those at JREF who are using the appeal are presuming that everything raised in the appeal is strong and valid. But I would think that the defence would raise every possible point no matter how strong or how logical because the aim has to be to chip away at the evidence piece by piece. This is what we have seen throughout and I do not think it works because it is the totality of the evidence which led to the conviction. I am not expert in how a defence is constructed but I would have thought that if there were clear and demonstrable flaws which were sufficient to establish reasonable doubt then the strategy would be to focus on those.

....

To me, what I have learned about the appeal at JREF seems to indicate they have nothing much of use: and so we see this series of possible but improbable assertions as we have done from the start. The certaintly with which these are asserted (as, for example, the idea that Filomena's room was as she left it, despite the fact that she testified it was not; Amanda said it was not; Raffaele said it was not) just does not impress me nor does it make me think they have a point to make. I know this is not what the defence are doing: I think there is a good reason for that.


This is why you win eloquence awards and I never will.

I tried to say exactly this. Just because the defence is going to present something upon appeal doesn't automatically make it valid or even worth arguing about. The biggest reason we shouldn't argue about the appeal points is that they have not been addressed by the courts. It's a huge mistake to judge the validity of the evidence based on what we've seen and read on the internet. See what happened when Bruce said one thing about the glass on Filomena's sill and one of the thousands of crimescene photos (posted here by bolint) showed how utterly wrong he was.

The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses. The defence can't discredit them by arguing--on appeal--that the bus wasn't running on 01 NOV 2007 or that Amanda's coat is a different colour. It doesn't work that way. Both witnesses identified one or both of them in places they told the police they weren't. Filomena's recollections about the state of her room were believed over the conjecture of the defence lawyers.

The points listed in the appeal should not be argued as if they are valid. They have not been validated!

I think the defence is doing what you call the 'pepper pot' (I call it throwing the bread dough at the wall). They almost have to. The evidence is really that thorough. We can all cite a dozen murder cases off the tops of our heads that have led to convictions with only a fraction of the evidence. Here they have just about everything you'd want: DNA evidence, luminol evidence, witnesses, lies from the accused, broken alibis, statements to the police containing verifiable and validated lies. How much evidence do they actually need? I think JREF poster Fulcanelli once said they'd still disbelieve Amanda did it even if she was found standing over Meredith's body, wielding a knife, and screaming "I DID IT" at the top of her lungs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses. The defence can't discredit them by arguing--on appeal--that the bus wasn't running on 01 NOV 2007 or that Amanda's coat is a different colour. It doesn't work that way. Both witnesses identified one or both of them in places they told the police they weren't. Filomena's recollections about the state of her room were believed over the conjecture of the defence lawyers.


That's a false argument anyway. There are two sets of buses that run from there. One is the disco bus, the other are the standard Italian public transport buses. It was only one of the two sets of buses that weren't running that night (although I forget which, the disco one I think), the other buses were running. Therefore, Curatolo no doubt saw a bus/es on the night of the 1st just as he stated.

_________________
"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 tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The reason for Amanda or Raffaele doing it are obvious as long as we are operating under the assumption that they are guilty and that RG, AK, and RS would be the only ones who either could have and/or would have done it.


That doesn't require any 'assumptions', only the evidence, plain logic and deduction.

For me, on this case, I never began with any assumptions of guilt. Instead, I followed the evidence and went where that led. That's how it should be done. The FOA and their supporters in contrast have started with a plain 'assumption' and then try and shoe horn the evidence in or disregard/hand wave away evidence that can't be shoe horned in, in order to keep up the illusion of that assumption.


Same here I first became aware of this case by reading the thread at JREF. It soon became apparent that the FOA exhibited cult like attributes such as personalizing the argument, focusing on irrelevant details and appealing to emotions while the prosecution had actual physical evidence. The clincher for me though was Amanda lying an innocent man into jail. That's not just misspeaking or being mistaken it's a deliberate attempt to pin the crime on someone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Black Dog wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Raffaele himself noted in his diary that Filomena's room was turned upside down. Presumably, he would have seen it the day before, when it was not turned upside down. Though this does raise the issue of whether her door was closed or open. AK says it was closed when she took her shower and she did not open it; RS says it was open (and turned upside down) when they arrived together at the cottage.



Interesting point SB and well spotted.
A minor point here but when I was a student in London in the late 70's early 80's ( yes I am that old) I never left my door open in the house we all shared.
I had my beloved Gibson Les Paul guitar and my stereo and all my albums in there.Long story short, near enough everything I owned at that point in my life.
Having said that, I never locked my door and neither did anyone else.
Everyone in the house did keep their doors closed most/all of the time and we had a common room which was the lounge with a tv in there.
I know I am new to this board (as a commentor) but I have no recall at this moment as to whether RS was ever at the house while Filomena was there previously, eg. he was there while Filomena was there and she had her door open.
I do remember thinking it was a bit strange AK never mentioned Filomenas room had been turned over,("it was closed" she says, [I think she's flying on the seat of her pants here]) but RS did, especially since she maintained she'd had a shower in the house and so therefore must have walked past Filomenas room a minimum of at least 4 times.
In this respect it is interesting regarding your comment of RF from his diary.
Just to add, it is equally as interesting that AK never saw Filomenas shutters open and the window broken when the said window is in full view of anyone walking up the drive to enter the house through the front door.
It just doesn't ring true to me.


Absolutely. The two made a huge mistake (another one!) by placing themselves at the crimescene when the police arrived. By her own admission, Amanda was the first witness to all the unusual circumstances in the cottage. The FOA is always pleased to note that Filomena's window is located near a planter along the small porch. Amanda is careful to explain that she noticed the front door was open. Why would that be notable to her when the open shutters and broken window weren't?

If I came home to a house I shared with other people (as I had in my younger days like you did) and the front door was swung open, I wouldn't find that to be particularly noteworthy. If I walked past a broken window then I definitely wouldn't think that was normal. This is where, IMO, the alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 is such an important record of Amanda's thoughts. They follow in a basic sequence of how she wants us to view the crimescene rather than how anyone else would.

It's noted up-thread that the 112 operator questioned Raffaele about the source of the bloodstains in the sink. That's rather a normal response. Amanda's alibi email attempts to connect the unusual occurrences in the house with the unflushed toilet. That's quite a leap in logic for anyone who suspects their house has been robbed. Who would think that an intruder would break in, lock one of the interior doors, use the toilet, and leave?

When I was reading the history of the Clifford Sleigh case (Corinne "Punky" Gustavson's murderer), one of the things that the interrogator revealed was that murderers often create stories or lies about the first thing presented to them and hope to deal with the inconsistencies later. They want to be in control. In reading it, what kept running through my mind was that Amanda (moreso than Raffaele) did exactly that. Her alibi email was rather obviously addressing the things she'd just explained to the police. And then, when confronted with the fact that Raffaele had thrown her under the bus, took the first "out" she could find, by telling the police that the SMS message meant that she had, in fact, met up with Patrick. And so on.

She didn't think about the fact that changing her story meant that all her previous statements, and rather difficult alibi work, was suddenly thrown out. It's easier for someone like her to face the immediate problem and hope to sort out the rest later. The two lawyers I know in RL said that Amanda ought to have clammed up as soon as she heard that Raffaele was no longer her alibi. It's a testament to her manipulative nature (Sleigh was found to be similar) that she thought she could talk her way out of it.

Anecdotally, I showed both of the lawyers I know some of the evidence and the charges, as well as the FOA site--they're busy people but I wanted their opinion--and both of them agreed that she is totally screwed and that she did most of the damage to the case by herself. We scarcely touched the "ooopla", the cartwheels, and her curious behaviour ("she f***ing bled to death"), but they said it didn't surprise them. Hate to sound like an "old fogey" but apparently "attitude" is a highly valued characteristic among a lot of young adults these days. It's cool to be insensitive and boorish--

b-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

tsit wrote:
Michael wrote:
For me, on this case, I never began with any assumptions of guilt. Instead, I followed the evidence and went where that led. That's how it should be done. The FOA and their supporters in contrast have started with a plain 'assumption' and then try and shoe horn the evidence in or disregard/hand wave away evidence that can't be shoe horned in, in order to keep up the illusion of that assumption.


Same here I first became aware of this case by reading the thread at JREF. It soon became apparent that the FOA exhibited cult like attributes such as personalizing the argument, focusing on irrelevant details and appealing to emotions while the prosecution had actual physical evidence. The clincher for me though was Amanda lying an innocent man into jail. That's not just misspeaking or being mistaken it's a deliberate attempt to pin the crime on someone else.


I thought she was railroaded at first, tsit (and welcome--from another JREF'r). That's what the television told me and I only heard about this case just after the verdict. My personal revelation that something wasn't quite right was when the length of Amanda's interrogation kept changing. They couldn't just pick a number and some of the time intervals (40+ hours) seemed a little more than unusual.

The fact she named an innocent man went beyond simple confusion or fear. That was downright nasty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Bruce is running a school now for those interested in discussing cases online and last I heard it is a new business venture..."How to mount your own defense in several easy lessons" His new business will probably go viral soon, but at the moment he is doing market research in his injustice sandbox.


Propose a new outrageous theory to counter commonsense : post detailed instructions of how to do a staged reconstruction and ask everyone to join in at home : video and then post on youtube.

Kevad who posts chez Brucie says...

If you understand that the prosecution expert is wrong, that the footprint is Rudy's, then as a Judge, you could easily accept that he had a bloody sock and shoe that soaked to the bottom of his foot, while wearing his sock. He took the shoe and sock off which put blood over the entire bottom of his foot, then stepped on the Mat. Come on, you can do it if you try, and most likely that is exactly what happened!



Now even the self proclaimed lawyer, Kevad, who expounds on the appeal doccuments is copying his mentor...

Come on!! you can do it if you try!!!

The question now is how many FOA are doing this right now as we speak....taking their wet shoe and sock off( after drenching in food colored liquids) and hopping on their bathmats at home.


Reminds me of the Bruce Backflip where you walk out a door then lock it behind your back.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
It seems to me that those at JREF who are using the appeal are presuming that everything raised in the appeal is strong and valid. But I would think that the defence would raise every possible point no matter how strong or how logical because the aim has to be to chip away at the evidence piece by piece. This is what we have seen throughout and I do not think it works because it is the totality of the evidence which led to the conviction. I am not expert in how a defence is constructed but I would have thought that if there were clear and demonstrable flaws which were sufficient to establish reasonable doubt then the strategy would be to focus on those.

....

To me, what I have learned about the appeal at JREF seems to indicate they have nothing much of use: and so we see this series of possible but improbable assertions as we have done from the start. The certaintly with which these are asserted (as, for example, the idea that Filomena's room was as she left it, despite the fact that she testified it was not; Amanda said it was not; Raffaele said it was not) just does not impress me nor does it make me think they have a point to make. I know this is not what the defence are doing: I think there is a good reason for that.


This is why you win eloquence awards and I never will.

I tried to say exactly this. Just because the defence is going to present something upon appeal doesn't automatically make it valid or even worth arguing about. The biggest reason we shouldn't argue about the appeal points is that they have not been addressed by the courts. It's a huge mistake to judge the validity of the evidence based on what we've seen and read on the internet. See what happened when Bruce said one thing about the glass on Filomena's sill and one of the thousands of crimescene photos (posted here by bolint) showed how utterly wrong he was.

The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses. The defence can't discredit them by arguing--on appeal--that the bus wasn't running on 01 NOV 2007 or that Amanda's coat is a different colour. It doesn't work that way. Both witnesses identified one or both of them in places they told the police they weren't. Filomena's recollections about the state of her room were believed over the conjecture of the defence lawyers.

The points listed in the appeal should not be argued as if they are valid. They have not been validated!

I think the defence is doing what you call the 'pepper pot' (I call it throwing the bread dough at the wall). They almost have to. The evidence is really that thorough. We can all cite a dozen murder cases off the tops of our heads that have led to convictions with only a fraction of the evidence. Here they have just about everything you'd want: DNA evidence, luminol evidence, witnesses, lies from the accused, broken alibis, statements to the police containing verifiable and validated lies. How much evidence do they actually need? I think JREF poster Fulcanelli once said they'd still disbelieve Amanda did it even if she was found standing over Meredith's body, wielding a knife, and screaming "I DID IT" at the top of her lungs.


One of the posters (Mary H?) said that even if Amanda confessed to the crime she wouldn't believe it because that would just be more proof of the brainwashin. :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
tsit wrote:
Michael wrote:
For me, on this case, I never began with any assumptions of guilt. Instead, I followed the evidence and went where that led. That's how it should be done. The FOA and their supporters in contrast have started with a plain 'assumption' and then try and shoe horn the evidence in or disregard/hand wave away evidence that can't be shoe horned in, in order to keep up the illusion of that assumption.


Same here I first became aware of this case by reading the thread at JREF. It soon became apparent that the FOA exhibited cult like attributes such as personalizing the argument, focusing on irrelevant details and appealing to emotions while the prosecution had actual physical evidence. The clincher for me though was Amanda lying an innocent man into jail. That's not just misspeaking or being mistaken it's a deliberate attempt to pin the crime on someone else.


I thought she was railroaded at first, tsit (and welcome--from another JREF'r). That's what the television told me and I only heard about this case just after the verdict. My personal revelation that something wasn't quite right was when the length of Amanda's interrogation kept changing. They couldn't just pick a number and some of the time intervals (40+ hours) seemed a little more than unusual.

The fact she named an innocent man went beyond simple confusion or fear. That was downright nasty.



Hi, I'm tsig over there but i hit the wrong key during registration.:(

I registered here because the atmosphere there seemed to be a little frosty esp. after LashL delivered her guilers = haters rant.

I got where i could predict that Chris will argue any case but Amanda's (contamination) Mary H will appeal to emotion and LJ will produce long-winded posts of puffery. Bruce will just lie.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
It's noted up-thread that the 112 operator questioned Raffaele about the source of the bloodstains in the sink. That's rather a normal response. Amanda's alibi email attempts to connect the unusual occurrences in the house with the unflushed toilet. That's quite a leap in logic for anyone who suspects their house has been robbed. Who would think that an intruder would break in, lock one of the interior doors, use the toilet, and leave?


she pointed out the faeces to put guede in the frame.
she left the toilet unflushed for that reason ... framing guede -- was that in the same bathroom she had the shower in? -- unnatural not to have just flushed it -- she didn't think anything was wrong at that point.. she said she only noticed 'spots of blood' upon exiting the shower.
the bloodied bathroom - solleceteo in calling the police - 'there's lots of blood - lots'
knox - 'spots of blood' - but there was quite a lot (re: solleceteos footprint, in blood on the bathmat).

stillcho wrote:
When I was reading the history of the Clifford Sleigh case (Corinne "Punky" Gustavson's murderer), one of the things that the interrogator revealed was that murderers often create stories or lies about the first thing presented to them and hope to deal with the inconsistencies later. They want to be in control. In reading it, what kept running through my mind was that Amanda (moreso than Raffaele) did exactly that. Her alibi email was rather obviously addressing the things she'd just explained to the police. And then, when confronted with the fact that Raffaele had thrown her under the bus, took the first "out" she could find, by telling the police that the SMS message meant that she had, in fact, met up with Patrick. And so on.


it can't be disputed that knox was actually 'helping' the police -- helping them in a direction.
elaboration around the facts to frame -
lumumba fit because she knew that guede was there - she knew (probably) at the stage she made the accusation against lumumba that guede had left town - she knew that there could have possibly (and there were) witnesses of "a blackman" - she used lumumba because he is also black

stillcho wrote:
She didn't think about the fact that changing her story meant that all her previous statements, and rather difficult alibi work, was suddenly thrown out. It's easier for someone like her to face the immediate problem and hope to sort out the rest later. The two lawyers I know in RL said that Amanda ought to have clammed up as soon as she heard that Raffaele was no longer her alibi. It's a testament to her manipulative nature (Sleigh was found to be similar) that she thought she could talk her way out of it.


the alibis the lies became too big and complex - and obvious in the multiple instances where they didn't fit with solleceteo's account

stillcho wrote:
Anecdotally, I showed both of the lawyers I know some of the evidence and the charges, as well as the FOA site--they're busy people but I wanted their opinion--and both of them agreed that she is totally screwed and that she did most of the damage to the case by herself. We scarcely touched the "ooopla", the cartwheels, and her curious behaviour ("she f***ing bled to death"), but they said it didn't surprise them. Hate to sound like an "old fogey" but apparently "attitude" is a highly valued characteristic among a lot of young adults these days. It's cool to be insensitive and boorish--


in "she f***ing bled to death" - knox was trying to carry off a display of callous disregard trying to carry it off even with people who knew her "who cares anyway" also with not attending the memorial service for meredith kercher (why?) - she was in town - she had nothing else to do -- she and solleceteo went for a pizza - obviously - all to carry off a display of callous disregard - but also possibly because she couldn't stand to be at the memorial service - being the killer


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
tsit wrote:
Michael wrote:
For me, on this case, I never began with any assumptions of guilt. Instead, I followed the evidence and went where that led. That's how it should be done. The FOA and their supporters in contrast have started with a plain 'assumption' and then try and shoe horn the evidence in or disregard/hand wave away evidence that can't be shoe horned in, in order to keep up the illusion of that assumption.


Same here I first became aware of this case by reading the thread at JREF. It soon became apparent that the FOA exhibited cult like attributes such as personalizing the argument, focusing on irrelevant details and appealing to emotions while the prosecution had actual physical evidence. The clincher for me though was Amanda lying an innocent man into jail. That's not just misspeaking or being mistaken it's a deliberate attempt to pin the crime on someone else.


I thought she was railroaded at first, tsit (and welcome--from another JREF'r). That's what the television told me and I only heard about this case just after the verdict. My personal revelation that something wasn't quite right was when the length of Amanda's interrogation kept changing. They couldn't just pick a number and some of the time intervals (40+ hours) seemed a little more than unusual.

The fact she named an innocent man went beyond simple confusion or fear. That was downright nasty.



I think also, a key 'shooting in the foot' has been the hyperbole. The original case thread on the JREF was entitled 'Guilty, all because of a cartwheel'. That is always going to make intelligent people turn their heads and take a closer look at the actual evidence and once it became apparent that Amanda Knox wasn't convicted because of a cartwheel, that on the contrary, it is a very deep and complex case (not least of all because of the media and various interested parties doing their damnedest to make it one) with a great deal of evidence of guilt, it backfired. While the individual who started the thread wasn't FOA, she was one that had swallowed all the hype and hadn't bothered looking beyond the superficial. The FOA 'have' used this type of language from the beginning... 'There's no evidence'...'Railroad job from Hell'...'All because she was American and they just hate Americans'...'Corrupt prosecutor obsessed with Satanism'. To this day, the FOA haven't learned this lesson of the self damage such emotive language can do. As soon as one lifts up the wrapping, they quickly find their intelligence is being insulted with these kinds of headline comments.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

tsit wrote:
Hi, I'm tsig over there but i hit the wrong key during registration.


But looking at it on the bright side, it's not as bad as it might have been, you could have missed the 'S' out too ;)

Welcome to PMF :)

_________________
"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: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
she pointed out the faeces to put guede in the frame.
she left the toilet unflushed for that reason ... framing guede --


Perhaps. I do not think that many doubt Guede was involved, and so I cannot accept "framing" It is possible that she had aleady decided to try to ensure that Guede alone was held responsible. But if that is the case I do not make sense of accusing Lumumba.


Quote:
was that in the same bathroom she had the shower in?


No. But she did say she dried her hair in that bathroom and that is why she noticed it. That detail has always seemed a little strange to me. Even if the hairdryer was in that bathroom I cannot see me standing drying my hair with an unflushed toilet.

Quote:
-- unnatural not to have just flushed it --


Yes.

Quote:
she didn't think anything was wrong at that point..


Appaently not. However I cannot understand how that can be given all she had noticed.

Quote:
she said she only noticed 'spots of blood' upon exiting the shower.


Yes. But combined with an open door; with the fact that none of her flatmates returned in the time it took to have her shower, though she said they only ever left the door open when taking out the trash; and the fact that it was out of character for any of her housemates to leave this kind of mess....

Quote:
the bloodied bathroom - solleceteo in calling the police - 'there's lots of blood - lots'


No. We have established that he did not say there was "lots" of blood. We need to get rid of that misapprehension

Quote:
knox - 'spots of blood' - but there was quite a lot (re: solleceteos footprint, in blood on the bathmat).


It is possible to argue it was not so much: my problem is that combined with the other things the whole situation was disturbing. She said she began to be uneasy: yet she also said she did not immediately speak about it to RS when she went back to his place. I find that odd. Maybe I am just more cowardly than she is but I would have mentioned it at once if I was spooked. It is the inconsistency in her account of her reactions that I find hard to understand. She was not spooked when I would have been; she was then uneasy; in the course of a 5 minute walk it faded from her mind so she did not mention it at once; she told him and insisted they go back to the house; they were both worried to the extent they tried to kick the door down; then they were not bothered by the fact it was locked when the police came. I just don't get it

<snip>

Quote:
in "she f***ing bled to death" - knox was trying to carry off a display of callous disregard trying to carry it off even with people who knew her "who cares anyway" also with not attending the memorial service for meredith kercher (why?) - she was in town - she had nothing else to do -- she and solleceteo went for a pizza - obviously - all to carry off a display of callous disregard - but also possibly because she couldn't stand to be at the memorial service - being the killer


I am not convinced this is significant. It might be. But many people put on a front when horror happens and they are deeply distressed. It does not of itself tell me very much though I realise people are angry about it. For some it is just not allowing themselves to take it in and a way of keeping a semblance of control. The source of the distress can be murder but it can also be fear or just grief. I do not think we can judge on that
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

thinking about it - AK moved away from framing Guede to framing Lumumba because Guede had too much on her -
Lumumba was a "blank slate" - she could accuse safely without any risk of a comeback because he wasn't there - also - AK at that point was playing on her 'young innocent girl abroad' persona - vs a blackman - "i was afraid - i covered my ears" etc. She thought the big lie would be taken complete - nobody would believe Lumumba over her -- in fact that happened initially. There was a racist angle in this.

AK was actually enjoying being the center of attention - exciting - something to relate - an 'adventure' years later she could say about 'my adventure in perugia' - relating something that happened - exciting etc

but she didn't understand in interacting with the police in the early stages that she was a MAJOR SUSPECT
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

fiona wrote:
No. We have established that he did not say there was "lots" of blood. We need to get rid of that misapprehension


I missed that being established - I believe it was from subtitles over the recording in the fairly recent channel 4 documentary. I wonder why the subtitles read that - I recall in those subtitles he said 'lots' twice. Was it just a mistranslation.
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I agree with you Michael but from my point of view it isn't a complex case.
As you mentioned it is a complex case, but only from the standpoint from someone (or organisation) that would try to paint it that way.
It's a complex case as far as they are concerned, as this is a tactic they have used from the beginning to muddy the waters (sorry Muddy) and create a smokescreen in which to profess so.
I saw a video of Barbie just recently and she stated that it is a complex case.I don't think so simply from the standpoint that (to me) it is obvious what has taken place here.
What drew me to this case like no other is that I find it remarkable in the true sense of the word the length that people will go to - friends and family - to try and get their sibling and friend away from a horrible murder and sexual attack.
I find it hard to find words I really do.
Is this a thing we see now in the modern world where defenders of accused and convicted people employ public relations firms to try and prove their innocence?
Surely this is an attempt to circumvent the law?
If someone is innocent would there be any need for this?


Last edited by Black Dog on Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
fiona wrote:
No. We have established that he did not say there was "lots" of blood. We need to get rid of that misapprehension


I missed that being established - I believe it was from subtitles over the recording in the fairly recent channel 4 documentary. I wonder why the subtitles read that - I recall in those subtitles he said 'lots' twice. Was it just a mistranslation.


Yes it seems to have been a mistranslation based on RS being a bit difficult to hear. Clander and others here dealt with it a wee while ago
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

In the name of the wee man!!. They are quoting a papal count on the subject of the Italian legal system: a count who is, coincidentally, a friend of Spezi's and Preston's. At least according to Halkides1 who cites him via Vanity Fair. This has to be a new low, surely ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
thinking about it - AK moved away from framing Guede to framing Lumumba because Guede had too much on her -
Lumumba was a "blank slate" - she could accuse safely without any risk of a comeback because he wasn't there - also - AK at that point was playing on her 'young innocent girl abroad' persona - vs a blackman - "i was afraid - i covered my ears" etc. She thought the big lie would be taken complete - nobody would believe Lumumba over her -- in fact that happened initially. There was a racist angle in this.

AK was actually enjoying being the center of attention - exciting - something to relate - an 'adventure' years later she could say about 'my adventure in perugia' - relating something that happened - exciting etc

but she didn't understand in interacting with the police in the early stages that she was a MAJOR SUSPECT


I think you give Amanda far too much credit for thinking out the consequences of her actions and her statements. See if you can locate the PDF on-line about the capture and conviction of Clifford Sleigh. I posted the links here before but it was illuminating in how the police think and how they manage to keep control in an interview even though the killer thinks they're in control.

As far as the racism angle, I don't think she is necessarily racist. It wasn't Amanda who cultured the low-life drug-dealing drifter epithet. It was a 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' developed by her handlers and eagerly adopted by the media. She knew Rudy well enough to invite him into the cottage. I don't think she hated Patrick because of his colour but possibly held a grudge against him because of her employment.

More than anything, she was just thinking of a way to divert attention from herself. If Raffaele said she wasn't with him then why not seize on anything else handy? It could have been an SMS from one of the boys downstairs and it wouldn't have surprised me if she blamed him. Her story about Patrick fits very well with her ability to consistently portray herself as a fearful victim instead of a remorseless murderer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
In the name of the wee man!!. They are quoting a papal count on the subject of the Italian legal system: a count who is, coincidentally, a friend of Spezi's and Preston's. At least according to Halkides1 who cites him via Vanity Fair. This has to be a new low, surely ?


Fits well enough with the child killers and the prison snitches.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I suppose: but really...at JREF? A papal count? Big player in the order of Malta ? etc

Don't you think you should take at least some account of the audience if you seek to persuade?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Black Dog wrote:
I agree with you Michael but from my point of view it isn't a complex case.
As you mentioned it is a complex case, but only from the standpoint from someone (or organisation) that would try to paint it that way.
It's a complex case as far as they are concerned, as this is a tactic they have used from the beginning to muddy the waters (sorry Muddy) and create a smokescreen in which to profess so.
I saw a video of Barbie just recently and she stated that it is a complex case.I don't think so simply from the standpoint that (to me) it is obvious what has taken place here.
What drew me to this case like no other is that I find it remarkable in the true sense of the word the length that people will go to - friends and family - to try and get their sibling and friend away from a horrible murder and sexual attack.
I find it hard to find words I really do.
Is this a thing we see now in the modern world where defenders of accused and convicted people employ public relations firms to try and prove their innocence?
Surely this is an attempt to circumvent the law?
If someone is innocent would there be any need for this?


Well, when I say complex, I mean that not only in regard to those who seek to muddy the waters. For me, the evidence of guilt (involvement) in respect of Amanda and Raffaele is clear. The part which is complex, is the huge mass of clues/pieces of evidence and from that constructing a timeline and scenario. The 'what' happened and the 'who' did it is simple, the 'how' it all started and then unfolded is not. Of course, that isn't important in regard to a verdict of guilty/not guilty, but it is in terms of figuring out the 'why'....the whole 'truth'. That isn't to say that what happened did so for complex reasons, only that those reasons are not clear...despite all the clues.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
In the name of the wee man!!. They are quoting a papal count on the subject of the Italian legal system: a count who is, coincidentally, a friend of Spezi's and Preston's. At least according to Halkides1 who cites him via Vanity Fair. This has to be a new low, surely ?


Fits well enough with the child killers and the prison snitches.


It isn't even new. That guy has already been dusted off and wound up several times. Judy ("I want that exclusive prison interview with Amanda Knox") Bachrach quoted him in her poorly researched, gossipy piece, which appeared ages ago. Incidentally, Bachrach did not spend much time in Perugia covering this case. I don't think she was in the courtroom once. I could be slightly wrong: she may have showed up once or twice. But I doubt it.

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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

You are right SB: he is quoting the Vanity Fair article. I don't know why it boggled my mind so much. I should not be surprised by now. But it is just so.....inappropriate..somehow :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
You are right SB: he is quoting the Vanity Fair article. I don't know why it boggled my mind so much. I should not be surprised by now. But it is just so.....inappropriate..somehow :)



I don't think they're too concerned about what is 'appropriate', but rather only that which may be adhesive.

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


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote from the comments section of a CBS News story on how van der Sloot was "tricked into confessing". Looks like someone is paying attention out there.

Quote:
by sanfran1 June 21, 2010 11:24 AM EDT

Sounds like van der Sloot is using the Amanda Knox PR firm defense - almost word for word!

CBS News
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
tsit wrote:
Michael wrote:
For me, on this case, I never began with any assumptions of guilt. Instead, I followed the evidence and went where that led. That's how it should be done. The FOA and their supporters in contrast have started with a plain 'assumption' and then try and shoe horn the evidence in or disregard/hand wave away evidence that can't be shoe horned in, in order to keep up the illusion of that assumption.


Same here I first became aware of this case by reading the thread at JREF. It soon became apparent that the FOA exhibited cult like attributes such as personalizing the argument, focusing on irrelevant details and appealing to emotions while the prosecution had actual physical evidence. The clincher for me though was Amanda lying an innocent man into jail. That's not just misspeaking or being mistaken it's a deliberate attempt to pin the crime on someone else.


I thought she was railroaded at first, tsit (and welcome--from another JREF'r). That's what the television told me and I only heard about this case just after the verdict. My personal revelation that something wasn't quite right was when the length of Amanda's interrogation kept changing. They couldn't just pick a number and some of the time intervals (40+ hours) seemed a little more than unusual.

The fact she named an innocent man went beyond simple confusion or fear. That was downright nasty.



I think also, a key 'shooting in the foot' has been the hyperbole. The original case thread on the JREF was entitled 'Guilty, all because of a cartwheel'. That is always going to make intelligent people turn their heads and take a closer look at the actual evidence and once it became apparent that Amanda Knox wasn't convicted because of a cartwheel, that on the contrary, it is a very deep and complex case (not least of all because of the media and various interested parties doing their damnedest to make it one) with a great deal of evidence of guilt, it backfired. While the individual who started the thread wasn't FOA, she was one that had swallowed all the hype and hadn't bothered looking beyond the superficial. The FOA 'have' used this type of language from the beginning... 'There's no evidence'...'Railroad job from Hell'...'All because she was American and they just hate Americans'...'Corrupt prosecutor obsessed with Satanism'. To this day, the FOA haven't learned this lesson of the self damage such emotive language can do. As soon as one lifts up the wrapping, they quickly find their intelligence is being insulted with these kinds of headline comments.


(yes, it's Bob from JREF, Hi everyone)

This is, quite honestly, what clinched it for me. IMO, the side that resorts to fallacious arguments has no real evidence to support their assertions - if they did, they would present said evidence and it would trump the arguments of their opponents. That the FoA need resort to smear tactics against Rudy, The Police, The Judges, Filomena, et al to account for the evidence against Amanda speaks volumes of the validity of the evidence.


It's the same we see with Truthers in 9/11 Conspiracy threads, Religious Fundies in Evolution/Science threads, etc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
You are right SB: he is quoting the Vanity Fair article. I don't know why it boggled my mind so much. I should not be surprised by now. But it is just so.....inappropriate..somehow :)


Yes, kind of like asking Count Dracula for his thoughts on the recent popularity of all things vampire. It would be interesting to look into the history of the Count's family, by the way. As Mary H has reminded us, the Italians remain steeped in their fascist past and are prisoners to it. Perhaps the Count's people found themselves on Mussolini's good side. I would be willing to bet they were not part of any resistance movement.:)

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

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Quote from the comments section of a CBS News story on how van der Sloot was "tricked into confessing". Looks like someone is paying attention out there.

Quote:
by sanfran1 June 21, 2010 11:24 AM EDT

Sounds like van der Sloot is using the Amanda Knox PR firm defense - almost word for word!

CBS News


lol

I had the same thought when I read the AP article regarding Sloot's new tack.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Chris_H


Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:30 am

Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
In the name of the wee man!!. They are quoting a papal count on the subject of the Italian legal system: a count who is, coincidentally, a friend of Spezi's and Preston's. At least according to Halkides1 who cites him via Vanity Fair. This has to be a new low, surely ?


Fits well enough with the child killers and the prison snitches.


Stilicho,

Maybe you can explain how an ecclesiastical judge fits in with child killers and prison snitches.

Skeptical Bystander,

Do you have any factual information on whether the count's family had ties with Mussolini?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris_H wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
In the name of the wee man!!. They are quoting a papal count on the subject of the Italian legal system: a count who is, coincidentally, a friend of Spezi's and Preston's. At least according to Halkides1 who cites him via Vanity Fair. This has to be a new low, surely ?


Fits well enough with the child killers and the prison snitches.


Stilicho,

Maybe you can explain how an ecclesiastical judge fits in with child killers and prison snitches.

Skeptical Bystander,

Do you have any factual information on whether the count's family had ties with Mussolini?[/quote]

None whatsoever. I was actually joking, since a poster on another forum was recently waxing eloquent about how today's Italians are just one generation out of fascism, to support some pretty bizarre claims about Italian police officers thinking with their penises and also to assert the probability of police brutality. I found the reasoning absurd but kind of funny. I have no information whatsoever about the Count who was interviewed; for all I know he could come from a long line of communists or anarchists. I should have added a half dozen smilies.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Macport wrote:
Quote from the comments section of a CBS News story on how van der Sloot was "tricked into confessing". Looks like someone is paying attention out there.

Quote:
by sanfran1 June 21, 2010 11:24 AM EDT

Sounds like van der Sloot is using the Amanda Knox PR firm defense - almost word for word!

CBS News


lol

I had the same thought when I read the AP article regarding Sloot's new tack.


Isn’t it funny how Van der Sloot is being handled in comparison to Amanda Knox in the US media. I wonder if Mary H has some spare time to bombard the internet about how he is to handsome to be guilty, oh wait he’s not American.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris_H wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
In the name of the wee man!!. They are quoting a papal count on the subject of the Italian legal system: a count who is, coincidentally, a friend of Spezi's and Preston's. At least according to Halkides1 who cites him via Vanity Fair. This has to be a new low, surely ?


Fits well enough with the child killers and the prison snitches.


Stilicho,

Maybe you can explain how an ecclesiastical judge fits in with child killers and prison snitches.

Skeptical Bystander,

Do you have any factual information on whether the count's family had ties with Mussolini?


Having clarified that I was actually making a joke, I just wanted to add that if you are interested in learning more about Count Neri Capponi it is easy to do so. He comes from a very long aristocratic line associated with Florence. He teaches "canon law" at the University of Florence and is active in traditional Catholic circles. Historically, noble families placed their male offspring in the church or the military, since this is where the power lay. Later on, the halls of academia and the inner sanctum of trade and capitalism became important as placements to ensure that the family would be able to finance its lifestyle. It can get really expensive maintaining castles, not to mention armies and the like.

Anyway, I should know better than to make cryptic jokes that imply some familiarity with history.

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

Offline Chris_H


Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:30 am

Posts: 22

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.

That's because, as usual, you are arguing a specific case with generalized, unevidenced quotes that are, therefore, nothing more than Appeal to Authority.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.

That's because, as usual, you are arguing a specific case with generalized, unevidenced quotes that are, therefore, nothing more than Appeal to Authority.


I actually dealt with and responded to the comments when they first appeared, more than two years ago. I don't really feel the need to revisit the subject. Every healthy democracy entertains this type of debate. Capponi was expressing a view that has been expressed by others, in Italy and elsewhere.

I haven't followed the latest "quoting" of Capponi, but I am guessing it is no more than that. It is a sort of crude appeal to authority. But on what authority does Capponi speak? He is a Catholic and an expert in canon law. Perhaps there is a long-standing quarrel between church and civil law. Do you and others who quote him know anything about that? Do you know anything about the context from which and in which he is speaking? Know anything about the history of the magistrature in Italy? In France? Has this come up at all in your discussion? I didn't think so.

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It's just me - don't blame it on anyone else - it was like the clown music - but I hear David Byrne in my head - as usual forgive my inanity.

Quote:
You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?


http://www.ewtn.com/library/canonlaw/crifaith.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/ROMANAP.HTM
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
It's just me - don't blame it on anyone else - it was like the clown music - but I hear David Byrne in my head - as usual forgive my inanity.

Quote:
You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?


http://www.ewtn.com/library/canonlaw/crifaith.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/ROMANAP.HTM


what an appropriate lyric and song, I could go on for hours about seeing Talking Heads live at Eric's in Liverpool. I think it was a Thursday night in 1978, it was a long time ago but not a night to forget.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


It's probably because nobody cares what some nut says about the case regardless of his title.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


OK, seriously, what is your famous nut saying this time? Here's a discussion of him/her from MAR 2009 so you're over a year late to discover this new expert of yours is possibly mentally imbalanced:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=121&start=250

The claim is that the Italian justice system has about 250 wrongful convictions every single day. No sources to back up the claim either. This is your expert?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


That is utter nonsense. The Italian legal system has been extensively discussed here and at JREF, with links which provide information about the history and development of it.

You have given us Vanity Fair and a papal count. Why would anyone waste their time on your rubbish?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tom_ch


Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am

Posts: 241

Location: CH

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

norbertc wrote:
Pelerine wrote:
Filomena should have been quite happy, normally a ransacked room looks like that:
(And all the cops are aware of this fact - burglary is their bread-and-butter-work)

(PICTURE)


Hey! This looks just like my daughter's room before its weekly cleaning.

Your daughter cleans her room?

Mine only cleans hers when she wants to butter me up (like when she brought a kitten home recently).

Otherwise, it's usually WORSE than that photo!

Tom
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Refuting Bruce Fisher's numerous false claims is like taking candy from a baby. He claimed on JREF that Sollecito agreed with the police officers that he couldn't possibly know for sure if Knox left when he was sleeping:

"This is exaggerated online all the time.

"Raffeale was the first to break"

"Raffaele turned on Amanda"

Actually, Raffaele agreed with the interrogators that he couldn't possibly know for sure if Amanda left when he was sleeping.

The police exaggerated this to Amanda to try and get her to buckle. this is a common police tactic."

Bruce Fisher's fictitious account is completely contradicted by Sollecito's witness statement:

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

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

He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn’t remember if they had sex." (Aislinn Simpson, The Daily Telegraph, 7 November 2007).

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


Last edited by The Machine on Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


OK, seriously, what is your famous nut saying this time? Here's a discussion of him/her from MAR 2009 so you're over a year late to discover this new expert of yours is possibly mentally imbalanced:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=121&start=250

The claim is that the Italian justice system has about 250 wrongful convictions every single day. No sources to back up the claim either. This is your expert?


Interesting article on Wrongful Convictions. (From the ABA website)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring20 ... ction.html

There probably are wrongful convictions in Italy everyday, though I'm not sure
the number would reach 250. It happens everywhere, in every country, every day.
This isn't to say that A.K. and R.S. have been wrongly convicted. We'll just
have to wait and see what the court of appeals says about that.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
There probably are wrongful convictions in Italy everyday, though I'm not sure
the number would reach 250.


Really? Do you have any proof to support your opinion or are you just guessing?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
Hi Machine,

Why don't you ask the Italian Lawyer, Cesare Beccaria....? haha.


The reason why I recommend reading Cesare Beccaria's pieces on TJMK is because he has an Italian doctorate of jurisprudence. His pieces help readers gain a better understanding of Italian law.

Alternatively, you could always read the opinions of someone who knows absolutely nothing about Italian law, for example, someone like Bruce Fisher. Bear in mind that Bruce Fisher has made several false claims about the legal aspects of this case such as:

1. Knox should have been provided with a lawyer.
2. Her questioning should have been recorded.
3. Her interrogation was illegal.
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:
There probably are wrongful convictions in Italy everyday, though I'm not sure
the number would reach 250.


Really? Do you have any proof to support your opinion or are you just guessing?



Well, Machine--you seem to refute others' opinions with "do you have any
proof" quite a lot. How about this, you look for evidence supporting
'no wrongful convictions in Italy at all' and I'll look for 'wrongful convictions in
Italy'.

Let me ask you: Do you have any proof to support 'there are no wrongful convictions in
Italy?'..or are you trying to support your case that A.K. wasn't convicted
wrongfully?

If we want to lay this matter to rest, back it up with a source.
(Hopefully not the 'Daily Telegraph'.) :)


Last edited by undecided on Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:
Hi Machine,

Why don't you ask the Italian Lawyer, Cesare Beccaria....? haha.


The reason why I recommend reading Cesare Beccaria's pieces on TJMK is because he has an Italian doctorate of jurisprudence. His pieces help readers gain a better understanding of Italian law.

Alternatively, you could always read the opinions of someone who knows absolutely nothing about Italian law, for example, someone like Bruce Fisher. Bear in mind that Bruce Fisher has made several false claims about the legal aspects of this case such as:

1. Knox should have been provided with a lawyer.
2. Her questioning should have been recorded.
3. Her interrogation was illegal.



Machine: I have read his pieces. But, as I asked you before:
could you send me his profile? A list of work he has published?
Credentials?

Here is a very nice translation of Cesare Beccaria's work:
Dei delitti e delle pene-On Crimes and Punishment
http://classicliberal.tripod.com/beccaria/crime02.html

Surely this is not the 'lawyer' you speak of, with a Doctorate? :)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

For those who miss the Chris H version of the Raffaele's appeal document

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/ ... ppeal.html

Lots of room for discussion and comments ;-)
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

To Machine:
On "wrongful convictions" and reasoning: (In the EU/abroad)


Here is a nice source (though, I haven't read it in its entirety,
though I will)--I do not see Italy mentioned specifically, though
the U.K., Netherlands, Poland, France, Switzerland,
Israel, Germany---have been mentioned.


http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters ... 11_ch1.pdf


Last edited by undecided on Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
Well, Machine--you seem to refute others' opinions with "do you have any
proof" quite a lot. How about this, you look for evidence supporting
'no wrongful convictions in Italy at all' and I'll look for 'wrongful convictions in
Italy'.

Let me ask you: Do you have any proof to support 'there are no wrongful convictions in
Italy?'..or are you trying to support your case that A.K. wasn't convicted
wrongfully?

If we went to lay a matter to rest, back it up with a source.
(Hopefully not the 'Daily Telegraph'.) :)


I've never stated that there are no wrongful convictions in Italy. I asked you to support your opinion that there are probably wrongful convictions in Italy every day.

The Daily Telegraph published verbatim quotes from Raffaele Sollecito's witness statement. Other newspapers published quotes from the same witness statement.

"Police said Raffaele Sollecito had continued to claim he was not present on the evening of the murder. He said: "I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don't remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn't back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father's phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think." (The Times, 7 November 2007).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 824508.ece

The Daily Telegraph is a reputable quality newspaper; it isn't a tabloid.

More than 20 judges believe the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is overwhelming. They haven't been wrongfully convicted. You will realise that when you read the translated version of the judges' sentencing report.
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:
Well, Machine--you seem to refute others' opinions with "do you have any
proof" quite a lot. How about this, you look for evidence supporting
'no wrongful convictions in Italy at all' and I'll look for 'wrongful convictions in
Italy'.

Let me ask you: Do you have any proof to support 'there are no wrongful convictions in
Italy?'..or are you trying to support your case that A.K. wasn't convicted
wrongfully?

If we went to lay a matter to rest, back it up with a source.
(Hopefully not the 'Daily Telegraph'.) :)


Forgot to mention:

This particular 'statement' by R.S. seems to match more with late the late evening/early
a.m. of Oct. 31st/Nov. 1st, 2007. From the posted Massei timeline, this can
be verified. Is it possible that paper made a mistake? Hmnnn...



I've never stated that there are no wrongful convictions in Italy. I asked you to support your opinion that there are probably wrongful convictions in Italy every day.

The Daily Telegraph published verbatim quotes from Raffaele Sollecito's witness statement. Other newspapers published quotes from the same witness statement.

"Police said Raffaele Sollecito had continued to claim he was not present on the evening of the murder. He said: "I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don't remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn't back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father's phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think." (The Times, 7 November 2007).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 824508.ece

The Daily Telegraph is a reputable quality newspaper; it isn't a tabloid.

More than 20 judges believe the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is overwhelming. They haven't been wrongfully convicted. You will realise that when you read the translated version of the judges' sentencing report.



But, that's not the link you posted before.
The one you posted before was by Aislinn Simpson.
Very 'improper' translation that is very misleading.

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

Machine: you still haven't told me anything of value.
"More than 20 judges believe the evidence...."
--and so all of us, like lemmings, are to believe as well?

Have you ever played the game 'telephone'?
I think you get what I'm trying to say.

Final point:
Let's not forget: Claudia Matteini ruled on A.K.'s case on the 9th
of November, 2007. How accurate does the report seem now?


Forgot to mention: R.S.'s account of that evening seems to match much
more with the evening of Oct. 31st/early a.m. of Nov. 1st, 2007.
That it matches quite well can be verified by checking the translated version
of the Massei timeline, posted here on PMF. (Thanks for that again).
Isn't it...possible a mistake was made?
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:
Hi Machine,

Why don't you ask the Italian Lawyer, Cesare Beccaria....? haha.


The reason why I recommend reading Cesare Beccaria's pieces on TJMK is because he has an Italian doctorate of jurisprudence. His pieces help readers gain a better understanding of Italian law.

Alternatively, you could always read the opinions of someone who knows absolutely nothing about Italian law, for example, someone like Bruce Fisher. Bear in mind that Bruce Fisher has made several false claims about the legal aspects of this case such as:

1. Knox should have been provided with a lawyer.
2. Her questioning should have been recorded.
3. Her interrogation was illegal.



Machine, are these 'opinions'?
What do you mean by 'false claims'?
I have read much of what Bruce has written---and all of those statements
have truth to them. Is it your agenda to twist Bruce's words?
Deliberately leave information out? Or to help me (or anyone else) to better
understand this case?

So--are you telling me--or would you like to 'clarify' with a list of
Italian laws--that Knox's 'interview' was legal? In all aspects?
That Knox's session either not being recorded, or not having surfaced
is legal? That Knox not having a lawyer was also legal (in all aspects)?
Please clarify, and let's not mince words.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
But, that's not the link you posted before.
The one you posted before was by Aislinn Simpson.
Very 'improper' translation that is very misleading.


I didn't say that it was the same link. The point I was making was the different newspapers have used verbatim quotes from Sollecito's witness statement.

Sollecito claimed that Knox went out at about 9.00pm on the night of the murder and came back at approximately 1.00am.

How do you know that it is an improper translation? Have you seen the original witness statement? Can you even speak Italian?

undecided wrote:
Machine: you still haven't told me anything of value.
"More than 20 judges believe the evidence...."
--and so all of us, like lemmings, are to believe as well?

Have you ever played the game 'telephone'?
I think you get what I'm trying to say.


There are plenty of checks and balances in the Italian legal system to ensure that they are no miscarriages of justice. Can you think of another legal system that is as careful as the Italian one and requires judges to give a written explanation for the verdict as well as two automatic appeals in murder cases?

No-one is asking you to be a lemming. The Italian legal system is very transparent. You can read the judges' sentencing report for yourself.

undecided wrote:
Final point:
Let's not forget: Claudia Matteini ruled on A.K.'s case on the 9th
of November, 2007. How accurate does the report seem now?


Judge Claudia Matteini based her rulings on the information available at the time. She had no choice but to refuse to grant Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba bail. Knox and Sollecito had lied repeatedly to the police and had given multiple conflicting alibis. Knox had repeatedly accused Lumumba of murdering Meredith and his alibi hadn't been verified at the time.

Lumumba was released as soon as the results came back from the laboratory in Rome. Knox admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007 and yet she never recanted her false and malicious accusation.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses. The defence can't discredit them by arguing--on appeal--that the bus wasn't running on 01 NOV 2007 or that Amanda's coat is a different colour. It doesn't work that way. Both witnesses identified one or both of them in places they told the police they weren't. Filomena's recollections about the state of her room were believed over the conjecture of the defence lawyers.

The points listed in the appeal should not be argued as if they are valid. They have not been validated!


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF. There is much more than Amanda's coat presented in the appeal with regard to Quintavalle, you can see that by just doing a Google translation of the section I posted here. Reducing the defense argument to that one thing is not giving the full story, but I think you know that.

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible. It appears to me to be well reasoned and logical. I realize the possible errors due to a faulty Google translation, that is why I posted the Italian version. I had some help with the passage regarding Amanda's claim that she was treated like a criminal, one of the Italian speakers here was helpful in that regard. Another poster here was helpful in translating the geek-speak of the appeal regarding Raffaele's computer brought up in his appeal.

On a side note, it is interesting to see more posters coming here from JREF, that moderated status is for the birds.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
Machine, are these 'opinions'?
What do you mean by 'false claims'?
I have read much of what Bruce has written---and all of those statements
have truth to them. Is it your agenda to twist Bruce's words?
Deliberately leave information out? Or to help me (or anyone else) to better
understand this case?

So--are you telling me--or would you like to 'clarify' with a list of
Italian laws--that Knox's 'interview' was legal? In all aspects?
That Knox's session either not being recorded, or not having surfaced
is legal? That Knox not having a lawyer was also legal (in all aspects)?
Please clarify, and let's not mince words.


It really isn't difficult to understand. No Italian judge has ever declared Knox's interrogation illegal for the simple reason it wasn't. You won't find any legal document claiming the interrogation illegal. The Suprema Corte di Cassazione never made that statement.

Amanda Knox was questioned as a witness and not as a suspect. The police weren't required to provide her with a lawyer or record the interrogation.

Mignini explained the situation in an interview with Claudio Paglieri:

"The first time Amanda was heard as person informed of facts [a witness]. In these cases, because of the urgency, we never record. Then we suspended the interrogation as suspicion of crime emerges. I explained to Amanda that based on article 374 of the penal code - the one on spontaneous declarations - she would have been able to render a declaration [as a witness]."

I suggest you also read the following from the Code of Penal Procedure:

The police can gather information from a suspect useful to the investigation even without the presence of a legal counsel (see art. 350 c. 5 of the Code of Penal Procedure).
However the information given without the presence of the legal counsel cannot be utilized (see art. 350 c. 6 of the C.P.P.).

The police can also gather spontaneous statements (i.e. not solicited by questioning) from the suspect without the presence of the defending legal counsel. However such spontaneous statements cannot be utilized in the trial against the suspect (see art. 350 c. 7 of the C.P.P.).
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Undecided wrote:
So--are you telling me--or would you like to 'clarify' with a list of
Italian laws--that Knox's 'interview' was legal? In all aspects?
That Knox's session either not being recorded, or not having surfaced
is legal? That Knox not having a lawyer was also legal (in all aspects)?
Please clarify, and let's not mince words.


These are the articals of Italian law that made it legal:

G Mignini wrote:
Knox was also heard as a witness by the Police, then evidence of her involvement in the crime having emerged, the Police suspended the questioning according to article 63 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.


PROSECUTOR GIULIANO MIGNINI E-MAIL


Perhaps a little more reading and a little less heckling of The Machine from the gallery and you may be better informed on the nature of the case and the Italian system in general ;)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
I suggest you also read the following from the Code of Penal Procedure:

The police can gather information from a suspect useful to the investigation even without the presence of a legal counsel (see art. 350 c. 5 of the Code of Penal Procedure).
However the information given without the presence of the legal counsel cannot be utilized (see art. 350 c. 6 of the C.P.P.).

The police can also gather spontaneous statements (i.e. not solicited by questioning) from the suspect without the presence of the defending legal counsel. However such spontaneous statements cannot be utilized in the trial against the suspect (see art. 350 c. 7 of the C.P.P.).



Hi TM, do you have links to those?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider...



In the meantime, until a court does accept them as valid, we can consider them to be so much hot air.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
On a side note, it is interesting to see more posters coming here from JREF, that moderated status is for the birds.



It's the best way to kill a debate. That's why it's a very last resort. There are other ways to go and were I an Admin there I'd have gone a different path.

_________________
"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 RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider...



In the meantime, until a court does accept them as valid, we can consider them to be so much hot air.


And some of it is exactly that. It is the parts that may have some validity that are worth exploring. There would be no need for an appeals court if the first court was completely correct on every occasion and in respect to every witness and piece of evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion.


Sollecito gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly to the police. This will be regarded as a clear indication of guilt. Sollecito putting the blame on Knox or his lawyers claiming that he lied out of confusion or fear won't wash with the judges and jury.

The visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito's foot, but couldn't possibly belong to Rudy Guede.

Sollecito left an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. DNA specialist Nicki gave an lucid explanation why some kind of pressure had to applied to the bra clasp in order to leave so much of Sollecito's DNA on it:

"As to cells “flying around” depositing themselves – and their DNA content - here and there around the murder scene, there have been some imaginative theories advanced, to say the least.

The reality though is that although epithelial cells do shed, they don’t sprout little wings to flock to one precise spot, nor grow feet to crawl and concentrate on a piece of evidence. There needs to be some kind of pressure on a surface in order to deposit the amount of biological material necessary to yield a reliable PCR analysis result. A simple brushing will not do."

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

I've spoken to several computer experts, including someone who has been involved in computer forensics. They all told me that if someone had surfed the Internet, there would been a record of it. I knew before the trial started that Sollecito's lawyers wouldn't been able to prove that he had been surfing the Internet despite Bongiorno's bold predictions.

Knox's and Sollecito's sentences will be confirmed at the appeal.


Last edited by The Machine on Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Undecided wrote:
So--are you telling me--or would you like to 'clarify' with a list of
Italian laws--that Knox's 'interview' was legal? In all aspects?
That Knox's session either not being recorded, or not having surfaced
is legal? That Knox not having a lawyer was also legal (in all aspects)?
Please clarify, and let's not mince words.


These are the articals of Italian law that made it legal:

G Mignini wrote:
Knox was also heard as a witness by the Police, then evidence of her involvement in the crime having emerged, the Police suspended the questioning according to article 63 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.


PROSECUTOR GIULIANO MIGNINI E-MAIL


Perhaps a little more reading and a little less heckling of The Machine from the gallery and you may be better informed on the nature of the case and the Italian system in general ;)



I'm not trying to heckle--I had (and do have) a point.
Backing up a claim with evidence is the best way to put
any rumors/falsities that are being spread to a rest. It's also
important not to misrepresent a claim, or to leave anything out. :)
Top Profile 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider...



In the meantime, until a court does accept them as valid, we can consider them to be so much hot air.


And some of it is exactly that. It is the parts that may have some validity that are worth exploring. There would be no need for an appeals court if the first court was completely correct on every occasion and in respect to every witness and piece of evidence.


I thought that all convictions were automatically sent for appeal. It appears that process gives the defense greater leeway in which to bring up arguments (meaning the defense doesn't have to find a reason to initate an appeal of a verdict as might be required in other countries).

Am I correct in thinking the first court could have been completely correct in its decision, however, the appeal is given as a benefit to the those deemed guilty?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
I'm not trying to heckle--I had (and do have) a point.
Backing up a claim with evidence is the best way to put
any rumors/falsities that are being spread to a rest. It's also
important not to misrepresent a claim, or to leave anything out. :)


Bruce Fisher wrote the following:

"Amanda Knox was interrogated repeatedly in the five days following the murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda consistently told the same story over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth."

Amanda Knox clearly did not repeatedly tell the truth. This is a false claim.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
There would be no need for an appeals court if the first court was completely correct on every occasion and in respect to every witness and piece of evidence.


That is an may be. However, that in itself is not an argument to dismiss the verdict.

A verdict was reached. It will therefore, take something rather special to overturn that verdict.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Undecided wrote:
I'm not trying to heckle--I had (and do have) a point.
Backing up a claim with evidence is the best way to put
any rumors/falsities that are being spread to a rest. It's also
important not to misrepresent a claim, or to leave anything out.


Indeed. But, that information I gave you has been on this site for a long time now. Moreover, the Italian legal rules governing the questioning of suspects/witnesses and regarding voluntary statements has been established here also, a very long time ago.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

christiana wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider...



In the meantime, until a court does accept them as valid, we can consider them to be so much hot air.


And some of it is exactly that. It is the parts that may have some validity that are worth exploring. There would be no need for an appeals court if the first court was completely correct on every occasion and in respect to every witness and piece of evidence.


I thought that all convictions were automatically sent for appeal. It appears that process gives the defense greater leeway in which to bring up arguments (meaning the defense doesn't have to find a reason to initate an appeal of a verdict as might be required in other countries).

Am I correct in thinking the first court could have been completely correct in its decision, however, the appeal is given as a benefit to the those deemed guilty?



Yes, that's absolutely correct.

Welcome to PMF :)

_________________
"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 christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thank you for the welcome. I thought I should register since I read the documents here so frequently. The board looks quite different when registered.

And I agree with Rose concerning JREF: moderated status is for the birds.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


OK, seriously, what is your famous nut saying this time? Here's a discussion of him/her from MAR 2009 so you're over a year late to discover this new expert of yours is possibly mentally imbalanced:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=121&start=250

The claim is that the Italian justice system has about 250 wrongful convictions every single day. No sources to back up the claim either. This is your expert?


Interesting article on Wrongful Convictions. (From the ABA website)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring20 ... ction.html

There probably are wrongful convictions in Italy everyday, though I'm not sure
the number would reach 250. It happens everywhere, in every country, every day.
This isn't to say that A.K. and R.S. have been wrongly convicted. We'll just
have to wait and see what the court of appeals says about that.


This is a silly post if ever there was one, undecided. Of course, wrongful convictions exist and no one would be naive enough to dispute that fact. AK and RS could have their sentence reduced on appeal on procedural grounds, and it would not mean they were wrongfully convicted. You should actually read the text (in the link you provided further on) on a comparative analysis of wrongful convictions. It does not mention Italy - not in the introduction and not in the rest of the text, which features articles by various scholars. In fact, one of the baseline issues of the work is whether an adversarial system as opposed to an inquisitorial one leads to MORE wrongful convictions. The authors also critically examine the capacity of an adversarial jury to determine objective truth.

As you may or may not know, Italy has traditionally had an inquisitorial system, but introduced some reforms in the late 1980's (I don't remember the exact year and don't have time to check right now) that brought in an "adversarial" dose to the mix. One of the aims was to beef up protection of the rights of the accused.

Criminal trials are presented to a jury that is composed of judges (who know the law and have experience in such matters) and lay persons. In contrast, the US system uses only lay persons, an approach that is increasingly criticized. For one thing, the jury pool is not representative of the US population (the working population and especially the self-employed usually cannot afford to miss work, for example), which introduces all sorts of biases into the process.

Incidentally, it has been stated before but bears repeating: in many cases, US juries are no longer sequestered, in part to expand the jury pool.

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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Completely and absolutely agree with Michael's welcome, christiana.

Some parts of the appeals seem to me to be designed to correct deficiencies in the initial defense. It may be the appeal process gives the defense a chance correct some mistakes that they have made. The fact that they have the Massei report gives them a chance to review how the court made the decision they did , what evidence they considered significant, and what counter arguments they found to be nothing but hot air.

They also have a chance to make additional arguments about some of the legal decisions made at the first trial, and although that is not something I am an expert at, it does contain a lot of this type of thing. Chris at VFW just posted on some of the problems the defense had in the way of discovery, for example.

The prosecution has the same opportunity and are using it to argue for a longer sentence for Ms. Knox. They are not agreeing with some of the Massei report's reasoning on some of the factors involved in giving her a lower jail term than they wanted. It would be fair to say that in this regard they don't view the court as completely correct either.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Completely and absolutely agree with Michael's welcome, christiana.

Some parts of the appeals seem to me to be designed to correct deficiencies in the initial defense. It may be the appeal process gives the defense a chance correct some mistakes that they have made. The fact that they have the Massei report gives them a chance to review how the court made the decision they did , what evidence they considered significant, and what counter arguments they found to be nothing but hot air.

They also have a chance to make additional arguments about some of the legal decisions made at the first trial, and although that is not something I am an expert at, it does contain a lot of this type of thing. Chris at VFW just posted on some of the problems the defense had in the way of discovery, for example.

The prosecution has the same opportunity and are using it to argue for a longer sentence for Ms. Knox. They are not agreeing with some of the Massei report's reasoning on some of the factors involved in giving her a lower jail term than they wanted. It would be fair to say that in this regard they don't view the court as completely correct either.


It is right that the appeal gives the defence the 'chance' to do that. But, the point I was trying to make, is simply because the Italian system incorporates a round of automatic appeals it does not mean that the actual trial is considered to be more unsafe, mistake prone, has less value or have less weight then a trial in the adversarial system. The automatic appeals process is simply an 'added' layer of protection for both the victims and the accused. And it should be remembered the prosecution can also appeal, as they've done in this case. It also must be said that the reasons for the extra appeals is also down to the Italian legal culture's ultimate goal of 'truth', rather then simply 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

And as a caveat, I personally don't see the Italian system as being a three degree affair, but rather a four degree system. For me, the pre-trial qualifies as a trial in its own right, indeed it can be described as a 'fast track trial'. Therefore, the way I see it, the pair have been convicted in two trials now.

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


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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Completely and absolutely agree with Michael's welcome, christiana.

Some parts of the appeals seem to me to be designed to correct deficiencies in the initial defense. It may be the appeal process gives the defense a chance correct some mistakes that they have made. The fact that they have the Massei report gives them a chance to review how the court made the decision they did , what evidence they considered significant, and what counter arguments they found to be nothing but hot air.

They also have a chance to make additional arguments about some of the legal decisions made at the first trial, and although that is not something I am an expert at, it does contain a lot of this type of thing. Chris at VFW just posted on some of the problems the defense had in the way of discovery, for example.

The prosecution has the same opportunity and are using it to argue for a longer sentence for Ms. Knox. They are not agreeing with some of the Massei report's reasoning on some of the factors involved in giving her a lower jail term than they wanted. It would be fair to say that in this regard they don't view the court as completely correct either.


It is right that the appeal gives the defence the 'chance' to do that. But, the point I was trying to make, is simply because the Italian system incorporates a round of automatic appeals it does not mean that the actual trial is considered to be more unsafe, mistake prone, has less value or have less weight then a trial in the adversarial system. The automatic appeals process is simply an 'added' layer of protection for both the victims and the accused. And it should be remembered the prosecution can also appeal, as they've done in this case. It also must be said that the reasons for the extra appeals is also down to the Italian legal culture's ultimate goal of 'truth', rather then simply 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

And as a caveat, I personally don't see the Italian system as being a three degree affair, but rather a four degree system. For me, the pre-trial qualifies as a trial in its own right, indeed it can be described as a 'fast track trial'. Therefore, the way I see it, the pair have been convicted in two trials now.


You may be surprised but I also think this system is extremely fair and better in many ways than in some other countries that will remain nameless. I also believe that it is designed to get at the truth of things.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Completely and absolutely agree with Michael's welcome, christiana.

Some parts of the appeals seem to me to be designed to correct deficiencies in the initial defense. It may be the appeal process gives the defense a chance correct some mistakes that they have made. The fact that they have the Massei report gives them a chance to review how the court made the decision they did , what evidence they considered significant, and what counter arguments they found to be nothing but hot air.

They also have a chance to make additional arguments about some of the legal decisions made at the first trial, and although that is not something I am an expert at, it does contain a lot of this type of thing. Chris at VFW just posted on some of the problems the defense had in the way of discovery, for example.

The prosecution has the same opportunity and are using it to argue for a longer sentence for Ms. Knox. They are not agreeing with some of the Massei report's reasoning on some of the factors involved in giving her a lower jail term than they wanted. It would be fair to say that in this regard they don't view the court as completely correct either.


Good points. The Italian judicial system appears to give more benefit to the guilty even after a decision has been rendered. In some judicial systems a defendant may never learn the reasoning of how a jury came to its decision. The Massei motivations gives Amanda and Raffaele that benefit.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Does this truth-seeking wholistic approach make it less likely a guilty verdict would be overturned by a technicality, say, of procedure? Just wondering....

ETA welcome new posters mul-)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Something else I like about the Italian system (and I know it's controversial to some because it's "prejudicial") is the hearing of the attendant Civil claims as part of the criminal proceedings. That way all is judged in context, and the court decides. No claims dragging on for years or court time wasted by someone trying impose a new interpretation in the future. I think it's quite brilliant, really. Very good for victims and all.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
Well, Machine--you seem to refute others' opinions with "do you have any proof" quite a lot. How about this, you look for evidence supporting 'no wrongful convictions in Italy at all' and I'll look for 'wrongful convictions in Italy'.


That's not how it works. If you (or Chris Halkides) want to dredge up a papal count, quoted in Vanity Fair, as an expert on Italian law, then it's up to you to provide the evidence (since he clearly did not) that the Italian justice system wrongfully convicts about 250 people daily and has done so for a fifty year period.

Then, after that, explain exactly how this guy's opinion relates to the specifics of Meredith's murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
For those who miss the Chris H version of the Raffaele's appeal document

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/ ... ppeal.html

Lots of room for discussion and comments ;-)


I don't know why anyone is depending on poor Google translations of unverified claims made in an appeal submitted to who-knows-where. Why don't we wait until the claims are presented and validated?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
To Machine:
On "wrongful convictions" and reasoning: (In the EU/abroad)


Here is a nice source (though, I haven't read it in its entirety,
though I will)--I do not see Italy mentioned specifically, though
the U.K., Netherlands, Poland, France, Switzerland,
Israel, Germany---have been mentioned.


http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters ... 11_ch1.pdf


Well, right there you can tell that your ecclesiastical hero is off by an order of magnitude if Germany is close to typical:

Quote:
These studies were preceded by a monumental survey of some 1,600 cases overturned in Germany over a period of more than three decades (Peters, 1970–1974).


That's 53 wrongful conviction cases a year in Germany in a population of 60 millions [1970 est] or roughly 0.9 per million per annum. If Italy were typical then that would mean approximately 48 wrongful convictions per year--a good deal more than the 250 per day that your expert cited.

Try again, please. That was a fail.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

How many criminal trials are there in a day in Italy? Does anybody know?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
To Machine:
On "wrongful convictions" and reasoning: (In the EU/abroad)


Oh and look at this:

Quote:
He concludes that wrongful convictions are far more likely to occur in apparently trivial cases where few resources are devoted to investigate the relevant facts, such as the possibility of error, shortcomings, or both in scientifi c investigations.


Remember, you've posted an introduction to a major thesis, it appears, and even that summary shows that your source is not supportive. I doubt anyone would properly claim that there were insufficient resources (time, manpower, range of forensics, etc) applied to Meredith's murder. Moreover, the defence supplied experts in their fields to dispute the prosecutor's case point by point and they failed to convince anyone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
undecided wrote:
Well, Machine--you seem to refute others' opinions with "do you have any proof" quite a lot. How about this, you look for evidence supporting 'no wrongful convictions in Italy at all' and I'll look for 'wrongful convictions in Italy'.


That's not how it works. If you (or Chris Halkides) want to dredge up a papal count, quoted in Vanity Fair, as an expert on Italian law, then it's up to you to provide the evidence (since he clearly did not) that the Italian justice system wrongfully convicts about 250 people daily and has done so for a fifty year period.

Then, after that, explain exactly how this guy's opinion relates to the specifics of Meredith's murder.



And anyway, TM never stated as far as I know that there are no wrongful convictions in Italy. He stated that, in his opinion and based on Massei's report, AK and RS were not wrongfully convicted. It annoys me to no end when arguments/statements are misrepresented in such an infantile way. Why would anyone deny the existence of wrongful convictions, as if they were flying saucers?

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
Forgot to mention: R.S.'s account of that evening seems to match much more with the evening of Oct. 31st/early a.m. of Nov. 1st, 2007. That it matches quite well can be verified by checking the translated version of the Massei timeline, posted here on PMF. (Thanks for that again).
Isn't it...possible a mistake was made?


This is an interesting conjecture and I've heard it before from Mary H. Are you guys actually claiming that Raffaele issued and signed a statement to the police that the events of 31 OCT 2007 were the ones he was relating to them when they were asking questions about 01 NOV 2007? Was this presented in court?

If it's true, why on earth would he sign a statement containing such obviously incorrect information?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote the following on JREF:

"It is one of your talking points that Raffaele stopped supporting Amanda's alibi. We all know that in reality he was only speaking about when he was sleeping."

Bruce Fisher's claim that Sollecito was only speaking about when he was sleeping is completely contradicted by Sollecito's witness statement:

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

At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.” (Aislinn Simpson, The Daily Telegraph, 7 November 2007).

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

"Police said Raffaele Sollecito had continued to claim he was not present on the evening of the murder. He said: "I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don't remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn't back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father's phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think." (The Times, 7 November 2007).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 824508.ece

At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

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

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/06/the- ... -job.html#


Last edited by The Machine on Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
undecided wrote:
Forgot to mention: R.S.'s account of that evening seems to match much more with the evening of Oct. 31st/early a.m. of Nov. 1st, 2007. That it matches quite well can be verified by checking the translated version of the Massei timeline, posted here on PMF. (Thanks for that again).
Isn't it...possible a mistake was made?


This is an interesting conjecture and I've heard it before from Mary H. Are you guys actually claiming that Raffaele issued and signed a statement to the police that the events of 31 OCT 2007 were the ones he was relating to them when they were asking questions about 01 NOV 2007? Was this presented in court?

If it's true, why on earth would he sign a statement containing such obviously incorrect information?


Maybe due to his poor grasp of Italian. Oh, wait. He's Italian.

Is the expression "clutching at straws" or "grasping at straws" or are these just two ways of expressing the same idea?

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses.


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.

....

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible.


Both Quintavalle and Curatolo were judged to be credible witnesses and the reasons were provided in the sentencing report. As Michael's asked before, on what grounds are they appealing these rock-solid witnesses? Were the corroborations of those confirming their presence proved to be incorrect? Did they recant their testimony? What legal and technical reasons are there for overturning their testimony?

I used the "missing bus" and "wrong colour coat" as examples of what will not discredit them. SA or any lawyer could confirm this but it will be only a withdrawal of the testimony, withdrawal of the corroboration, or some other technicality (eg they were not where they said they were) that scotches the witness statements/testimony. Basically they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness lied. Do you think they do that?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
undecided wrote:
Well, Machine--you seem to refute others' opinions with "do you have any proof" quite a lot. How about this, you look for evidence supporting 'no wrongful convictions in Italy at all' and I'll look for 'wrongful convictions in Italy'.


That's not how it works. If you (or Chris Halkides) want to dredge up a papal count, quoted in Vanity Fair, as an expert on Italian law, then it's up to you to provide the evidence (since he clearly did not) that the Italian justice system wrongfully convicts about 250 people daily and has done so for a fifty year period.

Then, after that, explain exactly how this guy's opinion relates to the specifics of Meredith's murder.



And anyway, TM never stated as far as I know that there are no wrongful convictions in Italy. He stated that, in his opinion and based on Massei's report, AK and RS were not wrongfully convicted. It annoys me to no end when arguments/statements are misrepresented in such an infantile way. Why would anyone deny the existence of wrongful convictions, as if they were flying saucers?


I've no idea who would do such a thing. But it does seem that Undecided has finally decided to come out of her shell and play her cards ;)

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses.


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.

....

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible.


Both Quintavalle and Curatolo were judged to be credible witnesses and the reasons were provided in the sentencing report. As Michael's asked before, on what grounds are they appealing these rock-solid witnesses? Were the corroborations of those confirming their presence proved to be incorrect? Did they recant their testimony? What legal and technical reasons are there for overturning their testimony?

I used the "missing bus" and "wrong colour coat" as examples of what will not discredit them. SA or any lawyer could confirm this but it will be only a withdrawal of the testimony, withdrawal of the corroboration, or some other technicality (eg they were not where they said they were) that scotches the witness statements/testimony. Basically they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness lied. Do you think they do that?


In addition, as has been pointed out before, Quintavalle did speak about having seen AK to one of his store employees, lending further credibility to his testimony. As Massei notes, AK was seen going in the direction of the cottage after leaving his store. This has to be put together with the fact that RS and AK were not sleeping until 10:30 am, since RS had 3 conversations with his father between 9 and 9:30 am, conversations that AK was unaware of.... because she wasn't there to hear them. Where was she? Massei also argues that AK and RS may have decided that it was too risky for them to go to the store together. Since it was RS's corner store, he was certainly known (at least by sight) to store personnel. So it makes sense that he did not go. And from Quintavalle's testimony, it sounds as if AK wrapped herself up a bit (didn't want to be easily identified?).

One of the fundamental mistakes made by AK and RS was to claim they were sleeping until 10:30 am. How ironic that they were busted by RS's dad and his phone calls, among other things. Other things being the computer activity at 5:30 am (lasting 30 minutes), Quintavalle's testimony, etc.

I expect undecided to tell us soon that RS had the day wrong and that in fact it was on the morning of Nov 1 that he and AK slept until 10:30 am. He just got the date wrong due to his poor grasp of Italian.

Undecided, what is it that you are undecided about exactly? Is it that you just can't decide whether this is all a big mix-up or all a big conspiracy with intent to obtain a wrongful conviction?

_________________
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: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
undecided wrote:
Forgot to mention: R.S.'s account of that evening seems to match much more with the evening of Oct. 31st/early a.m. of Nov. 1st, 2007. That it matches quite well can be verified by checking the translated version of the Massei timeline, posted here on PMF. (Thanks for that again).
Isn't it...possible a mistake was made?


This is an interesting conjecture and I've heard it before from Mary H. Are you guys actually claiming that Raffaele issued and signed a statement to the police that the events of 31 OCT 2007 were the ones he was relating to them when they were asking questions about 01 NOV 2007? Was this presented in court?

If it's true, why on earth would he sign a statement containing such obviously incorrect information?


It actually doesn't match the events of the 31st anyway. The difference is that, despite his claim that he didn't care about Halloween, wasn't interested in it at all, his memories of that evening, in stark contrast to the night of the 1st Nov, are very clear...he goes into detail in his diary about the evening of the 31st which he clearly remembers...therefore, how can he have it confused with the 1st Nov?

_________________
"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: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

There were 406,979 recorded crimes in Scotland in 2003/4: we have a population of about 5 million. 130, 606 were convicted. If we assume that the courts sit 5 days a week for 48 weeks a year (dont' actually know but I think that is probably low) they sit 240 days a year. 545 trials a day. and of those 32% result in convictions (ie. 175). Italy has 58 million people (roughly). So if the recorded crime rate and conviction rate is comparable (unlikely: scotland has a very high crime rate compared to other countries I believe). then there are 12 times as many trials as in Scotland: which arrives at 6540 trials per day. No idea what percent of Italian trials result in conviction. Let us say 50%. so 3270 convictions per day. Of which 250 are wrongful. 8%. I honestly don't think the people would stand for a figure like that

Bear in mind I can't count: and there are too many unknowns. But if someone could do that exercise properly I would be interested :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Undecided, what is it that you are undecided about exactly? Is it that you just can't decide whether this is all a big mix-up or all a big conspiracy with intent to obtain a wrongful conviction?

:D :D :D
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Just curious...

Found a site that translates and just going on the low end (as in non-legal wording) they offer 12 cents per word. If there are say, 500 words on a page, multiply that by 400 (I know the motivations is more than 400, but keeping it easy) that's $24,000.00! 12 cents per word was the low end of the spectrum.

*So, translators, are you sure we're paying you enough?

Thanks for the hard work and the selfless gift of your valuable spare time. You're all appreciated.

*edited to add that this is a joke


Last edited by Corrina on Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses.


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.

....

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible.




I think that the criticism of the Italian justice system, and in particular the contention that Knox would have far more protection from legal system in the United States, shows a lack of knowledge of the way each of those legal system actually works. Not long ago it was commented here that Scott Peterson was put on death row on far less evidence than was introduced against Amanda Knox. The only reason his appeal is automatic is that he was given the death penalty.

And had she been convicted in the United States, there is simply no comparison to be made which would leave Amanda Knox better off. Amanda Knox now has a second bite at the apple, protected by the presumption of innocence, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. She will not be limited to whatever evidence she sought to introduce in her first trial.

In the United States she would not be presumed innocent from the moment judgment of guilt was entered, and the state would have no burden to prove anything in the Court of Appeal. Part of the gist of Knox’ appeal is that witnesses placing her in RS near the scene of the crime at times she contends she was elsewhere are not credible, and that generally the evidence is not sufficient to sustain conviction.

In the United States the standard for reversal is difficult to meet. In United States, the Court of Appeal does not try the case second time; it does not even review the evidence of the first trial and come to an independent conclusion. The Court of Appeal considers the evidence as a whole, and in the light most favorable to the prosecution. At the trial level, if there is evidence that can be interpreted two ways, one that favors conviction and another that favors innocence, the jury is instructed that it must adopt the interpretation favoring innocence. That no longer applies in the Court of Appeal. If the evidence supports the conclusion that a reasonable person could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction will be upheld.

As to witness credibility, Courts of Appeal virtually never reverse a jury decision as to whom among the witnesses they believed. A court would have to find the witness's testimony to be "palpably false and incredible," meaning that no reasonable person would believe the testimony.

And she wouldn't have the benefit of the judge's statement motivation. In the United States the jury need only say "we find the defendant guilty," And explanations are not given, except outside the legal system to reporters or others who ask after the trial concluded and the jury dismissed. Indeed, in United States the jurors' actual reasoning processes are not at all a part of the substance of appeal. While not directly relevant to the Amanda Knox case, there is a concept in both civil and criminal law that "a jury may not impeach its own verdict." This sometimes happens post-conviction when one or more of the jurors has second thoughts and informs the court that they don't agree with the verdict.

The Italian court system appears to me to have a more systematic interest is not punishing the innocent and less interest in the finality of judgments of conviction than the system with which I am most familiar.

Tom M
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.....


Both Quintavalle and Curatolo were judged to be credible witnesses and the reasons were provided in the sentencing report.

...

I used the "missing bus" and "wrong colour coat" as examples of what will not discredit them.


In addition, as has been pointed out before, Quintavalle did speak about having seen AK to one of his store employees, lending further credibility to his testimony. As Massei notes, AK was seen going in the direction of the cottage after leaving his store. This has to be put together with the fact that RS and AK were not sleeping until 10:30 am, since RS had 3 conversations with his father between 9 and 9:30 am, conversations that AK was unaware of.... because she wasn't there to hear them. Where was she? Massei also argues that AK and RS may have decided that it was too risky for them to go to the store together. Since it was RS's corner store, he was certainly known (at least by sight) to store personnel. So it makes sense that he did not go. And from Quintavalle's testimony, it sounds as if AK wrapped herself up a bit (didn't want to be easily identified?).

One of the fundamental mistakes made by AK and RS was to claim they were sleeping until 10:30 am. How ironic that they were busted by RS's dad and his phone calls, among other things. Other things being the computer activity at 5:30 am (lasting 30 minutes), Quintavalle's testimony, etc.

I expect undecided to tell us soon that RS had the day wrong and that in fact it was on the morning of Nov 1 that he and AK slept until 10:30 am. He just got the date wrong due to his poor grasp of Italian.

Undecided, what is it that you are undecided about exactly? Is it that you just can't decide whether this is all a big mix-up or all a big conspiracy with intent to obtain a wrongful conviction?


It's a part of the narrative that resulted in their convictions. Of that I have no doubts. The crime didn't begin and end with Meredith's murder. It was their equivocation afterwards (along with the staged burglary) that convinced the police and the courts that they were guilty.

We're sitting in our armchairs with little more than the court's conclusions and various newspaper articles to 'debate' while the principals involved had the benefit of hours of court time and a mountain of data and evidence to peruse. When I start seeing excuses made about wrong dates or 'simple' misunderstandings I wonder whether I'm actually hearing from the suspects themselves. What's next? A vision of Rudy climbing the cottage wall?

@Michael: ...he goes into detail in his diary about the evening of the 31st which he clearly remembers...

Not to mention the fact that these are signed statements unless I'm misinformed.

@Fiona: Of which 250 are wrongful. 8%. I honestly don't think the people would stand for a figure like that

I did locate this link:

http://genpop.org/2010/02/interesting-wrongful-conviction-stats/

That link states that the most common reason for wrongful conviction is witness error.

and:

http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/who-gets-wrongly-convicted

That link suggests that DNA is often the tool used to overturn wrongful convictions. In the Perugia case, they're arguing that the forensics were misapplied somehow to cause a wrongful conviction.

One of the highest profile wrongful conviction cases in Canada involved David Milgaard, who spent 23 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Again, the real killer was brought to justice through DNA forensics: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/milgaard/milgaard_inquiry.html

If we put all this information together, in our very amateur rebuttal to the good Count, it appears that wrongful convictions are most common in trivial cases, that the number he provided (250 per day) is unsupported by any evidence we've found, and that the very tool commonly used to overturn wrongful convictions (DNA evidence) is the one argued to be a part of the problem.

Add to that the electronic records that prove they lied, the witnesses whose testimony was corroborated, the staged burglary, the medical examiner's report proving multiple attackers, the conflicting statements, the broken alibis, the false accusation, and all the other evidence and we're left with a high improbability that this was a wrongful conviction.

A side note about the Milgaard case:

(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/26/milgaard-advance.html)

Quote:
Joyce Milgaard's tactics sometimes hindered her case

Despite the fact that Joyce Milgaard was ultimately successful in winning her son's release from prison and in his eventual exoneration in the murder, the commissioner questioned whether her methods sometimes hindered the cause.

Joyce Milgaard and a team of investigators, lawyers and other supporters often provided information to the media that turned out to be untrue, the inquiry found.

That undermined her credibility with authorities in Saskatchewan and Ottawa, he says.


FOA should take note. Marriott leads the way but Bruce, Charlie and some of the others are nipping at his heels in providing false information to the media. This is always a problem with advocacy causes. Don't lie. Get your facts straight and use primary sources to back up your allegations.

Nothing undermines your credibility with the authorities and the reading public more than propagating unsupportable assertions and/or outright lies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

undecided wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


OK, seriously, what is your famous nut saying this time? Here's a discussion of him/her from MAR 2009 so you're over a year late to discover this new expert of yours is possibly mentally imbalanced:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=121&start=250

The claim is that the Italian justice system has about 250 wrongful convictions every single day. No sources to back up the claim either. This is your expert?


Interesting article on Wrongful Convictions. (From the ABA website)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring20 ... ction.html

There probably are wrongful convictions in Italy everyday, though I'm not sure
the number would reach 250. It happens everywhere, in every country, every day.
This isn't to say that A.K. and R.S. have been wrongly convicted. We'll just
have to wait and see what the court of appeals says about that.


Oh my.

“250 wrongful convictions every single day in Italy”. REALLY?

Based on the ABA link provided by undecided * this figure represents a frequency of 0.5 % by which wrongful conviction occurs. Therefore the residual 99.5 percent of correct/lawful convictions results in 50,000 lawful convictions per day (or 350,000 per week). In keeping with the ‘every single day’ guidelines this results in 18,250,000 lawful convictions per annum in Italy every year.

According to the latest CIA figures** the population of Italy is 58,090,442 (July 2010 est). If we disregard all youth less than 15 years and persons over 65 years the current 15 yrs to 65 yrs (male plus female) Italian population is 38,476,940. With 18.25 million lawful convictions per annum this means that 47% of every male/female Italian between the ages 15 to 65 is correctly convicted of a crime in Italy every year. One out of every two! REALLY?

Are you really sure that you want the Count to be your Champion. Do you really expect to be taken serious when you bandy about statistics like this that make your argument look ridiculous. How can you expect ANY of your arguments to be taken serious when this is your standard?



* “Based on the responses to our survey, we used 0.5 percent as our estimate [of wrongful convictions]. If our "panel of judges" is correct, this means that the U.S. criminal justice system might be accurate in about 99.5 percent of the cases of felony conviction”.

** https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/it.html


Last edited by Hammerite on Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:40 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: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses.


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.

....

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible.




I think that the criticism of the Italian justice system, and in particular the contention that Knox would have far more protection from legal system in the United States, shows a lack of knowledge of the way each of those legal system actually works. Not long ago it was commented here that Scott Peterson was put on death row on far less evidence than was introduced against Amanda Knox. The only reason his appeal is automatic is that he was given the death penalty.

And had she been convicted in the United States, there is simply no comparison to be made which would leave Amanda Knox better off. Amanda Knox now has a second bite at the apple, protected by the presumption of innocence, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. She will not be limited to whatever evidence she sought to introduce in her first trial.

In the United States she would not be presumed innocent from the moment judgment of guilt was entered, and the state would have no burden to prove anything in the Court of Appeal. Part of the gist of Knox’ appeal is that witnesses placing her in RS near the scene of the crime at times she contends she was elsewhere are not credible, and that generally the evidence is not sufficient to sustain conviction.

In the United States the standard for reversal is difficult to meet. In United States, the Court of Appeal does not try the case second time; it does not even review the evidence of the first trial and come to an independent conclusion. The Court of Appeal considers the evidence as a whole, and in the light most favorable to the prosecution. At the trial level, if there is evidence that can be interpreted two ways, one that favors conviction and another that favors innocence, the jury is instructed that it must adopt the interpretation favoring innocence. That no longer applies in the Court of Appeal. If the evidence supports the conclusion that a reasonable person could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction will be upheld.

As to witness credibility, Courts of Appeal virtually never reverse a jury decision as to whom among the witnesses they believed. A court would have to find the witness's testimony to be "palpably false and incredible," meaning that no reasonable person would believe the testimony.

And she wouldn't have the benefit of the judge's statement motivation. In the United States the jury need only say "we find the defendant guilty," And explanations are not given, except outside the legal system to reporters or others who ask after the trial concluded and the jury dismissed. Indeed, in United States the jurors' actual reasoning processes are not at all a part of the substance of appeal. While not directly relevant to the Amanda Knox case, there is a concept in both civil and criminal law that "a jury may not impeach its own verdict." This sometimes happens post-conviction when one or more of the jurors has second thoughts and informs the court that they don't agree with the verdict.

The Italian court system appears to me to have a more systematic interest is not punishing the innocent and less interest in the finality of judgments of conviction than the system with which I am most familiar.

Tom M


Thank you, Tom. That was interesting. Welcome :D
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stillicho said


"Nothing undermines your credibility with the authorities and the reading public more than propagating unsupportable assertions and/or outright lies."

We're looking at you, CBS.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
undecided wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Chris_H wrote:
Skeptical Bystander,

In this instance I found what you and others did not say to be every bit as enlightening as what you did say, and today was not the first time I could make that observation about my visits here. No one here has engaged in the substance of Count Capponi’s words quoted at JREF with respect to the presumption of innocence versus the power of prosecutors.


OK, seriously, what is your famous nut saying this time? Here's a discussion of him/her from MAR 2009 so you're over a year late to discover this new expert of yours is possibly mentally imbalanced:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=121&start=250

The claim is that the Italian justice system has about 250 wrongful convictions every single day. No sources to back up the claim either. This is your expert?


Interesting article on Wrongful Convictions. (From the ABA website)
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring20 ... ction.html

There probably are wrongful convictions in Italy everyday, though I'm not sure
the number would reach 250. It happens everywhere, in every country, every day.
This isn't to say that A.K. and R.S. have been wrongly convicted. We'll just
have to wait and see what the court of appeals says about that.


Oh my.

“250 wrongful convictions every single day in Italy”. REALLY?

Based on the ABA link provided by undecided * this figure represents a frequency of 0.5 % by which wrongful conviction occurs. Therefore the residual 99.5 percent of correct/lawful convictions results in 50,000 lawful convictions per day (or 350,000 per week). In keeping with the ‘every single day’ guidelines this results in 18,250,000 lawful convictions per annum in Italy every year.

According to the latest CIA figures** the population of Italy is 58,090,442 (July 2010 est). If we disregard all youth less than 15 years and persons over 65 years the current 15 yrs to 65 yrs (male plus female) Italian population is 38,476,940. With 18.25 million lawful convictions per annum this means that 47% of every male/female Italian between the ages 15 to 65 is correctly convicted of a crime in Italy every year. One out of every two! REALLY?

Are you really sure that you want the Count to be your Champion. Do you really expect to be taken serious when you bandy about statistics like this that make your argument look ridiculous. How can you expect ANY of your arguments to be taken serious when this is your standard?



* “Based on the responses to our survey, we used 0.5 percent as our estimate [of wrongful convictions]. If our "panel of judges" is correct, this means that the U.S. criminal justice system might be accurate in about 99.5 percent of the cases of felony conviction”.

** https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/it.html



Sometimes it pays to do a little basic COUNTING before blindly accepting statistics put forth by anyone, even a COUNT.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Greetings from a humid New York.

250 wrongful convictions a day in Italy? Did someone hand out a couple of litres of LSD soaked blotting paper round the forum while I've been away?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!

In the UK there were approximately 1,500 to 1,700 applications against conviction per annum in the Court of Appeals Criminal Division (based on the last few years of statistics available) hearing appeals from cases from the Crown Court. Appeals against magistrate convictions are not relevant as they are trivial criminal cases. Of the 1,500 to 1,700, somewhere between 170 and 210 successful appeals against conviction are granted *annually*. Appeals against sentence are more frequent and successful. Population of the UK and Italy is almost exactly the same at around 60 million. The read across is clear.

250 a day. Flipping heck! I'll have what you're having!

Undecided - your point about asking for evidence of compliance with appropriate legal procedures on the gathering of evidence is fallacious. Unlike a presumption of innocence, in practice the interviews will be deemed validly conducted unless the defence can show otherwise. Attempts to claim the interviews as invalidly collected / inadmissible have already been extensively ruled on by the courts. Until and unless the defence successfully overturns those rulings, no further substantiation is required.

_________________
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 fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

christiana wrote:
Thank you for the welcome. I thought I should register since I read the documents here so frequently. The board looks quite different when registered.

And I agree with Rose concerning JREF: moderated status is for the birds.


_______________________

Welcome christiana.




///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Welcome to Christiana and Tom M and whoever else I have neglected to welcome lately. I am very distracted by day job work and the project of proofreading a certain document everyone wants to get his or her hands on.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Welcome to Christiana and Tom M and whoever else I have neglected to welcome lately. I am very distracted by day job work and the project of proofreading a certain document everyone wants to get his or her hands on.


Oooh a puzzle. I love a puzzle me... Is it;

"Knit one, Drop One - Logic & Confusion in the Context of a Lady's Reading Material" by Lady B.R. Dolino?
"Travels with a Big Cat" by Professor N.I.P. de Chat?
"Logic and Other Fallacies" by B.Pecheur?

Tell tell tell tell tell! :)

(Currently sat in the Bar _______ on a rooftop in Manhattan totally ruining the ambience of the beautiful people by geeking out on a laptop. The mojitos are flippin killer though :) )

_________________
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 christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thank you both, fine and Skeptical Bystander and anyone else with welcomes.

And to SomeAlibi - if you are visiting the city I hope you are prepared for more of the same weather and hot (though the city is exciting no matter the weather).
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

christiana wrote:
Thank you both, fine and Skeptical Bystander and anyone else with welcomes.

And to SomeAlibi - if you are visiting the city I hope you are prepared for more of the same weather and hot (though the city is exciting no matter the weather).


I am indeed Christiana - it's looking quite likely to rain at the moment but a little heat is lovely. I'm nicely positioned, ruining the ambience and just watching out for FOA in helicopters with telescopic sights. The instance I see a red LED marker moving across the terrace I am out of here! ;)

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Welcome to Christiana and Tom M and whoever else I have neglected to welcome lately. I am very distracted by day job work and the project of proofreading a certain document everyone wants to get his or her hands on.


Oooh a puzzle. I love a puzzle me... Is it;

"Knit one, Drop One - Logic & Confusion in the Context of a Lady's Reading Material" by Lady B.R. Dolino?
"Travels with a Big Cat" by Professor N.I.P. de Chat?
"Logic and Other Fallacies" by B.Pecheur?

Tell tell tell tell tell! :)

(Currently sat in the Bar _______ on a rooftop in Manhattan totally ruining the ambience of the beautiful people by geeking out on a laptop. The mojitos are flippin killer though :) )

Uh uh I get to guess too. Maybe . . .

"Lawyers of Suffering" by Grin and Barrett
"How To Shit In The Woods" by Kathleen Meyer
"Knitting With Dog Hair: Better A Sweater From A Dog You Know and Love Than From A Sheep You'll Never Meet" by Kendall Crolius

Uh uh I'm gonna win I know it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
"Knitting With Dog Hair: Better A Sweater From A Dog You Know and Love Than From A Sheep You'll Never Meet" by Kendall Crolius


:D

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Tara wrote:
I wanted to respond to The Machine's post from the prior thread.

The Machine wrote:

Quote:
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:23 am Post subject: Re: XVI. MAIN DISCUSSION, March 5 -


Bruce Fisher seems to think that Filomena kept her clothes on the floor:

"If the clothes were thrown on the floor to stage a break in, tell me where the clothes came from. Where were they? There is no logical place for them to go. They were on the floor to begin with."

If he had read an accurate translation of the judges' sentencing report, he would have known that the clothes were in the closet. It must be a nightmare for Bruce and his gang to rely on Google Translate.


I don't know if y'all have been following along over at Bruce's relatively new forum, but it's entertaining at times. I wanted to post his sample copy and paste posts for his lemmings to place in the comment sections of every online article, but he has since hidden those threads. Darn!

Anyway, to get back the translation topic, they have a thread to address just that, and you can read about it here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA IN ITALIAN?

They are soliciting donations and volunteers to help with translations. Here is what one of the followers had to say:

Quote:
Re: InjusticeInPerugia in Italian?
by Sean2010 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Another thought. If there are no volunteers for translation services, then why not ask for donations from the members and hire a translator. I doubt it would be all that expensive.


You can read more hilarity just like this here:

INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA MEMBER FORUM

Apologies if this has already been hashed out and posted before! b-((



I couldn't help but read the thread titled "The Kerchers", someone makes the claim that Francesco Maresca was assigned or appointed to the family by Mignini and as I understand it, he was not. Maresca was either hired by or appointed to the family, but not by the Perugian prosectutor and they seem quite satisfied with him. I got the impression from reading Darkeness Descending that Mignini and Maresca met for the first time during a visit to the crime scene. I could be mistaken. My, how injusticeinperugia has grown since the last time I visited. Am also thankful for the actual Italian people that post on this board. Thank You for being here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

SA....I dare you to book a table in the name "Assange".
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
SA....I dare you to book a table in the name "Assange".


Done. Sadly, this is more like a game of "Where's Wally" than anything else :)

_________________
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: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I'm impressed! I don't think I can even pronounce it LOL
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Sex, lies and a murder suspect with a story to sell

A Dutch student faces trial in Peru after being implicated in the killings of young women five years apart.

By Guy Adams


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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Somehow, the thought of Bruce being driven slowly mad by Google Translate makes me smile. As he sinks slowly into the slough of despond, he kicks himself for spending all those years perfecting the "facing away from the door lock trick" when he could have been doing something more useful, like learning Italian.

Sorry, totally OT and kind of mean, but there you have it. Next, we will torture Bruce with Babelfish.

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks for the link, MIchael.(BTW...does anyone else *really hate* the sliding ads in the margins @independent?)
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The mysterious death of Kenton Carnegie.

"The actual cause of death remains the subject of intense debate. Much of the controversy now centres on accusations by the Carnegie family... that the official investigation carried out by the Government of Saskatchewan was part of an international cover-up and conspiracy intended to protect the reputation of wolves." KentonCarnegie

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Undecided - your point about asking for evidence of compliance with appropriate legal procedures on the gathering of evidence is fallacious. Unlike a presumption of innocence, in practice the interviews will be deemed validly conducted unless the defence can show otherwise. Attempts to claim the interviews as invalidly collected / inadmissible have already been extensively ruled on by the courts. Until and unless the defence successfully overturns those rulings, no further substantiation is required.


Undecided's point is flawed in respect to the Italian system and to this case for a big number of reasons, not only for the mentioned reasons. If we want to explain everything to him, this would take a long time to write a post on the topic.
A request to the police for proving they followed the procedure in a completely correct manner in all moments, is totally fallacious.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses.


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.

....

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible.


Both Quintavalle and Curatolo were judged to be credible witnesses and the reasons were provided in the sentencing report. As Michael's asked before, on what grounds are they appealing these rock-solid witnesses? Were the corroborations of those confirming their presence proved to be incorrect? Did they recant their testimony? What legal and technical reasons are there for overturning their testimony?

I used the "missing bus" and "wrong colour coat" as examples of what will not discredit them. SA or any lawyer could confirm this but it will be only a withdrawal of the testimony, withdrawal of the corroboration, or some other technicality (eg they were not where they said they were) that scotches the witness statements/testimony. Basically they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness lied. Do you think they do that?


In addition, as has been pointed out before, Quintavalle did speak about having seen AK to one of his store employees, lending further credibility to his testimony. As Massei notes, AK was seen going in the direction of the cottage after leaving his store. This has to be put together with the fact that RS and AK were not sleeping until 10:30 am, since RS had 3 conversations with his father between 9 and 9:30 am, conversations that AK was unaware of.... because she wasn't there to hear them. Where was she? Massei also argues that AK and RS may have decided that it was too risky for them to go to the store together. Since it was RS's corner store, he was certainly known (at least by sight) to store personnel. So it makes sense that he did not go. And from Quintavalle's testimony, it sounds as if AK wrapped herself up a bit (didn't want to be easily identified?).


The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.

It is also worth noting, his employee used work for the Sollecito's (or Raffaele at least), before she started working in the shop ;)


ETA: Indeed, that may be the reason it was decided Raffaele shouldn't go in the shop with Amanda that morning...he knew he'd be recognised by her.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Marco Qunitavalle testified that Amanda Knox was waiting for his shop to open at 7.45am on 2 November 2007. She entered the shop and left a short time later and headed towards Piazza Grimana. Knox was imprinted on his memory because she had light blue eyes.

Qunitavalle was asked many questions on 21 March 2009 to verify his credibility. The court found his testimony to be reliable. It turned out that Inspector Voluturno hadn't asked Qunitavalle whether he had seen Knox on 2 November. Qunitavalle didn't think that Knox being in his shop was significant.

Defence witness and shop employee Ana Marina Chiriboga testified that she didn't didn't see Knox. The defence lawyers argued that this proved that Knox wasn't in Qunitavalle's shop that morning. However, she confirmed that Quintavalle spoke about seeing Knox that morning.

Knox made no mention of Sollecito receiving three phones calls at approximately 9.30am on 2 November 2007. The judges believe that the reason for this was that Knox wasn't at Sollecito's apartment, but at the cottage cleaning up traces of herself and Sollecito.

Qunitavalle's testimony provides further confirmation that Knox wasn't at Sollecito's apartment that morning. It also helped the judges reconstruct what happened on 1 and 2 November 2007. They didn't base the guilty verdicts on Quintavalle's or Curatolo's testimony.

The judges conclude that Knox waiting for Qunitavalle's shop to open at 7.45am shows that she felt an urgency to acquire something from the shop and do something. Knox and Sollectio had planned to go on a trip to Gubbio on 2 November, but that trip never happened. Obviously something happened that forced them to cancel their trip. It also seems that Knox was trying to hide her appearance by wearing a scarf and hat.

Incidentally, at the trial Qunitavalle identified Knox as the young woman who entered his shop at 7.45am. Knox didn't dispute this.
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.

It is also worth noting, his employee used work for the Sollecito's (or Raffaele at least), before she started working in the shop ;)


ETA: Indeed, that may be the reason it was decided Raffaele shouldn't go in the shop with Amanda that morning...he knew he'd be recognised by her.


Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd. The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him. She also recalled that Quintavalle told her the inspector asked him if he had seen them the morning of the murder. The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward. Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd.The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him.


Really? So, the inspector went to Qunitavalle's shop and showed the employees photographs of Knox and Sollecito on 2 November 2007, which was the day Meredith's body was found? Why would they have gone to his shop with photos of Knox and Sollecito so early in the investigation?

RoseMontag wrote:
The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward.


What does the inspector's report specifically state?

Knox's supporters claim that Nara Capezzali didn't know what date she heard the loud scream, which is completely untrue. I wouldn't be surprised if the inspector's words have also been deliberately twisted.

RoseMontag wrote:
Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.


Do you actually have Quintavalle's testimony to verify this claim. Did Quintavalle give a precise time or an approximate time?
Top Profile 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd.The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him.


Really? So, the inspector went to Qunitavalle's shop and showed the employees photographs of Knox and Sollecito on 2 November 2007, which was the day Meredith's body was found? Why would they have gone to his shop with photos of Knox and Sollecito so early in the investigation?

RoseMontag wrote:
The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward.


What does the inspector's report specifically state?

Knox's supporters claim that Nara Capezzali didn't know what date she heard the loud scream, which is completely untrue. I wouldn't be surprised if the inspector's words have also been deliberately twisted.

RoseMontag wrote:
Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.


Do you actually have Quintavalle's testimony to verify this claim. Did Quintavalle give a precise time or an approximate time?


The entire section dealing with this in Raffaelle's appeal is posted above. Katy_did translated the portion of that dealing with your question at JREF.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.

It is also worth noting, his employee used work for the Sollecito's (or Raffaele at least), before she started working in the shop ;)


ETA: Indeed, that may be the reason it was decided Raffaele shouldn't go in the shop with Amanda that morning...he knew he'd be recognised by her.


Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd. The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him. She also recalled that Quintavalle told her the inspector asked him if he had seen them the morning of the murder. The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward. Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.


Did Quintavalle himself actually see the photo of Amanda? The employee may remember what 'she' saw, but can she be certain about what Quintavalle saw and was shown? Is the employee's memory correct? Why should we accept her memory over his, when she had less reason to remember (not being the one who'd seen anything)? Why should she be taken as more credible then him? If what she says is the correct version, wouldn't the police themselves have known this since it was the inspector that had asked the questions and shown the photo/s? How then is it that she knows something the police don't even know and they were there?

I also will just say it again....the employee used to work for Raffaele...the Sollecitos 'know' her wh-)

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The courts found Curatolo and Quintavalle to be credible witnesses.


The appeal court will consider if the defense arguments are valid or not, that is one of the reasons the appeal court exists. In the meantime we can consider if the arguments presented by the defense in the appeal are valid to us on a personal level, that is one of the reasons we have boards like this one and JREF.

....

As I have said here as well as elsewhere, my opinion is that the appeals do a good job in some areas and not good in others. Raffaele's appeal is far superior to Amanda's in my opinion. As far as Quintavalle goes, I think Raffaele's appeal makes a good argument and casts doubt on the validity of the court considering his testimony to be credible.


Both Quintavalle and Curatolo were judged to be credible witnesses and the reasons were provided in the sentencing report. As Michael's asked before, on what grounds are they appealing these rock-solid witnesses? Were the corroborations of those confirming their presence proved to be incorrect? Did they recant their testimony? What legal and technical reasons are there for overturning their testimony?

I used the "missing bus" and "wrong colour coat" as examples of what will not discredit them. SA or any lawyer could confirm this but it will be only a withdrawal of the testimony, withdrawal of the corroboration, or some other technicality (eg they were not where they said they were) that scotches the witness statements/testimony. Basically they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness lied. Do you think they do that?


In addition, as has been pointed out before, Quintavalle did speak about having seen AK to one of his store employees, lending further credibility to his testimony. As Massei notes, AK was seen going in the direction of the cottage after leaving his store. This has to be put together with the fact that RS and AK were not sleeping until 10:30 am, since RS had 3 conversations with his father between 9 and 9:30 am, conversations that AK was unaware of.... because she wasn't there to hear them. Where was she? Massei also argues that AK and RS may have decided that it was too risky for them to go to the store together. Since it was RS's corner store, he was certainly known (at least by sight) to store personnel. So it makes sense that he did not go. And from Quintavalle's testimony, it sounds as if AK wrapped herself up a bit (didn't want to be easily identified?).


The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


I was referring to Massei's sentencing report, based on court testimony.

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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
I was referring to Massei's sentencing report, based on court testimony.


I would love to have a complete translation and I have asked for one here as well as Katy_did. But here is a Google translation of that portion:

Quote:
Specifically, the hearing on 03.21.2009 (Transcript, p. 83), demand
Defence calls for "The precise question is this. L.ispettore Volturno is
came with pictures of Raffaele and Amanda? "Quintavalle said" Images
no, I think not. " The Inspector Volturno questioned on the same occasion,
Instead, said: "A few days later tracked down the store that was
shop-Margaret Conad site immediately all.inizio of Corso Garibaldi, where both the
holder orders recognized in the photographs that we placed in our view,
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer
This store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his
company "(Hearing Transcript 13.03.2009, pp. 177 and 178).
Still, the question "He asked if she knew l.ispettore Volturno
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox? "Quintavalle replied:" To me Amanda
I do not l.hanno asked, that if I had come to the shop to me about Amanda not
l.hanno asked me "(Transcript hearing 21.03.2009, p. 83). That fact is
was contradicted by the statements from his job, Ana Marina
Chiriboga, who, when asked defense Knox, "E. The police came, spoke
Marco Quintavalle, does not speak with you first. Marco Quintavalle that
What you said in this interview? What they talked about? "He replied
"No, he told us that they told him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Given
we had already seen a bit. for TV, well, commented "(Transcript
hearing on 26.06.2009, p. 54). And yet, the question of defense "is very
c.eravamo arrived here. What did he say? "" That they knew "the Chiriboga
stated "Yes, ah, wanted to know if he knew? Him yes, he said he
knew, but I said I did not know, because my colleague also gave
that ... "(Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 55) and, to further applications
"Quintavalle said that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, right?", The witness has
answered "Yes" (Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 56).
Therefore, you can not see how it was possible to affirm that ruling
Quintavalle Inspector has not reported to have seen Amanda Knox in the morning
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Also, I don't understand why Quintavalle would lie to the police. When he went to them, they wanted to know why he'd taken so long to come forward. Why would he have told them that it was because he was only asked about Raffaele if he knew they'd also asked him about Amanda...he'd have known straight away that they'd know he was a liar. I also don't understand why Quintavalle would be untruthful in his account full stop. It wasn't as if he was eager and in a rush to go to the police with his story, he didn't want the limelight, he was a reluctant witness...why wait a year to go to the police with a lie, if that's what it is? It makes no sense.

Also, it is still a fact that he later did ask his assistant if she had also seen Amanda that morning.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Also, I don't understand why Qunintavalle would lie to the police. When he went to them, they wanted to know why he'd taken so long to come forward. Why would he have told them that it was because he was only asked about Raffaele if he knew they'd also asked him about Amanda...he'd have known straight away that they'd know he was a liar. I also don't understand why Quintavalle would be untruthful in his account full stop. It wasn't as if he was eager and in a rush to go to the police with his story, he didn't want the limelight, he was a reluctant witness...why wait a year to go to the police with a lie, if that's what it is? It makes no sense.

Also, it is still a fact that he later did ask his assistant if she had also seen Amanda that morning.


Yes, that is part of court testimony. I can see why RS's defense would try and undermine the witnesses because they cannot do a thing with the phone records or the computer data.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Here's Katy_did's translation:

"The motivations, however, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his statements Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other - and this fact is certain and conclusive - just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: "[Raffaele] had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (...). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let's say Timberland make (...) she had a sweater (...) of wool or heavy cotton (...) red or something similar" (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.77)."

This doesn't discredit Marco Qunitavalle as a witness. Did you expect him to remember the exact date he saw Knox and Sollecito?

A "couple of weeks" is an approximate time and not a precise time. If he saw Knox and Sollecito on 25 or 26 October 2007, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say it was a couple of weeks ago because these dates are more than week before 2 November 2007.

It's not always possible to give an exact date for when we see something. Even if someone is a couple of days out, it doesn't mean that they didn't witness something.

There are other times when it is possible for witnesses to remember the exact date they saw someone or something because something significant happened on the same date. For example, Qunitavalle saw Knox on a national holiday and Meredith's body was discovered that day.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
I was referring to Massei's sentencing report, based on court testimony.


I would love to have a complete translation and I have asked for one here as well as Katy_did. But here is a Google translation of that portion:

Quote:
Specifically, the hearing on 03.21.2009 (Transcript, p. 83), demand
Defence calls for "The precise question is this. L.ispettore Volturno is
came with pictures of Raffaele and Amanda? "Quintavalle said" Images
no, I think not. " The Inspector Volturno questioned on the same occasion,
Instead, said: "A few days later tracked down the store that was
shop-Margaret Conad site immediately all.inizio of Corso Garibaldi, where both the
holder orders recognized in the photographs that we placed in our view,
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer
This store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his
company "(Hearing Transcript 13.03.2009, pp. 177 and 178).
Still, the question "He asked if she knew l.ispettore Volturno
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox? "Quintavalle replied:" To me Amanda
I do not l.hanno asked, that if I had come to the shop to me about Amanda not
l.hanno asked me "(Transcript hearing 21.03.2009, p. 83). That fact is
was contradicted by the statements from his job, Ana Marina
Chiriboga, who, when asked defense Knox, "E. The police came, spoke
Marco Quintavalle, does not speak with you first. Marco Quintavalle that
What you said in this interview? What they talked about? "He replied
"No, he told us that they told him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Given
we had already seen a bit. for TV, well, commented "(Transcript
hearing on 26.06.2009, p. 54). And yet, the question of defense "is very
c.eravamo arrived here. What did he say? "" That they knew "the Chiriboga
stated "Yes, ah, wanted to know if he knew? Him yes, he said he
knew, but I said I did not know, because my colleague also gave
that ... "(Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 55) and, to further applications
"Quintavalle said that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, right?", The witness has
answered "Yes" (Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 56).
Therefore, you can not see how it was possible to affirm that ruling
Quintavalle Inspector has not reported to have seen Amanda Knox in the morning


I'm in the translation business; I get paid more than twice the rate quoted yesterday. I don't really have time to provide translations on demand for free, except in the context of the Massei report project, where I am in the proofreading chain. I can see why you would find this nearly useless, however. I don't see human translators being replaced any time soon.:)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.

It is also worth noting, his employee used work for the Sollecito's (or Raffaele at least), before she started working in the shop ;)


ETA: Indeed, that may be the reason it was decided Raffaele shouldn't go in the shop with Amanda that morning...he knew he'd be recognised by her.


Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd. The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him. She also recalled that Quintavalle told her the inspector asked him if he had seen them the morning of the murder. The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward. Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.



So, according to this employee (with a relationship to the Sollecito family), an inspector came by on Nov 2nd? It would be astonishing that the investigation had already advanced to the stage of having determined that there may have been a clean-up on Nov 2nd. In fact, it is preposterous. It is far more likely that the employee who claims that the inspector came by on Nov 2nd is mistaken about the date, to say the least. On balance, I'm not sure this is helpful for RS.

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

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.

It is also worth noting, his employee used work for the Sollecito's (or Raffaele at least), before she started working in the shop ;)


ETA: Indeed, that may be the reason it was decided Raffaele shouldn't go in the shop with Amanda that morning...he knew he'd be recognised by her.


Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd. The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him. She also recalled that Quintavalle told her the inspector asked him if he had seen them the morning of the murder. The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward. Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.



So, according to this employee (with a relationship to the Sollecito family), an inspector came by on Nov 2nd? It would be astonishing that the investigation had already advanced to the stage of having determined that there may have been a clean-up on Nov 2nd. In fact, it is preposterous. It is far more likely that the employee who claims that the inspector came by on Nov 2nd is mistaken about the date, to say the least. On balance, I'm not sure this is helpful for RS.


The translation quoted just prior to your post says "A few days later ". It is certainly possible I remembered the date wrong or saw it mentioned in a previous part of the appeal. If I recall it was turned somewhat to the side, but I remember the date had clear blue eyes, and was wearing a tux. After reading through the Google translation a few times, I am not surprised to be a bit boggled on certain things. That is why I was hoping for some clarification on this particular section as I did on a few other occasions if I thought it could be significant. I will be out much of the day today, but I do think the date here could be significant so I will try to track it down in the morning.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

And just in conclusion, I will say that whether her testimony contradicts Quintavalle's on the matter of whether he was asked about Amanda or not is at the end of the day, completely irrelevant. What is relevant, is the non-contested fact that he did ask his assistant afterwards if she too had seen Amanda and if she had bought anything. Therefore, it is clear that he did see Amanda that morning or someone he was certain was Amanda...all the other wrangling doesn't touch that plain fact.

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


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

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
And just in conclusion, I will say that whether her testimony contradicts Quintavalle's on the matter of whether he was asked about Amanda or not is at the end of the day, completely irrelevant. What is relevant, is the non-contested fact that he did ask his assistant afterwards if she too had seen Amanda and if she had bought anything. Therefore, it is clear that he did see Amanda that morning or someone he was certain was Amanda...all the other wrangling doesn't touch that plain fact.


Hi,

I'm a little confused as to WHEN Quintavalle asked his assistant if she had seen Amanda the morning of Nov 2nd - please say when this was if you know, thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

observer wrote:
Michael wrote:
And just in conclusion, I will say that whether her testimony contradicts Quintavalle's on the matter of whether he was asked about Amanda or not is at the end of the day, completely irrelevant. What is relevant, is the non-contested fact that he did ask his assistant afterwards if she too had seen Amanda and if she had bought anything. Therefore, it is clear that he did see Amanda that morning or someone he was certain was Amanda...all the other wrangling doesn't touch that plain fact.


Hi,

I'm a little confused as to WHEN Quintavalle asked his assistant if she had seen Amanda the morning of Nov 2nd - please say when this was if you know, thanks.


Marco Quintavalle asked Ana Marina Chiriboga whether she had seen Amanda Knox that morning.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
For those of you having problems logging in/staying logged into PMF, please view the following post: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewto ... 660#p26660


Michael:

I used "Safari" browser, already installed with "Itunes" in my computer. I was able to log in without erasing cookies or installing Google "Chrome" browser.


I am fed up with "Windows", "Explorer" and Microsoft. My next computer will be an Apple.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Pikor wrote:
I am fed up with "Windows", "Explorer" and Microsoft. My next computer will be an Apple.


Well, no need to dump windows, just Internet Explorer...any browser other then explorer is better for using on PMF :)

Although, Chrome and Opera are better as they're the fastest. Firefox is best if you want all the tools.

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


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

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
observer wrote:
Michael wrote:
And just in conclusion, I will say that whether her testimony contradicts Quintavalle's on the matter of whether he was asked about Amanda or not is at the end of the day, completely irrelevant. What is relevant, is the non-contested fact that he did ask his assistant afterwards if she too had seen Amanda and if she had bought anything. Therefore, it is clear that he did see Amanda that morning or someone he was certain was Amanda...all the other wrangling doesn't touch that plain fact.


Hi,

I'm a little confused as to WHEN Quintavalle asked his assistant if she had seen Amanda the morning of Nov 2nd - please say when this was if you know, thanks.


Marco Quintavalle asked Ana Marina Chiriboga whether she had seen Amanda Knox that morning.


You mean he was so struck by Amanda that he asked his assistant if she had seen her earlier the same day? Or after the news filtered out that Meredith had been found murdered? I'm trying to understand the context in which he brought up the subject of Amanda, that's all.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.

It is also worth noting, his employee used work for the Sollecito's (or Raffaele at least), before she started working in the shop ;)


ETA: Indeed, that may be the reason it was decided Raffaele shouldn't go in the shop with Amanda that morning...he knew he'd be recognised by her.


Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd. The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him. She also recalled that Quintavalle told her the inspector asked him if he had seen them the morning of the murder. The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward. Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.



So, according to this employee (with a relationship to the Sollecito family), an inspector came by on Nov 2nd? It would be astonishing that the investigation had already advanced to the stage of having determined that there may have been a clean-up on Nov 2nd. In fact, it is preposterous. It is far more likely that the employee who claims that the inspector came by on Nov 2nd is mistaken about the date, to say the least. On balance, I'm not sure this is helpful for RS.


She's clearly got the day completely mistaken. The police had only just discovered the body, so they would have been focusing on the cottage, the area immediately around it and interviewing the residents and friends. Amanda and Raffaele weren't even suspects at that stage...the police wouldn't have sent someone to the shop on the 2nd, especially someone as senior as an inspector.

This also leads me to ask...if she got the day in her memory mixed up of when the police came to the shop, could she also not just as easily got the day mxed up where she 'didn't' remember seeing Amanda?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

observer wrote:
The Machine wrote:
observer wrote:
Michael wrote:
And just in conclusion, I will say that whether her testimony contradicts Quintavalle's on the matter of whether he was asked about Amanda or not is at the end of the day, completely irrelevant. What is relevant, is the non-contested fact that he did ask his assistant afterwards if she too had seen Amanda and if she had bought anything. Therefore, it is clear that he did see Amanda that morning or someone he was certain was Amanda...all the other wrangling doesn't touch that plain fact.


Hi,

I'm a little confused as to WHEN Quintavalle asked his assistant if she had seen Amanda the morning of Nov 2nd - please say when this was if you know, thanks.


Marco Quintavalle asked Ana Marina Chiriboga whether she had seen Amanda Knox that morning.


You mean he was so struck by Amanda that he asked his assistant if she had seen her earlier the same day? Or after the news filtered out that Meredith had been found murdered? I'm trying to understand the context in which he brought up the subject of Amanda, that's all.


Because he was so struck by Amanda...

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

observer wrote:
You mean he was so struck by Amanda that he asked his assistant if she had seen her earlier the same day? Or after the news filtered out that Meredith had been found murdered? I'm trying to understand the context in which he brought up the subject of Amanda, that's all.


Marco Quintavalle asked Ana Marina Chiriboga on the morning of 2 November 2007 whether she had seen Amanda Knox. It seems that he wanted to know whether she had bought anything.

It must have been unusual for someone to waiting so early - at 7.45am - for a shop to open on a national holiday. Quintavalle was struck by Knox's pale complexion and light blue eyes. He also greeted her and she ignored him.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
observer wrote:
You mean he was so struck by Amanda that he asked his assistant if she had seen her earlier the same day? Or after the news filtered out that Meredith had been found murdered? I'm trying to understand the context in which he brought up the subject of Amanda, that's all.


Marco Quintavalle asked Ana Marina Chiriboga on the morning of 2 November 2007 whether she had seen Amanda Knox. It seems that he wanted to know whether she had bought anything.

It must have been unusual for someone to waiting so early - at 7.45am - for a shop to open on a national holiday. Quintavalle was struck by Knox's pale complexion and light blue eyes. He also greeted her and she ignored him.



He was also struck by the fact that she was going out of her way not to be noticed.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Michael wrote:
RiseMontag wrote:
The portion of Raffaele's appeal I posted here has his employee actually contradicting his statement.


Actually, she doesn't. All she said on the stand was that she didn't remember seeing Knox that morning. In addition, Quintevalle later asked her if she had seen her.


Quitavalle claims he was not asked if Amanda was there that morning as being the reason he didn't tell the inspector that he saw her the morning after the murder. The inspector came by on November 2nd. The employee remembers the inspector spoke to both of them and had pictures of Amanda and Raffaele with him. She also recalled that Quintavalle told her the inspector asked him if he had seen them the morning of the murder. The inspector's report also contradicts Quintavalle's claim as to why he waited a year to come forward. Quintavalle also claimed to see Amanda and Raffaele together at his sore a week before they had even met each other and gave a complete and detailed description of what they were wearing at that time as well.


What is your source for all this information? Is this another of those issues that sprouted up after the trial was already over? Is it actually in the appeal?

Your claim is that the police spoke with both people at the store at the same time but I don't think they did. I also think you're mistaken about the date of the police visit. Do you have the actual "inspector's report"? Was it in court that Quintavalle told everyone he'd seen Knox and Sollecito together before they'd even met? If it was, then were the lawyers just nodding off that day? If not, where did this tidbit come from?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

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

"It now seems clear to me that Quintavalle is an untrustworthy and unreliable witness in a murder trial."

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually bother to support his opinion with any facts. He never supported his claim that Knox was coerced into making her false accusation against Diya Lumumba with any facts either.

He knows that we all know that he's going to melodramatically jump out of the closet and claim that he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at some point, but he's like some old stager who likes to keep his audience waiting.

His acting when playing the role of a firm guilter on PMF may have been unconvincing and hammy, but no-one can deny he doesn't know how to play the audience.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

FOA are nervous in the book review category...

message from one of the amanda fan club to others on facebook:



Some of you may already be aware but I found some Amazon book reviews of that 'Barbie' book and again,
numbers are hurting our cause. If enough people agree that a review is
NOT useful, it is hidden. We need to get over there in numbers. I was
buying Candace book when I noticed this.

...AKRS army, let's go get 'em.



Bit sad that they think this has any effect on Amanda's future. It will take more than Candace donating the royalties from her book. I haven't found printrun numbers but just wondering how many books would have been published of each....
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

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

"It now seems clear to me that Quintavalle is an untrustworthy and unreliable witness in a murder trial."

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually bother to support his opinion with any facts. He never supported his claim that Knox was coerced into making her false accusation against Diya Lumumba with any facts either.

He knows that we all know that he's going to melodramatically jump out of the closet and claim that he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at some point, but he's like some old stager who likes to keep his audience waiting.

His acting when playing the role of a firm guilter on PMF may have been unconvincing and hammy, but no-one can deny he doesn't know how to play the audience.



And for John, in contrast, despite all their lies, Amanda and Raffaele ARE 'trustworthy and reliable'.

John is transparent. We saw him for what he was straight away when he arrived here. It's amazing just how many people think they are clever, but are actually not.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
I was referring to Massei's sentencing report, based on court testimony.


I would love to have a complete translation and I have asked for one here as well as Katy_did. But here is a Google translation of that portion:

Quote:
Specifically, the hearing on 03.21.2009 (Transcript, p. 83), demand
Defence calls for "The precise question is this. L.ispettore Volturno is
came with pictures of Raffaele and Amanda? "Quintavalle said" Images
no, I think not. " The Inspector Volturno questioned on the same occasion,
Instead, said: "A few days later tracked down the store that was
shop-Margaret Conad site immediately all.inizio of Corso Garibaldi, where both the
holder orders recognized in the photographs that we placed in our view,
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer
This store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his
company "(Hearing Transcript 13.03.2009, pp. 177 and 178).
Still, the question "He asked if she knew l.ispettore Volturno
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox? "Quintavalle replied:" To me Amanda
I do not l.hanno asked, that if I had come to the shop to me about Amanda not
l.hanno asked me "(Transcript hearing 21.03.2009, p. 83). That fact is
was contradicted by the statements from his job, Ana Marina
Chiriboga, who, when asked defense Knox, "E. The police came, spoke
Marco Quintavalle, does not speak with you first. Marco Quintavalle that
What you said in this interview? What they talked about? "He replied
"No, he told us that they told him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Given
we had already seen a bit. for TV, well, commented "(Transcript
hearing on 26.06.2009, p. 54). And yet, the question of defense "is very
c.eravamo arrived here. What did he say? "" That they knew "the Chiriboga
stated "Yes, ah, wanted to know if he knew? Him yes, he said he
knew, but I said I did not know, because my colleague also gave
that ... "(Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 55) and, to further applications
"Quintavalle said that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, right?", The witness has
answered "Yes" (Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 56).
Therefore, you can not see how it was possible to affirm that ruling
Quintavalle Inspector has not reported to have seen Amanda Knox in the morning


If this is the source then there's at least two things wrong with it, Rose. We cautioned everyone against using poorly translated defence appeal points as debate resolutions just a couple days ago. Even if we do use it, there are three statements (apparently--not proven) the defence seems to be presenting as contradictory: Volturno, Chiriboga, Quintavalle. I'll tell you just how garbled your source is: The date formats aren't consistent throughout. The quote ranges are inconsistent. Ellipses are used within quotations cited in a formal document.

I have a sneaking suspicion you aren't looking at the actual appeal there. I think these are notes or guidelines possibly leaked to the media. Do you know where the originals were filed?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

H9A wrote:
Bit sad that they think this has any effect on Amanda's future. It will take more than Candace donating the royalties from her book. I haven't found printrun numbers but just wondering how many books would have been published of each....



For Candace, it was never really about the money. It's the glory she was after...she always wanted to be recognised, to be considered 'important' and to be liked...popular. It's a vanity thing for her, always has been.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

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

"It now seems clear to me that Quintavalle is an untrustworthy and unreliable witness in a murder trial."

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually bother to support his opinion with any facts. He never supported his claim that Knox was coerced into making her false accusation against Diya Lumumba with any facts either.

He knows that we all know that he's going to melodramatically jump out of the closet and claim that he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at some point, but he's like some old stager who likes to keep his audience waiting.

His acting when playing the role of a firm guilter on PMF may have been unconvincing and hammy, but no-one can deny he doesn't know how to play the audience.


He is badly advised by his friend, the hack writer Doug Preston.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

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

"It now seems clear to me that Quintavalle is an untrustworthy and unreliable witness in a murder trial."

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually bother to support his opinion with any facts. He never supported his claim that Knox was coerced into making her false accusation against Diya Lumumba with any facts either.

He knows that we all know that he's going to melodramatically jump out of the closet and claim that he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at some point, but he's like some old stager who likes to keep his audience waiting.

His acting when playing the role of a firm guilter on PMF may have been unconvincing and hammy, but no-one can deny he doesn't know how to play the audience.


He is badly advised by his friend, the hack writer Doug Preston.


He's still refusing to support his opinion that Qunitavalle is untrustworthy and reliable:

"By the way, the facts on Quintavalle's reliability problems have already been well documented here (and elsewhere). I don't need to repeat them directly in order to state my belief that he is an unreliable witness."
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

You'll find all this information about van der Sloot familiar.

Psychology Today
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
He's still refusing to support his opinion that Qunitavalle is untrustworthy and reliable:

"By the way, the facts on Quintavalle's reliability problems have already been well documented here (and elsewhere). I don't need to repeat them directly in order to state my belief that he is an unreliable witness."


That's what we call the "Mark of Woo" on the conspiracy forums over at the JREF. Who needs to know what Volturno, Quintavalle or Chiriboga actually said? Who needs to know their exact written statements? Who needs to see the actual appeal rather than what looks like a bunch of cribbed notes assembled in no particular order? Who needs to know Italian?

I'm looking for the smiley that has the clown nose or the wildly rolling eyes but we don't have one. These will suffice though:

dm-) b-(( d-)) stup-) rt-)) br-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Machine wrote:
He's still refusing to support his opinion that Qunitavalle is untrustworthy and reliable:

"By the way, the facts on Quintavalle's reliability problems have already been well documented here (and elsewhere). I don't need to repeat them directly in order to state my belief that he is an unreliable witness."


That's what we call the "Mark of Woo" on the conspiracy forums over at the JREF. Who needs to know what Volturno, Quintavalle or Chiriboga actually said? Who needs to know their exact written statements? Who needs to see the actual appeal rather than what looks like a bunch of cribbed notes assembled in no particular order? Who needs to know Italian?

I'm looking for the smiley that has the clown nose or the wildly rolling eyes but we don't have one. These will suffice though:

dm-) b-(( d-)) stup-) rt-)) br-))


Indeed! And who needs to see the 400+ page Massei report in English? Apparently not the faithful. I wonder why Ted Simon has not provided Team USA with a copy of it in a language they understand. Is he afraid that they'd get all bummed out or feel they had been hoodwinked?

_________________
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: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The Machine wrote:
He's still refusing to support his opinion that Qunitavalle is untrustworthy and reliable:

"By the way, the facts on Quintavalle's reliability problems have already been well documented here (and elsewhere). I don't need to repeat them directly in order to state my belief that he is an unreliable witness."


That's what we call the "Mark of Woo" on the conspiracy forums over at the JREF. Who needs to know what Volturno, Quintavalle or Chiriboga actually said? Who needs to know their exact written statements? Who needs to see the actual appeal rather than what looks like a bunch of cribbed notes assembled in no particular order? Who needs to know Italian?

I'm looking for the smiley that has the clown nose or the wildly rolling eyes but we don't have one. These will suffice though:

dm-) b-(( d-)) stup-) rt-)) br-))


Indeed! And who needs to see the 400+ page Massei report in English? Apparently not the faithful. I wonder why Ted Simon has not provided Team USA with a copy of it in a language they understand. Is he afraid that they'd get all bummed out or feel they had been hoodwinked?


And for a guy that charges 500 k a year for his services, he really could provide it if he wanted to ;)

But then, to be fair...the tight wad isn't even giving them a proper translation of the defence appeal (either of them). It would seem he uses all his costs on taxis to get him to the media studios for his talking head interviews and on secretaries to answer the phones to organise them. Listen people...never go anywhere in America by taxi...clearly, they're rather expensive ;)

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


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

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
observer wrote:
You mean he was so struck by Amanda that he asked his assistant if she had seen her earlier the same day? Or after the news filtered out that Meredith had been found murdered? I'm trying to understand the context in which he brought up the subject of Amanda, that's all.


Marco Quintavalle asked Ana Marina Chiriboga on the morning of 2 November 2007 whether she had seen Amanda Knox. It seems that he wanted to know whether she had bought anything.

It must have been unusual for someone to waiting so early - at 7.45am - for a shop to open on a national holiday. Quintavalle was struck by Knox's pale complexion and light blue eyes. He also greeted her and she ignored him.



He was also struck by the fact that she was going out of her way not to be noticed.


Ok, got that. Interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

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

"It now seems clear to me that Quintavalle is an untrustworthy and unreliable witness in a murder trial."

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually bother to support his opinion with any facts. He never supported his claim that Knox was coerced into making her false accusation against Diya Lumumba with any facts either.

He knows that we all know that he's going to melodramatically jump out of the closet and claim that he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at some point, but he's like some old stager who likes to keep his audience waiting.

His acting when playing the role of a firm guilter on PMF may have been unconvincing and hammy, but no-one can deny he doesn't know how to play the audience.


He is badly advised by his friend, the hack writer Doug Preston.



Meet 'LondonJohn' everyone: http://www.johnhamiltonlewis.com/

I hope Preston gave him some good tips on how to be a good 'Paperback Writer' ;)


John Hamilton Lewis wrote:
CORPORATIONS, UNIVERSITIES, & CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS
My background has provided me the expertise and opportunity to address numerous public forums, civic organizations, corporations, and universities both domestically and internationally. If you or your organization would be interested in hiring me to speak to your convention, employees, members, students, or supporters about serious global issues facing our nation, please contact: karen@johnhamiltonlewis.com



(Link above). There you go folks, that's all he wrote.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Quote:
Indeed! And who needs to see the 400+ page Massei report in English? Apparently not the faithful. I wonder why Ted Simon has not provided Team USA with a copy of it in a language they understand. Is he afraid that they'd get all bummed out or feel they had been hoodwinked?


And for a guy that charges 500 k a year for his services, he really could provide it if he wanted to ;)

But then, to be fair...the tight wad isn't even giving them a proper translation of the defence appeal (either of them). It would seem he uses all his costs on taxis to get him to the media studios for his talking head interviews and on secretaries to answer the phones to organise them. Listen people...never go anywhere in America by taxi...clearly, they're rather expensive ;)


On a related note, the JREF thread is back on unmoderated status but this time there will be suspensions for bickering or personalised posts.

Kevin is back again, too, with his casual attacks on the Italian justice systems (hiding behind David Hume, of all people).

I can say this here without repercussions: Are these FOA people and Amanda cheerleaders really so dim about the burden of proof in the lone-wolf scenario? I thought the anonymous legal wrangling notes from TJMK would have been convincing enough for anyone about what would happen if the prosecution decided to try Rudy alone.

Patrick's lawyer and Meredith's family's lawyer would have a field day. And Rudy's representation would likely leak everything regarding the crimescene photos, the medical examiner's reports, and anything else they could safely get their hands on. The various forensics teams would be dragged out and publicly humiliated for suppressing evidence. It would be a gigantic mess all round.

Of course, Amanda would have that Joran Van Der Sloot smirk glued to her face in all the post-trial photos.


Last edited by stilicho on Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
RoseMontag wrote:
Quote:
I was referring to Massei's sentencing report, based on court testimony.


I would love to have a complete translation and I have asked for one here as well as Katy_did. But here is a Google translation of that portion:

***

I'm in the translation business; I get paid more than twice the rate quoted yesterday. I don't really have time to provide translations on demand for free, except in the context of the Massei report project, where I am in the proofreading chain. I can see why you would find this nearly useless, however. I don't see human translators being replaced any time soon.:)


I think that the translation of the appeal, and of Massei’s reasoning, requires more than just a facility in two languages, it also requires a grasp of the technical language of forensic science and of law in both languages. That makes the Massei translation a truly Herculean task.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Meet 'LondonJohn' everyone: http://www.johnhamiltonlewis.com/

I hope Preston gave him some good tips on how to be a good 'Paperback Writer' ;)


Why would an American pose as someone from London?
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] 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 


28,891,597 Views