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 14 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

That was really sweet, Zinnia. Yes, Michael does do a lot, including being the Mahjong champ :)

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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: Glimpses   

Hammerite wrote:
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.



I must say I am very sceptical about that sum of 53,45 hours. They make it look like Amanda was tied on a chair, surrounded by numerous police-agents, and questioned all the time (and frightened!!)
That is simply not true,

for instance the 12 hrs from 02/11: I am convinced that all the housmates and their friends gathered at the Cottage and then at the Questura, and this first interrogations were more or less informative - because police had to collect informations to start with (and all of them would have been there together voluntarely as long as possible)


And I am sure, the 03/11 was not much different, just the questioning more intense as discrepancies started to emerge more and more.

So I conclude that the 04/11 was the first day with some intense interrogations, but the 12 hrs included transportation to the cottage and back, also some breaks for eating and drinking, so the total sum would be much lower.

The 5 hrs from 05/11 and the 3h45 from 06/11 seems quite correct.

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

Offline Gobjob


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:52 am

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I did an earlier post about Rudy's footprint in Filomena's staged room and someone asked if I was making that up in some conspiracy theory. What evidence did I have ?

I've copied part of one of the articles I've seen on it, but when I pasted the relevant information here, the pictures didn't come into this post so here's some advice on the link - :

If you google Rudy footprint in Filomena room go to this -:


Amanda Knox murder trial: Taking aim at Rudy Guede
Nor have we ever before been shown a footprint of Rudy Guede's in Filomena's room. So much for the staging theory! Also want to point out that Filomena ...
blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/179047.asp - Cached - Similar


So here is part of that article on it. The cops of course,have always known all about the footprint and have the technology to prove it. I've seen more obvious articles than this showing that the footprint in glass in Filomena's room is unquestionably Rudy's. Unlike the neverending not really scientifically proven footprint on the bathmat. (just because the court says we'll take our local cops ((not to mention my good mate the local prosecutor, I've known for years, who has problems he's working through at the moment's)) version, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so.)

To be honest that one did leave room for doubt.

Anyway, here's some of the text - :

The drawing below is from the Oggi story. It shows the five footprints from the murder room and--an even bigger surprise--a Rudy-attributed footprint from the famous room with the broken window (a room once occupied by Filomena Romanelli). The defense contends Rudy Guede broke in that way; the prosecution insists the broken window was part of an elaborate staging.
We'll be hearing more about all six footprints in court. Below you can see the two images that will highlight the debate at the re-start of the hearing. Oggi says: "To the left, a diagram of glass lying next to a shoe print left by Rudy Guede. For the lawyers of Amanda and Raffaele this is another sign against the Ivorian: it would show that he entered the house after breaking down a window. To the right, the five prints that, to his astonishment, Prof. Vinci (Sollecito's expert) found on the pillowcase of the cushion on which lay the body of Meredith. There is an entire left shoe print and the sole is of a Nike Outbreak 2 number 45, the same worn by Guede the night of the crime."

From Oggi: Glass on the tile next to Rudy's shoeprint in Filomena's room, where a broken window was found. Five shoeprints in the murder room on a pillow case under the victim's body. (right).
Note: The left photo shows exhibit A on the tile; the right shows the five left shoe prints on the pillowcase, one in the center, 3 overlapping ones in a group a half-step to the left, and one below the other 4, turned to the right.
* Feet of a killer: Here is another set of footprints, said to be Rudy Guede's, heading across the living room floor.


Also,

There was some other comment about the glass sliding off Filomena's laptop.
If there are clothes on the gound that are supposedly placed there after breaking the window (which crime scene photos do not support)
Then we are listening to what Filomena told us.
Filomena said there was glass on the laptop when she picked it up, but the lptop would be out in the open on any version of breaking the window.
If Filomena says, as she did, that there was glass on my laptop when I picked it up.
Then the glass will fall off (presumably somewhere near the clothes) which means she has told us without any shred of doubt, in her own words that she has disturbed the evidence in that crime scene (and in light of that particular evidence's debate, to an alarming degree.) Because of what she said she did, you cannot use the glass on the clothes talk as real evidence.

Crime scene photos say the opposite to the police's story of there being glass on the clothes anyway.
Of course.


Last edited by Gobjob on Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky 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?


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.


;)



I too find the mental gymnastics - or sophomoric sophism if you prefer - odious and tedious in equal measure. I am not able to be online much for personal and professional reasons, but it doesn't mean I am not reading and taking notes. I don't want immature assholes posting here. They (you know who you are) can either leave of their own volition or be booted out. It's up to them.

Thoughtful, it is nice to see you online. As I am in the process of proofreading the Massei report, I am in a good position to say that without the immense effort put in by Thoughtful and several others (you know who you are - I have only a short time to stay connected so I won't name you all), this translation would have been impossible to produce.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob: I'm going to say this verrrry carefully. Um, your user name says it all.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: Glimpses   

Pelerine wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
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


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.



I must say I am very sceptical about that sum of 53,45 hours. They make it look like Amanda was tied on a chair, surrounded by numerous police-agents, and questioned all the time (and frightened!!)
That is simply not true,

for instance the 12 hrs from 02/11: I am convinced that all the housmates and their friends gathered at the Cottage and then at the Questura, and this first interrogations were more or less informative - because police had to collect informations to start with (and all of them would have been there together voluntarely as long as possible)


And I am sure, the 03/11 was not much different, just the questioning more intense as discrepancies started to emerge more and more.

So I conclude that the 04/11 was the first day with some intense interrogations, but the 12 hrs included transportation to the cottage and back, also some breaks for eating and drinking, so the total sum would be much lower.

The 5 hrs from 05/11 and the 3h45 from 06/11 seems quite correct.



So, now the appeals are in, do the prosecution and defense enter more info to answer the opposing side? Will the prosecution be entering their timeline for contact/interrogation time with AK? I can understand the court answering yes/no for things like looking again at some of the forensic evidence or re-examining the computers, but when there is misleading information relating to the alleged abuse of AK will the prosecution answer that with yet another document or will just the evidence and testimony from the first trial stand as the prosecution case?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Just so you know, Skep, you ARE missed.:)

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, H9. As to the alleged abuse, I imagine that will be dealt with in the slander case. I think the appeals deal only with new evidence, or new witnesses, and the disputing of the facts.If.I'm incorrect, someone will put me straight.......

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

Offline Gobjob


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:52 am

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob: I'm going to say this verrrry carefully. Um, your user name says it all.


Oh dear. I think I've been slandered.

What do I do next ? Any advice ?



Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Since you also don't understand instructions not to post for 12 hours, you are now temporarily banned for 24 hours!
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 9:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

zinnia wrote:
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-)


Thank you for the kind thoughts and your moral support :)

_________________
"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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Gobjob wrote:
I did an earlier post about Rudy's footprint in Filomena's staged room and someone asked if I was making that up in some conspiracy theory. What evidence did I have ?

I've copied part of one of the articles I've seen on it, but when I pasted the relevant information here, the pictures didn't come into this post so here's some advice on the link - :

If you google Rudy footprint in Filomena room go to this -:


Amanda Knox murder trial: Taking aim at Rudy Guede
Nor have we ever before been shown a footprint of Rudy Guede's in Filomena's room. So much for the staging theory! Also want to point out that Filomena ...
blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/179047.asp - Cached - Similar


So here is part of that article on it. The cops of course,have always known all about the footprint and have the technology to prove it. I've seen more obvious articles than this showing that the footprint in glass in Filomena's room is unquestionably Rudy's. Unlike the neverending not really scientifically proven footprint on the bathmat. (just because the court says we'll take our local cops ((not to mention my good mate the local prosecutor, I've known for years, who has problems he's working through at the moment's)) version, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so.)

To be honest that one did leave room for doubt.

Anyway, here's some of the text - :

The drawing below is from the Oggi story. It shows the five footprints from the murder room and--an even bigger surprise--a Rudy-attributed footprint from the famous room with the broken window (a room once occupied by Filomena Romanelli). The defense contends Rudy Guede broke in that way; the prosecution insists the broken window was part of an elaborate staging.
We'll be hearing more about all six footprints in court. Below you can see the two images that will highlight the debate at the re-start of the hearing. Oggi says: "To the left, a diagram of glass lying next to a shoe print left by Rudy Guede. For the lawyers of Amanda and Raffaele this is another sign against the Ivorian: it would show that he entered the house after breaking down a window. To the right, the five prints that, to his astonishment, Prof. Vinci (Sollecito's expert) found on the pillowcase of the cushion on which lay the body of Meredith. There is an entire left shoe print and the sole is of a Nike Outbreak 2 number 45, the same worn by Guede the night of the crime."

From Oggi: Glass on the tile next to Rudy's shoeprint in Filomena's room, where a broken window was found. Five shoeprints in the murder room on a pillow case under the victim's body. (right).
Note: The left photo shows exhibit A on the tile; the right shows the five left shoe prints on the pillowcase, one in the center, 3 overlapping ones in a group a half-step to the left, and one below the other 4, turned to the right.
* Feet of a killer: Here is another set of footprints, said to be Rudy Guede's, heading across the living room floor.


Also,

There was some other comment about the glass sliding off Filomena's laptop.
If there are clothes on the gound that are supposedly placed there after breaking the window (which crime scene photos do not support)
Then we are listening to what Filomena told us.
Filomena said there was glass on the laptop when she picked it up, but the lptop would be out in the open on any version of breaking the window.
If Filomena says, as she did, that there was glass on my laptop when I picked it up.
Then the glass will fall off (presumably somewhere near the clothes) which means she has told us without any shred of doubt, in her own words that she has disturbed the evidence in that crime scene (and in light of that particular evidence's debate, to an alarming degree.) Because of what she said she did, you cannot use the glass on the clothes talk as real evidence.

Crime scene photos say the opposite to the police's story of there being glass on the clothes anyway.
Of course.


Hi Gobjob,

No disrespect but I just can’t follow you on the Rudy footprint section. You really need to provide the photos/drawings for it to make sense. If you ask the admin here they will assist you.

The thrashing of Filomena’s room has been discussed extensively here before; you are welcome to search back if you want to find out people’s views on it. Consequently it looks like we have to agree to disagree on the staging of Filomena’s room and move on to something else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Just so you know, Skep, you ARE missed.:)




I echo 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 H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi, H9. As to the alleged abuse, I imagine that will be dealt with in the slander case. I think the appeals deal only with new evidence, or new witnesses, and the disputing of the facts.If.I'm incorrect, someone will put me straight.......



So what part of the case are the defense throwing in the Amanda Abusegate? Is this only for the police 'slander' issue or for the murder case?
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

This from Brucie:

In this case, the prosecution has already stated that they will not appeal the ruling of the court of appeals. Amanda and Raffaele do not run any risk of an increased prison sentence by appealing their rulings. When the defendant alone has appealed the judgment, the Court of Appeals cannot issue a more serious sentence.


Is it standard for the prosecution to stop after the first of the appeals?
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of"
Amanda Knox



All I can say is, "Be afraid, be very afraid, Amanda".
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

This is Brucie's move, to counter Kelly's dominance in the letter censoring campaign. Perhaps he is a bit wary of the conversion factor, or maybe they are hoping to publish these someday. Didn't Jeffrey Archer try to make a bit of money with the 'letters from prison' thing? I think Kelly and Bruce are in a race to publish "Letters to Prison" We could help them with prospective titles for their tomes...


Anyway, instructions from Bruce... this will help him save on the editing process for his forthcoming book...

oh, and btw... 'unfortunately Kelly decided to end his cause page'



These letters should remain very positive. We do not recommend discussing the details of the case. Tell Amanda and Raffaele something about yourself. Talk about life. Give them something to look forward to and let them know you are on their side. They have both expressed their appreciation for the ongoing support. Let's keep it coming!

Letters to Amanda:
We have been asked by Amanda's family to collect letters for Amanda. We will collect the letters right here on this cause and send them directly to the family. Amanda always has a family member in Italy. She is never alone. The letters will be printed out in Italy and delivered to Amanda. This will keep the letters organized and it will make it very easy for every member in this group to send encouraging messages to Amanda.

Please address your letters directly to Amanda.

Please email your letters for Amanda to: letterstoamanda@live.com


Letters to Raffaele:
Raffaele reads English and he would like to receive his letters in English.

Please email your letters for Raffaele to: freeraffaele@gmail.com


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


Last edited by H9 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

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

BIT OT

Random thought on the Italian judicial system.

This case has been an eye opener in learning about the judicial system that prevails in Italy. Leaving aside this case for a moment; in general terms the Italian system looks to being extremely fair and geared towards ensuring that the accused gets every opportunity (within reason) for a just decision. Fairness is healthily weighted in favour of the accused in that they are afforded a double bite at the trial cherry (having the opportunity of a rerun of the initial trial in the first appeal mechanism). Then the second appeal on points of law only is what we are used to on both sided of the pond but even this is not an automatic grant here unlike the Italian system. Even the fast track trial with the automatic 1/3 sentence reduction still allows the further 2 appeals to those that opt for this passage. This is truly an outstanding model that other jurisdictions could learn much from IMO.

Ok rant over; as you were! :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

You're absolutely right, H. I remain extremely impressed that in Italy juries present a written justification. So obvious, in a way, and much more satisfactory for all concerned....and hearing the associated civil claims at the same time. A more complete picture seems to me to outweigh concerns of prejudice, especially since things are so thoroughly inspected before the trial.
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thank you Catnip for posting the breakdown of Amandas alleged 'interrogation' timings.I was looking for something like this so as to lay this ghost for good.
However, I am very sceptical of these timings as they are generated from the defence in their appeal. If I am wrong I am wrong but I would like to see the official police timings simply because the Knox family and their supporters have been trumpeting an ever increasing length of time that Amanda was subjected to her 'ordeal' at the hands of the blue meanies.

And secondly:
H9,
"All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of"

Would you say this is an indicator of guilt and/or a drug induced 'comedown' paranoia?
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 11:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Black Dog wrote:
And secondly:
H9,
"All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of"

Would you say this is an indicator of guilt and/or a drug induced 'comedown' paranoia?



Classic NPD, actually

narcissistic personality disorder
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 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
This from Brucie:

In this case, the prosecution has already stated that they will not appeal the ruling of the court of appeals. Amanda and Raffaele do not run any risk of an increased prison sentence by appealing their rulings. When the defendant alone has appealed the judgment, the Court of Appeals cannot issue a more serious sentence.


Is it standard for the prosecution to stop after the first of the appeals?



Depends on the case, probably. The choice is always there.


In the Bologna bombing case (2 August 1980), it was because the prosecution didn't stop that the Court of Cassation was able to hand down the definitive sentence on 23 November 1995.

Amogst other things, Secret Service and Security personnel were involved in trying to lead the investigation astray, e.g., planting false evidence, and the Bologna Court of Assizes handed down some of the latest prison terms relating to that on 9 June 2000.

The saga hasn't ended. The masterminds behind the attack have not been caught (yet), and bits and pieces of information and hearsay and conjecture is still coming out. Alternative theories abound, therefore -- a veritable conspiracy theory jungle. And probably most of the theories would not be far wrong, unfortunately.


Refs:
Italian Wikipedia
English Wikipedia gives a brief summary of the "long, troubled and controversial court case".


By the way, Brucie has simplified things slightly (by removing the nuances from the Italian, and "flattening" some of the Italian connotations into an English straitjacket of meaning), thus (probably inadvertently, though in good faith, one expects) misleading his audience and mis-managing their expectations. Bunnies are nice bu-) , but haring off is not really all that wise in the long haul. If the hot-headed eagerness could be curbed a little, ...
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

* ih) Troll Master Class ih) *

Attachment:
troll study group.jpg


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Seriously OT

Could I be so bold as to seek the assistance of the our female membership on a ..hem.. delicate matter. It appears our Katy over at PMF Lite has come up with the disclosure that the modern bra is capable of “falling off” for no apparent reason while being firmly affixed the female torso. Is there any truth in this ladies? Could this be a flaw in the modern design, a problem with manufacturing or a deficiency in the material? My lasting memories as a young, single and amorous Hammerite is that try as I may I could never get the bloody things to budge. And now they are apparently falling off at random all over the place; a mere blink of the eye and whoosh - off they go. If true this is a disturbing development for fair maidens all over the globe; you never know the time or the place where your bra could let you down so to speak.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Seriously OT

Could I be so bold as to seek the assistance of the our female membership on a ..hem.. delicate matter. It appears our Katy over at PMF Lite has come up with the disclosure that the modern bra is capable of “falling off” for no apparent reason while being firmly affixed the female torso. Is there any truth in this ladies? Could this be a flaw in the modern design, a problem with manufacturing or a deficiency in the material? My lasting memories as a young, single and amorous Hammerite is that try as I may I could never get the bloody things to budge. And now they are apparently falling off at random all over the place; a mere blink of the eye and whoosh - off they go. If true this is a disturbing development for fair maidens all over the globe; you never know the time or the place where your bra could let you down so to speak.

It might manage to fall off if the clasp had been cut off it, though. ;) Massei believed this happened during the attack. Not that I'm suggesting you should've tried that in your amorous adventures. Might not have had the desired effect.

I should probably also take this opportunity to say that Katody and I are not one and the same, despite the anagrammatic coincidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

katy_did wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Seriously OT

Could I be so bold as to seek the assistance of the our female membership on a ..hem.. delicate matter. It appears our Katy over at PMF Lite has come up with the disclosure that the modern bra is capable of “falling off” for no apparent reason while being firmly affixed the female torso. Is there any truth in this ladies? Could this be a flaw in the modern design, a problem with manufacturing or a deficiency in the material? My lasting memories as a young, single and amorous Hammerite is that try as I may I could never get the bloody things to budge. And now they are apparently falling off at random all over the place; a mere blink of the eye and whoosh - off they go. If true this is a disturbing development for fair maidens all over the globe; you never know the time or the place where your bra could let you down so to speak.

It might manage to fall off if the clasp had been cut off it, though. ;) Massei believed this happened during the attack. Not that I'm suggesting you should've tried that in your amorous adventures. Might not have had the desired effect.

I should probably also take this opportunity to say that Katody and I are not one and the same, despite the anagrammatic coincidence.


Hi katy,

Who said you were the same? More interesting why did you feel the need to mention it?

Thought you guys wouldn’t believe the lord’s prayer out of Massei’s mouth.

Do you have any structural engineers over there that could throw some light on the problem of “falling off bra ” syndrome?

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Seriously OT

Could I be so bold as to seek the assistance of the our female membership on a ..hem.. delicate matter. It appears our Katy over at PMF Lite has come up with the disclosure that the modern bra is capable of “falling off” for no apparent reason while being firmly affixed the female torso. Is there any truth in this ladies? Could this be a flaw in the modern design, a problem with manufacturing or a deficiency in the material? My lasting memories as a young, single and amorous Hammerite is that try as I may I could never get the bloody things to budge. And now they are apparently falling off at random all over the place; a mere blink of the eye and whoosh - off they go. If true this is a disturbing development for fair maidens all over the globe; you never know the time or the place where your bra could let you down so to speak.


She could have a point although my experience is more like 20-30 years ago when single and devilishly attractive bra's and in fact all manner of female apparel would spontaniously fall off in my presence, I'm fifty in a couple of weeks and the years have taken their toll but those memories still give me a warm glow, actually I think she is talking out of her arse again, you know making things up to fit her mind set.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katy should get in touch with Candace Dempsey. Candace stated on her blah-g that those bra clasps fall off all the time. They could compare notes, see if they are getting their undergarments from the same manufacturer and maybe do some shopping together. Afterwards, they could murder a pizza, turn some cartwheels then head home for some wholesome animal porn.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

katy_did wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Seriously OT

Could I be so bold as to seek the assistance of the our female membership on a ..hem.. delicate matter. It appears our Katy over at PMF Lite has come up with the disclosure that the modern bra is capable of “falling off” for no apparent reason while being firmly affixed the female torso. Is there any truth in this ladies? Could this be a flaw in the modern design, a problem with manufacturing or a deficiency in the material? My lasting memories as a young, single and amorous Hammerite is that try as I may I could never get the bloody things to budge. And now they are apparently falling off at random all over the place; a mere blink of the eye and whoosh - off they go. If true this is a disturbing development for fair maidens all over the globe; you never know the time or the place where your bra could let you down so to speak.

It might manage to fall off if the clasp had been cut off it, though. ;) Massei believed this happened during the attack. Not that I'm suggesting you should've tried that in your amorous adventures. Might not have had the desired effect.

I should probably also take this opportunity to say that Katody and I are not one and the
same, despite the anagrammatic coincidence.


Is she your evil twin then, oh wait.
Top Profile 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Hi katy,

Who said you were the same? More interesting why did you feel the need to mention it?

Thought you guys wouldn’t believe the lord’s prayer out of Massei’s mouth.

Do you have any structural engineers over there that could throw some light on the problem of “falling off bra ” syndrome?

H

Oh, a couple of the JREF-ers on here suggested it. No worries, though, I don't mind being credited with Katody's posts.

Are you saying you couldn't even get bras off when the clasp was undone? Well now, that is a singular problem.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

katy_did wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Hi katy,

Who said you were the same? More interesting why did you feel the need to mention it?

Thought you guys wouldn’t believe the lord’s prayer out of Massei’s mouth.

Do you have any structural engineers over there that could throw some light on the problem of “falling off bra ” syndrome?

H

Oh, a couple of the JREF-ers on here suggested it. No worries, though, I don't mind being credited with Katody's posts.

Are you saying you couldn't even get bras off when the clasp was undone? Well now, that is a singular problem.


Alas Katy it was much worse than that. The young Hammerite couldn’t even get close to the clasp unless Venus, Pluto and Mercury were in alignment. All in all not a happy youth. :)

H
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 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

There was no 'finessing' of the bra clasp, force was used and I thought one of the straps had been torn as well....


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

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
PMFer playing with trolls


Is that Skep?

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Alas Katy it was much worse than that. The young Hammerite couldn’t even get close to the clasp unless Venus, Pluto and Mercury were in alignment. All in all not a happy youth. :)

H

Well, I hope the more experienced Hammerite has had more luck (and no further need to rely on freak planetary happenings). :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Corrina wrote:
Katy should get in touch with Candace Dempsey. Candace stated on her blah-g that those bra clasps fall off all the time. They could compare notes, see if they are getting their undergarments from the same manufacturer and maybe do some shopping together. Afterwards, they could murder a pizza, turn some cartwheels then head home for some wholesome animal porn.


Candace Dempsey stated that? wan-)
She must be speaking from experience. What a horrible thought. tu-))

On the same footing Candace, have you ever pricked anyone with a knife whilst cooking? Does this happen all the time too?

Hugs,
-Dog.
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 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The shoe prints do not look the same to me.
Ooops---the top is Guede's and the bottom is the cushion print.

According to what was posted by Jools in the gallery on 2/25/2010, the top print was attributed to Guede.
Unless I missed something, which is entirely possible.


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


Last edited by zinnia on Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"The shoe prints do not look the same to me"

The shoe in your attachment is Sollecito's shoe, not Rudy's.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Shoe prints
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 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

More prints
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Black Dog wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Katy should get in touch with Candace Dempsey. Candace stated on her blah-g that those bra clasps fall off all the time. They could compare notes, see if they are getting their undergarments from the same manufacturer and maybe do some shopping together. Afterwards, they could murder a pizza, turn some cartwheels then head home for some wholesome animal porn.


Candace Dempsey stated that? wan-)
She must be speaking from experience. What a horrible thought. tu-))

On the same footing Candace, have you ever pricked anyone with a knife whilst cooking? Does this happen all the time too?

Hugs,
-Dog.


Hard to believe, isn't it? I think it may have been in the same piece she did where she commented that it only took Meredith 10 minutes to die. See? It's okay then. Oh and everybody uses bleach to clean their knives.

Things sure are different in Seattle.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I was waiting for Katody to show something ... :D

"Shoe prints
and
More prints"

These pictures are all taken from the trial presentation of Sollecito expert Francesco Vinci.

Charlie put on the whole presentation in May at FOA : www.friendsofamanda.org/vinci.pdf
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Everyone wanted the prints - sometimes the "other side" is the source for the best photos. Then everyone can look and decide themselves.
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 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
I was waiting for Katody to show something ... :D

"Shoe prints
and
More prints"

These pictures are all taken from the trial presentation of Sollecito expert Francesco Vinci.

Charlie put on the whole presentation in May at FOA : http://www.friendsofamanda.org/vinci.pdf

Little things can sometimes set it off - it was odd to see all of Meredith's shoes in the Charlie's presentation. Very sad.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"it was odd to see all of Meredith's shoes in the Charlie's presentation."

If you mean page 43 I don't think that they are Meredith's shoes.
They are various man's and woman's shoes showing the point of Vinci that the left and right sides of the sole of any shoe (at the narrowest region) are not parallel but curve in the opposite direction (while in the cushion print they are parallel so one of them can't be the edge of a shoe so the print is a partial print not only in length but also in width)
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"it was odd to see all of Meredith's shoes in the Charlie's presentation."

If you mean page 43 I don't think that they are Meredith's shoes.
They are various man's and woman's shoes showing the point of Vinci that the left and right sides of the sole of any shoe (at the narrowest region) are not parallel but curve in the opposite direction (while in the cushion print they are parallel so one of them can't be the edge of a shoe so the print is a partial print not only in length but also in width)

I feel better already. It was in Italian so I couldn't tell. Thanks
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 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

How about we play a scenario a day. The one I've been running through my head off and on for several days is what if the cellphones hadn't been found so quickly? AK and RS would have put the finishing touches on the clean up and then done what? They were exhausted would they have gone on their day trip or just gone to his place and try to get some sleep? Would Filomena have been the one to come home to discover the condition of the house then? Would it all have played out any differently?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"what if the cellphones hadn't been found so quickly? ... Would Filomena have been the one to come home to discover the condition of the house then?"

No.
Filomena and her friends were on the way to the house regardless of the phones and the postals.
Amanda and Raffaele were there and had called the carabinieri before Filomena and the others arrived.
They all may have broken down the door or they may have waited for the carabinieri.
I don't see much difference in the outcome.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"what if the cellphones hadn't been found so quickly? ... Would Filomena have been the one to come home to discover the condition of the house then?"

No.
Filomena and her friends were on the way to the house regardless of the phones and the postals.
Amanda and Raffaele were there and had called the carabinieri before Filomena and the others arrived.
They all may have broken down the door or they may have waited for the carabinieri.
I don't see much difference in the outcome.

Uh oh see that brings up the call to the carabinieri - would they have made that?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Well I thought that Knox called Filomena before she knew the cell phones had been found. If that is correct then it seems to me that she wished to involve Filomena at an early stage. I think that she also told Filomena there had been a burglary before she knew the cell phones had been found. Filomena told her to call the police and she said she had done so (though she hadn't). So what I imagine is that they had done what they were going to do, more or less, and they intended that Filomena should come home before the police arrived. I do not know if they knew where she was: I think maybe they thought she was with her b/f. So perhaps they thought they would both come to the cottage. What then? Filomena (and b/f) arrive to a scene of a burglary, and Meredith's locked door. She would not call the police because that had already been done, so far as she knew. I cannot imagine that RS and AK could give any plausible explanation for not being there, given the phone calls to Filomena. So they would meet her there. The only reason I can think of for doing it that way is to have one person at the scene who really believed in the burglary. So what would Filomena do while waiting for the police? One thing is she could be an audience for their story. Might give them an opportunity for a rehearsal before they had to face the police? See which bits needed work? Seems a bit risky to me but it might have seemed safer than facing the police first.

Even though Filomena knew Meredith never locked her door I am not sure that would have led her to be seriously concerned if AK had not said the opposite to the police: and if the phones had not been found. So I think the police would maybe have investigated a burglary and gone away without opening Meredith's door. What then? If RS and AK left to go back to his house and stayed there then at some point one of the other girls would have become concerned about Meredith's absence. How long would that have taken? A day or two maybe? With folk all over the house living and cleaning and stuff. Would that be helpful in muddying the waters?

I am not very good at making stuff up :) Someone else try!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Uh oh see that brings up the call to the carabinieri - would they have made that?"

The defence's argument has convinced me that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived. So again it does not depend on finding the phones, they made that.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"So I think the police would maybe have investigated a burglary and gone away without opening Meredith's door. What then?"

No way. The carabinieri don't investigate a burglary without looking into a closed room with the tenant missing and not answering phones while there are blood stains in the bathroom. Even the postals suggested breaking down the door.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"Uh oh see that brings up the call to the carabinieri - would they have made that?"

The defence's argument has convinced me that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived. So again it does not depend on finding the phones, they made that.

Aaah but this is a long debated point. I go the other way on this point but just for the sake of this scenario today - if they hadn't called how would it have played out do you think?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

" if they hadn't called how would it have played out do you think?"

They (all six of them) soon would have broken down the door.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
" if they hadn't called how would it have played out do you think?"

They (all six of them) soon would have broken down the door.

Then the ideas Fiona just put forth are valid in that you have Filomena there to play the burglary story out to and you have people muddling around the crime scene to potentially cause "contamination".
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 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fiona wrote:
Well I thought that Knox called Filomena before she knew the cell phones had been found. If that is correct then it seems to me that she wished to involve Filomena at an early stage. I think that she also told Filomena there had been a burglary before she knew the cell phones had been found. Filomena told her to call the police and she said she had done so (though she hadn't). So what I imagine is that they had done what they were going to do, more or less, and they intended that Filomena should come home before the police arrived. I do not know if they knew where she was: I think maybe they thought she was with her b/f. So perhaps they thought they would both come to the cottage. What then? Filomena (and b/f) arrive to a scene of a burglary, and Meredith's locked door. She would not call the police because that had already been done, so far as she knew. I cannot imagine that RS and AK could give any plausible explanation for not being there, given the phone calls to Filomena. So they would meet her there. The only reason I can think of for doing it that way is to have one person at the scene who really believed in the burglary. So what would Filomena do while waiting for the police? One thing is she could be an audience for their story. Might give them an opportunity for a rehearsal before they had to face the police? See which bits needed work? Seems a bit risky to me but it might have seemed safer than facing the police first.

Even though Filomena knew Meredith never locked her door I am not sure that would have led her to be seriously concerned if AK had not said the opposite to the police: and if the phones had not been found. So I think the police would maybe have investigated a burglary and gone away without opening Meredith's door. What then? If RS and AK left to go back to his house and stayed there then at some point one of the other girls would have become concerned about Meredith's absence. How long would that have taken? A day or two maybe? With folk all over the house living and cleaning and stuff. Would that be helpful in muddying the waters?

I am not very good at making stuff up :) Someone else try!



But Raffaele in his 112 call pointed out the locked door and the missing person.

I think the plan was, that Filomena and her friends had to arrive before the police, and Filomena and here friends running or walking inside the cottage, smearing footprints and fingerprints (disturbing forensic evidence)

**
but with the phones found and the postal police arriving much too early and totally unexpected,
the plan went wrong, too much evidence was left.

IMHO

_________________
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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

There is one thing I keep wondering: Before that 112 call Raffaele phoned his sister Vanessa 'to ask her adivce'
But this call lasted only 39 seconds! He would first exchange some personal greetings, then explain the situation at the cottage and then ask her 'what shall I do?' And surely he would say good bye to her.
**
I cannot imagine all this happening in 39 seconds. And furthermore interesting is, that there is no other telephone-call from Vanessa to Raffaele. She would have learned the news very soon afterwards and that she never rings back to Raffaele (so I have seen in the Massei-Report)
seems very implausible. I believe, that Papa Sollecito already knows much and has informed the familiy, at least Vanessa.

**

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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Pelerine wrote:

But Raffaele in his 112 call pointed out the locked door and the missing person.

I think the plan was, that Filomena and her friends had to arrive before the police, and Filomena and here friends running or walking inside the cottage, smearing footprints and fingerprints (disturbing forensic evidence)

**
but with the phones found and the postal police arriving much too early and totally unexpected,
the plan went wrong, too much evidence was left.

IMHO



Yes he did mention those: but I think he may have seen the postal police before he said that: or they may have already arrived. We are imagining what would have happened if the phones were not found:and so no postal police. His call to the carabinieri does not seem to have gone well, iirc earlier posts on those. But if there are no postal police then there is no need to report anything other than a burgalry

Also I am not convinced the police would break down the door; there was some blood, it is true. But it was not immediately obvious and if it had not been mentioned then what you have is police who are investigating a burglary in which nothing is missing. I have been burgled 4 times. I can tell you that at least in some cases the police don't do much of anything. They know, and you know, that they are there cos they have to be to let you claim on your insurance. This is a small scale thing with not much chance of catching anyone. Sometimes they find someone with your stuff in the course of something else: that happened to a friend of mine and she got her stuff back about two years later (held as evidence for ages). Maybe it is different in Italy: but they definitely don't always do very much here
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"So I think the police would maybe have investigated a burglary and gone away without opening Meredith's door. What then?"

No way. The carabinieri don't investigate a burglary without looking into a closed room with the tenant missing and not answering phones while there are blood stains in the bathroom. Even the postals suggested breaking down the door.


No, they didn't. It was not until Filomena contradicted AK about the normalcy of the locked door that that was even mooted. And the police did not think it important enough to take responsibility for it: Filomena and Luca did that. The tenant was not really missing at that stage: she was out. It was not late and she was a student. One is not classified as missing if an adult unless you have been gone for much longer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Everyone wanted the prints - sometimes the "other side" is the source for the best photos. Then everyone can look and decide themselves.


I thought the source of the photos was the crimescene investigators. Isn't it interesting that the Amanda-groupies fawn over photographs prepared for them by the clumsy, inept, sloppy, incompetent, manipulative, creepy, overbearing, leering police?
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 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Macport wrote:
Everyone wanted the prints - sometimes the "other side" is the source for the best photos. Then everyone can look and decide themselves.


I thought the source of the photos was the crimescene investigators. Isn't it interesting that the Amanda-groupies fawn over photographs prepared for them by the clumsy, inept, sloppy, incompetent, manipulative, creepy, overbearing, leering police?

Bingo!!
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 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Pelerine wrote:
There is one thing I keep wondering: Before that 112 call Raffaele phoned his sister Vanessa 'to ask her adivce'
But this call lasted only 39 seconds! He would first exchange some personal greetings, then explain the situation at the cottage and then ask her 'what shall I do?' And surely he would say good bye to her.
**
I cannot imagine all this happening in 39 seconds. And furthermore interesting is, that there is no other telephone-call from Vanessa to Raffaele. She would have learned the news very soon afterwards and that she never rings back to Raffaele (so I have seen in the Massei-Report)
seems very implausible. I believe, that Papa Sollecito already knows much and has informed the familiy, at least Vanessa.

**

There were the morning calls betweem Papa and RS while AK was "away". Wonder what the boy couldn't keep from his controlling father?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"Uh oh see that brings up the call to the carabinieri - would they have made that?"

The defence's argument has convinced me that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived. So again it does not depend on finding the phones, they made that.


I think they wanted Filomena to come over and were interrupted in their plan by the appearance of the postal police at the head of the drive (or even driving to and fro). The other interruption (or complication) was that Filomena sent her male friends over instead of coming over herself. They had plenty of time at the first appearance of the postals to do all the frantic phoning they needed to.

The cottage was likely in something just short of bedlam with cops and friends shouting and talking back and forth about what was going on. Amanda couldn't "guide" Filomena alone through the cottage any more. It was during the bedlam that Amanda made one of her crucial errors by insisting to the postals that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door. She didn't have to say that but their plan had been interrupted and complicated. Amanda thought quickly as she does throughout the investigation and the trial. Her best chance of regaining control over the situation was to explain away Meredith's absence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?


Never.

They both had to be there and have an explanation for being there when either Filomena, Laura, or the police arrived. Amanda, we know, likes to be in control of any group dynamic.
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 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I know a change of subject though but this diary making is still very very interesting...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=41


On the first page and in the first paragraph, Amanda gives us insight to why she did what she did and why she is now recording her experiences while in jail.

Amanda Knox says, "I'm writing this because I want to remember. I want to remember because this is an experience that not many people will ever have."

Let me stop there and ask this question:

If you had found blood in your bathroom, the door to your home left wide-open, and later learned one of your most dear roommates had been stabbed in the neck and raped prior to death--and you were arrested for her murder--would you "want to remember?"

Heck no! You'd want to forget.


But lets move to the second sentence and analyze that.

"I want to remember because this is an experience that not many people will ever have," Amanda wrote.
But lets move to the second sentence and analyze that.

"I want to remember because this is an experience that not many people will ever have," Amanda wrote.
When she said that "not many people will ever have" (this kind of experience); she is emphasizing that she gets to have this kind of experience; you and I are not special enough to. Notice she did not say that, "not many people will have to endure (this kind of experience)."

But Amanda not only wants to remember it, she wants to chronicle it day-by-day. She is doing exactly what a serial killer does: reliving the murderous moment through visual, written, or trophy-taking measures.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?


Never.

They both had to be there and have an explanation for being there when either Filomena, Laura, or the police arrived. Amanda, we know, likes to be in control of any group dynamic.

I believe this is part of her smug nature that we have seen all along. That she can actually control everything from the police investigation to the courts verdict. AK would not have left and left the unfolding of events to chance. I agree the plan had always been to coax Filomena there. To walk her through their ideas about what was occurring at the cottage. Priming the roommate first, believing it would gain their story momentum, testing out the waters, trying out their ideas on her first, bolstering them for what was next. Then boom the postal police show up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

fine wrote:





///



Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?

Who knows if that plan was real, however I don't think would've make much of a difference if instead they went to Gubbio. The police would still want to question all room mates either that day or the next, regarding where they were, doing what and with whom the night of the murder. Even if AK and RS were not found in the cottage the next morning they eventually would need to 'help police with their enquires' and AK and RS would be in exactly the same situation, lots of lies and no matching alibis.
Top Profile 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Pelerine wrote:
There is one thing I keep wondering: Before that 112 call Raffaele phoned his sister Vanessa 'to ask her adivce'
But this call lasted only 39 seconds! He would first exchange some personal greetings, then explain the situation at the cottage and then ask her 'what shall I do?' And surely he would say good bye to her.
**
I cannot imagine all this happening in 39 seconds. And furthermore interesting is, that there is no other telephone-call from Vanessa to Raffaele. She would have learned the news very soon afterwards and that she never rings back to Raffaele (so I have seen in the Massei-Report)
seems very implausible. I believe, that Papa Sollecito already knows much and has informed the familiy, at least Vanessa.

**

There were the morning calls betweem Papa and RS while AK was "away". Wonder what the boy couldn't keep from his controlling father?


I'd never thought about the significance of these calls before, especially the length of the call to Vanessa. In combination, I can theorize that perhaps RS, once AK had left for the cottage, had broken down and confessed his involvement in the murder to Papa. Papa coaches him to call Vanessa as soon as he gets to the cottage (in the meantime, he is of course consulting with his attorneys and Vanessa). Raf's later call to Vanessa is merely perfunctory, which would explain its unusually short duration.

I fully admit that this is complete conjecture on my part.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools,

IMO, none of it was a plan. The return to the cottage the next morning was because of waking up in a drunk/drugged hangover haze, with flashes of memory of what may have happened. Amanda went back to see if it was real or not.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?

Who knows if that plan was real, however I don't think would've make much of a difference if instead they went to Gubbio. The police would still want to question all room mates either that day or the next, regarding where they were, doing what and with whom the night of the murder. Even if AK and RS were not found in the cottage the next morning they eventually would need to 'help police with their enquires' and AK and RS would be in exactly the same situation, lots of lies and no matching alibis.

I agree. My mind works with the idea of how much evidence they piled up against themselves just by their being there that morning. Drive away, get some sleep, come home to all the trouble brewing, play the surprised role a little better, have your stories in line a little better . . . and then get arrested all the same. I play the scenario for the idea that stilicho has stated above - they got surprised by the postal police but I believe they always meant to stay there because AK believed she was smarted than everyone and could control the outcome.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?


Never.

They both had to be there and have an explanation for being there when either Filomena, Laura, or the police arrived. Amanda, we know, likes to be in control of any group dynamic.



Actually, that's totally what I think they intended to do, had they been able to finish the cleanup. And that's also what I think most criminals would have done. It makes sense. You do away with the evidence linking yourself to the crime, maybe smash a window to throw the police off track, and then you split.

They must have realized that their mere presence at the crime scene when the body was found would undermine their alibi that they had spent the night at Raffaele's apartment. Why would they allow suspicion to be directed against them like that? It seems much better to just let someone else discovery the body, wait for the police to come to interview them, and then simply say "we don't know what you're talking about officer, we've been here the whole time."

Of course, this became impossible with the unexpected arrival of the postal police.
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 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji wrote:
Macport wrote:
Pelerine wrote:
There is one thing I keep wondering: Before that 112 call Raffaele phoned his sister Vanessa 'to ask her adivce'
But this call lasted only 39 seconds! He would first exchange some personal greetings, then explain the situation at the cottage and then ask her 'what shall I do?' And surely he would say good bye to her.
**
I cannot imagine all this happening in 39 seconds. And furthermore interesting is, that there is no other telephone-call from Vanessa to Raffaele. She would have learned the news very soon afterwards and that she never rings back to Raffaele (so I have seen in the Massei-Report)
seems very implausible. I believe, that Papa Sollecito already knows much and has informed the familiy, at least Vanessa.

**

There were the morning calls betweem Papa and RS while AK was "away". Wonder what the boy couldn't keep from his controlling father?


I'd never thought about the significance of these calls before, especially the length of the call to Vanessa. In combination, I can theorize that perhaps RS, once AK had left for the cottage, had broken down and confessed his involvement in the murder to Papa. Papa coaches him to call Vanessa as soon as he gets to the cottage (in the meantime, he is of course consulting with his attorneys and Vanessa). Raf's later call to Vanessa is merely perfunctory, which would explain its unusually short duration.

I fully admit that this is complete conjecture on my part.

Conjecture or not the calls occurred and I don't believe they would have been talking about the weather in Perugia. I don't think RS had any walls to his papa. This man was in RS's business everyday multiple times a day. So although there isn't direct evidence of what was said in those conversations we know the number of calls that occurred and their length. So for me as well RS spilled the beans right then.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"They had plenty of time at the first appearance of the postals to do all the frantic phoning they needed to."

No. Now the postals came (at about 12:58) after all the phone calls had been made. The police and prosecution screwed this up.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"They had plenty of time at the first appearance of the postals to do all the frantic phoning they needed to."

No. Now the postals came (at about 12:58) after all the phone calls had been made. The police and prosecution screwed this up.

Again that one is still open to much debate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Emerald wrote:
Jools,

IMO, none of it was a plan. The return to the cottage the next morning was because of waking up in a drunk/drugged hangover haze, with flashes of memory of what may have happened. Amanda went back to see if it was real or not.


This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. Knox and Sollecito hatched a plan shortly after they had murdered Meredith. They took her mobile phones and threw them away in a place where it would be difficult to find them. Knox called one of the phones the next morning to make sure that they hadn't been found.

Knox and Sollecito couldn't have been in a drunken stupor because they were up at 5.32am the next morning.

The fact that Knox was waiting outside Marco Quintavalle's shop at 7.45am before it opened on a national holiday shows the urgency she felt to obtain cleaning products to remove the incriminating traces of herself and Sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Again that one is still open to much debate."

Maybe. But with the same conclusion. :D
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, Pelerine. The call of 39 seconds. It takes longer than that for Italians to get in the most *ciao's*. :)

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

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Fuji wrote:
Macport wrote:
Pelerine wrote:
There is one thing I keep wondering: Before that 112 call Raffaele phoned his sister Vanessa 'to ask her adivce'
But this call lasted only 39 seconds! He would first exchange some personal greetings, then explain the situation at the cottage and then ask her 'what shall I do?' And surely he would say good bye to her.
**
I cannot imagine all this happening in 39 seconds. And furthermore interesting is, that there is no other telephone-call from Vanessa to Raffaele. She would have learned the news very soon afterwards and that she never rings back to Raffaele (so I have seen in the Massei-Report)
seems very implausible. I believe, that Papa Sollecito already knows much and has informed the familiy, at least Vanessa.

**

There were the morning calls betweem Papa and RS while AK was "away". Wonder what the boy couldn't keep from his controlling father?


I'd never thought about the significance of these calls before, especially the length of the call to Vanessa. In combination, I can theorize that perhaps RS, once AK had left for the cottage, had broken down and confessed his involvement in the murder to Papa. Papa coaches him to call Vanessa as soon as he gets to the cottage (in the meantime, he is of course consulting with his attorneys and Vanessa). Raf's later call to Vanessa is merely perfunctory, which would explain its unusually short duration.

I fully admit that this is complete conjecture on my part.

Conjecture or not the calls occurred and I don't believe they would have been talking about the weather in Perugia. I don't think RS had any walls to his papa. This man was in RS's business everyday multiple times a day. So although there isn't direct evidence of what was said in those conversations we know the number of calls that occurred and their length. So for me as well RS spilled the beans right then.


You're definitely right about the number and duration of calls telling their own story. Circumstantially, it certainly makes sense. It is yet another item that cannot be fussed away by the FOAK crowd. As with many of the others, its existence cannot be disputed - only the relative likelihoods of competing interpretations of it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Buzz wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?


Never.

They both had to be there and have an explanation for being there when either Filomena, Laura, or the police arrived. Amanda, we know, likes to be in control of any group dynamic.


You do away with the evidence linking yourself to the crime, maybe smash a window to throw the police off track, and then you split.


That's what you or I might have done. I have a whole pack of reasonable people (mainly from the JREF--old-timers not the Amanda-groupies) who would have torched the cottage and be done with it.

But Amanda, especially, is not a normal, reasonable criminal who does what you or I would have done. She is primarily a storyteller and the 'alpha' in a group situation. We know that they were there at the cottage after Filomena was called. Regardless of the arrival of the postals, they absolutely expected to be there on the premises when Filomena got there.

Their problem is that the cottage scene became too hectic to control. Amanda talks about that in her alibi email: i was in the kitchen stadning aside, having really done my part for the situation... She did her best to control the situation and then stepped aside to allow others to witness Meredith's body inside her locked room. But in the meantime she had made the grave error of telling everyone that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door when it was, in fact, not normal.


Last edited by stilicho on Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I believe that Amanda and Raff needed to be at the cottage when the police arrived. They had to be nervous, and be there to see how the police were investigating. Perhaps they hoped, as it was a Holiday weekend, that there were not many detectives on duty.....I think she wanted to have time to sway Filomena to their way of thinking how the crime went down, and orchestrate , the way she and Raff had planned. Also, if they had missed a piece ( or pieces ) of evidence, Amanda could *explain* it away. Not knowing what was happening would be untenable for them, if they had gone to Gubbio. How long were the calls to Papa? Long enough to confess as to what went down?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
How long were the calls to Papa? Long enough to confess as to what went down?

They were but I'm trying to look up the exact number and duration right now. If anyone else has that information handy please post it.
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 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Here's SomeAlibi's quote from Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:32 pm about one of the calls that morning that illustrates the point nicely.

Quote:
Here's a question: What's Raffaele's least favourite number in the world? Answer: 248... The number of seconds Papa Sollecito was on the phone to Raffaele Sollecito at 09:24 on the morning of the 2nd. 4 entire minutes when Amanda says they were both asleep until 10.30ish. 4 entire minutes of conversation. What was Papa and boy's conversation? Start a stop watch and start talking. For 4 whole minutes.
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 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Buzz wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?


Never.

They both had to be there and have an explanation for being there when either Filomena, Laura, or the police arrived. Amanda, we know, likes to be in control of any group dynamic.


You do away with the evidence linking yourself to the crime, maybe smash a window to throw the police off track, and then you split.


That's what you or I might have done. I have a whole pack of reasonable people (mainly from the JREF--old-timers not the Amanda-groupies) who would have torched the cottage and be done with it.

But Amanda, especially, is not a normal, reasonable criminal who does what you or I would have done. She is primarily a storyteller and the 'alpha' in a group situation. We know that they were there at the cottage after Filomena was called. Regardless of the arrival of the postals, they absolutely expected to be there on the premises when Filomena got there.

Their problem is that the cottage scene became too hectic to control. Amanda talks about that in her alibi email: i was in the kitchen stadning aside, having really done my part for the situation... She did her best to control the situation and then stepped aside to allow others to witness Meredith's body inside her locked room. But in the meantime she had made the grave error of telling everyone that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door when it was, in fact, not normal.

It's funny because we discussed that before a while back, but within the context of this scenario it makes me wonder whether, even if a torching of the cottage would have been pulled off flawlessly, would AK and RS still have merrily opened their pie holes and incriminated themselves just the same. I think they would have. They're just that arrogant and stupid.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Oh, Thanks Mac. 4 minutes is a long time to talk to Papa , in view of the fact they spoke often. Unless.......he went through everything he and Amanda had *done* the evening before. In other words, told the same lies he and Amanda had rehearsed they were going to tell the police and roommates.

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

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Oh, Thanks Mac. 4 minutes is a long time to talk to Papa , in view of the fact they spoke often. Unless.......he went through everything he and Amanda had *done* the evening before. In other words, told the same lies he and Amanda had rehearsed they were going to tell the police and roommates.


This hints of a larger question, I think: In general, how adept was Papa at telling when Raf was lying? He appears to be an intelligent man, but denial can be very powerful. Is he complicit or oblivious? I highly suspect the former.
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 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Oh, Thanks Mac. 4 minutes is a long time to talk to Papa , in view of the fact they spoke often. Unless.......he went through everything he and Amanda had *done* the evening before. In other words, told the same lies he and Amanda had rehearsed they were going to tell the police and roommates.

I don't think Papa would have bought any of that though. I think this guy was inside RS's mind. I think he knew what RS was thinking before RS knew most of the time. I think RS was and is a highly dependent and insecure young man. Papa would have had him open in a few seconds IMO.
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 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Papa Sollecito would have known that RS turning off his phone was abnormal, potentially even against his rules. Papa's knowledge of RS's drug habits would have meant that once he got him on the phone he would have immediately started in with questions about what he did the night before, with whom and on what drugs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I honestly think that Amanda, in her arrogance, believed the police would believe her scenario. She seemed to believe that all men found her irrisistable. Her room-mates said she seemed proud of her *involvement* of the crimes. Calling the police, discovering the blood, buglary, etc. Patrick had said she was jealous of Meredith, and upset that she was not the Queen Bee. Amanda needed to be the centre of attention, and must have believed that no-one would suspect her. I believe she looked at Meredith as a rival. And Amanda had to work hard for her money. She wouldn't have the mind set to destroy any of her things. But being a psycopath, didn't hesitate to destroy a human life.

_________________
"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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"They had plenty of time at the first appearance of the postals to do all the frantic phoning they needed to."

No. Now the postals came (at about 12:58) after all the phone calls had been made. The police and prosecution screwed this up.

The postals arrived at the cottage after driving around/past the cottage how many times?

It's not hard to believe that Amanda/Raffaele saw this and panicked, making the calls to 112.

The rest of the calls were all part of the set-up: Call Meredith's phone, make sure no one's found it. Call Raf's sister, be advised to call the police (but it wasn't a long enough conversation for him to explain everything). Call Filomena, arouse her concern. Have Filomena arrive and walk her through the crime scene. Have her discover Meredith's locked door and determine that something's amiss, let her call the Police.

Ironically, Amanda could have saved (temporarily, she would still have been found out when her and Raf's alibis didn't match) her situation when the Postals arrived by stating that it was odd that Meredith's door was locked. However, at this point, she wasn't ready for any Police to become suspicious. She wanted Filomena there for that, so AK lied about the locking of the door hoping to get the Postals to deal with merely the burglary and get them gone. In other words: AK panicked when the Postals started asking questions.
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 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Fuji wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Oh, Thanks Mac. 4 minutes is a long time to talk to Papa , in view of the fact they spoke often. Unless.......he went through everything he and Amanda had *done* the evening before. In other words, told the same lies he and Amanda had rehearsed they were going to tell the police and roommates.


This hints of a larger question, I think: In general, how adept was Papa at telling when Raf was lying? He appears to be an intelligent man, but denial can be very powerful. Is he complicit or oblivious? I highly suspect the former.

This is exactly why I've been trying to drill down, to mine into Papa. There is no more enigmatic character in this whole mess than Papa Sollecito as far as I'm concerned. Try and find any real information on him. Very hard and not just because of the language barrier.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Here's SomeAlibi's quote from Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:32 pm about one of the calls that morning that illustrates the point nicely.

Quote:
Here's a question: What's Raffaele's least favourite number in the world? Answer: 248... The number of seconds Papa Sollecito was on the phone to Raffaele Sollecito at 09:24 on the morning of the 2nd. 4 entire minutes when Amanda says they were both asleep until 10.30ish. 4 entire minutes of conversation. What was Papa and boy's conversation? Start a stop watch and start talking. For 4 whole minutes.


I could easily imagine Papa Sollecito telling the 'knife collector' not to let Amanda out of his sight. Whoops, too late!

mop-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, Fuji. I absolutely love your posts. Well, I for sure know when my kids lie. And I imagine Papa was even more in tune with Raff, as there were many things to be concerned about. As to Papa questioning Raff about his phone turned off, that may not have been a problem, as Raff had told Papa about his *relationship* with Amanda, and that may have made sense to Papa, (wink) ..as to wanting not to be disturbed. However, Papa probably discerned in Raff that something was very wrong, and may have spent that time probing. Papa is a smart cookie, and intimidating to Raff, who also needed Papa's money. And, I believe Papa was dead to rights when he said Amanda was his son's downfall.

_________________
"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: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Buzz wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Macport wrote:
What if AK and RS had just left the cottage? Do you think this was ever the "real" plan?


Never.

They both had to be there and have an explanation for being there when either Filomena, Laura, or the police arrived. Amanda, we know, likes to be in control of any group dynamic.


You do away with the evidence linking yourself to the crime, maybe smash a window to throw the police off track, and then you split.


That's what you or I might have done. I have a whole pack of reasonable people (mainly from the JREF--old-timers not the Amanda-groupies) who would have torched the cottage and be done with it.

But Amanda, especially, is not a normal, reasonable criminal who does what you or I would have done. She is primarily a storyteller and the 'alpha' in a group situation. We know that they were there at the cottage after Filomena was called. Regardless of the arrival of the postals, they absolutely expected to be there on the premises when Filomena got there.

Their problem is that the cottage scene became too hectic to control. Amanda talks about that in her alibi email: i was in the kitchen stadning aside, having really done my part for the situation... She did her best to control the situation and then stepped aside to allow others to witness Meredith's body inside her locked room. But in the meantime she had made the grave error of telling everyone that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door when it was, in fact, not normal.

It's funny because we discussed that before a while back, but within the context of this scenario it makes me wonder whether, even if a torching of the cottage would have been pulled off flawlessly, would AK and RS still have merrily opened their pie holes and incriminated themselves just the same. I think they would have. They're just that arrogant and stupid.

That would have meant losing all her possessions (all the goods she'd wasted money on shopping for), along with both of the her other roommates.

Personally, I would have started a fire then hightailed it back to Raf's - making sure to show activity on the computer within 5 mins of when the fire started - as advanced as fire investigation techniques are, I doubt they can pinpoint to the minute when it was ignited. Bam: Solid alibi: "We were watching a movie, when it was over, we looked for another movie to watch. About 10/20/30 mins into the second movie, we heard sirens but didn't think anything of it." The next day, if not contacted by the Police/Filomena/etc, leave early in the day on our planned picnic. Not that I'm advocating the murder of anyone, just sayin.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
In other words: AK panicked when the Postals started asking questions.


I'd really like to see the transcripts of those conversations Amanda had with the police before 05 NOV 2007.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

One thing I noticed and have been waiting for someone else to bring it up but so far no-one has broached the subject.

IMO Edda slipped up big time during the Oprah interview. She referred to this situation as being one big horrible mistake (sorry not verbatum).
I think she was referring to the murder not the wrongful arrest and conviction.

Did anyone else notice this?

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Mac, I know that for quite awhile you've been interested in Papa. He's not iin denial like Edda. He wants his son free, and is probably running the show via the attorneys. He is probably the one to tell Raff to shut the hell up. Vanessa is the spokesperson for the family, as she conversant with the way the police know what to talk about and how. Imo, of course.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
That would have meant losing all her possessions (all the goods she'd wasted money on shopping for), along with both of the her other roommates.

Personally, I would have started a fire then hightailed it back to Raf's - making sure to show activity on the computer within 5 mins of when the fire started - as advanced as fire investigation techniques are, I doubt they can pinpoint to the minute when it was ignited. Bam: Solid alibi: "We were watching a movie, when it was over, we looked for another movie to watch. About 10/20/30 mins into the second movie, we heard sirens but didn't think anything of it." The next day, if not contacted by the Police/Filomena/etc, leave early in the day on our planned picnic. Not that I'm advocating the murder of anyone, just sayin.


Of course, knowing Amanda, she'd want to be the first one to see the smoke coming out of the cottage:

"We were watching a movie, when it was over, we looked for another movie to watch. Then I went to Raffaele's kitchen and thought I smelled smoke. We sliced a couple of biscuits in half, buttered them on one side, and started to eat. I was really sure there was smoke by then, coming from somewhere in the direction of my home. 'Maybe my house is on fire,' I said to Raffaele. And he replied that maybe I should call Filomena or perhaps have another cup of coffee and a buttered biscuit and then call Filomena. Then we smoked a joint together."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Oh, Thanks Mac. 4 minutes is a long time to talk to Papa , in view of the fact they spoke often. Unless.......he went through everything he and Amanda had *done* the evening before. In other words, told the same lies he and Amanda had rehearsed they were going to tell the police and roommates.


Oh, you can add some more seconds to the 248.

At 09:29 Papa called him again, duration was 38 seconds. And again at 09:30, duration 41 seconds.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Mac, I know that for quite awhile you've been interested in Papa. He's not iin denial like Edda. He wants his son free, and is probably running the show via the attorneys. He is probably the one to tell Raff to shut the hell up. Vanessa is the spokesperson for the family, as she conversant with the way the police know what to talk about and how. Imo, of course.

Agreed. Like has been said above I would guess he knew that morning and put wheels in motion immediately. His country - his way. He may not have huge strings but I bet he has some strings. He's been trying to pull them from the beginning.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:
That would have meant losing all her possessions (all the goods she'd wasted money on shopping for), along with both of the her other roommates.

Personally, I would have started a fire then hightailed it back to Raf's - making sure to show activity on the computer within 5 mins of when the fire started - as advanced as fire investigation techniques are, I doubt they can pinpoint to the minute when it was ignited. Bam: Solid alibi: "We were watching a movie, when it was over, we looked for another movie to watch. About 10/20/30 mins into the second movie, we heard sirens but didn't think anything of it." The next day, if not contacted by the Police/Filomena/etc, leave early in the day on our planned picnic. Not that I'm advocating the murder of anyone, just sayin.


Of course, knowing Amanda, she'd want to be the first one to see the smoke coming out of the cottage:

"We were watching a movie, when it was over, we looked for another movie to watch. Then I went to Raffaele's kitchen and thought I smelled smoke. We sliced a couple of biscuits in half, buttered them on one side, and started to eat. I was really sure there was smoke by then, coming from somewhere in the direction of my home. 'Maybe my house is on fire,' I said to Raffaele. And he replied that maybe I should call Filomena or perhaps have another cup of coffee and a buttered biscuit and then call Filomena. Then we smoked a joint together."

This actually made me 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 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Oh, Thanks Mac. 4 minutes is a long time to talk to Papa , in view of the fact they spoke often. Unless.......he went through everything he and Amanda had *done* the evening before. In other words, told the same lies he and Amanda had rehearsed they were going to tell the police and roommates.


Oh, you can add some more seconds to the 248.

At 09:29 Papa called him again, duration was 38 seconds. And again at 09:30, duration 41 seconds.

I knew there had been three but I didn't know their duration. Thank you Jools. So we can imagine even more with the call backs. We don't know the content but the calls occurred.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, Jhansigirl. I think Edda knows that Amanda is involved. She can't bring herself to admit that .Amanda actually killed Meredith. In the beginning, in the first interviews, she made herself believe that everything would be OK. Now, she's relying on the Italian appeals. I think her saying * it's a big mistake* is her relying on the mistakes she's been led to believe were done by the people handling the forensics. She has nothing else to hang her hat on.....troubling for her also is the fact that Amanda says she doesn't remember that first phone call to Mom. That phone call was very important,and Edda knows it.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Oh, good job, Jools. Didn't take long for Papa to digest whatever Raff had said. Called him back.....PRONTO....maybe to tell Raff to say he hadn't left the apartment the whole night. DENY, DENY, DENY. A phone call back to reiterate what he had said in the phone call he had just made. I don't think Papa had a lot of confidence in his son. Maybe he thought that with all the spinelli being smoked, his son wasn't getting it. And need to hammer home the point. Real, Papa seemed to treat Raff as being a young boy. Not a man of 23. Raff was dependant on his Papa for everything, and it would seem that Papa was desperate for Raff to become *normal* ...leaving home, going to University ( but not too far from home) getting a new perspective to life, meeting studious, well rounded young people. What a nightmare for Papa. I'm sure, in his wildest dreams, he couldn't have imagined this horror. I feel sorry for the man, I really do.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
What a nightmare for Papa. I'm sure, in his wildest dreams, he couldn't have imagined this horror. I feel sorry for the man, I really do.

I wonder just the opposite about his worst fears of what his son could get into.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Well, I hear ya, Mac....But, I don't believe many parents think their children are capable of murder. Papa was worried about the drug use, the love of manga and anime. (Don't think Papa knew about the Bestiality) or hard core porn. Raff hadn't shown any signs of violence in his past, or had any girlfriends. I think Papa's main concerns about Raff were his inclinations toward escape and his distancing himself from reality.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

My suspicions are also that Papa Sollecito *knew* exactly how deeply his son was implicated in the murder of Meredith.

Consider:
1) The looong 4 minute phone call and follow-ups on the 'morning after'
2) Necessity to even think, much less publicly state that his money could make water run uphill
3) Public denunciations of Amanda as source of all problems
4) Taking illegal actions involving himself and Vanessa in the case that were significant enough to cause his daughter to be fired from a very plum job in the Police Dept, and charges to be filed

These are not actions normally taken while waiting for an *innocent* son to be released.
These are actions taken by an influential Italian desperate to help, and accustomed to 'how things get done' locally when son screws up *big* time and is caught .

To his credit, he used his resources to employ highly esteemed (and priced) legal talent Ms Bongiorno rather than a local Public Relations bully
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi Stint. But that 4 minute call was before the muder had been discovered. So are you saying that you believe Raff confessed in that call Papa made at 9.20?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
My suspicions are also that Papa Sollecito *knew* exactly how deeply his son was implicated in the murder of Meredith.

Consider:
1) The looong 4 minute phone call and follow-ups on the 'morning after'
2) Necessity to even think, much less publicly state that his money could make water run uphill
3) Public denunciations of Amanda as source of all problems
4) Taking illegal actions involving himself and Vanessa in the case that were significant enough to cause his daughter to be fired from a very plum job in the Police Dept, and charges to be filed

These are not actions normally taken while waiting for an *innocent* son to be released.
These are actions taken by an influential Italian desperate to help, and accustomed to 'how things get done' locally when son screws up *big* time and is caught .

To his credit, he used his resources to employ highly esteemed (and priced) legal talent Ms Bongiorno rather than a local Public Relations bully

Fully agree.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

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

capealadin wrote:
Hi Stint. But that 4 minute call was before the muder had been discovered. So are you saying that you believe Raff confessed in that call Papa made at 9.20?


Hi Cape:

Possibly not full "confession to murder", but I just think that from his son's words, mannerisms, etc Papa realized his son had done *something* really wrong.

Shorter follow up calls suggest Papa digesting and acting on what was said in first 4 minutes.

Papa's stronger actions after murder discovered just to me seem to indicate he knew Raffy was in big trouble and needed lots of help
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I absolutely agree that after the murder, Papa was REALLY worried. And something in the 4 minute call bothered him. Could it have been Raff's involvement with Amanda? Why Raff had turned off the phone? I guess Papa would have said to Raff, * Mah, just tell me you don't want to be disturbed, No *? Papa thought they were going to Gubbio. Could it have been an innocent call, Papa telling him what to see and do while they were there?

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
I absolutely agree that after the murder, Papa was REALLY worried. And something in the 4 minute call bothered him. Could it have been Raff's involvement with Amanda? Why Raff had turned off the phone? I guess Papa would have said to Raff, * Mah, just tell me you don't want to be disturbed, No *? Papa thought they were going to Gubbio. Could it have been an innocent call, Papa telling him what to see and do while they were there?


My instinct is that Amanda comes across as distinctly odd. If her written and spoken testimony are typical of her usual narrative style then I think I'd have clocked her as being one to watch for sure. If Papa had met her, as I believe he had, I can well imagine him thinking immediately that AK was involved in some way with the events that night. She doesn't come across as straight to me at all. I know that may be because she makes such great efforts not to. But changing your discourse style is incredibly hard. How Amanda speaks is how she is. She dissembles, obfuscates, she takes risks, is not self-censoring. In speech so in behaviour. Bells would have been going off for me from the minute I heard about the murder, just like they did for the flat mates. No mystery.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, Bard. Welcome back from Paris. Lucky you :). Yes, agreed. Papa could not have been thrilled with Amanda at all. I'm thinking he may not have been too worried, though, as 1) He was probably happy that Raff was at least getting a little experience, and 2) Amanda was leaving Italy in a couple of months. My question is : Could the phone call at 9.20 in the morning have been innocuous? Or, did Raff confess to Papa something? Certainly, when Raff was talking to the reporter days later, Raff answered the phone (Papa?) and was abrupt......if I remember correctly, something like, *I,m talking to someone, leave em alone, sort of thing.......

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi, Bard. Welcome back from Paris. Lucky you :). Yes, agreed. Papa could not have been thrilled with Amanda at all. I'm thinking he may not have been too worried, though, as 1) He was probably happy that Raff was at least getting a little experience, and 2) Amanda was leaving Italy in a couple of months. My question is : Could the phone call at 9.20 in the morning have been innocuous? Or, did Raff confess to Papa something? Certainly, when Raff was talking to the reporter days later, Raff answered the phone (Papa?) and was abrupt......if I remember correctly, something like, *I,m talking to someone, leave em alone, sort of thing.......

Where AK strikes me as having great bravado about what was getting ready to occur (facing the police) my guess is RS was about to crap his pants.


Last edited by Macport on Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

So Right Mac :) For sure she had his balls in a knot!!!!!!! Amanda's downfall (apart from anything) was believing she was smarter than anyone. I can just see her smugly telling Raff * Leave it to me*. I,m always surprised that she thought she was so fabulous. We're not talking Charlize Theron here.!!!!!!

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Hi Stint. But that 4 minute call was before the muder had been discovered. So are you saying that you believe Raff confessed in that call Papa made at 9.20?


Hi Cape:

Possibly not full "confession to murder", but I just think that from his son's words, mannerisms, etc Papa realized his son had done *something* really wrong.

Shorter follow up calls suggest Papa digesting and acting on what was said in first 4 minutes.

Papa's stronger actions after murder discovered just to me seem to indicate he knew Raffy was in big trouble and needed lots of help

IMO the families know quite a lot about what happened at the cottage though it is their offspring’s disguised version.

I think both sets of families do know that the two were involved somehow in the crime and they have known from the very beginning. I believe that each told their respective families their own version of what happened, though not necessarily their true degree of participation. But as far as the families are concern IMO they know for sure since they probably told them that at least they were there at the time and with Guede who they only brought him to the house so they could use him as a joke.
The versions they gave their parents? Possibly that they just wanted to have some fun, were mucking about with knives, sort of play a prank on Meredith using RG… but, because they all also took drugs things got out of hand especially with Guede, they just couldn’t stop him when he went too far and then stabbed Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I agree, Jools. This makes a lot of sense to me. They knew the murder was going to be discovered, and that Amanda lived there. BOINNNGGGGGG!! Yes, they ran their story by their respective parents....Papa is smarter than K/M clan, and immediately knew Raff was in deep.Hence, the two quick follow up calls. It would seem that Raff took no notice of Papa, but trusted Amanda was going to pull this off. I,m sure Papa said * SILENZIO!!!!*. I,m surprised Papa didn't come running to Perugia immediately. Although, He did know how things work in Italy, and perhaps was orchestrating behind the scenes. Ahh, how right he was about the stronza, Amanda....

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

BTW, Jools. Good game on the BG :)

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
My suspicions are also that Papa Sollecito *knew* exactly how deeply his son was implicated in the murder of Meredith.

Consider:
1) The looong 4 minute phone call and follow-ups on the 'morning after'
2) Necessity to even think, much less publicly state that his money could make water run uphill
3) Public denunciations of Amanda as source of all problems
4) Taking illegal actions involving himself and Vanessa in the case that were significant enough to cause his daughter to be fired from a very plum job in the Police Dept, and charges to be filed

These are not actions normally taken while waiting for an *innocent* son to be released.
These are actions taken by an influential Italian desperate to help, and accustomed to 'how things get done' locally when son screws up *big* time and is caught .

To his credit, he used his resources to employ highly esteemed (and priced) legal talent Ms Bongiorno rather than a local Public Relations bully


You have to also consider that Ms Bongiorno's every case she takes are the ones that feature in a big way in the media, she only seems to defend celebrities of some sort. When she took on RS defence, the Meredith Kercher murder case was continuously on TV and newspapers.


Last edited by Jools on Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
BTW, Jools. Good game on the BG :)

Not as good as yours! Well done! tt-)
I love BG!
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
BTW, Jools. Good game on the BG :)

cl-) cl-) Agreed wor-)) wor-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks,,, (blush).......

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
capealadin wrote:
BTW, Jools. Good game on the BG :)

Not as good as yours! Well done! tt-)
I love BG!

wor-)) wor-)) wor-)) wor-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Mwah, Mac :)

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
My instinct is that Amanda comes across as distinctly odd. If her written and spoken testimony are typical of her usual narrative style then I think I'd have clocked her as being one to watch for sure. If Papa had met her, as I believe he had, I can well imagine him thinking immediately that AK was involved in some way with the events that night. She doesn't come across as straight to me at all. I know that may be because she makes such great efforts not to. But changing your discourse style is incredibly hard. How Amanda speaks is how she is. She dissembles, obfuscates, she takes risks, is not self-censoring. In speech so in behaviour. Bells would have been going off for me from the minute I heard about the murder, just like they did for the flat mates. No mystery.


It was very telling the room mates immediately thought of Amanda as the possible perpetrator. Naturally, they would not want to believe a sadistic cruel murderer had lived in their midst.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Emerald wrote:
The Bard wrote:
My instinct is that Amanda comes across as distinctly odd. If her written and spoken testimony are typical of her usual narrative style then I think I'd have clocked her as being one to watch for sure. If Papa had met her, as I believe he had, I can well imagine him thinking immediately that AK was involved in some way with the events that night. She doesn't come across as straight to me at all. I know that may be because she makes such great efforts not to. But changing your discourse style is incredibly hard. How Amanda speaks is how she is. She dissembles, obfuscates, she takes risks, is not self-censoring. In speech so in behaviour. Bells would have been going off for me from the minute I heard about the murder, just like they did for the flat mates. No mystery.


It was very telling the room mates immediately thought of Amanda as the possible perpetrator. Naturally, they would not want to believe a sadistic cruel murderer had lived in their midst.

And as you say telling because they lived with both Meredith and AK. They had a particularly personal view into both. They would have had knowledge of AK's behavior prior to the murder and any shift following. Information that may not come across with great resonance on the stand in a trial but none the less speaks volumes from a direct contact, personal interaction stand point. We never hear anything more of any of them but imagine the scar on their lives' from this. For each of them how much of this was a life altering experience. Innocence lost. More ripple effect.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, Emerald. In as much as we hadn't really discussed Papa, ( I agree with Mac, he is the enigma) the room mates are also enigmatic. I applaud them for not milking this situation....It shows wonderful character, imo. It seemed to me that in the beginning of the investigation, they spoke fairly well of Amanda.......but I think in retrospect, they weren't as shocked as one would expect. Granted, even living together, they all had their own lives, and probably didn't interact that much. Have we heard anything about their reactions to the verdict?

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I'm thinking there is some conjecture how Amanda and Rafaele could have known that it was the Postal police on their way to the cottage. They had no way of knowing the phones had been found. I am assuming 1) They were on high alert as to anything unusual ( this was a slow weekend) and also that 2) Raff knew how the police (any) did business. He would have known the kind of cars police used, ( even if unmarked). I have understood ( from certain Italians :) that they have an uncanny way of knowing how things are. Certainly, it must have seemed ominous, seeing a car driving around and around. They simply took every precaution. BTW, I do wonder why there were no fingerprints or DNA on the phones. WHO threw them there?? Anyone?

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Pelerine: I'm not talking to you :) That took HOURS on cyber slots!!! Brava :)

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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

It seems quite logic that Papa did not 'immediately' come to Perugia, this would have shown he has deep concerns. His son was 23 after all - an adult young man.

He surely was frantic pulling the strings behind the scene.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Re Papa calls

Don't forget that his father called Raffaele at 12:40, too (duration 67 seconds). At that time they were undisputedly at the cottage and were in knowledge of the burglary so Raffaele surely talked about it. Maybe his father then called Vanessa before Raffaele called her.
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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:14 am   Post subject: Soul Morphs   

There might be a sense of déjà vu about this.

The 40 or so pages written by Raffaele in prison from 7 to 23 November to his father, sister and friends, titled “Perugia Prison – Travel Notes” (Carcere di Perugia, appunti di viaggio; I almost wrote “Postcards from Prison”) were looked at, in an unofficial capacity, by Rimini-resident psychoanalyst Angelo Battistini (who, ironically, had an article in the October 2007 issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry, vol 27, called “Uneasy Love: Sentimental Diseases and Crisis of the Couple in Antonioni's Movies” – [ link ]).

Bologna-born Battistini was struck by the writings’ relative tranquillity, their tone light enough, almost superficial. Some here have referred to a possible use of tranquilisers, which could easily explain their tone. (As an aside, Battistini's quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that if they were sold, the letters would have earned Raffaele a not indifferent sum.)



Anyway, with all the words and phrases in those writings, and the way they are used:


Quote:
All these references make one think of a narcissistic personality, a little immature, with aspects of insecurity and fear of his own and others’ aggression, which Raffaele reacts to by never being apart from a knife, by practicing martial arts, and by the “terrorist-style” poses put up on his blog. It is probable that this lines up with an unstable (uncertain) self-image, with a certain exhibitionism and secret fantasies of greatness and success, in which the underlying aggressive and transgressive impulses are mysteriously adverted to as menacing. The scant empathic sensibility would translate into a propensity to search out adrenalin shocks via experiences with strong emotional impact, exciting ones, a “high”, but without any particular affective resonance, the interpersonal relationships being stamped with a certain cynicism. Naturally, these conclusions, necessarily approximate and hypothetical, are to be taken as a simple personality profile that in any case can have no probative value regarding the degree of involvement, or otherwise, of Sollecito in the Meredith case.


– Angelo Battistini, Il resto del lettino: Psicanalisi e vita quotidiana (“The remains of the couch: Psychoanalysis and daily life”), p 268

(via Google Books)



I picked up the cynicism in the interpersonal relationships as well.


No prizes for guessing where that cynicism likely stemmed from.





Gabriella Pasquali Carlizzi has also written a book, 400 pages in 2008, titled “Meredith Kercher. Un delitto imperfetto” ( “An Imperfect Murder” )) [ GoogleBooks ], but I remain, in my turn, cynical about that one.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I agree, Pelerine. I just don't know how a parent copes with a troublesome child ( young man) to murder. Italians, especially, are so family connected. I can't help feeling very compassionate for Papa. His wife had died , his daughter Vanessa wasn't going to be an Italian wife and mother (right?) and his son was into anime, manga and porn..oh, and heavy gunja. The man had reason to worry. I do believe, that if Amanda and Raff hadn't come together, this would never have happened.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"The postals arrived at the cottage after driving around/past the cottage how many times?
It's not hard to believe that Amanda/Raffaele saw this and panicked, making the calls to 112."

It is hard to believe, because the postals came in plain clothes and in a car without any visible mark indicating that it was police car. (And also from the yard one cannot see the street.)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

That's a very illuminating post, Catnip. How far, I wonder, would Rafaele go to achieve the ultimate high? Did he even perhaps have a death wish? This may seem far fetched, but there is no question that his mental health is an issue. Such an insecure young man, seeking only refuge to get high. Even in this new found * Love* he was insecure. I think he was very close to his mother. I find it interesting, this family dynamic. The only daughter......lesbian. The only son..no experience at 23 with sex with a girlfriend. It shows a problem with intimacy, I think. The room mates say that Raff was very protective with Amanda, and certainly, he showed very quickly a mistrust of her. Would he do anything for a new found love interest? He was immature, and wanted to be a knight in shining armour. I may be way off base here.......but Raff is a seriously damaged individual.......and was easy prey to a seductive paramour. I think that so much in our lives comes down to timing......just saying.

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I believe that although Raff is complicit in this murder, Amanda was the linchpin. He is no less guilty...and, I still am trying to figure out how Rudi got involved. This case is very complicated.....as to the individuals. Taken one by one...amost improbable...but together...disaster.

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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Pelerine: I'm not talking to you :) That took HOURS on cyber slots!!! Brava :)


Hihi - not too long, I was waiting for some telephone-calls from my grandson and was besides hitting the slot machine.
I did not even realize how it happend, when I looked at the score I was surprised myself.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"The postals arrived at the cottage after driving around/past the cottage how many times?
It's not hard to believe that Amanda/Raffaele saw this and panicked, making the calls to 112."

It is hard to believe, because the postals came in plain clothes and in a car without any visible mark indicating that it was police car. (And also from the yard one cannot see the street.)


This is a case where we don't have enough information. The top of the drive and the road have to be visible from the cottage since you can see the cottage at various angles from the Google street view. Admittedly that's from a slightly raised platform on a vehicle.

The only thing at stake is whether Raffaele called the carabinieri before a crescendo of events forced him to. The fact that they knew Filomena wasn't coming over by herself might have been the prod he needed to take action.

Does anyone know what parts of the cottage and the yard you can see from the top of the drive where is merges with the road? Can't you see the top of the drive from Amanda's window?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Does anyone know what parts of the cottage and the yard you can see from the top of the drive where is merges with the road? Can't you see the top of the drive from Amanda's window?"
Attachment:
housefromcrossing.jpg


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Two more pictures from street:

Attachment:
gate1.jpg


Attachment:
gate2.jpg


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"Does anyone know what parts of the cottage and the yard you can see from the top of the drive where is merges with the road? Can't you see the top of the drive from Amanda's window?"


That's one heckuva plunge going on with that driveway. Do people actually drive down that thing?

I am still not convinced you cannot see the road from where they were found. You can see various features of the cottage from those views. Were they found on that side of the cottage? Is that where the infamous mop was?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Papa Sollecito on Knox, Croydon Guardian, 17 Nov 2007: "I damn the day my son met Knox. She has committed evil against him. I looked into my son's eyes and I believe he is innocent. He said after Meredith's death, Knox frightened him. He was asking, 'Who really is Amanda?'"

Papa Sollecito on Knox, Croydon Guardian, 22 June 2009: "Mr. Sollecito's father also testified telling the court his son would not hurt a fly and he described his romance with Miss Knox as a 'beautiful love story'".

Incidentally, there is some confusing usage of pronouns going on here. Did Papa Sollecito really have a romance with Miss Knox? Should we thinking less Basic Instinct and more Poison Ivy?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"The postals arrived at the cottage after driving around/past the cottage how many times?
It's not hard to believe that Amanda/Raffaele saw this and panicked, making the calls to 112."

It is hard to believe, because the postals came in plain clothes and in a car without any visible mark indicating that it was police car. (And also from the yard one cannot see the street.)


out of all the time that morning RS called the police co-incidentally at the time of the arrival of the postal police?

the postal police were lost -- AK/RS were in a highly vigilant state -- the postals were driving up and down trying to find the entrance into the cottage. RS spotted them - he knew instantly what it was -- it was police - it would have been obvious - two men in a plain car - one on a radio - it would have been obvious to anyone italian that they were authority.

RS phoned his sister in a panic (problem) he phoned his sister initially as a personal emergency call in panic to maybe 'pull strings' even at that early stage - to get him out of the mess he was in.

RS phoned his sister and then his sister told him to phone the 'on duty' police ...... RS was phoning in a panic because he knew authority was heading for the house.

The postals reported that RS looked 'surprised and embarassed' -- this can also be interpreted as 'highly panicked' -- 'in a state of panic'

RS knew of a 'situation' at the cottage well before that phone call. The postals arrived at the same time as he was making those phone calls. It's too co-incidental --

he needed an explanation as to why he was found at a murder scene ---

he also needed to have effective control of the situation -

the police he phoned asked him to phone back - they knew that police were already on their way
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
How far, I wonder, would Rafaele go to achieve the ultimate high?


On TJMK it is taken for granted that at least RS was a cocaine addict. I gather this is from sources within Perugia - people who knew him. He was definitely a druggy --- Perugia was then a more druggy place -- in reading TJMK I have seen comments that say that the cottage area was actually a fairly rough area -- there was vagrancy at least - there was a heroin problem in Perugia - hard drugs were around. RS was a rich kid -- he'd just finished his degree and just wanted to party -- it was *his* time his 'reward' he went overboard when he found AK at this time she was just fuel to the fire. That night RS got somebody to phone through a bomb threat to the address he knew I am pretty sure from Guedo - the address where Guedo had deposited the phones. I recall reports that AK was sighted around that address that night -- she must have been looking for the phones. Related on here there have been italian tabloid stories of a 'mob' outside that house. How many other people were involved in this? RS after the party was still living his out of control criminal/comic book fantasy. He got one of his acquaintances - somebody who could have been at the earlier 'party' at Via del Pergola to phone through a bomb threat to that address. There may be some dispute as to whether this was connected within the motivations report - but it has to be asked how could a bomb threat been phoned co-incidentally, that night to the address the phones were dumped at. RS was out of his mind on drugs - such an extreme act to seemingly take control in an insane threatening way fits in with cocaine. RS was also extremely drunk as was Knox. Cocaine being a strong stimulant enables the abuser to carry on drinking. I am thinking now that it is more possibly cocaine in reflecting on AK's actions with Kokomani outside the cottage. Kokomani reported that AK brandished the knife in both hands and exclaimed to him "come here i'll show you". That, as with the bomb threat, is drug crazed psychotic empowerment. So there was a combination of drugs - cannabis which they have both admitted to - that they say was the cause of their memory lapse, much alcohol (AK stated she was "very drunk") and cocaine. Also I think it is very possible that there was heroin that night from Guedo - they smoked it in the house shortly before killing Meredith Kercher. There are a few indicators of this. Guedo passed out - he relates that and AK relates that in her "Marie Pace" story. I think Guedo was a heroin user. He got the heroin for RS/AK. It all fits I have described the allusions to hard drug use within that story - and incidentally the story does fit with the house/"party"/murder scenario.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Meredith Kercher wasn't bothering with AK anymore - AK had been texting her the night before "what are you doing tonight?" Meredith Kercher stayed away from AK the night before. AK had been causing problems in the house by her extravagant ways, her slovenly behaviour, her brashness. Meredith Kercher arrived back to Via della Pergola that night to have a quiet night in. What she got was AK/RS/RG at least doing drugs ... "a party" according to AK in her Marie Pace "story" -- "a mountain of beer in the kitchen" (not verbatim).

It was the final straw. AK went into her room and found her money was missing. That also was the final straw. She went ballistic. RG has stated this. He stated that AK was arguing with Meredith Kercher.

But then again the "hazing" scenario and the fact that AK had carried the knife from the apartment of RS in her "large green bag", also the fact they turned their phones off at the same time just before leaving -- also the fact that they were watching the cottage for some time. This could mean that RS/AK arrived after Meredith Kercher. Then they commenced the "hazing". Or it could have been that after some argument Meredith Kercher retired to her room -- RG was harassing her and RS/AK then commenced the "hazing". Both RG and Kokomani related that RS was wearing a "bathing cap" -- they were "dressing up" --- it fits with a "hazing". They could have been fully disguised. It may seem to be an inconsequential thing that arose but it was reported by somebody on a newspaper site that AK had a habit of hazing -- running in (was that in disguise) and effectively kidnapping someone ... this is precedence.

Hazing is illegal in France because it is cruel and it is known how it can get out of hand. I do think that it is possible that the murder originated from that "hazing" ... RS in his disguise. But with one difference ... the drug cocktail RS/AK had imbibed - and the fact that I think they started the "hazing" (as a joke) but they were "hazing with knives" ... I think they were pushing each other as to how far they would go, RS to impress AK, AK to egg him on. I do think that Guede was just a dupe he was only a witness.

They were out of their minds on drugs. Kokomanis testimony can be taken seriously - he related his testimony to separate people (who were tracked down) before the crime was discovered. He related to the police about seeing the break-down truck before that was known publically. His mobile phone records state he was in the area, at the time. Kokomani's testimony is completely credible - he relates their "drug craziness" - he states that he knew AK/RS and also Guede were "drugged", crazy.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
capealadin wrote:
How far, I wonder, would Rafaele go to achieve the ultimate high?


On TJMK it is taken for granted that at least RS was a cocaine addict. I gather this is from sources within Perugia - people who knew him. He was definitely a druggy --- Perugia was then a more druggy place -- in reading TJMK I have seen comments that say that the cottage area was actually a fairly rough area -- there was vagrancy at least - there was a heroin problem in Perugia - hard drugs were around. RS was a rich kid -- he'd just finished his degree and just wanted to party -- it was *his* time his 'reward' he went overboard when he found AK at this time she was just fuel to the fire. That night RS got somebody to phone through a bomb threat to the address he knew I am pretty sure from Guedo - the address where Guedo had deposited the phones. I recall reports that AK was sighted around that address that night -- she must have been looking for the phones. Related on here there have been italian tabloid stories of a 'mob' outside that house. How many other people were involved in this? RS after the party was still living his out of control criminal/comic book fantasy. He got one of his acquaintances - somebody who could have been at the earlier 'party' at Via del Pergola to phone through a bomb threat to that address. There may be some dispute as to whether this was connected within the motivations report - but it has to be asked how could a bomb threat been phoned co-incidentally, that night to the address the phones were dumped at. RS was out of his mind on drugs - such an extreme act to seemingly take control in an insane threatening way fits in with cocaine. RS was also extremely drunk as was Knox. Cocaine being a strong stimulant enables the abuser to carry on drinking. I am thinking now that it is more possibly cocaine in reflecting on AK's actions with Kokomani outside the cottage. Kokomani reported that AK brandished the knife in both hands and exclaimed to him "come here i'll show you". That, as with the bomb threat, is drug crazed psychotic empowerment. So there was a combination of drugs - cannabis which they have both admitted to - that they say was the cause of their memory lapse, much alcohol (AK stated she was "very drunk") and cocaine. Also I think it is very possible that there was heroin that night from Guedo - they smoked it in the house shortly before killing Meredith Kercher. There are a few indicators of this. Guedo passed out - he relates that and AK relates that in her "Marie Pace" story. I think Guedo was a heroin user. He got the heroin for RS/AK. It all fits I have described the allusions to hard drug use within that story - and incidentally the story does fit with the house/"party"/murder scenario.


I don't know what your sources are for all of this.

The area around the basketball court and the park area north of the cottage was what I'd call 'sketchy' rather than 'rough'. Every mid-sized or larger city in North America has one or two areas like that. The cottage was on the periphery of that region, though.

Pot users are generally not deep into harder drugs. The boys downstairs grew pot and we know from the media reports and court testimony that almost everyone involved smoked it.

Cocaine does not make you want to drink alcohol. Most coke users refrain from alcohol because it interferes with the buzz. I would also like to know when Knox said she was "very drunk" the evening of Meredith's murder. She didn't say it in her testimony. She said she smoked a joint with Raffaele on the evening on 01 NOV 2007. She also said quite clearly that Rudy did not provide her with drugs but that Raffaele did. It's one of the few times during her testimony that she doesn't wander off on some visionary vacation.

Crack cocaine and heroin have paraphernalia that go along with them. None of this was reported to have been found by the police and you'd think they would have "leaked" that along with some of the other less "damaging" facts. Neither Raffaele nor Amanda wrote anything about hard drugs. That's not necessarily proof they didn't use them but if you're racked up with a murder charge and acknowledge smoking pot then there's no reason not to mention it.

We'd had a discussion about how washed out Amanda and Raffaele looked on 02 NOV 2007. Yet they didn't appear "crashed" as they would have on harder drugs. I would have to look at the sources that claim Raffaele was a cocaine "addict". It sounds like he may have partied on it on occasion but that it was not his drug of choice.

Guede went dancing after Meredith was murdered. People saw him at that club. I've never heard of any heroin user who would do such a thing. Heroin creates an almost dreamlike state while awake. Most users wouldn't walk to the corner store let alone go dancing.

The bomb threat "conspiracy" is new to me. I am rather certain the investigators figured the source of the call to the cell phone in the garden and talked to the individual responsible. It certainly would have been featured in the prosecution case if the individual was connected to Sollecito in any way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
I don't know what your sources are for all of this. The area around the basketball court and the park area north of the cottage was what I'd call 'sketchy' rather than 'rough'. Every mid-sized or larger city in North America has one or two areas like that. The cottage was on the periphery of that region, though.


my sources are mainly this forum and TJMK recently for reports of the seediness of the area then. I believe that since then there has been a drug crackdown by the authorities in Perugia - it has been cleaned up somewhat. The area of the cottage - the basketball courts I think were frequented by drug users. Curatalo was vagrant there. Perugia may appear nice but I think it had a quite transient and druggy population.


stillcho wrote:
Pot users are generally not deep into harder drugs. The boys downstairs grew pot and we know from the media reports and court testimony that almost everyone involved smoked it.


Reports on TJMK that Soll. was addicted to cocaine. He had just finished his degree - he wanted to party - he had unlimited funds. Papa Solleceteo was worried about him - phoning him all the time. I think he was a frequent cocaine user.

stillcho wrote:
Cocaine does not make you want to drink alcohol.


Cocaine being a stimulant allows the imbiber to drink more alcohol without seeming to get drunk. Cocaine allows the imbiber to drink more


stillcho wrote:
Most coke users refrain from alcohol because it interferes with the buzz.


Cocaine will give the user stamina to continue "partying" all night . It will revive someone from a state of drunken intoxication. I think you are wrong here.

stillcho wrote:
I would also like to know when Knox said she was "very drunk" the evening of Meredith's murder.


From here, I always thought that was taken for granted here. Was it from Knoxes initial police interviews?

stillcho wrote:
She didn't say it in her testimony. She said she smoked a joint with Raffaele on the evening on 01 NOV 2007.


Yes, she was by then saying she just had a quiet night in with Soll. BTW on JREF they are saying that it is not true that RS ever stated that AK ever left his apartment, ever stated it and is standing by that -- another thing that I thought was taken for granted here. They are also saying over there that RS never stated that he was at a party on the night of the murder (taken here to have been his first alibi).

stillcho wrote:
She also said quite clearly that Rudy did not provide her with drugs but that Raffaele did. It's one of the few times during her testimony that she doesn't wander off on some visionary vacation.


We can agree to differ. I still think RG supplied RS/AK with heroin.

stillcho wrote:
Crack cocaine


Who said crack? But now you have got me thinking -- this has got me moving away from it possibly being heroin "enveloped in acrid smoke" (not verbatim from the Marie Pace "story") could be the smoking of crack. I have had problems with it being heroin because I wouldn't think that heroin would make the user act like RS/AK did with Kokomani. You may have a point there -- it could have been crack cocaine. Was crack cocaine a problem in Perugia? Was it commonly available?

stillcho wrote:
and heroin have paraphernalia that go along with them. None of this was reported to have been found by the police


plenty of things weren't found by there police. The crime scene was cleaned up/staged by RS and AK.

stillcho wrote:
and you'd think they would have "leaked" that along with some of the other less "damaging" facts. Neither Raffaele nor Amanda wrote anything about hard drugs. That's not necessarily proof they didn't use them but if you're racked up with a murder charge and acknowledge smoking pot then there's no reason not to mention it.


AK in her Marie Pace "story" wrote about hard drugs she wrote about a party where people were 'puncturing' (injecting) she writes about smoke, about smoke and being enveloped in acrid smoke --- hard drug use. She notes the smoke being "acrid" -- AK was a frequent smoker of cannabis. She notes the "acrid" smoke because there were harder drugs being smoked at that "party".

stillcho wrote:
We'd had a discussion about how washed out Amanda and Raffaele looked on 02 NOV 2007. Yet they didn't appear "crashed" as they would have on harder drugs. I would have to look at the sources that claim Raffaele was a cocaine "addict". It sounds like he may have partied on it on occasion but that it was not his drug of choice.


There has been plenty of discussion of that. I think they looked extremely washed out - tired - wired - pale also "shocked". Gauging their appearance is subjective opinion.

stillcho wrote:
Guede went dancing after Meredith was murdered. People saw him at that club.


Guede went dancing to be seen, to distance himself from the crime. He was also probably sexually frustrated - trying to get laid.

stillcho wrote:
I've never heard of any heroin user who would do such a thing. Heroin creates an almost dreamlike state while awake. Most users wouldn't walk to the corner store let alone go dancing.


OK. I now think it may have been crack cocaine.

stillcho wrote:
The bomb threat "conspiracy" is new to me. I am rather certain the investigators figured the source of the call to the cell phone in the garden and talked to the individual responsible. It certainly would have been featured in the prosecution case if the individual was connected to Sollecito in any way.


It happened, it was phoned through to the house that the phones were found at, in a bush, the next morning. Someone on here posted italian tabloid newspaper reports of the "bomb" threat and also a "mob" outside that residence. Some reports have the bomb threat as at 2am. I believe the motivations report has it earlier. I think even so, it must have been connected to the phones. The bomb threat did occur. I think RS got one of his acquaintances to phone it through. He was drug psychotic/crazy -- being threatening - totally out of control that night. As related by Kokomani. This fits in with the use of cocaine.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hi, Troon. Long time no see :) . I think a lot of alchohl was imbibed that night. It's the only excuse if Amanda can't remember. Pelerine: That makes it worse :)

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stilicho wrote:
Cocaine does not make you want to drink alcohol. Most coke users refrain from alcohol because it interferes with the buzz.


No. not always. I've seen many on cocaine also drinking. When they do that, they tend to get very aggressive and often violent.

And in fact, it's one of the dangers of youth...not only because that's when drug experimentation tends to happen and they simply take them, but because they also often mix their drugs as part of the experimentation. This is when medical emergencies can happen, either to themselves or to others.

Stilicho wrote:
I don't know what your sources are for all of this.


Well, as for Amanda and Raffaele being users of cocaine and being on cocaine on the night of the murder, it is indeed correct that sources have reported this and it is reportedly common knowledge among police/legal/judicial circles in Perugia that this was in fact the case. I haven't made strong claims about this on PMF simply because I can't reveal the sources so it ties ones hands in regard to reporting it as a 'fact'.

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Re Bomb threat

Massei says that the bomb threat happened at around 22:00 Nov 1. The police went there to investigate and found nothing.
The first phone was found at around 9:00 Nov 2.

"Era dunque accaduto che la sera dell'I.11.2007 verso le ore 22,00 una persona aveva avvertito Lana Elisabetta di non utilizzare il water dell' abitazione perché c'era una bomba che poteva scoppiare. Di tale telefonata la sig.ra Lana aveva subito notiziato la polizia che si era portata sul posto senza trovare nulla."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroon wrote:
Reports on TJMK that Soll. was addicted to cocaine. He had just finished his degree - he wanted to party - he had unlimited funds. Papa Solleceteo was worried about him - phoning him all the time. I think he was a frequent cocaine user.


I think it's a bit strong to say the reports from the sources have Sollecito 'addicted' to cocaine. The reports simply have cocaine as being one of his drugs of choice, that he would take it often and that he and Amanda had taken cocaine on the day of the murder.

_________________
"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 ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi, Troon. Long time no see :) . I think a lot of alchohl was imbibed that night. It's the only excuse if Amanda can't remember. Pelerine: That makes it worse :)


Hi capealadin. AK/RS say they didn't remember most things about that night because of the drugs, but they can remember exactly when they took the drugs. Cannabis inducing amnesia must be a medical first. RS had not been particularly "successful" as a lothario before he met AK. By the time of the murder he had only known AK 1 week. He says he can't remember anything about the night, staying with AK. You would think it would be more memorable for him. "not remembering" is a convenient excuse, too convenient. It's hard to say "no comment" - people would ask why. Saying "I don't remember" is easier. If anything is remembered in fact, is stated then it is easy to pull apart. Where there is testimony by AK/RS there are problems in collusion.

BTW part of the reason I'm back in here - I jumped into JREF but I don't think I continue for two reasons. 1. it's now moderated so it's slow -- 2. to be quite honest there they are hitting me with objection to most things I have taken for granted here (for instance they say that RS never stated he went to a party as his initial alibi). huh-) - new to me. It does seem to be a separate universe. RoseMontague I find quite incredible. I didn't respond to her posts the pure face and the crap she comes out with. Not a particularly nice place now - I sympathise with Fiona. The place is moderated because it is infested now with trolls. The FOA had to have a credible forum to migrate to so they have overtaken JREF. The thread becoming moderated is a failure.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroon wrote:
Yes, she was by then saying she just had a quiet night in with Soll. BTW on JREF they are saying that it is not true that RS ever stated that AK ever left his apartment, ever stated it and is standing by that -- another thing that I thought was taken for granted here. They are also saying over there that RS never stated that he was at a party on the night of the murder (taken here to have been his first alibi).


You shouldn't give anything they write over on the JREF the time of day, they are in denial. Raffaele, on the night of the 5th, told police Amanda had left him to go to Le Chic. Period.

He also, through his lawyers, told the Italian High Court that they would be wrong to conclude that Amanda was with him that night.

Raffaele indeed stated he was at a party. He declared it in a face-to-face interview to Kate Mansey of the Daily Mirror on the 3rd Nov. It is quite possible he had told the police the same thing in his original statements, although of course it may be that he told the police one thing and Kate Mansey something else. Whichever, it's clear his lies started almost from day 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 Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Meredith Kercher wasn't bothering with AK anymore - AK had been texting her the night before "what are you doing tonight?" Meredith Kercher stayed away from AK the night before. AK had been causing problems in the house by her extravagant ways, her slovenly behaviour, her brashness. Meredith Kercher arrived back to Via della Pergola that night to have a quiet night in. What she got was AK/RS/RG at least doing drugs ... "a party" according to AK in her Marie Pace "story" -- "a mountain of beer in the kitchen" (not verbatim).

It was the final straw. AK went into her room and found her money was missing. That also was the final straw. She went ballistic. RG has stated this. He stated that AK was arguing with Meredith Kercher.

But then again the "hazing" scenario and the fact that AK had carried the knife from the apartment of RS in her "large green bag", also the fact they turned their phones off at the same time just before leaving -- also the fact that they were watching the cottage for some time. This could mean that RS/AK arrived after Meredith Kercher. Then they commenced the "hazing". Or it could have been that after some argument Meredith Kercher retired to her room -- RG was harassing her and RS/AK then commenced the "hazing". Both RG and Kokomani related that RS was wearing a "bathing cap" -- they were "dressing up" --- it fits with a "hazing". They could have been fully disguised. It may seem to be an inconsequential thing that arose but it was reported by somebody on a newspaper site that AK had a habit of hazing -- running in (was that in disguise) and effectively kidnapping someone ... this is precedence.

Hazing is illegal in France because it is cruel and it is known how it can get out of hand. I do think that it is possible that the murder originated from that "hazing" ... RS in his disguise. But with one difference ... the drug cocktail RS/AK had imbibed - and the fact that I think they started the "hazing" (as a joke) but they were "hazing with knives" ... I think they were pushing each other as to how far they would go, RS to impress AK, AK to egg him on. I do think that Guede was just a dupe he was only a witness.

They were out of their minds on drugs. Kokomanis testimony can be taken seriously - he related his testimony to separate people (who were tracked down) before the crime was discovered. He related to the police about seeing the break-down truck before that was known publically. His mobile phone records state he was in the area, at the time. Kokomani's testimony is completely credible - he relates their "drug craziness" - he states that he knew AK/RS and also Guede were "drugged", crazy.


I think the hazing theory over complicates things. To me AK and RS were outside the cottage waiting for their drug dealer + RG who may have involved with the deal. AK had brought the knife from RS flat for insurance and not used one of her own as she didn't want to see MK at the cottage because she had stolen her money earlier. Something went wrong with the deal leaving AK,RS and RG in a bad mood ontop of their drugged/drunken state. MK may have tried to report the theft and thats when the assault took place. At some stage RS was left alone with MK and not being a match for her physically he ended up stabbing her. AK who may have gone to get RG to curtail his bathroom break ran back on hearing the screams and attacked MK with RS's kitchen knife
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
We'd had a discussion about how washed out Amanda and Raffaele looked on 02 NOV 2007. Yet they didn't appear "crashed" as they would have on harder drugs. I would have to look at the sources that claim Raffaele was a cocaine "addict". It sounds like he may have partied on it on occasion but that it was not his drug of choice.

Guede went dancing after Meredith was murdered. People saw him at that club. I've never heard of any heroin user who would do such a thing. Heroin creates an almost dreamlike state while awake. Most users wouldn't walk to the corner store let alone go dancing.


Mignini hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been on hard drugs on the night of the murder at the trial:

"He also hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been in a drug-fueled frenzy when they allegedly killed Kercher. He outlined the effects of cocaine and acid, and told the judges and jury how Knox and Sollecito ran with a crowd that often used these “stupificante,” or stupefying drugs." (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 20 November 2009).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... l-endgame/

I'm not sure that Knox and Sollecito were seriously messed up on hard drugs on the night murder and I don't believe for a second that they suffered a genuine blackout.

Jovana Popovic saw them at approximately 8.40pm and Antonio Curatolo last saw them in Pizza Grimana at around 11.00pm. Their testimonies don't indicate that Knox and Sollecito were completely out of it on drugs shortly before Meredith was murdered.

Knox's and Sollecito's actions shortly after Meredith had been murdered show that they had their wits about them. They took Meredith's mobile phones at about midnight and went down a dark and deserted road beyond the city gates and threw them away in a place where it would be difficult to find them. They did this and locked Meredith’s door to delay the discovery of her body until they had finished removing their own incriminating traces from the crime scene. They knew that the best time of the day to clean up the cottage was the morning when there would be more light.

Knox and Sollecito couldn't have been in a drunken stupor because they were up at 5.32am the next morning.

The fact that Knox was waiting outside Marco Quintavalle's shop at 7.45am before it opened on a national holiday shows the urgency she felt to obtain cleaning products to remove the incriminating traces of herself and Sollecito.

Knox clearly remembered that they had thrown Meredith's mobile phones in somebody's garden because she called one of the phones the next morning to make sure that they hadn't been found. When she had confirmation that they hadn't been found, she called Filomena and raised the alarm.

I can't emphasise the significance of Knox pretending that she had called Filomena first enough and she did this on two separate occasions: in her first conversation with Filomena on and in her e-mail to her friends on 4 November.

Knox's false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba provides further confirmation that she had a clear recollection of what happened at the cottage. She knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted by an African man. She also knew that Diya Lumumba was innocent. She admitted that it was her fault that he was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hello again,

I'm back from my short vacation, and I thought it would be nice to conclude some topics from my last visit here :)
Bolint justly called me out on the unfinished issue of the "woman's bloody shoeprint" while I was away.
Thanks to Macport and bolint, and thanks to the defense's eagerness to leak that particular piece we have enough to talk about.


But first of all I owe an apology to bolint and others, because I was mistaken and I also mistook some of what you said for what it wasn't. Let me recap the scattered discussion for context, and to explain myself :)

Katody wrote:
Is there a picture of that footprint somewhere available?

Michael wrote:
The only pillow footprint photos you will find in the public domain are a couple that were taken and released by the defence.

bolint wrote:
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

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

Here I thought you simply posted a wrong picture. I now know better that this indeed what the prosecution took for a "woman's bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size". I was wrong about it, bolint.
As you know I'm new to this case, and have seen the prints Guede left in the hallway and also the sole of his Nike Outbreak shoes many times in the past month. It is fresh in my memory.
I wrongly assumed that if I can recognize Guede's print it should be obvious to all. After all lots of PMFers live and breath this case for years.

So when this unnecessary to-and-fro occurred I was sure you're just teasing me, and the picture you posted was also meant as a joke:
bolint wrote:
Please put in the photo of Rudy's shoeprint with wich you have just compared this cushion shoeprint.

Michael wrote:
Please expand. Here, we prefer explanations rather then pronouncements.

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

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

After that again I assumed you're playfully insincere.
Katody wrote:
I'm sure there are some on this board who have.
Anyone?

Michael wrote:
Sure. But we're going on memory of it. We're not comparing because we're not working on the print right now.

That one should've get through to me, sorry Michael.

In the end I assumed that we simply don't have a correct picture of the disputed shoeprint and I dropped that subject:
Katody wrote:
Ok, let's set apart the pillow footprint of Amanda, on which we apparently don't have anything concrete to debate.

Again, I apologise.


Later,
when I was away, I started some digging and searching with PMF's search.
And it came to me that it is indeed very hard to find any picture of Guede's shoeprint.
There was only a shoeprint of Sollecito in the gallery, sometimes wrongly attributed to Guede link to gallery
What is interesting, a quick search for the term "Nike Outbreak" (the model Rudy Guede wore during murder, and left prints of) returned 21 matches but no images, while a search for "Asics" (shoe model prosecution linked to the alleged "woman's bloody shoeprint") returned 67 matches.
Also interesting is that "woman's bloody shoeprint" appears much more frequently.
PMF's search returns about 200 results, but a google search of the exact phrase on PMF states "About 3,200 results".

So I realized that the Rudy Guede's shoeprints may be in fact a bit overlooked, and many people in fact can take for granted that the print above is a "woman's bloody" one.


For the completeness here is a Nike Outbreak 2 sole for comparison,
so we could finally get back to the question if it fits or not to the print posted above:
Image


I'd like to post also some images from the excellent professor Vinci's presentation if it's not against rules.
Thank you :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:48 am   Post subject: Bots   

OT

MSN [Bot] and Yahoo [Bot] were here just a few moments ago.

And last night I noticed Ask Jeeves [Bot] visited for a bit.

And, as I type, trusty Google [Bot], almost like a friend now, I see it so often.


Michael,

Does Bot activity count as "Views"?
Or are their stats in the "Behind the scenes" category?

I presume Bots would come and take their search-snapshots once a day, rather than more often (like every hour, say?).

What this means, I suppose, is that if you follow the Bot trail through cyberspace, you get to the biggest information source the fastest way, and their search results get pushed further up to the top. Which in human terms means that if you see some people drawing water from one well, you think "Hmmm"; and if you see a whole lot of people drawing water from another well, you think "They can't all be wrong; I'd better get some too, quick smart".


ttrroonniicc,

Welcome back.

P.S.
Rose has her part to play (not sure if she knows what it is yet - if so, she'll be surprised when she finds out).


Oops. MSN [Bot] just popped back. :)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

" BTW on JREF they are saying that it is not true that RS ever stated that AK ever left his apartment, ever stated it and is standing by that "

Raffaele's versions:

Nov 2 questioning (as reviewed by judge Claudia Matteini): (Amanda said that at around 17:00 they went to Raffaele's place ant stayed there all time)
Quote:
Raffaele confirmed Amanda's version with the exception that according to him the toilet in the other bathroom was clean


Nov 3 Kate Mansey interview (published Nov 4):
Quote:
"Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.
He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends."



Nov 3 Kate Mansey recollection after arrest (published Nov 11):
Quote:
"As we talked about what happened, Raffaele kept changing his story and backtracking. "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone to a friend's and Amanda and I to a party," he said. "


Nov 5/6 questioning: They were walking in the centre and at 21 he went home alone, Amanda said she would go to Le Chic and returned at around 1AM
Quote:
Io alle 21 sono andato da solo a casa mia, mentre Amanda ha detto che
sarebbe andata al pub Le Chic perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici. A questo
punto ci siamo salutati. Sono andato a casa, mi sono fatto una canna, ho cenato.
Verso le 23 mi ha chiamato sull'utenza fissa di casa mio padre. Ricordo che
Amanda non era ancora tornata. Ho navigato al computer per altre due ore dopo la
telefonata di mio padre e ho smesso solo quando Amanda è rientrata,
presumibilmente verso l'1


Nov 8 hearing before Claudia Matteini: at 18:00 they went home together, Amanda received and sent messages and told Raffaele that she need not go to work, and Raffaele is not sure if she went out that night, does not remember.
Quote:
" Alle 18.00 siamo usciti e siamo andati verso il centro passando da piazza Grimana, piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana e corso Vannucci. Ci siamo trattenuti in centro fino alle 20.30-21 e poi siamo andati a casa mia; non ricordo a che ora ho cenato, penso di aver cenato insieme ad Amanda. Ricordo che Amanda ha ricevuto messaggi sul telefonino e ha risposto. Non ricordo se il messaggio è arrivato prima o dopo cena poi lei mi ha detto che il pub era chiuso a differenza di tutti i martedì e giovedì e quindi non doveva andare a lavorare quel giorno. Non sono certo se Amanda è uscita quella sera, non lo ricordo. "


Diary Nov 7 (first) entry (next entry Nov 11):
Quote:
Meanwhile Amanda and I remained there until 18:00 approximately and began to smoke cannabis.
From this moment come my problems, because I have confused memories.
For the first thing Amanda and I had gone downtown from Piazza Grimana
to Corso Vannucci passing behind the university for exchange students
and ending up in Piazza Morlacchi (we always take that road), then I
don't remember but presumably we had to go grocery shopping. We
returned to my house around to the 20:00-20:30 and there I made
another pipe and saw that as it was a holiday, to take myself with
extreme tranquility, without the smallest intention to go out inasmuch
as outside it was cold.
I don't remember in reality at what time I ate, but certainly I ate
and Amanda ate with me.
(...)
I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a
film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you
sent me a goodnight message. I remember that was Thursday, therefore
Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't
remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently
she had said to me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts
regarding the fact that she was absent). I am straining myself to
remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of
which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.
(...)
Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different
statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that
Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and
that she was out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember
exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a
consequence I do not remember how long she was absent.


Last edited by bolint on Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:04 pm, edited 2 times 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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Well...I'm no expert on the footprints myself. Others have spent quite a bit of time on them in the past. However, I should point out a couple of things. There are at least two footprints on the pillow. One of those footprints is from Rudy Guede and this is agreed both by prosecution and defence. The other footprint is the print argued by the prosecution to be from a female Asic's shoe, the size of which corresponds to Amanda Knox's shoe size (on this, the defence disagree, instead claiming that it is a fragment from several of Rudy's prints).

Therefore, those discussing the print need to exercise great caution. You need to be sure that you are not confusing photos of the prints on the pillow between the print that is already agreed by all parties to be Rudy's and the print alleged to be from a female Asics shoe. The photo from Franks is, I believe, of the print on the pillow all parties agree to be Rudy's. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
I'd like to post also some images from the excellent professor Vinci's presentation if it's not against rules.
Thank you


They are probably already in the PMF gallery. If so, you can hotlink them from there...it would save having to upload pictures from your drive as attachments while also saving forum bloat.

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:05 pm   Post subject: Dust   

Two more Bots (Yahoo and Google) just then.

They must be like Dust in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials universe: the more we post, the more of them there are.

And I've got a bunch of posts coming up...

New game:
I'll see if I can race the Bots! :)
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"The photo from Franks is, I believe, of the print on the pillow all parties agree to be Rudy's. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that."

Not, it is the contested one.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"The photo from Franks is, I believe, of the print on the pillow all parties agree to be Rudy's. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that."

Not, it is the contested one.



Can you show 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 Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
The photo from Franks is, I believe, of the print on the pillow all parties agree to be Rudy's. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.


As early as 2009 some users thought it's the correct one:

from http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=8&p=17094#p17094

The Machine wrote:
Who do you think gave Frank Sfarzo important court documents like the DNA charts and the photograph of the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"Can you show that?"

Vinci's presentation page 34:
According to Rinaldi there is no analogy with the shoe, according to Vinci there is a clear match with a part of the shoe.

"i risultati delle nostre indagini portano a
discordare con le conclusioni dei C.T. Rinaldi e
Boemia, in quanto abbiamo chiaramente
dimostrato che la traccia 2, che secondo i
consulenti “non presenta analogie con le scarpe in
verifica” è invece chiaramente riferibile ad un parte
della suola di una scarpa di marca Nike, mod.
Outbreak 2"
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Bolint wrote:
"Can you show that?"

Vinci's presentation page 34:
According to Rinaldi there is no analogy with the shoe, according to Vinci there is a clear match with a part of the shoe.


No, I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy's.

I don't mean to be pedantic. It is just highly important that we have certain confirmation since that photo would act as an important source file and as such many will build their debate on it...so, we have to get it right.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
The photo from Franks is, I believe, of the print on the pillow all parties agree to be Rudy's. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.


As early as 2009 some users thought it's the correct one:

from http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=8&p=17094#p17094

The Machine wrote:
Who do you think gave Frank Sfarzo important court documents like the DNA charts and the photograph of the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow?



Yes, but we must still confirm. A direct statement from Frank that that particular photo is of the contested print in his original article will do.

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
No, I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy


It's the same partial print that is analyzed from page 29 onwards in Vinci's presentation.
Would you like it to be posted for comparison?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy


It's the same partial print that is analyzed from page 29 onwards in Vinci's presentation.
Would you like it to be posted for comparison?



Alright, we'll let that stand as the photo of the contested print. If anyone has any reason to contest that, they can post up their objections.


Note
Just a Note.
~ I have modified the title of the photo in the PMF Gallery to reflect its status~

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

"I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy's."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... e-and.html
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

bolint wrote:
"I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy's."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... e-and.html


See my last post.

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy


It's the same partial print that is analyzed from page 29 onwards in Vinci's presentation.
Would you like it to be posted for comparison?



As a potential soul-mate once asked me, "where are we going with all this"?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Cocaine does not make you want to drink alcohol. Most coke users refrain from alcohol because it interferes with the buzz.


No. not always. I've seen many on cocaine also drinking. When they do that, they tend to get very aggressive and often violent.

And in fact, it's one of the dangers of youth...not only because that's when drug experimentation tends to happen and they simply take them, but because they also often mix their drugs as part of the experimentation. This is when medical emergencies can happen, either to themselves or to others.

Stilicho wrote:
I don't know what your sources are for all of this.


Well, as for Amanda and Raffaele being users of cocaine and being on cocaine on the night of the murder, it is indeed correct that sources have reported this and it is reportedly common knowledge among police/legal/judicial circles in Perugia that this was in fact the case. I haven't made strong claims about this on PMF simply because I can't reveal the sources so it ties ones hands in regard to reporting it as a 'fact'.


Without a toxicology report this would have to go into the "unsourced" bin.

Young people do indeed experiment with combinations of drugs. However, in the course of cleaning up after a murder, the last thing in their minds would be how to deal with the paraphernalia. If Sollecito was a casual drug user, he might not have the paraphernalia. There is no evidence the police found any such paraphernalia at Sollecito's, Guede's, or at the cottage.

A slightly more experienced cocaine user would simply by crack cocaine pre-cooked. No paraphernalia needed. But crack cocaine requires almost a literal attentiveness to the high over a period of hours (sometimes days). Did investigators find any trace of this at either the cottage or Sollecito's flat?

I don't buy the "hard drug" theory since we'd all discussed it back in January or February. There is no evidence of it. There was nothing in the "official" leaks about it. It is clear when you put together the various testimonies that the source of any drugs were the pot plants downstairs and Raffaele Sollecito. Rudy doesn't enter into it.

I think the reason Sollecito and Knox became aggressive and violent is that they actually are aggressive individuals. The violence was a part of a group dynamic and not a consequence of their individual motivations.

The strangest part about asserting "outta control druggies" is that nobody argued this in court. Nobody. Not the prosecution to implicate those "drugged out kids". Not the defence to establish diminished capacity. And in a murder investigation there is absolutely no doubts in my mind that every key aspect of the defendant's behaviour would be carefully weighed. We know this because they brought up the rock-throwing incident in the courtroom. That "traffic ticket" seemed important yet people would have us believe that a coke addiction would be irrelevant? No way!

By the way, I think you guys might be confusing coke users with Red Bull + vodka! Energy drinks are often consumed with hard liquor to prolong the effects. Cocaine is dulled by the almost directly contrary effect of alcohol. Nobody would waste good coke by mellowing it out with booze.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stilicho wrote:
Without a toxicology report this would have to go into the "unsourced" bin.



For you perhaps. Not for me, since I know who the sources are. But, for the wider membership indeed, it is a case of 'make of it what you will'.


Stilcho wrote:
Young people do indeed experiment with combinations of drugs. However, in the course of cleaning up after a murder, the last thing in their minds would be how to deal with the paraphernalia.



You don't need paraphernalia to snort coke, smoke a spliff or drink booze. All the equipment required have innocent explanations (a lot of people smoke hand rolled cigarettes, so have rolling papers...everyone carries money and a rolled up bank note is all one needs to snort some coke, etc,).

But here's some food for thought. It is known as a fact Raffaele, Amanda, Filomena, Laura and on ocassion even Meredith would smoke joints. Yet, no evidence of joint smoking was found either at the cottage or at Raffaele's...not even a roach in an ashtray.

Stilicho wrote:
The strangest part about asserting "outta control druggies" is that nobody argued this in court.


Personally, I don't think we are talking about a case of 'out of control druggies' either. However, I'm quite willing to accept drugs may have been a factor in lowering certain inhibitions (ethical, moral, risk, self control and a degree of judgement impairment, like when to stop) and enhancing some negative personality traits, urges and desires that may have already been present.

I don't believe there's an explanation in the form of one central reason (it happened because of 'X', 'Y' or Z'), but rather a number of factors all coming together at the same time, although there may have been a wrong primary mistake that led to a snowball effect (say a prank or the decision to have a party at the cottage). I tend to be inclined towards FBN's mooted 'Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity' theory.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
We'd had a discussion about how washed out Amanda and Raffaele looked on 02 NOV 2007. Yet they didn't appear "crashed" as they would have on harder drugs. I would have to look at the sources that claim Raffaele was a cocaine "addict". It sounds like he may have partied on it on occasion but that it was not his drug of choice.

Guede went dancing after Meredith was murdered. People saw him at that club. I've never heard of any heroin user who would do such a thing. Heroin creates an almost dreamlike state while awake. Most users wouldn't walk to the corner store let alone go dancing.


Mignini hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been on hard drugs on the night of the murder at the trial:

"He also hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been in a drug-fueled frenzy when they allegedly killed Kercher. He outlined the effects of cocaine and acid, and told the judges and jury how Knox and Sollecito ran with a crowd that often used these “stupificante,” or stupefying drugs." (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 20 November 2009).

I'm not sure that Knox and Sollecito were seriously messed up on hard drugs on the night murder and I don't believe for a second that they suffered a genuine blackout.


I think this was smart on Mignini's part because a lot of the defence was based on "we're too high to remember". I am with you on this one. Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.

So Mignini rolls with the punch and lets the judges make up their own minds. I would have been unconvinced but people react differently when posited about coke or LSD. The fact he even mentioned acid is interesting. LSD really ruins any possibility of a group dynamic. It's a "personal experience" drug like mescaline, peyote, or psylocibin.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
By the way, I think you guys might be confusing coke users with Red Bull + vodka! Energy drinks are often consumed with hard liquor to prolong the effects. Cocaine is dulled by the almost directly contrary effect of alcohol. Nobody would waste good coke by mellowing it out with booze.

Again though this is like the torching the crime scene thought, these aren't "schooled" users they're green, newbies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Without a toxicology report this would have to go into the "unsourced" bin.



For you perhaps. Not for me, since I know who the sources are. But, for the wider membership indeed, it is a case of 'make of it what you will'.


Stilcho wrote:
Young people do indeed experiment with combinations of drugs. However, in the course of cleaning up after a murder, the last thing in their minds would be how to deal with the paraphernalia.



You don't need paraphernalia to snort coke, smoke a spliff or drink booze. All the equipment required have innocent explanations (a lot of people smoke hand rolled cigarettes, so have rolling papers...everyone carries money and a rolled up bank note is all one needs to snort some coke, etc,).

But here's some food for thought. It is known as a fact Raffaele, Amanda, Filomena, Laura and on ocassion even Meredith would smoke joints. Yet no evidence of joints was found either at the cottage or at Raffaele's...not even a roach in an ashtray.

Stilicho wrote:
The strangest part about asserting "outta control druggies" is that nobody argued this in court.


Personally, I don't think we are talking about a case of 'out of control druggies'. However, I'm quite willing to accept drugs may have been a factor in lowering certain inhibitions (ethical, moral, risk, self control and a degree of judgement impairment, like when to stop) and enhancing some negative personality traits and desires that may have already been present.

I don't believe the explanation of one central reason, but rather a number of factors all coming together at the same time. I tend to be inclined towards FBN's mooted 'Perfect Storm of Dysfinctional Complicity' theory.


I had actually asked before whether Filomena permitted the other cottage residents to smoke dope inside the house. Some people use pot but don't smoke it inside. We also don't know where that ashtray was that contained Raffaele's cigarette butt. Had it been cleaned?

Does anyone really cut up and snort coke any more? That's how it was consumed in the 1980s but virtually nobody would waste their money without cooking it up first these days.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Machine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
We'd had a discussion about how washed out Amanda and Raffaele looked on 02 NOV 2007. Yet they didn't appear "crashed" as they would have on harder drugs. I would have to look at the sources that claim Raffaele was a cocaine "addict". It sounds like he may have partied on it on occasion but that it was not his drug of choice.

Guede went dancing after Meredith was murdered. People saw him at that club. I've never heard of any heroin user who would do such a thing. Heroin creates an almost dreamlike state while awake. Most users wouldn't walk to the corner store let alone go dancing.


Mignini hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been on hard drugs on the night of the murder at the trial:

"He also hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been in a drug-fueled frenzy when they allegedly killed Kercher. He outlined the effects of cocaine and acid, and told the judges and jury how Knox and Sollecito ran with a crowd that often used these “stupificante,” or stupefying drugs." (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 20 November 2009).

I'm not sure that Knox and Sollecito were seriously messed up on hard drugs on the night murder and I don't believe for a second that they suffered a genuine blackout.


I think this was smart on Mignini's part because a lot of the defence was based on "we're too high to remember". I am with you on this one. Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.

So Mignini rolls with the punch and lets the judges make up their own minds. I would have been unconvinced but people react differently when posited about coke or LSD. The fact he even mentioned acid is interesting. LSD really ruins any possibility of a group dynamic. It's a "personal experience" drug like mescaline, peyote, or psylocibin.

Have we ever kicked Phencyclidine around. PCP, Angel Dust, Supergrass, Boat, Tic Tac, Zoom, water, wet, "L", horse tranquilizer, Hog, Lovely, Wack, Embalming Fluid, and Rocket Fuel. Known to be able to be smoked in a joint, ttrroonn's "acrid" odor. I don't know of its availability in Perugia or anywhere anymore for that matter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Without a toxicology report this would have to go into the "unsourced" bin.



For you perhaps. Not for me, since I know who the sources are. But, for the wider membership indeed, it is a case of 'make of it what you will'.


Stilcho wrote:
Young people do indeed experiment with combinations of drugs. However, in the course of cleaning up after a murder, the last thing in their minds would be how to deal with the paraphernalia.



You don't need paraphernalia to snort coke, smoke a spliff or drink booze. All the equipment required have innocent explanations (a lot of people smoke hand rolled cigarettes, so have rolling papers...everyone carries money and a rolled up bank note is all one needs to snort some coke, etc,).

But here's some food for thought. It is known as a fact Raffaele, Amanda, Filomena, Laura and on ocassion even Meredith would smoke joints. Yet no evidence of joints was found either at the cottage or at Raffaele's...not even a roach in an ashtray.

Stilicho wrote:
The strangest part about asserting "outta control druggies" is that nobody argued this in court.


Personally, I don't think we are talking about a case of 'out of control druggies'. However, I'm quite willing to accept drugs may have been a factor in lowering certain inhibitions (ethical, moral, risk, self control and a degree of judgement impairment, like when to stop) and enhancing some negative personality traits and desires that may have already been present.

I don't believe the explanation of one central reason, but rather a number of factors all coming together at the same time. I tend to be inclined towards FBN's mooted 'Perfect Storm of Dysfinctional Complicity' theory.


I had actually asked before whether Filomena permitted the other cottage residents to smoke dope inside the house. Some people use pot but don't smoke it inside. We also don't know where that ashtray was that contained Raffaele's cigarette butt. Had it been cleaned?

Does anyone really cut up and snort coke any more? That's how it was consumed in the 1980s but virtually nobody would waste their money without cooking it up first these days.

Nooooo the kids these days are too immediate. Unless it has been made into "rock" already they don't have time and no one that age knows any free-base techniques that I'm aware of.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stilicho wrote:
I had actually asked before whether Filomena permitted the other cottage residents to smoke dope inside the house.


Well, there was never any mention that there were any rules laid down about it, by Filomena or anyone else. And since smoking joints is a 'social' activity, unless there is evidence to the contrary, one can only presume this was done both in the cottage and in Raffaele's apartment.

Stilicho wrote:
We also don't know where that ashtray was that contained Raffaele's cigarette butt. Had it been cleaned?


Well, we can assume not since other butts were present in the ashtray.

I am sure though, there must have been other ashtrays in the cottage and in Raffaele's flat.

Stilicho wrote:
Does anyone really cut up and snort coke any more? That's how it was consumed in the 1980s but virtually nobody would waste their money without cooking it up first these days.


Umm...

We aren't really talking about hardcore druggies...addicts here. As far as I'm aware, in Europe coke is still commonly snorted.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Macport wrote:
Nooooo the kids these days are too immediate. Unless it has been made into "rock" already they don't have time and no one that age knows any free-base techniques that I'm aware of.



Spoken like a trooper ;)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Have we ever kicked Phencyclidine around. PCP, Angel Dust, Supergrass, Boat, Tic Tac, Zoom, water, wet, "L", horse tranquilizer, Hog, Lovely, Wack, Embalming Fluid, and Rocket Fuel. Known to be able to be smoked in a joint, ttrroonn's "acrid" odor. I don't know of its availability in Perugia or anywhere anymore for that matter.


How could that speculation ever go beyond speculation?

I think in Perugia choice of drugs was limited to the staples and didn't reach to the exotic. You know, a bit like if you fancy some soup and go in your local corner shop...the choice is usually chicken, vegetable, tomato or (if a slightly larger corner shop) mushroom. Like, if you want crisps...the same standard flavours...if you want a wider choice you need to go to the supermarket. I don't think Perugia was a supermarket.

_________________
"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 TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
I'm not sure that Knox and Sollecito were seriously messed up on hard drugs on the night murder and I don't believe for a second that they suffered a genuine blackout.
***
Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.

I agree with this. Plus, the mere fact that they rolled out of bed at 5:30 in the morning suggests they were not heavily under the influence 6 or 7 hours before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:16 pm   Post subject: woman's bloody shoeprint   

Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
No, I mean some form of confirmation that the pillow print you posted from Frank's is the contested print rather then the print all agree is Rudy


It's the same partial print that is analyzed from page 29 onwards in Vinci's presentation.
Would you like it to be posted for comparison?



As a potential soul-mate once asked me, "where are we going with all this"?


We are going to find some things we agree about, I hope.

If we agree that the shoeprint posted by bolint above is indeed the contested one, the one entered into evidence as "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size, then
logically next thing I would like to ask is if someone disagrees with the fact that Rudy's "Nike Outbreak" shoe fits that contested print.


Last edited by Katody on Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Macport wrote:
Have we ever kicked Phencyclidine around. PCP, Angel Dust, Supergrass, Boat, Tic Tac, Zoom, water, wet, "L", horse tranquilizer, Hog, Lovely, Wack, Embalming Fluid, and Rocket Fuel. Known to be able to be smoked in a joint, ttrroonn's "acrid" odor. I don't know of its availability in Perugia or anywhere anymore for that matter.


How could that speculation ever go beyond speculation?

I think in Perugia choice of drugs was limited to the staples and didn't reach to the exotic. You know, a bit like if you fancy some soup and go in your local corner shop...the choice is usually chicken, vegetable, tomato or (if a slightly larger corner shop) mushroom. Like, if you want crisps...the same standard flavours...if you want a wider choice you need to go to the supermarket. I don't think Perugia was a supermarket.

That would have been my guess about the availability question.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

I personally feel that drug use is totally irrelevant. It explains behaviour but does not excuse it. Whatever they took was their responsibility. Meredith paid the price with her life. The discussion is quite offensive since it leads to the inevitable conclusion that 'what they took' somehow explains/excuses behaviour. Life isn't like that IMHO. You take responsibility for every action you take. Are we saying that drugs excuse what happened??? I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

TomM wrote:
I agree with this. Plus, the mere fact that they rolled out of bed at 5:30 in the morning suggests they were not heavily under the influence 6 or 7 hours before.


Or they'd just gotten home. Or, they spent the whole night in Raffaele's discussing what the hell they were going to do. The fact a 'recorded' activity began at a certain time doesn't mean they were asleep until that time...that's what I'm saying.

_________________
"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 Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I'm not sure that Knox and Sollecito were seriously messed up on hard drugs on the night murder and I don't believe for a second that they suffered a genuine blackout.
***
Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.

I agree with this. Plus, the mere fact that they rolled out of bed at 5:30 in the morning suggests they were not heavily under the influence 6 or 7 hours before.


Bloody good point Tom.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
I personally feel that drug use is totally irrelevant. It explains behaviour but does not excuse it.



I don't think anyone's arguing drugs as an 'excuse' here Bard, or even a cause. Drugs may have been a factor, but a factor constitutes neither an excuse or a reason.

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Moderate cocaine use would not have to fall under seriously messed up. Nor would a certain level of drinking. The other drug we have to take into account for their behavior and abilities the next morning is adrenaline. Murdering someone would likely produce wave after wave of it as they each came to grips with what they had done over and over through the night and into the morning.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
I personally feel that drug use is totally irrelevant. It explains behaviour but does not excuse it. Whatever they took was their responsibility. Meredith paid the price with her life. The discussion is quite offensive since it leads to the inevitable conclusion that 'what they took' somehow explains/excuses behaviour. Life isn't like that IMHO. You take responsibility for every action you take. Are we saying that drugs excuse what happened??? I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.

You know that no discussion of evidence is irrelevant. If anything it did not cause behavior it may have helped release propensities that each of the three already possessed within themselves.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Moderate cocaine use would not have to fall under seriously messed up. Nor would a certain level of drinking. The other drug we have to take into account for their behavior and abilities the next morning is adrenaline. Murdering someone would likely produce wave after wave of it as they each came to grips with what they had done over and over through the night and into the morning.



For me, it's not a matter of whether any exotic drugs were used (although of course, one can't be certain what the 'standard' drugs one has bought may have been cut with), but rather were they taken with other drugs or/and with alcohol. And yes, adrenaline would have come into play, as would other natural highs...such as sexual arousal...power trips etc,.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

TomM wrote:
Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.


The best and easiest cure for which is another snort.

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Life isn't like that IMHO. You take responsibility for every action you take. Are we saying that drugs excuse what happened??? I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.


Hi Bard

Strongly agree with you that drug use is certainly not an excuse.

However, from reports available so far, the judges apparently did not fully agree with us.
They reasoned the lack of full consent due to drug use was one of the mitigating factors that reduced the initial sentence from life ??
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Stin7 wrote:
However, from reports available so far, the judges apparently did not fully agree with us.
They reasoned the lack of full consent due to drug use was one of the mitigating factors that reduced the initial sentence from life ??


Italian courts will accept drug influence as a mitigating factor.

_________________
"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 Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

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

stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Life isn't like that IMHO. You take responsibility for every action you take. Are we saying that drugs excuse what happened??? I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.


Hi Bard

Strongly agree with you that drug use is certainly not an excuse.

However, from reports available so far, the judges apparently did not fully agree with us.
They reasoned the lack of full consent due to drug use was one of the mitigating factors that reduced the initial sentence from life ??


In that case I strongly disagree with the judges. I would want full evidence of exactly what drugs WERE used that night before one took it into account as an extenuating circumstance. I've done my fair share in my feckless youth. No excuse IMO. None whatsoever. I know someone who murdered someone whilst on LSD and woke up in hospital with no memory of it; I knew someone whose friend died of a heroine OD and drove the body to a wasteland and dumped it too. Their excuse: 'There was nothing we could do at that point'. Nice. But that is not the same as getting up in the early hours and cleaning a cottage to the point your own flipping fingerprints are not present. That's seriously focused. Not seriously off your head.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

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

Michael wrote:
TomM wrote:
Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.


The best and easiest cure for which is another snort.


A musician friend of mine, long since clean and sober, commenting on the prosecution's speculation, remarked, "I've done lots of drugs. I've never had group sex. It just made me want to do more drugs".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:59 pm   Post subject: Adrenalin   

Defence stance of relying on drugs or personality or anything as mitigation would mean changing the plea from "I wasn't there, your Honour" to "I was there, but..."

Barbie mentioned that Bongiorno kept Raffaele's habit out of the courtroom.
For the prosecution, it wouldn't make any different to responsibility for the outcome.


Attachment:
Adrenalin_Junky_a.jpg






Squirrel alert: There will a Full Moon tomorrow. :)


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: Adrenalin   

Catnip wrote:
Squirrel alert: There will a Full Moon tomorrow. :)


Squirrel ALERT?????? Quoi? Do I need to keep Mungo in? What can a squirrel accomplish that requires an ALERT, as per Def Com????

Am scared Catnip. Elucidate. I have always thought of them as cute little furry things...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomM wrote:
Their thinking was far too clear on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 for them to have been crashing from a coke high.


The best and easiest cure for which is another snort.


A musician friend of mine, long since clean and sober, commenting on the prosecution's speculation, remarked, "I've done lots of drugs. I've never had group sex. It just made me want to do more drugs".


Bingo.

The worst violent episode I've ever witnessed was someone who had done a considerable amount of Valium along with drinking 'hi-test' beer. Snorting coke? There's a well-known side effect of cocaine that makes its employment before a sexual assault rather unlikely.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: Adrenalin   

The Bard wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Squirrel alert: There will a Full Moon tomorrow. :)


Squirrel ALERT?????? Quoi? Do I need to keep Mungo in? What can a squirrel accomplish that requires an ALERT, as per Def Com????

Am scared Catnip. Elucidate. I have always thought of them as cute little furry things...


Nope. Just rats with fluffy tails. Don't know about any full moon thing though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: Adrenalin   

The Bard wrote:

Squirrel ALERT?????? Quoi? Do I need to keep Mungo in? What can a squirrel accomplish that requires an ALERT, as per Def Com????

Am scared Catnip. Elucidate. I have always thought of them as cute little furry things...



Squirrel, as in brazil-, wal-, chest-, and coco-.

The Moonshine tends to bring out certain trollish posting styles.

Mungo should be alright, as long as he stays underneath the lettuce leaf.


I liked the story of the family who got home one evening, and thought that there had been a burglar - there were signs, things had been moved. They were frightened, but on closer inspection, realised that nothing had been taken. They found, hidden behind the cushions on the sofa, and in other hiding places, there were nuts. And the window was open...


Or the story I saw on a calligrapher's blog: they were into making their own ink, and their source of tannin (for the blackness of the ink, because of the iron content) was walnuts. So they had a bucketful of them soaking in the appropriate liquid overnight, outside on the verandah. The next morning, when they got up, there was a trail of little inky footprints heading back into the woods, and the quantity of walnuts in the bucket had diminished slightly.

:)
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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:22 pm   Post subject: On the Jury   

Just thinking out aloud, and trying something out…
Never mind me. Off to bed now – sun up in a couple of minutes.





Sequestered Jury

When the Anne Bremner and John Kelly types are talking about sequestration, what do they mean specifically?

The Perugia jury sequestered itself during deliberations. So it can’t be that.


That leaves overnight-sequestration during the hearings themselves.

If Bremner and Kelly are referring to US models, then specifically which ones?


Big-picture, in the US, this type of thing seems to be: (i) not common (or desirable), and (ii) not compulsory:

Quote:

the number of cases in which sequestration is ordered is relatively small

Most jurisdictions do not require sequestration during either the trial or deliberation stages in any kind of case but give the trial judge discretion to order sequestration in any case.

Prof. Strauss concludes that the costs of sequestration outweigh its benefits, and that the practice should be abolished


– [ American Judicature Society ], citing Marcy Strauss, "Sequestration," 24 Am. J. Crim. L. 63 (1996)





So, are Bremner and Kelly referring to Seattle/King County juries? Or what?



A quick check here (in NSW) reveals no special mention of sequestration as a topic of interest to practitioners:

Quote:

Jury
– challenging jurors
– empanelling
– evidence put before
– indictable offences put before
– judge’s directions to


From the index to Robert Hayes and Michael Eburn, Criminal Law and Procedure in New South Wales: 3rd edition (2009) [LexisNexis 2009]




which implies it is discretionary (which is also consistent with what I remember from an explanation during jury duty a few years back).



The only rule is:

Quote:
"Where a jury has been locked up (sequestered) they are not to go out unaccompanied."

Ross on Crime: 4th edition (2009), edited by David Ross [Thomson Lawbook Co 2009] p 817, Section [10.2180]


which makes sense. Outside any sequestration, the judge’s instructions not to discuss the case with anyone, including family members, when outside the jury room, holds sway. Plus, the juror’s oath is still in force.



The more I look, the less sense Bremner and Kelly are making. First year law students would do better than that.

Are they just talking through their hat (as a career option)?

Or is that they genuinely believe their unspoken assumptions (that jurors are either mindless or oath-breakers; and that media is king)?


Of course, it would be ironic if you went on television and said either “Any person in the street would recognise straight away that I’m talking %$#X”, or “The media have lost the plot – they believe their own spin and don’t realise that everyone knows they produce nothing but %$#X”.


{ where %$#X = “some choice words, according to taste” :) }








Ross has a good technique, by the way. The way he tags and labels information looks very useful.

I’ll start a Catalogue, to run in parallel with the Digests.

The next stage will require moving up a gear, and that requires some tools of the trade to be available.


Catalogue of Words and Phrases – Jury sequestered



[1.1] JURY SEQUESTRATION IMPRACTICAL

"So jurors [in Italy] can't be sequestered [because the hearing will take a long long time]." — posted by Michael [VI.1] (Post 2899 on 16-Jan-2009), re: Luca Escoffier and Anne Bremner discussion at KING5, in the context of whether trying Amanda in Perugia "would stack the deck against her".



[1.2] JURY NON-SEQUESTRATION UNFAIR

"The article [in La Nazione] goes on to talk about ... that the process is too slow in Italy, because the trial takes place just two days a week, and that it is inherently unfair because the jury is not sequestered" — posted by Skeptical Bystander [VII.1] (Post 5547 on 03-Mar-2009), re: highlights of a La Nazione report linked to by Brian S. at La Nazione, in the context of international reaction to the case, in particular a Guardian article.


"[John] KELLY: The problem with this is the jury's made up of six lay people and two judges. The jurors are not sequestered, and there are these huge lapses in the trial. Like right now, we have a month and a half now between this and closing statements where the jurors are home, watching the news, being inundated with whatever spin the local media wants to put on it. " — posted by guermantes [XII.2] (Post 19955 on 17-Oct-2009), re: Larry King Live transcript in the context of Larry King asking: "What is your knowledge of Italian courts? Are the juries generally open and fair?".



[1.3] JURY NON-SEQUESTRATION DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

"I think it is very hard for us to get our minds around this as Americans. We naturally focus on sequestration and jury selection. There is no selection of the type we are used to - although those who are considered to be qualified for jury duty meet a very high standard - and in some ways this is related to the fact that the jury is not sequestered and the trial not a daily event." — posted by Skeptical Bystander [VII.7] (Post 7029 on 24-Mar-2009), re: response to Indie's post: "I find this Friday / Saturday court days to be a bit disconcerting in the sense that the case seems to lack a little continuity. I suppose the judges and jurors are able to take notes during the testimony to keep things straight from week to week. "


[1.4] JURY TO GIVE REASONS

"They [the jury] are not sequestered which I guess means they can watch the news if they wish. However, the Italian system requires the jury to justify the reasons for their verdict in writing and this must be based on the evidence presented in court. This sentencing report will likely be hundreds of pages long and will detail the logic of their thought processes regarding the evidence which lead to their verdict." — posted by Brian S. [X.4] (Post 15269 on 27-Jun-2009), re: response to Buzz's post: "Is the jury allowed to watch the news about this case? Here in the US, they would not be."

"They are not like a simple jury in the US/UK system that at the end solely makes a simple vote of yay or nay, so they can't make judgements based on 'prejudice'. They have to write out all their reasoning on every single point of exactly why they have come to each conclusion they and each has to be shown with a full path of logic. They must also explain what evidence they accept and that which they do not and exactly why. All this then gets made fully public afterwards. Literally every single one of their thought processes is put under the microscope. " — posted by Michael [XI.1] (Post 17195 on 20-Jul-2009), re: response to jfk1191's post: "the jurors not being sequestered from the internet of info"



[1.5] JURY HAS ACCESS TO CASE INFORMATION

"As for the jury, I doubt they go online and read the Daily Mail. But I see little problem with that anyway. The jury, or more aptly "Lay Judges" have complete access to the whole case file , every shred of evidence regarding the case. Therefore, there's nothing the press can tell them they don't already know. Anything that is in the press and is false, the judges will also know." — posted by Michael [XI.1] (Post 17195 on 20-Jul-2009), re: response to jfk1191's post: "the jurors not being sequestered from the internet of info"



[1.6] JURY SEQUESTERED

"(AP) The eight members of the jury, including two judges, sequestered themselves Friday in the courtroom of this Medieval city. A verdict can come any time, but it is not expected before Friday night, according to court officials." — posted by Michael [XII.18] (Post 24083 on 04-Dec-2009), re: report of jury retiring to chambers to begin deliberations at Associated Press.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Life isn't like that IMHO. You take responsibility for every action you take. Are we saying that drugs excuse what happened??? I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.


Hi Bard

Strongly agree with you that drug use is certainly not an excuse.

However, from reports available so far, the judges apparently did not fully agree with us.
They reasoned the lack of full consent due to drug use was one of the mitigating factors that reduced the initial sentence from life ??


This is why I suggest that Mignini just rolled with the punch. If the darlings are going to defend themselves with "too-high-to-remember" horse-s**t then let them. You'll certainly convince a lot of judge/jury-type people that they did it and really couldn't remember.

I think there's a handful of us here who see the whole thing as the crock of s**t that it is.

My question is: What do they argue on appeal? They've already thrown themselves on the mercy of the court as kids too stoned to know what happened. It sort of makes the whole contamination/coerced confession/lone wolf/etc set of theories irrelevant.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: Adrenalin   

Catnip wrote:
Defence stance of relying on drugs or personality or anything as mitigation would mean changing the plea from "I wasn't there, your Honour" to "I was there, but..."


stilicho wrote:
My question is: What do they argue on appeal? They've already thrown themselves on the mercy of the court as kids too stoned to know what happened. It sort of makes the whole contamination/coerced confession/lone wolf/etc set of theories irrelevant.


Both of these get at the idea of what DO or WILL they try next.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:

This is why I suggest that Mignini just rolled with the punch. If the darlings are going to defend themselves with "too-high-to-remember" horse-s**t then let them. You'll certainly convince a lot of judge/jury-type people that they did it and really couldn't remember.

I think there's a handful of us here who see the whole thing as the crock of s**t that it is.

My question is: What do they argue on appeal? They've already thrown themselves on the mercy of the court as kids too stoned to know what happened. It sort of makes the whole contamination/coerced confession/lone wolf/etc set of theories irrelevant.


Stilicho

Appreciate all the good information you provide for us here
Not sure however I can fully agree with your last paragraph.

Did they really "throw themselves on the mercy of the court" as in plead guilty and ask for mercy.
Or as Guede did...lets just do it quickly and save me 1/3 til I appeal

Or did they only claim to be too stoned:
1) to be able to remember enough to get all the details correct in coordinating all their lies
2) to be able to remember where they were (but do remember not at scene version 3 Amanda)
3) to excuse their obvious inability to be able to put together logical reasons and how and what to say to prove that *they did not do it.

They got a big double play out of the too stoned BS
1) Excuse for inability to formulate logical alibis
2) Mitigation just in case found guilty

They still argue innocence on Appeal, just can't remember the how and why
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Windfall wrote:
A musician friend of mine, long since clean and sober, commenting on the prosecution's speculation, remarked, "I've done lots of drugs. I've never had group sex. It just made me want to do more drugs".



I have a real problem with the euphemism 'group sex' used by the Anglo media (who ever argued this in Italy?). The words we actually use in Anglo countries for this sort of crime are 'group attack', 'multiple assault', 'gang rape'...

WTF is it with this 'group sex' or 'orgy' thing, can we not please drop that complete bollocks? It's really offensive and a wholly inaccurate label (is this just me???). If your daughter went out and was sexually attacked and then murdered by a group of people would you be referring to it as 'group sex' afterwards? Not to mention, the whole label implies a degree of compliance if not culpability on Meredith's part. What? She'd gone home, she was tired, she wanted an early night and she needed to study...she was then attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered in her own bedroom! This is really starting to piss me off. FFS!

_________________
"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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Lindsay Lohan's three month sentence is getting shorter and shorter by the hour as it has now emerged the jailbird could be out in just eleven days.

The troubled actress could be free within the next 11 days – despite only beginning a 90-day jail term on Tuesday for breaking her probation order.

She was expected to spend more than three weeks behind bars but may be out sooner.

‘She is scheduled to be released on either August 1 or 2 for overcrowding issues and good behaviour,’ said Los Angeles sheriff spokesman Steve Whitmore.

Her lawyer Shawn Chapman Holley, who visited her shortly after she was jailed, said: ‘Understandably, Lindsay’s having a difficult time adjusting, as it would be for anyone.'

'She’s trying to make the necessary adjustments to an extremely stressful and difficult situation. There were some tears. Generally, the first two days in jail are the most difficult. I just kept reminding her of that.
'
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
A musician friend of mine, long since clean and sober, commenting on the prosecution's speculation, remarked, "I've done lots of drugs. I've never had group sex. It just made me want to do more drugs".



I have a real problem with the euphemism 'group sex' used by the Anglo media (who ever argued this in Italy?). The words we actually use in Anglo countries for this sort of crime are 'group attack', 'multiple assault', 'gang rape'...

WTF is it with this 'group sex' or 'orgy' thing, can we not please drop that complete bollocks? It's really offensive and a wholly inaccurate label (is this just me???). If your daughter went out and was sexually attacked and then murdered by a group of people would you be referring to it as 'group sex' afterwards? Not to mention, the whole label implies a degree of compliance if not culpability on Meredith's part. What? She'd gone home, she was tired, she wanted an early night and she needed to study...she was then attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered in her own bedroom! This is really starting to piss me off. FFS!


It's not just you, Michael. The term implies consent.

News flash: Group sex does not always involve drug use. Drug use does not always involve group sex. I have yet to see where the prosecution has speculated that Meredith wanted any part in Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy's reindeer games. Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
stilicho wrote:

This is why I suggest that Mignini just rolled with the punch. If the darlings are going to defend themselves with "too-high-to-remember" horse-s**t then let them. You'll certainly convince a lot of judge/jury-type people that they did it and really couldn't remember.

I think there's a handful of us here who see the whole thing as the crock of s**t that it is.

My question is: What do they argue on appeal? They've already thrown themselves on the mercy of the court as kids too stoned to know what happened. It sort of makes the whole contamination/coerced confession/lone wolf/etc set of theories irrelevant.


Stilicho

Appreciate all the good information you provide for us here
Not sure however I can fully agree with your last paragraph.

Did they really "throw themselves on the mercy of the court" as in plead guilty and ask for mercy.
Or as Guede did...lets just do it quickly and save me 1/3 til I appeal

Or did they only claim to be too stoned:
1) to be able to remember enough to get all the details correct in coordinating all their lies
2) to be able to remember where they were (but do remember not at scene version 3 Amanda)
3) to excuse their obvious inability to be able to put together logical reasons and how and what to say to prove that *they did not do it.

They got a big double play out of the too stoned BS
1) Excuse for inability to formulate logical alibis
2) Mitigation just in case found guilty

They still argue innocence on Appeal, just can't remember the how and why


I know they still argue innocence but the whole thing appears as a patchwork quilt instead of a fine woven tapestry. Sollecito's lawyer keeps his drug history out of the trial. But Amanda acknowledges in court that he is the source of all her drugs while in Perugia. But the judges take their drug use into account. But Amanda remembered everything clearly on 04 NOV 2007. But they hung out with/lived around a "druggie" area. But...but...but

It seems that the drug use is being used as a tool of convenience depending on what part of the case is being discussed.

It also works against their credibility. You can't be too high for this event yet completely certain about that event.

Throwing oneself on the mercy of the court doesn't equal a guilty plea. You claim innocence on the basis of some kind of diminished capacity and "roll the dice". Only the drug use isn't even being forwarded that strongly. AFAIK, not a single expert was called by the defence to explain how smoking a joint could cause this strange selective memory loss.

They may as well just stand up and tell the court they're too stupid to remember. is) Or that their brains were gnawed on by space rabbits. bu-) Or mind control implants. :shock:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
A musician friend of mine, long since clean and sober, commenting on the prosecution's speculation, remarked, "I've done lots of drugs. I've never had group sex. It just made me want to do more drugs".



I have a real problem with the euphemism 'group sex' used by the Anglo media (who ever argued this in Italy?). The words we actually use in Anglo countries for this sort of crime are 'group attack', 'multiple assault', 'gang rape'...

WTF is it with this 'group sex' or 'orgy' thing, can we not please drop that complete bollocks? It's really offensive and a wholly inaccurate label (is this just me???). If your daughter went out and was sexually attacked and then murdered by a group of people would you be referring to it as 'group sex' afterwards? Not to mention, the whole label implies a degree of compliance if not culpability on Meredith's part. What? She'd gone home, she was tired, she wanted an early night and she needed to study...she was then attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered in her own bedroom! This is really starting to piss me off. FFS!


No, it's not just you. By citing the term, I'm not endorsing it as an accurate representation of what happened.

As so often, context is everything. It was a verbatim quotation from an email, in the middle of a discussion about the Trials of Amanda Knox documentary specifically. We were discussing the way it had been spoken about so casually in that documentary, and Barbie's bizarrely blithe statement that, to paraphrase, college kids these days are all having group sex - or, at least, it's not unusual.

There is quite a specific genealogy for the epithets used to describe the scenario the prosecution was pushing at a certain point during the investigation. The evolution of the way in which it is spoken about does shift and I think it has precisely to do with the point you make, Michael, about the implications of consent on Meredith's part. Just as a for instance, The Sun was still quoting Mignini as saying, "Meredith Kercher was murdered as a result of a sex game" on 28 Oct 2008 (unclear, I would say, on complicity/consent), while the Croydon Guardian was clarifying that "Meredith had been murdered after refusing to take part in an orgy" (20 Oct 2008).

Still, apologies for any offence caused.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hello everyone, I've been reading like mad, much more interesting than JREF these days (yawn), no wonder so many come here :)

Katody, how interesting you should bring up the pillow print. It just so happens I've been poring over the Rinaldi report, looking at this exact same print, and trying to figure out how the obviously similar (or identical if you like) pattern of Rudy's Nikes could have made it. The pillow partial print clearly shows both edges, left and right, with the tread pattern between. It is not an overlap. To prove this simply look at the diagram of the overlapping prints on Bruce's site and this particular one is portrayed free of overlapping prints. Bruce places Rudy's shoeprint on top of the pillow print disregarding the other edge.
The print seems much too narrow to fit Rudy's shoes. How do you explain this? I'm not saying it isn't his print but I'm puzzling over how this large shoeprint fits between the narrowness of the pattern's edges. Perhaps this is what led Rinaldi to conclude it was made with a smaller shoe. Can you explain this?

Edited to add: Rinaldi states this print is 46 in width while using the photo with the measure next to it Rudy's print measures more like 70.


Last edited by Danceme on Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Two valid points of offense have been brought up today. Drug use employed as a mean of explaining away the act of murder by The Bard and the concept of implied consent that comes with the term group sex presented by Michael. In the case of drug use the perps, their defense and the PR machine have made various attempts to blur responsibility by positing that drugs were a contributing factor (when it suits their needs of the moment). In the case of group sex the media and the PR machine have attempted to blur responsibility by shifting culpability to Meredith.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Corrina wrote:
Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
A musician friend of mine, long since clean and sober, commenting on the prosecution's speculation, remarked, "I've done lots of drugs. I've never had group sex. It just made me want to do more drugs".



I have a real problem with the euphemism 'group sex' used by the Anglo media (who ever argued this in Italy?). The words we actually use in Anglo countries for this sort of crime are 'group attack', 'multiple assault', 'gang rape'...

WTF is it with this 'group sex' or 'orgy' thing, can we not please drop that complete bollocks? It's really offensive and a wholly inaccurate label (is this just me???). If your daughter went out and was sexually attacked and then murdered by a group of people would you be referring to it as 'group sex' afterwards? Not to mention, the whole label implies a degree of compliance if not culpability on Meredith's part. What? She'd gone home, she was tired, she wanted an early night and she needed to study...she was then attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered in her own bedroom! This is really starting to piss me off. FFS!


It's not just you, Michael. The term implies consent.

News flash: Group sex does not always involve drug use. Drug use does not always involve group sex. I have yet to see where the prosecution has speculated that Meredith wanted any part in Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy's reindeer games. Jesus tap-dancing Christ.


Drug use aside, and whether drug use prompts group sex or not...that's all a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this crime. Meredith was raped and murdered. This was a gang rape and murder, the murderers then abandoned their victim to die horribly and then attempted to cover up their involvement, even to the point of having an innocent man jailed, all of which has been supported by their respective families and supporters...those are the facts, end of.

Nobody should be talking about 'sex games' 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 Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Danceme wrote:
Hello everyone, I've been reading like mad, much more interesting than JREF these days (yawn), no wonder so many come here :)

Katody, how interesting you should bring up the pillow print. It just so happens I've been poring over the Rinaldi report, looking at this exact same print, and trying to figure out how the obviously similar (or identical if you like) pattern of Rudy's Nikes could have made it. The pillow partial print clearly shows both edges, left and right, with the tread pattern between. It is not an overlap. To prove this simply look at the diagram of the overlapping prints on Bruce's site and this particular one is portrayed free of overlapping prints. Bruce places Rudy's shoeprint on top of the pillow print disregarding the other edge.
The print seems much too narrow to fit Rudy's shoes. How do you explain this? I'm not saying it isn't his print but I'm puzzling over how this large shoeprint fits between the narrowness of the pattern's edges. Perhaps this is what led Rinaldi to conclude it was made with a smaller shoe. Can you explain this?

Great first post Danceme. You're bringing some good game from JREF and not the arcade type. Their loss has become PMF's recent chant.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

And who could forget the disgraceful comment by none other than Edda Mellas herself when she said it must be awful for the Kercher family to have to listen to Merediths sex life being discussed.
An absolutely shocking and disgusting remark.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thank you Macport :)
Rinaldi's report also has several pictures showing shoeprints with a zigzag pattern, does anyone know whether or not these were matched to anyone, roommates even?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Black Dog wrote:
And who could forget the disgraceful comment by none other than Edda Mellas herself when she said it must be awful for the Kercher family to have to listen to Merediths sex life being discussed.
An absolutely shocking and disgusting remark.


There's a big piece about Edda Mellas coming up soon on TJMK. Any journalists who have taken her claims seriously should hang their heads in shame.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
It seems that the drug use is being used as a tool of convenience depending on what part of the case is being discussed.


mul-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Windfall wrote:
No, it's not just you. By citing the term, I'm not endorsing it as an accurate representation of what happened.


Yet, that language must have been used in the question in order to elicit the same language in the reply. No?

_________________
"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 Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Totally agree with Michael about the 'group sex' meme. I think these little soundbites enter the ether through journalistic laziness. No-one stops to consider what the words mean to the parents, siblings and friends of the victim. It's disgraceful ignorance of the power of language. Like Michael says, Meredith was an INNOCENT VICTIM of a savage, bestial attack. The fact that a female was involved (yes windfall) in my mind makes it more repulsive. To me it makes it more depraved, it makes the female more deviant than the male.

Attack me all you like. Bring it on. That a female is involved in the brutal sex crime and butchery of another young female I find repugnant. Nothing shows greater lack of empathy and normal human emotion to me. To somehow try and put Meredith in the frame for 'resisting' a 'game' - like she's some kind of kill-joy is simply disgusting. Think of the poor girl's parents.

BTW Stilicho, you are quite free to say fuck on this board. It isn't the weirdly censorious JREF. Sometimes a fuck is called for. And now would be a good time.

Angry Bard....







em)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

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

Black Dog wrote:
And who could forget the disgraceful comment by none other than Edda Mellas herself when she said it must be awful for the Kercher family to have to listen to Merediths sex life being discussed.
An absolutely shocking and disgusting remark.


I think she was doing something psychiatrists call 'transference' here. She was actually talking about herself.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hello again :)

To finalize the issue of "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size":
As there was nothing like this in the gallery, I uploaded one of the images matching Rudy's shoe to the shoeprint for easy reference:


I would like to believe that this will put an end to that particular false, but widely circulating (not only on the internet but even here on PMF) talking point.

I'm sure the jury rejected this piece of prosecution's evidence. But lots of questions remain:
Why the prosecution feel the need to enter such a shabby and questionable evidence?
Did the investigators really not recognize the print as Rudy's? Why? Were they so desperately trying to place Amanda in the murder room that they saw something that wasn't there?
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?

It is noticeable that if that piece of evidence where accepted by jury it would be very damning, as it was the only physical evidence placing Amanda directly in the room at the time of murder.

What is also interesting is the internet "lifetime" of it as a pro-guilty talking point:

a few google searches for exact phrases
"woman's bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox's foot size"
"Amanda Knox left a bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body."
hundreds of results, exact phrase means that it is copied and pasted by some busy ant :)
Searching PMF gives no less results (but I can't find a way to get exact phrases from PMF search)
It indicates that it not only was, but is still widespread as some results are very fresh.

I apologize to all to whom this is flogging a dead horse,
I wouldn't go to such great lengths to put this to a conclusion, but as soon as I became a fresh PMFer I was presented with this talking point when I asked about physical evidence.

Thank you for your patience :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
No, it's not just you. By citing the term, I'm not endorsing it as an accurate representation of what happened.


Yet the language must have been used in the question in order to elicit the same language in the reply. No?


I'm confused. There was no question. It's not as if I asked him, "hey, you've done lots of drugs. What effect did that have on you?" It was his spontaneous response to (I imagine) that moment in the documentary, since he mentioned Nadeau's comment in the same breath. We were email-nattering from opposite sides of the Atlantic, so it was not a deeply footnoted exchange. I know it would be convenient to pin it on me, but this one isn't going to fly, Michael.

Whether we like it or not (most of us: not), the term "sex game" was all over the media, often in direct (translated) quotation from Mignini. It would be instructive to track down the term Mignini used when being quoted and get a range of definitions. From all the coverage I have seen, even when it is much clearer that it was non-consensual, the "game" (or "orgy") term remains in play, so to speak, implying it was a "game" for the three perpetrators. In this context, I would imagine the term is useful for some in trying to understand that terrible group dynamic.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
There's a big piece about Edda Mellas coming up soon on TJMK. Any journalists who have taken her claims seriously should hang their heads in shame.


Maybe I am just too cynical in my old age.

However, I firmly believe that even though so many of the powdered and puffed talking head reporters do little more than look pretty reading what their producers put on the teleprompter and whisper in their ear pieces, never the less by this time, even they must be starting to have severe indigestion trying to swallow some of the whoppers that Edda routinely pukes out.

Their "Tums for their tummies" is the monopolistic promise of exclusive access to the Family that they are given from the PR Police *only* if each and every word is approved by the PR peons.

Sadly, they prostitute themselves and any semblance of objectivity for that 30 pieces of silver exclusive access to Edda and Curt's Dog and Pony doo doo
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Danceme wrote:
Katody, how interesting you should bring up the pillow print. It just so happens I've been poring over the Rinaldi report, looking at this exact same print, and trying to figure out how the obviously similar (or identical if you like) pattern of Rudy's Nikes could have made it.


Hello Danceme, thank you for your question.

Take a look at picture I posted, you can also view Vinci's presentation posted earlier. This prints examination begins at the page 29.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Dancme -

Welcome to PMF :)

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


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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

quote from Corrina, just as a point of reference

Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy's reindeer games.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Hello again

To finalize the issue of "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size":
As there was nothing like this in the gallery, I uploaded one of the images matching Rudy's shoe to the shoeprint for easy reference:


Katody, are both rulers present in the original photo or have any been added?

_________________
"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 windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

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

The Bard wrote:
Totally agree with Michael about the 'group sex' meme. I think these little soundbites enter the ether through journalistic laziness. No-one stops to consider what the words mean to the parents, siblings and friends of the victim. It's disgraceful ignorance of the power of language. Like Michael says, Meredith was an INNOCENT VICTIM of a savage, bestial attack. The fact that a female was involved (yes windfall) in my mind makes it more repulsive. To me it makes it more depraved, it makes the female more deviant than the male.

Attack me all you like. Bring it on. That a female is involved in the brutal sex crime and butchery of another young female I find repugnant. Nothing shows greater lack of empathy and normal human emotion to me. To somehow try and put Meredith in the frame for 'resisting' a 'game' - like she's some kind of kill-joy is simply disgusting. Think of the poor girl's parents.

BTW Stilicho, you are quite free to say fuck on this board. It isn't the weirdly censorious JREF. Sometimes a fuck is called for. And now would be a good time.

Angry Bard....




I think it would be useful to establish whether it is laziness or something more than that: reporters using the same news agency, poor translation, whatever.

I am not surprised to find this kind of discussion inspires strong feelings. Working through the newspaper reports is a spiritually hollowing experience.

And I quite understand your perspective on this, Bard, in terms of the involvement of a woman in an attack on another woman. Of course it's more deviant. No question.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Windfall wrote:
The Sun was still quoting Mignini as saying, "Meredith Kercher was murdered as a result of a sex game" on 28 Oct 2008 (unclear, I would say, on complicity/consent), while the Croydon Guardian was clarifying that "Meredith had been murdered after refusing to take part in an orgy" (20 Oct 2008).


I think some people, even after all this time, still don't know how the Anglo media works (or frankly, doesn't work).

This was never the prosecution contention.

_________________
"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 windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

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

The Bard wrote:
Black Dog wrote:
And who could forget the disgraceful comment by none other than Edda Mellas herself when she said it must be awful for the Kercher family to have to listen to Merediths sex life being discussed.
An absolutely shocking and disgusting remark.


I think she was doing something psychiatrists call 'transference' here. She was actually talking about herself.


Not even that deep. It seems a fairly clearly and transparently coded message to the media for what they were writing about AK. I don't think it was actually about MK and her family at all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

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

Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
The Sun was still quoting Mignini as saying, "Meredith Kercher was murdered as a result of a sex game" on 28 Oct 2008 (unclear, I would say, on complicity/consent), while the Croydon Guardian was clarifying that "Meredith had been murdered after refusing to take part in an orgy" (20 Oct 2008).


I think some people, even after all this time, still don't know how the Anglo media works (or frankly, doesn't work).

This was never the prosecution contention.


The Sun and its ilk... of course, the same way it always has. Lowest common denominator. Daily Mail: lowest common denominator carefully dressed up in moral outrage and shocked respectability. MK's body is never "partially clothed". It's always "semi-naked". And so on, and so forth....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody, are both rulers present in the original photo or have any been added?


The photos are superimposed. Only one of the rules belongs to the police I think.
It's the same one partially visible in the shoeprint evidence pic.

edit: Although it's the same shoeprint, it's not the same photo of it as bolint posted before.


Last edited by Katody on Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
In the case of group sex the media and the PR machine have attempted to blur responsibility by shifting culpability to Meredith.


As they continue to do...not by saying so outright, but by the choice of language (see previous discussion on 'group sex').

Quite a few people after following this case closely have said they've lost faith in the media. It's hard to blame them for 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: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
I'm sure the jury rejected this piece of prosecution's evidence. But lots of questions remain: Why the prosecution feel the need to enter such a shabby and questionable evidence? Did the investigators really not recognize the print as Rudy's? Why? Were they so desperately trying to place Amanda in the murder room that they saw something that wasn't there? Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


This evidence had no bearing on the verdict. Judge Massei noted that there were two opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. However, he acknowledged that it's possible that Guede could have left the footprint.

The two imprint experts Rinaldi and Boemia believe that the bloody footprint on the pillow was made by a woman's shoe. Barbie Nadeau agreed with them.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Katody wrote:
I'm sure the jury rejected this piece of prosecution's evidence. But lots of questions remain: Why the prosecution feel the need to enter such a shabby and questionable evidence? Did the investigators really not recognize the print as Rudy's? Why? Were they so desperately trying to place Amanda in the murder room that they saw something that wasn't there? Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


This evidence had no bearing on the verdict. Judge Massei noted that there were two opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. However, he acknowledged that it's possible that Guede could have left the footprint.

The two imprint experts Rinaldi and Boemia believe that the bloody footprint on the pillow was made by a woman's shoe. Barbie Nadeau agreed with them.

Judge Massei also said that it couldn't be excluded that Knox could have left the footprint.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


That's called the slippery slope fallacy. If a single piece of evidence is successfully challenged it does not automatically invalidate all other evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Katody, are both rulers present in the original photo or have any been added?


The photos are superimposed. Only one of the rules belongs to the police I think.
It's the same one partially visible in the shoeprint evidence pic.

edit: Although it's the same shoeprint, it's not the same photo of it as bolint posted before.


Hold on a second. Is that photograph altered? By whom?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


That's called the slippery slope fallacy. If a single piece of evidence is successfully challenged it does not automatically invalidate all other evidence.


It should also be noted that the forensic investigation was carried out by different departments and specialists.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
Judge Massei also said that it couldn't be excluded that Knox could have left the footprint.


Possible? yes. I can imagine a scenario when she borrows a shoe from Rudy to stomp a few times here and there in it ;)


And what is your personal opinion, from looking at the picture? Have you seen Vinci's slides?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


That's called the slippery slope fallacy. If a single piece of evidence is successfully challenged it does not automatically invalidate all other evidence.


I didn't say it invalidates anything automatically.

But it's not the only piece of sloppy forensics.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Katody, are both rulers present in the original photo or have any been added?


The photos are superimposed. Only one of the rules belongs to the police I think.
It's the same one partially visible in the shoeprint evidence pic.

edit: Although it's the same shoeprint, it's not the same photo of it as bolint posted before.


Hold on a second. Is that photograph altered? By whom?


It wouldn't be the first time that a photograph has been doctored:

"A footprint in Kercher's blood on a blue bathmat is another story. It was attributed to Sollecito by the prosecution and what appeared to be a doctored version of the print was attributed to Guede by the defense." (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek, 6 October 2009).

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Jools wrote:
Judge Massei also said that it couldn't be excluded that Knox could have left the footprint.


Possible? yes. I can imagine a scenario when she borrows a shoe from Rudy to stomp a few times here and there in it ;)


And what is your personal opinion, from looking at the picture? Have you seen Vinci's slides?


You expect the posters here to answer your questions, but you haven't answered 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.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Hold on a second. Is that photograph altered? By whom?


Yeah, it's altered by professor Vinci, an avid photoshopper ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Is Vinci's presentation of the shoeprint evidence available on this site anywhere? At the moment we have a few frankly baffling odd pics in the gallery. It would be useful to have the full doc. Do we have it or not? It would kill speculation about rulers true and false!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


That's called the slippery slope fallacy. If a single piece of evidence is successfully challenged it does not automatically invalidate all other evidence.


I didn't say it invalidates anything automatically.

But it's not the only piece of sloppy forensics.

You're armchairing unless you document your claims here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Is Vinci's presentation of the shoeprint evidence available on this site anywhere? At the moment we have a few frankly baffling odd pics in the gallery. It would be useful to have the full doc. Do we have it or not? It would kill speculation about rulers true and false!


Yes a link was posted by Macport near the begging of this page.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Is Vinci's presentation of the shoeprint evidence available on this site anywhere? At the moment we have a few frankly baffling odd pics in the gallery. It would be useful to have the full doc. Do we have it or not? It would kill speculation about rulers true and false!

bolint wrote:
I was waiting for Katody to show something ... :D

"Shoe prints
and
More prints"

These pictures are all taken from the trial presentation of Sollecito expert Francesco Vinci.

Charlie put on the whole presentation in May at FOA : http://www.friendsofamanda.org/vinci.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Hold on a second. Is that photograph altered? By whom?


Yeah, it's altered by professor Vinci, an avid photoshopper ;)


So you're asking people to draw a conclusion based on a piece of evidence later altered by a consultant to the defence. Do you know exactly how dishonest that is?

This is one of the reasons I steer clear of the forensics debates. There are far too many amateur sleuths knocking about with mysterious 'evidence' not available to others. Same thing goes for the redacted appeals documents.

You guys would have a heyday on the 9/11 'truther' sites. They do this kind of junk analysis all the time. They're always proved wrong by real physicists and engineers with real credentials and real jobs.

I would recommend steering clear of 'evidence' like this. It's your choice if you want to use it but it is not an honest way to approach a scientific inquiry.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Macport wrote:
Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


That's called the slippery slope fallacy. If a single piece of evidence is successfully challenged it does not automatically invalidate all other evidence.


I didn't say it invalidates anything automatically.

But it's not the only piece of sloppy forensics.

You're armchairing unless you document your claims here.


Of course I am, but it's also a huge topic deserving it's own time. For now I'm just stating my opinion based on what is widely known (i hope) :)
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 14 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 


28,890,392 Views