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 7:41 am
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:41 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 13 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 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: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stilicho wrote:
On what do you base your "theory"? All the evidence points to multiple assailants.

- The medical examiner testified the wounds were consistent with multiple attackers.
- The evidence showed that more than one knife was used.
- Meredith was restrained during the attack; there was no evidence of her assailants' DNA under her fingernails.
- The burglary was found to be staged; entry by all those convicted of murder was through the front door of the cottage.
- Amanda knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted before the police did.
- Raffaele wrote that Meredith's DNA should be expected to be found on a knife found in his apartment.
- The crimescene showed evidence of having been cleaned and staged.
- Amanda wrote that her DNA should be expected to be found mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom.
- The accused were proved to have lied to the police in many instances, including their statements prior to 06 NOV 2007.



And let's not forget several witness that heard multiple people at the crime scene that night as well as two witnesses (albeit the testimony of one of them was not considered safe by the court) who saw Amanda and Raffaele in the vicinity of the crime scene that night, when they claimed to be tucked up in Raffaele's flat.

_________________
"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: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: Cherry-picking   

Catnip wrote:
undecided wrote:
... Seems to defeat the purpose.
...
Distortion of facts occurs when you cherry pick 'words'
...
Let's not continue this discussion. I think we've wasted enough board space on this already.

Cheers.



Hi undecided,

Don't know if I can help.

Let's take an example.

I want to understand what Bob Graham has written (afterwards, it may - or may not - help me to understand why he's written it, or even, what he means).

In a recent article, Bob Graham called Rudy a "drifter".

My question is:

(1) Is that description a conclusion or evidence? (either way, it can also be an opinion).

(1a) If it is a conclusion, what is it based on? Something Graham knows about through direct experience? Or (as it seems, apparently), quoting an off-the-cuff remark by that American guy living in Perugia (I forget his name, Novak? or something) who was gas-bagging to the local paper in the early days of the investigation? Or what?

In other words, what is his authority for quoting that description and applying it to Rudy? (Note: "His" could mean either Graham, or gas-bag guy. The description has to originate from somewhere, and, more than that, has to originate for a reason, and originates within a context.)

Why am I asking?

My understanding of the word "drifter" (homeless hobo drifting from place to place, usually in railways cars, like Charlie Chaplin in Depression-Era movies) doesn't quite fit with a person who (i) is young (ii) has not had the opportunity to try a series of jobs in different locations, preciesly because he is still so young (iii) has lived long enough in one place to have picked up the local accent; (iv) on the other hand, Rudy gave up his waiting job at the bed-and-breakfast place, but, likewise, Amanda gave up her Germany job and does not get called a drifter (by the newspapers, anyway) - so that can't be the reason; (v) Rudy travelled on trains, but Amanda travelled on trains too - so maybe "drifter" means "fare-evader", then? (vi) Rudy didn't apply himself to schooling all that much and/or preferred playing computer games, but so do a lot of other people, and they don't get called drifters (I'd call them "slackers", and there are lots of those around the place, so why did "drifter" get stuck to Rudy instead of "slacker"?)(vii) excelling in baskeball might be a possible source of the term "drifter", but that seems a remote possibility, and an unusual stretch of the meaning ("jocks" are not "drifters", that is ).

So Graham has left me behind. He inserts the term "drifter", without explaining what he means, so the implication is that the reader will bring their own understanding of the term to the word.

(1b) If Graham's description is evidence (unlikely for a reporter), then times, places, events, contexts, experiences: where are they?


Which leads to:
(2) What is it, actually, that Graham is "reporting" when he calls Rudy a drifter?


In the broader picture, does the filing of a defamation suit by Rudy's lawyers have any involvement or impact on the choice of term? If so, why? If not, why not?



Now, reporters are not judges or legal teams (nor should they be).
Yet reporters also deal in words, just like judges and legal teams.

If a reporter uses a word (or phrase), it is
(a) accidental
(b) unintentional
(c) an error (typo, misprint, misplaced text, inadvertant copy-and-paste, sloppy editing, proof-reading error, transposition from a different field/context, an old thesaurus, lack of schooling (through "drifting"?), etc)
(d) intended (d.i) in good faith (d.ii) not in good faith

Getting into option (d.i) is a very narrow doorway (like Luke Skywalker and the Death Star approach path :)), but since Graham's use of the term does not match my understanding of the term, he has missed (d.i), and, since I assume Graham has had at least some minimum journalistic training (otherwise, how long would he last if he couldn't communicate?), I find options (a) and (b) unlikely and to be unexpected, option (c) is possible but should be rare, once or twice but not permanently so, which leaves me with option (d.ii), the likeliest option in the circumstances.


Opinions can change.
Conclusions won't - run down the same path of facts, you will probably arrive at the same conclusion (logically, where else would you go?).

So,

Question:
Is Graham lying in calling Rudy a "drifter"?
- (a) Yes
- (b) No
- (c) Who knows?
- (d) Dont' care
- (e) Other

Answering (a) or (b) will take us to the next step in understanding; any other answer is just "ending the discussion" (and, of course, will not lead anywhere).


---

I still don't understand Graham, by the way, even if he is lying about Rudy.

What is his motivation?

His intentions are clear: on the face it, smearing Rudy. (But the possibility of having different intentions "underneath the mask" will be a source of concern for his allies/feeders - he will have to maintain an anti-Rudy pretence to get his news: there is no other choice).

Maybe Graham meant to say "unfortunate person", or perhaps "drop-out" (remember Maynard in Dobie Gillis?) But, again, he's still not the only one in that category.

---
In the verbal jousting that is legal debate, a lawyer's best friend is often the lawyer on the opposing team. An argument can be won or defeated, yet the lawyers are still friends, because they are on the same side. Arguing for or against something is never personal, on that basis - it is in the interests of the client. Lawyers can change "sides", and often do, and still argue the case for their client eloquently. There is never any animosity (except perhaps in an occasional moot, where the young ones still haven't learned the technique of reasoning, but even that is rare).



For me, the most telling word of his piece is when he associates the word 'ordeal' with Amanda's conviction/remanding to jail. You will rarely see that word associated by a 'journalist' to someone in prison. Victims suffer ordeals, not the perpetrators, not in the media world. By associating that word with Amanda, in journalistic speak, he is loudly declaring that she is innocent and is a victim. It's sneaky really...aside from the slip regarding the former status of Rudy (drifter...drug dealer...both which are false) his article is factually correct and balanced. However, it is unbalanced all the same due specifically to the language he opts to use. He also seems to have a great deal to say about Amanda, but has not the least interest in Meredith Kercher...'Oh, that dead girl...she's not the least bit important or interesting'.

_________________
"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 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 Jul 18, 2010 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
As of the theory, I lean towards the single perpetrator scenario.


Hi Katody,

You mean Raffaele, I presume? :)

No, seriously: His situation looks worse than Rudy's:

Raffaele took the bra off, he had the knives, he had the urge to seek "strong emotion" as he called it, he wasn't asleep the following morning as he said he was, his father never phoned him the night before like he claimed, he was seen outside when he said he was at home, he wasn't on the computer when he said he was, he can't remember in any case what happened or even if Amanda was with him, he couldn't remember the address of the cottage during the emergency call, he called Amanda a liar for claiming that he did strong drugs, Bongiorno kept his drug history out of court (presumably because she thought it was not favourable to his case), his footprint was on the bathmat, one of the murder weapons was found in his kitchen drawer with the victim's DNA on it, he even wrote later about admiring Meredith's boyfriend's cute jeans, "with the torn pocket", that she was wearing, and he supported Amanda's version, at first, then recanted, then gave a second version, details contradicting Amanda's versions of events, and then he eventually clammed up (probably on legal advice, I wouldn't be surprised).

Thing is, I haven't found yet out how he knew that the jeans were the boyfriend's, or how he got inside the cottage in the first place.

And it seems unlikely (but remotely possible?) that he crushed her throat and restrained her by the elbows (she with her karate training) while stabbing her multiple times with different knives from different angles.


Rudy's presence is much less murderous than Raffaele's - Rudy was more visiting than anything else - toilet, fridge, helping the stabbed victim with the towels, being frightened that the guy with the knife would blame him (yet his changing versions of what happened seem strange as well, in a different way).

But that makes two people (and, again, how did they get in?) Maybe Raffaele did go out while Amanda was sleeping and then later pressed the knife handle onto Amanda's hand while she slept, as she speculated?


Alternatively, by "single perpetrator", do you mean one group intention, even though embodied amongst multiple individuals? There was certainly one intention, no matter how many were involved.

Does staging count as perpetrating?

Perhaps you could step me through what you are seeing?
-- "I lean towards the single perpetrator scenario"...because ...

If it helps, pretend that you are presenting a/the case to the court, like in a moot. What are the steps that you would like to outline that would enable me to follow the line of reasoning that you would like to present?

I could guess, I suppose; but would I be guessing correctly?

Even if you think you have changed your mind, or might do, or don't feel like following through (for whatever reason), I think it would be useful and beneficial to know the stepping stones on how you got to the scenario.

The reason I think it is beneficial has to do with how I can tailor translation techniques to synchronise with that line (or lines) of thinking. There's akways an ulterior motive! :)
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 Jul 18, 2010 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: Cherry-picking   

Michael wrote:
He also seems to have a great deal to say about Amanda, but has not the least interest in Meredith Kercher...'Oh, that dead girl...she's not the least bit important or interesting'.


Yes, very telling.

If that was him at the Journalists' Conference asking the inane questions with the built-in assumptions (and even if it wasn't), he seems to have a chiodo fisso - a bee in his bonnet - and it seems to be predicated on an unspecified injustice of some sort not related to the current case.

Shining knight syndrome by proxy Foxy.

He should get the issue off his chest, I reckon, rather than sublimate it into his articles (unless it is something too personal).

On the other hand, he may have latched onto the political overtones of the PR (perhaps unconsciously) and is getting all excited about "whipping up a storm" of something eventually. Sort of Spezi-like, only much milder.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: Cherry-picking   

Catnip wrote:
Michael wrote:
He also seems to have a great deal to say about Amanda, but has not the least interest in Meredith Kercher...'Oh, that dead girl...she's not the least bit important or interesting'.


Yes, very telling.

If that was him at the Journalists' Conference asking the inane questions with the built-in assumptions (and even if it wasn't), he seems to have a chiodo fisso - a bee in his bonnet - and it seems to be predicated on an unspecified injustice of some sort not related to the current case.

Shining knight syndrome by proxy Foxy.

He should get the issue off his chest, I reckon, rather than sublimate it into his articles (unless it is something too personal).

On the other hand, he may have latched onto the political overtones of the PR (perhaps unconsciously) and is getting all excited about "whipping up a storm" of something eventually. Sort of Spezi-like, only much milder.



Well, it was Bob Graham along with Garfield kennedy who made the 'Trials of Amanda Knox' documentary, so he's been ensconced with the Knox family from the very beginning.

It's also Bob Graham and Garfield Kennedy that were bidding for the English stake in Amanda's jailhouse interview recently...you know, the one where right after the news about it broke Curt Knox and Chris Mellas jumped like grease lightening to declare there were no such negotiations? We know there were :) They were desperately trying to hide from the judge (whichever one is appointed in the near future to handle Amanda's appeal) that it was to be for cash, since they knew that if he got so much as a sniff that it was, he'd forbid any such interview. And we also know Marriott only grants interviews to 'sympathetic' journalists ;)

Bob Graham's up to his scrawny little neck in it.

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


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Our Own 'The Machine' did his usual masterful job in completely removing any scintilla of credibility from Mr Graham's tone of reporting in a previous posting on TJMK entitled:

Report By Bob Graham In The Daily Express Close To Breaking New Record For Inaccuracy




picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Replaced Tiny Url with shortened url
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Lone wolf   

stint7 wrote:
2) When someone tells me only a single person was present to kill Meredith.
I wonder after even a cursory look at crime scene how one person could possibly have single handedly restrained and inflicted so many wounds and sexually violated and finally murdered a perfectly fit young woman fully capable of natural resistance in fighting for her life.


Thank you for your insights and warm welcome, stint7.

In my opinion most people, especially women, when threatened with a knife, would not fight, but freeze and comply with the attacker's demands. As sad as it looks, I believe poor Meredith's hope was that giving no resistance was the way to come out alive of it. And when the first blows were dealt, they were disabling enough to make any resistance impossible.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: Lone wolf   

Katody wrote:
stint7 wrote:
2) When someone tells me only a single person was present to kill Meredith.
I wonder after even a cursory look at crime scene how one person could possibly have single handedly restrained and inflicted so many wounds and sexually violated and finally murdered a perfectly fit young woman fully capable of natural resistance in fighting for her life.


Thank you for your insights and warm welcome, stint7.

In my opinion most people, especially women, when threatened with a knife, would not fight, but freeze and comply with the attacker's demands. As sad as it looks, I believe poor Meredith's hope was that giving no resistance was the way to come out alive of it. And when the first blows were dealt, they were disabling enough to make any resistance impossible.



Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained.

_________________
"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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Michael wrote:

Well, actually, there was a good deal of evidence that linked both Amanda and Raffaele to the crime.It was also proven that they weren't where they said they were that evening doing what they said they were doing. Moreover, it was proven that the crime wasn't committed by a lone individual, that the break-in was staged and was effectively shown that Amanda and Raffaele would have been the only ones to have reason or time to perform the staging (as well as a clear 'partial' clean-up). Further, their actions and lies over the following days indicate guilt.


Thank you Michael,

I am more or less familiar with the clues and body of evidence as was presented on the forums.
I should clarify, that in my opinion physical evidence is what is lacking the most in Amanda's case. Especially comparing with Rudy, who's footprints, fingerprints and DNA have been found in the room. This is one of the major problems for me.

Amanda's bloody footprint found in the room, as mentioned by The Machine would have filled that void. Though I remember it was strongly contested by the defense. I'm not sure, was it entered into evidence finally?
Is there a picture of that footprint somewhere available?

I'm happy that some of the early discussions still exist.
What is also very interesting to me is the early investigation, between the murder and first arrests.
For example who was in the initial circle of police interest, who's phones where bugged and logs checked, what kind of evidence was known from day one and what led the police to tighten their grip around the pair of students.
But I guess this kind of info is not so public :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Uh....Amanda is in prison. So, what did she expect it to be like? Disneyland?

Suddenly, Amanda PR is mentioning Raffaele. She says "the love they had". Totally delusional. IMO, it's more of a power play to make sure Raffaele 'remembers' Amanda's role in the crime like Amanda dictates.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
I am more or less familiar with the clues and body of evidence as was presented on the forums. I should clarify, that in my opinion physical evidence is what is lacking the most in Amanda's case. Especially comparing with Rudy, who's footprints, fingerprints and DNA have been found in the room. This is one of the major problems for me.

Amanda's bloody footprint found in the room, as mentioned by The Machine would have filled that void. Though I remember it was strongly contested by the defense. I'm not sure, was it entered into evidence finally?
Is there a picture of that footprint somewhere available?


If you were familiar with the body of evidence, you would have known that the woman's bloody footprint on the pillow was entered as evidence.

Rudy Guede fled the cottage almost immediately after Meredith had been stabbed and didn't return. His visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. This means that he couldn't have staged the break-in in Filomena's room or gone into the blood-spattered bathroom. It also means that he didn't take part in the clean-up.

Amanda Knox spent several hours at the cottage on 2 November 2007 removing incriminating traces of herself and Sollecito. However, she was unable to remove Sollecito's DNA from Meredith's bra clasp and his bloody footprint from the blue bathmat. Knox and/or Sollecito were also unable to remove all of Meredith's DNA from the double DNA knife.

Even though Knox managed to clean up her and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints in the hallway, she hadn't counted on the scientific police using luminol to reveal them.

Knox cleaned up the blood that she had tracked into Filomena's room and her own room. This blood was also revealed by luminol.

The trail of Sollecito's bloody footprints leading up to his bloody footprint on the blue bathmat was cleaned up.

If there had been no clean-up at the cottage, there would have been even more physical evidence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Lone wolf   

Katody wrote:

In my opinion most people, especially women, when threatened with a knife, would not fight, but freeze and comply with the attacker's demands. As sad as it looks, I believe poor Meredith's hope was that giving no resistance was the way to come out alive of it. And when the first blows were dealt, they were disabling enough to make any resistance impossible.


Even without the myriad of very effective complete past arguments and evidence that make the lone wolf theory improbable if not impossible, I still cite just with reference to my initial point about resistance:

1) Meredith was not only very fit, but Karate trained
2) Meredith had over 40 bruises, scratches and stab wounds

Therefore, although your opinion that women would not fight seems rather weak when the woman has taken spefic enabling training to fight, and then further is provoked to fight after the first of the over 40 wounds were administered making attacker evil intent unequivocal.
I submit to you that any sane man or woman would then have sufficient motivation resist to the best of his/her ability.

Finally, I have seen no evidence or even other opinions that any 'first blows' were 'disabling'.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
.... I should clarify, that in my opinion physical evidence is what is lacking the most in Amanda's case. Especially comparing with Rudy, who's footprints, fingerprints and DNA have been found in the room. This is one of the major problems for me.....


Maybe my simpleton instincts are evident again.

But if you accept the *overwhelming* factual evidence that a *cleanup* had indeed taken place.
Why would any rational person have a 'problem' understanding that the people who were 'cleaning' had their own self interest and self preservation in mind
They simply primarily attempted to concentrate their efforts on the areas that they knew contained evidence *of themselves*

Not a problem here; in fact alarmingly unproblematic and amazingly self evident.

Unless of course we now want to debate whether a cleanup took place.
I politely prefer to excuse myself from that *well worn* road as being unnecessarily redundant

Just my analysis, humbly offered
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Lone wolf   

Katody wrote:
stint7 wrote:
2) When someone tells me only a single person was present to kill Meredith.
I wonder after even a cursory look at crime scene how one person could possibly have single handedly restrained and inflicted so many wounds and sexually violated and finally murdered a perfectly fit young woman fully capable of natural resistance in fighting for her life.


Thank you for your insights and warm welcome, stint7.

In my opinion most people, especially women, when threatened with a knife, would not fight, but freeze and comply with the attacker's demands. As sad as it looks, I believe poor Meredith's hope was that giving no resistance was the way to come out alive of it. And when the first blows were dealt, they were disabling enough to make any resistance impossible.


Simple question: Which way did the attacker come into the house then?

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:

Well, actually, there was a good deal of evidence that linked both Amanda and Raffaele to the crime.It was also proven that they weren't where they said they were that evening doing what they said they were doing. Moreover, it was proven that the crime wasn't committed by a lone individual, that the break-in was staged and was effectively shown that Amanda and Raffaele would have been the only ones to have reason or time to perform the staging (as well as a clear 'partial' clean-up). Further, their actions and lies over the following days indicate guilt.


Thank you Michael,

I am more or less familiar with the clues and body of evidence as was presented on the forums.
I should clarify, that in my opinion physical evidence is what is lacking the most in Amanda's case. Especially comparing with Rudy, who's footprints, fingerprints and DNA have been found in the room. This is one of the major problems for me.

Amanda's bloody footprint found in the room, as mentioned by The Machine would have filled that void. Though I remember it was strongly contested by the defense. I'm not sure, was it entered into evidence finally?
Is there a picture of that footprint somewhere available?

I'm happy that some of the early discussions still exist.
What is also very interesting to me is the early investigation, between the murder and first arrests.
For example who was in the initial circle of police interest, who's phones where bugged and logs checked, what kind of evidence was known from day one and what led the police to tighten their grip around the pair of students.
But I guess this kind of info is not so public :)



Well, the defence contest everything. If I was in the dock and the defence didn't contest everything I'd want my money back, wouldn't you? Although...to be honest the footprint matching Amanda's size on the pillow is one of the weaker pieces of evidence. It would be dangerous to carve that in stone. However, while there is strong physical evidence against the pair (these have been listed here and elsewhere many times), convictions do not rest on that. In the case of many convictions, there is very little direct physical evidence. One also must not consider only Meredith's room as the crime scene, the whole first floor of the cottage is the crime scene.


As for the phone tapping, all persons of interest had their phones tapped and their immediate family (provided they were in Italy). The Sollecitos were tapped, as was Amanda. I'd bet my life so was Filomena, Laura (along with their boyfriends), Sophie Purton and later Patrick. Of course, now we only hear about what turned out to be relevant.

In terms of what led police to tighten their grip around the couple...well, they would have been 'persons of interest' from the start, since they knew Meredith and were the first at the crime scene and were found there. Their behaviour over the following days would have made them more interesting still. The final straw though, was Raffaele being asked to come in on the night of the 5th Nov to clear up some 'inconsistencies' in his earlier statements. It was then that he dropped Amanda's alibi. As a result, when the police put it to Amanda, she then admitted to being present at the murder and accused Patrick Lumumba of Raping and murdering poor Meredith.

_________________
"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: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, actually, there was a good deal of evidence that linked both Amanda and Raffaele to the crime....


I am more or less familiar with the clues and body of evidence as was presented on the forums. I should clarify, that in my opinion physical evidence is what is lacking the most in Amanda's case. Especially comparing with Rudy, who's footprints, fingerprints and DNA have been found in the room. This is one of the major problems for me.

....

What is also very interesting to me is the early investigation, between the murder and first arrests. For example who was in the initial circle of police interest, who's phones where bugged and logs checked, what kind of evidence was known from day one and what led the police to tighten their grip around the pair of students.
But I guess this kind of info is not so public :)


Ding-ding-ding!! mul-)

One of the key FOA talking points concerns the physical evidence or lack thereof. The argument is that Rudy's physical evidence was all over the crimescene and that Raffaele's and Amanda's was not. Perhaps strangely, this is not what their own lawyers argued in court.

Before anyone engages with you, Katody, you need to acknowledge whether you've read or are interested in reading any of the materials suggested to you. Parrotting FOA talking points isn't likely to demonstrate an interest in a rational discussion of the mountain of evidence (physical and otherwise) used to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

fen-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
So, nothing new under the sun :)


Tell me about it. :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

stint7 wrote:
I politely prefer to excuse myself from that *well worn* road as being unnecessarily redundant


Thank you stint7, discussing minutiae over and over again is exactly what I want to avoid as well. My reasons are:

    It is unnecessarily inflammatory.

    In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Catnip wrote:
Katody wrote:
As of the theory, I lean towards the single perpetrator scenario.


Hi Katody,

You mean Raffaele, I presume? :)

No, seriously: His situation looks worse than Rudy's:


Oh, cmon! We don't wanna go that way :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
stint7 wrote:
I politely prefer to excuse myself from that *well worn* road as being unnecessarily redundant


Thank you stint7, discussing minutiae over and over again is exactly what I want to avoid as well. My reasons are:

    It is unnecessarily inflammatory.

    In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.


In other words, you're unable to answer the questions that have been put to you. I knew that you would be swiftly unravelled on PMF.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.


No. The courts, the lawyers, the experts, the witnesses, and the dozens of investigators and scientists involved have already done all that for you. All you can do is to educate yourself about the case. Specifically, ask yourself why Raffaele and Amanda and Rudy each lied to the police constantly in the course of the investigation of a serious and brutal slaying. Why did they interfere with the examination of the facts so readily and spontaneously?

This is not a typical wrongful conviction case where the accused were somehow focused upon by the testimony of a jailhouse snitch or some witness with personal gain in mind. They were standing right outside the cottage when they were discovered. They spent almost a full four days feeding the police false information culminating with the accusation of a man they both knew was innocent.

This is why you simply must acquaint yourself with the findings of the judges, the investigators, the courts, and even the contradictory testimony of their own experts. Facts are incontrovertible and objective truths. They are not malleable and formless statements. There are facts in this case that *only* indicate that the three accused were all guilty. Not "interpreted to somehow mean perhaps they were maybe involved in some vague fashion".

You can "personally judge" if you want to. That's called jumping to conclusions or employing prejudice. It's not a rational assessment of facts and deliberation of a narrative to explain actions and evidence. You may employ an advocacy position as the FOA and Amanda-groupies have. Those positions ignore entirely the facts of the case and rely on rumours, presuppositions and faulty logic.

Are you planning to read any of the material?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.


No. The courts, the lawyers, the experts, the witnesses, and the dozens of investigators and scientists involved have already done all that for you. All you can do is to educate yourself about the case.


Thank you very much but are you asking me to not think on my own?

stilicho wrote:
Are you planning to read any of the material?

Oh yes, for now I'm trying to find a picture of that footprint matching Amanda's size, that according to The Machine is the only physical evidence placing her in the murder room.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

katody wrote:
Thank you very much but are you asking me to not think on my own?


Well, it depends on what you mean by 'think on your own'. If you mean, the trial should start all over again because you weren't there the first time to observe and 'think on your own', well clearly that can't happen :)

IF you actually mean examine all that went before (the trial and leading up to the trial) and come to your own conclusion, then great...it's all stored here. Simply follow the discussion here back to the dates of the hearings, the reports, the testimony, read up on it all and have a think about it. When you're done with all that, then we can have a chat :)

_________________
"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: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Oh yes, for now I'm trying to find a picture of that footprint matching Amanda's size, that according to The Machine is the only physical evidence placing her in the murder room.


'Where' are you looking dear?

_________________
"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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
katody wrote:
Thank you very much but are you asking me to not think on my own?


Well, it depends on what you mean by 'think on your own'.


Nothing more then I stated before :) :

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.


No. The courts, the lawyers, the experts, the witnesses, and the dozens of investigators and scientists involved have already done all that for you. All you can do is to educate yourself about the case.


Regarding the footprint I found . Is this it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
As of the theory, I lean towards the single perpetrator scenario.


Meredith was restrained but not bound. Multiple weapons were used.

Single perpetrator? Not possible without the victim, Meredith Kercher, being a willing participant.

Completely out of the question.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Nothing more then I stated before


In which case, we'll each interpret that as we see fit ;)


Katody wrote:
Regarding the footprint I found . Is this it?


Why did you ask me for it then? Where I come from, we call that a loaded question. So, now that you've set it up pull your trigger (make your point) and we'll see if it hits a target...

_________________
"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: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Emerald wrote:
Katody wrote:
As of the theory, I lean towards the single perpetrator scenario.


Meredith was restrained but not bound. Multiple weapons were used.

Single perpetrator? Not possible without the victim, Meredith Kercher, being a willing participant.

Completely out of the question.



And he certainly didn't come up and in through the window. So, who broke the window, trashed Filomena's room and why? Not Rudy, that's for sure.

_________________
"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: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.


No. The courts, the lawyers, the experts, the witnesses, and the dozens of investigators and scientists involved have already done all that for you. All you can do is to educate yourself about the case.


Thank you very much but are you asking me to not think on my own?

stilicho wrote:
Are you planning to read any of the material?

Oh yes, for now I'm trying to find a picture of that footprint matching Amanda's size, that according to The Machine is the only physical evidence placing her in the murder room.


I've never said that the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow is the the only physical evidence that places Amanda Knox in the murder room. You've proved yourself to be sly and dishonest poster.

You don't have the intelligence or the knowledge of the case to discuss the case with the posters on PMF. This explains why you have declined to answer any of the questions that I've directly asked you.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
Regarding the footprint I found . Is this it?


Why did you ask me for it then? Where I come from, we call that a loaded question. So, now that you've set it up pull your trigger (make your point) and we'll see if it hits a target...


I asked before I found what I linked, there was no malicious intent in my asking :), anyway I cannot pull any trigger because I don't see anything in this picture, and I'm not sure if this is the evidence The Machine meant, or you're just pulling my leg ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ;) ).
Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.


You guys barraged me with questions, we can of course discuss them all, but I'm afraid as I said before, it would end up on the subjective side:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.
For you Meredith's karate stands a chance against a knife, for me not so much.
For you it's impossible to climb the wall, for me it's easy.
For you the late witnesses are believable, for me not so much.
etc. [disclaimer: I don't imply any of you in fact hold any of above mentioned views :) ]

As in my view this case resulted in wrongful convictions, the big question for me is what was the cause of this tragic mistake. And I believe that cause is quite complex.

Still, I await the Motivation as eagerly as anyone here. What from the prosecution's was not accepted by the jury is especially interesting. I also look towards the discussion of the appeals, by the more knowledgeable then me of course :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline undecided


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Posts: 232

Highscores: 76

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:20 am   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

The Machine wrote:
Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
In the end it all boils down to the interpretation of facts and personal preference in judging probability of various scenarios.


No. The courts, the lawyers, the experts, the witnesses, and the dozens of investigators and scientists involved have already done all that for you. All you can do is to educate yourself about the case.


Thank you very much but are you asking me to not think on my own?

stilicho wrote:
Are you planning to read any of the material?

Oh yes, for now I'm trying to find a picture of that footprint matching Amanda's size, that according to The Machine is the only physical evidence placing her in the murder room.


I've never said that the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow is the the only physical evidence that places Amanda Knox in the murder room. You've proved yourself to be sly and dishonest poster.

You don't have the intelligence or the knowledge of the case to discuss the case with the posters on PMF. This explains why you have declined to answer any of the questions that I've directly asked you.



Actually, Machine, seems that I lost my post when I pressed submit.
(And my response was to Catnip..on pg. 12).

I can and will answer your questions. (As long as you understand,
I'm not going to answer the questions from your perspective.)
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

A lone-wolfer! Haven't seen the likes of that since 2008. So retro it's futuristic :)
Top Profile 

Offline tripod


Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:40 pm

Posts: 26

Highscores: 9

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Filomena testified that the state in which her room was found was not the state in which she had left it. How do you explain her testimony?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ;) ).
Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.


You guys barraged me with questions, we can of course discuss them all, but I'm afraid as I said before, it would end up on the subjective side:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.
For you Meredith's karate stands a chance against a knife, for me not so much.
For you it's impossible to climb the wall, for me it's easy.
For you the late witnesses are believable, for me not so much.
etc. [disclaimer: I don't imply any of you in fact hold any of above mentioned views :) ]

As in my view this case resulted in wrongful convictions, the big question for me is what was the cause of this tragic mistake. And I believe that cause is quite complex.

Still, I await the Motivation as eagerly as anyone here. What from the prosecution's was not accepted by the jury is especially interesting. I also look towards the discussion of the appeals, by the more knowledgeable then me of course :)


First, welcome, this site has been always polite to newcomers. Second, why are you posting here?

Next, you are being so incredible disrespectful to so many people that is very difficult to believe you are for real!

I wonder, you mean all people who worked in this case were:
-not able to distinguish between an untidy room and a faked scenario?
-able to exonerate Patrick but not AK/RS?
-not able to see that it was so easy to climb without getting hurt or leaving traces?

What are your excuses for the police/judges/investigators to be so gullible and not wanting to free two supposedly innocent people? or are you really for the conspiracy theory?

Zopi
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.


It did work in her favour. However, her witness statements demonstrated knowledge that an uninvolved person could not possibly know:

Amanda knew an African man was involved before the police did.
Amanda knew that Meredith was sexually assaulted before the police did.
Amanda knew that Meredith had been slammed against the wall before the police did.
Amanda knew that Meredith screamed before the police did.

There was important circumstantial evidence connecting Amanda to the locked room:

The door was locked and this action could only logically be accomplished by someone who knew the room should not be unlocked or her alibi would contain inconsistencies.
Amanda's lamp--the only source of light in her own room--was inside Meredith's locked room.
Amanda's story about her reaction to the locked door changed. She wrote that she hammered on the door because she thought something was wrong but told the postal police that Meredith always locked her door when she was sleeping or out of the cottage and therefore nothing was wrong.

Katody wrote:
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ;) ).
Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.


There is no such alternate narrative. Amanda's lawyers did not present any full alternate "lone-wolf" narrative encompassing all the facts of the case. None of the Amanda-groupies have done so either. One person tried once and stated as a condition that none of the evidence implicating Amanda or Raffaele could be used to distract from it. Even with that condition, the alternate narrative was impossible to support using the remaining evidence.

Katody wrote:
You guys barraged me with questions...


Why don't you answer those questions first?

Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Filomena's room was left in a state that she testified under oath that she had not left it. She told the court how the shutters were jammed. She was a credible witness whose cool and authorative tone contrasted starkly to Amanda's babbling about being far too high to remember anything.

Katody wrote:
For you Meredith's karate stands a chance against a knife, for me not so much.


Tellingly there was no evidence that Meredith was able to attempt to escape her assailants. It was not only a question of her self-defence skills but the fact that no sign of struggle existed outside her room. She was confronted, immobilised, assaulted, and murdered. Her cell phones were taken from her and her door was locked, removing all possibility that she could try to save herself. These facts strongly supported the prosecution's case and could not be successfully challenged by some of the best-paid experts the defence teams could find.

Katody wrote:
For you it's impossible to climb the wall, for me it's easy.


There are four stages to the climb: (1) approaching the grate, (2) scaling the grate, (3) unlatching the window, and (4) entering the room. The only stage that was successfully demonstrated by the defence teams was #2. The fact that they could not accomplish any of the other three tasks worked against Amanda and Raffaele.

Katody wrote:
For you the late witnesses are believable, for me not so much.


The two witnesses, I assume, are Curatolo and Quantaville. Lawyers posting here have suggested their testimonies are not integral and that discrediting them will do nothing to damage the prosecution's case. That said, their testimony was accepted by the courts as credible due to their being independently confirmed. Both witnesses were where they said they were at the time they said they saw Amanda alone or Amanda and Raffaele together.

Katody wrote:
As in my view this case resulted in wrongful convictions, the big question for me is what was the cause of this tragic mistake. And I believe that cause is quite complex.


What do you base this on? You have not read any of the documentation you were asked to read. You have not even said you're willing to read it. You make a rueful logical error by advancing a hypothesis (the cause of this tragic mistake) on the basis of an incorrect presupposition. You have made up your mind that there were wrongful convictions even though you have no knowledge of any of the basics of the case.

bricks-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody: Things must be pretty dead over at the other forums, and so you've crawled over here. Unfortunately for you, posters on this board are not gullible....but I have an idea. Why not go and play with Rose et al, seeing as y'all seem to be on the same blank page. It's one thing to debate, it's another to try and destroy this thread. Even if we are hanging, waiting for the report, there has to be better things to do than *debate* with ********* ( fill in blanks).

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Undecided: Awww, with all the whinging about not being able to post successfully a la The Machine......In my world, it's called Karma >>>>>>>>

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

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hmm... "Mental Gymnastics", eh Katy? Er, I mean, Katody...
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 Jul 19, 2010 2:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Hmm... "Mental Gymnastics", eh Katy? Er, I mean, Katody...


Thinking.... :D ...thinking... :) ...thinking... :| ....errrrr... em)


la-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:
Hmm... "Mental Gymnastics", eh Katy? Er, I mean, Katody...


Thinking.... :D ...thinking... :) ...thinking... :| ....errrrr... em)


la-)

:lol:

Yeah, I know. It's what happens when I haven't had a day off in 8 days...
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:19 am   Post subject: Anodyne   

Katody wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Katody wrote:
As of the theory, I lean towards the single perpetrator scenario.


Hi Katody,

You mean Raffaele, I presume? :)

No, seriously: His situation looks worse than Rudy's:


Oh, cmon! We don't wanna go that way :)

-- [ link ]



Hi Katody,

I don’t speak American.

Is “we” “us”?

Looking up the dictionary (my LingoLook), I find:

Oh C’mon! seems to be Oregonian dialect for “What the heck is wrong with people nowadays?”
and
We don't wanna go that way links to Public Enemy’s “There's a POISON Goin On....”.

Is that what you meant?



P.S.
Linguistically, perhaps Anodyne* would have been better?
It has a nice ring to it, and has the benefit of not being a dull pun. ;)

* By way of Polish [ Wikipedia ]: cathode = dół = down/hole; anode = górę = up/top.
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.


It did work in her favour. However, her witness statements demonstrated knowledge that an uninvolved person could not possibly know:

Amanda knew an African man was involved before the police did.
Amanda knew that Meredith was sexually assaulted before the police did.
Amanda knew that Meredith had been slammed against the wall before the police did.
Amanda knew that Meredith screamed before the police did.

There was important circumstantial evidence connecting Amanda to the locked room:

The door was locked and this action could only logically be accomplished by someone who knew the room should not be unlocked or her alibi would contain inconsistencies.
Amanda's lamp--the only source of light in her own room--was inside Meredith's locked room.
Amanda's story about her reaction to the locked door changed. She wrote that she hammered on the door because she thought something was wrong but told the postal police that Meredith always locked her door when she was sleeping or out of the cottage and therefore nothing was wrong.

Katody wrote:
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ;) ).
Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.


There is no such alternate narrative. Amanda's lawyers did not present any full alternate "lone-wolf" narrative encompassing all the facts of the case. None of the Amanda-groupies have done so either. One person tried once and stated as a condition that none of the evidence implicating Amanda or Raffaele could be used to distract from it. Even with that condition, the alternate narrative was impossible to support using the remaining evidence.

Katody wrote:
You guys barraged me with questions...


Why don't you answer those questions first?

Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Filomena's room was left in a state that she testified under oath that she had not left it. She told the court how the shutters were jammed. She was a credible witness whose cool and authorative tone contrasted starkly to Amanda's babbling about being far too high to remember anything.

Katody wrote:
For you Meredith's karate stands a chance against a knife, for me not so much.


Tellingly there was no evidence that Meredith was able to attempt to escape her assailants. It was not only a question of her self-defence skills but the fact that no sign of struggle existed outside her room. She was confronted, immobilised, assaulted, and murdered. Her cell phones were taken from her and her door was locked, removing all possibility that she could try to save herself. These facts strongly supported the prosecution's case and could not be successfully challenged by some of the best-paid experts the defence teams could find.

Katody wrote:
For you it's impossible to climb the wall, for me it's easy.


There are four stages to the climb: (1) approaching the grate, (2) scaling the grate, (3) unlatching the window, and (4) entering the room. The only stage that was successfully demonstrated by the defence teams was #2. The fact that they could not accomplish any of the other three tasks worked against Amanda and Raffaele.

Katody wrote:
For you the late witnesses are believable, for me not so much.


The two witnesses, I assume, are Curatolo and Quantaville. Lawyers posting here have suggested their testimonies are not integral and that discrediting them will do nothing to damage the prosecution's case. That said, their testimony was accepted by the courts as credible due to their being independently confirmed. Both witnesses were where they said they were at the time they said they saw Amanda alone or Amanda and Raffaele together.

Katody wrote:
As in my view this case resulted in wrongful convictions, the big question for me is what was the cause of this tragic mistake. And I believe that cause is quite complex.


What do you base this on? You have not read any of the documentation you were asked to read. You have not even said you're willing to read it. You make a rueful logical error by advancing a hypothesis (the cause of this tragic mistake) on the basis of an incorrect presupposition. You have made up your mind that there were wrongful convictions even though you have no knowledge of any of the basics of the case.

bricks-)



And don't forget the actual throwing of the rock through the window (and jammed shutters), which many of the police thought would have taken a mighty crack shot to do in the first place. Why not just break the window when you reach the top of the sill after the climb? Or try and push it open?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline John


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:27 am

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

tripod wrote:
Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Filomena testified that the state in which her room was found was not the state in which she had left it. How do you explain her testimony?


Initially, I thought Filomena’s room had been trashed, but then Bruce Fisher convinced me that it was just untidy and I agreed after looking at all the photos of the room, it looked actually better than my teenager’s room, and that is the truth.

But then I read Filomena’s testimony, why would she lie? Did she hate Amanda so much she wanted her to be found guilty of this murder? Makes no sense, Filomena is not going to lie.

Next, I found out, all of those pictures that I’d seen, were taken hours and days after, and Filomena had moved and straightened many objects, she picked her computer up off the floor and had to shake the broken glass off of it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

John wrote:

Initially, I thought Filomena’s room had been trashed, but then Bruce Fisher convinced me that it was just untidy and I agreed after looking at all the photos of the room, it looked actually better than my teenager’s room, and that is the truth.

But then I read Filomena’s testimony, why would she lie? Did she hate Amanda so much she wanted her to be found guilty of this murder? Makes no sense, Filomena is not going to lie.

Next, I found out, all of those pictures that I’d seen, were taken hours and days after, and Filomena had moved and straightened many objects, she picked her computer up off the floor and had to shake the broken glass off of it.


John, what do you think the reason to break the window? It was not used for entry or exit from the crime scene.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

John wrote:
tripod wrote:
Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Filomena testified that the state in which her room was found was not the state in which she had left it. How do you explain her testimony?


Initially, I thought Filomena’s room had been trashed, but then Bruce Fisher convinced me that it was just untidy and I agreed after looking at all the photos of the room, it looked actually better than my teenager’s room, and that is the truth.

But then I read Filomena’s testimony, why would she lie? Did she hate Amanda so much she wanted her to be found guilty of this murder? Makes no sense, Filomena is not going to lie.

Next, I found out, all of those pictures that I’d seen, were taken hours and days after, and Filomena had moved and straightened many objects, she picked her computer up off the floor and had to shake the broken glass off of it.


A lot of people have made much of the "untidiness" of Filomena's room. But we have to trust her that she knew the state of her own living quarters better than Bruce Fisher does. I agree with you that Filomena would not lie about this to the police or in court:

She said that, knowing by then that the window of her bedroom had been smashed, her first instinct on returning to the flat had been to go to her room. What she saw was "a disaster".

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox )

Filomena's own assessment of her room was that it was a "disaster". I've seen teenagers' rooms in worse disarray than that but she would know how her own belongings were arranged. Filomena's testimony must have had a distinct impression on the court. She was calm, patient, deliberate and articulate on the stand. Both Sollecito and Knox were reported to be intensely interested in what she was saying.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

What is it with the FOA types? AK and RS both reported on the day of discovery of the dead body that things weren't right, that there had been a break-in, but nothing had been stolen. But, except in Filomena's room--nothing to see here,according to FOA-- Filomena is just a lying slob. So if AK was just mistaken about things not being right, what were the signs? Well, AK's lamp was missing from AK's room, but AK never mentioned that. There were some blood spots that the police found, but AK never mentioned. Meredith's door was locked, but wait, she told the postal police that Meredith always locked her door, even when just down the hall showering. Filomana said that wasn't true, that she had maybe locked it twice in the time she had been there. But--hey--if Filomena would lie about her own disorderliness, why wouldn't she lie about other things, too.

Dealing with these "truth seekers", realize that you can explain it to them, but you can't understand if for them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hello Katody and welcome.


I often wondered what it would be like to argue a case from a subjective perspective. So “game on” my dear, I will play with you.


Katody wrote:
To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.

My position is that there is a mountain of evidence linking AK to the scene of the murder of dear Meredith. Therefore AK must be guilty.


Katody wrote:
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ;) ).

There is a coherent narrative involving AK and fitting all the evidence, it is crystal clear to me. (yes ‘mental gymnastics’ is such an endearing little term isn’t it)?


Katody wrote:
Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.

The lone wolf scenario is totally implausible without the need for considerable mental gymnastics. No; one individual acting alone could not possibly have murdered dear Meredith.


Katody wrote:
You guys barraged me with questions, we can of course discuss them all, but I'm afraid as I said before, it would end up on the subjective side:

Would you prefer if you were ignored? Well Katody you came here voluntarily and pulled up a chair at the top table. I am obliging by engaging with you in your chosen format ie. a subjective debate.


Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.

No no no; Filomenas room was definitely trashed, ask her.


Katody wrote:
For you Meredith's karate stands a chance against a knife, for me not so much.

Meredith would have fought tooth and nail for her life.


Katody wrote:
For you it's impossible to climb the wall, for me it's easy.

The wall clime and entry via Filomenas window was not a source of ingress that night, too many obstacles needing even more mental gymnastics.


Katody wrote:
For you the late witnesses are believable, for me not so much.

The witnesses were credible by those that witnesses them (ie. the Judges), that’s good enough for me.


Katody wrote:
etc. [disclaimer: I don't imply any of you in fact hold any of above mentioned views :) ]

But Katody; you just did. Are you confused???


Katody wrote:
As in my view this case resulted in wrongful convictions, the big question for me is what was the cause of this tragic mistake. And I believe that cause is quite complex.

In my view this is a straight forward case. The court got it right, the conviction is correct.


Katody wrote:
Still, I await the Motivation as eagerly as anyone here. What from the prosecution's was not accepted by the jury is especially interesting. I also look towards the discussion of the appeals, by the more knowledgeable then me of course :)

Why do you await the motivation translation? By your own admission you came to a conclusion before you acquainted yourself with the facts. What could alter the prejudgment and bias you admit that you will engage in any future debate on the matter?


There now, that has got those issues out of the way. Are there any other points or issues you wish to discuss? I am pleased to indulge you on your terms. The grownups here are no fun, they keep getting bogged down with facts and the like. We don’t need to bother them with this trivia.

Best wishes. :)

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

TomM wrote:
What is it with the FOA types? AK and RS both reported on the day of discovery of the dead body that things weren't right, that there had been a break-in, but nothing had been stolen. But, except in Filomena's room--nothing to see here,according to FOA-- Filomena is just a lying slob. So if AK was just mistaken about things not being right, what were the signs? Well, AK's lamp was missing from AK's room, but AK never mentioned that. There were some blood spots that the police found, but AK never mentioned. Meredith's door was locked, but wait, she told the postal police that Meredith always locked her door, even when just down the hall showering. Filomana said that wasn't true, that she had maybe locked it twice in the time she had been there. But--hey--if Filomena would lie about her own disorderliness, why wouldn't she lie about other things, too.

Dealing with these "truth seekers", realize that you can explain it to them, but you can't understand if for them.



I was just thinking in the same direction.
Amanda was living together with Filomena long enough for knowing how her room normally looks like.
And I have the strong feeling, that in some way - because she liked Filomena - she did not ransack her room until the ultimate consequence, just 'enough' to claim a burglary. And when Filomenas room normally was tidy - it then looks ransacked from Amandas point of view.

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:04 am   Post subject: Interlocking threads   

It must be duck-hunting season!
I can hear the sounds of decoy calls coming from the reeds in the marshes.


I tried, bona fide, following the "Filomena-is-a-slob" theory - but I have some difficulties in making the reasoning stick.

Katody's opinion that Filomena's room "was untidy" after the staged break-in is special pleading, where the onus (or burden) of substantiating the claim is on the special case itself, rather than assumed. That is, the special pleading has to demonstrate its existence.

For example:
  • Filomena is a ragazza (young woman, young lady), not a bambina (little girl)
  • Filomena's in the workforce
  • Filomena's in the legal profession
  • from the photos of her, she has a flair for fashion
  • she was the oldest in the house-share, the "mother"
  • using the floor as a wardrobe is how likely, on a scale of 1-to-10?
  • and not using the wardrobe as a wardrobe is how likely, on a scale of 1-to-10?
  • the practicalities of wrinkles in storing clothes underfoot, on the floor-wardrobe, require elucidation: e.g., was it "the baby of the house" Amanda's job to do the ironing while Filomena was at work? (or are we assuming that Filomena preferred to wear wrinkled clothes to work?)
  • the "signs of a burglary" phone call works both ways:
    • tossed clothes were (or were not) a "sign" of someone getting inside who didn't belong inside
    • if they weren't a "sign", the broken window becomes just a broken window
      • if the broken window is just a broken window, the "signs" in the little bathroom (blood stains) become problematic
      • the unflushed toilet in the big bathroom disappears as a "sign"
    • the rock still remains too big to have been thrown in from outside (e.g., by a bored vandal during the holidays) (not to mention the shutters, and sherds, etc.)


Special pleading is sharp.

If the answer to the question,
"Do people, in general, e.g., like Candace Demspey or John, store their clothes the same way, on the floor, underfoot?"

is "Yes", then we can infer the general case onto the particular case, and take it as a given until something else contradicts it in the particular.

If the answer is "No", then we have to adduce evidence showing how and why the special case occurred (e.g, John's testimony of John's teenager's habit).

Thing is, Filomena's room was untidy when the Postal Police (and Filomena) saw it.

The question is (before hearing Filomena's testimony and Amanda and Raffaele's statements on the matter): who to attribute that untidiness to?

(a) If Filomena, then what activity is to be attributed to the "burglar"?
(b) If to the burglar, then that theory counteracts the (a) hypothesis.

An explanatory narrative must be self-consistent, to start with, before it can even begin to have a chance to withstand having holes put into it by the rocks thrown up by alternative hypotheses and scenarios.

Knit 1, purl 1.

:) Coming up with a scenario is a lot like knitting (hence the expression, "stitched up").
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:15 am   Post subject: PhanuelB comes unravelled   

I noticed yesterday that the PhanuelB virus had inserted itself (in “Full Pretentious Rhetorical” mode) into the Wikipedia Mediation discussion concerning the neutral point-of-view of encyclopaedic articles ([ Wikipedia Arbitration: Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher ]):

“Comes now PhanuelB, a supporter of Amanda Knox's innocence, and submits the following opening statement”



Some sundry notes for the creative writing class:

  • The flouncing flourish is
    • unnecessary
    • consistent with showing an unawareness of what the word “submits” means (but it sounds nice, doesn’t it?)
  • a media/politics-major student would find a rich vein of material to mine for a thesis on the unintended ironies of statements like “You follow the truth whether anyone likes it or not.” (“anyone” in the sense of “you”)

    These ironic statements seem to crop up too often to be mere stylistic choices by the ones trying to position a viewpoint – there is some psychology going on.
  • the lack of Italian is a great handicap, and it shows
  • the lack of law is a great handicap, and it shows
  • Italian Wikipedia does not demonise Rudy


In fact, Italian Wikipedia ([ link ]) does quite a good job, encyclopaedically speaking, for the space it uses (a dozen paragraphs or so). Comparing and contrasting it with English Wikipedia is illuminating (which is what “phanuel” is supposed to mean).

For example, a good and careful media studies student will notice the references are to UK media sources (e.g., the BBC, The Times, etc) and Italian media sources.

The case boils down to:
Quote:

La sentenza di condanna di primo grado riguardante Sollecito e la Knox, emessa dalla Corte di Assise di Perugia, è basata su numerose perizie, riscontri oggettivi e testimonianze.

“The guilty finding (or: conviction) at first instance regarding Sollecito and Knox, handed down by the Court of Assize of Perugia, is based on numerous perizie (“expert witnesses and their reports”), objective riscontri (“confirmations”) and testimony.



Riscontri is an interesting idea. It is the famous “compare and contrast” of the examination paper.

Riscontri is what this board does, and does well.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
I asked before I found what I linked, there was no malicious intent in my asking , anyway I cannot pull any trigger because I don't see anything in this picture, and I'm not sure if this is the evidence The Machine meant, or you're just pulling my leg


The photo to which you linked was a .gif photo of the pillow, one of very few in circulation, where Kermit simply speculates on what 'may' be the print. It may not be and probably isn't. The photo you linked is here: http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic. ... db4f#p5682

As far as we know, no police forensic photographs of the footprint on the pillow have been publicly released. That doesn't really matter, since they were presented and studied in court during the trial. The only pillow footprint photos you will find in the public domain are a couple that were taken and released by the defence. But anyway, I'm glad to see you've at least found Kermit's PowerPoint thread.


Katody wrote:
To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ).
Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.


Sorry, run that by me again. If your demands require a "coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics" , please explain how a Lone Wolf scenario fits this criteria when a Lone Wolf scenario contradicts much of the evidence at the crime scene while at the same time requires the ignoring of a good deal of other evidence for it to fit? Isn't that the very definition of 'mental gymnastics'? Also, how does it require the 'stretching of timelines' for Amanda to have been involved in the crime and how does it 'not' require it in the case of a Lone Wolf?

Further...'who' wrote the 'law' that states that if Amanda was invvolved in the crime then traces of her 'must' be in Meredith's bedroom where she would have been for less then 30 minutes? 'Why' must it? This is the girl that left only a single of her fingerprints in a cottage she'd lived in for two whole months...yet, we're supposed to see an 'orgy of evidence' from her in a room in which she spent less then half an hour? How much evidence, what type and how...is one supposed to leave in a room simply by standing in it and holding a knife?

How does Amanda and Raffaele being involved NOT fit all the evidence and which evidence does it contradict? Which timeline does it not fit and what timeline requires engineering to make it fit and why?


Katody wrote:
For you it's impossible to climb the wall, for me it's easy.


Nobody here says it's 'impossible' to climb the wall, almost anything's 'possible', it is simply EXREMELY 'improbable' and it certainly is not 'easy'. But that isn't even the real point. What rules out entry via climbing the wall and in through the window is the absence of evidence there certainly would have been had anyone done so. For example, the ground was wet and muddy below yet there were no traces of footprints or even evidence that anyone had walked or stood there. None of the mud or grass had been scuffed on the wall as would certainly have been the case had someone stood there in order to climb it. Nor were there any other kind of scuff marks that shoes would have made scrambling up a wall. the obvious hand points in order to make the climb were checked and found to be void of DNA and fingerprints, as was the window and outside shutters. The nail that offered an obvious foothold for any climber was not dislodged or bent. Moreover, it was shown to clear effect that the outside shutters were closed when the window was broken by the pattern of glass on the outer sill and the lack of a single piece of glass outside on the ground below the window. Filomena also testified that she had left her shutters closed. Further, the glass was on TOP of the clothes and Filomena's laptop, so demonstrating the window had been broken AFTER the room had been ransacked. Finally, the half hearted way the room had been turned over made it clear that it was turned over by people turning over a room to make it look like it had been done by an intruder..what they 'imagined' that would look like, rather then how a real intruder would have done it. Nothing was taken from Filomena's room and neither is there a single footprint, fingerprint, hair or trace of DNA from Rudy in there.

It is quite clear the break-in was staged.

Katody wrote:
For you the late witnesses are believable, for me not so much.


And with a mere hand wave away, the witnesses are all gone...Whoosh!


Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Somebody's been reading too much Bruce Fisher and Steve Moore. The very premise has no basis in logic and also requires several individuals who testified to be liars.

Katody wrote:
For you Meredith's karate stands a chance against a knife, for me not so much.


Isn't the purpose of martial arts, among other things, to enable one to defend against such things? Tell me, what martial art did Rudy use to threaten Meredith with the knife, restrain her by the arms and head, and sexually assault her all at the same time? The 'I've got more then four arms' martial art?

Question...you seem overly concerned about Amanda...why? What about Raffaele, does he ever get a mention? Is he important at all?

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
"I'm from Europe, but English is not native to me, so please be easy on me regarding my language."

also wrote:
"You guys barraged me with questions"

Hmm...
This "you guys" sounds quite native and quite American.
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael,
You need to read the appeals. Specifly, the part where it questions the DNA tests from the bathroom. The prosecution states that Amanda's DNA was found in Kerchers Blood. What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's. The prosecution claims the dna contamination couldn't have occured but there it is in the appeals. 3rd persons DNA. Just thought you should know that. I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Do you have a link?

Otherwise how can anyone read them?

Thanks.
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:32 am   Post subject: Prosecution Appeal Grounds   

Back in April, the various defence grounds of appeal reached a quite widespread audience through newspaper reports (basically, they’re appealing on anything and everything – par for the course in appeals, and not unusual).

However, the prosecution’s appeal was barely mentioned, other than its small number of pages, and that the appeal would be against the length of the sentence.

I found only one place so far that quotes anything substantive from the prosecution appeal document, in terms of grounds of appeal.

The background is: under the Penal Code, the penalty for murder is 24 years. Aggravated murder attracts a life sentence (defined as 30 years). One type of aggravation is intentionally causing death for motivi futili, literally “trivial reasons”, that is, in English, the phrase would be “for no good reason”.

At the trial, the Prosecution argued aggravation for motivi futili and requested a life sentence for each of the accused. The Court did not see that and refused the request, finding instead that there was only murder, the unaggravated kind.

When the Court’s reasons for the decision were published (the Motivations), the Prosecution found a ground for appeal:



CRIMEblog.it wrote:


The two prosecutors [Mignini and Comodi] maintain that the penalty for the two [Sollecito and Knox] was too light and are now asking for a “just sentence ( pena di giustizia)”, which could mean life in prison for the two accused:


In its deep and rigorous reasoning underlying its decision, the Court of Assizes, after having in an unexceptionable manner reconstructed the event for which there was trial and responsibility of the two accused [found], deals with the matter of excluding the aggravation factor of futili motivi in one line, and then reflects on the matter of general mitigation, which it held, on unconvincing arguments, to be grantable to the accused. The entire reconstruction that has led the Court to hold that there was not one “good” reason (no malice between Amanda and Meredith; no problems about money; no degenerating argument) to kill, rather an extemporaneous joining in with Rudy Guede’s sexual propositionings, demands, even more so, the augmentation of a futility of motive.


That is, what the Court has described as motive [movente] constitutes nothing short of the paradigm of the absolute and reprehensible imbalance between “reason”[motivo] and “action”. Not to mention, in addition, that if the aggravation in question was held sustainable for the participant Rudy Guede by the Judge at second grade [on appeal], it cannot be refused to the two participants who had assented to the accomplice’s criminous proposition: if the motive was futile for Rudy, it must have been even more so for the [two] current accused who, in the view of the Court, were in search of the “exciting” curiosity of trying out violence on a young girl who, besides everything else, was Amanda’s roommate.

If truly, as the Court affirms, the two accused had acted in a state of total impassibility, as if violating and killing their peer, who for Knox was a roommate, were an alternative to going to the pub, or to the disco, or to consume stupefactants or to have sex or, more simply, to just go to sleep, how it is sustainable that this “chance contingency” could be used to reach a conclusion of lesser gravity of the deed?


– Daniele Particelli, “Delitto di Perugia: procura e difesa presentano ricorso” (Perugia murder: Prosecutor’s Office and Defence appeal), citing the prosecution appeal document [ CRIMEblog.it ] 16 April 2010
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: physical evidence   

undecided wrote:
I can and will answer your questions. (As long as you understand,
I'm not going to answer the questions from your perspective.)


Why did Amanda Knox repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007?

After Amanda Knox had been confronted with proof that she had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did she choose to tell the police even more lies?

After Raffaele Sollecito had been confronted with proof that he had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did he choose to tell the police even more lies?

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three diifferent locations in the cottage?

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Why do you think Sollecito lied on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?

How did Raffaele Sollecito know that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room?

Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba?

Why did Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox tell Filomena that she had already called Meredith's mobile phone when she spoke to her at 12.08pm on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox tell the postal police that Meredith always locked her door?

Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox phone her mother in the middle of the night before anything had happened?

Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio couldn't remember very much about the evening Meredith was murdered because they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia?

Thanks in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Michael,
You need to read the appeals. Specifly, the part where it questions the DNA tests from the bathroom. The prosecution states that Amanda's DNA was found in Kerchers Blood. What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's. The prosecution claims the dna contamination couldn't have occured but there it is in the appeals. 3rd persons DNA. Just thought you should know that. I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.


Neither the prosecution or the defence experts claimed at the trial that the mixed samples of Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood contained the the DNA of a third unidentified female.

Could you provide verbatim quotes from the original Italian version of the appeal and the English translation?

Thanks in advance.


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

John wrote:
tripod wrote:
Katody wrote:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


Filomena testified that the state in which her room was found was not the state in which she had left it. How do you explain her testimony?


Initially, I thought Filomena’s room had been trashed, but then Bruce Fisher convinced me that it was just untidy and I agreed after looking at all the photos of the room, it looked actually better than my teenager’s room, and that is the truth.

But then I read Filomena’s testimony, why would she lie? Did she hate Amanda so much she wanted her to be found guilty of this murder? Makes no sense, Filomena is not going to lie.

Next, I found out, all of those pictures that I’d seen, were taken hours and days after, and Filomena had moved and straightened many objects, she picked her computer up off the floor and had to shake the broken glass off of it.


This FOA talking point, about Filomena being a slob, is one of the most ridiculous in a plethora of ridiculous statements. Filomena testified that her room had been trashed and Raffaele Sollecito wrote that the room was in total disarray. What more is required? It is precisely this kind of counter-factual assertion that reveals the weakness of the entire case for innocence. It is also why I see no point in the Fisherites and Halkidesians coming here and posting. Find a hobby, make some friends, take a summer vacation, call up Bruce or Chris and chat with them, write Amanda some cheery notes and expedite them via her personal savior Kelly 13.... There are so many fun things to do out there; I don't understand the need to come here and waste other people's time.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

TomM wrote:
What is it with the FOA types? AK and RS both reported on the day of discovery of the dead body that things weren't right, that there had been a break-in, but nothing had been stolen. But, except in Filomena's room--nothing to see here,according to FOA-- Filomena is just a lying slob. So if AK was just mistaken about things not being right, what were the signs? Well, AK's lamp was missing from AK's room, but AK never mentioned that. There were some blood spots that the police found, but AK never mentioned. Meredith's door was locked, but wait, she told the postal police that Meredith always locked her door, even when just down the hall showering. Filomana said that wasn't true, that she had maybe locked it twice in the time she had been there. But--hey--if Filomena would lie about her own disorderliness, why wouldn't she lie about other things, too.

Dealing with these "truth seekers", realize that you can explain it to them, but you can't understand if for them.


Exactly my point. AK claims Filomena's door was closed so she did not see the total disarray that actually prompted RS to call the police and report a break-in. Odd that the closed door was open when he saw it, but never mind. RS wrote that the room was totally turned upside down; this is hardly consistent with words like "untidy".

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
Katody wrote:
"I'm from Europe, but English is not native to me, so please be easy on me regarding my language."

also wrote:
"You guys barraged me with questions"

Hmm...
This "you guys" sounds quite native and quite American.


I have seen this "please be easy on me" line used sooooooooo many times here. It's like a hackneyed pick-up line in a bar. You want to roll your eyes or wink or something.

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

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

OK, aside from Filomena's own testimony, I can assure you that the average Italian woman is VERY tidy and houseproud. When teenagers, maybe not, they have mothers to chase after them, but as adults, they are very tidy. Any foreigner living in Italy will know the pressure of having to keep up with the absurdly clean, tidy and houseproud neighbours ... I cannot entertain for a moment that a woman in her twenties who works for a legal firm would keep her clothes in a mess on the floor.
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Also to clarify a few other things. There was no bloody footprint of Amanda in the room. The prosecution tried to say Sollecito's shoe print was in the Meredith's room but eventually had to concede that all the bloody shoeprints where Guede's. The only footprints of Amanda where in the hallway and in Amanda's room. There was a footprint in Amanda's room that was ruled out being either Knox or Sollecito. Though I haven't found anywhere in which it was stated as Guede's either.
Everyone assumes that just because a rock was thown threw the window that either a burglar went through the window or it was a staged crime scene. There is a 3rd option that a rock was thrown threw the window to see if anyone was home. Its very common for burglars to toss rocks threw windows to see if anyone is home or if there is an alarm. Then Guede entered threw the door which already had a broke lock to begin with.
DNA on the bra clasp not on the cloth. I'm no virgin so I'm gonna let people know, i found it pretty hard that Raffaele could have taken the bra off without touching anything but the metal clasp. Also there where 5 dna samples on the bra clasp.
The 2 knife theory. I find it hard to believe that Knox would stab poor meredith 2 times then set the knife down and grab a 2nd knife to kill her.

First of all I'm not sexist. However i dated a girl that was a blackbelt in karate. Dated her for 2 years. She started Karate when she 6 years old and by the time she was 17 she was instructing it. Even to this day, she is still an instructor of karate and gives self defense classes to women. I sparred with her whenever she asked. She never beat me, not one single time. She just wasn't physically strong enough. She wasn't quick enough. Yes she could slow me down, she could kick me or punch me and it would hurt. However, once i got close the match was over. I outweighed her by 80 pounds and i was way stronger. So just because Meredith was a blackbelt doesnt mean she can't be subdued by one person. I beaten grown men that thought because they knew karate they could kick peoples butt. They where way bigger than Meredith. Now Meredith was severely beaten before being stabbed to death. So she was subdued.
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 Jul 19, 2010 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Michael, You need to read the appeals... What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals... ...there it is in the appeals.


Are you suggesting that Ghirga knew about this the whole time and didn't even have his DNA experts bring it up at Amanda's trial? What a jerk! Is there anything in those appeals about Amanda's repeated lies and equivocation to the police and in the courtroom? Anything in there about the early morning emergency phone call to her mother that Edda remembers and recounted clearly yet Amanda was too high or too confused to recall? How about why she accused Patrick of murder when she knew full well he was innocent?

Do you know what an appeal is?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Michael,
You need to read the appeals. Specifly, the part where it questions the DNA tests from the bathroom. The prosecution states that Amanda's DNA was found in Kerchers Blood. What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's. The prosecution claims the dna contamination couldn't have occured but there it is in the appeals. 3rd persons DNA. Just thought you should know that. I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.


Neither the prosecution or the defence experts claimed at the trial that the mixed samples of Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood contained the the DNA of a third unidentified female.

Could you provide verbatim quotes from the original Italian version of the appeal and the English translation?

Thanks in advance.



Its in Knox's appeals under the section that talks about the biological traces found in the bathroom. Its after the subsection that mentions where Stefanoni has to admit that Knox's dna could have been there before the blood.

translated to read something like this. "From reading electropherograms for tracks mixed with Knox and Kercher, analysis can not exclude a 3rd female subject."

This is testimony that was entered into court by stefanoni and the defense.
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 Jul 19, 2010 10:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
There is a 3rd option that a rock was thrown threw the window to see if anyone was home. Its very common for burglars to toss rocks threw windows to see if anyone is home or if there is an alarm.


Remind me not to invite you over for dinner. I don't want my windows broken and generally don't have to tell guests to use the doorbell.

Here's a helpful article for you: http://www.howtoadvice.com/HomeSecurity/

"Burglars break windows as a last resort - or by accident."

Filomena testified to the police and in the courtroom that her shutters were jammed almost shut. I don't know where you're getting your information but you might want to reconsider the source. Burglars are opportunistic and always steal something they can sell.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
The prosecution tried to say Sollecito's shoe print was in the Meredith's room but eventually had to concede that all the bloody shoeprints where Guede's.


The prosecution didn't claim this at the trial.

Chris C wrote:
There was a footprint in Amanda's room that was ruled out being either Knox or Sollecito.


Really? Where did you read this?

Chris C wrote:
There is a 3rd option that a rock was thrown threw the window to see if anyone was home. Its very common for burglars to toss rocks threw windows to see if anyone is home or if there is an alarm. Then Guede entered threw the door which already had a broke lock to begin with.


How do you know it's very common for burglars to throw rocks through windows to see if anyone is home? Do you have any specific examples? Is your opinion based on any official research?

Rudy Guede knew Meredith and Knox. Why didn't he just ring the door bell to see whether anybody was home?

Guede would still have had to climb up the wall in order to open the shutters which had been wedged shut. However, there was absolutely no evidence that anybody climbed up the vertical wall.

Chris C wrote:
The 2 knife theory. I find it hard to believe that Knox would stab poor meredith 2 times then set the knife down and grab a 2nd knife to kill her.


The prosecution didn't claim this. They believe that Meredith was stabbed by Knox and Sollecito. Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, and Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi, who presided over Guede's appeal, also believe that Knox and Sollecito stabbed Meredith.

How would you account for the different-sized stab wounds on Meredith's neck?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Michael,
You need to read the appeals. Specifly, the part where it questions the DNA tests from the bathroom. The prosecution states that Amanda's DNA was found in Kerchers Blood. What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's. The prosecution claims the dna contamination couldn't have occured but there it is in the appeals. 3rd persons DNA. Just thought you should know that. I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.


Neither the prosecution or the defence experts claimed at the trial that the mixed samples of Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood contained the the DNA of a third unidentified female.

Could you provide verbatim quotes from the original Italian version of the appeal and the English translation?

Thanks in advance.



Its in Knox's appeals under the section that talks about the biological traces found in the bathroom. Its after the subsection that mentions where Stefanoni has to admit that Knox's dna could have been there before the blood.

translated to read something like this. "From reading electropherograms for tracks mixed with Knox and Kercher, analysis can not exclude a 3rd female subject."

This is testimony that was entered into court by stefanoni and the defense.


I asked for verbatim quotes. Do you actually know what verbatim means?

You made the following claim:

"What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's."

You haven't provided a verbatim quote to support your opinion.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Also to clarify a few other things....Now Meredith was severely beaten before being stabbed to death.


Can you explain how AK knew this before the police did?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

There are 2 stab wounds created by the same knife that isn't the knife the police found. Then there is a separate wound that is a slash that is said to be the killing blow, that could be created by the knife that was the one that stabbed her. Remember Mignini told the court that Guede and Sollecito held Meredith's arms out while Knox cut her throat. Which means Knox would have been standing in front of her. Seriously though. How many different theories did Mignini come up with. There is no way Knox/Sollecito cleaned up the room. If they would have been involved they would have left DNA on the body. That poor girl had over 40 bruises. There is no way you can hit someone that many times and not leave dna on her body or cloths. Guede's dna was all over her body. So if Knox and Sollecito killed her. Then that means Rudy sat there on the toilet taking his crap while Knox/sollecito cleaned the house wiping down the body the whole time. Mopped the floor and then staged a break in.
Then rudy jumps up off the toilet and runs into the room, leaving his DNA all over the body, goes in her purses and steals the money, then runs out.
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 Jul 19, 2010 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Michael,
You need to read the appeals. Specifly, the part where it questions the DNA tests from the bathroom. The prosecution states that Amanda's DNA was found in Kerchers Blood. What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's. The prosecution claims the dna contamination couldn't have occured but there it is in the appeals. 3rd persons DNA. Just thought you should know that. I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.


Well Chris C, welcome to PMF. You are aware of course, that the appeals that have been filed are merely arguments...'claims' made by the defence that were not established in the main trial and have yet to have been established as being true or correct in any appeal court? Unless and until then, all of the defence appeal arguments are no more then that...unsubstantiated claims. It seems to me to be rather strange that in spite of this fact, certain parties are assigning them the weight of 'facts' that have somehow been evidenced, demonstrated and proven in some court, as though simply because the defence have said this or that, it's somehow established and carved in stone.

During the trial, we saw many such defence claims fall flat on their faces. At the time, advocates for the defence were crying 'See, the defence have now proven X or Y and have disproved A and B!' Then came the verdict. Then came the Judges Motivations report which showed they had actually done no such thing and explained in great detail why not. And that WAS examined and established in a court of law.

Chris C wrote:
Also to clarify a few other things. There was no bloody footprint of Amanda in the room. The prosecution tried to say Sollecito's shoe print was in the Meredith's room but eventually had to concede that all the bloody shoeprints where Guede's. The only footprints of Amanda where in the hallway and in Amanda's room. There was a footprint in Amanda's room that was ruled out being either Knox or Sollecito. Though I haven't found anywhere in which it was stated as Guede's either.


Actually, the prosecution didn't really concede it, they simply didn't push anymore for it being Sollecito's. Indeed, one of the prosecution experts testified on the stand that in his opinion the print WAS Sollecito's. The fact was, Rudy months earlier had stated that the print 'may' have been his and that combined with the fact he and Sollecito wore very similar shoes really made it too weak as a piece of evidence. However, to state as some absolute that it was proven as a fact to be Rudy's would be false...it was not. There simply was too much doubt to prove it to be Raffaele's. Therefore, in conclusion, the print may have been Rudy's, it may have been Raffaele's but it is not and cannot be known for certain.

Chris C wrote:
Everyone assumes that just because a rock was thown threw the window that either a burglar went through the window or it was a staged crime scene. There is a 3rd option that a rock was thrown threw the window to see if anyone was home.


Isn't that what door knockers and bells are for?

You have seen the size of the rock right?


Chris C wrote:
Then Guede entered threw the door which already had a broke lock to begin with.
DNA on the bra clasp not on the cloth.


There was no forced entry via the front door. It was only the latch that was broken...the door locked perfectly fine.


Chris C wrote:
i found it pretty hard that Raffaele could have taken the bra off without touching anything but the metal clasp.


Who says he didn't touch the cloth? Just because he didn't leave DNA on the cloth it doesn't mean he didn't touch it. And for the record, there's NONE of Rudy's DNA on the clasp at all, cloth or hooks, so how'd he manage it if DNA is a requirement?


Chris C wrote:
Also there where 5 dna samples on the bra clasp.


And? So? Two of those profiles belong to Meredith (as we'd expect) and Amanda respectively (although not complete). In addition there are two completely fragmented traces of two females. The only complete profiles on the clasp are Meredith's and Raffaele's. Those support direct and vigorous contact with the clasp, where broken fragmented traces in respect of the others does not. Raffaele's DNA had no business whatsoever being on that clasp.


Chris C wrote:
The 2 knife theory. I find it hard to believe that Knox would stab poor meredith 2 times then set the knife down and grab a 2nd knife to kill her.


Great, because that isn't the theory posed by the prosecution or the one accepted by the court. The conclusion of both the prosecution and the court was that Amanda AND Raffaele were wielding a knife EACH...Amanda the larger kitchen knife and Raffaele one of his smaller pocket knives: RAFFAELE SOLLECITO'S KNIVES


Chris C wrote:
I sparred with her whenever she asked. She never beat me, not one single time. She just wasn't physically strong enough. She wasn't quick enough. Yes she could slow me down, she could kick me or punch me and it would hurt. However, once i got close the match was over.


Was she fighting for her life? You are talking about sparring...that's a completely different kettle of fish. Also, when sparring were you holding a knife, stopping her from running away, trying physically to restrain her, stripping her clothes off and sexually interfering with her all at the same time? Rudy only had two hands...

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 10:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Seriously though. How many different theories did Mignini come up with.


Mignini modified his scenario. What's your point?

Chris C wrote:
There is no way Knox/Sollecito cleaned up the room.


Knox and/or Sollecito were unable to remove the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA from Meredith's bra clasp. Furthermore, they were unable to remove Sollecito's visible bloody footprint from the blue bathmat. The crime scene includes the whole cottage.

Chris C wrote:
If they would have been involved they would have left DNA on the body. That poor girl had over 40 bruises. There is no way you can hit someone that many times and not leave dna on her body or cloths.


Meredith's killers didn't leave any DNA on the outside of her body.

Chris C wrote:
Guede's dna was all over her body.


This is complete and utter nonsense. There was only one instance of Rudy Guede DNA on Meredith's body. It was found on a vaginal swab, which proved that he had sexually assaulted her.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
There are 2 stab wounds created by the same knife that isn't the knife the police found. Then there is a separate wound that is a slash that is said to be the killing blow, that could be created by the knife that was the one that stabbed her. Remember Mignini told the court that Guede and Sollecito held Meredith's arms out while Knox cut her throat. Which means Knox would have been standing in front of her. Seriously though. How many different theories did Mignini come up with. There is no way Knox/Sollecito cleaned up the room. If they would have been involved they would have left DNA on the body. That poor girl had over 40 bruises. There is no way you can hit someone that many times and not leave dna on her body or cloths. Guede's dna was all over her body. So if Knox and Sollecito killed her. Then that means Rudy sat there on the toilet taking his crap while Knox/sollecito cleaned the house wiping down the body the whole time. Mopped the floor and then staged a break in.
Then rudy jumps up off the toilet and runs into the room, leaving his DNA all over the body, goes in her purses and steals the money, then runs out.



Regarding the knives, really you should read the Massei Report. The English translated version will be released here soon.

As for the number of Mignini's 'theories', I don't know, you tell us. Not that it was Mignini that convicted the pair anyway, but a court of eight judges and she wasn't convicted on the basis of his theories but on the basis of the evidence provided at the trial.

Nobody in the trial or here claims they cleaned up the room. Why if they were involved in the murder would the have 'had' to have left DNA on the body? Guede didn't.

You seem to forget Raffaele and Amanda DID leave DNA on Meredith's clothes...on her bra clasp.

Guede's DNA was not 'All over Meredith's body', where did you read that claptrap?

Guede was acquitted of the theft from Meredith's purse. The evidence at the crime scene shows he didn't open or go in her purse.

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


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
. Guede's dna was all over her body....leaving his DNA all over the body,


That is not correct and if you had the most basic knowledge of this case you would know that this is an outrageous sound bite exaggeration coined and repeated by the K/M camp.

But if you want to use sweeping generalisations than by the same token RS’s DNA was all over the bra clasp that was forced off dear Meredith as she lay bleeding to death; and AK’s DNA was all over the knife that was used to cut dear Meredith’s throat. If these 2 instances of DNA belonged to RG you would only be too happy to call foul play by RG. Why the reluctance to see what is in front of your eyes? AK & RS were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The evidence shows it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

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

Hammerite wrote:
Chris C wrote:
. Guede's dna was all over her body....leaving his DNA all over the body,


That is not correct and if you had the most basic knowledge of this case you would know that this is an outrageous sound bite exaggeration coined and repeated by the K/M camp.

But if you want to use sweeping generalisations than by the same token RS’s DNA was all over the bra clasp that was forced off dear Meredith as she lay bleeding to death; and AK’s DNA was all over the knife that was used to cut dear Meredith’s throat. If these 2 instances of DNA belonged to RG you would only be too happy to call foul play by RG. Why the reluctance to see what is in front of your eyes? AK & RS were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The evidence shows it.


This is great I can spend a lazy day playing Bullshit Bingo thanks to our refugees from the conspriacy theory thread.
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Brogan wrote:
This is great I can spend a lazy day playing Bullshit Bingo thanks to our refugees from the conspriacy theory thread.


Make that double-point scoring mode.

It's been two hours now and I still haven't seen any links to any official (defence) appeals documents, so how can I prepare for what the thrust-and-parry of the debate in the appeal court is going to be about in October?



Tilt!
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"It's been two hours now and I still haven't seen any links to any official (defence) appeals documents"

They have been uploaded somewhere on this forum, too:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=245


Last edited by bolint on Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:23 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 Jul 19, 2010 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Skep wrote:
This FOA talking point, about Filomena being a slob, is one of the most ridiculous in a plethora of ridiculous statements. Filomena testified that her room had been trashed and Raffaele Sollecito wrote that the room was in total disarray. What more is required? It is precisely this kind of counter-factual assertion that reveals the weakness of the entire case for innocence. It is also why I see no point in the Fisherites and Halkidesians coming here and posting. Find a hobby, make some friends, take a summer vacation, call up Bruce or Chris and chat with them, write Amanda some cheery notes and expedite them via her personal savior Kelly 13.... There are so many fun things to do out there; I don't understand the need to come here and waste other people's time.


And the Moore-ons ;)

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I think claiming Filomena is a 'slob' is absolutely pathetic and an act of desperation. Clutching at straws?
This insult to Filomena is obvious in what it is intended to negate - which is of course the glaring error Knox and Sollecito made when they broke the window AFTER tossing all of Filomenas clothes around the room.
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

“KNOX BATTLES TO PROVE INNOCENCE” (Oggi article)
[ Sunday Express ] 18 July 2010

“AMANDA KNOX: I DIDN'T KILL MEREDITH KERCHER” By Bob Graham
[ Sunday Express ] 18 July 2010


I win! Bingo!
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Ask your site admin to link the italian version and the english translation. Its was released weeks ago.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:40 pm   Post subject: mental gym   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Hmm... "Mental Gymnastics", eh Katy? Er, I mean, Katody...

All the credit for this term to you, Bob :) I think I saw it first time on JREF in your post.
As of my nickname, it's a male name of rather complicated etymology.
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Or maybe not:

Quote:

Another load of royal nonsense from the faltering Sunday Express
“The Sunday Express, the paper that specialises in publishing stories that stretch the truth to breaking point, came up with another page one winner at the weekend, QUEEN NEEDS LOTTO CASH”
[ The Guardian ] 06 July 2010

Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Ask your site admin to link the italian version and the english translation. Its was released weeks ago.


You mean the original PDFs, don't you?

Not the OCR scans or the Google trans?

The originals were lodged in April, not a couple of weeks ago.


Bolint,
Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: injuries   

Michael wrote:
Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained.

Didn't some experts state her injuries were compatible with a single attacker?
Are details of the autopsy anywhere on PMF?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"You mean the original PDFs, don't you?"

The Italian versions seem to be original PDFs though it is not 100 percent sure that they were the finals.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
As far as we know, no police forensic photographs of the footprint on the pillow have been publicly released. That doesn't really matter, since they were presented and studied in court during the trial.

The fact that it's not leaked by the prosecution suggests it is a really weak piece of evidence :)
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 Jul 19, 2010 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Catnip wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Ask your site admin to link the italian version and the english translation. Its was released weeks ago.


You mean the original PDFs, don't you?

Not the OCR scans or the Google trans?

The originals were lodged in April, not a couple of weeks ago.


Bolint,
Thanks.


Catnip, please tell Chris C that there is no "English translation". There's a 'Google' translation...NOT the same thing (and yes, we've read it).

However, Thoughtful did helpfully provide a translation 'summary' of the Sollecito appeal and we've read that too.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
As far as we know, no police forensic photographs of the footprint on the pillow have been publicly released. That doesn't really matter, since they were presented and studied in court during the trial.

The fact that it's not leaked by the prosecution suggests it is a really weak piece of evidence :)


Do you have any evidence that the prosecution leaked any documents?
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Sorry about that "Filomena's room trashed or not" issue you all seem to pick up simultaneously.
it was meant only as an example. In my opinion whether it was trashed or not doesn't change the big picture at all, as both versions fit "lone wolf" scenario quite well :)
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 Jul 19, 2010 1:01 pm   Post subject: Re: injuries   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained.

Didn't some experts state her injuries were compatible with a single attacker?
Are details of the autopsy anywhere on PMF?



Certainly...the DEFENCE experts.

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


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
As far as we know, no police forensic photographs of the footprint on the pillow have been publicly released. That doesn't really matter, since they were presented and studied in court during the trial.

The fact that it's not leaked by the prosecution suggests it is a really weak piece of evidence :)


Perhaps the fact that it was not leaked by the defence suggests that they are really afraid of it being seen by the public. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Sorry about that "Filomena's room trashed or not" issue you all seem to pick up simultaneously.
it was meant only as an example. In my opinion whether it was trashed or not doesn't change the big picture at all, as both versions fit "lone wolf" scenario quite well :)


Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Sorry about that "Filomena's room trashed or not" issue you all seem to pick up simultaneously.
it was meant only as an example. In my opinion whether it was trashed or not doesn't change the big picture at all, as both versions fit "lone wolf" scenario quite well :)


Well actually they don’t IMO, you are wrong here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
As far as we know, no police forensic photographs of the footprint on the pillow have been publicly released. That doesn't really matter, since they were presented and studied in court during the trial.

The fact that it's not leaked by the prosecution suggests it is a really weak piece of evidence :)


Perhaps the fact that it was not leaked by the defence suggests that they are really afraid of it being seen by the public. :)


Perhaps, I hope to see what jury says about this particular piece.
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 Jul 19, 2010 1:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Sorry about that "Filomena's room trashed or not" issue you all seem to pick up simultaneously.
it was meant only as an example. In my opinion whether it was trashed or not doesn't change the big picture at all, as both versions fit "lone wolf" scenario quite well :)



If she didn't trash her own room...and continuing with that to the therefore obvious and only conclusion the room was trashed by the murderer/s BEFORE the window was broken, how does that POSSIBLY fit a Lone Wolf scenario?

Don't you understand...it's because of this very problem the FOA invented the whole 'Filomena trashed her own room' claim, to try and explain away that rather serious stumbling block to the 'A Lone Wolf did it' defence?

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

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

Michael wrote:
"As far as we know, no police forensic photographs of the footprint on the pillow have been publicly released."

Frank did publish a photo of the cushion footprint during the trial (I saved it on July 11, 2009).


Image


Courtesy of Frank Sfarzo at Perugia Shock





picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited image attachment due to size and added credit to Perugia Shock
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Are details of the autopsy anywhere on PMF?


You'll find those in the Massei Motivations Report when we publish it shortly.

_________________
"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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
If she didn't trash her own room...and continuing with that to the therefore obvious and only conclusion the room was trashed by the murderer/s BEFORE the window was broken

I haven't seen anything to convince me about that rather bizarre prosecution's scenario.
Obviously the window was smashed first. Then used to enter the room.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
Frank did publish a photo of the cushion footprint during the trial (I saved it on July 11, 2009).


Sorry, but looking at the shoe pattern this is Rudy's footprint.
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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:

The Italian versions seem to be original PDFs though it is not 100 percent sure that they were the finals.


I must have missed them when I was over at Rose's locker.

The PDFs have the timestamps and file properties consistent with being possibly primary documents. I'll tentatively treat them that way. Yay-)

However, they're unsigned, not stamped by chancery, and are of course missing all the attachments , like transcripts and DVDs and things -- you can't have everything, so it is still only part of the picture.

I'd be really interested in what the three defences and 4 civil parties will say in response to the prosection appeal argument. I will practice patience, there, though.


Thanks bolint and macport!
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

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

Katody wrote:
I haven't seen anything to convince me about that rather bizarre prosecution's scenario.
Obviously the window was smashed first. Then used to enter the room.


Haven't you forgotten something? :)
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

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

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
If she didn't trash her own room...and continuing with that to the therefore obvious and only conclusion the room was trashed by the murderer/s BEFORE the window was broken

I haven't seen anything to convince me about that rather bizarre prosecution's scenario.
Obviously the window was smashed first. Then used to enter the room.


No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Let's Play!

* hbc) *

Attachment:
table is set.jpg


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


Last edited by piktor on Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

RE. " rather bizarre prosecution's scenario."
Katody I am sorry but I really do think you are a good old fashioned troll having read your above statement.

If your room was trashed and all your clothes tossed all over the room and on the floor and your window broken, wouldn't you think it was a bit odd that glass from the broken window was on top of your clothes?
Sorry again if you can't see this point and think it is "bizarre".
Also, how can YOU deduce by looking at that photograph, that that is Rudys footprint? I think that is bizarre.......
I think I'll just ignore you from now on.


Last edited by Black Dog on Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.

Of course they confirmed. Glass was everywhere, did you ever get a window broken?
I don't see how does it prove anything. If there was any trashing, why it is impossible that glass was moved during it from some objects to other objects?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
bolint wrote:
Frank did publish a photo of the cushion footprint during the trial (I saved it on July 11, 2009).


Sorry, but looking at the shoe pattern this is Rudy's footprint.


Really, could be Mario Alessi’s brothers too maybe? :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
"Sorry, but looking at the shoe pattern this is Rudy's footprint."

Please put in the photo of Rudy's shoeprint with wich you have just compared this cushion shoeprint.
Top Profile 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
If she didn't trash her own room...and continuing with that to the therefore obvious and only conclusion the room was trashed by the murderer/s BEFORE the window was broken

I haven't seen anything to convince me about that rather bizarre prosecution's scenario.
Obviously the window was smashed first. Then used to enter the room.


No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.


This is why I find it difficult to discuss the case with those who profess Knox's and Sollecito's innocence - while doing so they place blame on everyone else.

The photos of Filomena's room (some video taken the afternoon of 2 November, some photos taken much later) show her bed made. Some of the clothes on the floor look as if they are folded (I doubt she folded her clothes and tossed them in a pile).

Filomena has no reason to lie about the state of her room. If one is untidy it is not a crime and has no social stigma whatsoever. I doubt Filomena would have been more concerned in covering up her untidiness than she would have been with the death of her flatmate/friend.

If you look at the photos and video of the whole flat, you get the impression the girls were unntidy, when in fact, many of those photos were taken in various stages of the investigation, items had been moved, piled, etc.

I have also encountered this "blame someone else" (Stefanoni) meme in video from those who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.

Of course they confirmed. Glass was everywhere, did you ever get a window broken?
I don't see how does it prove anything. If there was any trashing, why it is impossible that glass was moved during it from some objects to other objects?


Well, I have to agree with this. Whenever I trash a place I like to sprinkle glass over everything as a final touch - sparkles like diamonds in the sun!

Katody, have you seen pictures of the broken window? Can you tell me how much broken glass there actually was?

Do you really think "glass was everywhere"? Are you interested in performing a careful analysis of the entire body of evidence that we have assembled here, or are you happier in coming up with questions and arguments every step of the way as you gradually increase your personal, limited knowledge base regarding the evidence?
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.

Of course they confirmed. Glass was everywhere, did you ever get a window broken?
I don't see how does it prove anything. If there was any trashing, why it is impossible that glass was moved during it from some objects to other objects?


Simple really. :)

Because the glass was ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items when the room was first inspected it proves the items were already strewn when the window was broken. If the window was broken first the glass fragments would be UNDERNEATH the ransacked items.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
I haven't seen anything to convince me about that rather bizarre prosecution's scenario.
Obviously the window was smashed first. Then used to enter the room.


Kat, I admire all the patient lengthy information provided by my fellow posters here.

However, your statement above pretty much convinced me of earlier suspicions that additional discourse from me anyway is unequivocally unproductive, and sadly an exercise in futility.

After the absolute myriad of words, pictures, drawings, blow-ups posted everywhere for the *past year* about position of shards, amazingly impossible agility and dexterity to ascend the exterior wall to the window, etccccccccccccccccccc...........

If you have 'not seen anything' to convince you that the window was indeed 'obviously' *not* smashed first, I submit that you:
1) have indeed a very narrow field of vision, and/or have indeed looked very little
2) are blinded by some psychological block, and find it impossible to 'see'
3) have been dispatched here to attempt to destroy our discourse as it has been destroyed at JREF

Whether dispatched or not, IMHO, this never ending circular repetitive re-gurgitation of elementary individual aspects of the case have only detrimental effects on our Board.

Nothing personal and best regards to you
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:46 pm   Post subject: Re: injuries   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained.

Didn't some experts state her injuries were compatible with a single attacker?
Are details of the autopsy anywhere on PMF?


As far as I'm aware, all of the defense lawyers have conceded (as evidenced by their arguments and actions) that more than one person was involved in the attack. In the appeal, we will not hear anyone get up in court and argue that this was a lone wolf killing.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
If she didn't trash her own room...and continuing with that to the therefore obvious and only conclusion the room was trashed by the murderer/s BEFORE the window was broken

I haven't seen anything to convince me about that rather bizarre prosecution's scenario.
Obviously the window was smashed first. Then used to enter the room.



Sorry, you've lost me. You need to expand on your explanation. This isn't the chicken and the egg conundrum, in this case it's clear what came first and what came after. The room was trashed, then the window was broken, the evidence shows that clearly. How is that incorrect?

How was the window used to enter the room...did you completely ignore all the evidence that this wasn't the case that I gave you in an earlier post?

Nobody stood on the grass below. The resulting evidence of someone climbing the wall that should exist does not. The shutters were closed...they were also closed when the window was broken, meaning the window was broken from the inside. The room was trashed before the window was broken.

Ergo, the break-in never happened, it was staged.

What about this is unclear?

_________________
"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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

That's why I said it boils down to subjectivity.
We all have our personal experiences with breaking glass, and our views and opinions about it just differs.

The difference between us is that I tend to reason in terms of possibility and probability while you people do it in terms of "obvious and only conclusions".

But let's try and let my restate it using guiding questions:

Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?
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 Jul 19, 2010 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
bolint wrote:
Frank did publish a photo of the cushion footprint during the trial (I saved it on July 11, 2009).


Sorry, but looking at the shoe pattern this is Rudy's footprint.



Please expand. Here, we prefer explanations rather then pronouncements.

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


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Katody wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.

Of course they confirmed. Glass was everywhere, did you ever get a window broken?
I don't see how does it prove anything. If there was any trashing, why it is impossible that glass was moved during it from some objects to other objects?


Again with all due respect, the only thing your latest post has 'confirmed' is that my decision to cease and desist additional discourse with you was a wise one.

If you cannot 'see' that despite glass "being everywhere" the *fact* that the glass was *on top* indicates what was *on the bottom* was placed there first.

Circular, repetitive, regurgitation, exercise in futility, deliberately placed, 'troll to disrupt', is about all your latest statements 'confirm' for me.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
bolint wrote:
Frank did publish a photo of the cushion footprint during the trial (I saved it on July 11, 2009).


Sorry, but looking at the shoe pattern this is Rudy's footprint.



Please expand. Here, we prefer explanations rather then pronouncements.


It doesn't look similar to Rudy's shoeprints for you?
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 Jul 19, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
No, Fhilomena and the postal police confirmed that the glass was broken ON TOP of Fhilomena’s items. This proves the room was trashed BEFORE the window was broken.

Of course they confirmed. Glass was everywhere, did you ever get a window broken?
I don't see how does it prove anything. If there was any trashing, why it is impossible that glass was moved during it from some objects to other objects?



What, 'moved' as in all picked up off the floor then dropped on top of the clothes afterwards? Isn't this exactly the sort of intellectual gymnastics you were decrying earlier?

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


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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
...possibility and probability...


At some point, all that possibility and probability has to actually match up with the body of evidence.

Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?


I've heard of something called gravity, if that's what you are talking about, but I'm not a physicist.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"In the appeal, we will not hear anyone get up in court and argue that this was a lone wolf killing."

It was a three-wolf killing even by the appeals. :D
According to Luciano Aviello his brother Antonio Aviello and an albanian friend of his were there and killed the victim and were surprised to see Rudy emerge from the toilet.
According to Mario Alessi Rudy for some reason described him this situation that he was there to kill with a friend of his. :D
Top Profile 

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

r-(( Catnip said
Quote:
However, the prosecution’s appeal was barely mentioned, other than its small number of pages, and that the appeal would be against the length of the sentence.



Catnip, I personally hope the Prosecution is successful in their pursuit of a longer sentence for Knox and Sollecito, and not only because I feel it is deserved. I think if the defence appeal is unsuccessful and a longer sentence is indeed imposed, that Raffaele will squeal like a stuck pig.

I think that is exactly what we would most like to see: the truth of this horrible murder exposed. And in my mind Raffaele is still the weakest link in Amanda's fabrication of lies. (Do we have a whining smiley face icon, or a wimpy one that bursts into tears?) I do continue to hope that the right thing will happen...

Catnip, I love your postings, and the way you present your insightful thinking, so thoroughly aligned to the only reasonable conclusions… ser-)

And Machine, you never cease to amaze me with your bullet lists of data and the manner in which you cut straight to the heart of things. tt-) Thank you for the welcome and for your condolances...

RIP Meredith Kercher. You will never be forgotten. And to the Family, I hope they are consoled by the fact that so many of us here wish them well and will not rest until truth and accountability come to the light of day.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

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

Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?




Oh, Sure: after realizing how DNA can fly if left undisturbed for a few weeks, flying glass is simple to understand.

Then too using circular reasoning, and dramatic, un documented pronouncements I also realize that it had to be those conspiracy minded Police who "picked up objects and sprinkled glass all over everything" *before taking the pictures" just like their third world crime scene discipline dictates.

tu-)) tu-))
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
That's why I said it boils down to subjectivity.
We all have our personal experiences with breaking glass, and our views and opinions about it just differs.

The difference between us is that I tend to reason in terms of possibility and probability while you people do it in terms of "obvious and only conclusions".

But let's try and let my restate it using guiding questions:

Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?


Sorry Katody, you cannot push a rope.

The fact remains that the glass was ON TOP of Fhilomena items proving the room was ransacked BEFORE the window was broken. All the wishing and willing and subjecting and what if’ing in the world won’t change this. You can’t change the facts I am afraid.

It looks like we have to agree to differ on this point. Best to move on to something else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
"It doesn't look similar to Rudy's shoeprints for you?"

Unfortunately we haven't seen Rudy's shoeprint.

You seem to have first hand access to the real one.
Please don't torture us and show it.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?

I've heard of something called gravity, if that's what you are talking about, but I'm not a physicist.


Thank you Fly by Night, can I take it as an agreement?





Btw, to all people that feel offended or inflamed by my statements, I stated initially that I'm reluctant in discussing minutiae, cause it will end up like this. But you kept on asking.
From now on I'll try to find and discuss little things we could agree on, more :)
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 Jul 19, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
That's why I said it boils down to subjectivity.


NO, it doesn't...not for us, clearly for you but not for us. For us it boils down to evidence and LOGIC. Glass on top of clothing showing the clothes were on the floor first and the window was broken after is NOT subjective, it is pure cold logic. Clearly, you have no idea of the difference between the two. Do not mistake your limitations for also being ours.

Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?


Not if the glass is 'under' the object when you pick it up...the glass stays put, gravity sees to that. Read Newton.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?

I've heard of something called gravity, if that's what you are talking about, but I'm not a physicist.


Thank you Fly by Night, can I take it as an agreement?





Btw, to all people that feel offended or inflamed by my statements, I stated initially that I'm reluctant in discussing minutiae, cause it will end up like this. But you kept on asking.
From now on I'll try to find and discuss little things we could agree on, more :)


Would you care to answer any of my questions?

Why did Amanda Knox repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly lie to the police in the days following Meredith's murder?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox lie to friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Why did Raffaele Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007?

After Amanda Knox had been confronted with proof that she had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did she choose to tell the police even more lies?

After Raffaele Sollecito had been confronted with proof that he had lied to the police on 5 November 2007, why did he choose to tell the police even more lies?

How would you account for Meredith's DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

How would account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA being on Meredith's bra clasp?

Is it a coincidence that there were five instances of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three diifferent locations in the cottage?

Who do you think cleaned up the trail of bloody footprints that led up to the blue bathmat?

Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

Why do you think Sollecito lied on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?

How did Raffaele Sollecito know that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room?

Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba?

Why did Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered?

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder?

Why didn't Amanda Knox tell Filomena that she had already called Meredith's mobile phone when she spoke to her at 12.08pm on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox tell the postal police that Meredith always locked her door?

Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Why did Amanda Knox phone her mother in the middle of the night before anything had happened?

Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio couldn't remember very much about the evening Meredith was murdered because they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia?

Thanks in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
It looks like we have to agree to differ on this point. Best to move on to something else.


Thank you Hammerite, I agree, personally I'd love to hear about the appeals that were made available recently.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody said
Quote:
Btw, to all people that feel offended or inflamed by my statements, I stated initially that I'm reluctant in discussing minutiae, cause it will end up like this. But you kept on asking.
From now on I'll try to find and discuss little things we could agree on, more


K: I find your remarks to be condescending and undeserved by the members of this board. I personally do not appreciate your tone or far-fetched postings. Heres a smiley face for you: ff)

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
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 Jul 19, 2010 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

katody wrote:
It doesn't look similar to Rudy's shoeprints for you?


'Similar'? Similar does it for you? That's enough?

You've still to provide a copy of an image of the print you're comparing it to (I think Bolint requested one).

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Michael,
You need to read the appeals. Specifly, the part where it questions the DNA tests from the bathroom. The prosecution states that Amanda's DNA was found in Kerchers Blood. What most of you dont know unless you read the appeals is that there are atleast 1 other unidentfied female in nearly all the DNA swabs from the bathroom. Some of the tests have the 3rd unidentified females dna markers higher than amanda's. The prosecution claims the dna contamination couldn't have occured but there it is in the appeals. 3rd persons DNA. Just thought you should know that. I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.


Neither the prosecution or the defence experts claimed at the trial that the mixed samples of Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood contained the the DNA of a third unidentified female.

Could you provide verbatim quotes from the original Italian version of the appeal and the English translation?

Thanks in advance.


Here is the Italian portion (pages 138-139) of the Knox Appeal dealing with the "possible" third DNA profile.

Amanda's and Meredith's profiles were extracted from the mixture sink DNA (both were from blood, however, I am not 100% certain of this fact). This possible third profile may be a very weak partial profile. Stefanoni's verbatim court testimony is not attached with this copy of the appeal (some of her testimony is excerpted and references given).

I believe a weak third profile (if it does exist) would not be as significant as strong profiles from both Amanda and Meredith.

Knox Appeal - pages 138-139

4. Occorre, infine, riportare un ulteriore dato scientifico che contrasta con la
motivazione della sentenza.
Dalla lettura degli elettroferogrammi relativi alle tracce miste Knox – Kercher sin
qui analizzate non è possibile escludere la presenza di una ulteriore traccia
biologica riconducibile ad un terzo soggetto di sesso femminile.
La dott.ssa Stefanoni ha dichiarato:
ÿ <<non poteva escludere una terza persona perché si trattava di profili
molto bilanciati>> (trascrizioni udienza 22 maggio 2009, pag. 222).
ÿ <<In quel caso potrebbe essere presente anche una terza persona
sempre di sesso femminile che però le stesse caratteristiche presenti in
questo misto>> (trascrizioni udienza 22 maggio 2009, pag. 229).
ÿ <<E lei nei profili genetici misti che riguardano la Knox esclude che ci
fosse una terza persona? R – È proprio questo che stavo tentando di
dire. Io non lo posso escludere proprio>> (trascrizioni udienza
dibattimentale 22 maggio 2009, pag. 222).
ÿ <<Questi accoppiamenti diversi fanno sì che io posso includere altre
persone rispetto a quelle già presenti. Questo è un po’ il diciamo… ed in
questo caso ovviamente si parla di compatibilità perché ci sono
sicuramente gli alleli della vittima e della Knox ma, appunto, con
questa combinazione possibile non si può escludere che ci siano
altre…>> (trascrizioni udienza dibattimentale 22 maggio 2009, pag.
225).

La presenza di una terza persona non individuabile veniva rappresentata anche dal
consulente di parte civile, dott.ssa Torricelli.
ÿ <<in questo caso è una traccia mista con la presenza sicuramente di
almeno due profili, ci sono dei piccoli picchi che possono fare ipotizzare
eventualmente altre presenze>> (trascrizioni udienza 6 giugno 2009, pag.
101).

La possibilità di una terza persona di sesso femminile avrebbe forse potuto
condurre a Laura Mezzetti o Filomena Romanelli, le altre due inquiline
dell’abitazione.
La Polizia Scientifica, tuttavia, non aveva a disposizione i profili genetici delle
altre due giovani.
La Stefanoni ha confermato in dibattimento:
ÿ << Se avesse avuto anche il DNA delle altre ragazze che abitavano nella
casa avrebbe potuto rilevare anche il DNA di una terza o di una quarta
ragazza visto che abitavano tutte nella stessa casa e tutte utilizzavano lo
stesso lavandino? R – Se potessi vedere i profili genetici li potrei
confrontare, cioè io a priori non lo posso dire, non lo posso supporre>>
(trascrizioni udienza 22 maggio 2009, pag. 226).
Le osservazioni sin qui svolte conducono ad affermare con assoluta certezza che
le tracce di dna di Amanda rinvenute nel proprio bagno non possono essere
considerate rilevanti nella descrizione della dinamica dell’omicidio.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?

Not if the glass is 'under' the object when you pick it up...the glass stays put, gravity sees to that. Read Newton.


Thank you Surely I will. By covered I meant "on top".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
Unfortunately we haven't seen Rudy's shoeprint.

I'm sure there are some on this board who have.

Anyone?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
"I'm sure there are some on this board who have."

Maybe. But you have it right now as you have just compared it with the cushion print.

Why don't you share it?
Top Profile 

Offline gardner


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:37 pm

Posts: 46

Location: Ohio USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:29 pm   Post subject: Re: injuries   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained.

Didn't some experts state her injuries were compatible with a single attacker?
Are details of the autopsy anywhere on PMF?


to me, this question, "the autopsy" is telling. I am under the impression that multiple autopsies were performed, maybe as many as 6 autopsies. If you do not understand that many more than one autopsy was performed, you are seriously lacking in your understanding of this case.

I expect that there may be several parts of the english translation of the Massei Report that I will not be able to read, including the autopy reports. I will not be able to stomach knowing exactly how Meredith was tortured. I feel really bad that I will not be able to read the entire report.
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 Jul 19, 2010 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

DJLawless wrote:
Katody said
Quote:
Btw, to all people that feel offended or inflamed by my statements, I stated initially that I'm reluctant in discussing minutiae, cause it will end up like this. But you kept on asking.
From now on I'll try to find and discuss little things we could agree on, more


K: I find your remarks to be condescending and undeserved by the members of this board. I personally do not appreciate your tone or far-fetched postings. Heres a smiley face for you: ff)



Especially when the fact is that the Devil is in the detail. The minutiae is important. The other option is to treat the evidence superficially and that's unacceptable, for that's when innocent people are judged guilty and guilty people are judged innocent.

Attention to detail is a Golden Rule.

As for the condescension, that I can take. It's the sophistry I find hardest to swallow. I won't eat at that table.

_________________
"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 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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
I doubt you will find that information in the motivation because its only purpose is to find reasons to convict not reasons to acquit.



Incorrect.

The court's reasons are to explain why it reached the decision to either convict or acquit (or in rare cases, archive). -- e.g., the decision on the charge of stealing the money was acquittal; the decision on the charge of slandering Diya Lumumba was conviction; and so on for the other charges.

Recommend not getting too excited, old son. It is not a race to post before the traffic lights change.

You might miss something in the heat of the moment, like how slanderous your statement is.

The folly and tempestuosity of youth will allow you general mitigation - the first time.
After that, you paint yourself into a corner, and I won't be able to help you (much) when your actions gain you the tag of serial offender.

So, relax a bit, it's another 3 months before anything happens.
Plenty of time to digest all the ins and outs of everything.


A case in haste makes waste, and all that.


Talking about racing:

Now it's back to Katody's one liners. :)
It's like a cat playing with a piece of string. :) :)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
bolint wrote:
Unfortunately we haven't seen Rudy's shoeprint.

I'm sure there are some on this board who have.

Anyone?


Sure. But we're going on memory of it. We're not comparing because we're not working on the print right now. You seem to be working on it...so, are you working on memory or comparison? If the latter, where's your control print?

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


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
Does anybody here agrees with me that when moving or picking up an object covered with broken glass it is possible that the glass will move, slide, or even fall down?

I've heard of something called gravity, if that's what you are talking about, but I'm not a physicist.


Thank you Fly by Night, can I take it as an agreement?





Btw, to all people that feel offended or inflamed by my statements, I stated initially that I'm reluctant in discussing minutiae, cause it will end up like this. But you kept on asking.
From now on I'll try to find and discuss little things we could agree on, more :)


If i can make a suggestion that may appeal to your sense of decency and fair play. When it comes to the ‘micro’ details of this tragic case you will find that your contribution is vastly inadequate and uninformed compared with the combined knowledge contained in this forum. You will also find the members here quiet generous and tolerant to new posters who genuinely want to inform themselves with the facts of the case. It is really not fair to illicit their input and then curiously dismiss their considerable efforts by then playing the “I am subjective and don’t agree” card.

If you like to engage in subjective debate where posters are likely to present their own varied subjective interpretation of the known facts then there are other suitable forms that engage in this. The members of PMF are more purest in their outlook and have a highly objective approach to the facts and evidence in this case.

My respectful suggestion is that you visit here to inform yourself of the facts and will always be welcome for this. When you require subjective debate you should visit those sites where it is normal to engage in more imaginative subjective supposition. This way we can all remain friends longer and not waste each others time. :)

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Filomena is a slob.

Therefore, Amanda could not be responsible for Meredith Kercher's murder.

It's as simple as that, everyone.

She's jealous of Amanda because Amanda thought of cartwheels at the police station first.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

DJLawless wrote:
]I think that is exactly what we would most like to see: the truth of this horrible murder exposed. And in my mind Raffaele is still the weakest link in Amanda's fabrication of lies. (Do we have a whining smiley face icon, or a wimpy one that bursts into tears?) I do continue to hope that the right thing will happen...


I agree. However, there is a foil to this premise. Raffaele's family. Raffaele is weak, but his family is not and he's doing what they and their expensive lawyers damn well tell him to do. He's not going to talk 'because' he is weak and because he's going to do what he's told. Amanda and Rudy are a better bet...Amanda is off the rails and thanks to her family, has developed a culture of not doing what her Italian lawyers advise and has frequently done and said things in the past that her family have had to rush in and deny. Rudy, well he's approached the point where he realises the game is up (as do his lawyers)...he's had his shot at getting away with it and there is no family keeping his mouth shut.

Raffaele may squeak, but...to a cell mate. Not in court...not in an open public letter. We're not going to get the truth from Raffaele. But you're right, he'd break first...were it not for his family.

_________________
"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 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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: injuries   

gardner wrote:
I feel really bad that I will not be able to read the entire report.


Gardner,

Don't feel bad about it.

It's not compulsory for anyone to force themselves against their inclination.

Like the candles mingling their lights together at the vigil, it's all about the common bond of community and sharing, in honour of a good soul.

hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Gardner wrote:
to me, this question, "the autopsy" is telling. I am under the impression that multiple autopsies were performed, maybe as many as 6 autopsies. If you do not understand that many more than one autopsy was performed, you are seriously lacking in your understanding of this case.


No, it was one autopsy only. Patrick's lawyers (Patrick still being in jail at the time) requested another autopsy but the court refused and Meredith was flown home for burial. So, from that point onwards all the other experts were working on records and photographs from the one and only autopsy. Nobody else other then the original coroner examined the body in person.

_________________
"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 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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Corrina wrote:
Filomena is a slob.

Therefore, Amanda could not be responsible for Meredith Kercher's murder.

It's as simple as that, everyone.

She's jealous of Amanda because Amanda thought of cartwheels at the police station first.


:) :)

With all these hypothetical kindergarten tantrums going on,

I keep getting reminded of the story about the little boy (it was reported in the paper years ago) who told his teacher the reason for what happened in the playgroung:

-- "My brain made me do it."
:)
Top Profile 

Offline tripod


Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:40 pm

Posts: 26

Highscores: 9

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Sorry about that "Filomena's room trashed or not" issue you all seem to pick up simultaneously.
it was meant only as an example.


Hi Katody

As an example of what? I've read your original post on this several times and still don't understand what you mean.

You said:
Katody wrote:
You guys barraged me with questions, we can of course discuss them all, but I'm afraid as I said before, it would end up on the subjective side:
For you Filomena's room is trashed, for me it's untidy.


The only meaning I can glean from this is that your viewpoint is subjective, but is that really what you intended to claim? I'm aware of your statement about your English skills and don't want to draw a conclusion you did not intend.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Failte Fuji :)
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 Jul 19, 2010 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Catnip wrote:
Now it's back to Katody's one liners.
It's like a cat playing with a piece of string.


Yes, that needs to stop. PMF is about 'debate', so if members are to post here they need to offer one. One liners in lieu of debate being brought to the table do not constitute as debate and belong on low quality sites such as Perugia Shock and the JREF...and various other riff-raff sites.

One liner, fair weather, here today gone tomorrow, just joined to up-the-anti posters please take note.

_________________
"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 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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:50 pm   Post subject: Glimpses   

From the table of contents of the PDF of “Knox appeal document”:
The 11 grounds of appeal are:

1-3 technical legal issues (admissability of statements, etc), 20 pages
4 reconstruction of a multi-person crime, 3 pages
5 the knife, 50 pages
6 Amanda’s presence at Via della Pergola, 50 pages (the staging, the ear-witness, the victim’s wounds, the positive Luminol, the bathroom traces)
7 Amanda’s account, 16 pages
8 Amanda’s personality, 9 pages
9 erroneous evaluation of the evidence, 19 pages
10 Patrick’s “calunnia”, 4 pages
11 Procedural issues, 3 pages

––
There is nothing unusual here as far as I can see. It is all quite expected, even the bit about the client’s personality.

Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the appeal is on the forensics and testimony placing the client at the scene.

--

As an aside, the devil really is in the details (pace Katody).


For example, Amanda (says the document) was interviewed for a total of approximately 53.45 hours spread over 5 days, made up of (from pp12f), as far as I can work out so far:

15:30 02/11 to 03:00 03/11 = 12 hr
14:45 03/11 to 22:00 03/11 = 8 hr
on 04/11 = 12 hr (including at the cottage from 14:45 to 21:00)
22:00 05/11 to 01:45 06/11 = 5 hr
01:45 06/11 to 05:45 06/11 = 3.45 hr (plus statement at 14:00)
12:00 06/11 Amanda arrested, lawyer appointed, mother advised
~16:30 06/11 Amanda transferred to prison
22:00 06/11 Inspector Ficcara’s receives the statement

There might be some (understandable) fudging of the figures towards the end of the period (depending on how the end of an interview period should be legally defined, I suspect).

I’ll have to draw a timeline, to understand it better.

But later. It's 2am here, so night all.
Happy debating.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Catnip wrote:
8 Amanda’s personality, 9 pages


Does Amanda really have a personality to fill 9 pages? But then I suppose it's a matter of is your glass half full or half empty? Some poor bugger has to read through those 9 pages which I suspect will seem like 999 pages to them. It's all 'relative'.

_________________
"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 Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hello - back again. Here's the post I was going to submit at JREF, before it was deleted. Paraphrased from memory:

What many of Amanda Knox's most fervent supporters refuse to recognize about this case is that if it can be conclusively determined that the crime scene at the cottage was staged, that fact alone - all by itself - is sufficient to establish a very high likelihood of her involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder. And how do the police determine if there has been crime scene staging? I do not know how they do it in Perugia, but in the USA, any competent investigator would be familiar with the principles of criminal investigation as detailed in the Crime Classification Manual.

Before going into the CCM, it would helpful to outline what crime scene staging actually is. As elucidated in this article by the FBI's John Douglas & Corinne Munn:

"Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police. Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation."

Another article, by noted investigator Vernon Geberth, states:

"Staging is a conscious criminal action on the part of an offender to thwart an investigation... The most common type of staging occurs when the perpetrator changes elements of the scene to make the death appear to be a suicide or accident in order to cover up a murder. The second most common type of staging is when the perpetrator attempts to redirect the investigation by making the crime appear to be a sex-related homicide." (emphasis added)

Although I do not have a copy of the CCM available for reference (it is available on-line at Google Books here), there is an informative sourced article dealing with crime scene staging at TruTV's Crime Library. In a discussion of "Crime Scene Indicators Frequently Noted in a Staged Domestic Homicide" as related to the Marilyn Sheppard murder, the article cites the CCM for a list of these indicators:

- The murder weapon, fingerprints and other evidentiary items often removed.
- The victim's body is not concealed.
- The crime scene often involves the victim's or offender's residence, as the offender typically has control of the scene and therefore can spend time staging the scene without worry of being interrupted.
- Death may appear to have occurred in the context of another criminal activity such as a robbery or rape.
- An offender who has a close relationship with his victim will often only partially remove the victim's clothing (e.g. pants pulled down, shirt or dress pulled up, etc.) He rarely leaves the victim nude.
- The offender frequently positions the victim to infer that a sexual assault has occurred.
- Despite the body's positioning and partial removal of clothes, the autopsy demonstrates a lack of sexual assault. With a staged sexual assault, there is usually no evidence of any sexual activity and an absence of seminal fluids in body orifices.
- Another red flag apparent with many staged domestic murders is the fatal assault of the wife and/or children by an intruder while the husband escapes without injury or with a nonfatal injury. If the offender does not first target the person posing the greatest threat or if that person suffers the least amount of injury, the police investigator should especially examine all other crime scene indicators.

It should be obvious to all who have followed the Kercher case that ALL of these likely indicators were present in this instance. (I am of course aware that RG's DNA was found inside Ms. Kercher's body, but there were no seminal fluids discovered. Also, the last indicator is only applicable to one of RG's statements where he alluded to unknown assailants who attacked him without serious result. Finally, I'm also aware of the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, but I don't believe that would be classified by investigators as a serious attempt at concealing a body.)

In another section of the article specifically treating the question of homicide crime scenes where there is also evidence of a burglary, the following are "Red Flags Indicating Staging":

- Inappropriate items taken from the crime scene if burglary appeared to be the motive.
- Did the point of entry make sense?
- Did the perpetration of this crime pose a high risk to the offender?
- Excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (Overkill).
- The offender will often manipulate the victims discovery by a neighbor or family member.

Again, with regards to the Kercher case, we see ALL of these red flags present. There were no valuables taken from Filomena's room, even though many were in plain sight (e.g. laptop computer) or were scarcely concealed (e.g. jewelry, presumably). There is an alternate, much simpler point of entry (i.e. the kitchen window) than the ostensible ingress offered by Filomena's window. If RG was operating without accomplices, Meredith's murder would pose a VERY high risk to him that would be greatly ameliorated if instead he was admitted to the cottage in the company of AK (and RS). We are all familiar with the extent of Meredith's injuries and suffering, so I will not go further into that aspect. Finally, it should again be noted that AK apparently intended for Filomena to discover Meredith's body, and that she and RS claimed they were "unable" to break down Meredith's door, leaving it to one of the other girls' boyfriends to do so, in the company of the Postal Police.

Amanda's supporters commonly portray her as the subject of an irrational witch-hunt by an overzealous constabulary. Much derision is often made of various leaked statements to the media in the early days of the investigation that the Perugia police "knew" Knox was guilty right away. Further, they point to Knox's repeated voluntary statements to the police without benefit of legal counsel in the days preceding her arrest as indicative if innocence. On both of these accounts, the actual criminology experts would most likely disagree. First, Geberth himself notes that:

"In my experience investigating suspicious deaths I have often times had a "gut" feeling that something was amiss. (Actually, that "gut" feeling is your subconscious reaction to the presentation, which should alert you to the possibility that, things are not always what they appear to be, consistent with equivocal death investigations)."

Secondly, with regards to Knox's apparent cooperation with the police early on, Douglas & Dunn note that:

"This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior." (emphasis added)

In conclusion, I assert that not only were the Perugia police right to initially place Knox under suspicion, but also if they had not considered her a suspect early on based solely on the evidence at the crime scene itself, they would have been guilty of a gross derliction of duty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:

"Failte Fuji :)"

Hi Hammerite. I'm not a native Hibernian, but thanks for the welcome anyway!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Catnip wrote:
8 Amanda’s personality, 9 pages


Does Amanda really have a personality to fill 9 pages? But then I suppose it's a matter of is your glass half full or half empty? Some poor bugger has to read through those 9 pages which I suspect will seem like 999 pages to them. It's all 'relative'.


Michael! LOL I thought the very same.

Thank you Catnip. Even if she had been with the police for 72 hours, if you were such an important witness, would you expect less? Would any (innocent) person really complain, much less accuse an innocent man (in some detail!)? I think an innocent Amanda would have revelled in the attention. I'm afraid I don't think I can rule out her lying/exaggerating to make a better story under those circumstances, however.
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji,
Rudy brought up robbery as a motive during his skype conversation. He also mentioned he knew where Meredith kept the money. Rudy took the money. So therefore Rudy was the robber. Rudy admitted to having sexual contact with her but got sick to his stomach. However, how sick to his stomach could he have been. There was no mention of vomit in the toilet. There was only mention of feces. Rudy's DNA is scattered all over Meredith's body and her cloths. And soon it will be 3 years and they still haven't found Amanda's dna in that room.

Now yall can talk about all the other flawed logic you want. There is 1 fact that alot of people keep forgetting. No matter what, no matter what kinda proof you try to show or dream up. Amanda Knox was never in that room that night. There was alteast 6 different DNA profiles in that room. There was semen and hair samples that where never tested. However all that evidence they collected in the room and not 1 dna signature from Knox. 0 positive results for knox. She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room. They where not even able to find traces of her DNA on the floor. They where able to find traces of 6 people in that room none of them where knox. They had knoxs footprints going to the door, but never entering it. On the other hand, Rudy's shoeprints where all over the room.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

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

Quote:
Chris C wrote:
"Rudy brought up robbery as a motive during his skype conversation. He also mentioned he knew where Meredith kept the money. Rudy took the money. So therefore Rudy was the robber. "


That is one thing which I agree with. Rudy's tale about the money is ridiculous. I also think that he took the money.
That would also be a reason to build a theory around Rudy as a robber but that collapses under the lies of the pair.

To this day they cannot come up with a consistent story on how they passed the evening and night of Nov1-2.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Chris C wrote:
"Amanda Knox was never in that room that night. There was alteast 6 different DNA profiles in that room. There was semen and hair samples that where never tested. However all that evidence they collected in the room and not 1 dna signature from Knox. 0 positive results for knox. She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room. They where not even able to find traces of her DNA on the floor."


Amanda was living there and still no DNA from her was found in the room. Does that mean that she has never been in Meredith's room? Not a single time during their stay in the cottage?

Whatever is the answer to that question it means even more trouble for Raffaele. He spent much less time there and still his DNA somehow found its way on the bra clasp.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:

To clarify my position, the lack of evidence of Amanda in the murder room is only one of the things that work against her being guilty in my eyes.
What could convince me is a coherent and plausible narrative involving her and fitting all the evidence without a need for timelines stretching or other mental gymnastics (love this term ;) ).

Unfortunately there already is such a scenario, requiring only one attacker and in my view much more close to the truth then the prosecution's fragmentary story.



Katody,

I couldn't agree with you more. Furthermore, I know who the "one attacker" is.



Yes, it's Joran van der Sloot.

A new witness will be testifying that Meredith and van Sloot met at the Aruba Club Med and had been secretly dating for months. But Meredith decided to end the relationship after discovering that van Sloot was actually in love with Amanda, whose picture was found in van Sloot's wallet.

A second new witness will testify that van Sloot arrived in Perugia from Rome on the day of the murder, stopping to inquire about Meredith's address at a certain Perugia bar & dance club.

Van Sloot had the means, he had the motive, and he had the opportunity. Furthermore, he's Dutch.

The Dutch are notorious for their their intense cleaning habits. This explains why van Sloot spent hours after the murder cleaning up the apartment - instead of making his escape.

But, it gets better. In fact, the "clean-up" was intended to throw suspicion onto the innocent Amanda, who had recently rejected van Sloot's e-mail advances. Van Sloot is not your typical brainless serial killer. He's one clever guy. Who would believe a "lone wolf" attacker theory if there was a clean-up?

This scenario is only coherent, it's plausible too.

And now innocent Amanda is sitting in a jail cell ... because no one has been able to connect the dots. Until now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Rudy's DNA is scattered all over Meredith's body and her cloths. And soon it will be 3 years and they still haven't found Amanda's dna in that room.


As I've already pointed out to you, there was only one instance of Rudy Guede's DNA on Meredith's body.

According to Sollecito's forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, Amanda Knox's DNA was on Meredith's bra.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Rudy took the money.


You don't get away with that. What's your proof...what's your evidence even? Earlier, I posted a response to just this claim. You ignored it completely. In which case, why are you here...are you here to debate and progress...or are you here to opine? Please know, we here know this case back to front so when you talk shite we know it for what it is right away. You may as well pop over to the brain surgeon's forum 'where ever' and lecture them on how to perform brain surgery. Where do you think you are?

Chris C wrote:
Rudy admitted to having sexual contact with her but got sick to his stomach. However, how sick to his stomach could he have been. There was no mention of vomit in the toilet.


Actually, I think he said it gave him the squirts. The evidence of that was left in the loo. So, it did happen. The only question is whether it all happened how he says it happened.


Chris C wrote:
Amanda Knox was never in that room that night. There was alteast 6 different DNA profiles in that room. There was semen and hair samples that where never tested.


Let me just stop you right there. There was no semen. There was no hair, at least none that didn't belong to Meredith. Are we clear? As for Amanda Knox never being in that room that night how do you know? Were you there?


Chris C wrote:
She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room. They where not even able to find traces of her DNA on the floor.



Except for on the bra clasp.

You are one of these people that imagines one only has to step into a room and it's immediately emulsioned in DNA merely by breathing in the air?

The absence of evidence is not proof of innocence. Have you not heard that before?

Chris C wrote:
They where able to find traces of 6 people in that room none of them where knox.


What six people? What hat was that figure pulled out of?


Chris C wrote:
She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room.



Isn't that a contradiction in your logic then? I mean...if merely looking at something is enough to leave DNA and Amanda lived in the cottage for two whole months...shouldn't her DNA be plentiful in Meredith's room? If it isn't, then the only conclusion can be that it isn't as easy to leave DNA as you seem to think it is...right? And...if none of Amanda's DNA had infiltrated Meredith's room after her living in the same cottage, in the room right NEXT DOOR to Meredith's room, Sharing the SAME bathroom as Meredith for TWO MONTHS...where do you come up with your law that if she had been in Meredith's room for less then half an hour she suddenly MUST have left DNA?

Please, explain the logic of this to me.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji wrote:
Hello - back again. Here's the post I was going to submit at JREF, before it was deleted. Paraphrased from memory:

What many of Amanda Knox's most fervent supporters refuse to recognize about this case is that if it can be conclusively determined that the crime scene at the cottage was staged, that fact alone - all by itself - is sufficient to establish a very high likelihood of her involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder. And how do the police determine if there has been crime scene staging? I do not know how they do it in Perugia, but in the USA, any competent investigator would be familiar with the principles of criminal investigation as detailed in the Crime Classification Manual.

Before going into the CCM, it would helpful to outline what crime scene staging actually is. As elucidated in this article by the FBI's John Douglas & Corinne Munn:

"Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police. Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation."

Another article, by noted investigator Vernon Geberth, states:

"Staging is a conscious criminal action on the part of an offender to thwart an investigation... The most common type of staging occurs when the perpetrator changes elements of the scene to make the death appear to be a suicide or accident in order to cover up a murder. The second most common type of staging is when the perpetrator attempts to redirect the investigation by making the crime appear to be a sex-related homicide." (emphasis added)

Although I do not have a copy of the CCM available for reference (it is available on-line at Google Books here), there is an informative sourced article dealing with crime scene staging at TruTV's Crime Library. In a discussion of "Crime Scene Indicators Frequently Noted in a Staged Domestic Homicide" as related to the Marilyn Sheppard murder, the article cites the CCM for a list of these indicators:

- The murder weapon, fingerprints and other evidentiary items often removed.
- The victim's body is not concealed.
- The crime scene often involves the victim's or offender's residence, as the offender typically has control of the scene and therefore can spend time staging the scene without worry of being interrupted.
- Death may appear to have occurred in the context of another criminal activity such as a robbery or rape.
- An offender who has a close relationship with his victim will often only partially remove the victim's clothing (e.g. pants pulled down, shirt or dress pulled up, etc.) He rarely leaves the victim nude.
- The offender frequently positions the victim to infer that a sexual assault has occurred.
- Despite the body's positioning and partial removal of clothes, the autopsy demonstrates a lack of sexual assault. With a staged sexual assault, there is usually no evidence of any sexual activity and an absence of seminal fluids in body orifices.
- Another red flag apparent with many staged domestic murders is the fatal assault of the wife and/or children by an intruder while the husband escapes without injury or with a nonfatal injury. If the offender does not first target the person posing the greatest threat or if that person suffers the least amount of injury, the police investigator should especially examine all other crime scene indicators.

It should be obvious to all who have followed the Kercher case that ALL of these likely indicators were present in this instance. (I am of course aware that RG's DNA was found inside Ms. Kercher's body, but there were no seminal fluids discovered. Also, the last indicator is only applicable to one of RG's statements where he alluded to unknown assailants who attacked him without serious result. Finally, I'm also aware of the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, but I don't believe that would be classified by investigators as a serious attempt at concealing a body.)

In another section of the article specifically treating the question of homicide crime scenes where there is also evidence of a burglary, the following are "Red Flags Indicating Staging":

- Inappropriate items taken from the crime scene if burglary appeared to be the motive.
- Did the point of entry make sense?
- Did the perpetration of this crime pose a high risk to the offender?
- Excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (Overkill).
- The offender will often manipulate the victims discovery by a neighbor or family member.

Again, with regards to the Kercher case, we see ALL of these red flags present. There were no valuables taken from Filomena's room, even though many were in plain sight (e.g. laptop computer) or were scarcely concealed (e.g. jewelry, presumably). There is an alternate, much simpler point of entry (i.e. the kitchen window) than the ostensible ingress offered by Filomena's window. If RG was operating without accomplices, Meredith's murder would pose a VERY high risk to him that would be greatly ameliorated if instead he was admitted to the cottage in the company of AK (and RS). We are all familiar with the extent of Meredith's injuries and suffering, so I will not go further into that aspect. Finally, it should again be noted that AK apparently intended for Filomena to discover Meredith's body, and that she and RS claimed they were "unable" to break down Meredith's door, leaving it to one of the other girls' boyfriends to do so, in the company of the Postal Police.

Amanda's supporters commonly portray her as the subject of an irrational witch-hunt by an overzealous constabulary. Much derision is often made of various leaked statements to the media in the early days of the investigation that the Perugia police "knew" Knox was guilty right away. Further, they point to Knox's repeated voluntary statements to the police without benefit of legal counsel in the days preceding her arrest as indicative if innocence. On both of these accounts, the actual criminology experts would most likely disagree. First, Geberth himself notes that:

"In my experience investigating suspicious deaths I have often times had a "gut" feeling that something was amiss. (Actually, that "gut" feeling is your subconscious reaction to the presentation, which should alert you to the possibility that, things are not always what they appear to be, consistent with equivocal death investigations)."

Secondly, with regards to Knox's apparent cooperation with the police early on, Douglas & Dunn note that:

"This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior." (emphasis added)

In conclusion, I assert that not only were the Perugia police right to initially place Knox under suspicion, but also if they had not considered her a suspect early on based solely on the evidence at the crime scene itself, they would have been guilty of a gross derliction of duty.


Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Fuji,
Rudy brought up robbery as a motive during his skype conversation. He also mentioned he knew where Meredith kept the money. Rudy took the money. So therefore Rudy was the robber. Rudy admitted to having sexual contact with her but got sick to his stomach. However, how sick to his stomach could he have been. There was no mention of vomit in the toilet. There was only mention of feces. Rudy's DNA is scattered all over Meredith's body and her cloths. And soon it will be 3 years and they still haven't found Amanda's dna in that room.

Now yall can talk about all the other flawed logic you want. There is 1 fact that alot of people keep forgetting. No matter what, no matter what kinda proof you try to show or dream up. Amanda Knox was never in that room that night. There was alteast 6 different DNA profiles in that room. There was semen and hair samples that where never tested. However all that evidence they collected in the room and not 1 dna signature from Knox. 0 positive results for knox. She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room. They where not even able to find traces of her DNA on the floor. They where able to find traces of 6 people in that room none of them where knox. They had knoxs footprints going to the door, but never entering it. On the other hand, Rudy's shoeprints where all over the room.


I'm not sure whether you're pretending to be an uneducated redneck or if you're actually an uneducated redneck. If you're pretending, I have to admit it's a very convincing impersonation.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
No matter what, no matter what kinda proof you try to show or dream up. Amanda Knox was never in that room that night.


Did you know that most crimes are solved without the level of direct physical evidence you are requiring?

There are plenty of indications that Amanda Knox was in Meredith's room:

- Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's elsewhere in the cottage. Since Meredith's bedroom door was secured, with a key, Amanda must have been inside that room before it was locked.
- Her lamp, the only source of illumination in Amanda's room, was found locked inside Meredith's room.
- By her own sworn statements, Amanda placed herself inside the cottage; she knew details of the murder that only someone inside the room should have known.
- Amanda knew, we know by deduction, that Meredith's mobile phones were not inside the locked room because her attempts to call Meredith were too brief and her testimony about them too inconsistent.
- Amanda's DNA was found on a knife from Sollecito's flat that also had Meredith's DNA on the blade, strongly linking her to the knife and to Meredith's murder.

This is only the tip of iceberg. The Machine has asked you now three or more times to answer a series of simple questions about Meredith's murder. If you choose not to answer them it's not because you haven't had the time. You have posted several times since they were first posed to you. Each one requires very little input from you.

Will you answer his questions?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chris C wrote:
Fuji,
Rudy brought up robbery as a motive during his skype conversation. He also mentioned he knew where Meredith kept the money. Rudy took the money. So therefore Rudy was the robber. Rudy admitted to having sexual contact with her but got sick to his stomach. However, how sick to his stomach could he have been. There was no mention of vomit in the toilet. There was only mention of feces. Rudy's DNA is scattered all over Meredith's body and her cloths. And soon it will be 3 years and they still haven't found Amanda's dna in that room.

Now yall can talk about all the other flawed logic you want. There is 1 fact that alot of people keep forgetting. No matter what, no matter what kinda proof you try to show or dream up. Amanda Knox was never in that room that night. There was alteast 6 different DNA profiles in that room. There was semen and hair samples that where never tested. However all that evidence they collected in the room and not 1 dna signature from Knox. 0 positive results for knox. She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room. They where not even able to find traces of her DNA on the floor. They where able to find traces of 6 people in that room none of them where knox. They had knoxs footprints going to the door, but never entering it. On the other hand, Rudy's shoeprints where all over the room.


Your post is almost a complete non sequitur from my argument, the gist of which is that the Kercher murder case exhibits ALL of the trademark indicators of a staged crime scene, which would naturally tend to incriminate Knox. Mind you, this is before even taking into account the specific forensics from Filomena's room and the immediate area outside the window, which further corroborate that there was no break-in. This does not logically preclude there having been a robbery (i.e. RG could have robbed Meredith after she let him in the cottage), but evidence of an attempt to misdirect the police by simulating a break-in serves to point the finger of guilt at only one person - Knox. There is no one else who would have had a motive to do so, and she would logically only do so if she was somehow involved with the murder.

As for using RG's words to exonerate AK & RS, I'm not sure where that's going to get us, as RG has also, in one version of events he has related, placed AK & RS at the scene at the time of the murder. All three of the convicted are confirmed liars.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
Fuji wrote:
Hello - back again. Here's the post I was going to submit at JREF, before it was deleted. Paraphrased from memory:

What many of Amanda Knox's most fervent supporters refuse to recognize about this case is that if it can be conclusively determined that the crime scene at the cottage was staged, that fact alone - all by itself - is sufficient to establish a very high likelihood of her involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder. And how do the police determine if there has been crime scene staging? I do not know how they do it in Perugia, but in the USA, any competent investigator would be familiar with the principles of criminal investigation as detailed in the Crime Classification Manual.

Before going into the CCM, it would helpful to outline what crime scene staging actually is. As elucidated in this article by the FBI's John Douglas & Corinne Munn:

"Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police. Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation."

Another article, by noted investigator Vernon Geberth, states:

"Staging is a conscious criminal action on the part of an offender to thwart an investigation... The most common type of staging occurs when the perpetrator changes elements of the scene to make the death appear to be a suicide or accident in order to cover up a murder. The second most common type of staging is when the perpetrator attempts to redirect the investigation by making the crime appear to be a sex-related homicide." (emphasis added)

Although I do not have a copy of the CCM available for reference (it is available on-line at Google Books here), there is an informative sourced article dealing with crime scene staging at TruTV's Crime Library. In a discussion of "Crime Scene Indicators Frequently Noted in a Staged Domestic Homicide" as related to the Marilyn Sheppard murder, the article cites the CCM for a list of these indicators:

- The murder weapon, fingerprints and other evidentiary items often removed.
- The victim's body is not concealed.
- The crime scene often involves the victim's or offender's residence, as the offender typically has control of the scene and therefore can spend time staging the scene without worry of being interrupted.
- Death may appear to have occurred in the context of another criminal activity such as a robbery or rape.
- An offender who has a close relationship with his victim will often only partially remove the victim's clothing (e.g. pants pulled down, shirt or dress pulled up, etc.) He rarely leaves the victim nude.
- The offender frequently positions the victim to infer that a sexual assault has occurred.
- Despite the body's positioning and partial removal of clothes, the autopsy demonstrates a lack of sexual assault. With a staged sexual assault, there is usually no evidence of any sexual activity and an absence of seminal fluids in body orifices.
- Another red flag apparent with many staged domestic murders is the fatal assault of the wife and/or children by an intruder while the husband escapes without injury or with a nonfatal injury. If the offender does not first target the person posing the greatest threat or if that person suffers the least amount of injury, the police investigator should especially examine all other crime scene indicators.

It should be obvious to all who have followed the Kercher case that ALL of these likely indicators were present in this instance. (I am of course aware that RG's DNA was found inside Ms. Kercher's body, but there were no seminal fluids discovered. Also, the last indicator is only applicable to one of RG's statements where he alluded to unknown assailants who attacked him without serious result. Finally, I'm also aware of the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, but I don't believe that would be classified by investigators as a serious attempt at concealing a body.)

In another section of the article specifically treating the question of homicide crime scenes where there is also evidence of a burglary, the following are "Red Flags Indicating Staging":

- Inappropriate items taken from the crime scene if burglary appeared to be the motive.
- Did the point of entry make sense?
- Did the perpetration of this crime pose a high risk to the offender?
- Excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (Overkill).
- The offender will often manipulate the victims discovery by a neighbor or family member.

Again, with regards to the Kercher case, we see ALL of these red flags present. There were no valuables taken from Filomena's room, even though many were in plain sight (e.g. laptop computer) or were scarcely concealed (e.g. jewelry, presumably). There is an alternate, much simpler point of entry (i.e. the kitchen window) than the ostensible ingress offered by Filomena's window. If RG was operating without accomplices, Meredith's murder would pose a VERY high risk to him that would be greatly ameliorated if instead he was admitted to the cottage in the company of AK (and RS). We are all familiar with the extent of Meredith's injuries and suffering, so I will not go further into that aspect. Finally, it should again be noted that AK apparently intended for Filomena to discover Meredith's body, and that she and RS claimed they were "unable" to break down Meredith's door, leaving it to one of the other girls' boyfriends to do so, in the company of the Postal Police.

Amanda's supporters commonly portray her as the subject of an irrational witch-hunt by an overzealous constabulary. Much derision is often made of various leaked statements to the media in the early days of the investigation that the Perugia police "knew" Knox was guilty right away. Further, they point to Knox's repeated voluntary statements to the police without benefit of legal counsel in the days preceding her arrest as indicative if innocence. On both of these accounts, the actual criminology experts would most likely disagree. First, Geberth himself notes that:

"In my experience investigating suspicious deaths I have often times had a "gut" feeling that something was amiss. (Actually, that "gut" feeling is your subconscious reaction to the presentation, which should alert you to the possibility that, things are not always what they appear to be, consistent with equivocal death investigations)."

Secondly, with regards to Knox's apparent cooperation with the police early on, Douglas & Dunn note that:

"This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior." (emphasis added)

In conclusion, I assert that not only were the Perugia police right to initially place Knox under suspicion, but also if they had not considered her a suspect early on based solely on the evidence at the crime scene itself, they would have been guilty of a gross derliction of duty.


Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?


Hi Fiona. Thanks. This time it was actually partially my fault, as I had prefaced my commentary by including choice quotes from the FOAK crowd - one from each still posting in the thread, about 8 or 9, as I recall. (The JREF comment on my post was: "Reason: Breach of Rule 4 - try again with a short quote and the link.") I'm not sure why the post couldn't have gone through, with perhaps a Mod Note or a PM clueing me into proper protocol for future reference. However, after having 3 previous posts of much shorter length deleted, I've had enough.
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 Jul 19, 2010 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?



I've no idea what's wrong with that post. Clearly, the JREF moderation policy needs adjusting since quality posts are disallowed while drivel is let through and the result has been an exodus of the high quality senior posters from the JREF, or at least from the JREF Meredith Kercher thread.

As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.

I can't tell you 'why' this is happening on the JREF, only 'how' it works and what's going on. It's a large site and has a high number of staff (comparatively speaking, say to PMF...which only has two full Mods, we have other Mods but they are only limited Mods and each has control over only a specific forum for which member interaction is limited). With a large staff which has to together run the site on a daily basis the only way to organise it is to have a hidden staff forum. There, policy, tasks and roles will be assigned. If any Mod has a problem or isn't sure how to handle a specific issue, they'll post there and get instructions from the Admins and advice from the other Mods.

Anyway, this is all boring administration stuff. But, the point is, the handling of the Meredith kercher thread on the JREF is top down. The JREF Admins are fully aware of what's going on in that thread (especially as it's a 'problem thread') and how everything is dealt with there is down directly to their policy and subsequent instructions to their Moderators.

If you want answers to your questions, it's the Admins you need to contact and ask, not the Mods, but off board (PM...email) not on board (an Admin can't publicly be seen to be challenged)...on board they have to be Admins, off board they can be human.

That's your (very brief) dealing with Admins and the functioning of the JREF guide :)

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Nevermind, Fuji. Their loss, our gain. :D Great post, thank you very much.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

bucketoftea wrote:
Nevermind, Fuji. Their loss, our gain. :D Great post, thank you very much.


Indeed :)

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Fuji,
Rudy brought up robbery as a motive during his skype conversation. He also mentioned he knew where Meredith kept the money. Rudy took the money. So therefore Rudy was the robber. Rudy admitted to having sexual contact with her but got sick to his stomach. However, how sick to his stomach could he have been. There was no mention of vomit in the toilet. There was only mention of feces. Rudy's DNA is scattered all over Meredith's body and her cloths. And soon it will be 3 years and they still haven't found Amanda's dna in that room.

Now yall can talk about all the other flawed logic you want. There is 1 fact that alot of people keep forgetting. No matter what, no matter what kinda proof you try to show or dream up. Amanda Knox was never in that room that night. There was alteast 6 different DNA profiles in that room. There was semen and hair samples that where never tested. However all that evidence they collected in the room and not 1 dna signature from Knox. 0 positive results for knox. She even lived in the house and there was 0 positive results in that room. They where not even able to find traces of her DNA on the floor. They where able to find traces of 6 people in that room none of them where knox. They had knoxs footprints going to the door, but never entering it. On the other hand, Rudy's shoeprints where all over the room.


I'm not sure whether you're pretending to be an uneducated redneck or if you're actually an uneducated redneck. If you're pretending, I have to admit it's a very convincing impersonation.

TM, I suggest not to waste your time with this uneducated poster.

Just to give you an idea of the sort of intelligence level you're dealing with. This is what Chris C here was spewing a few days ago:

“I agree that none of us have all the facts. Its also a fact, that even Knox and Sollecito’s defense team didn’t have all the facts. The person who had most of the facts refused to share. (mignini) There is proof in court that he hid details of the investigation from the defense team. Its hard to present a defense when the only evidence you are allowed to argue is evidence your not allowed to look at. Its hard to a discredit testimony of a convicted felon, when your not allowed to cross examine him. Its hard to discredit a confession that was thrown out by the judge. However, it was allowed in the civil case which so happened to be the same jury.”

“When this case first broke, my thoughts where I hope they fry her butt. Of course, I then learned there was no death penality there. However, the more I heard about this case the more i got confused. Im now at the point where I think she is innocent. I also believe that even if she isn’t innocent, they have screwed this case up so much that the conviction of knox/sollecito is a travesty of justice. No motive, no murder weapon(no blood), no dna (on body or in room), no witnesses and the police destroyed their alibi. ( 1 hardrive is an accident, 2 hardrives is gross neglect, 3 hardives equals ?) The sad thing is knox/sollecito will eventually be released and in the process they will have to remove Guede’s conviction also. Thus bringing no justice for Meredith.”

“If Knox or Sollecito would have been on anything other than THC it would have been reported. If they was on pcp, Mignini would have told the press it was PCP. After all false information that Mignini leaked to the press, you dont think he would have listed a specific hard drug if he had proof.”
hb-))
He says he's learned that there is no death penalty in Italy. Priceless! :lol: :lol:

Seriously, is it really worth discussing anything with this ignoramus? bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?



I've no idea what's wrong with that post. Clearly, the JREF moderation policy needs adjusting since quality posts are disallowed while drivel is let through and the result has been an exodus of the high quality senior posters from the JREF, or at least from the JREF Meredith Kercher thread.

As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.

I can't tell you 'why' this is happening on the JREF, only 'how' it works and what's going on. It's a large site and has a high number of staff (comparatively speaking, say to PMF...which only has two full Mods, we have other Mods but they are only limited Mods and each has control over only a specific forum for which member interaction is limited). With a large staff which has to together run the site on a daily basis the only way to organise it is to have a hidden staff forum. There, policy, tasks and roles will be assigned. If any Mod has a problem or isn't sure how to handle a specific issue, they'll post there and get instructions from the Admins and advice from the other Mods.

Anyway, this is all boring administration stuff. But, the point is, the handling of the Meredith kercher thread on the JREF is top down. The JREF Admins are fully aware of what's going on in that thread (especially as it's a 'problem thread') and how everything is dealt with there is down directly to their policy and subsequent instructions to their Moderators.

If you want answers to your questions, it's the Admins you need to contact and ask, not the Mods, but off board (PM...email) not on board (an Admin can't publicly be seen to be challenged)...on board they have to be Admins, off board they can be human.

That's your (very brief) dealing with Admins and the functioning of the JREF guide :)


Michael, your analysis of the behind-the-scenes action of running a message board sounds spot on. However, I think in the case of that thread the situation is exacerbated by some highly partial moderating. What is a poster to think when a Mod takes a public position in an extremely polarized and combative thread opposite to the one they hold, and then subsequently they realize that smarmy and sarcastic posts are permitted when posted by the Mod's side, but those from his own, as a just response, are disallowed?

I may be mistaken in my perception of LashL in that thread, as I am a rank newcomer to the JREF. Still, like all of you, I've been on one board or another for years and years and rarely have I seen so slanted of an atmosphere be allowed to stand. Can't they realize from the "guilter" exodus that their moderation is evidently unbalanced? There can't even be an argument now, as one side has been driven or encouraged to leave.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Nevermind, Fuji. Their loss, our gain. :D Great post, thank you very much.


Indeed :)


Aw, shucks. th-)

I hate to tell you that I'm usually more of a lurker than a poster, though... :P
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:28 pm   Post subject: Mixed DNA   

Since Amanda's and Meredith's mixed DNA was brought up recently:

I wonder how was it determined that Amanda's DNA found in the spots of mixed DNA was deposited at the time of murder?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Nevermind, Fuji. Their loss, our gain. :D Great post, thank you very much.


Thanks, bucketoftea. Another veteran from the JREF debacle. h-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: Mixed DNA   

Katody wrote:
Since Amanda's and Meredith's mixed DNA was brought up recently:

I wonder how was it determined that Amanda's DNA found in the spots of mixed DNA was deposited at the time of murder?


You must PM MacPort for the correct answer...
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?



I've no idea what's wrong with that post. Clearly, the JREF moderation policy needs adjusting since quality posts are disallowed while drivel is let through and the result has been an exodus of the high quality senior posters from the JREF, or at least from the JREF Meredith Kercher thread.

As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.

I can't tell you 'why' this is happening on the JREF, only 'how' it works and what's going on. It's a large site and has a high number of staff (comparatively speaking, say to PMF...which only has two full Mods, we have other Mods but they are only limited Mods and each has control over only a specific forum for which member interaction is limited). With a large staff which has to together run the site on a daily basis the only way to organise it is to have a hidden staff forum. There, policy, tasks and roles will be assigned. If any Mod has a problem or isn't sure how to handle a specific issue, they'll post there and get instructions from the Admins and advice from the other Mods.

Anyway, this is all boring administration stuff. But, the point is, the handling of the Meredith kercher thread on the JREF is top down. The JREF Admins are fully aware of what's going on in that thread (especially as it's a 'problem thread') and how everything is dealt with there is down directly to their policy and subsequent instructions to their Moderators.

If you want answers to your questions, it's the Admins you need to contact and ask, not the Mods, but off board (PM...email) not on board (an Admin can't publicly be seen to be challenged)...on board they have to be Admins, off board they can be human.

That's your (very brief) dealing with Admins and the functioning of the JREF guide :)


Michael, your analysis of the behind-the-scenes action of running a message board sounds spot on. However, I think in the case of that thread the situation is exacerbated by some highly partial moderating. What is a poster to think when a Mod takes a public position in an extremely polarized and combative thread opposite to the one they hold, and then subsequently they realize that smarmy and sarcastic posts are permitted when posted by the Mod's side, but those from his own, as a just response, are disallowed?

I may be mistaken in my perception of LashL in that thread, as I am a rank newcomer to the JREF. Still, like all of you, I've been on one board or another for years and years and rarely have I seen so slanted of an atmosphere be allowed to stand. Can't they realize from the "guilter" exodus that their moderation is evidently unbalanced? There can't even be an argument now, as one side has been driven or encouraged to leave.


I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?
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 Jul 19, 2010 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji wrote:
However, I think in the case of that thread the situation is exacerbated by some highly partial moderating.


Yes, I'm aware of the furore over the continuing moderation of the thread by a certain openly biased Moderator 'LashL' (perhaps others). However, that doesn't happen in a vacuum. The Admins will be well aware of this. Their lack of action tells a story and the buck stops with them. In other words, the slant's become policy.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: Mixed DNA   

Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
Since Amanda's and Meredith's mixed DNA was brought up recently:

I wonder how was it determined that Amanda's DNA found in the spots of mixed DNA was deposited at the time of murder?


You must PM MacPort for the correct answer...

Yeah talk to me Katody, I won't bite.
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 Jul 19, 2010 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: Mixed DNA   

Katody wrote:
Since Amanda's and Meredith's mixed DNA was brought up recently:

I wonder how was it determined that Amanda's DNA found in the spots of mixed DNA was deposited at the time of murder?


Because the mix happened when the blood was fresh (wet).

Please stop being a jack rabbit and hopping from one talking point to the next. instead, please have the courtesy to respond to the debate offered by members to your earlier talking points first.

Thank you.

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


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

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
Fuji wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?



I've no idea what's wrong with that post. Clearly, the JREF moderation policy needs adjusting since quality posts are disallowed while drivel is let through and the result has been an exodus of the high quality senior posters from the JREF, or at least from the JREF Meredith Kercher thread.

As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.

I can't tell you 'why' this is happening on the JREF, only 'how' it works and what's going on. It's a large site and has a high number of staff (comparatively speaking, say to PMF...which only has two full Mods, we have other Mods but they are only limited Mods and each has control over only a specific forum for which member interaction is limited). With a large staff which has to together run the site on a daily basis the only way to organise it is to have a hidden staff forum. There, policy, tasks and roles will be assigned. If any Mod has a problem or isn't sure how to handle a specific issue, they'll post there and get instructions from the Admins and advice from the other Mods.

Anyway, this is all boring administration stuff. But, the point is, the handling of the Meredith kercher thread on the JREF is top down. The JREF Admins are fully aware of what's going on in that thread (especially as it's a 'problem thread') and how everything is dealt with there is down directly to their policy and subsequent instructions to their Moderators.

If you want answers to your questions, it's the Admins you need to contact and ask, not the Mods, but off board (PM...email) not on board (an Admin can't publicly be seen to be challenged)...on board they have to be Admins, off board they can be human.

That's your (very brief) dealing with Admins and the functioning of the JREF guide :)


Michael, your analysis of the behind-the-scenes action of running a message board sounds spot on. However, I think in the case of that thread the situation is exacerbated by some highly partial moderating. What is a poster to think when a Mod takes a public position in an extremely polarized and combative thread opposite to the one they hold, and then subsequently they realize that smarmy and sarcastic posts are permitted when posted by the Mod's side, but those from his own, as a just response, are disallowed?

I may be mistaken in my perception of LashL in that thread, as I am a rank newcomer to the JREF. Still, like all of you, I've been on one board or another for years and years and rarely have I seen so slanted of an atmosphere be allowed to stand. Can't they realize from the "guilter" exodus that their moderation is evidently unbalanced? There can't even be an argument now, as one side has been driven or encouraged to leave.


I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


That's a good question. I had assumed just the opposite. Obviously her status is unclear. Since I don't recall seeing any statement from her to the effect that she would cease moderating the thread, I'm going to assume that she is in fact continuing to do so.
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 Jul 19, 2010 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).


LashL has edited a post as recently as July 17. I don't believe she/he has posted on the thread since her/his status as moderator was brought up (not 100% sure though).
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Well that is profoundly disappointing. It is not an either/or thing: as in either I post or I mod. If you are partisan it is exclusionary, or should be: only posting should be an option in those circumstances. I would have thought that was moderating 101
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: Mixed DNA   

Michael wrote:
Please stop being a jack rabbit and hopping from one talking point to the next. instead, please have the courtesy to respond to the debate offered by members to your earlier talking points first.
Thank you.


Thanks, I'm only trying to inform myself, I'm not trying to debate DNA right now.

With your approval I'll gladly return to previous topics. Seeing them debated for the n-th time may annoy some, 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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

christiana wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).


LashL has edited a post as recently as July 17. I don't believe she/he has posted on the thread since her/his status as moderator was brought up (not 100% sure though).



Well, it's not for me to dictate how another site should moderate its forums. However, I can tell you what's right and what's wrong when it comes to moderating. The moderation style they've chosen is a 'large moderatorship' (like 'big government')...it means it's not community based but aloof (non-personal). That's fine, that's one valid way to moderate a discussion forum. But, that approach relies on the moderators remaining aloof not only to individuals, but to all 'sides' in any given debate...they must be non-partisan, most importantly they must be SEEN to be non-partisan and that's the Golden Rule for that to work. As soon as that's broken then public trust in that system breaks and it all falls down...do you see? It's...on a par with corruption. Posters respect and trust their Moderators, but if that trust is broken it can't be fixed. That can't be gotten back. The whole premise of the JREF moderation style is to be aloof. Then you get a Moderator who breaks from that ethos, the core of their moderation system, and becomes personally involved in favour of one side and then continues to moderate the thread. That brings their whole system (or the faith in it on which it depends) crashing down.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

fiona wrote:
I would have thought that was moderating 101


It is.

_________________
"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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
christiana wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).


LashL has edited a post as recently as July 17. I don't believe she/he has posted on the thread since her/his status as moderator was brought up (not 100% sure though).



Well, it's not for me to dictate how another site should moderate its forums. However, I can tell you what's right and what's wrong when it comes to moderating. The moderation style they've chosen is a 'large moderatorship' (like 'big government')...it means it's not community based but aloof (non-personal). That's fine, that's one valid way to moderate a discussion forum. But, that approach relies on the moderators remaining aloof not only to individuals, but to all 'sides' in any given debate...they must be non-partisan, most importantly they must be SEEN to be non-partisan and that's the Golden Rule for that to work. As soon as that's broken then public trust in that system breaks and it all falls down...do you see? It's...on a par with corruption. Posters respect and trust their Moderators, but if that trust is broken it can't be fixed. That can't be gotten back. The whole premise of the JREF moderation style is to be aloof. Then you get a Moderator who breaks from that ethos, the core of their moderation system, and becomes personally involved in favour of one side and then continues to moderate the thread. That brings their whole system (or the faith in it on which it depends) crashing down.


I agree with all you've written. Also, waiting for posts to be approved is a thread ender. By the time the post (mine and others) is approved and shown on the board I have lost interest to respond and/or make edits to my post.

I didn't, and still don't understand, why offensive posts could not be deleted or individual posters put on moderation/ban.
Top Profile 

Offline Gobjob


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:52 am

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way in,

'Their case, their story, their 'professional' tale of the events.

Cops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way. It's a Big Problem with them.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.


Last edited by Gobjob on Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:27 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 Jul 19, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous post and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence cneeded to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes)

THE POLICE DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO CONCEAL THIS FACT IN,,,,,

........................'THEIR CASE...THEIR STORY, THEIR TALE' ...WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

.............ops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when they look annoyed with them)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that it's true.


Excuse me? Could you rephrase that? For some reason I do not understand the point you are trying to make
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 Jul 19, 2010 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Christiana wrote:
I agree with all you've written. Also, waiting for posts to be approved is a thread ender. By the time the post (mine and others) is approved and shown on the board I have lost interest to respond and/or make edits to my post.


Well, as I've always said, the best way to kill a thread rather then locking/deleting it outright is to put it on moderation status. To be honest, I don't see the point. You may as well end it right there and then...it's quicker and it's kinder. You see, if you want quality, a quality discussion, you are asking your members to 'invest'...on moderator status, what do they have to invest in? It's the end of quality posting. Therefore, there's no longer a point.

Christiana wrote:
I didn't, and still don't understand, why offensive posts could not be deleted or individual posters put on moderation/ban.


Time...and manpower, the lack thereof. It's as simple as 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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way


You sound like an hysterical conspiracy nut.

Do you have any proof that Rudy Guede left a footprint in the glass traces in Filomena's room?

Do you have any proof that the police did everything to conceal this?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

katody wrote:
Thanks, I'm only trying to inform myself, I'm not trying to debate DNA right now.


It sounded more like you were trying to "inform" everyone 'else'. Debate is dialogue, not monologue, so when you've posted your say and then hop to the next subject while ignoring responses to your earlier points that is no longer debate, it's dictate.


Katody wrote:
With your approval I'll gladly return to previous topics. Seeing them debated for the n-th time may annoy some, though


When they've been debated several thousand times already, what's a hundred more?

No need to answer that...it was irony.

_________________
"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 Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

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

Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way in,

'Their case, their story, their 'professional' tale of the events.

Cops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way. It's a Big Problem with them.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.



That is the point: the glass was ON her laptop, otherwise it could not have been poured onto the clothes.
(----where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes..

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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

'They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)'


huh-)

poor sensitive Raff! Beeing quasi forced to take hard drugs in order not to be agonized with his hard core animal porn videos. eek-)

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody: One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that you are KATY-DID from Jref. KATODY simply comes from KATY-DO.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way


You sound like an hysterical conspiracy nut.

Do you have any proof that Rudy Guede left a footprint in the glass traces in Filomena's room?

Do you have any proof that the police did everything to conceal this?

Another nut waiting in line for la_) foxy to be free in 30 years time with a stupid nick to go with!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =gob%20job
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?


Hi Fiona. Thanks. This time it was actually partially my fault, as I had prefaced my commentary by including choice quotes from the FOAK crowd - one from each still posting in the thread, about 8 or 9, as I recall. (The JREF comment on my post was: "Reason: Breach of Rule 4 - try again with a short quote and the link.") I'm not sure why the post couldn't have gone through, with perhaps a Mod Note or a PM clueing me into proper protocol for future reference. However, after having 3 previous posts of much shorter length deleted, I've had enough.


That's hilarious, Fuji. You summarised from several links, where readers could find further information, and clearly quoted relevant bits to help the reader examine further those links they choose. That's an astonishing feat of knee-jerk reaction by their moderator.

I found it absolutely clear and tremendously informative. I'd been posting little linkies and referring folks to insurance trade papers if they need to. The police photographed and examined everything. It's the height of stupidity that the Amanda-groupies use police photographs as evidence the police did not investigate the break-in. Where do they think their pictures came from?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I'm sorry, but I find the smug and smarmy condescending remarks that some of these newer JREF posters have brought to this website to be utterly disrespectful. I know I don't say or contribute much (without putting my foot in my mouth) to the board, but I had to get this out. Is it because these people destroyed their own forum? Why not go to Bruce Fisher's fan-club forum?
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 Jul 19, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

mortytoad wrote:
I'm sorry, but I find the smug and smarmy condescending remarks that some of these newer JREF posters have brought to this website to be utterly disrespectful. I know I don't say or contribute much (without putting my foot in my mouth) to the board, but I had to get this out. Is it because these people destroyed their own forum? Why not go to Bruce Fisher's fan-club forum?

cl-) cl-) cl-)
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 Jul 19, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).


I said it was probably Tricky or Darat. But Darat was the one to place it under moderated status after "repeated offences". There is little doubt they are deliberately allowing personal attacks or comment of the "lame" variety by those who support Amanda and deleting or rejecting posts asking that the thread be moved to the Conspiracy Theories section of the forum.

I had assumed the opposite as Fuji. I didn't see an announcement but simply assumed it was now Tricky and Darat given the former's complaint about having to moderate the thread and Darat's explanation for putting it back on moderated status.

All those qualified to comment (Rolfe comes to mind) have declined due to the "tl;dr" aspect of the thread. (Tl;dr = "Too Long; Didn't Read" for those unfamiliar). Only four of those regularly posting as Amanda-groupies are long-time JREF'rs: Kestrel; Dan O.; HumanityBlues; Kevin_Lowe. All the rest joined only to promote Amanda's innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

mortytoad wrote:
I'm sorry, but I find the smug and smarmy condescending remarks that some of these newer JREF posters have brought to this website to be utterly disrespectful. I know I don't say or contribute much (without putting my foot in my mouth) to the board, but I had to get this out. Is it because these people destroyed their own forum? Why not go to Bruce Fisher's fan-club forum?



I am not sure who you are referring to here? Some of us found this place when trying to educate ourselves about this case because of the debate at JREF. It is a great resouce and I value it highly. I truly hope you do not find me or some of the other long time JREF folk smarmy or smug or condescending. I should be very sorry indeed to come across like 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: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody, Chris C, Gobjob -

I am giving a formal Moderator instruction that you are not to post for twelve hours, from the time of this post...nothing, nada, zilch...for twelve hours. This is not a punishment. I would appreciate it if you adhere to these instruction. Some people may comment on your previous posts. Please do not be tempted to post a response until the 12 hour point.

I appreciate your co-operation.

Michael (co-Administrator/Moderator 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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

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

Michael wrote:
christiana wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).


LashL has edited a post as recently as July 17. I don't believe she/he has posted on the thread since her/his status as moderator was brought up (not 100% sure though).


It's...on a par with corruption. Posters respect and trust their Moderators, but if that trust is broken it can't be fixed. That can't be gotten back. The whole premise of the JREF moderation style is to be aloof.


And there are clear and vested interests. The moderators allow plenty of desultory comments against the person and practices of, for example, Christian "creationists" or 9/11 "truthers". While I don't particularly approve of either of those perspectives, they may be discussed in a reasonable, lively, and friendly manner. The moderators don't put topics on creationism or inside job theories on moderated status. Global warming is almost the only other topic that attracts the same level of moderator interference as the Amanda Knox conviction.

Note: When the thread was revived, its title was even edited by the moderators to create the impression that it was not about a conspiraloon contention that Knox was convicted only because of a cartwheel. That title invited derision (as it should) and nothing the Amanda-groupies have said since would convince me they don't all think that's exactly what happened.
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 Jul 19, 2010 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
mortytoad wrote:
I'm sorry, but I find the smug and smarmy condescending remarks that some of these newer JREF posters have brought to this website to be utterly disrespectful. I know I don't say or contribute much (without putting my foot in my mouth) to the board, but I had to get this out. Is it because these people destroyed their own forum? Why not go to Bruce Fisher's fan-club forum?



I am not sure who you are referring to here? Some of us found this place when trying to educate ourselves about this case because of the debate at JREF. It is a great resouce and I value it highly. I truly hope you do not find me or some of the other long time JREF folk smarmy or smug or condescending. I should be very sorry indeed to come across like that

This isn't being said of you Fiona.
hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob wrote:
Cops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way. It's a Big Problem with them.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.



Good point. I think Raff's sister would back you up on those last comments, also italian cops would be very upset by a foxy american girl performing for them down at the station. pf-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Good grief! I go away for a few days and return to a board full of trolls!!! We haven't had this much fun since the days of the 'Troll of the Week' Award. Anyone remember that? I think there was a picture to go with the award. Will have to look it out. What with that and Macport's meltdown in the chat box it seems the place has gone mad!

Mama Mia, as Amanda would say in an unconvincing manner...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
mortytoad wrote:
I'm sorry, but I find the smug and smarmy condescending remarks that some of these newer JREF posters have brought to this website to be utterly disrespectful. I know I don't say or contribute much (without putting my foot in my mouth) to the board, but I had to get this out. Is it because these people destroyed their own forum? Why not go to Bruce Fisher's fan-club forum?



I am not sure who you are referring to here? Some of us found this place when trying to educate ourselves about this case because of the debate at JREF. It is a great resouce and I value it highly. I truly hope you do not find me or some of the other long time JREF folk smarmy or smug or condescending. I should be very sorry indeed to come across like that



He's not talking about you Fiona (or posters like Bob, Stilicho, Christiana, Tsit, Fuji, Odeed etc,), but those who have joined PMF today and thinks (rightly or wrongly) they've come here from the JREF.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ah. Well I do not think of those people as JREF'ers. I do not think they have destroyed their own forum: I think they have destroyed mine (well just that thread, really :) )
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
Fuji wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?



I've no idea what's wrong with that post. Clearly, the JREF moderation policy needs adjusting since quality posts are disallowed while drivel is let through and the result has been an exodus of the high quality senior posters from the JREF, or at least from the JREF Meredith Kercher thread.

As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.

I can't tell you 'why' this is happening on the JREF, only 'how' it works and what's going on. It's a large site and has a high number of staff (comparatively speaking, say to PMF...which only has two full Mods, we have other Mods but they are only limited Mods and each has control over only a specific forum for which member interaction is limited). With a large staff which has to together run the site on a daily basis the only way to organise it is to have a hidden staff forum. There, policy, tasks and roles will be assigned. If any Mod has a problem or isn't sure how to handle a specific issue, they'll post there and get instructions from the Admins and advice from the other Mods.

Anyway, this is all boring administration stuff. But, the point is, the handling of the Meredith kercher thread on the JREF is top down. The JREF Admins are fully aware of what's going on in that thread (especially as it's a 'problem thread') and how everything is dealt with there is down directly to their policy and subsequent instructions to their Moderators.

If you want answers to your questions, it's the Admins you need to contact and ask, not the Mods, but off board (PM...email) not on board (an Admin can't publicly be seen to be challenged)...on board they have to be Admins, off board they can be human.

That's your (very brief) dealing with Admins and the functioning of the JREF guide :)


Michael, your analysis of the behind-the-scenes action of running a message board sounds spot on. However, I think in the case of that thread the situation is exacerbated by some highly partial moderating. What is a poster to think when a Mod takes a public position in an extremely polarized and combative thread opposite to the one they hold, and then subsequently they realize that smarmy and sarcastic posts are permitted when posted by the Mod's side, but those from his own, as a just response, are disallowed?

I may be mistaken in my perception of LashL in that thread, as I am a rank newcomer to the JREF. Still, like all of you, I've been on one board or another for years and years and rarely have I seen so slanted of an atmosphere be allowed to stand. Can't they realize from the "guilter" exodus that their moderation is evidently unbalanced? There can't even be an argument now, as one side has been driven or encouraged to leave.


I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?

No, she did not. Revisit the PM conversation we had when I first came over to PMF, Fiona. LashL was active in moderating that thread for at least 1-2 weeks following her outburst.


ETA: The thread in AAH I linked you to in said PMs still shows LashL as having been active in moderating that thread on 23 June. At least a week following her outburst.


Last edited by BobTheDnky on Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: Karate   

Michael kindly asked me to not jump to new topics, but follow up :)

Ok, let's set apart the pillow footprint of Amanda, on which we apparently don't have anything concrete to debate.


The next issue chronologically I think was Meredith's karate.
The argument is that three people were somehow needed to take her down, because with Rudy alone she would start a fight, right?


I must say I'm a little baffled here. Meredith being a skilled karateka (black belt?) is something I learnt on this forum yesterday. I seriously can't remember anyone using this argument before. I would love to know what school of karate was it.

But what's interesting: Having such a background she was even less likely to put up a fight from the start.

If her sensei was sensible, and especially if that school emphasizes real life street fight situations, then one of the first things she learned was to never enter fight against a knife wielding opponent. Basically real world is not like in the movies, where an unarmed guy kicks a thug and takes his knife. You will not get out of such confrontation without deep cuts and stab wounds.



I'm sure that when she faced Rudy pointing the knife at her, alone in her home with nowhere to run she didn't think about kicking and trying to disarm him, it would be suicidal. Maybe she tried to talk him out of harming her, maybe he grabbed her, or twisted her arm, or rough her up but she was still alive and it didn't come to her mind he would kill her.
What did Rudy say to her?
"Keep quiet! Stay still! I won't hurt you if you don't move."
When you have a knife at your throat - you listen, and you obey.
I believe Rudy stabbed her only after she started to struggle more, maybe because he tried to undress her, but at that time she was on the floor, in a small room, not in a position to use karate style moves.
She was not much of a MMA fighter, weighing maybe 50 something kilograms and subdued by a much stronger male she didn't stand a chance.

It was mentioned here she had over 40 bruises, scratches and stab wounds.
I don't know about any stab wounds other then those to the neck. And I believe the bruises and scratches are compatible with the scenario above.


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: You are banned temporarily, for 24 hours, for failing to comply with a Moderator instruction to cease posting for 12 hours. Next time it will be for longer or even permanently! Come back tomorrow.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

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

Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).

'Twas I, good sir.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: Karate   

Katody wrote:
Michael kindly asked me to not jump to new topics, but follow up :)

Ok, let's set apart the pillow footprint of Amanda, on which we apparently don't have anything concrete to debate.


The next issue chronologically I think was Meredith's karate.
The argument is that three people were somehow needed to take her down, because with Rudy alone she would start a fight, right?


I must say I'm a little baffled here. Meredith being a skilled karateka (black belt?) is something I learnt on this forum yesterday. I seriously can't remember anyone using this argument before. I would love to know what school of karate was it.

But what's interesting: Having such a background she was even less likely to put up a fight from the start.

If her sensei was sensible, and especially if that school emphasizes real life street fight situations, then one of the first things she learned was to never enter fight against a knife wielding opponent. Basically real world is not like in the movies, where an unarmed guy kicks a thug and takes his knife. You will not get out of such confrontation without deep cuts and stab wounds.



I'm sure that when she faced Rudy pointing the knife at her, alone in her home with nowhere to run she didn't think about kicking and trying to disarm him, it would be suicidal. Maybe she tried to talk him out of harming her, maybe he grabbed her, or twisted her arm, or rough her up but she was still alive and it didn't come to her mind he would kill her.
What did Rudy say to her?
"Keep quiet! Stay still! I won't hurt you if you don't move."
When you have a knife at your throat - you listen, and you obey.
I believe Rudy stabbed her only after she started to struggle more, maybe because he tried to undress her, but at that time she was on the floor, in a small room, not in a position to use karate style moves.
She was not much of a MMA fighter, weighing maybe 50 something kilograms and subdued by a much stronger male she didn't stand a chance.

It was mentioned here she had over 40 bruises, scratches and stab wounds.
I don't know about any stab wounds other then those to the neck. And I believe the bruises and scratches are compatible with the scenario above.

And once she realized that she was in trouble, she didn't bother trying to fight back? She just let him stab her, pick up a different knife, and stab her again?

While I cannot claim to have coined the term, you certainly are laying claim to the most profound use of, that's right, you've guessed it: Mental Gymnastics.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

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

mortytoad wrote:
I'm sorry, but I find the smug and smarmy condescending remarks that some of these newer JREF posters have brought to this website to be utterly disrespectful. I know I don't say or contribute much (without putting my foot in my mouth) to the board, but I had to get this out. Is it because these people destroyed their own forum? Why not go to Bruce Fisher's fan-club forum?


Sorry, I can't help it. I just can't get past feeling that those assholes who defend Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito through the most obvious and patently absurd of mental gymnastics are completely deserving of every ounce of condescension I can muster.


;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way in,

'Their case, their story, their 'professional' tale of the events.

Cops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way. It's a Big Problem with them.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.

Ok Gobjob, all cops, muck up 70% of what they find, and all cops -I assume everywhere in the world, are on some kind of power trip. So what do you suggest, perhaps to release inmates worldwide since they have all been convicted by means of fabricated evidence by worldwide corrupt cops?? Will all due respect haven't read anything more insignificantly stupid than your post, in a long time.

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

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Katody: One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that you are KATY-DID from Jref. KATODY simply comes from KATY-DO.

Hence my, as Stilicho pointed out, horribly unpuny post from last night...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

nicki wrote:
Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way in,

'Their case, their story, their 'professional' tale of the events.

Cops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way. It's a Big Problem with them.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.

Ok Gobjob, all cops, muck up 70% of what they find, and all cops -I assume everywhere in the world, are on some kind of power trip. So what do you suggest, perhaps to release inmates worldwide since they have all been convicted by means of fabricated evidence by worldwide corrupt cops?? Will all due respect haven't read anything more insignificantly stupid than your post, in a long time.

You're right Nicki. It's right up there with Halkides' attempts to have all DNA evidence thrown out as it could be contaminated. And Mary's contentions that basketball players are able to twist their bodies in amazing feats that one would expect only from the stars of Cirque Du Soleil...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Fuji wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Very interesting post. I have not seen anything to do with patterns found in staqing before this, so well found

I cannot imagine why that post would not stand at JREF. Any clues given?



I've no idea what's wrong with that post. Clearly, the JREF moderation policy needs adjusting since quality posts are disallowed while drivel is let through and the result has been an exodus of the high quality senior posters from the JREF, or at least from the JREF Meredith Kercher thread.

As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.

I can't tell you 'why' this is happening on the JREF, only 'how' it works and what's going on. It's a large site and has a high number of staff (comparatively speaking, say to PMF...which only has two full Mods, we have other Mods but they are only limited Mods and each has control over only a specific forum for which member interaction is limited). With a large staff which has to together run the site on a daily basis the only way to organise it is to have a hidden staff forum. There, policy, tasks and roles will be assigned. If any Mod has a problem or isn't sure how to handle a specific issue, they'll post there and get instructions from the Admins and advice from the other Mods.

Anyway, this is all boring administration stuff. But, the point is, the handling of the Meredith kercher thread on the JREF is top down. The JREF Admins are fully aware of what's going on in that thread (especially as it's a 'problem thread') and how everything is dealt with there is down directly to their policy and subsequent instructions to their Moderators.

If you want answers to your questions, it's the Admins you need to contact and ask, not the Mods, but off board (PM...email) not on board (an Admin can't publicly be seen to be challenged)...on board they have to be Admins, off board they can be human.

That's your (very brief) dealing with Admins and the functioning of the JREF guide :)


Michael, your analysis of the behind-the-scenes action of running a message board sounds spot on. However, I think in the case of that thread the situation is exacerbated by some highly partial moderating. What is a poster to think when a Mod takes a public position in an extremely polarized and combative thread opposite to the one they hold, and then subsequently they realize that smarmy and sarcastic posts are permitted when posted by the Mod's side, but those from his own, as a just response, are disallowed?

I may be mistaken in my perception of LashL in that thread, as I am a rank newcomer to the JREF. Still, like all of you, I've been on one board or another for years and years and rarely have I seen so slanted of an atmosphere be allowed to stand. Can't they realize from the "guilter" exodus that their moderation is evidently unbalanced? There can't even be an argument now, as one side has been driven or encouraged to leave.


I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?

No, she did not. Revisit the PM conversation we had when I first came over to PMF, Fiona. LashL was active in moderating that thread for at least 1-2 weeks following her outburst.


ETA: The thread in AAH I linked you to in said PMs still shows LashL as having been active in moderating that thread on 23 June. At least a week following her outburst.


I had forgotten that, BobTheDonkey. I am trying to resist the idea that this is in some way related to my other little storm in a teacup at JREF. That does not help ;)
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 Jul 19, 2010 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: Karate   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Katody wrote:
The argument is that three people were somehow needed to take her down, because with Rudy alone she would start a fight, right?

....

I'm sure that when she faced Rudy pointing the knife at her, alone in her home with nowhere to run she didn't think about kicking and trying to disarm him, it would be suicidal. Maybe she tried to talk him out of harming her, maybe he grabbed her, or twisted her arm, or rough her up but she was still alive and it didn't come to her mind he would kill her.

And once she realized that she was in trouble, she didn't bother trying to fight back? She just let him stab her, pick up a different knife, and stab her again?

While I cannot claim to have coined the term, you certainly are laying claim to the most profound use of, that's right, you've guessed it: Mental Gymnastics.


Don't forget that there is nothing in this "scenario" to explain how Rudy got into the cottage in the first place. There is likewise no explanation how he wielded two knives and committed sexual assault all at the same time. No explanation how Rudy alone managed to leave Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat either. Nor how he got mixed samples of Meredith's and Amanda's DNA in various locations in the cottage. Nor why he mopped the floor and locked Meredith's door while leaving behind obvious evidence of his presence in the unflushed toilet. Nor how he knew Meredith had two mobile phones. Nor why he mopped the hallway but left evidence of his presence in Meredith's room. Nor why he took Amanda's lamp into Meredith's room. Nor how he got the murder weapon from Raffaele's flat and returned it after cleaning it thoroughly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
I had forgotten that, BobTheDonkey. I am trying to resist the idea that this is in some way related to my other little storm in a teacup at JREF. That does not help ;)

Mayday?
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 Jul 19, 2010 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I assumed that LashL stopped moderating that thread after her post. Is this not true?


Not according to Stilicho (I think it was Stilicho...someone from the JREF here anyway was saying she was continuing to moderate the thread...put in a search for 'lashl' to find exactly who).

'Twas I, good sir.



Ah yes, I knew it was someone from the JREF :)

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Good grief! I go away for a few days and return to a board full of trolls!!! We haven't had this much fun since the days of the 'Troll of the Week' Award. Anyone remember that? I think there was a picture to go with the award. Will have to look it out. What with that and Macport's meltdown in the chat box it seems the place has gone mad!

Mama Mia, as Amanda would say in an unconvincing manner...




Welcome back Bard ;)

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Bob wrote:
ETA: The thread in AAH I linked you to in said PMs still shows LashL as having been active in moderating that thread on 23 June. At least a week following her outburst.


What outburst? Can you post it up here? I'm quite curious.

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Good grief! I go away for a few days and return to a board full of trolls!!! We haven't had this much fun since the days of the 'Troll of the Week' Award. Anyone remember that? I think there was a picture to go with the award. Will have to look it out. What with that and Macport's meltdown in the chat box it seems the place has gone mad!

Mama Mia, as Amanda would say in an unconvincing manner...

C'mon what does everyone have against trolls anyway? Who couldn't love this face?

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 Jul 19, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
nicki wrote:
Gobjob wrote:
Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.

Ok Gobjob, all cops, muck up 70% of what they find, and all cops -I assume everywhere in the world, are on some kind of power trip. So what do you suggest, perhaps to release inmates worldwide since they have all been convicted by means of fabricated evidence by worldwide corrupt cops?? Will all due respect haven't read anything more insignificantly stupid than your post, in a long time.

You're right Nicki. It's right up there with Halkides' attempts to have all DNA evidence thrown out as it could be contaminated. And Mary's contentions that basketball players are able to twist their bodies in amazing feats that one would expect only from the stars of Cirque Du Soleil...


Don't forget Mary's howler about horny cops or her historical 'theory' about the genetic transfer of political affiinities from father to son.

I wasn't going to comment on Gobjob's incoherent nuttery but it suffices to say that he or she said that police screw up 70% of the evidence 70% of the time (49% of all evidence) but later states: Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. So somewhere between 49% and 100% of all evidence is either "mucked up" or "fiddled".

To be on the safe side, I propose the immediate release of three-quarters of all convicts and to settle them in Gobjob's neighbourhood. Then let's see who's going to whine about those power-hungry cops and their leeringly leering leers.

pf-))
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 Jul 19, 2010 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

nicki wrote:
Gobjob wrote:
This is my first post here, and I was going to pull a quote from a previous one and didn't know how.

The post was about 3 pages ago and talked about the 'staged breakin' and how the defence needed to, but couldn't argue against it.

THERE IS A FOOTPRINT OF RUDY GUEDE IN THE GLASS TRACES OF THE ROOM (where Filomena picked up her laptop and poured glass onto the strewn clothes.. That's after the crime scene photos by the way.)
The police did EVERYTHING to conceal this fact by the way in,

'Their case, their story, their 'professional' tale of the events.

Cops are known to fiddle evidence in a lot of cases by the way. It's a Big Problem with them.

Cops have 'professional interests? in cases' and the build personal prejudices into their dealings with what they find at crime scenes to alarming levels. They are capable of mucking up 70%of what they find 70% of the time, in the first instance anyway, with that dumb 'I've got all the power and....I just don't like you' way they act (erupt) into what they turn up to.

(They don't like intelligent sensitive types like Raff, especially when people like Raff look annoyed with them, or of course look at them and the way they are doing things, as if they're stupid)

Cops fiddle evidence ..... All The Time. There's so, so many proven cases.

They're well known for it. You've just got to be part of the younger generation to know that that, and that cop leer they have are true.

Ok Gobjob, all cops, muck up 70% of what they find, and all cops -I assume everywhere in the world, are on some kind of power trip. So what do you suggest, perhaps to release inmates worldwide since they have all been convicted by means of fabricated evidence by worldwide corrupt cops?? Will all due respect haven't read anything more insignificantly stupid than your post, in a long time.



And perhaps they should let Rudy go too...as clearly he is also innocent, since all cops are corrupt ;)

_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2010 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

You are only saying that because you don't know anything: not like the younger generation ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

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

Mamma mia che casino!


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

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

Yes, Bobthedonkey: you did catch that before me. I'm slooooow today :) Must be from beating Jools at BG :) :) :)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:55 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

The PMF Chat Box. Can members please be reminded that the PMF chat box is right on the index page. It is one of the first things members see when they sign in and as such gives the first impressions of the site. Moreover, too much flashy stuff is rather a distraction.

Having fun is okay, but please don't go overboard in there. In short, calm down.

Thank You

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


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Michael wrote:
Administrator Note:

The PMF Chat Box. Can members please be reminded that the PMF chat box is right on the index page. It is one of the first things members see when they sign in and as such gives the first impressions of the site. Moreover, too much flashy stuff is rather a distraction.

Having fun is okay, but please don't go overboard in there. In short, calm down.

Thank You

Okay you might as well have just addressed that directly to me and been accurate. Too much .gif fun!! I'm seeking therapy as we speak.
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 Jul 20, 2010 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It was to 'everybody'. I'm not singling people out, it was a general heads up.

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


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

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Macport wrote:
Michael wrote:
Administrator Note:

The PMF Chat Box. Can members please be reminded that the PMF chat box is right on the index page. It is one of the first things members see when they sign in and as such gives the first impressions of the site. Moreover, too much flashy stuff is rather a distraction.

Having fun is okay, but please don't go overboard in there. In short, calm down.

Thank You

Okay you might as well have just addressed that directly to me and been accurate. Too much .gif fun!! I'm seeking therapy as we speak.

So are the rest of us that were subjected to your .gifs in the chat box :lol:
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 Jul 20, 2010 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

BobTheDnky wrote:
So are the rest of us that were subjected to your .gifs in the chat box :lol:

Too good!!!! Hey the games have kept us occupied for a little while and that has helped. We're trying to keep our minds off the upcoming release of the report. Playing with trolls is no fun any more. They're too one dimensional. The .gif's actual had some depth.


Last edited by Macport on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

PMFer playing with trolls


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: Karate   

Don't bother to come back at all, Katody. We don't look to you to set the topic and it's of no interest at all what you like or don't like, believe or not. You're only here to throw your pathetic light weight around and proclaim whatever garbage you want followers of this forum to read. It's not big, it's not clever. Just go away and "think on your own".
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael,
Seriously, they make racist remarks against me and you sensor me. FYI Black people in the south use Yall also. Black people also know how to use a computer.



Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Clearly you also don't understand instructions not to post for 12 hours. Therefore, you are also banned for 24 hours. Do not ignore Moderator instructions!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

How did you do that, Michael? Apply the sensors, I mean.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Quote:
As a Moderator I'll tell you, if your rules, policy and moderation style doesn't attract and retain the high quality posters then it's a failure.


All personal opinions aside, because I know this case extremely well, and from the amount of factual information and analysis and Italian translation that I have brought to this board, I consider myself a quality poster. Your policy has been to attack me in an entirely gratuitous and vicious manner, on totally false grounds, pretending mendaciously that you believe that
Quote:
the ultimate destination of the road you are desperately trying to go down is that the darling little lovebirds are innocent.


If in 15 months on this board I have not gone down that path, then I must indeed be very slow. Especially when I have often stated the exact opposite, a simple and obvious fact that you have high-handedly chosen to ignore. Furthermore, and this is what disgusted me the most, you waited to strike exactly until I had posted that I had finished my part of the translation and proofreading of the Massei report. While I was working on it, your tone was friendly, but you subsequently showed with your comment "alternatively, I didn't say what I thought back then" that that friendliness was the merest hypocrisy.

To retain high quality posters is certainly not your priority. Your post destroyed for me the impression of mutual respect and collegial discussion given by the board in general and lowered the level to vicious personal attacks.

J'en ai gros sur le coeur. No idea how to say that in English. But it hurt.


Note
Just a Note.
~ This is a discussion which has its place in PM or email, not the open board~
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Chère thoughtful, je comprends ton point de vue et je comprends que tu sois heurté, mais je crois que il faut aussi regarder de l’autre coté de la rue. I am not defending Michael (he doesn’t need me at all) I am just saying that sometimes I understand how easy is to see enemies everywhere.
In any case, please note that I (and maybe some other participants and lurkers) appreciate and thank you for your hardwork and for your contribution to the sense of justice and humanity.
À bientôt, j'espère.
Zopi
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Zopi wrote:
Chère thoughtful, je comprends ton point de vue et je comprends que tu sois heurté, mais je crois que il faut aussi regarder de l’autre coté de la rue. I am not defending Michael (he doesn’t need me at all) I am just saying that sometimes I understand how easy is to see enemies everywhere.
In any case, please note that I (and maybe some other participants and lurkers) appreciate and thank you for your hardwork and for your contribution to the sense of justice and humanity.
À bientôt, j'espère.
Zopi


____________________

Yes, exactly Zopi. I'll let Michael respond for himself, but as I recall he said something to thoughtful along the lines of "maybe I'm being paranoid, but....." It's not easy to moderate this forum when there are so many enemies, and it's hard to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable fear. Both feel the same.

And welcome back thoughtful.







///


Last edited by fine on Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

You called it Fly By Night.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:04 am   Post subject: Pensée   



Mes pensées parlent à mes pensées,
Ce sont elles qui me guident et me disent,
Rêve aujourd'hui, tu oublieras ton passé,
Et pense à tous ceux qui t'estiment.

– [ Creatis blog ]


I've always liked botany (probably goes without saying, I suppose :) ).

My pansies speak my thoughts
They've always guided me,
Saying "Now dream today,
Let past faults float away,
And see those in all th'courts
Who hold you in esteem."
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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:12 am   Post subject: Voting booth   

Quote:


Presto un film di Hollywood sulla vicenda di Amanda Knox. Lo trovate giusto?
(“A film soon on the Amanda Knox case? Do you think that’s right?)

* No 79.6%

* Sì 20.4%


Numero votanti (“votes”): 1462



– [ Corriere della Sera ] survey, opened 11 July 2010




I wonder how many times I can vote? :) :)

Therapeutically, of course: “The results have no statistical or scientific meaning. The only purpose of the surveys is to allow readers to express their opinion on news topics of the day.”
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
"Since Amanda's and Meredith's mixed DNA was brought up recently:"


What indeed has been brought up recently was a claim by someone using the name Katody that the cushion shoeprint is the same as Rudy's shoeprint. :D
You ducked requests to show the picture of Rudy's shoeprint.

It is time for you to admit that it was a bluff.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Ok, let's set apart the pillow footprint of Amanda, on which we apparently don't have anything concrete to debate."

:D :D
So you don't have anything concrete?
But you claimed that it was Rudy's shoeprint.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:05 am   Post subject: Re: Glimpses   

Catnip wrote:
....For example, Amanda (says the document) was interviewed for a total of approximately 53.45 hours spread over 5 days, made up of (from pp12f), as far as I can work out so far:

15:30 02/11 to 03:00 03/11 = 12 hr
14:45 03/11 to 22:00 03/11 = 8 hr
on 04/11 = 12 hr (including at the cottage from 14:45 to 21:00)
22:00 05/11 to 01:45 06/11 = 5 hr
01:45 06/11 to 05:45 06/11 = 3.45 hr (plus statement at 14:00)
12:00 06/11 Amanda arrested, lawyer appointed, mother advised
~16:30 06/11 Amanda transferred to prison
22:00 06/11 Inspector Ficcara’s receives the statement

There might be some (understandable) fudging of the figures towards the end of the period (depending on how the end of an interview period should be legally defined, I suspect).


Thanks Catnip; always great to get new data.

From this timeline it looks that following AK’s last contact time with the police on 4 November she was not scheduled to be questioned on the 5 Nov. Her visit to the Questura on the night of 5 Nov was voluntary and of her own volition as per her court testimony. Had she not chosen to accompany RS to the Questura on the pm of 5 Nov the possibility of AK being questioned for a say 36 hour period is extremely remote (from end of questioning on 4 Nov to a potential new as yet unscheduled session on the 6 Nov).

This gap in contact time IMO belies the K/M camp assertion that the police were actively engaged in a plot to break her down and stitch her up. Rather than turn up the pressure on AK by increasing the rate of questioning sessions the police had de facto cut her loose after the 4 Nov. Hardly the actions of a group hell bent on coercing a confession IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thoughtful, Michael was indeed paranoid and unreasonable at that time. He said what he said but he did not restrain you in posting. Get over it.
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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:24 am   Post subject: Gaps   

Hammerite wrote:
This gap in contact time IMO belies the K/M camp assertion that the police were actively engaged in a plot to break her down and stitch her up.


Thanks for that, Hammerite.
I hadn't thought of it in terms of the implications of the gaps before.

Gaps are important, but sometimes they are difficult to "see" verbally.

Like an elephant-shaped emptiness in the hand-waving and wand-waving narrative(s) being woven about that night. Visually, like in a ballet, the "avoidance-spaces" will be immediately obvious.
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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:26 am   Post subject: Graham the Boss   

Looking at how the Italian media picked up the Bob Graham piece promoting the recently-published interview in Oggi magazine, I was wondering whether, if Bob Graham made his movie before the case was concluded, how could he not slander somebody in the process?

Or for that matter, if anyone made a movie.

An “even-handed” documentary would not necessarily be a contempt of court, but a movie, which by definition has to have a viewpoint (and a plot), is going to have to say something – unless it’s going to be an Andy Warhol type of movie, but I don’t think Graham would know anything about Warhol (maybe I’m wrong on that).

There is no point in excercising the imagination in making a colpevolisti movie – the court case is already trundling along that path by following the evidence.

An innocentisti movie will be good for the lawyers, I expect – all those defamation suits lining up. :) (Rudy could get quite a tidy compensation sum out of that. And that’s just for starters. :) )

Graham’s writing has not shown any creative merit yet (not that that has stopped anyone in the past), and the way that he has been flogging the story around leaves a taste of money-grubbing in the mouth (not that that has stopped anyone in the past, either).

Besides which, who knows what actually happened yet?

Any “filling in of the gaps” will be pure speculation, and anyone can speculate. Who wants to pay good money for someone else’s speculation? With all those “drugs”, even the participants themselves are having trouble “filling in” what they were doing that night (maybe it is a Warhol movie, after all).





From Oggi to (would-be film-maker?) Bob Graham to:

– Meredith murder: Amanda Knox – it wasn’t me [ Libero ]
– Perugia Murder: Knox – “I did not kill Meredith” [ Corrispondenti ] 19 July 2010
– Meredith Murder: Amanda Knox in the Sunday Express – “I did not kill her” [ TuttOggi ] 19 July 2010
– Amanda Knox: “I did not kill Meredith” [ Sky ] 18 July 2010
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

" Her visit to the Questura on the night of 5 Nov was voluntary and of her own volition as per her court testimony. Had she not chosen to accompany RS to the Questura on the pm of 5 Nov "

I'm not quite sure that it was voluntary.
Raffaele was called in and Amanda had nowhere to go.
One could say that she could have stayed at Raffaele's.
But we don't know if Raffaele wanted her to be alone in his flat. Not beacuse of fearing an attack, but because of suspicion that she could plant something.
Remember, both of them played with such ideas in their diaries.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
" Her visit to the Questura on the night of 5 Nov was voluntary and of her own volition as per her court testimony. Had she not chosen to accompany RS to the Questura on the pm of 5 Nov "

I'm not quite sure that it was voluntary.
Raffaele was called in and Amanda had nowhere to go.
One could say that she could have stayed at Raffaele's.
But we don't know if Raffaele wanted her to be alone in his flat. Not beacuse of fearing an attack, but because of suspicion that she could plant something.
Remember, both of them played with such ideas in their diaries.


Hi bolint, I note your points.

What I meant by voluntary was that she wasn’t summoned to the Questura by the police.

Interesting to have these alleged police questioning time slots for AK. It would be great to get those for RS if anyone has the wherewithal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thank you Michael for all you do! The level of patience you have had in the past couple of days is AMAZING!
I sincerely appreciate the body of knowledge and wisdom here at PMF.
I'll go back to lurker mode now. Just wanted to express my gratitude. hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 13 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 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 


28,890,385 Views