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: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:25 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:25 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Shoe prints

More prints
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 10:23 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?


I have seen Vinci's slides. And you keep referring to Guede's shoe but his shoes were never examined, so neither Vinci nor you or your source BF have any idea how worn, how new or old the sole of his shoes could have been in order to make proper 100% definitive comparisons.

You can imagine all you want but the 'jury' as you called them, didn't exactly considered that the footprint mark was made completely by a Nike Outbreak shoe and they didn't either excluded that it could've been made by Knox.

Have you seen Dr. Rinaldi's and Boemia's presentation?
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 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
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) :)

Widely publicized is different from knowledge or fact.
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 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks. Just checking. So is stilicho's assessment the general view? That the presentation is 'massaged'? Surely someone cannot present evidence on oath that has had stuff superimposed and photoshopped onto it to render the conclusion in favour of the defence? This is a genuine question, although I am aware it appears both simplistic and naive. Under oath? Someone can present photo-shopped evidence? Really?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
So you're asking people to draw a conclusion based on a piece of evidence later altered by a consultant to the defence.


stilicho, dear, you can take the picture posted by bolint, and match it to the sole on your own.

I found your distrust a bit paranoid :)

stilicho wrote:
Do you know exactly how dishonest that is?


and your moral outrage a bit over the top, too ;)

please, let's be cool sun-)
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 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thanks for the link Mac. I was interested to read Brucie's page on the shoe prints here:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

He has a whole page devoted to the subject.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:34 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?.....

.....But it's not the only piece of sloppy forensics.......


Hi Kat; just noticed your return,
(and your characteristically grand all encompassing undocumented *pontifications*)

Gotta love it; find one small possible weak link and from that quickly and unashamedly conclude the entire 100 miles of chain are *all* probably defective

No references provided naturally, and specialize in leading loaded questions, but never answer a single one of those directed to you.

When called out in your obvious elementary errors, rather than admit defeat; immediately throw out another totally unrelated possible weak link

Do not want this to seem like personal criticisms.
You are probably a very nice person, but your style becomes irritating, and your 12 hours in the corner does not seem to me to have helped.

Just my lowly (not a moderator) opinion, and very respectfully offered
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
So you're asking people to draw a conclusion based on a piece of evidence later altered by a consultant to the defence.


stilicho, dear, you can take the picture posted by bolint, and match it to the sole on your own.

I found your distrust a bit paranoid :)

stilicho wrote:
Do you know exactly how dishonest that is?


and your moral outrage a bit over the top, too ;)

please, let's be cool sun-)


Hey Katody, wind your neck in a little. You have to have a few more posts before you start patronising old-timers like stil...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
Katody wrote:
Jools wrote:
Judge Massei also said that it couldn't be excluded that Knox could have left the footprint.

And what is your personal opinion, from looking at the picture? Have you seen Vinci's slides?


I have seen Vinci's slides. And you keep referring to Guede's shoe but his shoes were never examined, so neither Vinci nor you or your source BF have any idea how worn, how new or old the sole of his shoes could have been in order to make proper 100% definitive comparisons.

You mean it could be someone else in the same brand and size shoe? Do I understand correctly? Or in your opinion there is no fit at all?




Jools wrote:
Have you seen Dr. Rinaldi's and Boemia's presentation?

If you could direct me I will gladly. Thanks :)
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 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
So you're asking people to draw a conclusion based on a piece of evidence later altered by a consultant to the defence.


stilicho, dear, you can take the picture posted by bolint, and match it to the sole on your own.

I found your distrust a bit paranoid :)

stilicho wrote:
Do you know exactly how dishonest that is?


and your moral outrage a bit over the top, too ;)

please, let's be cool sun-)


So you do know how dishonest it is. Very nice.

This is why, a few days ago, Michael asked folks to source their claims. Your source is a defence consultant and the evidence is not the same as what the police investigators supplied.

That is flat-out dishonest and you know it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Dear stint7, thank you for your remarks!

I'm sorry for my style, but my informal English is seriously lacking.

It usualy takes me a lot of time to formulate my thoughts in English at all, so I hope you would not see much of my writing anyway.

As to jumping topics I try to stay on one now, as you see :)
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 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
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.


PMF doesn't DO talking points. Truth is what we're concerned about.

Katody wrote:
I'm sure the jury rejected this piece of prosecution's evidence. But lots of questions remain:


In which case, why does it matter? And if it was rejected, does that not then support the integrity of the Italian courts?

Katody wrote:
Why the prosecution feel the need to enter such a shabby and questionable evidence?


I'm sure the prosecution don't agree that it's 'shabby'. It may be possible that they are wrong, but to call being wrong, when the intention is to be correct 'shabby' is rather harsh.

But again, I really don't see the point. If you are trying to argue that the prosecution is shite and we were still in the middle of the trial then it may be a viable debate. BUT, as many seem to forget, the trial is OVER...it was all fought out in the court room over eleven months and ended months ago. The verdict was guilty and that was unanimous...and that was not by the prosecution, but by the judges! Prosecutions don't give verdicts and they don't give sentences. The prosecution is no longer the issue, they were LONG ago. The REALITY is the judges and their verdict. And the 'blame the prosecution' game IS a talking point...but not here.

So, why are people still trying to put the prosecution on centre stage when they are to all intents and purposes, the past?

_________________
"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 Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Thank you Michael :)

Katody, I just viewed the Vinci presentation and I see it is overlapping prints even though the picture of all five prints doesn't show this. A print from the heel area appears to me to overlap with a print from the mid-section, at a slight angle to it, creating the outer edge line which has been taken for the full width of the mid-section print. It is obvious the entire bottom of the shoe was not uniformly covered with blood. This is Rudy's tread pattern and the only question I ever had with it was how it fit between these edges as the diagrams were not explanatory enough. Neither Vinci, or Bruce for that matter who reproduced the pictures, show the outline of the overlap which likely made the outer edge mark. I always thought it unlikely Amanda also had Nike Outbreak 2 shoes with that particular tread pattern, albiet in a smaller size. I don't believe the court accepted this particular piece of analysis as definitive proof it was Amanda's print. How could they without the shoe it was attributed to?

There are more compelling examples of why it is believed Amanda was involved than this shoeprint and I don't often hear it referred to myself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Your source is a defence consultant and the evidence is not the same as what the police investigators supplied.


Could you please point out to me witch part specifically is false? I posted only 2 photos, it should not be hard.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

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

stilicho wrote:
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.


Just catching up on all the posts today...

I had to literally LOL when I saw Stilicho's post above. I know exactly what you're talking about in both circumstances. ;) Only time I ever had a Valium, 20 years ago in college, was after a softball game where we all had a lot of beer as well. Before passing out, I put my hand part-way through a window fan and didn't feel a thing...

As to the discussion of hard drug use in Perugia, I have to say that cocaine use does certainly seem to fit the pattern of evidence better than any other single intoxicant, including alcohol. Not only its effects on their behavior, but also the lack of other paraphernalia. There is a reason so much paper currency has cocaine on it. Heroin doesn't fit, as stupor and isolation are its usual hallmarks. I doubt they would have been able to stay awake all night (as I believe they did) if they were steadily smoking cannabis. Alcohol use would make staving off sleep even more difficult. There is of course the possibilty of other, even more "exotic" drugs such as PCP, psilocybin, or even belladonna. However, given the known propensity of RS for cocaine, I see it as far more likely than other, more uncommon alternatives. Given the extensive efforts at clean-up and staging, I am assuming that any dissociative state that may have arisen the previous evening had long since dissipated.

None of this excuses them of their actions, of course. The only possible way that I could see drug use be a mitigating factor in their case is if they were truly in a dissociated, psychotic state - but of course not only would this violate the rest of the body of evidence, but it would also go a long way towards diminishing the need of the prosecution to establish a motive at the trial (I know that motive is not required for a conviction, but all other things being equal, it certainly helps the prosecution's case).

I think there is an even greater reason for Knox's attorneys in particular not to pursue the hard drug angle. To do so would destroy Knox's support in the media and the blogosphere, which as we all know is a high priority of at least the Knox defense. As it is now, the FOAK crowd can snort in derision at the idea of a couple stoner lovebirds (hi LJ!) in a savage murder, but I think if they had to deal with a defense attorney presenting in court evidence of la_) smoking a rock or dropping a couple tabs of acid that night, it would quickly wipe the smirks from their faces.

@ capealadin - Thanks!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DriveByDoc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 43

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

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
So you're asking people to draw a conclusion based on a piece of evidence later altered by a consultant to the defence.

stilicho, dear, you can take the picture posted by bolint, and match it to the sole on your own.
I found your distrust a bit paranoid :)



Distrust over altered evidence is paranoid?

Any scientist worth his or her salt wouldn't take altered source material of any kind even with a ten foot pole.

Here's how it goes:

You provide the original, non-altered evidence or material first, then do a scientific analysis thereof.

The prosecution experts take whatever information is available and do their analysis of it, and the defense does the same.

Since the defense and prosecution are working from the same body of material, they do not alter or enhance it and present it as "new" evidence. The source material doesn't change, only the interpretation of it.

If you're going to armchair it, at least have some vague idea of how to put forth a reasonable scientific argument.

You can photoshop/overlap/put pretty rulers and arrows on photos and then post them to your heart's content, but unless you provide the actual raw data in addition to your interpretations of it, and allow people to draw their own conclusions about the original evidence and how it is compiled/compared/contrasted, you're only regurgitating altered material that has no weight in a discussion.

And please drop the patronizing attitude. I'd be happy to match professional and scientific credentials with you, and I know what the outcome would be.
Top Profile 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

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

Danceme wrote:
There are more compelling examples of why it is believed Amanda was involved than this shoeprint and I don't often hear it referred to myself.


Good to see you come over from the JREF!

And agreed.
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 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Windfall wrote:
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.


What...would that be the same documentary, the one by Bob Graham and Garfield kennedy, that you spent so much time and effort arguing the toss with me...the one you were adamant wasn't biased...'that' documentary?

Would the phrase 'I rest my case' be out of turn here?

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


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

Offline Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
So you're asking people to draw a conclusion based on a piece of evidence later altered by a consultant to the defence.


stilicho, dear, you can take the picture posted by bolint, and match it to the sole on your own.

I found your distrust a bit paranoid :)

stilicho wrote:
Do you know exactly how dishonest that is?


and your moral outrage a bit over the top, too ;)

please, let's be cool sun-)

Well that's a good one! paranoid...moral outrage...have you listened to a FOAKER lately? Have you heard about all the planted evidence, the complete incompetance, the conspiracy which consumed the entire Italian judicial system as they conspired one by one to convict such an "innocent" girl????
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 11:07 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.



Can you please be so kind as to expand on 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 Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Quote:
Katody wrote:
You mean it could be someone else in the same brand and size shoe? Do I understand correctly? Or in your opinion there is no fit at all?


No, I meant what I said: neither Vinci nor you or your source BF have any idea how worn, how new or old the sole of his shoes could have been in order to make proper 100% definitive comparisons.

So, for you to claim: Guede's shoe perfectly matching "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size" is in your imagination. As I said imagine whatever you like, but is not what the Court decided.

Quote:
Katody wrote:
If you could direct me I will gladly. Thanks


Are you fluent in Italian?
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
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.


PMF doesn't DO talking points. Truth is what we're concerned about.


I'm sure of it. But seeing what I believe an untruthful talking point creeping its way into PMF I had to react :)

My main point was to get an opinion about it from the PMF community.
Michael, from looking at the pictures, the sole I posted, the evidence bolint posted, do you think they match?
because I believe they do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

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

Katody wrote:
I'm sure of it. But seeing what I believe an untruthful talking point creeping its way into PMF I had to react :)


I wish you would react to all of my questions.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Your source is a defence consultant and the evidence is not the same as what the police investigators supplied.


Could you please point out to me witch part specifically is false? I posted only 2 photos, it should not be hard.

You can start in the picture gallery where you wrote the following: Guede's shoe perfectly matching "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size" or at least put a 'IMO' at the beginning of the sentence.



picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: I have edited that out of the Gallery. Members are to be informed, the Gallery is not to be abused by imposing opinion, as fact, in the titles or descriptions of evidence photos.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
Michael wrote:
Katody, are both rulers present in the original photo or have any been added?

edit: Although it's the same shoeprint, it's not the same photo of it as bolint posted before.


Can you please be so kind as to expand on that?

Of course, just look at the photo bolint posted, then at mine, or view it directly in Vinci's presentation.
This should clarify it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
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) :)

Asserted =/= known.
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 11:24 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?


I see, if one element is found to be incorrect all elements must be considered as incorrect. Does this same principle apply to the defence...or only the prosecution?

Does this principle also extend to all the prosecution evidence against Rudy Guede? Or, is this a 'selective' principle?

_________________
"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 Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody,
How do you feel about Bruce's analysis detailing (with video) how Rudy locked Meredith's door without turning around to face it? Also, do you believe the current theory on JREF that Rudy managed to get to Filomena's window from the planter beside the porch, with an outswinging shutter in his way?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Jools wrote:
So, for you to claim: Guede's shoe perfectly matching "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size" is in your imagination. As I said imagine whatever you like, but is not what the Court decided.

Jools, I am far more interested in your opinion, not Court's :)
Just looking at the pictures, in your opinion is there a match? A slight similarity?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

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

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


I see, if one element is found to be incorrect all elements must be considered as incorrect. Does this same principle apply to the defence...or only the prosecution?

Does this principle also extend to all the prosecution evidence against Rudy Guede? Or, is this a 'selective' principle?


Michael, I already answered very similar question on the previous page :)

I'm interested in all PMFers opinions about the shoeprint, because it doesn't require expertize, only pair of eyes and common sense.
What's yours?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Sorry for the flood of oneliners, time to bed in my timezone and good night :)

And as I said before
I'd love to see your opinions about the shoeprint, because it doesn't require expertize, only pair of eyes and common sense.

Thank you for your patience, goodnight :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody,
"only a pair of eyes and common sense" also applies to the bathmat footprint, and the luminol prints. Did you see Rinald's analysis of these?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
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.


What...would that be the same documentary, the one by Bob Graham and Garfield kennedy, that you spent so much time and effort arguing the toss with me...the one you were adamant wasn't biased...'that' documentary?

Would the phrase 'I rest my case' be out of turn here?


I would say your two line description of that discussion way back when is not an accurate representation. It was a more complex debate than me saying "it was not biased" and you proving it was. It was also a debate that a number of others weighed in on. Amongst other aspects of that argument, there was a discussion of what the documentary was actually about, my contention that the film hung AK out to dry over the Lumumba accusation, and a reassessment of my initial impressions on first viewing. Heaven help me, I even acknowledged that some of the arguments you presented I found persuasive. (Quote: "To reiterate my point: I did not read the documentary as a "free AK! AK is innocent!" screed. I think it may have been less balanced than my first impression, and Michael's comments in particular have made me think that it was probably more biased than I thought on first viewing. But I would suggest it's unhelpful to assume that because it was a "trials of AK" doc and not a "murder of MK" that it was therefore a subtle, sly FOA propaganda piece.")

I'm not sure which case you are attempting to rest - is it the earlier one about the documentary? Does the fact that Nadeau is filmed talking about group sex being common amongst college kids in the documentary prove it's biased in some way?

I guess, since you insist on seeing me as one of the Big Bads, the main thing for you is that you can rest a case on me somewhere. So, sure, feel free.
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 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Katody wrote:
I'm sure of it. But seeing what I believe an untruthful talking point creeping its way into PMF I had to react :)


I wish you would react to all of my questions.


Katody has an agenda, but - One Trick Pony a circus does not make.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

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

Katody wrote:
Jools wrote:
So, for you to claim: Guede's shoe perfectly matching "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size" is in your imagination. As I said imagine whatever you like, but is not what the Court decided.

Jools, I am far more interested in your opinion, not Court's :)
Just looking at the pictures, in your opinion is there a match? A slight similarity?


IMO, I believe that print might be Raffaele's.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Jools wrote:
So, for you to claim: Guede's shoe perfectly matching "woman's bloody shoeprint of Amanda's size" is in your imagination. As I said imagine whatever you like, but is not what the Court decided.

Jools, I am far more interested in your opinion, not Court's :)
Just looking at the pictures, in your opinion is there a match? A slight similarity?

IMO is that there were two experts who arrived at very different conclusions and one of these two experts was paid a lot of money to present something that could back-up the lone wolf theory, despite all the work he did he still didn't managed to convinced those in charge of the investigation and more important the judges that, that's definitely RG's bloody shoeprint and exclude completely a bloody shoeprint that is compatible with Knox's size.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Danceme wrote:
Thank you Michael :)

Katody, I just viewed the Vinci presentation and I see it is overlapping prints even though the picture of all five prints doesn't show this. A print from the heel area appears to me to overlap with a print from the mid-section, at a slight angle to it, creating the outer edge line which has been taken for the full width of the mid-section print. It is obvious the entire bottom of the shoe was not uniformly covered with blood. This is Rudy's tread pattern and the only question I ever had with it was how it fit between these edges as the diagrams were not explanatory enough. Neither Vinci, or Bruce for that matter who reproduced the pictures, show the outline of the overlap which likely made the outer edge mark. I always thought it unlikely Amanda also had Nike Outbreak 2 shoes with that particular tread pattern, albiet in a smaller size. I don't believe the court accepted this particular piece of analysis as definitive proof it was Amanda's print. How could they without the shoe it was attributed to?

There are more compelling examples of why it is believed Amanda was involved than this shoeprint and I don't often hear it referred to myself.


This is a good point and in part why the court didn't reach a firm conclusion on this specific piece of evidenece. Neither the Asics shoes...or Rudy's shoes, had ever been retrieved.

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
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?


Bit behind on the reading but just came across this post above that needed a look into.

My understanding is that AK & RS were waiting for the arrival of Fhilomena et al (or the police?) in the driveway and outside the front door of the cottage (between the cottage and the road). This is a closer view of the cottage from the road and from this angle it looks as if cars passing by could be seen from the cottage driveway (of course much depends on elevations and angles of the photograph).

As an aside it appears that this Goggle street view photo series was taken while the house was still sealed as a crime scene. If you look at Filomena’s window it is interesting to note the substantial but not total closure of the outside shutters. Is this perhaps the culmination of effort to have them wedged shut? If so than RG would have needed to be a combination of an Olympic shot putter and Olympic sharpshooter to have lofted a 4-5Kg rock into that narrow gap. And in addition you will note that the portion of the shutter that is ajar is not the half that covers the broken pane; must have been a boomerang type rock; which reminds me to extend greetings to our friends down under.

ETA the photo blows up quiet well to 200% - 300% to see the CS tape on the front door


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Welcome Danceme..I've always appreciated your posts on Jref. Spot on, FBN. One trick pony indeed. Interesting how ,like Mary H, Katody has to run off to bed, or do errands when things get tricky for them. And the *politenes* coupled with barbs of sarcasm and dislike, just come creeping in. Well, as Katy-Did just mentioned on the other forum QUOTE..* Hope the dissenters keep posting on PMF. It's become so much funner there with people disagreeing with them *. END QUOTE.

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
Michael, I already answered very similar question on the previous page


Not really.

_________________
"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 Danceme


Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Michael wrote:
This is a good point and in part why the court didn't reach a firm conclusion on this specific piece of evidenece. Neither the Asics shoes...or Rudy's shoes, had ever been retrieved.

Michael, I've read reference to a pair of Asics belonging to Amanda before but I've never found any information other than that. Is it certain she owned a pair that went missing and if so, is the tread pattern known? I'm still curious about the unattributed prints in Rinaldi's report with the zigzag pattern.

Edited to add: I seem to have found the answer thanks to your search feature. It was first mentioned in an article by Andrea Vogt covering the testimony of Rinaldi and another print expert, who said "he believed the shoeprint to be that of a woman's size 37.5 Asics tennis shoe."

Coincidentally, googling Asics tennis shoes shows they seem to commonly have zigzags somewhere on their soles.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Just caught up on reading here and must admit I am a bit in shock.

Can I ask a serious question of my good colleagues here? Have you lost your fucking minds? You let a disingenuous and disruptive poster who comes here with an agenda to do damage hijack this forum because you are too polite and politically correct to insist that they comply with the same standards of respect that we all show to each and every member that is here to seek the truth about the horrible torture and murder of Meredith Kercher.

This reincarnation now calling themselves Katody introduces a piece of evidence prepared by and on behalf of the defence and presents it as if it is the word of god. What do you expect a defence expert to concoct FFS. Of course it suits their client. And yes Katody it does resemble the shoe print of RG. It also resembles the shoe print of RS and I am pretty sure it resembles the shoe print of my beloved granny (deceased) RIP. And if you paid enough money you could produce an expert that would get it to resemble YOUR OWN shoeprint.

Now you have had your fun Katody taking advantage of our members goodwill and it is time for you to show your true colors; engage here fully like everyone else of fuck off. You can start by answering the questions that The Machine has patiently repeatedly asked you and you cowardly choose to ignore time and time again. I am putting you on notice that I will not let you take the piss out of the memory of dear Meredith. Others here with a sense of decency may give you a fools pardon but make no mistake I have no qualms whatsoever in calling your bluff. Let the games begin.

GAME ON!

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

THANK YOU, HAMMERITE!!! They come over here with an agenda, and because so many have left Jref....they're left being bored with each other. They come here with their * My english language is not so good, little smilies, the Oh, I,m so polite *.....it's just insulting. To me, anyway. They're as transparent as glass.

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

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:03 am   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.

I think "projection" is the term that describes this. "Transference" usually refers to what happens during therapy whereby the patient experiences feelings from childhood (feeling of a child toward a parent) and transfers them to the therapist.
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:06 am   Post subject: Mask of...   

capealadin wrote:
And the *politenes* coupled with barbs of sarcasm and dislike, just come creeping in.



I have not seen any politeness from Katody, only insincerity, and rather lacklustre thinking - no creative spark. Amanda would (and does) do better in that department. Raffaele, too, for that matter.

There is masquerade in play (which could have been done better, by the way).

Slovenly literary mannerisms and gestures, almost as if there were a Perugia police palazzo pontification paradise party charade under way.


Rating for the old K's rerun of The Harmony Quiz: I give it 2.5 "overlapped shoeprints".



P.S.
It seems to be an American thing, this confusion of form with substance, like using the word "lady" as an insult. If all the rude words have been excised from the lexicon, how do you insult someone if what remains are only what used to be the polite words?

Reliance on subtext as maintext reduces the perception of irony, it seems.

Ironically, Katody is posting "mechanically", not "organically" (which is what H said, anyway). It takes too much effort not to be lazy. Je m'amuse.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Katody wrote:
I'd love to see your opinions about the shoeprint, because it doesn't require expertize, only pair of eyes and common sense.


My opinion is that your presuppositions are faulty. It does take expertise to interpret forensics work, even photographs. In addition, it is a serious business to represent a photograph that has been altered in any way (including but not limited to resizing, cropping, changing resolution, adding information that was not originally captured) as an original document. Neglecting to source it or to provide its context is exactly the same thing.

I advised you first of the slippery slope fallacy which you committed on the previous page. Since then you have pretended that you are simply interested in opinions. What changed? I don't think anything did. I think you stand by your original statement:

Quote:
Katody wrote:
Shouldn't we consider the rest of the forensic evidence with caution as potentially similarly misleading and worthless?


You have already stated that the print evidence is "misleading and worthless". You are not interested in anyone's opinion. It took a simple question about the authenticity of your photograph to expose this fraud.
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:22 am   Post subject: Bullies   

This is interesting: from 2004: Psych Today:

In the context of workplace bullying (a huge money drain), there are:

three workplace bully profiles:
  • the accidental bully,
    • emotionally blunt, aggressive and demanding
    • responding to stress a lot of the time
    • can be trained or coached out of the bullying behaviour
  • the narcissistic bully,
    • grandiose and has fantasies of breath-taking achievement
    • feels they deserve power and position
    • can fly into rages whenever reality confronts them
    • very destructive and manipulative
    • don't set out in a callous way to annihilate any other person - it's purely an expression of their superiority
  • and the serial bully
    • a more sociopathic or psychopathic personality
    • intentional, systematic, organised, often relentless
    • get things done in terms of self interest
    • employs subtle techniques that are difficult to detect or prove
    • training or coaching is always unsuccessful
    • the serial bully is often:
      • grandiose yet charming,
      • authoritative, aggressive and dominating,
      • fearless and shameless,
      • devoid of empathy or remorse,
      • manipulative and deceptive;
      • impulsive, chaotic or stimulus seeking; and
      • a master of imitation and mimicry



It is not going to be coincidence that so many individuals exhibiting a personality type overlapping the defendant's are attracted to the defendant's "cause" (as they see it).

By another coincidence, the sequence pattern maps into a RRA sequence. What are the odds of that? Nothing probative, though. Just a coincidence.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:25 am   Post subject: Re: Mask of...   

Catnip wrote:
capealadin wrote:
And the *politenes* coupled with barbs of sarcasm and dislike, just come creeping in.



I have not seen any politeness from Katody, only insincerity, and rather lacklustre thinking - no creative spark. Amanda would (and does) do better in that department. Raffaele, too, for that matter.

There is masquerade in play (which could have been done better, by the way).

Slovenly literary mannerisms and gestures, almost as if there were a Perugia police palazzo pontification paradise party charade under way.


Rating for the old K's rerun of The Harmony Quiz: I give it 2.5 "overlapped shoeprints".



P.S.
It seems to be an American thing, this confusion of form with substance, like using the word "lady" as an insult. If all the rude words have been excised from the lexicon, how do you insult someone if what remains are only what used to be the polite words?

Reliance on subtext as maintext reduces the perception of irony, it seems.

Ironically, Katody is posting "mechanically", not "organically" (which is what H said, anyway). It takes too much effort not to be lazy. Je m'amuse.


Wasn't it Humpty Dumpty who told Alice the words mean what he wants them to mean? I am reminded of what it really means to be a "nice guy":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nice

Etymology
From Middle English nice, nyce, nys < Old French nice, niche, nisce (“‘simple, foolish, ignorant’”) < Latin nescious (“‘ignorant, not knowing’”); compare nescire (“‘to know not, be ignorant of’”) < ne (“‘not’”) + scire (“‘to know’”).

Original usage: "A nice distinction", meaning a distinction so subtle it would only be made by the ignorant. Similar in meaning to the phrase "a moot point". The illogical association of "nice" with good feelings probably arose from the loss of the original meaning and a false interpretation of the word's usage.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guy

Etymology 2
Named from Guy Fawkes (1570-1606), an English Catholic hanged for his role in the Gunpowder Plot.

Suddenly being a "nice guy" doesn't sound so great. rt-))
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:32 am   Post subject: Catalogue of Words and Phrases – Fighting Back   

This catalogue of phrases is necessary because:


"Evidently we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought." — J R R Tolkien, Tolkien on Fairy-Stories: Expanded edition, with Commentary and Notes (2008), edited by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas A Anderson [HarperCollins 2008] p 69, from par 88 of the final form of the essay



Tolkien was discussing the meanings attached to the word “Escape” (in the context of telling stories that are not about "real" things), but I think his words can serve as a sort of epigraph here as well because I’ve noticed a certain amount of misuse of words and confusion of thought floating around.








Catalogue of Words and Phrases – Fighting Back



[2.1] FIGHTING BACK

"In my opinion most people, especially women, when threatened with a knife, would not fight, but freeze and comply with the attacker's demands. As sad as it looks, I believe poor Meredith's hope was that giving no resistance was the way to come out alive of it. " — posted by Katody [XVII.13] (Post 51325 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of a discussion of how a lone-wolf attack scenario is not consistent with the injuries sustained.


"Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained." — posted by Michael [XVII.13] (Post 51326 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of a discussion of how a lone-wolf attack scenario is not consistent with the injuries sustained.



"my initial point about resistance:

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

Therefore, although your opinion that women would not fight seems rather weak when the woman has taken specific enabling training to fight, and then further is provoked to fight after the first of the over 40 wounds were administered making attacker evil intent unequivocal.
I submit to you that any sane man or woman would then have sufficient motivation resist to the best of his/her ability.
" — posted by stint7 [XVII.13] (Post 51330 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of a discussion of how a lone-wolf attack scenario is not consistent with the injuries sustained.


"I sparred with her [black belt girlfriend] whenever she asked. She never beat me, not one single time. She just wasn't physically strong enough." — posted by Chris C [XVII.13] (Post 51382 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of female karate skills.

"Was she fighting for her life? You are talking about sparring...that's a completely different kettle of fish." — posted by Michael [XVII.13] (Post 51390 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of female karate skills.

"Basically real world is not like in the movies, where an unarmed guy kicks a thug and takes his knife. You will not get out of such confrontation without deep cuts and stab wounds" — posted by Katody [XVII.13] (Post 51527 on 20-Jul-2010), re: in the context of female karate skills.

"And once she realized that she was in trouble, she didn't bother trying to fight back? She just let him stab her, pick up a different knife, and stab her again?" — posted by BobTheDnky [XVII.13] (Post 51529 on 20-Jul-2010), re: in the context of fighting back in general.







To add to this:

Meredith did fight back:
  • there was the scream
  • as soon as the scream occurred, there was the strangulation, fracturing the hyoid bone, after which vocalisation would have been weak or impossible
  • the idea of fighting back is not restricted to actions successfully carried out by the victim – intention to fight back is revealed by subsequent quelling by acts of subjugation against the victim:
    • the restraint (bruising on the elbows, e.g.)
    • the suffocation attempt (bruising on the face)


Unwillingness to acquiesce to the attackers’ demands is evidence of fighting back.

Restricting the fighting back only to physical manifestations of unwillingness to acquiesce that are successfully carried out against the attackers (“landing a blow” against the attackers) is an arbitrary distinction and is confusing sparring and the boxing ring with a refusal to be attacked.

I may be successful and land a blow on my attackers. I may also attempt a blow in defence, and miss. If I am restrained and subjugated, then, by their actions, my attackers have inferred my intention to fight back and have pre-emptively countered it, and no subsequent commentator can remove or delete that inference.

Fighting one-on-one is fighting back. Calling in reinforcements is fighting back. Escaping the attackers is fighting back. Getting the offenders arrested is fighting back.


Restricting the fight-back to a Queensbury Rules scenario is arbitrary.

Showdowns at the corral are for the movies.

The fight-back stands.





"circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike in self-defence" — Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law: 12th edition (2008), edited by David Ormerod [Oxford University Press 2008] p 368, Section 12.6.4.2 "A pre-emptive strike", citing Beckford [1987] 3 All ER 425 PC

"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. -- per Holmes J" — Ross on Crime: 4th edition (2009), edited by David Ross [Thomson Lawbook Co 2009] p 1192, Section [19.1195], citing Brown v United States of America 256 US 335 (1920) (at 343)
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:54 am   Post subject: The pillow   

One thing leads to another –

_Magellano_ at the Hardware Upgrade Forum, on an off-topic thread ( [ here ] ) posted a piece from ANSA when Rudy’s sentence was reduced on appeal last December.

Part of the newspaper report said:

Quote:

GUEDE NAILED BY BLOODY HANDPRINT – The print of a bloody right hand found on the pillow placed under Meredith Kercher’s body was the first indication that put the police onto the trail of Rudy Guede. From that item the investigators began to reconstruct his role – an active one according to the prosecutors – in the murder for which he today had his penalty reduced from 30 years to 16 years’ imprisonment: the young man, nevertheless, has continually denied any involvement. In the earliest stages of the investigations, the twenty-something Ivorian was not known to the Perugia Flying Squad and to the Central Operations Service.

On the basis of declarations made by Amanda Knox, co-tenant with the victim, it was in fact Patrick Lumumba who was arrested: originally from the Congo and also of colour [like Rudy] and exonerated because he was acknowledged as being extraneous to any of the charges. … In the course of their analysis, Forensics lifted a handprint, however, and so the investigators identified Guede. The Ivorian had already fled to Germany… The police had, as well, collected other evidence against Guede, such as his Y chromosome isolated from a vaginal swab taken from the victim during the autopsy and genetic traces on the left wrist of the young woman’s top. His, as well, was the print of a bloody shoe next to the body of the student.

– “16 years for Rudy: sentence reduced on appeal” [ ANSA ] 22 December 2009



So, Rudy was so well-known to the police that he wasn't known to them.

And, from other stories, his fingerprints came off a civil database (call it Immigration Control) rather than a criminal database (call it The Perp Dunnit).

The "they were railroaded" hypothesis posits as a logical consequence the requirement that the participants in the railroading are able to see into the future, as well as looking back at the past, to do their "cooking the books".

Irrespective of whether any railroading were possible, such people, with true "foresight", would be soon sought after for a security agency (or counter-security agency), as they would be a tremendous asset there.

Yet, for some reason, this has not happened, in the general or in the particular. Why?

Must we posit a bigger conspiracy to wrap the smaller conspiracy up in?

How many Ptolemaic epicycles will be required until we come to end of that progression?

Just asking. :)
It will help to prioritise things.
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:

*

*

*

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.


_____________________________
Toxicologist Maurizio Taglialaveta testified for the defense on cannabis-induced memory loss, in July 2009. Link: Trial Testimony, Nick Pisa

///
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:25 am   Post subject: The bra-clasp beneath   

The other day, when I was looking for matters dealing with Comodi and appeals, I came across something a blogger wrote back in May 2009 about Patrizia Stefanoni’s testimony on the witness stand, about the bra-clasp:


doc1a wrote:

After having responded to questions from public prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi, the expert witness was then interrogated by the young Pugliese’s defenders [=Sollecito’s defence, Bongiorno] who had asked her to reconstruct the steps in the discovery of the bra-clasp. Stefanoni said that it had come to be identified on the night of 2 and 3 November in the room where Kercher had been killed, covered by the pillow which had been placed under the body. It was therefore collected on the 18 December at a distance of a metre or a metre and a half [from the body], close to a desk and under a mat on which “traces, presumably haematic” would be found.

– [ Blog Entry ] Notizie in Rete ("News on the Net") 23 May 2009



This sequence of the layering is troubling in a logical sense:

{ floor : bra-clasp : pillow : victim’s body }

I need to puzzle it out.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
Welcome Danceme..I've always appreciated your posts on Jref. Spot on, FBN. One trick pony indeed. Interesting how ,like Mary H, Katody has to run off to bed, or do errands when things get tricky for them. And the *politenes* coupled with barbs of sarcasm and dislike, just come creeping in. Well, as Katy-Did just mentioned on the other forum QUOTE..* Hope the dissenters keep posting on PMF. It's become so much funner there with people disagreeing with them *. END QUOTE.



I am still quite busy with the Massei report and just returned from an unexpected trip to say goodbye to a dear friend who died. The latest reincarnation, Katody, like previous ones, does not "get" the tone or ethos of this board. It is no more complicated than that. And sooooo tiresome: the eternal return of the insipidly dishonest. Katody would be well advised to return from whence he/she came. Thanks for stopping by.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Just caught up on reading here and must admit I am a bit in shock.

Can I ask a serious question of my good colleagues here? Have you lost your fucking minds? You let a disingenuous and disruptive poster who comes here with an agenda to do damage hijack this forum because you are too polite and politically correct to insist that they comply with the same standards of respect that we all show to each and every member that is here to seek the truth about the horrible torture and murder of Meredith Kercher.

This reincarnation now calling themselves Katody introduces a piece of evidence prepared by and on behalf of the defence and presents it as if it is the word of god. What do you expect a defence expert to concoct FFS. Of course it suits their client. And yes Katody it does resemble the shoe print of RG. It also resembles the shoe print of RS and I am pretty sure it resembles the shoe print of my beloved granny (deceased) RIP. And if you paid enough money you could produce an expert that would get it to resemble YOUR OWN shoeprint.

Now you have had your fun Katody taking advantage of our members goodwill and it is time for you to show your true colors; engage here fully like everyone else of fuck off. You can start by answering the questions that The Machine has patiently repeatedly asked you and you cowardly choose to ignore time and time again. I am putting you on notice that I will not let you take the piss out of the memory of dear Meredith. Others here with a sense of decency may give you a fools pardon but make no mistake I have no qualms whatsoever in calling your bluff. Let the games begin.

GAME ON!

H



I see zero difference between Katody and Rose Montag and do not plan to waste the same amount of time already expended on Rose.

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

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:24 am   Post subject: Re: Catalogue of Words and Phrases – Fighting Back   

Catnip wrote:
This catalogue of phrases is necessary because:


"Evidently we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought." — J R R Tolkien, Tolkien on Fairy-Stories: Expanded edition, with Commentary and Notes (2008), edited by Verlyn Flieger & Douglas A Anderson [HarperCollins 2008] p 69, from par 88 of the final form of the essay



Tolkien was discussing the meanings attached to the word “Escape” (in the context of telling stories that are not about "real" things), but I think his words can serve as a sort of epigraph here as well because I’ve noticed a certain amount of misuse of words and confusion of thought floating around.








Catalogue of Words and Phrases – Fighting Back



[2.1] FIGHTING BACK

"In my opinion most people, especially women, when threatened with a knife, would not fight, but freeze and comply with the attacker's demands. As sad as it looks, I believe poor Meredith's hope was that giving no resistance was the way to come out alive of it. " — posted by Katody [XVII.13] (Post 51325 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of a discussion of how a lone-wolf attack scenario is not consistent with the injuries sustained.


"Only, her injuries show she did resist...she was restrained. People who resist timidly at the point of a knife don't also have to be restrained." — posted by Michael [XVII.13] (Post 51326 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of a discussion of how a lone-wolf attack scenario is not consistent with the injuries sustained.



"my initial point about resistance:

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

Therefore, although your opinion that women would not fight seems rather weak when the woman has taken specific enabling training to fight, and then further is provoked to fight after the first of the over 40 wounds were administered making attacker evil intent unequivocal.
I submit to you that any sane man or woman would then have sufficient motivation resist to the best of his/her ability.
" — posted by stint7 [XVII.13] (Post 51330 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of a discussion of how a lone-wolf attack scenario is not consistent with the injuries sustained.


"I sparred with her [black belt girlfriend] whenever she asked. She never beat me, not one single time. She just wasn't physically strong enough." — posted by Chris C [XVII.13] (Post 51382 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of female karate skills.

"Was she fighting for her life? You are talking about sparring...that's a completely different kettle of fish." — posted by Michael [XVII.13] (Post 51390 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of female karate skills.

"Basically real world is not like in the movies, where an unarmed guy kicks a thug and takes his knife. You will not get out of such confrontation without deep cuts and stab wounds" — posted by Katody [XVII.13] (Post 51527 on 20-Jul-2010), re: in the context of female karate skills.

"And once she realized that she was in trouble, she didn't bother trying to fight back? She just let him stab her, pick up a different knife, and stab her again?" — posted by BobTheDnky [XVII.13] (Post 51529 on 20-Jul-2010), re: in the context of fighting back in general.







To add to this:

Meredith did fight back:
  • there was the scream
  • as soon as the scream occurred, there was the strangulation, fracturing the hyoid bone, after which vocalisation would have been weak or impossible
  • the idea of fighting back is not restricted to actions successfully carried out by the victim – intention to fight back is revealed by subsequent quelling by acts of subjugation against the victim:
    • the restraint (bruising on the elbows, e.g.)
    • the suffocation attempt (bruising on the face)


Unwillingness to acquiesce to the attackers’ demands is evidence of fighting back.

Restricting the fighting back only to physical manifestations of unwillingness to acquiesce that are successfully carried out against the attackers (“landing a blow” against the attackers) is an arbitrary distinction and is confusing sparring and the boxing ring with a refusal to be attacked.

I may be successful and land a blow on my attackers. I may also attempt a blow in defence, and miss. If I am restrained and subjugated, then, by their actions, my attackers have inferred my intention to fight back and have pre-emptively countered it, and no subsequent commentator can remove or delete that inference.

Fighting one-on-one is fighting back. Calling in reinforcements is fighting back. Escaping the attackers is fighting back. Getting the offenders arrested is fighting back.


Restricting the fight-back to a Queensbury Rules scenario is arbitrary.

Showdowns at the corral are for the movies.

The fight-back stands.





"circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike in self-defence" — Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law: 12th edition (2008), edited by David Ormerod [Oxford University Press 2008] p 368, Section 12.6.4.2 "A pre-emptive strike", citing Beckford [1987] 3 All ER 425 PC

"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. -- per Holmes J" — Ross on Crime: 4th edition (2009), edited by David Ross [Thomson Lawbook Co 2009] p 1192, Section [19.1195], citing Brown v United States of America 256 US 335 (1920) (at 343)

This compilation leads me to think that the single attacker theory is mostly believable when the attacker is a professional assassin. Trained killers know how to approach a victim, and use a knife to inflict fatal wounds and exit the scene before major amounts of blood flow onto the floor. They also how to leave a clean crime-scene, free of clues. A single killer could have killed Meredith, but only if the facts were other than they happened in this case.

In spite of significant and semi-successful efforts to clean up the crime scene, they left behind a sloppy crime scene.

But who knows? Less free spirit, more criminal experience, they might have gotten away with it. They were a basketball player and two flakes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

fine wrote:
stilicho wrote:

*

*

*

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.


_____________________________
Toxicologist Maurizio Taglialaveta testified for the defense on cannabis-induced memory loss, in July 2009. Link: Trial Testimony, Nick Pisa

///


That's what I wanted to see. I will have to search Maurizio Taglialaveta to find out more about this testimony. The reason I ask is that Amanda said this:

Knox: I couldn't even explain to myself why I had these images in my head, because I didn't know if they were memories or not. And I want to say that if I made these declarations, that they asked me to sign and everything, I did it, but I wanted in the memorial to explain my doubts, that I wasn't sure about it, because no one ever wanted to listen when I said this.

PM: At that time did you ever have lapses of memory? Moments where you couldn't remember things that you had done?

Knox: [Laughing] I've had that problem all my life, I can't remember where I put my keys.

PM: So you previously mixed up things, didn't know whether you had dreamed things or they were real?

Knox: No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine things.


These "imaginings" happened in the Questura. Knox distinguishes between "imaginings" and simple forgetfulness. Did the expert do that too?

I do stand corrected but now I want to know more about that expert's testimony.

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

EDIT: Just did a search and yours was the first mention of that name on this site, fine. No wonder I'd never seen it before!!
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
but now I want to know more about that expert's testimony.


I'll see what I can find.

The English-language reports all seem to use the same phrasing:
In an nutshell, he testified that marijuana does not cause aggression, and has short-term memory effects.

The similarity of the phrasing across multiple sources is a hint that the press had been "tipped off" (and maybe even given what we used to call a "handout", i.e., a nod and a wink ;) ).
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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:13 am   Post subject: Old Times   

“Perugia: A Student in the City of Chic” by Helena Smith, 1999

[ Rough Guides ]


A sense of timelessness, before the darkness.
Shows what could have been.


Makes the contrast with the "shrug" in Pisa's report all the sadder.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: The bra-clasp beneath   

Catnip wrote:
The other day, when I was looking for matters dealing with Comodi and appeals, I came across something a blogger wrote back in May 2009 about Patrizia Stefanoni’s testimony on the witness stand, about the bra-clasp:


doc1a wrote:

After having responded to questions from public prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi, the expert witness was then interrogated by the young Pugliese’s defenders [=Sollecito’s defence, Bongiorno] who had asked her to reconstruct the steps in the discovery of the bra-clasp. Stefanoni said that it had come to be identified on the night of 2 and 3 November in the room where Kercher had been killed, covered by the pillow which had been placed under the body. It was therefore collected on the 18 December at a distance of a metre or a metre and a half [from the body], close to a desk and under a mat on which “traces, presumably haematic” would be found.

– [ Blog Entry ] Notizie in Rete ("News on the Net") 23 May 2009



This sequence of the layering is troubling in a logical sense:

{ floor : bra-clasp : pillow : victim’s body }

I need to puzzle it out.



We know from evidence that the bra was on at the time the throat was slashed and there was some time before the body was then moved. Deciding to go for the rape/sexual assault motive of the yet unknown/undiscovered assailant...

Cutting the clasp was the big 'mistake', but it appears rather than to remove the bra normally, and risk getting more blood on themselves the bra was forcibly removed, cutting the clasp off and tearing a strap. In the shuffle and staging the clasp was left under the pillow only to be discovered when initially examining the scene and not 'bagged till later but included in the 'moving things aside'? to examine the spot where the body lay? More emphasis on the analysis of the floor and footprints than the personal articles around the body?

What was your thinking on this, catnip?
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -   

Could I just re-iterate a point I made when the 'fighting back' debate first came up some months ago? Just to say that sometimes when people are attacked they are so paralysed with fear that they are unable to fight back. This is no reflection on them, it is a psychological involuntary reaction. Some people - in a rape situation for example - may take this passivity as the person 'not objecting' thus making them in some way 'responsible' for the attack. 'She didn't fight or make a sound, so I didn't know it wasn't wanted etc etc" where in fact they knew damn well. Absence of traumatic injury can be a problem in prosecuting rape in this instance and the victim herself can feel massive guilt for not doing more, and shame about the lack of evidence that they fought.

I just wanted to make the point that whether Meredith fought back or not is no reflection on her in any way whatsoever. I'd understand if she had fought, but equally understand if, in the face of a sustained and vicious assault she left her body altogether. She was an innocent victim of a terrifying attack. We cannot begin to imagine the terror she must have felt. Three against one? What chance did she have, poor girl...?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:59 am   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD!   

picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: I am now locking this thread. Please continue the debate in the new main discussion thread: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -. Thank You

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 15 of 15 [ 3561 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,448,278 Views