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


Last visit was: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:51 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:51 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 - AUGUST 19, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message

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 9:51 am   Post subject: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 - AUGUST 19, 10   

XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 22 - AUGUST 19, 2010






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

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XVII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JUNE 19 - JULY 22, 10

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I would just like to re-post this if that's ok with everyone. It is something I feel quite strongly about, and had only just posted when the thread locked.


"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 The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

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


Katody and Rose Montague are like brainwashed members of a cult who accost you in the street and try to convert you. They stick closely to a script and it's impossible to have a genuine debate with them. They've both steadfastly refused to even acknowledge my questions, let alone answer them.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I see zero difference between Katody and Rose Montag and do not plan to waste the same amount of time already expended on Rose.


Katody and Rose Montague are like brainwashed members of a cult who accost you in the street and try to convert you. They stick closely to a script and it's impossible to have a genuine debate with them. They've both steadfastly refused to even acknowledge my questions, let alone answer them.



...and the constant claim that they don't speak English properly (not Rose though, I know). So boring, really no creative spark, as Catnip stated.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Bard:
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...

Catnip:
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...

Attachment:
squirrel alert.jpg


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yay for piktor!!! Squirrel alert indeed. Poor Mungo was all aquiver at the mention of a squirrel alert. I had to 'talk him down', and provide an extra lettuce leaf for him to hide under...He is demanding his 'right to freedom from oppression' now, and has requested a 'bunker' of some type. We have wearily agreed.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Danceme wrote:
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.


Thank you Danceme, sorry for overlooking your post in the general frenzy.
It's nice to have someone else seeing the Nike Outbreak as the source of the contested print. So maybe it's not my eyes playing tricks to me :)

Quote:
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?


I think it would be circumstantial. Yet there are no other (that I know) physical evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of murder. So I guess it played it's role in shaping jury's minds.

I too acknowledge that Rudy's shoes were not retrieved. What we know is only the brand/model and size. But I think it would be too much of a coincidence if there was someone else in that shoes in the murder room.

Quote:
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.

I agree. Yet it is quite often used on the internet as a proof of Amanda's presence in the murder room:
"Amanda Knox left a bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body."


Danceme wrote:
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????

Yes, I see it a lot. I personally don't believe that the false conviction was a result of conspiracy. But I think crying over a simple superposition if images "doctored" is a bit of an overstretch...

Quote:
How do you feel about Bruce's analysis detailing (with video) how Rudy locked Meredith's door without turning around to face it?

I can't say I paid much attention to it :) but I personally don't think it would be impossible for Rudy to lock the door behind him. I'm not sure there are enough data to discuss it. (For example precise positions of footprints)

Quote:
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?

Yes, that's what I believe to be the best and fairly easy way to get to the window.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Danceme wrote: 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?

Katody wrote: I think it would be circumstantial. Yet there are no other (that I know) physical evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of murder. So I guess it played it's role in shaping jury's minds.


Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?

Quote:
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.

Katody wrote: I agree. Yet it is quite often used on the internet as a proof of Amanda's presence in the murder room:
"Amanda Knox left a bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body."


The references cited under Google appear to be composed mainly of blog posts and comments. Are there court transcripts or forensic documents that attribute the footprint specifically to Amanda?

Quote:
Danceme wrote: 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?

Katody wrote: Yes, that's what I believe to be the best and fairly easy way to get to the window.


That theory doesn't appear likely to me. Can you explain why you think that is the best and fairly easy way to get to the window and how it would be done?
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Considering the documentary in question has the Marriott/FOA stamp of approval, the use of the offending phrase isn't a big surprise. I can't help but wonder, since this is a favorite of the PR firm and Free Knox groups if this isn't going to come into play in the final appeal. In the ever present attempts made to replace the true victim with poor Amanda, I would not be at all shocked to find the final appeal goes something like this:

We get a partial confession, in that, Amanda and Raffaele come clean (with Amanda doing all the talking) about how it was all an accident, see, the victim had this desire and well, we were kinda stoned and thought we would help her out. She struggled at the wrong time and then we were worried we'd get in trouble because she was dead and couldn't tell everybody what really happened. It was just an accident (really her fault)

Who keeps planting that seed? The prosecution or the defense/pr firm/FOA? What is their reason to do so? Who does it benefit?
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:


quote from Corrina, just as a point of reference

Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy's reindeer games.

end quote

You're just so darn cute. Really, my favorite Knox apologist. She's obviously had folks like you in her corner all her life. Good on ya...
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

christiana wrote:
Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?


I've already pointed out to Katody that the bloody shoeprint on the pillow had no bearing on the verdict. Katody is using it as a red herring, so she doesn't have to answer any of the questions she has been repeatedly asked.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
It's nice to have someone else seeing the Nike Outbreak as the source of the contested print. So maybe it's not my eyes playing tricks to me...there are no other (that I know) physical evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of murder...it would be too much of a coincidence if there was someone else in that shoes in the murder room.


But didn't Raffaelle also have Nike Outbreak shoes? You have much more work to do before you can reach any conclusions based upon the "evidence" in question here.

And along your line of thinking, it does seem to corroborate Amanda's confession that she was, in fact, not in the "murder room" but in the kitchen with her hands over her ears when Meredith screamed. Are you suggesting that is how it played out?

And I'm still not sure where you are going with this. Are you on the verge of proposing a new theory of how things played out when the murder was committed? Remember that there is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that anyone climbed that wall or crawled through Filomena's window - from the planter beside the porch with an outswinging shutter in the way or from the ground and everyone in court seemed to acknowledge that more than one person was involved in the murder.

What is your next move in logic, then? It does seems that you are on the verge of arguing that everything comes down to incompetence and corruption on the part of the ILE, perhaps as a convenient tool to simply dismiss any problematic evidence for your theory. If so then I've got it, but if not please do propose a theory for us - let us know how you would win this case in court.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
windfall wrote:


quote from Corrina, just as a point of reference

Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy's reindeer games.

end quote

You're just so darn cute. Really, my favorite Knox apologist. She's obviously had folks like you in her corner all her life. Good on ya...


Corrina, it was not an attempt to be cute, and it was not an attack on you. It was a staightforward example of the way the term "game" is current in the discourse. Once again, it's not to justify it, it is to identify the fact that it is in use. I think that many would argue a scenario that, for the perpetrators, what they did to Meredith was a sick game. Or call it hazing, or whatever.

I don't think it's enough to dismiss the media representation, or give up on it as a lost cause, as Michael seemed to imply with his post about many having "lost faith". The fact is that 9 out of 10 people learn about the crime via newspapers, TV reports, and on-line news services. Few have the time, commitment or resourcefulness to seek out the deeper truth in places like TJMK and PMF. So it's important to understand how those media are working... or not.

If it's comfortable for you to label me as a Knox apologist, so be it. If you want to engage with me in a meaningful debate, that would be welcome.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

christiana wrote:
Quote:
Danceme wrote: 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?

Katody wrote: I think it would be circumstantial. Yet there are no other (that I know) physical evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of murder. So I guess it played it's role in shaping jury's minds.


Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?

Quote:
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.

Katody wrote: I agree. Yet it is quite often used on the internet as a proof of Amanda's presence in the murder room:
"Amanda Knox left a bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body."


The references cited under Google appear to be composed mainly of blog posts and comments. Are there court transcripts or forensic documents that attribute the footprint specifically to Amanda?

Quote:
Danceme wrote: 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?

Katody wrote: Yes, that's what I believe to be the best and fairly easy way to get to the window.


That theory doesn't appear likely to me. Can you explain why you think that is the best and fairly easy way to get to the window and how it would be done?



Excuse me folks, but Katody is full of shit, like all of the apoligists out there. Since joining the board on Saturday, Katody, like Rose before, has done nothing but post here. And when not doing that, Katody is reading the board 24/7. It is unfair to our longtime posters and readers to subject them to yet another assault of innocentisti bullshit. Katody has made 50 posts since Saturday!!!!

So here's what I have decided: for now, Katody can continue to read the board religiously, round the clock. But Katody needs to take a giant step back. No more than 2 posts a day, and no more than 100 words a post (to prevent the posting of two novel length posts). Katody can also opt to find another obsession and leave us entirely. Nobody would be deprived of anything worthwhile.

_________________
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 2:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
It's nice to have someone else seeing the Nike Outbreak as the source of the contested print. So maybe it's not my eyes playing tricks to me...there are no other (that I know) physical evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of murder...it would be too much of a coincidence if there was someone else in that shoes in the murder room.


But didn't Raffaelle also have Nike Outbreak shoes? You have much more work to do before you can reach any conclusions based upon the "evidence" in question here.

And along your line of thinking, it does seem to corroborate Amanda's confession that she was, in fact, not in the "murder room" but in the kitchen with her hands over her ears when Meredith screamed. Are you suggesting that is how it played out?

And I'm still not sure where you are going with this. Are you on the verge of proposing a new theory of how things played out when the murder was committed? Remember that there is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that anyone climbed that wall or crawled through Filomena's window - from the planter beside the porch with an outswinging shutter in the way or from the ground and everyone in court seemed to acknowledge that more than one person was involved in the murder.

What is your next move in logic, then? It does seems that you are on the verge of arguing that everything comes down to incompetence and corruption on the part of the ILE, perhaps as a convenient tool to simply dismiss any problematic evidence for your theory. If so then I've got it, but if not please do propose a theory for us - let us know how you would win this case in court.


Note to Katody: Just so you know, you are not free to ignore my posts to you about your posts. I am the co-moderator and co-administrator here.
Thanks.

SB

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Katody wrote:
It's nice to have someone else seeing the Nike Outbreak as the source of the contested print. So maybe it's not my eyes playing tricks to me...there are no other (that I know) physical evidence of Amanda in the room at the time of murder...it would be too much of a coincidence if there was someone else in that shoes in the murder room.


But didn't Raffaelle also have Nike Outbreak shoes? You have much more work to do before you can reach any conclusions based upon the "evidence" in question here.

And along your line of thinking, it does seem to corroborate Amanda's confession that she was, in fact, not in the "murder room" but in the kitchen with her hands over her ears when Meredith screamed. Are you suggesting that is how it played out?

And I'm still not sure where you are going with this. Are you on the verge of proposing a new theory of how things played out when the murder was committed? Remember that there is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that anyone climbed that wall or crawled through Filomena's window - from the planter beside the porch with an outswinging shutter in the way or from the ground and everyone in court seemed to acknowledge that more than one person was involved in the murder.

What is your next move in logic, then? It does seems that you are on the verge of arguing that everything comes down to incompetence and corruption on the part of the ILE, perhaps as a convenient tool to simply dismiss any problematic evidence for your theory. If so then I've got it, but if not please do propose a theory for us - let us know how you would win this case in court.


Note to Katody: Just so you know, you are not free to ignore my posts to you about your posts. I am the co-moderator and co-administrator here.
Thanks.

SB


Looks like firm guilter “Mike” the tigers er.um..“Handler” (for want of a better word) is back. hbc)
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 3:49 pm   Post subject: Not quite novel length (but getting close...)   

Looking at the centre of the maesltrom is not easy.

Skipping this post could be recommended - it deals with intentions in a conjectural way; I'm not sure it adds any value overmuch (if at all); just moving the pieces around a bit.
And it's exhausting.


Back on XVII.15:
I wrote:
This sequence of the layering is troubling in a logical sense:
{ floor : bra-clasp : pillow : victim’s body }
I need to puzzle it out.



h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What was your thinking on this, catnip?



I’m thinking that continual lying and don’t remembers is probably the only sane and rational choice of action. Hope I’m wrong.


The difficulty I’m having is slotting the pieces into sequence in such a way as to not make it worse.


Let me step through the narrative and see if we can poke holes in it. My instinct is that I don’t want it to be true.

I’m recalling this from memory, so hopefully I have got something wrong somewhere.

(a)
Let’s start with the scream. At the moment, I place the scream with the thought that can be described as (to borrow a phrase by BobTheDnky’s), the “once she realized that she was in trouble,…” realisation.

Mrs Nara described the woman’s scream as blood-curdling, so much so that it affected her: she looked and listened, she couldn’t get back to sleep easily; later, when she found out the news, she connected the scream to the murder.

It would be natural to posit that the scream was the victim’s (or, alternatively, perhaps the attacker’s?). The timings should line up. It’s possible that the scream was, coincidentally, someone else not connected to the crime (e.g., a druggie in the car-park getting done on a deal). Mrs N is used to the caterwauling the car-park druggies get up to, so presumably she knows what they sound like.

(b)
The sound a few minutes later of someone running up the car-park steel stairs may be one of the perpetrators (e.g., Rudy, to give weight to his story); or, it may be a totally innocent by-stander (druggie in the car-park, say) who thought “*&*#@! I’d better get out of here quick smart!” and he vamoosed. Note that: if it was a by-stander who did the running, he (or maybe she, but unlikely I expect) came to the same conclusion as Mrs N – that something serious was going down.

(c)
There was also the sound of footsteps crunching the gravel and dried leaves of autumn on the cottage driveway. This ties in with Rudy’s account of saying that, after looking out Filomena’s window, he saw Amanda’s silhouette at the end of the driveway. Maybe it was Amanda; maybe it was someone else (a druggie searching for his stash, say). Maybe Rudy looked out Amanda’s window instead. Maybe Rudy made it up (he lied before, e.g., saying he was at school when he wasn’t). – As an aside, I think I remember Mrs N saying, in a newspaper report interview, I think, how annoyingly noisy the cottage driveway gate opening and closing usually was (the hinges weren’t oiled, presumably – which is consistent with other things, like the front door lock, and the light bulb not working, and a washing machine): I don’t remember if she specifically said she didn’t hear the gate being opened that night, but I remember having the impression that in court she spoke just about the footsteps on the gravel, and not the sound of the gate; I will have to research this point.

(d)
If the scream was the victim’s, then the strangulation attempt put a stop to any further screams. The hyoid bone was broken. It is fragile. It anchors the muscles and tendons that make the voice box work. It breaks easily during strangulation. (When the dead wife’s hyoid bone is found to be broken, the husband starts to be questioned more intensely.)

(e)
From the hunting-pack instinct viewpoint, I place the neck stab-wounds after the strangulation: what’s the point of strangling someone when they have already been stabbed in the neck a couple of times? The Court reasons examine the implication of the knife wounds – who was standing where in relation to the victim, how they were made, the defence arguments, etc – over many pages (I won’t step through their reasoning here), but they arrive at the same sequence by a different route: strangulation first, then neck wounds.

(f)
The suffocation attempt is still free-floating in the sequence of events in this step-through. It may have happened before the scream. It may have happened after. If before, it is consistent with preparing the victim (rolling up the top) for whatever was intended. If after, then the rolling up of the top would not have gone unresisted – perhaps what Rudy calls “the argument” (about money, he says), or the “We need to talk” remark (Meredith to Amanda, he says), or the “Quella troia drogata!” comment (Meredith about Amanda, he says).

(g)
Somewhere along the way, Rudy left a bloodied hand print on a pillow. That must have been after the stabbing. And he touched the outside of the purse. Why purse and pillow? His stories go to great lengths to explain these two actions in what could be called an innocent way (he moved the purse out of the way to get the pillow, he says; the pillow was on top of the doona (bed-cover); and the pillow was to help Meredith). He also says that when he ran away, Meredith was dressed and in a different location in the room to where she was later found. Rudy’s expenditure of a lot of explanatory energy on these (pillow, purse, dressed, position) means these things hold a great deal of significance to him (and for him). The towels as well, for his “I helped her” story.

(h)
If the person running up the iron stairs of the car park was Rudy, then that helps his assistance story, and he was off the scene within minutes, if not sooner. If the running person on the stairs was not Rudy, but someone else (like that bystander), then Rudy has more time available at the murder scene. More time interacting with what is there, the pillow, the purse, the towels, perhaps the other two.

(i)
Rudy had stepped on a piece of broken glass while leaving his shoeprint. If the glass was from Filomena’s window, then it should have characteristics consistent with the window glass (e.g., thickness). If the glass was from something else (Barbie conjectures it was broken bottles), then Amanda’s lamp in Meredith’s room starts to attract an explanation and a purpose, in turn creating a reason for how Amanda’s bleeding might have occurred. But Filomena’s broken window was afterwards, part of the staging, so how did Rudy step on a piece of it if he had run away earlier?


(j)
The bra was removed after the stabbing (with a cut, so presumably by Mr Knife-guy, because who was doing the restraining during the stabbing? Perhaps Mr Restrainer-guy picked up a knife after restraint was no longer required.) – As an aside, if I lift someone up by the bra-straps, would that bend the hooks? – Anyway, the bra was cut and bra-clasp fell to the floor, obviously un-noticed.

(k)
The pillow was placed on top of the bra-clasp. Now this is the tricky bit, where Rudy’s story saves him, or it breaks all three participants. (Why three? That’s for another post.)

The pillow under Meredith had Rudy’s hand-print on it (Was there only one pillow under Meredith? My memory is hazy here.) Rudy had picked it up. Who put it down where it was found? If it was Rudy, then he was probably there a bit longer than just a few minutes. Why would he put the pillow down in that spot? If he was told to, that is one scenario. Why touch pillow and purse, in any case? If someone other than Rudy positioned the pillow, then another scenario, and staging to blame somebody, was already under way. If the pillow shows evidence of being in different positions, and a great enough stretch of time separates first contact from final positioning, then that is in Rudy’s favour. Forensics may help here. (Helping Rudy’s story disfavours the position of the other two, though – one of those ironies: same forensics, two different implications in terms of outcome)


(l) Why was restrainer-guy doing the restraining? Spontaneous decision-making and optimum task-splitting within a group? Or someone giving the orders, coordinating things. (Oddly enough, I can easily imagine Rudy being a follower; but that does not influence this step-through.) Would the restrainer be the one without their own knife, whether or not someone else was giving orders?


(m)
The realisation that something serious was about to happen was right up front, with the scream, before any strangulation or stabbing. And there are hints of coordinated activity. If the post-scream actions were a reaction (over-reaction, even) to the scream, then that is one scenario, and we are left with searching for some explanation for the lowered or lessened inhibitions that usually prevent us from harming others (the “one spliff or bottle too many”, or grudge-hazing, or argument-got-out-of-hand, or suchlike, scenarios), and also how and why the trio dynamics functioned, and even why they continue to lie about that night when admitting the truth would get them mitigation of different sorts.


If the strangulation and stabbing were not a spontaneous reaction, and the scream was a reaction to the realisation of what was coming, that is what I do not want to contemplate.


Knives, coordination, a pouncing on the victim, some sort of preparatory activity, restraint, possible broken glass, a scream – where this is leading is not a welcoming place – why do we instinctively want what happened afterwards to be accidental? The staging was certainly a slapdash affair, though.


What would rule out scenarios like these? –

  • two zombies have to feed their tame pet vampire (with real blood)
  • a lover’s “gift”: “You can have her as virgin sacrifice” (with real blood?)
  • some other high, like Operation Theatre Interactive, Level 1


I’m favouring the Halloween-themed film plot as the one I don’t want to be true (if that makes sense?), with maybe a cross-over into the Jungle-Sacrifice film plot.

It wasn’t Amanda or Raffaele or Rudy who killed Meredith – it was the blood loss.

The zombie-vampire scenario provides an explanation of: Rudy’s location and position, the position of things and people, the continual silence, the determination in making the cover-up a workable “front story”, Rudy’s changing stories and perhaps even the presence of the glass that broke. It works better with Rudy being deeper involved than he’s admitted so far (hence his “right to silence” statement when he came into court gets an explanation); so perhaps he ran away when he realised that he was going to be blamed and framed (handprint on the pillow, position of the pillow, the clothing, etc). He chose the fast-track trial route because he thought the other two were going to “gang-up” on him (for some objectively unspecified reason). If this is how it happened, then each side will know enough about the others to keep them in check.


That all sounds amateurishly theatrical.

Maybe it really was just a bunch of (seven-year-old mentality) youngsters with fried memories playing at something with knives, after all. But the thing is, why would blocking that version be such a priority to them?


I need to dwell on ordinary stories for a bit.
Nice SquirrelMoon Mungo, Piktor! :)
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody,
I am a new member here like you.
I apologise now to other members of this board in indulging you but your comment regarding no evidence of Amanda in the room is straight out of the FOA pocketbook.
What about Amandas bedside lamp being in the room where Meredith cruelly lost her life?
What was it doing there? Pray tell, please.
I saw once the FAO was claiming Meredith borrowed it so as to do her nails...do you think this also?
When you do your nails do you use your own lighting and then go and get (without their permission) someones bedside lamp (their only source of artificial light) from their room?
Since you have been following this case did you notice Amanda was questioned in court about this and she said that she didn't notice her bedside lamp missing and that she usually relied on natural light coming from the other side of the house? (balcony area).
Why do you think she was questioned about this?
Say for instance something terrible happened to a family member of yours and someones bike from down the road was found propped up against the wall outside, would you think that your family member had borrowed it?
You also dont need me to tell you about the double DNA knife AND Amandas DNA being found on Merediths bra clasp, along with her boyfriends of the time too.
Please do not insult my intelligence and that of my fellow members on here who are very knowledgeable about this case, as people who are knowledgeable can see people like you coming from a mile away.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Danceme wrote:

Quote:
How do you feel about Bruce's analysis detailing (with video) how Rudy locked Meredith's door without turning around to face it?

I can't say I paid much attention to it :) but I personally don't think it would be impossible for Rudy to lock the door behind him. I'm not sure there are enough data to discuss it. (For example precise positions of footprints)


I hope I'm not pissing off Skeptical Bystander or Michael by replying to Katody's post, but I'm just so tired of seeing all this nonsense about Rudy locking Meredith's door.

Of course it's not "impossible" for Rudy to have locked the door, but it sure as hell is irrational to suppose he did so. I can see no compelling reason for him to have done so, regardless of whether you hold to the "lone wolf" theory or the prosecution's. Rudy showed absolutely no concern that he left behind copious amounts of evidence of his presence at the scene, and yet we are supposed to believe he went to the trouble of locking the door behind him. Why would he do so? To prevent her from going for help? Meredith might conceivably have been already dead by the time he left the cottage, and even if she was still alive, she was very near death, unable to rise under her own power, or even scream for help. Plus, the phones were taken, making a door-locking even more superfluous. To delay the discovery of her body? Why? If he was alone, then the only thing tying him to the scene would have been the physical evidence he left behind, which as previously stated, he was not concerned about sufficiently to dispose of.

In my earlier lengthy post referencing crime scene staging, locking a door to the room containing the body was not listed. Perhaps this is because for criminologists, the subset of offenders so stupid as to do so is so small as to not be even worth analyzing?


Last edited by Fuji on Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Black Dog wrote:
can see people like you [=Katody] coming from a mile away.


Maybe more than a mile, in some cases, ey? :)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fuji wrote:
Katody wrote:
Danceme wrote:

Quote:
How do you feel about Bruce's analysis detailing (with video) how Rudy locked Meredith's door without turning around to face it?

I can't say I paid much attention to it :) but I personally don't think it would be impossible for Rudy to lock the door behind him. I'm not sure there are enough data to discuss it. (For example precise positions of footprints)


I hope I'm not pissing off Skeptical Bystander or Michael by replying to Katody's post, but I'm just so tired of seeing all this nonsense about Rudy locking Meredith's door.

Of course it's not "impossible" for Rudy to have locked the door, but it sure as hell is irrational to suppose he did so. I can see no compelling reason for him to have done so, regardless of whether you hold to the "lone wolf" theory or the prosecution's. Rudy showed absolutely no concern that he left behind copious amounts of evidence of his presence at the scene, and yet we are supposed to believe he went to the trouble of locking the door behind him. Why would he do so? To prevent her from going for help? Meredith might conceivably have been already dead by the time he left the cottage, and even if she was still alive, she was very near death, unable to rise under her own power, or even scream for help. Plus, the phones were taken, making a door-locking even more superfluous. To delay the discovery of her body? Why? If he was alone, then the only thing tying him to the scene would have been the physical evidence he left behind, which as previously stated, he was not concerned about sufficiently to dispose of.

In my earlier lengthy post referencing crime scene staging, locking a door to the room containing the body was not listed. Perhaps this is because for criminologists, the subset of offenders so stupid as to do so is so small as to not be even be worth analyzing?



No problem insofar as replying to the nonsense, as it helps to clarify things after all. I got rid of Bruce Fisher for a good reason, and see no reason to have him constantly reappear through his ditzy acolytes, that's all.

I have just spent the past week in a European city, staying in a friend's apartment. I was not able to easily lock the front door or any of the inside doors (the apartment used to be a series of "chambres de bonne" and hence has tons of locking doors inside) without turning around and concentrating on what I was doing. I actually had to put my purse on the floor to properly lock the front door. And lest anyone think I am a moron, I noticed that my hosts, who live in the apartment, pretty much do the same thing.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fuji wrote:
Of course it's not "impossible" for Rudy to have locked the door, but it sure as hell is irrational to suppose he did so.


Rudy Guede couldn't have possibly locked the door. He fled the cottage almost immediately after Meredith had been stabbed. Knox and Sollecito followed him a short time later.

Knox and/or Sollecito went into Filomena's room and then went back into Meredith's room after she had been killed. They locked Meredith's door and took her mobile phones.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 4:11 pm   Post subject: Sayagh's essay   

Benjamin Sayagh (his site) over at George Washington University


"ARRESTED ABROAD: ITALIAN PRECAUTIONARY DETENTION THROUGH THE EYES OF AMANDA KNOX"

Quote:
First, I argue that Amanda Knox was improperly held in Italian prisons during the investigations leading to her conviction of murder and sexual assault. Based on the letter of the laws themselves, there was insufficient evidence to imprison Knox while police investigated the crime. Second, and most importantly, I argue that her case is one of a pattern used by Italian authorities...


The paper is unpublished (which is a technical term in academic circles). Think of it as a blog post (or the beginning of his publications list).

GWU is good at international law, though. So maybe worth a read (or not).
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Interesting... comments are being removed... I don't get the point of these youtube videos...

just light weight and inaccurate... who are they trying to convince? I think this is done by the people who are being paid to blog on the internet... justify the PR fees?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-8o33oZxrU
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fuji wrote:
Perhaps this is because for criminologists, the subset of offenders so stupid as to do so is so small as to not be even be worth analyzing?


Agree, Fuji, that is precisely what the visiting "pot stirring trolls" thrive on here.

Throw out some teeny tiny worthless tidbit from the years of investigations.

Use whatever deemed necessary (accuracy be damned) to provoke discussion.
1) photo-shopped, distorted illustrations
2) quotes from such reputable sources as Cousin Brucie

Conclude from your personal "research" that the entire Police Force, entire Country, and by inference, probably the entire world is wrong.

Never but never be distracted by serious pertinent concise questions directed to you about validity of your "research"

Hey, it has to be working.
Their similarly named sad sick sycophants from JREF tell them what a great job they are doing here disrupting serious dialogue and mimicking the methods that make JREF such an abortion
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

Catnip wrote:
Benjamin Sayagh (his site) over at George Washington University


"ARRESTED ABROAD: ITALIAN PRECAUTIONARY DETENTION THROUGH THE EYES OF AMANDA KNOX"

Quote:
First, I argue that Amanda Knox was improperly held in Italian prisons during the investigations leading to her conviction of murder and sexual assault. Based on the letter of the laws themselves, there was insufficient evidence to imprison Knox while police investigated the crime. Second, and most importantly, I argue that her case is one of a pattern used by Italian authorities...


The paper is unpublished (which is a technical term in academic circles). Think of it as a blog post (or the beginning of his publications list).

GWU is good at international law, though. So maybe worth a read (or not).


It's not worth reading. The author relies heavily on the articles of Judy Bachrach and Marta Falconi. He should have used the judges' sentencing report instead.

Here's his conclusion:

"Conclusion

Italian precautionary detention was enacted to be used sparingly as an emergency tool for law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks or mafia interference. It is clear from Amanda Knox’s case that the very terms of the law are not followed judiciously. In Amanda’s case, there was little evidence to justify a finding of “grave indications” of Amanda’s guilt. There was no clear motive for Amanda to kill her roommate, no history of violence, and no forensic evidence to place her at the crime scene. There was even less evidence that she presented the pre-requisite “grave” danger to the public, nor anything to suggest that any danger she might present cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means. Italian law-enforcement similarly had other options available to them to reduce any risk of flight.

It appears that precautionary detention has deviated significantly from its original purpose in many other cases as well. Its terms are applied loosely and prosecutors and judges enjoy too much discretion in its interpretation. Unfortunately for Amanda, she is the best example for how that discretion can be abused and that Italian investigators can detain persons who were never intended to be affected by these laws.

As they are applied, Italian precautionary detention laws are also in violation of the European Convention Article 5. The terms of Amanda’s arrest are beyond the European Convention’s reasonable standard for detention when investigating an individual’s possible involvement in a crime. Nor is there any margin of appreciation available to Italy to justify their application of precautionary detention laws. For these reasons, Amanda has a cause of action against Italy for violating her human rights. It would appear that many similarly situated prisoners would also have a strong case for relief with the European Court.

Ultimately, it is incumbent upon Italy to either reform the language of precautionary detention laws to limit the instances in which precautionary detention may be used, or find a way to restrain the discretion of those who enforce these laws."


Last edited by The Machine on Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

Catnip wrote:
Benjamin Sayagh (his site) over at George Washington University


"ARRESTED ABROAD: ITALIAN PRECAUTIONARY DETENTION THROUGH THE EYES OF AMANDA KNOX"

Quote:
First, I argue that Amanda Knox was improperly held in Italian prisons during the investigations leading to her conviction of murder and sexual assault. Based on the letter of the laws themselves, there was insufficient evidence to imprison Knox while police investigated the crime. Second, and most importantly, I argue that her case is one of a pattern used by Italian authorities...


The paper is unpublished (which is a technical term in academic circles). Think of it as a blog post (or the beginning of his publications list).

GWU is good at international law, though. So maybe worth a read (or not).


Thanks for this, Catnip. Never mind the quality, just see the number of footnotes! Impressive wingspan, as Mr Potato Head said to Buzz.

I skimmed the intro and conclusion, and I sense the FOA are going to love this, sad to say. I don't know about the meat of the article, but the work on the context suggests a very selective reading of source material.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Fuji wrote:
Of course it's not "impossible" for Rudy to have locked the door, but it sure as hell is irrational to suppose he did so.


Rudy Guede couldn't have possibly locked the door. He fled the cottage almost immediately after Meredith had been stabbed. Knox and Sollecito followed him a short time later.

Knox and/or Sollecito went into Filomena's room and then went back into Meredith's room after she had been killed. They locked Meredith's door and took her mobile phones.


I understand that, The Machine, and I don't dispute that. I was merely trying to put myself in a FOAKer's shoes for a moment. Even if you hand-wave away all the forensic minutiae of the case, there are still insurmountable problems with a defense narrative that pins its hopes on actors not only acting irrationally, but directly against their own interests.

As I said in my second post here, I'm much more of a "big picture" kind of amateur analyst. And the big picture makes absolutely no sense to me if Rudy locking Meredith's door is part of it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

windfall wrote:
Thanks for this, Catnip. Never mind the quality, just see the number of footnotes! Impressive wingspan, as Mr Potato Head said to Buzz.


The paper is absolutely riddled with factual errors:

1. "On November 6, 2007, Amanda was called into the police station for questioning because she and her boyfriend (“Sollecito”), exhibited odd behavior."

2. "The next morning, after lengthy and sometimes abusive interrogations, Italian police arrested Amanda, Sollecito and a third man, Patrick Diya Lamumba (“Lamumba”), whom Amanda had accused of being involved in the murder..."

3. "Initial forensics suggested that Meredith was killed by more than one assailant and had sex the night in question, but because there were doubts as to whether there had been forcible intercourse, Italian police initially speculated that Meredith may have been involved in a consensual sexual tryst gone haywire."

4. "Speculation of a wild orgy, the brutality of the murder (investigators stated that Meredith’s body was found surrounded by un lago di sangue – a lake of blood) occurring in an otherwise crime-free Italian college town, along with Meredith’s profile, captured the Italian press43 and British tabloids..."

5. "Amanda’s odd and seemingly callous behavior led Perugia’s public prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini (“Mignini”) to suspect that she and Sollecito knew more about the events than they had told the police."

6. "Mignini has a history of sensational investigations and the use of questionable tactics."

7. "In response, Mignini harassed both Spezi and Preston – tapping their phones, placing them under suspicion for the murders themselves, searching their homes, and charging them with secret crimes that remained under seal."

8. "On November 4, Mignini summoned Amanda and Sollecito to the police station for questioning about Meredith’s murder."

9. "The questioning lasted up to six hours at a time and fourteen hours total, without the presence of an attorney or interpreter."

10. "The information obtained from those interrogations would later be excluded from evidence by an Italian court of appeal for obvious procedural irregularities."

11. "Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were found all over Meredith’s body."

12. "According to Amanda’s attorneys and in some reports, even the Italian police, Meredith’s wounds were not consistent with this knife’s blade, although it was heavily-touted by prosecutors."

13. "The amount of DNA found on the knife could also be consistent with any utensil shared by both girls.84 Amanda, however, cannot explain how the knife itself got to Sollecito’s apartment."

14. "There was no forensic evidence to link Amanda to the crime-scene."

15. "she had no prior history of violent criminal behavior."

16. "Despite the lack of evidence, Amanda became a suspect to the prosecutor Mignini because of her seemingly strange behavior."

17." The police believed that Meredith had consensual sex prior to the murder."

18. "Over the course of the investigation, it was the police that routinely misplaced crime-lab samples and made unfounded accusations against Amanda and others."

19. "Similarly, Amanda was deemed a flight risk simply because she is an American citizen."

20. "In Amanda’s case, there was little evidence to justify a finding of “grave indications” of Amanda’s guilt."

Benjamin Sayagh is an obnoxious turd who knows almost nothing about the case.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

The Machine wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Benjamin Sayagh (his site) over at George Washington University


"ARRESTED ABROAD: ITALIAN PRECAUTIONARY DETENTION THROUGH THE EYES OF AMANDA KNOX"

Quote:
First, I argue that Amanda Knox was improperly held in Italian prisons during the investigations leading to her conviction of murder and sexual assault. Based on the letter of the laws themselves, there was insufficient evidence to imprison Knox while police investigated the crime. Second, and most importantly, I argue that her case is one of a pattern used by Italian authorities...


The paper is unpublished (which is a technical term in academic circles). Think of it as a blog post (or the beginning of his publications list).

GWU is good at international law, though. So maybe worth a read (or not).


It's not worth reading. The author relies heavily on the articles of Judy Bachrach and Marta Falconi. He should have used the judges' sentencing report instead.


Strongly agree not worth read:

1) Author Sayagh lists *no* other articles, published on his site
2) Author Sayagh provides no elaboration on his "connection" to the well regarded GWU.
3) Author Sayagh *extremely excessive verbiage* is based apparently almost exclusively of the "facts" presented by the ever so reliable Ms Bachrach, according to his laborious footnoting

His conclusion (although similar to other way out of the mainstream bleeding heart associates "connected to Law Schools") is absurd.

Forget all his "lawyer wannabee" round a bout reasoning, just consider:

At the scene of a murder, Police find 2 "persons of interest".
In reply to that ever so difficult question "Where were you when murder occurred", each person provide at least *three* differing versions.
One of versions from each destroys the alibi of the other
One person self describes his first version as "rubbish" he offered just to please other person
One person bald faced lies verbally and in writing to accuse innocent individual
One person tells police she was at scene and reveals details only possible if in fact she was there

Now, Mr Sayagh, run that by me again how *your* interpretation of Italian Law says there was insufficient cause.

While doing, please reveal your qualifications (if any) since your website as well as anywhere else on internet show *none* by my search
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT

Ah holiday. Relaxed. Ready to enter the fray as soon as I know what the fray is.

But did no-one have a mispent youth in the late 70's and 80's???

wh-)


Attachment:
Capture.JPG


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

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
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 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Danceme wrote:
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????

Yes, I see it a lot. I personally don't believe that the false conviction was a result of conspiracy. But I think crying over a simple superposition if images "doctored" is a bit of an overstretch...


It was me who indicated to you that misrepresenting a photograph as evidence of anything is dishonest. So address me directly instead of by the third person while answering someone else. I warned you at the outset that you were committing the slippery slope fallacy.

You continue with your dishonest approach. Unwilling to accept the court's judgement that the shoeprint was inconclusive, you've broadened that to include an assertion of "false conviction". Past that, you assert without any evidence that you believe someone entered the cottage through Filomena's window.

We have printed several versions of the features of a wrongful conviction before and you need to acquaint yourself with those. These are the "top four" on the list:

- poor representation
- prejudice against the accused
- DNA evidence used to exonerate the wrongfully convicted
- audit reports proving falsified or otherwise manipulated forensics

None of these are evident in the case against Amanda and Raffaele. Each had highly paid experts testifying on their behalf. They are not visible minorities. DNA evidence and other investigative work exonerated Patrick, who was wrongfully accused of sexual assault and murder by Knox. There have been to date no findings indicating improper methods in the investigation; the equivalent of the police union recognised the stellar work of investigators both in Perugia and in Rome.

You are not allowed to direct the discussion. You are required to answer the questions posed to you.
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 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

The Machine wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Benjamin Sayagh (his site) over at George Washington University


"ARRESTED ABROAD: ITALIAN PRECAUTIONARY DETENTION THROUGH THE EYES OF AMANDA KNOX"

Quote:
First, I argue that Amanda Knox was improperly held in Italian prisons during the investigations leading to her conviction of murder and sexual assault. Based on the letter of the laws themselves, there was insufficient evidence to imprison Knox while police investigated the crime. Second, and most importantly, I argue that her case is one of a pattern used by Italian authorities...


The paper is unpublished (which is a technical term in academic circles). Think of it as a blog post (or the beginning of his publications list).

GWU is good at international law, though. So maybe worth a read (or not).


It's not worth reading. The author relies heavily on the articles of Judy Bachrach and Marta Falconi. He should have used the judges' sentencing report instead.

Here's his conclusion:

"Conclusion

Italian precautionary detention was enacted to be used sparingly as an emergency tool for law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks or mafia interference.

...

As they are applied, Italian precautionary detention laws are also in violation of the European Convention Article 5. The terms of Amanda’s arrest are beyond the European Convention’s reasonable standard for detention when investigating an individual’s possible involvement in a crime.


His arguments are worth reading. I am quite certain both Knox and Sollecito would have been kept in prison without bail in Canada due to the violent sexual nature of the attacks, their distractions and lies revealed during the investigation, and the very high risk of flight for each of them.

Regardless, they were caught in Italy and if their laws are stricter then so be it. Any US lawyers care to comment? Would they have set bail and established restrictions on her movement?

I fully concur with each of you that this is not a scholarly paper.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

But stilicho, it's risking dishonesty to go the other way, too, and exclude all the documents that you don't like because they emanate from the defence, on the grounds that they might possibly have been doctored, although they show no sign of such.

Vinci's powerpoint presentation is clear and complete. It shows no sign of having been doctored, nor do the pictures it contains, and if it had, I believe that fact would have been raised in the judges' report. It makes the claim that there are 5, not 2 shoeprints on the pillow (visible by using something called "crimescope") and that all 5 are due to the size 46 Nike Outbreak shoe, same make, model and size as those that Rudy is known to have been wearing. The argument and diagrams appear convincing. I think it is too easy to say that we on this board should dismiss or ignore such information.

I personally believe that Vinci is right, that all pillow prints are Rudy's, that the two edge-lines that seemed close enough together to warrant a guess at a size 37 shoe are actually two nearly parallel outer edge lines from a single shoe that changed position, that Amanda never possessed any Asics shoes (none were found) and that there is no woman's footprint on the pillow. Vinci's report is part of the reason I believe this, but the other part is that I believe that Amanda was barefoot on that evening.

The same remark concerns the appeal documents. I disagree strongly with Catnip's assessment that those documents are invalid because they are scans and therefore small pieces of information such as pencilled corrections and certain smudged section numbers render them unusable. To comprehend the gist of the grounds for appeal, those documents are perfectly valid.

Not wanting to know anything about those grounds before the appeal trial actually occurs is a valid point of view (though not mine). But not the same as claiming that these documents should not be considered.
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 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

The Machine wrote:
windfall wrote:
Thanks for this, Catnip. Never mind the quality, just see the number of footnotes! Impressive wingspan, as Mr Potato Head said to Buzz.


The paper is absolutely riddled with factual errors:


By the way, he writes this:

The court could easily have reduced the risk of actual flight by taking Amanda’s passport away from her, and perhaps asking for extradition assurances from the American embassy.

This is a strange argument. He allegedly argues for the modification of Italy's preventive detention laws but would approve of the authorities merely stripping her of her passport.
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 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Vinci's powerpoint presentation is clear and complete. It shows no sign of having been doctored, nor do the pictures it contains, and if it had, I believe that fact would have been raised in the judges' report. It makes the claim that there are 5, not 2 shoeprints on the pillow (visible by using something called "crimescope") and that all 5 are due to the size 46 Nike Outbreak shoe, same make, model and size as those that Rudy is known to have been wearing. The argument and diagrams appear convincing. I think it is too easy to say that we on this board should dismiss or ignore such information.


I prefer sourced information.

I did not use the term "doctored"; Katody did. I said that representations of photographs are inherently not trustworthy. Photographs without context are also unreliable.

Moreover, my original contention was that the aforementioned poster was not so much interested in the footprint, but in taking us all down a slippery slope. All subsequent posts have confirmed that original contention.

As for that particular print evidence, I have no problems with leaving its relevance and context up to the judges. They saw both presentations; I didn't. If it's inconclusive to them then it probably would have been inconclusive to me as well.
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 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
The same remark concerns the appeal documents. I disagree strongly with Catnip's assessment that those documents are invalid because they are scans and therefore small pieces of information such as pencilled corrections and certain smudged section numbers render them unusable. To comprehend the gist of the grounds for appeal, those documents are perfectly valid.

Not wanting to know anything about those grounds before the appeal trial actually occurs is a valid point of view (though not mine). But not the same as claiming that these documents should not be considered.


This goes back to my original interest in the case. Before the media storm erupted after her conviction, I'd never heard of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox. Before a long-time JREF poster started a thread entitled 'Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel' I likely never would have posted a single thing about a remote and fairly garden variety murder case involving four young people (Meredith, the victim, and the other three, accused and now convicted).

Information was posted (including the thread title) that was demonstrably wrong. We dug a little and discovered not only that the information was false but also why it had been presented as true.

The altered photograph and the appeals documents may contain true information. We don't know. By that, I mean that you and I don't know but others who have assessed each of them do know. What we can ask, though, and what we should ask is questions such as:

Why is the altered photograph now becoming a cause célèbre? Why are the appeals documents being released and translated before the motivations report?

I am not so self-absorbed that I really think my personal opinion counts for that much. And yet I've been asked to offer my opinion. Why?

Both the photograph and the appeals documents are selected by agencies intended to form opinion and not to survey opinion. When I offer my opinion--that the documents may be incomplete, altered, or chosen to produce a desired result--the immediate response of vested posters such as Katody is that my position is unreasonable. And yet professionals on this board and at the JREF have supported my position as quite rational.

I have my own suspicions why the photograph has suddenly appeared and why the appeals are being touted as reasonable objections to the findings of the court. But we'll leave those suspicions to the advocates.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
But stilicho, it's risking dishonesty to go the other way, too, and exclude all the documents that you don't like because they emanate from the defence, on the grounds that they might possibly have been doctored, although they show no sign of such.


Barbie Nadeau just stopped short of directly accusing the defence of doctoring the photograph of Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat:

"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

thoughtful wrote:
Vinci's powerpoint presentation is clear and complete.


I wonder what Katody makes of Professor Vinci's claim that Amanda Knox's DNA was on Meredith's bra. I bet that Katody thinks Professor Vinci is wrong about this.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
The same remark concerns the appeal documents. I disagree strongly with Catnip's assessment that those documents are invalid because they are scans and therefore small pieces of information such as pencilled corrections and certain smudged section numbers render them unusable. To comprehend the gist of the grounds for appeal, those documents are perfectly valid.

Not wanting to know anything about those grounds before the appeal trial actually occurs is a valid point of view (though not mine). But not the same as claiming that these documents should not be considered.


This goes back to my original interest in the case. Before the media storm erupted after her conviction, I'd never heard of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox. Before a long-time JREF poster started a thread entitled 'Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel' I likely never would have posted a single thing about a remote and fairly garden variety murder case involving four young people (Meredith, the victim, and the other three, accused and now convicted).

Information was posted (including the thread title) that was demonstrably wrong. We dug a little and discovered not only that the information was false but also why it had been presented as true.

The altered photograph and the appeals documents may contain true information. We don't know. By that, I mean that you and I don't know but others who have assessed each of them do know. What we can ask, though, and what we should ask is questions such as:

Why is the altered photograph now becoming a cause célèbre? Why are the appeals documents being released and translated before the motivations report?
I am not so self-absorbed that I really think my personal opinion counts for that much. And yet I've been asked to offer my opinion. Why?

Both the photograph and the appeals documents are selected by agencies intended to form opinion and not to survey opinion. When I offer my opinion--that the documents may be incomplete, altered, or chosen to produce a desired result--the immediate response of vested posters such as Katody is that my position is unreasonable. And yet professionals on this board and at the JREF have supported my position as quite rational.

I have my own suspicions why the photograph has suddenly appeared and why the appeals are being touted as reasonable objections to the findings of the court. But we'll leave those suspicions to the advocates.



Indeed, that a translation of the motivations report was never made available, either by the innocentisti or AK's pricey US legal counsel (Simon) and/or her pricey PR handlers, is both telling and suspicious. All the more so in that Edda Mellas and other official spokespeople were condemning it in terms of its reasoning and content within 48 hours of its publication in Italian. It is unthinkable that Simon does not have a translation of this document, absolutely unthinkable. Then why has he not made this document available, at least to the US press incapable of reading the original? I have no problem with people getting all excited about the appeals document and parsing the translated version(s) made available, but they are doing so for the most part in a contextual void. And too many of them seem not to understand the nature of this document. It is not unassailable; it does not represent the ultimate truth; it is subject to criticism and it will be criticized by persons apprised of all the facts.

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

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hello again
christiana wrote:
Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?
(...)
Are there court transcripts or forensic documents that attribute the footprint specifically to Amanda?

Sorry, but I can't see how it's relevant to what I said.

Quote:
That theory doesn't appear likely to me. Can you explain why you think that is the best and fairly easy way to get to the window and how it would be done?

If it's not likely to you, I don't think 100 words would be enough ;) For me it's just common sense.
Also I guess it was disputed to death on JREF.



Fly by Night wrote:
But didn't Raffaelle also have Nike Outbreak shoes?

This is new to me. Were such evidence introduced?




stilicho wrote:
I did not use the term "doctored"

I apologize, you said "altered", it was The Machine who said "doctored". Sorry for the mix-up.



thougtful, thanks for your thougtful comment.

Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata :)
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 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
But stilicho, it's risking dishonesty to go the other way, too, and exclude all the documents that you don't like because they emanate from the defence, on the grounds that they might possibly have been doctored, although they show no sign of such.


Barbie Nadeau just stopped short of directly accusing the defence of doctoring the photograph of Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat:

"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


I had to remember to bookmark that link this time. It's a refreshing, succinct, and dispassionate assessment of the major points in the case. One should note that it was written prior to the verdict and by someone who speaks Italian and was in the courtroom.

For all the handwaving going on, there were specific high-value points made by both the prosecution and the defence. Most of those high-value items went against AK and RS.
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 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TM wrote:
Benjamin Sayagh is an obnoxious turd who knows almost nothing about the case.


I agree, he's a prick. Send him an invite to PMF where the real professionals are. Tell him that after coming here he may still be a prick, but at least he'll be an informed prick.

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
But stilicho, it's risking dishonesty to go the other way, too, and exclude all the documents that you don't like because they emanate from the defence, on the grounds that they might possibly have been doctored, although they show no sign of such.


But...but...but. 'But' the defence appeal is still just words on a piece of paper and nothing more. Their 'documents' either were submitted during the trial and were rejected because they were complete pants...or, they are documents they didn't bother submitting in the main trial because they 'knew' they were complete pants.

Therefore, exactly what 'documents' precisely are we talking about, what makes them so special this time around and why exactly should we consider them as having gravity?

_________________
"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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Why are the appeals documents being released and translated before the motivations report?


But that's quite untrue. The Massei report (in Italian) became public on the internet very shortly after it appeared, months ago already. As for the translation into English, ours of the Massei report is nearly finished whereas as far as I know, nothing (other than google-work) of the appeals has been translated at all.
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 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
Vinci's powerpoint presentation is clear and complete. It shows no sign of having been doctored, nor do the pictures it contains, and if it had, I believe that fact would have been raised in the judges' report. It makes the claim that there are 5, not 2 shoeprints on the pillow (visible by using something called "crimescope") and that all 5 are due to the size 46 Nike Outbreak shoe, same make, model and size as those that Rudy is known to have been wearing. The argument and diagrams appear convincing. I think it is too easy to say that we on this board should dismiss or ignore such information.


Somewhere you've gotten lost. Nobody was convicted on the basis of shoe prints on the pillow. Neither does PMF regard the shoe prints on the pillow as particularly strong evidence either way. The only person who seems to consider it important is Katody. TM rightly pointed out the whole matter is a red herring. Then low and behold, YOU come rushing in supporting Katody and trying to make out that it IS of dire importance, without explaining why and then go all out to debunk it.

Call me paranoid...again. Not that I want to hurt your feelings...again.

However, perhaps you could focus your brilliant mind on the actual evidence that convicted the pair...Instead of, I don't know, trying to undermine the case at every turn by trying to undermine evidence that is irrelevant. 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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hm. I would just like to comment on the "slippery slope" worry.

I think that if certain errors on the colpevolisti side have been proven (such as the 112 calls - I know that some still disagree but I agree with bolint here, it has been proven and the prosecution made a mistake on this), they should be recognised and dropped from the already very strong list of arguments for guilt (mostly summarised in The Machine's questions).

I believe the "woman's shoeprint" is a second such error.

What I would like is for the few errors that did occur on the prosecution's side and that have been revealed as such to be recognised as errors and no longer defended, so that the remaining arguments remain strong, reliable and not subject to question at all.

Edit to add: I hadn't read Michael's previous post to me but this one answers that concern, too. Namely why do I focus on the prosecution's errors? Answer: because I want the prosecution's case to be airtight and I hate to see it slipping into the same behaviour as the FOA by striving and striving and twisting arguments to support something that is not right. Even if it's a little detail.

Honestly, I want to see the defence's strongest possible case, because that's the one that we have to debunk. That's why the defence documents interest me a lot. Because the FOA both cheats and lies, making arguing against them a useless and meaningless endeavor. I prefer to counter the arguments of people such as Ghirga, Vinci etc. who are at least professionals.
Doesn't that make sense?

As for the really strong arguments for guilt (such as the mixed blood/DNA, or the 5:30-6:10 am playlist) they don't have any need of my mental efforts. They stand alone. I'm interested in the controversial points.


Last edited by thoughtful on Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:53 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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
The Massei report (in Italian) became public on the internet very shortly after it appeared, months ago already. As for the translation into English, ours of the Massei report is nearly finished whereas as far as I know, nothing (other than google-work) of the appeals has been translated at all.


Yet strangely, in spite of that...it seems the appeal documents are all 'certain' people want to discuss!

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Why are the appeals documents being released and translated before the motivations report?


But that's quite untrue. The Massei report (in Italian) became public on the internet very shortly after it appeared, months ago already. As for the translation into English, ours of the Massei report is nearly finished whereas as far as I know, nothing (other than google-work) of the appeals has been translated at all.


Maybe I didn't couch that properly. Why are we discussing English translations of something purported to be the appeals--as though they are factual, complete, and honest refutations of the motivations report--before we are doing the same for the Massei Report?

What is so important about these 'appeals documents' that warrants examination?
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 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Sorry, but I can't see how it's relevant to what I said.


It's 'relevant' because you have gone to such efforts in this thread to debunk the idea that Amanda's footprint was on the pillow when this was never a factor in their conviction.

So, why so much time spent to debunk something that isn't that important? I know why and I'll tell you...

The FOA's main talking point is that Amanda is completely innocent because there is no trace of her in, what they term, the 'murder room'. They define this as the crime scene...so anything outside of that room for them, is not the crime scene (unless it's evidence left by Rudy Guede...so wherever 'he' left evidence is suddenly the crime scene). Therefore, the mere suggestion that Amanda 'may' have left some trace in that room has to be combated strongly.

Am I right or am I wrong?

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Hm. I would just like to comment on the "slippery slope" worry.

I think that if certain errors on the colpevolisti side have been proven (such as the 112 calls - I know that some still disagree but I agree with bolint here, it has been proven and the prosecution made a mistake on this), they should be recognised and dropped from the already very strong list of arguments for guilt (mostly summarised in The Machine's questions).

I believe the "woman's shoeprint" is a second such error.

What I would like is for the few errors that did occur on the prosecution's side and that have been revealed as such to be recognised as errors and no longer defended, so that the remaining arguments remain strong, reliable and not subject to question at all.

Edit to add: I hadn't read Michael's previous post to me but this one answers that concern, too. Namely why do I focus on the prosecution's errors? Answer: because I want the prosecution's case to be airtight and I hate to see it slipping into the same behaviour as the FOA by striving and striving and twisting arguments to support something that is not right. Even if it's a little detail.

Honestly, I want to see the defence's strongest possible case, because that's the one that we have to debunk. That's why the defence documents interest me a lot. Because the FOA both cheats and lies, making arguing against them a useless and meaningless endeavor. I prefer to counter the arguments of people such as Ghirga, Vinci etc. who are at least professionals.
Doesn't that make sense?

As for the really strong arguments for guilt (such as the mixed blood/DNA, or the 5:30-6:10 am playlist) they don't have any need of my mental efforts. They stand alone. I'm interested in the controversial points.


This falls within my definition of 'intellectual honesty'. I agree with Thoughtful here. Without suggesting that I have any analysis of the evidence on either side, I think it can only undermine the case for guilt if weaker evidence is given the same weight as water-tight evidence. It seems to make sense to me. If we simply dismiss weaker evidence then it reflects on our integrity. Thoughtful seems to have the right moral stance to me. If it's wrong, don't be afraid to call it wrong. Otherwise you no longer occupy the moral high ground in the argument, as being scrupulously fair. Being scrupulously fair and HONEST about what is patently the truth seems to me what this board should be all about. It has always been the case and that is what attracts me to it. This is not always an easy or comfortable place to be, but it is necessary. If one takes a hit in pursuit of justice and truth then it is not such a blow. It just strengthens your position. That's how I see truth and justice.

I cannot comment on whether the footprint evidence falls into this bracket; I am not a forensic expert and it strikes me that this is an important point that was made earlier by stilicho - people are 'expert witnesses' because they are experts. Like Michael says, the experts were pitted against each other and the defence failed to convince the jury who were there and saw everything (unlike us). If it had been the other way we would have to accept it. Either way the evidence should be given due consideration. If it's rubbish then let's prove it is rubbish. It was done in court...

Just saying what I think and not taking sides here. Evidence is evidence. The base evidence is 'innocent', the interpretation is all. One just has to seperate the two....

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:

The FOA's main talking point is that Amanda is completely innocent because there is no trace of her in, what they term, the 'murder room'. They define this as the crime scene...so anything outside of that room for them, is not the crime scene (unless it's evidence left by Rudy Guede...so wherever 'he' left evidence is suddenly the crime scene). Therefore, the mere suggestion that Amanda 'may' have left some trace in that room has to be combated strongly.

Am I right or am I wrong?


I think you have absolutely summed up what Katody is about here Michael. The absence of Amanda in Meredith's bedroom is an absolutely CENTRAL platform to the FOA case - in their minds. That's exactly why the footprints matter so much. Well, if her footprints are not there, fine. They are not there. As Machine always points out, there is plenty of OTHER evidence that points to AK and RS's presence in the 'murder room'. The double DNA knife, the bra clasp etc etc. We don't actually need the footprints to establish guilt, neither did the jury. The defence presentation was simply not strong enough to convince the jury.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
The Massei report (in Italian) became public on the internet very shortly after it appeared, months ago already. As for the translation into English, ours of the Massei report is nearly finished whereas as far as I know, nothing (other than google-work) of the appeals has been translated at all.


Yet strangely, in spite of that...it seems the appeal documents are all 'certain' people want to discuss!


Perhaps it is to get their version (appeal documents) out before the motivations is finished and available for the public to read? It is smart to focus attention on the appeal documents and maybe hope it will lessen the impact of the English-translated motivations? Or get out as much information from the appeals (which have not been argued in court) and have it appear as if it is settled fact what is contained in the documents?

I tend to believe there will be much interest in the English-translated Massei Report which will redirect people's focus away from the appeal documents.
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 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Hm. I would just like to comment on the "slippery slope" worry.


That's what Katody is doing with the Vinci presentation. It is not an attempt to refute an individual element of the prosecution's case but to throw the whole case under the light of suspicion. My original contention that it was an engagement of the slippery slope fallacy turned out to be true.

If you were to approach this case objectively and for the first time, thoughtful, where would you begin? Would you begin with an obscure set of contentious print photographs? Or would you begin with the clear evidence of lies, shifting alibis, false accusations, and deliberate attempts by all three accused to distract and inhibit the investigation?

Skep noted that this freshly-scrubbed poster appeared out of the mists simply to post fifty times on the same obscure detail featured prominently only on advocacy sites. At least three of those posts furnished textbook routes to the slippery slope. My B.S. alarm goes off when something like that happens. I am not sure about yours.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
But didn't Raffaelle also have Nike Outbreak shoes?

This is new to me. Were such evidence introduced?


Sorry, my mistake - Raffaele wore Nike Airforce-1's which have an almost identical tread to the Nike Outbreak tread that would be difficult to distinguish on the basis of a partial imprint or lack of other distinguishing characteristics, such as the cuts or marks that one might expect to be created by walking across broken glass.
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 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

christiana wrote:
Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
The Massei report (in Italian) became public on the internet very shortly after it appeared, months ago already. As for the translation into English, ours of the Massei report is nearly finished whereas as far as I know, nothing (other than google-work) of the appeals has been translated at all.


Yet strangely, in spite of that...it seems the appeal documents are all 'certain' people want to discuss!


Perhaps it is to get their version (appeal documents) out before the motivations is finished and available for the public to read? It is smart to focus attention on the appeal documents and maybe hope it will lessen the impact of the English-translated motivations? Or get out as much information from the appeals (which have not been argued in court) and have it appear as if it is settled fact what is contained in the documents?

I tend to believe there will be much interest in the English-translated Massei Report which will redirect people's focus away from the appeal documents.


There is no doubt in my mind about this. The PMF is the gold standard for evidence pertaining to this case. There's no doubt that her team's PR managers know this just as well as we do. The power of public opinion is something that cannot be underestimated and there was more than just a gentle push to get the 'appeals documents' out there and to present them as established talking points. The content and its authenticity is less important to the advocates than that the 'appeals documents' are the focus of all deliberation.

Most of all, it's a cheap and easy way to form public opinion. In the long run it will be unsuccessful, though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Why are the appeals documents being released and translated before the motivations report?


But that's quite untrue. The Massei report (in Italian) became public on the internet very shortly after it appeared, months ago already. As for the translation into English, ours of the Massei report is nearly finished whereas as far as I know, nothing (other than google-work) of the appeals has been translated at all.


Maybe I didn't couch that properly. Why are we discussing English translations of something purported to be the appeals--as though they are factual, complete, and honest refutations of the motivations report--before we are doing the same for the Massei Report?

What is so important about these 'appeals documents' that warrants examination?


I think what Stilicho means is that no attempt whatsoever has been made on the part of the innocentisti to translate the Massei report for public consumption, though its contents have been criticized. It is impossible that Simon doesn't have a complete translation in English. Why is he unwilling to make it available? That, in my opinion, is intellectual dishonesty.

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

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

A bit more on Vinci and the context of his expert testimony for Raffaele's defense in court:

Vinci's interpretation of the pillowcase was merely one of a number of interpretations that were offered; all of it conjecture and none of it definitive, which explains why none of it played a role in the final conviction of Raffaele and Amanda for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Carlo Torre, for example, thought that some of the lines that were interpreted either as part of a woman’s shoeprint or Nike Outbreak print were nothing more than lines caused by creases in the pillow itself.

In summary, none of the arguments that were presented in open court regarding a definitive interpretation for the shoe-like blood stains on the pillowcase were found to be convincing one way or the other.

So Katody, allow me to amend my statement to say: IMO, the evidence in question is obviously Raffaele's Airforce 1 print and I have no idea why everyone else doesn't see it that way.
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 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:

The FOA's main talking point is that Amanda is completely innocent because there is no trace of her in, what they term, the 'murder room'. They define this as the crime scene...so anything outside of that room for them, is not the crime scene (unless it's evidence left by Rudy Guede...so wherever 'he' left evidence is suddenly the crime scene). Therefore, the mere suggestion that Amanda 'may' have left some trace in that room has to be combated strongly.

Am I right or am I wrong?


I think you have absolutely summed up what Katody is about here Michael. The absence of Amanda in Meredith's bedroom is an absolutely CENTRAL platform to the FOA case - in their minds. That's exactly why the footprints matter so much. Well, if her footprints are not there, fine. They are not there. As Machine always points out, there is plenty of OTHER evidence that points to AK and RS's presence in the 'murder room'. The double DNA knife, the bra clasp etc etc. We don't actually need the footprints to establish guilt, neither did the jury. The defence presentation was simply not strong enough to convince the jury.



That and the fact that the crime scene is NOT limited to Meredith's room alone, but rather the whole cottage and its peripheral areas.

The FOA in contrast try to compress the crime scene into a single room. That's in their interest, but it has nothing to do with reality or truth. The term 'murder room' is a sound bite...spin.

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This was probably posted before, but I just saw it, so just in case

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/te ... 5892578845

THE former CBS producer sentenced to six months in jail for trying to shake down late-night TV funnyman David Letterman over a string of office romances got his first piece of good news in a while when he was nominated for an Emmy.

Robert “Joe” Halderman is one of four CBS producers nominated for the prestigious television production award for a CBS report entitled American Girl, Italian Nightmare, according to the full list of nominations released today by the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

American Girl, Italian Nightmare, which outlined the Italian murder case against Seattle college student Amanda Knox, is one of five news pieces under consideration for the Emmy for "Outstanding Continuing Coverage of a News Story in a News Magazine".

Halderman is currently in jail at Rikers Island in New York, after pleading guilty in March to attempted grand larceny charges.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think what the FOA don’t want people to realise is that if this case had been tried in America there wouldn’t be an automatic appeal as there are no grounds for one. Just because the Italian system builds appeals in as part of the process does not mean that they have anything new to add. All they will be doing is focusing on what they consider the areas they can find some tread. I notice that the prison witnesses seem to have drifted out of the talking points and the main focus is on technicalities which I think Some Alibi will agree is a forlorn hope strategy. The prosecution case was not a house of cards and looking at individual items of evidence which were peripheral to the case will not work. Nothing less than conclusive proof of innocence will work.

I do still look into the JFEF thread with great mirth. My job has brought me into contact with habitual burglars and some of the theories of how Rudy got into the flat fail to recognise the burglars ethos, maximum return for minimum effort. The various methods postulated to try to force Rudy thought that window without leaving any trace on the wall are now becoming absurd. All I can see are people who have invested so much in Amanda’s innocence that even the most outlandish explanation must have value as the truth is too hard to bare, in other circumstances I would find their desperation pitiable but given the level of pomposity and the way they have striven to stifle debate I just think they are a bunch of complete wankers, in some cases I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Bard check your PM's
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brogan wrote:
I do still look into the JFEF thread with great mirth. My job has brought me into contact with habitual burglars and some of the theories of how Rudy got into the flat fail to recognise the burglars ethos, maximum return for minimum effort. The various methods postulated to try to force Rudy thought that window without leaving any trace on the wall are now becoming absurd. All I can see are people who have invested so much in Amanda’s innocence that even the most outlandish explanation must have value as the truth is too hard to bare, in other circumstances I would find their desperation pitiable but given the level of pomposity and the way they have striven to stifle debate I just think they are a bunch of complete wankers, in some cases I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense.


In their alternate universe, the Amanda-groupies figure that Rudy alone could have been successfully prosecuted with the evidence at hand. He couldn't have been. For one thing, Knox herself would have been a prosecution witness as Filomena was in Amanda's own trial. Rudy's lawyer would have done precisely the same climbing demonstration and shown that it was improbable if not impossible for him to have gained entry that way. Guede would have had no reason to withhold any of his full story about what happened in the cottage and would have directly implicated Knox and Sollecito.

Either way, the prosecution would have to arrest the pair and continue the investigation. As soon as Guede placed them in the cottage then they would have to explain everything. Moreover, I believe the original statements of the early morning hours of 06 NOV 2007 would have been declared admissible if Amanda had not been officially declared a suspect at the time she signed them.

They should be careful what they wish for.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Also, Rudi implicated Amanda and Raff in Meredith's murder. He could have stuck to his initial account of a stranger...who resmembled Raff, imo. What would his motive have been to specifically name Amanda and Raff? At no time did they implicate him. Which is interesting. Even after Rudi had been found guilty, Raff said in court that he hoped the real killer would confess. ????????

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

What I said about the slippery slope referred only to my own attitude towards the controversial points, not Katody's. I just wanted to state that questioning certain points does not necessarily mean that one is engaged on that slope, although some people may well be.

As for the arguments for innocence that Katody and Rose Montague brought here, I am not interested in debating them or even responding. Michael appears to think that I leap to their defence, but that is simply not true. I just appreciate the fact that one and the other brought actual new documents to my attention that I had not seen before. I am keenly interested by any and all trial-related documents. To each his own pet obsession!
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thoughtful, I have a question. You have read the Motivation report. How much validity do you give the new documents submitted?

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
A bit more on Vinci and the context of his expert testimony for Raffaele's defense in court:

Vinci's interpretation of the pillowcase was merely one of a number of interpretations that were offered; all of it conjecture and none of it definitive, which explains why none of it played a role in the final conviction of Raffaele and Amanda for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Carlo Torre, for example, thought that some of the lines that were interpreted either as part of a woman’s shoeprint or Nike Outbreak print were nothing more than lines caused by creases in the pillow itself.

In summary, none of the arguments that were presented in open court regarding a definitive interpretation for the shoe-like blood stains on the pillowcase were found to be convincing one way or the other.

So Katody, allow me to amend my statement to say: IMO, the evidence in question is obviously Raffaele's Airforce 1 print and I have no idea why everyone else doesn't see it that way.


The pillowcase partial shoe print was probably Rudys.

Per location of this mark of the shoe, it is surrounded by only Rudys shoeprints that are known, and in the exact same area.

There is an absence of other shoe prints found in the blood, so its difficult to assume there were two different sized shoes in the blood.

None of Amandas shoes showed any blood on them.

Also it was more accepted by the prosecution, I thought, that Amanda was believed to be barefoot, as the luminol prints discovered are barefoot prints, not shoe prints.

So it would be logical for the prosecution that Amanda was barefoot in the bedroom of Meredith also, right?

Unless someone wants to add a new twist that they had shoes on then took them off before or later. I don't think there's any data to back that up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Were a pair of Amanda's shoes (sneakers) unaccounted for, or has that point become moot?

_________________
"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: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:47 am   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

stilicho wrote:
Regardless, they were caught in Italy and if their laws are stricter then so be it. Any US lawyers care to comment? Would they have set bail and established restrictions on her movement?

There's a neat little trick that is sometimes used here in the US to detain a suspect indefinitely without charging them; declare the person to be a "material witness", i.e. someone who has important testimony for, say, the grand jury, but the grand jury never quite gets around to hearing the witness until the investigation has garnered enough evidence to proceed with the case. It is controversial and challenges are afoot. Since the device harms individuals but not corporations, I don't expect the current crop of Supremes to get upset about it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:

The FOA's main talking point is that Amanda is completely innocent because there is no trace of her in, what they term, the 'murder room'. They define this as the crime scene...so anything outside of that room for them, is not the crime scene (unless it's evidence left by Rudy Guede...so wherever 'he' left evidence is suddenly the crime scene). Therefore, the mere suggestion that Amanda 'may' have left some trace in that room has to be combated strongly.

Am I right or am I wrong?


I think you have absolutely summed up what Katody is about here Michael. The absence of Amanda in Meredith's bedroom is an absolutely CENTRAL platform to the FOA case - in their minds. That's exactly why the footprints matter so much. Well, if her footprints are not there, fine. They are not there. As Machine always points out, there is plenty of OTHER evidence that points to AK and RS's presence in the 'murder room'. The double DNA knife, the bra clasp etc etc. We don't actually need the footprints to establish guilt, neither did the jury. The defence presentation was simply not strong enough to convince the jury.

Not just the double DNA knife and the bra clasp, there is the big "etc." of where was the only possible source of the blood big enough for AK to leave footprints in the hallway. Most of these were cleaned away, as only two were found, but for one of them to be facing into Meredith's room, AK had to have stepped in a lot of blood--too much blood for it to be menstrual blood. Iirc, the defense argument against this was the luminol could have indicated fruit juice, bleach, but there was not the faintest proffer of proof that a massive fruit juice or bleach spill had occurred, that only AK barefooted around in.

This reminds me story of the defense lawyer who asked one too many questions. In a case where a defendant was accused of mayhem for biting off the victim's ear, the defense attorney ("A") cross-examined the eye-witness ("W") as follows:

A: You say my client bit off V's ear?

W: Yes.

A: It was a very chaotic scene, hard to see what was happening?

W: Yes, it was.

A: Did you actually see my client bite off V's ear?

W: No, sir, I did not.

A: Well, then, how can you say that my client bit it off?

W: I saw him spit it out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
The pillowcase partial shoe print was probably Rudys.


And this matters to whom? Nobody but those who insist that there must be no evidence placing Amanda in Meredith's room, as if that somehow would make her completely innocent. But let's go ahead and put her out in the kitchen with her hands over her ears - unfortunately, the charges and sentence remain the same.


jfk1191 wrote:
Unless someone wants to add a new twist that they had shoes on then took them off before or later. I don't think there's any data to back that up.


You're forgetting that there's an undeniable sexual element to the murder. Unless you're in a bathroom on the train, people tend to take their shoes off early on.
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:17 am   Post subject: PDF   

thoughtful wrote:
... the appeal documents. I disagree strongly with Catnip's assessment that those documents are invalid because they are scans and therefore small pieces of information such as pencilled corrections and certain smudged section numbers render them unusable. To comprehend the gist of the grounds for appeal, those documents are perfectly valid.

Not wanting to know anything about those grounds before the appeal trial actually occurs is a valid point of view (though not mine). But not the same as claiming that these documents should not be considered.




Hi Thoughtful,

Agree totally, 100%. My Yay! comment about the PDFs must have got lost in the scrolling.

I used “gist”, too – glad we’re on the same page. :)

Don’t remember saying “invalid”, though (must be getting old). In my book, all documents are valid and useful for something (and usually, all sorts of things); perhaps I mis-typed.*

I like all documents, any documents (I especially love PDFs – they’re a gorgeous idea!)

I, also, ignore nothing. My magnifying glass is ever-ready (the real one, as well as the metaphorical one).**

We really are on the same page re documentation.




* I stand corrected: the Search feature shows I did use the word “invalid” (on [ XVII.11 ], in the context of lab certification).

**I also have a microscope, as well. A real one, I mean. I wouldn't know what a metaphorical one would do.





Hi Stilicho, Christiana, SB, and others,

The lack of English translation (or at the very least, a rendering) of the Massei report by those criticizing it is a glaring omission. I am surprised – a debate where there is a central piece of information missing is a debate in name only, not in substance. Plus, it cannot be an “open debate”, either.

It cannot be oversight, budgetary constraints (PR firm is big enough), or lack of resources (witness Judge Heavey’s letters being translated into “near-perfect” Italian) that has led to this action (or rather, inaction).

I cannot see the advantage of a deliberate choice to hide the report from the public. That tactic is guaranteed to backfire.

Perhaps someone has shares in a Conspiracy Theory forum thread somewhere, or perhaps they need to manufacture “negative evidence” (i.e., lack of a report) in order to sustain a (childish) claim of “The Italians didn’t provide an English version – sooo unfair!”.

It doesn’t make sense.





Hi The Machine,

Agree with your assessment (and Michael's) of Sayagh.

Peer-review is the keystone to robustness for academics. Lawyers achieve the same robustness of a verdict by debating in court.

Unpublished blog-like assertions don’t cut the mustard, I’m afraid.


The following caught my eye the other day:

Quote:

Whitton used to be one of this country’s [=Australia’s] most admired crusading journalists. He fought the good fight against political corruption in Joh-Bjelke Petersen’s Queensland [a notorious period – ndr], won five Walkleys [prestigious awards for excellence in journalism – ndr], and was a tireless advocate for a better legal system.

On the basis of this book [“Our Corrupt Legal System” – ndr] he would have been well served to have smiled upon his past good work and quietly retired. This really is a terrible tome. Somewhere in the mishmash of endless quotes (everything from reminiscences of retired judges to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Charles Dickens and movies such as Chicago) there is the kernel of an argument that the French investigation system of justice is better and cheaper than the British adversarial system.

Whitton may be right but he really doesn’t present a well-argued case and the work is riddled with duplication. Not surprisingly, his has been self-published.

– Bruce Elder, reviewing Evan Whitton’s book Our Corrupt Legal System, in The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 July 2010, Spectrum section, page 35





Hi The Librarian,


So far, this forum has accumulated:

  • GIP Matteini’s bail application ruling,
  • GUP Micheli’s combination verdict on Rudy and indictment of Amanda and Raffaele
  • the CAssizeP’s first-instance verdict on Amanda and Raffaele
  • Amanda’s and Raffaele’s unlodged appeal documents (in PDF, OCR scan and GoogleTrans formats)
  • various ancillary documentary material of sundry nature


Waiting to be accumulated
  • Rudy’s appeal decision (completed Dec-2009), consisting of reasons, plus
    • lodged documents, legal debate in court, and closing speeches for
      • defence (appellant)
      • prosecution (respondent)
      • any civil parties appearing in the matter
    • Rudy’ Cassation ruling (to come?)
    • Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal decision from the murder conviction (presumably to be heard together?, hearings due to start Oct/Nov 2010)
    • Amanda and Raffaele’s Cassation ruling on the murder (whoever wins the appeal)
    • Amanda’s slander trial:
      • verdict at first-instance (hearings set to start Oct-2010?)
      • appeal
      • Cassation ruling
    • Amanda’s family’s slander trial:
      • verdict at first-instance
      • appeal
      • Cassation ruling
    • Sollecito’s family’s perverting-the-course-of-justice trial:
      • verdict at first-instance
      • appeal
      • Cassation ruling
    • Amanda’s breach-of-privacy suit against journalist and newspaper for publishing diary excerpts before the trial started:
      • verdict at first-instance (award already made: 40,000 euro)
      • appeal
      • Cassation ruling
    • Patrick’s compensation claim:
      • appeal from the CAssizeP
      • Cassation ruling
      • appeal to European Court

Have I missed anything?





Hi To Me,

“The meaning of my communication is the response I get”
– Robert Kyosaki ([ Inside Liquor Magazine ], “Communication for results” by Lynn McIntyre)


Quote:
…the meaning of our communication is not what we think it means, rather, its in the response we get from the other person. As a result, we can become better communicators if we construct communications that elicit the response we desire from others.

* you can change your communication until your desired results are obtained
* the person with most flexibility of behavio(u)r can control the outcome of the interaction
* the resistance you get is a comment about your inflexibility as communicator
* if what you are doing is not working, do something different.

– [ NLP* Training Scotland ] training course excerpt


*stands for Neuro-Linguistic Programming, apparently; however, the sentiments regarding clarity of communication remain informative


Ghirga numbered each of the grounds of appeal in the Amanda appeal document (an unlodged version of which is stored on this forum in three different formats, and is available for perusal).

I think I should likewise number or label the separate concepts in my posts, so as to find things quickly, and to minimise the generation of confusion in myself, let alone others.

Or perhaps, one idea, one post? Maybe that might be better.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I think you have absolutely summed up what Katody is about here Michael. The absence of Amanda in Meredith's bedroom is an absolutely CENTRAL platform to the FOA case - in their minds. That's exactly why the footprints matter so much. Well, if her footprints are not there, fine. They are not there. As Machine always points out, there is plenty of OTHER evidence that points to AK and RS's presence in the 'murder room'. The double DNA knife, the bra clasp etc etc. We don't actually need the footprints to establish guilt, neither did the jury. The defence presentation was simply not strong enough to convince the jury.

Not just the double DNA knife and the bra clasp, there is the big "etc." of where was the only possible source of the blood big enough for AK to leave footprints in the hallway. Most of these were cleaned away, as only two were found, but for one of them to be facing into Meredith's room, AK had to have stepped in a lot of blood--too much blood for it to be menstrual blood. Iirc, the defense argument against this was the luminol could have indicated fruit juice, bleach, but there was not the faintest proffer of proof that a massive fruit juice or bleach spill had occurred, that only AK barefooted around in.


Essentially that's what the Amanda-groupies have argued. According to them, all you have to do is stand up in court and tell everyone you might have dropped a jar of horseradish on the floor and all luminol evidence would be automatically discarded. And since water can affect DNA testing, you just add that some water spilled all over too.

They have it all figured out. You don't have to have any direct evidence of any of this stuff. Except, of course, all forensics are perfectly admissible as long as a black basketball player is the one accused. Basketball players lock doors behind their backs, for example. Happens all the time. :roll:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Also, Rudi implicated Amanda and Raff in Meredith's murder. He could have stuck to his initial account of a stranger...who resmembled Raff, imo. What would his motive have been to specifically name Amanda and Raff? At no time did they implicate him. Which is interesting. Even after Rudi had been found guilty, Raff said in court that he hoped the real killer would confess. ????????


Wow! Great observation.

Maybe someday she WILL confess.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thank you, Emerald.The thought literally popped in to my head, and at the same time, I WENT WOW :)

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh, I just read your second line, Emerald. I don't think she CAN EVER confess, and here's why, imo. Too much to lose.....family, *supporters* and being a psycopath, she has become the victim...in her mind. The lie is easier for her, than dealing with the truth. Everything about her is a lie. I still think, it would be Raff. That is, if the appeals fail. I had asked the question, eons ago, it seems, * Would Raff get a reduction in jail time, if he confessed. I didn't get a response, maybe because no-one here knos, or ...it just wasn't that interesting :(....Rudi did implicate them.......but that went nowhere.

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
" I don't think she CAN EVER confess, and here's why, imo. Too much to lose.....family, *supporters* and being a psycopath, she has become the victim...in her mind. The lie is easier for her, than dealing with the truth. Everything about her is a lie. I still think, it would be Raff. That is, if the appeals fail.


I think that they will not confess. Neither the pair, nor Rudy.
At this point they cannot win anything from confession.
They all avoided life sentences which would have meant at least 21 real years in jail.
Now, Rudy will be out in 5 years. The pair will be out in 10 years. They might even get more reductions in the appeals, even acquittal, though unlikely, is not out of reach (except for Rudy because of his partial confession).
No confession would yield them less jail time and after that they would have to live with that confession.
Instead, they all chose to deny and live their post-jail lives as victims of injustice.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Bolint. If there is no reduction in the sentence, then, yes, the window of opportunity is shut. I didn't know what the law was in Italy. It is clear, though, that they won't serve very long sentences, either way. Very, very fortunate for them. They should have to serve life, and I mean life, for what they did. I read somewhere that premeditation is measured in seconds. So, in fact, this was premeditated. I do wonder how Meredith's family is holding up, with the slander case coming up, the appeals, etc. While Amanda plays her guitar, sings, and makes crab cakes, Meredith's family grieves. Words cannot express.

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The family investment makes it nearly impossible for AK and RS to confess. Rudy, however may have a reason to confess unless his number is on some Swiss ( Bermuda?) bank account that 'matures in 16 years.

Raffaele's sister keeps him in denial with all her contributions to his 'case'


Some human beings are honored with the gift of freedom, they are completely detached from stereotypes, the latest fashions and stipulations of society. The rules of life for them require the highest of values, not based on what they are "supposed" to do and be, but rather from the inherent and sensible duty to their own nobility and poise. There is no greater freedom than that. While walking alone on their own path, the best of humans are always silently accompanied by their equals. I am and forever will be here for you. Smile to life and to the freedom on the horizon, my little brother.

* With love,
your big sister,
Vanessa.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

H9, I just don't know what to make of that letter. It seems like there should be a beautiful lesson in it, but instead it sounds.......hollow!! Seems to me that Raff walked alone on his path for quite awhile, and was accompanied by anime, manga, spinelli and porn. I guess those were his equals. Well, he is detached, and no worries, he is detached from the stipulations of society, in as much as a law abiding citizen. Glad Vanessa wishes him freedom on the horizon. That's not my wish. However, I can't fault her for loving him, and sticking by him.

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"bank account that 'matures in 16 years."

Forget the 16 years. Rudy will serve half of it and 3 years of that have already passed, so he will be out in 5 years.
Which is a shame. It shouldn't have been allowed to separate his case from the others.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"What would his motive have been to specifically name Amanda and Raff? At no time did they implicate him. Which is interesting. "

How could they have done that without implicating themselves?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

That's true, Bolint.I guess I thought interesting from the point of view that at one stage Raff blamed Amanda, Amanda thoght of a scenario involving Raff, Amanda blamed Patrick, and yet at no stage did they bring up Rudi's name. And then, after Rudi was convicted, Raff asks the real killer to confess. It would seem that Amanda and Raff are terrified of doing anything to give Rudi a chance to talk. An yet, Rudi did implicate them, but as far as I know, that didn't seem to go anywhere.

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Interesting that these people seem to have an obsessional need to publish their letters and writings at every opportunity. Now Vanessa's at it too. For the love of god, who cares what she thinks? Relative stands by criminal shock horror! Hold the front page! It should be private correspondence this sort of fifth form drivel. She's in cloud cuckoo land. This sort of mock elevated writing sits wrongly with the subject of it - a man who likes watching animals have sex with...other animals? With people? I have no idea what someone that sick gets off on, but Vanessa should save her lofty prose for someone that hasn't murdered a young woman, been tried and convicted and now has nothing better to do than bleat about his fate. If you can't do the time Raffy.

Sorry for the angry tone, but I thought more of Vanessa. Now she's on the publicity merry-go-round too, publishing her private letters. It's so undignified. And the media just lap it up. Meredith gets no mention, ever from these people. It makes me sick. As does the thought of the circus that will surround Amanda's release and deification - Saint Amanda, the wronged Martyr. She will spend the rest of her life making money out of being 'wrongly convicted' by those nasty backward Italians. Pffff. Repulsive.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It's not a private letter, it is on Raffaele's memorial webpage set up by CM (am I right on that?)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The only reason Amanda and Raffaele haven't tried to 'pin' the whole think on Rudy is they know they would implicated more rigorously by Rudy's team. If there had been ANY chance they could have him and him only implicated that would have been strategy from day one and be made clear as a bell. As it was, they were in damage limitation from day one knowing the evidence is there for the 2 of them for a conviction as well.

Why else would Amanda go on about RS's 'lying' about her in her diary from day one.. she knew RS was the weakest link.


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


Last edited by H9 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Like it or not, even if Knox serves 10 years, there is a pot of gold at the end of it. There is no way that she can ever confess, because too much is at stake. When the time is up, she will emerge as the wronged woman in this case and enjoy the fruits of the book and movie deals. Television will be fighting to sign her up. If you are sick of the family now, wait until then!

In the past, I have defended those who have tried to put forward an alternative voice on this forum. However, the recent string of newbies, who are popping up one after the other, are beyond the pail. It is my opinion that the Knox machine knows that it is going to lose the appeal, but is playing the long game. As long as they can create the impression that the evidence against her is flawed or even non-existent and as long as they can plant the seed of doubt in the mind of the general public, they are on to a winner.

When she eventually gets out, do you really think that people will be remembering the real victim of this case? The public will know nothing of the debates that have been had on sites such as this. They will have vague memories of a young American who had been unfairly sentenced to 26 years in prison and will go along with what the publicity machine churns out. The press will go along with it, just has they have done for the last few years. A "wrongful conviction" generates more column inches and affords journalists more work than one that plays out justly. I think this is the reason why so many lazy journalists have been willing to merely regurgitate the lines that the Knox's have fed them ( sometimes word for word )

I believe that rosedarling and katylied are just stringing you along and are best ignored. I hope that I am wrong about this, but I suspect not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh gosh, bilko... that is soooo depressing
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"at one stage Raff blamed Amanda, Amanda thoght of a scenario involving Raff, Amanda blamed Patrick, and yet at no stage did they bring up Rudi's name"

They brought up mostly crap about the evening and night.
Remember, Raffaele to this day maintains a lie that they were walking around in the centre of town and at about 20:30-21 he (or they, depending on the version) went home.

But we know from Popovic's testimony that this did not happen that way, at about 17:40 Amanda and Raffaele were surely in Raf's flat.

Why does Raffaele lie in this point?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Bilko wrote:
Like it or not, even if Knox serves 10 years, there is a pot of gold at the end of it.


Yep and she'll have Anne Bremner Challenging the Son of Sam law in Washington state on her behalf so she can make said pot of gold. That is, if Bremner hasn't by that time already had it overturned on behalf of the Barefoot Bandit.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
It's not a private letter, it is on Raffaele's memorial webpage set up by CM (am I right on that?)


Yep...

http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/index.html

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"she'll have Anne Bremner Challenging the Son of Sam law in Washington state on her behalf so she can make said pot of gold."

They don't have to challenge the law.
It is enough if a US judge proclaims her innocent and throws out all Italian claims.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Bolint wrote:
But we know from Popovic's testimony that this did not happen that way, at about 17:40 Amanda and Raffaele were surely in Raf's flat.

Why does Raffaele lie in this point?


Because he is or was, desperate to separate himself from Amanda.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"she'll have Anne Bremner Challenging the Son of Sam law in Washington state on her behalf so she can make said pot of gold."

They don't have to challenge the law.
It is enough if a US judge proclaims her innocent and throws out all Italian claims.



That would be a little more difficult to achieve.

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"That would be a little more difficult to achieve."

I'm afraid not.
Do you think if she went home now somehow she would then be extradited? No way.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

If AK's lawyers could have blamed it on RG or RS or RG+RS they would have, so they have gone for letting evidence stand against RG + possibly Mr X

If RS's lawyers could have blamed it on AK + RG they would have, so they are hoping people will just jump on the RG only or RG + Mr X as well ( and maybe have helped RG keep quiet a bit with promises)

RG's lawyers didn't have a chance in hell to encourage another alibi for their client so are just hoping he can be the innocent bystander with hands over ears and eyes covered and he is just letting a few words slip out hoping to muddy the waters


Last edited by H9 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
It's not a private letter, it is on Raffaele's memorial webpage set up by CM (am I right on that?)


I think I meant it 'should' be a private letter. A Raffy 'memorial' web-page? Whatever next...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
Like it or not, even if Knox serves 10 years, there is a pot of gold at the end of it. There is no way that she can ever confess, because too much is at stake. When the time is up, she will emerge as the wronged woman in this case and enjoy the fruits of the book and movie deals. Television will be fighting to sign her up. If you are sick of the family now, wait until then!

In the past, I have defended those who have tried to put forward an alternative voice on this forum. However, the recent string of newbies, who are popping up one after the other, are beyond the pail. It is my opinion that the Knox machine knows that it is going to lose the appeal, but is playing the long game. As long as they can create the impression that the evidence against her is flawed or even non-existent and as long as they can plant the seed of doubt in the mind of the general public, they are on to a winner.

When she eventually gets out, do you really think that people will be remembering the real victim of this case? The public will know nothing of the debates that have been had on sites such as this. They will have vague memories of a young American who had been unfairly sentenced to 26 years in prison and will go along with what the publicity machine churns out. The press will go along with it, just has they have done for the last few years. A "wrongful conviction" generates more column inches and affords journalists more work than one that plays out justly. I think this is the reason why so many lazy journalists have been willing to merely regurgitate the lines that the Knox's have fed them ( sometimes word for word )

I believe that rosedarling and katylied are just stringing you along and are best ignored. I hope that I am wrong about this, but I suspect not.


Yes, this is very depressing, but I have a feeling you may be right...I simply won't be able to look. Mind you Amanda may be a very different woman by then. She may mellow and find she is not the centre of the entire universe, and that not everyone thinks she is Mother Teresa. Though most people seem to really rather enjoy playing the 'Amanda is Gorgeous' game with her...it must be difficult being perfect, when all the time you hide some aspect of yourself inside which can participate in a savage murder and bankrupt your whole family and humiliate them in the eyes of the world...

Nice kid.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"What would his motive have been to specifically name Amanda and Raff? At no time did they implicate him. Which is interesting. "

How could they have done that without implicating themselves?


So if AK and RS never confess then what is stopping RG from confessing completely? They would not be able to make any counter claims without implicating themselves.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
bolint wrote:
"What would his motive have been to specifically name Amanda and Raff? At no time did they implicate him. Which is interesting. "

How could they have done that without implicating themselves?


So if AK and RS never confess then what is stopping RG from confessing completely? They would not be able to make any counter claims without implicating themselves.



only hidden money?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"So if AK and RS never confess then what is stopping RG from confessing completely? They would not be able to make any counter claims without implicating themselves."

He is surely involved more than his cockamamie story implies so he couldn't gain anything by that.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Quote:
Hi The Librarian,

So far, this forum has accumulated:

GIP Matteini’s bail application ruling,
GUP Micheli’s combination verdict on Rudy and indictment of Amanda and Raffaele
the CAssizeP’s first-instance verdict on Amanda and Raffaele
Amanda’s and Raffaele’s unlodged appeal documents (in PDF, OCR scan and GoogleTrans formats)
various ancillary documentary material of sundry nature


Hi Catnip,

I'm not sure if the Librarian :lol: already has the following material, but just in case here they are:

Corte di Cassazione – Sentenza n. 16409/2008
Corte di Cassazione, Sezione Prima Penale, Sentenza del 21 aprile 2008 n. 16409


REPUBBLICA ITALIANA
 IN NOME DEL POPOLO ITALIANO 
LA CORTE SUPREMA DI CASSAZIONE
 SEZIONE I PENALE

Composta dagli Ill.mi Sigg.ri Magistrati:
Dott. Torquato GEMELLI - Presidente -
Dott. Emilio Giovanni GIRONI - Consigliere -
Dott. Maria Cristina SIOTTO - Consigliere -
Dott. Umberto ZAMPETTI - Consigliere -
Dott. Margherita CASSANO - Consigliere -
ha pronunciato la seguente

SENTENZA

sul ricorso proposto da:

1) S. R. [Raffaele Sollecito]

n. il X avverso Ordinanza del 30/11/2007 Trib. Libertà di Perugia;
sentita la relazione fatta dal Consigliere Gironi Emilio Giovanni;
sentite le conclusioni del P.G. Dr. Consolo per il rigetto;
sentiti i difensori avv.ti G. e T. (in sost. avv. M.).

MOTIVI DELLA DECISIONE
http://www.studiolegalelaw.net/consulenza-legale/4807
------
Corte di Cassazione – Sentenza n. 16410/2008

Corte di Cassazione, Sezione Prima Penale, Sentenza del 21 aprile 2008 n. 16410

REPUBBLICA ITALIANA
 IN NOME DEL POPOLO ITALIANO 
LA CORTE SUPREMA DI CASSAZIONE
 SEZIONE I PENALE

Composta dagli Ill.mi Sigg.ri Magistrati:
Dott. Torquato GEMELLI - Presidente -
Dott. Emilio Giovanni GIRONI - Consigliere -
Dott. Maria Cristina SIOTTO - Consigliere -
Dott. Umberto ZAMPETTI - Consigliere -
Dott. Margherita CASSANO - Consigliere -

ha pronunciato la seguente

SENTENZA

sul ricorso proposto da:
1) K. A. M. [Amanda M. Knox]

avverso Ordinanza del 30/11/2007 Trib. Libertà di Perugia;
sentita la relazione fatta dal Consigliere Cassano Margherita;
sentite le conclusioni del P.G. Dr. S. Consolo che ha chiesto il rigetto del ricorso.

RITENUTO IN FATTO
http://www.studiolegalelaw.net/consulenza-legale/4808
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools, it was a great idea to track down these Supreme Court decisions. Thanks
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
What I said about the slippery slope referred only to my own attitude towards the controversial points, not Katody's. I just wanted to state that questioning certain points does not necessarily mean that one is engaged on that slope, although some people may well be.

As for the arguments for innocence that Katody and Rose Montague brought here, I am not interested in debating them or even responding. Michael appears to think that I leap to their defence, but that is simply not true. I just appreciate the fact that one and the other brought actual new documents to my attention that I had not seen before. I am keenly interested by any and all trial-related documents. To each his own pet obsession!


I think the difference between honest inquiry and the sneaky (or clumsy) introduction of slippery slopes is fairly easy to spot. Both can be described as agendas, but the latter differs in that it is intended to be hidden. At this stage of the game (post unanmimous guilty verdict and conviction, with an automatic appeal coming up), those who have taken the time to examine the evidence in a dispassionate way have a clear conviction. There is really no point in engaging in sterile debates with people whose hidden agenda just happens to include a regurgitated set of talking points.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It is very depressing to think of murderers making money, and thereby having a life, when they have committed such a heinous crime. It's adding insult upon injury. I'm not going to even go there, because it will make me livid :( . Excellent posts everyone, and thanks for the link, Jools. Unfortunately for me, the english translation was incomprehensible. Maybe a few martinis, and I'll get it :).

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools,

Likewise thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
bolint wrote:
"What would his motive have been to specifically name Amanda and Raff? At no time did they implicate him. Which is interesting. "

How could they have done that without implicating themselves?


So if AK and RS never confess then what is stopping RG from confessing completely? They would not be able to make any counter claims without implicating themselves.


Peter Quennel recently said that Guede was ready to break. Said if anyone got down to the prison then -- he was ready to tell all. Out of the 3 he's by far the one most likely to break. There is only one reason he won't. Last year he was reportedly beaten up in prison. Solleceteo liked to say his father is connected to the mafia. Barbara Nadeau stated that Papa Soll. was turning up for court in an armoured limo - with security. Why? It must be his involvement in the seedier side of Italian business.

One reason Guede won't break - fear. As he's in prison - anyone could get to him. There's your answer.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Maybe Rudi's going to write a book when he gets out in 5 years and pre-emp the K/M clan. His writing is certainly better than Amanda's. I'm assuming double jeopardy is true in Italy as well as the U.S.A.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:05 pm   Post subject: Cass 16409 and 16410   

Those Cassation Court decisions, 16409/2008 and 16410/2008, were Raffaele's and Amanda's appeals to be released from precautionary custody (imprisonment) while the investigations were still underway.

I'll translate them, as well as Anna Teresa Paciotti's accompanying article explaining the background of the decisions.

Both appeals were rejected, and the orders of the lower courts, the Re-examination Tribunals, that imposed the custody orders, were upheld.

---

If this case were not so serious, some parts of it would be humorous, and I think the case could easily end up being nicknamed the “un sacco di cazzate" case, that is, "a load of balls" ( = in reference to Raffaele's admission, at least initially, of having told them).

Imagine the highest court in the land having to quote that langauge.



Two linguistic matters that caught my eye:

-- the phrase "the negative personality of the suspect" (= Amanda) gets a mention
-- Amanda's appeal reasons are almost twice as long as Raffaele's, keeping up the pattern that Amanda gets more attention in the spotlight


Last edited by Catnip on Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Maybe Rudi's going to write a book when he gets out in 5 years and pre-emp the K/M clan. His writing is certainly better than Amanda's. I'm assuming double jeopardy is true in Italy as well as the U.S.A.



Cape,

There's a possible proceeds of crime hurdle to negotiate as well, I think.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
Like it or not, even if Knox serves 10 years, there is a pot of gold at the end of it.


If she confesses won't she be released early?

bilko wrote:
There is no way that she can ever confess, because too much is at stake.


A simple admission is unlikely to come now - there has been and there is too much invested in the facade of denial. Her family is keeping her in denial. Many say here that it must be suspected that Edda Mellas/Curt Knox suspect. The first phone call from AK to her mother as the postal police were encroaching on the house, that AK couldn't remember but Mellas could, was possibly a partial confession (in panic).

bilko wrote:
When the time is up, she will emerge as the wronged woman in this case and enjoy the fruits of the book and movie deals.


Pretty bland book/movie as somebody wronged when the majority even now know she's guilty.

bilko wrote:
Television will be fighting to sign her up. If you artye sick of the family now, wait until then!


The sort of television you are talking about wherein there would be a 'biopic' may not even exist in 10 years+.

bilko wrote:
In the past, I have defended those who have tried to put forward an alternative voice on this forum. However, the recent string of newbies, who are popping up one after the other, are beyond the pail.


After infesting JREF they seem to be breaking out.

bilko wrote:
It is my opinion that the Knox machine knows that it is going to lose the appeal, but is playing the long game. As long as they can create the impression that the evidence against her is flawed or even non-existent and as long as they can plant the seed of doubt in the mind of the general public, they are on to a winner.


That is the game that is being played on JREF. It's a parallel universe of untruth - the place has been taken over by liars.
The place now should come with a health warning. They took over JREF because they had no credible forum.

bilko wrote:
When she eventually gets out, do you really think that people will be remembering the real victim of this case? The public will know nothing of the debates that have been had on sites such as this. They will have vague memories of a young American who had been unfairly sentenced to 26 years in prison and will go along with what the publicity machine churns out. The press will go along with it, just has they have done for the last few years. A "wrongful conviction" generates more column inches and affords journalists more work than one that plays out justly. I think this is the reason why so many lazy journalists have been willing to merely regurgitate the lines that the Knox's have fed them ( sometimes word for word)


for $$$?

bilko wrote:
I believe that rosedarling and katylied are just stringing you along and are best ignored. I hope that I am wrong about this, but I suspect not.


The FOA play two games here either they say they believe in the guilt of AK/RS then start hacking away seeding doubt, or they say they believe in their innocence and are trying to bait, to make the forum members here seem unreasonable after pretending to research. When the latter are more promptly dismissed they go back to their community and complain with the same sort of epithets 'guilters' use to describe them -- 'brainwashed', 'cult' etc.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Maybe Rudi's going to write a book when he gets out in 5 years and pre-emp the K/M clan. His writing is certainly better than Amanda's. I'm assuming double jeopardy is true in Italy as well as the U.S.A.



Cape,

There's a possible proceeds of crime hurdle to negotiate as well, I think.


Were civil suits filed by the Kerchers? If so, have these been tried and a judgment given? Were the suits against all three defendants? Wouldn't any monetary gain (due to a book or movie contract, etc.) by the defendants be turned over first to the Kerchers to satisfy any monetary judgment in a civil suit?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"That would be a little more difficult to achieve."

I'm afraid not.
Do you think if she went home now somehow she would then be extradited? No way.



But she won't go home 'now'.

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


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

Offline 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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

christiana wrote:
Were civil suits filed by the Kerchers? If so, have these been tried and a judgment given?


Yes and yes.
Patrick and the landlady also filed claims.
Amounts were awarded; and provisional amounts specified.

christiana wrote:
Were the suits against all three defendants?


Amanda and Raffaele: definitely.
Rudy: can't remember; I will have to go and look at Micheli's judgement.
Rudy would not be part of Patrick's claim.

christiana wrote:
Wouldn't any monetary gain (due to a book or movie contract, etc.) by the defendants be turned over first to the Kerchers to satisfy any monetary judgment in a civil suit?


Depends on the exact rules and procedures.
I remember Yummi explained this a long time ago.
Some things are in, some are out (e.g., a family member could write a book, I think).


The case is not finished yet, either; the possibility is there of changing the amounts.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
"But she won't go home 'now'."


Yes, but we are talking about the post-jail period and my point is that once in the US she will surely challenge in a US court all Italian claims (compensation, future income related to the case, etc.) and for the same reasons that she would not be extradited now, there is a chance that her challenge would be granted in the US.
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Full Moon brigade seems a bit quiet this month.
Where have they gone?


Just to get in the spirit, I’m sporting a new-look signature.
Isn’t it nice?
It’s a protest.



Nessuno va volontieri dal dentista. A meno che non sia un masochista. ("No one willingly goes to a dentist. At least, when they're not a masochist.") — Andrea Camilleri, Un sabato, con gli amici ("Saturday night, with friends") (2009) [Mondadori 2009] p 23
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:20 pm   Post subject: Real CSI   

The third episode of Real CSI on Friday 23rd at 22:00 has a segment on Meredith Kercher, as well as Amy St. Lauren (2001) and Naomi Smith (1995).

It's on Italia 1, according to here.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Quote:
Thoughtful, I have a question. You have read the Motivation report. How much validity do you give the new documents submitted?


I give them complete validity. I believe that they were written by Bongiorno/Maori and by Ghirga/dalla Vedova with the utmost effort to defend their clients. I do not think they contain any actual lies. Rather, they lay stress on the points that might possibly be doubtful in the Massei report (quoting it extensively), together with some new details (such as the non-existent buses on the night of Nov. 1st), and arguments concerning the lack of apparent motive and other familiar points, to parlay these into a claim of innocence. They appear to be in as good faith as any lawyer would be whose duty is to defend the client. I also think that some of the minor points raised are interesting and new and true.

However, overall my assessment is that, because the lawyers who wrote these reports were obliged to remain within their professional guidelines (i.e. could not outright lie etc.), these documents reveal above all the serious, drastic weaknesses in the defense's case. I feel that while the appeal may possibly succeed in having certain new tests done (on the unidentified stain on the pillowcase, for example) and raising a few new facts, there is no chance, no chance at all (I feel) for the new jury to be convinced of innocence. The defence case, taken at its strongest (represented by these documents) just looks too weak to me. I also find that Raffaele's appeal is far better prepared, by more motivated lawyers, than Amanda's, which is really bland.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Okay, Catnip, I am delighted to be in agreement with you! And, I should not have used the word "invalid', big mistake, I should have checked my source. The words you used were "almost useless". I was referring to the post of yours quoted below. The way it is written, I would not agree, simply because I think it's very useful to get a good grasp of the case for the defence and the documents Rose provided gave that. However, perhaps I took your words a little differently from how they were meant. I thought you were saying that those slight defects (which I didn't even notice) made the OCR outputs almost useless with respect to the actual originals.

Anyway, cheers and enjoy your microscope!

Quote:
Had a quick look at RoseMontag's docstoc docs catalogue.

The "English" language ones are useless to me (googlifying word-for-words everywhere, e.g.), and the "Italian" ones are almost useless: they are OCR outputs (saved as Word format) of scans of what would have been the originals (maybe).

The OCR process steam-rollers over subtle physical traits like pencilled corrections and adjustments and marginalia; besides which, the OCR language-setting obviously wasn't Italian, so it squashes out some of the spelling and grammar, and smudges the legal references a bit (e.g., numbers to subsections).


Last edited by thoughtful on Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
But she won't go home 'now'.


Interesting discussion of possible money making opportunities upon Amanda's release

Anyone else speculate on how "un-Foxy" the Little Angel may appear whenever she eventually is released ?? eee-)

http://www.worth1000.com/tutorials/161116/tutorial


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi thoughtful,

I had in more in mind the corrections and proofing stage to guarantee authenticity and accuracy like the ISO (and also thinking of that edition of the Bible that inadvertantly left out the word "not" in the adultery commandment :) ), as well as looking up the sections of the Penal Code for legal context and background (to weigh the strength of the grounds in a legal sense, rather than evidentiary sense). The newspapers were given enough info to write the grounds up back at the time, so I expected no surprises in any case.


Anyway,

Avanti!
Top Profile 

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi all, sorry if this has been discussed, but will the Italian appellate court weigh the evidence all over again and completely disregard the trial court's findings?

Because in the US, let's say the jury in the trial court found that the defendant ran a red light, and then the defendant appeals and argues that the light was green, then all the appellate court will do is examine whether it was reasonable for the jury to come to the conclusion that the light was red.

In other words, the appellate court will not decide that the light was green just because maybe they feel that the evidence points in that direction. As long as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the light was red, the appellate court will not overturn the verdict, no matter how much they may think the light was green.

Is this how it works in Italy too? Because if it is, Knox and Sollecito are completely doomed IMO.
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: Renzi   

This is old news (10) days ago):

The boss of a telephone intercept company, Ercole Renzi of Renzi Group (computers/IT/Internet stuff), has been charged with fradulent bankruptcy for cooking the books. A passion for horse-racing and "various investments" did him in.

It seems he provided some sort of (unspecified) advisory consultancy service in the Meredith Kercher case.

Romagna Oggi 13 July 2010
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Quote:
"But she won't go home 'now'."


Yes, but we are talking about the post-jail period and my point is that once in the US she will surely challenge in a US court all Italian claims (compensation, future income related to the case, etc.) and for the same reasons that she would not be extradited now, there is a chance that her challenge would be granted in the US.

Actually, there are two non-exclusive ways it could work . One is that the Kerchers and Lamumba would have to file an action in whatever state AK resides asking the court to enforce the foreign judgment. Of the grounds of objection relevant to her case, I think AK would have a difficult time showing the judgment was achieved by fraud, or that holding her to pay damages for wrongful death offends public policy. Even when they prevail, they do not automatically get the money. Once they have the judgment, they would then have to get the court to issue a Writ of Execution identifying the things to be seized, which gives AK the opportunity to object and claim that the property should be exempt from execution. If those objections are rejected, they then have to get the Sheriff to enforce the writ and seize the property.

In the event a book deal or movie deal was being struck, an action could be filed in whatever state had jurisdiction of the publisher or movie studio to seize the payment based on that state's son of Sam law, assuming it had one. Since California is host to movie studios and the state Supreme Court declared its son of Sam law unconstitutional in 2002, I think the movie deal goes through, and it is up to the Kerchers or Lamumba to find the money.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Buzz wrote:
Hi all, sorry if this has been discussed, but will the Italian appellate court weigh the evidence all over again and completely disregard the trial court's findings?

Because in the US, let's say the jury in the trial court found that the defendant ran a red light, and then the defendant appeals and argues that the light was green, then all the appellate court will do is examine whether it was reasonable for the jury to come to the conclusion that the light was red.

In other words, the appellate court will not decide that the light was green just because maybe they feel that the evidence points in that direction. As long as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the light was red, the appellate court will not overturn the verdict, no matter how much they may think the light was green.

Is this how it works in Italy too? Because if it is, Knox and Sollecito are completely doomed IMO.

The appeal is actually a trial de novo, meaning that jury will presume that AK and RS are innocent, and will make their own judgment of what the evidence shows. Neither side is restricted to the evidence offered or received in the first trial.

I realize that the red light example is just illustrative, but there is no right to a jury trial for an infraction, so such a case would never reach the court of appeal. You are correct that the court of appeal does not re-weigh the evidence; but it does evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The criminal court system in the US is primarily concerned with procedural due process. If the trial was fair, even a factually innocent defendant is presumed guilty. What constitutes a fair trial involves many things, such as whether the defendant was represented by competent counsel, had the right to call witnesses, and whether the judge was impartial. This latter includes such things as whether evidentiary objections were evenly applied to both the prosecution and the defense.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Re Renzi
"It seems he provided some sort of (unspecified) advisory consultancy service in the Meredith Kercher case."

He was an intercept master. He worked for various investigators and now his arrest was ordered by a prosecutor for whom he had worked in some cases.

"Il titolare di un’azienda di intercettazioni telefoniche che ha lavorato per numerose Procure, il riminese Ercole Renzi, è stato arrestato dalla Guardia di Finanza di Rimini su ordine del Pm Paolo Gengarelli, che proprio di Renzi si era servito in passato per varie inchieste."
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT OT

Dear Friends

I am off for a two week break in central France - about an hour from The Loire. It is a beautiful wooded oasis, an old mill house beside a weir, and a wide and beautiful stretch of water that is home to fish and sometimes cows, who come down the water's edge to drink in the early evening. I row past them and say hello as they stand there up to their knees, cooling off. I will try and catch the fish, although they are very canny - we have a yearly battle of wits which Mr Bard takes with deadly seriousness, trying bait after bait...but they know him now and you can almost hear them snigger. I will finish the second draft of my book and Young Bard will loll around complaining about being bored. I can see it now. I have taken some classic literature for him to read, which will please him no end. Heh heh heh...

Mungo has been packed off kicking and screaming ("I know my rights!" etc) to 'Bunny Boarding' up the road. He took a list of demands with him, but the lady looked down her nose and put him firmly in his temporary home.

Before I go I was wondering if anyone could help me with a totally OT problem. I need to write a short passage about a French poet of whom I know absolutely nothing, and am really struggling to find information about - my French is not all it could be! I won't have the internet in France (quelle horreur!) so I was wondering if any of our insanely brilliant research-opaths could help me. I am a bit stumped!

The poet is called

Claude-Emmanuel Lhuillier - also known as Chapelle. (1626-86).

Anyone? If anyone knows anything please let me know! I am getting desperate!

A Bientot my dear friends. I wonder if the report will be out by the time I get back? It takes an age to catch up after four days away, it will take weeks after a fortnight's absence. I know it is going to be an impressive document. I can't wait to see all the hard work people have been doing behind the scenes. And it will give us plenty of discussion points until the Appeal happens.

hugz-)


Bard

x

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"for cooking the books."

Not so fast. He only gave them to a dead man. :D
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
bolint wrote:
Quote:
"But she won't go home 'now'."

Yes, but we are talking about the post-jail period and my point is that once in the US she will surely challenge in a US court all Italian claims (compensation, future income related to the case, etc.) and for the same reasons that she would not be extradited now, there is a chance that her challenge would be granted in the US.

In the event a book deal or movie deal was being struck, an action could be filed in whatever state had jurisdiction of the publisher or movie studio to seize the payment based on that state's son of Sam law, assuming it had one. Since California is host to movie studios and the state Supreme Court declared its son of Sam law unconstitutional in 2002, I think the movie deal goes through, and it is up to the Kerchers or Lamumba to find the money.


Book deal I can see. But a motion picture? I don't get it. Nobody in their right mind thinks she was innocent so it would have to show Amanda as the remorseless killer we all know through her words and actions. You still get to cash the cheque, of course, but who would go see a movie like that, or finance it, knowing the risk of backlash?

The entertainment business is notoriously faint-hearted. We like to see movies about cryptic killers we know are fictional but could you imagine Hollywood trying to sell a movie in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the hero? I could see a fictional account based on Amanda, something truly monstrous (Amanda Krueger: Daughter Of Freddy -- Nightmare On Via Pergola; Hannibal Knox: Amanda Rising -- Flesh-Eaters of Perugia; The Ripper of Bari: Sollecito's Gruesome Girl). The titles kind of roll off the tongue.

My choice for director is David Cronenberg.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
OT OT

Dear Friends

I am off for a two week break in central France - about an hour from The Loire. It is a beautiful wooded oasis, an old mill house beside a weir, and a wide and beautiful stretch of water that is home to fish and sometimes cows, who come down the water's edge to drink in the early evening. I row past them and say hello as they stand there up to their knees, cooling off. I will try and catch the fish, although they are very canny - we have a yearly battle of wits which Mr Bard takes with deadly seriousness, trying bait after bait...but they know him now and you can almost hear them snigger. I will finish the second draft of my book and Young Bard will loll around complaining about being bored. I can see it now. I have taken some classic literature for him to read, which will please him no end. Heh heh heh...

Mungo has been packed off kicking and screaming ("I know my rights!" etc) to 'Bunny Boarding' up the road. He took a list of demands with him, but the lady looked down her nose and put him firmly in his temporary home.

Before I go I was wondering if anyone could help me with a totally OT problem. I need to write a short passage about a French poet of whom I know absolutely nothing, and am really struggling to find information about - my French is not all it could be! I won't have the internet in France (quelle horreur!) so I was wondering if any of our insanely brilliant research-opaths could help me. I am a bit stumped!

The poet is called

Claude-Emmanuel Lhuillier - also known as Chapelle. (1626-86).

Anyone? If anyone knows anything please let me know! I am getting desperate!

A Bientot my dear friends. I wonder if the report will be out by the time I get back? It takes an age to catch up after four days away, it will take weeks after a fortnight's absence. I know it is going to be an impressive document. I can't wait to see all the hard work people have been doing behind the scenes. And it will give us plenty of discussion points until the Appeal happens.

hugz-)


Bard

x


Bard, go to page 11

http://www.ohiostatepress.org/Books/Com ... ine/02.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
OT OT

Dear Friends

I am off for a two week break in central France - about an hour from The Loire. It is a beautiful wooded oasis, an old mill house beside a weir, and a wide and beautiful stretch of water that is home to fish and sometimes cows, who come down the water's edge to drink in the early evening. I row past them and say hello as they stand there up to their knees, cooling off. I will try and catch the fish, although they are very canny - we have a yearly battle of wits which Mr Bard takes with deadly seriousness, trying bait after bait...but they know him now and you can almost hear them snigger. I will finish the second draft of my book and Young Bard will loll around complaining about being bored. I can see it now. I have taken some classic literature for him to read, which will please him no end. Heh heh heh...

Mungo has been packed off kicking and screaming ("I know my rights!" etc) to 'Bunny Boarding' up the road. He took a list of demands with him, but the lady looked down her nose and put him firmly in his temporary home.

Before I go I was wondering if anyone could help me with a totally OT problem. I need to write a short passage about a French poet of whom I know absolutely nothing, and am really struggling to find information about - my French is not all it could be! I won't have the internet in France (quelle horreur!) so I was wondering if any of our insanely brilliant research-opaths could help me. I am a bit stumped!

The poet is called

[b]Claude-Emmanuel Lhuillier - also known as Chapelle. (1626-86).

Anyone? If anyone knows anything please let me know! I am getting desperate![/b]
A Bientot my dear friends. I wonder if the report will be out by the time I get back? It takes an age to catch up after four days away, it will take weeks after a fortnight's absence. I know it is going to be an impressive document. I can't wait to see all the hard work people have been doing behind the scenes. And it will give us plenty of discussion points until the Appeal happens.

hugz-)


Bard

x



Well, maybe I am not telling you anything you don't already know but here goes: French poet (born in La Chapelle-Saint-Denis, near Paris), a student of Gassendi, a friend of Boileau, de la Fontaine, Molière and the libertins. His claim to fame is having co-written, with Bachaumont,* a humorous verse and prose account of his Voyage en Languedoc (1663), which inaugurated a literary genre that was quite successful.

*François le Coigneux de Bachaumont

Oddly enough, the Oxford Companion gives the name of this récit as Voyage en Provence, describing it as a series of lively anecdotes in prose and verse. Chapelle was renowned for his scathing wit and was credited with some of the most powerful satires of the day, including Chapelain décoiffé.

_________________
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: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
In the event a book deal or movie deal was being struck, an action could be filed in whatever state had jurisdiction of the publisher or movie studio to seize the payment based on that state's son of Sam law, assuming it had one. Since California is host to movie studios and the state Supreme Court declared its son of Sam law unconstitutional in 2002, I think the movie deal goes through, and it is up to the Kerchers or Lamumba to find the money.


Book deal I can see. But a motion picture? I don't get it. Nobody in their right mind thinks she was innocent so it would have to show Amanda as the remorseless killer we all know through her words and actions. You still get to cash the cheque, of course, but who would go see a movie like that, or finance it, knowing the risk of backlash?

The entertainment business is notoriously faint-hearted. We like to see movies about cryptic killers we know are fictional but could you imagine Hollywood trying to sell a movie in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the hero? I could see a fictional account based on Amanda, something truly monstrous (Amanda Krueger: Daughter Of Freddy -- Nightmare On Via Pergola; Hannibal Knox: Amanda Rising -- Flesh-Eaters of Perugia; The Ripper of Bari: Sollecito's Gruesome Girl). The titles kind of roll off the tongue.

My choice for director is David Cronenberg.

TV movie. They made a two-part TV movie about Betty Broderick who murdered her ex-husband and his new wife. Meredith Baxter got an Emmy Award for her portrayal.

I would pick either the Coen Brothers or Quinten Tarantino.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Buzz


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
Buzz wrote:
Hi all, sorry if this has been discussed, but will the Italian appellate court weigh the evidence all over again and completely disregard the trial court's findings?

Because in the US, let's say the jury in the trial court found that the defendant ran a red light, and then the defendant appeals and argues that the light was green, then all the appellate court will do is examine whether it was reasonable for the jury to come to the conclusion that the light was red.

In other words, the appellate court will not decide that the light was green just because maybe they feel that the evidence points in that direction. As long as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the light was red, the appellate court will not overturn the verdict, no matter how much they may think the light was green.

Is this how it works in Italy too? Because if it is, Knox and Sollecito are completely doomed IMO.

The appeal is actually a trial de novo, meaning that jury will presume that AK and RS are innocent, and will make their own judgment of what the evidence shows. Neither side is restricted to the evidence offered or received in the first trial.

I realize that the red light example is just illustrative, but there is no right to a jury trial for an infraction, so such a case would never reach the court of appeal. You are correct that the court of appeal does not re-weigh the evidence; but it does evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The criminal court system in the US is primarily concerned with procedural due process. If the trial was fair, even a factually innocent defendant is presumed guilty. What constitutes a fair trial involves many things, such as whether the defendant was represented by competent counsel, had the right to call witnesses, and whether the judge was impartial. This latter includes such things as whether evidentiary objections were evenly applied to both the prosecution and the defense.




Well then I would say that Knox and Sollecito have a far better chance to get off on appeal in Italy than they would have here in the US.

And what if the defendant ran a red light and killed a pedestrian...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fuji


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Posts: 101

Location: Ireland

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
bolint wrote:
Quote:
"But she won't go home 'now'."

Yes, but we are talking about the post-jail period and my point is that once in the US she will surely challenge in a US court all Italian claims (compensation, future income related to the case, etc.) and for the same reasons that she would not be extradited now, there is a chance that her challenge would be granted in the US.

In the event a book deal or movie deal was being struck, an action could be filed in whatever state had jurisdiction of the publisher or movie studio to seize the payment based on that state's son of Sam law, assuming it had one. Since California is host to movie studios and the state Supreme Court declared its son of Sam law unconstitutional in 2002, I think the movie deal goes through, and it is up to the Kerchers or Lamumba to find the money.


Book deal I can see. But a motion picture? I don't get it. Nobody in their right mind thinks she was innocent so it would have to show Amanda as the remorseless killer we all know through her words and actions.


Not necessarily.

I could see a film thematically and structurally similar to 2003's under-rated Wonderland. This film, which closely tracks the actual accounts of the infamous "Four on the Floor" murders of 1981, utilizes the technique of shifting perspectives from amongst the different viewpoints of the various participants in a central act of savage violence (a la Rashomon). The story of Meredith's sad demise could be told from the perspectives of AK, RS, and RG - and finally, that as conceived by the Perugian court's findings.

In some ways, the story of John Holmes' trial and subsequent life is an inverse image of Amanda Knox's. In Holmes' case, he was clearly involved in the murders (i.e. his bloody handprint was found on the wall over the bed of one of the victims), but was found innocent at trial, as opposed to the American mainstream media's portrayals of Knox as someone clearly not involved in a murder, but found guilty at trial.

And the inverse image continues. How did Holmes beat the rap? Largely, by clamming up. Perhaps the cause of justice is lucky that Knox decided to watch Amelie instead of Wonderland that dismal November evening...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline flowers


Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:40 pm

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

have a fantastic holiday, Bard xxx
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Buzz wrote:
Well then I would say that Knox and Sollecito have a far better chance to get off on appeal in Italy than they would have here in the US.

Way better. But that's not to say their chances are good.

Buzz wrote:
And what if the defendant ran a red light and killed a pedestrian...

That is absolutely jury territory.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
What I would like is for the few errors that did occur on the prosecution's side and that have been revealed as such to be recognized as errors and no longer defended, so that the remaining arguments remain strong, reliable and not subject to question at all.

However may it rise Michael's suspicions against you, I must say I entirely agree with you, thoughtful. :)

Michael wrote:
It's 'relevant' because you have gone to such efforts in this thread to debunk the idea that Amanda's footprint was on the pillow when this was never a factor in their conviction.

In my opinion it's quite naive to think that you will find every contribution to this false conviction in court documents.

Quote:
The FOA's main talking point is that Amanda is completely innocent because there is no trace of her in, what they term, the 'murder room'. They define this as the crime scene...so anything outside of that room for them, is not the crime scene (unless it's evidence left by Rudy Guede...so wherever 'he' left evidence is suddenly the crime scene). Therefore, the mere suggestion that Amanda 'may' have left some trace in that room has to be combated strongly.



Coincidentally, I was reading (thanks Macport for great links! ) and thinking about that problem recently. I think you are wrong about it.
What is interesting, considering that Amanda was a resident of the cottage is that any physical trace of her presence there can be incriminating only when it can be somehow determined when they were left (e.g. bloody footprint leaves no doubts that it was made when blood was fresh).

That leads me to some interesting questions about the dating of some collected traces...

See you later, and have a good night ( or whatever you have there at the moment :) ).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
Buzz wrote:
Well then I would say that Knox and Sollecito have a far better chance to get off on appeal in Italy than they would have here in the US.

Way better. But that's not to say their chances are good.

Buzz wrote:
And what if the defendant ran a red light and killed a pedestrian...

That is absolutely jury territory.


The appeal is automatic, after all. There is nothing to prevent Ghirga et al from refloating the same farily weak defensive arguments they tried in the first trial, but I doubt that they will miraculously appear stronger.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:

Quote:
In my opinion it's quite naive to think that you will find every contribution to this false conviction in court documents.


I doubt Michael is as naive as that. However, you are mistaken in calling this a "false" conviction. It is as real as the computer I am working from. There is nothing "false" about it at all. And the document which details the factors that contributed to the unanimous verdict is very real too -- all 400 plus pages of it.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: Sayagh's essay   

TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Regardless, they were caught in Italy and if their laws are stricter then so be it. Any US lawyers care to comment? Would they have set bail and established restrictions on her movement?

There's a neat little trick that is sometimes used here in the US to detain a suspect indefinitely without charging them; declare the person to be a "material witness", i.e. someone who has important testimony for, say, the grand jury, but the grand jury never quite gets around to hearing the witness until the investigation has garnered enough evidence to proceed with the case. It is controversial and challenges are afoot. Since the device harms individuals but not corporations, I don't expect the current crop of Supremes to get upset about it.


I just found an interesting document about preventive detention in common-law countries here:

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=intlaw

In the United States, a reforming movement spurred by a philanthropist's visit to New York City prisons in the 1960s led to an experiment and culminated in a Bill in 1984:

Quote:
Under the Bail Reform Act a federal judge "shall order the detention" of a person accused of a federal crime if he or she finds that "no conditions or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person ... before trial" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) (1984).


Under this act, the terms of bail and preventive detention are specified:

Quote:
The federal prosecutor can move for a detention hearing if the case involves any of the above listed crimes or if they believe there is:
1. serious risk of flight,
2. a serious risk that the person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct
justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to
threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror. 18 U.S.C § 3142(f)(2)(B).


Nobody would argue that Raffaele and Amanda were not flight risks. One of those accused with them fled as the investigation widened. Attempts to interfere with or distract the investigation were plentiful. The staged burglary scene would have instantly raised concerns.

Quote:
In assessing this, the judge "shall take into account" the following factors:
1. nature of crime; whether it involves violence or drugs;
2. "weight of the evidence;"
3. person's history, including character, physical & mental condition, job, finances, length of residence, community ties, drug abuse history, prior criminal & bail appearance record; and
4. nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community
that would be posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C § 3142(g).


A judge in the USA has the ability to assess the accused on the basis of four distinct elements. The nature of the crime and the weight of evidence are each particularly strong reasons for refusing to take bail.

There are critics of the preventive detention portions of the act, as there are in Europe:

Quote:
The defendant is forced to defend his or her right to liberty and the presumption that they are innocent-because the underlying message of preventive detention presumes that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged and seeks to prevent the repetition of that crime.


The Act was upheld as constitutional:

Quote:
The constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act was determined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Salerno. Salerno involved two defendants indicted for twenty nine counts of racketeering and denied bail under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The court examined two constitutional challenges to the Act: substantive due process and the Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail. In evaluating the due process claim, the court determined that preventive detention was regulatory, not punitive.


The paper continues by discussing the UK, Canada, and other Commonwealth countries. I discovered the influence of both the British system (largely before WWII) and the American system (especially since the pioneering work in the New York City reforming experiments):

Quote:
Most of the Canadian Committee on Corrections recommendations were incorporated into the Bail Reform Act of 1972, and were subsequently codified into §§ 515-526 of the Criminal Code. However, despite the "rights protecting ethos" of the Bail Reform Act, the Act incorporated preventive detention as a legitimate reason for the denial of bail.


Again, in Canada, flight risk and other factors are codified:

Quote:
Section 515(10) sets out the only two grounds justifying the detention of an accused in custody:
(a) on the primary ground that his detention is necessary to ensure his attendance in court ... ;
and
(b) on the secondary ground (the applicability of which shall be determined only in the event that his detention is not justified [under] (a), that his detention is necessary in the public interest or for the safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if he is released from custody, commit a criminal offense or interfere with the administration of justice.


As in the US, a non-capital preventive detention case was the cause for a constitutionality ruling:

Quote:
It was inevitable that these three interrelated rights would collide with judicial precedents that allowed persons to be preventively detained in furtherance of some nebulously defined concept of the "public interest." That challenge came in R. v. Morales. Morales concerned an accused cocaine trafficker believed to be associated with a Colombian drug cartel. He was denied bail under the preventive detention provisions in § 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code.


I don't know if someone accused of murder would be able to justify a constitutionality challenge. It would seem to be an instant failure. The paper even includes the ancient justification that a man would pay any price (bond) in return for his life. That was before the abolition of the death penalty but it's still relevant.

Here's the approach in New South Wales, Catnip's neck of the woods:

Quote:
One primary result of the Bail Act 1978165 was to create a rebuttable presumption in favor of bail for all offenses, except bail absconding and armed robbery. Persons accused of murder and rape benefit from the presumption.


This is perhaps the kind of preventive detention that Amanda-groupies are hoping that Italy or the rest of Europe has. Most of us would probably object to any legal definition that creates exemptions for murderers and rapists.

However, NSW has its own way of dealing with an unusually lax preventive detention law:

Quote:
In 1987, a study was published by two University of Sydney professors that indicated the state held a higher proportion of prisoners than any other Australian state. The professors blamed this on the fact that judges were too likely to approve the denial of bail by police, who in turn were refusing bail far more often than necessary.


It isn't made clear how the police enter the equation but it may be that they present the claim in front of a "rubber stamp" court that in turn accepts their assessment uncritically.

Finally, there are a number of recommendations on the setting of bail and establishment of preventive detention from the paper. I find them all reasonable. I don't think any of them would have resulted in anything other than preventive detention for Amanda but you can draw your own conclusions:

Quote:
A. Preventive detention by openly stated legislative policy is
inherently better than preventive detention
by subterfuge.

B. Provisions for preventive detention must be narrowly
crafted as to not detract from a fundamental
presumption toward the granting of bail.

C. There must be legislatively determined grounds for bail
refusal but, these grounds must incorporate only two
interests: the defendant's right to liberty and to be
presumed innocent and the state's interest in
protecting public safety and integrity of the
judicial process.

D. Judges must have some discretion in application of these
rules, but must be specific in assigning grounds for
refusal of bail.

E. Any denial of bail based on the public interest must be
grounded on a concrete and particularized threat to the
public safety or judicial process.

F. Any denial of bail based on the public safety must be
based on a threat to the safety of persons, not property.

G. There should be a right to appeal a preventive
detention determination.

H. The right to fair bail, the right to be presumed innocent,
and the right not to subjected to imprisonment without
due process of law are fundamental rights and
should be protected by a Bill or Charter of Rights.


All of the sections in quotes above are directly from that paper. The commentary is my own. Can anyone truly argue that Amanda would not have been kept in custody on the basis of those acts? Does anyone have an example of a sexual assailant/murderer being released on their own recognizance?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Just shutting down for the night and I saw Skep and piktor's replies! Thank you both so much! I have been able to copy your info onto a memory stick and can work on it while I'm away. A million thanks!

xxx

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yes, for sure, Catnip, they will have to cross the proceeds of crime hurdle. I didn't think of that. I know the law about that in the U.S.A., but wasn't sure about Italy. Your posts are so very informative, Catnip, and it takes me awhile to digest them, and all the nuances. Really excellent!!. Thoughtful: That's good news that you don't believe they'll win on appeal. Their sentence is already too light, and after nearly 3 years, no sign of remorse. And, if they did show any, it would be fake. It seems psycopaths can *mirror* emotion, albeit not that well, but can't squeeze out real tears. And they don't seem able to act sad for very long at all. Within a short time, they're out partying, *eating pizza*, funning in lingerie stores, and seem to enjoy life as never before. Oh, until they're caught....Then something like emotion surfaces...for themselves :(

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   



///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Fine :). I love your cartoons and articles :) Oh, and your posts. I see you still endeavour on the other side......You're an unsung hero :) So boring there without Fulc, Fiona, Stillicho, BTD, (who's no donkey!!) etc.....How that thread hasn't died yet is another mystery.......

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It's so good to see some posts from you Skep. You always tell it like it is !!!!! Hurry back!!! BTW, Big family wedding in a week, and my Mother and siblings are arriving.....They complain about the cold in Seattle......well, they're in for a heat wave, poor darlings :)

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Robert Farquharson again (yesterday) convicted of muder, after his second trial.



The victims, his three sons.

"Harpo Productions, the company of American talk show host Oprah Winfrey, is reported to have offered [Cindy] Gambino [Farquharson's exwife] $1 million to appear on the program and tell her story." wikipedia
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT/ I am watching *Dateline* ( in Los Angeles) a murder that breaks your heart. I just want to say to all my fellow posters, there are so many senseless murders out there.......I will be celebrating my eldest son's wedding......such a happy time........but, I tell you, I just thank G-g for them being here...prayers and heartfelt sympathy to all parents who have lost a loved one..I'm crying as I type this...I hope in a very small way, I stand for justice for every devastated person who has suffered a loss. The pain for them is unbearable. As I celebrate this beautiful occasion, I am reminded of the sadness of so many parents who will not have this joy. It is bitter sweet... Than goodness, the show is over. I feel my heart breaking, and know that it will never end. There will always be another senseless murder........I guess I should take a break from posting....

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

All that talking about a movie: How can you imagine, the story would be told?

IMO all that big circus around Amanda is like a giant air bladder, containing the sliming of the italian justice, the italian police, the police brutality and so on. The biased reporting in US media, the performance of Senator Cantwell, Judge Heavey's letters. That thousands of dreadful comments against Italy. How all that evidence was faked and how 'poor' Amanda was railroaded.
I cannot image, they can bring this in the movie. And I do not think they will bring a lot about Amandas drug and alcohol use and her 'free lifestyle'. Hanging around with 'strange' people.
Raffeles hard core animal porns will also not be a theme.


But if you prick that bladder, there is nothing much left from the big Amanda story.


Only the very sad story of Meredith Kercher - and I am afraid, that will not be the goal of that movie.

Or maybe the movie will only be made for Seattleites and FOA groupies.?? Not much money to gain.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

A sad case, the Farquharsons.

––

The impact of such cases is greater than on just friends and family.

Trish Green, in a recent book interviewing women about motherhood, writes:

Quote:
Women were well acquainted with global change and welcomed it as providing the possibility of widening horizons for daughters and sons (1).


{ In a footnote she adds }

(1) A television programme aired in June 2007 and entitled Mind The Gap Year, documented a number of recent tragic accidents and young people’s disappearances; the ongoing trail for the murder of student Meredith Kercher in 2007 is frequently reported on TV and in newspapers; the Guardian (03/10/09) recently reported the disappearance in Panama of 29-year-old Alex Humphrey. Public knowledge of such incidents might mean that travel loses its appeal as well as its maternal support.

Motherhood, Absence and Transition (Hardcover) by Trish Green, at [ Amazon UK ] , p 101
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sorting through some old photos this morning, I found a lovely one of Meredith ([ here ]) used to accompany an article in [ The Sun (London) ] after the verdict.

It was like finding bright sunshine again.

Attachment:
mk_ts_screenpage.JPG


So happy.
And bright, and cheering.


(Thinks) I wonder if it’s Batgirl chocolate?


Attachment:
200x130chocolage.gif





Quote:

…one of the major transformations in travel opportunities for young people in the west is the acceptance and expectation that daughters as well as sons will grasp the opportunities for travel/work abroad and will, for the most part, do so with maternal backing and support:

“I want them to have adventures … I like the idea of, you know, the swallows that shoot off to Africa and then they come back again. As long as my daughters keep shooting off and coming back I’ll be happy. …” – (Rachel)


– Trish Green, Motherhood, p 102


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

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Capealadin said
Quote:
OT/ I am watching *Dateline* ( in Los Angeles) a murder that breaks your heart. I just want to say to all my fellow posters, there are so many senseless murders out there.......I will be celebrating my eldest son's wedding......such a happy time........but, I tell you, I just thank G-g for them being here...prayers and heartfelt sympathy to all parents who have lost a loved one..I'm crying as I type this...I hope in a very small way, I stand for justice for every devastated person who has suffered a loss. The pain for them is unbearable. As I celebrate this beautiful occasion, I am reminded of the sadness of so many parents who will not have this joy. It is bitter sweet... Than goodness, the show is over. I feel my heart breaking, and know that it will never end. There will always be another senseless murder........I guess I should take a break from posting....


Oh Cape, you are so right, sadly enough, there will always be another senseless murder... and it is heartbreaking to see and feel the pain of others. My heart breaks too for all senseless pain in the world... I am thinking that you also are an empath, its a hard road that has no end for you.

I certainly don't know why such terrible things may happen, but I never stop hoping and believing that the right things will come in the end. I am chronic Polyanna, and perhaps deluded; but my hope gives me a sense of peace without which I would be very sad.

Congratulations to your eldest son's wedding. I think it is the Yin and Yang of our existance, when beauty is overflowing still in the midst of other tragedy.

Sincerely r-((

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ahh, yes Catnip. Was there ever a lovelier smile, and eyes full of promise?? How could she ever know the horror that befell her? Heartbreaking. Unfortunately, It has been all about Amanda..porca miseria!!!!!!!!!!

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:52 am   Post subject: Bail in Oz   

stilicho wrote:

Here's the approach in New South Wales, Catnip's neck of the woods:

Quote:
One primary result of the Bail Act 1978 was to create a rebuttable presumption in favor of bail for all offenses, except bail absconding and armed robbery. Persons accused of murder and rape benefit from the presumption.


This is perhaps the kind of preventive detention that Amanda-groupies are hoping that Italy or the rest of Europe has. Most of us would probably object to any legal definition that creates exemptions for murderers and rapists.

However, NSW has its own way of dealing with an unusually lax preventive detention law:

Quote:
In 1987, a study was published by two University of Sydney professors that indicated the state held a higher proportion of prisoners than any other Australian state. The professors blamed this on the fact that judges were too likely to approve the denial of bail by police, who in turn were refusing bail far more often than necessary.


It isn't made clear how the police enter the equation ...



Police can grant bail, but that doesn't mean automatically in all cases. There are restrictions, and nuances as well. Even the different courts are restricted as to who can (or cannot) grant bail, in what circumstances, with what reasons, etc.

There are Bail Acts here in all states and territories, e.g.:


Bail can be granted by an “authorising officer” or court of sufficient rank (depending on the offence and circumstances). E.g.,

Quote:

NSW
s17 Authority for police to grant bail
(1) A police officer may grant bail in accordance with this Act to an accused person who is present at a police station if the officer is:
(a) of or above the rank of sergeant and present at the police station, or
(b) for the time being in charge of the police station.




In a reference book designed for practitioners, the overall Australian view on bail looks like this:

Quote:

[2.130] Bail considerations

Considerations for granting bail include:
  • a presumption in favour of bail save in specified cases
  • need to prepare a defence
  • seriousness of offence
  • likely severity of punishment
  • likelihood of answering bail
  • likelihood of re-offending
  • potential for interference with witnesses

– from Ross on Crime, 4th ed., p156



That last point would include any other way of obstructing the course of justice, as well.

Bail in a murder case has a higher threshold to hurdle –

Ross again:
Quote:
[2.180] Murder
In cases of murder exceptional circumstances must be shown before granting bail




In legislative terms, this comes out as, e.g.,:

Quote:

NSW
s9C MURDER
An authorised officer or court is not to grant bail to a person in respect of an offence of murder unless the authorised officer or court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the grant of bail.



Those "exceptional circumstances" mean exactly that, and have been met in only rare cases. Ross lists four, the last one in 1995 in WA.



In Bail-world, more generally, in deciding whether to release a suspect or keep them in custody, a broader view is to be used, rather than relying on the strict rules of evidence/admissibility that would be applied during a trial.

e.g.:

Quote:

NSW
s32
(3) For the purposes of this section, the authorised officer or court may take into account any evidence or information which the officer or court considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances and, in that regard, is not bound by the principles or rules of law governing the admission of evidence.




Examples of specified types of considerations:

Quote:
QLD
s16 Refusal of bail


(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations, home environment, employment and background of the defendant;
(c) the history of any previous grants of bail to the defendant;
(d) the strength of the evidence against the defendant;
(e) if the defendant is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person--any submissions made by a representative of the community justice group in the defendant's community, including, for example, about--
(i) the defendant's relationship to the defendant's community; or
(ii) any cultural considerations; or
(iii) any considerations relating to programs and services in which the community justice group participates.



Western Australia is a criminal code state, so their Bail Act s6 points, quite logically, to their Criminal Investigation Act 2006 - s 142, which covers grounds already mentioned.



But what do you do for bail if the investigation has only just started and you don't know anything about anything?

Quote:
QLD
s16
(1A) Where it has not been practicable to obtain sufficient information for the purpose of making a decision in connection with any matter specified in subsection (1) due to lack of time since the institution of proceedings against a defendant the court before which the defendant appears or is brought shall remand the defendant in custody with a view to having further information obtained for that purpose.


In Italy, the Re-examination Tribunals that oversee the investigations validate that the defendant’s rights have not been breached at any stage.


Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania are Criminal Code states (in fact, Queensland, when it was still a sovreign country before Federation, modelled its Criminal Code on the Italian Penal Code of the time, the 1880s-1890s, and the other two states followed suit afterwards), but even in the Common Law states, the same outcome as in Italy would have occurred.


I don't think the systems are as different as the fear-mongers are trying to make out.

And I've noticed a general pattern of, when they're saying "Now, here in the US, such a thing would blah-blah-blah", they go all vague on the specifics and details, as if what they're saying is just hot air (which it probably is, when there is no citation of authority to back it up): I think they would fail the first step of mooting.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

DJLawless wrote:
Capealadin said
Quote:
OT/ I am watching *Dateline* ....


Oh Cape, ... I am thinking that you also are an empath, ...




Cape, and DJ, and everyone,

I was wondering, when the Motivations report comes out, whether there ought to be some sort of reading guide or set of instructions on how to read it.

It constructs a narrative of events, but it is not a novel. The territory it has to step through -- For some parts of it, some readers may not be ready, or prepared. Perhaps even not be able to look at.

I don't know what we can do to help. There are no training manuals or courses or things. But I suppose that, in the end, no one is ever going to be able to be prepared, anyway.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
All that talking about a movie: How can you imagine, the story would be told?

IMO all that big circus around Amanda is like a giant air bladder, containing the sliming of the italian justice, the italian police, the police brutality and so on ...

.....


Pelerine,

I can't get out of my thoughts that they want to call the movie

The Cartwheel Caper

to match the Keystone Kops attitude.


A few years ago, when that American tourist couple got left behind in the middle of the Coral Sea (the scuba diving excursion boat went back to shore and no one realised the couple were missing until much later), a movie was made -- but the setting was changed from the Great Barrier Reef to the Caribbean.

Maybe the same could happen here.

Instead of Perugia, maybe Prague or Paskatoon or somewhere else.

Maybe the Judge will have done it(!), and will try to blame the hero attorney(!!)

And remember, in American movies, the senator is always the evil and corrupt one. eee-)
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Perhaps Douglas Preston can write the screen play?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
All that talking about a movie: How can you imagine, the story would be told?

IMO all that big circus around Amanda is like a giant air bladder, containing the sliming of the italian justice, the italian police, the police brutality and so on. The biased reporting in US media, the performance of Senator Cantwell, Judge Heavey's letters. That thousands of dreadful comments against Italy. How all that evidence was faked and how 'poor' Amanda was railroaded.
I cannot image, they can bring this in the movie. And I do not think they will bring a lot about Amandas drug and alcohol use and her 'free lifestyle'. Hanging around with 'strange' people.
Raffeles hard core animal porns will also not be a theme.


But if you prick that bladder, there is nothing much left from the big Amanda story.


Only the very sad story of Meredith Kercher - and I am afraid, that will not be the goal of that movie.

Or maybe the movie will only be made for Seattleites and FOA groupies.?? Not much money to gain.


_________________________



Baby Doll, the movie, written by Tennessee Williams, 1956

"She acts totally from whim and impulse, desireous of pleasing only herself and exacting whatever advantages she can from those around her...."


The film was condemned by Time magazine, censored by the Legion of Decency, boycotted by thousands of Catholics, and cancelled by a reported 77% of the theaters scheduled to screen it. Also banned in many countries, including Sweden.

MORE

///


Last edited by fine on Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:26 am, edited 6 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:10 am   Post subject: Re: Bail in Oz   

Catnip wrote:
I don't think the systems are as different as the fear-mongers are trying to make out.

And I've noticed a general pattern of, when they're saying "Now, here in the US, such a thing would blah-blah-blah", they go all vague on the specifics and details, as if what they're saying is just hot air (which it probably is, when there is no citation of authority to back it up): I think they would fail the first step of mooting.


I didn't think they were. I don't think it's typical in the EU to allow people charged with murder accompanied by sexual violence to run free after they've been arrested either. It doesn't make any sense on the face of it and none of the common-law examples I found supported exceptions in the US, Canada, the UK, or any Commonwealth countries.

I certainly empathise with the thrust of bail reform. To hold persons as though they were already convicted (years in some instances) is not fair. Italy's case is singled out by the EU not for university students who murder their roommates but for organised crime figures who are kept in prison for no crime other than being associated with others who have committed crimes. That is wrong, IMO.

I would still like anyone to post examples of rape-murder suspects released on their own recognizance. I doubt there are any but it would be interesting 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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Just shutting down for the night and I saw Skep and piktor's replies! Thank you both so much! I have been able to copy your info onto a memory stick and can work on it while I'm away. A million thanks!

xxx



Have a great holiday Bard!!! :)

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Perhaps Douglas Preston can write the screen play?


I volunteer to write it myself. In fact, I'd do it for free. I am really good at writing stilted dialogue (a critical success factor in this venture) and I can guarantee that at least a couple of the major characters would not be very likeable.

Knox: "Am I beautiful and desirable?"

Paxton: "Of course."

Knox: "Are you sure?"

Paxton: "Yes."

See? Almost writes itself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

All this talk of bail (I presume because of that idiot academic's blog)...

There is not a court in the UK that would give bail to anyone accused of a violent sexual murder. They'd be remanded into custody in prison (not jail...we don't have those) until the trial, even if the trial is scheduled for a year away...end of. That's without the cherry on top of trying to cover it up and accusing an innocent man.

I can't see that being different in the States, which less face it, is hardly known for its liberal attitude towards crime and criminals.

And in Italy, as we've seen, their prisons are hardly the Black Hole of Calcutta. In the UK, you'd be remanded somewhere like Wormwood Scrubs, Parkhurst or Brixton Prison.

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: Bail in Oz   

stilicho wrote:
Catnip wrote:
I don't think the systems are as different as the fear-mongers are trying to make out.

And I've noticed a general pattern of, when they're saying "Now, here in the US, such a thing would blah-blah-blah", they go all vague on the specifics and details, as if what they're saying is just hot air (which it probably is, when there is no citation of authority to back it up): I think they would fail the first step of mooting.


I didn't think they were. I don't think it's typical in the EU to allow people charged with murder accompanied by sexual violence to run free after they've been arrested either. It doesn't make any sense on the face of it and none of the common-law examples I found supported exceptions in the US, Canada, the UK, or any Commonwealth countries.

I certainly empathise with the thrust of bail reform. To hold persons as though they were already convicted (years in some instances) is not fair. Italy's case is singled out by the EU not for university students who murder their roommates but for organised crime figures who are kept in prison for no crime other than being associated with others who have committed crimes. That is wrong, IMO.

I would still like anyone to post examples of rape-murder suspects released on their own recognizance. I doubt there are any but it would be interesting for comparison.


Well, as has been pointed out before, the remanding to custody of individuals (outside of the examples you cite...Mafia for example) the remanding in custody is the exception rather then the rule. Often, even those accused of murder are allowed freedom while they await trial and even when convicted in the first degree re allowed to remain free until all the appeals have run their course.

However, remanding into custody for SEXUALLY AGGRAVATED murder is a guarantee. The sexual element is regarded as being a potential factor for re-offending, making them a danger to the public. It is well known that in the case of sex crime, the pattern is an escalation of criminal severity, rather then decline or suspension (the park flasher who goes on to become a park rapist...the peeping tom who goes on to forcing entry into houses and sexually attacking people in their homes...the voyeur who regularly downloads child pornography who goes on to actually molesting children...the rapist who becomes a serial raports or/and goes on to murdering their victims when done with them and so on).

When you also add the factor of flight risk, then you have zero chance for bail.

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


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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Though I think that all defendents shall recieve fair treatment, I do feel that

the highest intention of every countries judiciary must be to protect the innocent.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
Though I think that all defendents shall recieve fair treatment, I do feel that

the highest intention of every countries judiciary must be to protect the innocent.




Indeed. But the innocent also includes the public.

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

What Michael said.

Happy Holidays, Bard.

Hapy wedding, Cape.
Top Profile 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I would like to further clarify some misunderstanding. (Hopefuly for the last time :))
It have been suggested that the woman's shoeprint importance is not reflected in court documents, and thus it hadn't influenced the verdict:

Quote:
Are there court transcripts or forensic documents that attribute the footprint specifically to Amanda?

Quote:
Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?

Quote:
this was never a factor in their conviction.


But what I said was that it played a role in shaping jury's mindsets.

To exemplify my position, here is a quote from a PMF poster:

Quote:
A woman’s bloody shoeprint which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. Barbie Nadeau noted the significance of this evidence on The Daily Beast website:

“When the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

The significance of the woman’s bloody shoeprint in Meredith’s room is considerable. By itself it debunks the myth that some had propagated for a while, that Rudy Guede acted alone. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Apart from the DNA and forensic evidence, there is highly incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.


Entering this rather weak piece of evidence apparently impressed a notable journalist. It made a lasting impression on a PMF user recognized for rationality and knowledge.
I think it could have similarly impress the jury, and that impression could have played a role in weighing other circumstances of the case.

I believe it was only one of multiple questionable issues that influenced media, public opinion, and unfortunately the jury.

Thank you :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It is sad to witness the degeneration in standards over at JREF. It is understandable why some of the better quality posters have come to PMF where they can at the very least take part in an intelligent discussion; something that has gone out the window at their former home base. Interesting that the main contributors to the damage are those that only joined since the AK conviction obviously with the intention of hijacking the forum and clogging any possibility of intelligent debate. Of course JREF’s loss is our gain and for this we are thankful.

A simple example is PMF reject Londonjohn who is being an even bigger plonker than usual harassing an (apparent) American to provide details about Euro Cylinder mortise lock specifications. How incredible petty! Has the search for truth in this sad case come down to this?

Here it is then LJ and notice it is for sale in £ so you can get it down the street if you only just looked. :)

It is all there in the second paragraph where it states “Deadbolt locked or unlocked by cylinder key”, “Latchbolt withdrawn by lever handle” and also “LATCHBOLT CAN BE WITHDRAWN BY KEY”

Should have gone to Specsavers Londonjohn. :) :)


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


Last edited by Hammerite on Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

@ KatodyThat is complete speculation unless you have seen the reasons for the decision. I have not. If the footprint is discussed and it is shown that it formed a significant part of the decision making then, if you are correct in your amateur analysis, you have a point. If the reasons for decision show that it was unpersuasive either way, and so did not form a significant part of what led to the verdict. then you don't

This is just more of the "something could have happened, so it must have happened" we keep seeing. Anything could have happened: but there is no evidence I have seen so far to show that it did

Those who have read the report say it was not accepted: so it might have influenced the decision makers. It didn't. End of story.

Your approach is tiresome and all too familiar. You and your kind have got your way and you have destroyed any possibility of decent discussion of this issue on my home board. I sincerely hope you will not be able to do the same here.


Last edited by Fiona on Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
What Michael said.

Happy Holidays, Bard.

Hapy wedding, Cape.


Second that.

Happy Hols Bard! sun-)

Happy Wedding Cape! band-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
I would like to further clarify some misunderstanding. (Hopefuly for the last time :))
It have been suggested that the woman's shoeprint importance is not reflected in court documents, and thus it hadn't influenced the verdict:

Quote:
Are there court transcripts or forensic documents that attribute the footprint specifically to Amanda?

Quote:
Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?

Quote:
this was never a factor in their conviction.


But what I said was that it played a role in shaping jury's mindsets.

To exemplify my position, here is a quote from a PMF poster:

Quote:
A woman’s bloody shoeprint which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. Barbie Nadeau noted the significance of this evidence on The Daily Beast website:

“When the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

The significance of the woman’s bloody shoeprint in Meredith’s room is considerable. By itself it debunks the myth that some had propagated for a while, that Rudy Guede acted alone. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Apart from the DNA and forensic evidence, there is highly incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.


Entering this rather weak piece of evidence apparently impressed a notable journalist. It made a lasting impression on a PMF user recognized for rationality and knowledge.
I think it could have similarly impress the jury, and that impression could have played a role in weighing other circumstances of the case.

I believe it was only one of multiple questionable issues that influenced media, public opinion, and unfortunately the jury.

Thank you :)




There is no evidence that the shoeprint affected the jury at all, though you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. The expert who testified is just that - an expert. He gave his expert opinion. And he may indeed be right. The journalist you are referring to merely reported his testimony. She certainly did not base her own opinion of guilt/innocence on this piece of evidence. In fact, I am in a pretty good position to state that it was not decisive at all. As for your hackneyed "slippery slope" tactic, which you just keep repeating, get over it. You are like someone playing the same chord on a guitar, over and over again. You remind me of an erstwhile poster here called LondonJohn, who had one talking point he kept bringing up repeatedly. We had to send him on his way before he bored everyone to death.

Amanda Knox was convicted because the body of evidence weighed heavily against her. End of story.

_________________
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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
@ KatodyThat is complete speculation unless you have seen the reasons for the decision. I have not. If the footprint is discussed and it is shown that it formed a significant part of the decision making then, if you are correct about in your amateur analysis, you have a point. If the reasons for decision show that it was unpersuasive either way, and so did not form a significant part of what led to the verdict. then you don't

This is just more of the "something could have happened, so it must have happened" we keep seeing. Anything could have happened: but there is no evidence I have seen so far to show that it did

Those who have read the report say it was not accepted: so it might have influenced the decision makers. It didn't. End of story.

Your approach is tiresome and all too familiar. You and your kind have got your way and you have destroyed any possibility of decent discussion of this issue on my home board. I sincerely hope you will not be able to do the same here.



I think we posted at the same time!
Don't worry, Fiona. I have no intention of allowing Katody to do any such thing. For me, Katody is neither subtle nor transparent. All of the Fisherites and Halkidonians use the exact same approach. I got rid of Fisher and I will get rid of his latest incarnation in Katody. In fact, Katody, why don't you run along now and play somewhere else? Thanks in advance.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

And you thought it couldn't get any tackier????


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1063v4/Die ... oxDiet.htm

Want to lose weight ?
Now there's a diet plan that requires no exercise or will power and is GUARANTEED to work!
The Amanda Knox Diet!

Every time you’re tempted to reach for that sugar-filled snack or walk into a fast-food
restaurant to gorge yourself on a greasy burger and fries, stop and think about Amanda.

Now, imagine it was YOUR daughter! If that doesn’t ruin your appetite, nothing will!

Since you're not hungry any more, take that money you were going to waste on
junk food and put it in a jar. Fill up that jar and send it to the Amanda Knox Defense Fund.


PS This is from the same old guy writing Amanda letters about visiting her when she is free... praying for her.... explaining how you can write memos in your schedule to pay monthy... He evens want you to email him!!! eeek


Last edited by H9 on Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody's postings.

why do I think of something different ??


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The mechanical nature of the thinking of the Katody tribe is rather intriguing -- I'm reminded of someone trying to visualise tensor bundles intersecting and overlapping in n-space and not quite succeeding (or: think of the Khan versus Kirk starship duel in that early Star Trek movie: the 3-D thinking Kirk out-manoeuvred the 2-D thinking Khan).

It's as if there is an entire layer in the algebra of thought missing (or disconnected -- that word again).

Fascinating. { arches eyebrow }
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
I would like to further clarify some misunderstanding. (Hopefuly for the last time :))
It have been suggested that the woman's shoeprint importance is not reflected in court documents, and thus it hadn't influenced the verdict:

I think it could have similarly impress the jury, and that impression could have played a role in weighing other circumstances of the case.

I believe it was only one of multiple questionable issues that influenced media, public opinion, and unfortunately the jury.

Thank you :)



I really don't know why you are re-rehearsing Professor Vinci's case for the pillow footprint that may / may not have been Amanda's all over again like it is either objective or important. Vinci was acting for the defence and is of course putting the best case forward rather than being objective but regardless this footprint, to my reading, wasn't considered a matter that could be concluded with certainty in the trial one way or the other. The transcript of the motivations is quite clear - the case for the prosecution is put and the case for the defence is put (mostly through Vinci for Sollecito) and the court says it notes both versions and does not conclude an opinion one way or another on it. The jury did not reach a conclusion on Amanda's footprint according to the judge's report as I read it.

You of course, can't know this because you haven't read the motivations which are in deep proof reading here. The reason you haven't read them is because although Amanda's team have had the motivations translated into English (and is implausible that they have not - it's nonsense to suggest that Simon can advise the family or the family can know what really happened without the translation), they won't release it to the public because it is a devastating millstone with many many pieces of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Team Amanda are consciously, deliberately withholding it because they continue to try to manipulate public perception, including yours, into considering there is "no evidence". When the translators at PMF release this document they will have done everyone following this case a huge service including you. Then you will have many pages of footprint detail to read over which are lacking in your version. You will see that the "Amanda" footprint was formally not ruled on but what you will see is a devastating case against Sollecito on multiple measurements to millimetre precision and which in a double whammy is many millimetres off Rudy's footprint.

Creationists, flat-earthers, FOAkers. All operate without regard to the evidence and operate through the medium of insistence, repetition, dogma and denial. Maybe, just maybe the Motivations report will finally give you that moment of clarity that you have been / are following a cult based on a family's blind love, barely disguised xenophobia and a sustained commitment to withholding evidence to try to manipulate the media, the public and you. If Team Amanda were interested in the truth, they'd have released the document and attacked it for what it is. Surely...SURELY... it's telling you something about why they haven't!

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

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
I would like to further clarify some misunderstanding. (Hopefuly for the last time :))
It have been suggested that the woman's shoeprint importance is not reflected in court documents, and thus it hadn't influenced the verdict:

Quote:
Are there court transcripts or forensic documents that attribute the footprint specifically to Amanda?

Quote:
Do you know where in the motivations the jury gave particular weight to the contested shoe print?

Quote:
this was never a factor in their conviction.


But what I said was that it played a role in shaping jury's mindsets.

To exemplify my position, here is a quote from a PMF poster:

Quote:
A woman’s bloody shoeprint which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. Barbie Nadeau noted the significance of this evidence on The Daily Beast website:

“When the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

The significance of the woman’s bloody shoeprint in Meredith’s room is considerable. By itself it debunks the myth that some had propagated for a while, that Rudy Guede acted alone. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Apart from the DNA and forensic evidence, there is highly incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.


Entering this rather weak piece of evidence apparently impressed a notable journalist. It made a lasting impression on a PMF user recognized for rationality and knowledge.
I think it could have similarly impress the jury, and that impression could have played a role in weighing other circumstances of the case.

I believe it was only one of multiple questionable issues that influenced media, public opinion, and unfortunately the jury.

Thank you :)


What evidence influences a poster, media, and public opinion really doesn't matter. They are not the jury and did not have the responsibility of weighing all the evidence and coming up with a decision of guilty or not guilty.

The jury was in the courtroom, heard the various expert testimony, witness testimony, police testimony, defendant testimony, etc., reviewed various documents and came up with a decision. The reasoning for that decision is in the motivations. We don't have to guess what might have influenced the jurors' decision - it is in the motivations for all to read.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
All that talking about a movie: How can you imagine, the story would be told?

IMO all that big circus around Amanda is like a giant air bladder, containing the sliming of the italian justice, the italian police, the police brutality and so on. The biased reporting in US media, the performance of Senator Cantwell, Judge Heavey's letters. That thousands of dreadful comments against Italy. How all that evidence was faked and how 'poor' Amanda was railroaded.
I cannot image, they can bring this in the movie. And I do not think they will bring a lot about Amandas drug and alcohol use and her 'free lifestyle'. Hanging around with 'strange' people.
Raffeles hard core animal porns will also not be a theme.


But if you prick that bladder, there is nothing much left from the big Amanda story.


Only the very sad story of Meredith Kercher - and I am afraid, that will not be the goal of that movie.

Or maybe the movie will only be made for Seattleites and FOA groupies.?? Not much money to gain.



Same here, Pelerine.
I think what's interesting about the Amanda-story is the complexity of the case and the whole media hype around it.
Amanda herself is much too shallow, somehow empty, and there is really not much interesting about her as a character, imo.
That might also be the reason why so many projections have been taking place.

OT, but did you hear that Miss Kampusch (for the others: the Austrian girl kidnapped, held in a cellar for years and finally able to escape) sold the rights of her story to a production company? My guess is that this won't turn out great either, but who knows...

*
Have fun in France, Bard! (what book are you working on? I'm sure you mentioned it once)
And happy wedding, Cape!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

There may be an element of self-cult going on, crossed with an desire to worship science religiously, or appear to (e.g., using the trappings of "science" without really understanding them). Like children do when they imitate the "grown-ups".

In other words, what appears to be play-acting may, indeed, be play-acting (both unconscious and manipulative).

Inappropriate overuse of smileys ( ;)), false shells of politeness behaviour, and so on. All masques within masks. Permanent childhood, it seems.

So who is making up the rules of the game? Dancing to the piper's tune?

The logic dragon will come and gobble up all the little naughty goblins, now! Boo!
Time for beddie-byes.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Here's a thought:

How would someone with an emotional-disconnect actually know what an overuse of smileys actually is, let alone an inappropriate overuse?

A mystery in a mystery -- that's definitely a locked door, there. :?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Perhaps Douglas Preston can write the screen play?


I don't think Preston can write.

His collaborator (Green? or something) must provide the literary quality, because whenever Preston does a solo book, his fans' accolades drop in number -- they can detect quality when they see it.

On second thoughts, maybe Preston can write the screen play.

It's not as if it requires any actual real input.

"Entire world hypnotised by fame-monster"

It's not so far off the mark, is it?

Specially if the world is only three or four people big.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

How am I doing with the Full Moon postings tonight?

It was a lovely Moon earlier this evening, actually.

So many have gone by so quickly since that day.

And people say a year or two or three is a long time.

(The owl in the tree by the window is quite grown up now.)

(The possums on, and under, the roof make a distracting racket, with their hob-nailed boots on, strutting up and down, on their self-important business in the world. A bit like our Katody, really. )

:)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:03 pm   Post subject: Catalogue note   

Talking of vaguenesses and non-specifics earlier, I remembered how much emptiness there was in Chris C’s response to a question of mine the other day – not that you would be able to tell easily from reading his post or tracking through the threaded conversation that he was in fact responding to me. (I got the impression he was “talking across the table”, directly addressing Michael.)

When he said:

Quote:

"Ask your site admin to link the italian version and the english translation. Its was released weeks ago." — posted by Chris C [XVII.13] (Post 51400 on 19-Jul-2010), re: in the context of K&S appeal documentation.


the vagueness of the last part ("releasd weeks ago") was particularly striking.

  • Released when, exactly?
  • Released by who?
  • Released to who(m)?
  • Released for what purpose?
  • and, less importantly perhaps, released how, by what method, in what manner?

I let that slide in the hurley-burley of Chris C's breathless texting-style posts, because he obviously had places to be, people to see, traffic lights that had turned green that he couldn't stay stopped in front of for much longer, planes to catch, trousers to iron, and so on. etc etc.

What I had been expecting (naïve me :) ) was what a librarian might call cataloguing information, or the "source", as some call it.


For example, regarding the PDF document “Maori and Bongiorno appeal submission on behalf of Sollecito” (unlodged version)*.

The meta-data for this document is:

Format: PDF

Internal meta-data:

From the “Document Properties dialogue box, Description tab”:

File: Apello+Sollecito+dep.+15.4.2010.pdf
Title: La perizia dibattimentale conserva un carattere di eventualità, non sussistendo un obbligo assoluto ed incondizionato per il giudice di avvalersi dell’ausilio di esperti: la decisione di disporre l’accertamento peritale è perciò subordinata ad una valuta

Author: g.leineri
Created: 14/04/2010 8:10:37 PM
Modified: 14/04/2010 8:10:37 PM
Application: Microsoft Office Word 2007


Number of pages: 281




The PDF “Ghirga and Dalla Vedova appeal submission on behalf of Knox” (unlodged*) has:

Format: PDF

Internal meta-data:

File: Appello+Knox+ver.FINALE.pdf
Title: Appello Knox ver.FINALE.doc

Author: CDV
Created: 17/04/2010 12:02:17 PM
Modified: { blank }
Application: Appello Knox ver.FINALE – Microsoft Word


Number of pages: 201



So:
either:
"weeks" = 3 months
or:
"released [by/to]" = RoseMontag
(or both).


All other catalogue information: pending.


Irony seems to follow the pseudo-defenders of Amanda:

For people who dwell on details and base arguments on information, the lack of detail and information is slapdash and unfriendly at best, lazy dishonesty and manipulative intent at worst.

Real-defenders of Amanda work with all the information (not just some of it). That's where the dishonesty lies: they are lying when they claim they are honest.

That does not help Amanda. We need to present the best case for her**, not the most amateurish one (I can see you over there, pseudo-defenders, even if you have got your fingers stuck in your ears). wh-)






* UNLODGED: Technically a draft – pace, enthusiasts! – because it is not the copy that the Registrar received into Chancery: an example of an unlodged document is:

Decision in the David Mills case (a plain printout, unsigned)

[ PDF ] at [ UONNA ]


Examples of lodged document:

Debt case (stamped; initialled, signed):

[ PDF ] at [ Corte di Cassazione ]

**and everyone else as well.
Top Profile 

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip said
Quote:
How am I doing with the Full Moon postings tonight?

It was a lovely Moon earlier this evening, actually.

So many have gone by so quickly since that day.

And people say a year or two or three is a long time.

(The owl in the tree by the window is quite grown up now.)

(The possums on, and under, the roof make a distracting racket, with their hob-nailed boots on, strutting up and down, on their self-important business in the world. A bit like our Katody, really. )


Oh Catnip you have such a way with words! I so look forward to your postings, you paint the canvas like an artist with your thoughts mul-) .

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Perhaps Douglas Preston can write the screen play?


I don't think Preston can write.

His collaborator (Green? or something) must provide the literary quality, because whenever Preston does a solo book, his fans' accolades drop in number -- they can detect quality when they see it.

On second thoughts, maybe Preston can write the screen play.

It's not as if it requires any actual real input.

"Entire world hypnotised by fame-monster"

It's not so far off the mark, is it?

Specially if the world is only three or four people big.



I believe the fellow's name is Lincoln Child.

A while ago, I posted a link to a blog written by a guy named Nico Vreeland. Under a post entitled "Just how bad a writer is Doug Preston?" he has some fun with Preston's own written words.

Here is an excerpt:

[quote]Here’s an example from the “Why Write Good Dialogue When The Narrator Can Just Explain It?” file:

“And how’s your mother?” Bud asked.

“She passed away in 1985. Cancer.”

“Sorry to hear that.” Hatch could tell Bud meant it.
And one from the “Why Have The Narrator Explain It When We Can Put It In Awkward, Expository Dialogue?” file:

“The dinghy’s at the dock,” Hatch said. “But we’re not going to land. There’s no natural harbor. Most of the island is ringed with high bluffs, so we wouldn’t be able to see much from the rocks anyway. And the bulk of the island is too dangerous to walk on.”
And the “Just In Case You Were Too Stupid To Get It The First Time” file (this is twelve pages after the above passage):

“There’s no natural harbor,” Hatch replied. “The place is surrounded by reefs, and there’s a wicked tiderip.”
And the “Makes Sense Until You Think About It For A Second” Award winner:

But the intention fell away unpursued.
The “Yup, That’s What Color Wood Is” Award winner:

As he approached, he could see it was an antique fireboat, built of rich brown wood./quote]

Preston clearly has stuck to a formula, which allows him to churn out this mindless garbage at an impressive pace. Most online commenters agree that he is much better with Child than alone. I notice that he or someone manages the amazon comments with ruthless precision. Lots of long and gushing reviews that could have been written by Preston himself. Many use his signature "anecdotal" approach: I was stuck in an airport for eight hours. Luckily I had this page turner to get through the wait, etc.

It's just shit writing really; but someone has to do it, I suppose. Literature is too demanding for many people, who just want to read for the purpose of relaxation and/or to take their minds off the banality of their existence. I mean, who needs Proust, Joyce, Woolf and that lot. Far, far too difficult. Une vraie prise de tête, quoi.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Entering this rather weak piece of evidence apparently impressed a notable journalist. It made a lasting impression on a PMF user recognized for rationality and knowledge.
I think it could have similarly impress the jury, and that impression could have played a role in weighing other circumstances of the case.

I believe it was only one of multiple questionable issues that influenced media, public opinion, and unfortunately the jury.

Thank you



Neither the journalist nor the PMF member were judges in the trial. The journalist hadn't even read the Motivations Report at that time. Therefore, your argument is superfluous and pedantic.

We know the 'real' reason why your focusing on the pillow prints and it's the one I outlined earlier.

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


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

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
All that talking about a movie: How can you imagine, the story would be told?



If the story was told from Amanda's point of view, they could remake 'the Machinist', put AK in the title roll and call it 'The Cleaner'.

It would have her going slowly insane when a female version of Ivan (Ivana) who can only be seen by AK keeps breaking in carrying cleaning equipment and threatening her with a knife.

No one not even her mother believes her even after she stages a break-in and accuses her landlady, thinking it was part of a plot to get her to clean her apartment.

Then after putting on a lot of weight and losing her hair from the stress her memory finally returns and she realises who the intruder is...

IVAN

Image


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited picture to reduce size. For very large pictures, please embed using the 'rimg' switch rather then the 'img' one. The 'rimg' switch will automatically embed the image resized so that it fits the board.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OMG, Patzu! I just saw that scary dude from The Machinist when my screen refreshed. I loved that movie; it gave me nightmares.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Quote:
...trying to visualise tensor bundles intersecting and overlapping in n-space...


Do you do that really? Really really? :) :) :) :) :) :)
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I am fairly familiar with the Scott Peterson case since it was constantly in the local news; Modesto is just 90 miles to the north and Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey, lives in my community.

In Scott Peterson's case, they were never able to determine the cause of death; they were able to identify the remains, but the that was the extent of the scientific testimony.

There were approximately five witnesses who told police that they had seen Laci walking her dog the morning after authorities believe she had disappeared. Peterson's family contends that there were a total of 26 sightings of Laci within a one-mile radius of her home the day after authorities contend she was already dead..

I don't believe the jury was sequestered, but the trial was moved from Modesto to a community just south of San Francisco because of pre-trial publicity.

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I am fairly familiar with the Scott Peterson case since it was constantly in the local news; Modesto is just 90 miles to the north and Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey, lives in my community.

In Scott Peterson's case, they were never able to determine the cause of death; they were able to identify the remains, but the that was the extent of the scientific testimony.

There were approximately five witnesses who told police that they had seen Laci walking her dog the morning after authorities believe she had disappeared. Peterson's family contends that there were a total of 26 sightings of Laci within a one-mile radius of her home the day after authorities contend she was already dead..

I don't believe the jury was sequestered, but the trial was moved from Modesto to a community just south of San Francisco because of pre-trial publicity.

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.


I don't think Amanda Knox's demeanour during the trial had any bearing on the verdict.

How common is jury sequestration in America?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, DJ. I think over here we are all empaths.Last nights show was especially bad for me as it concerned a little child. I will never, ever, understand how people, and especially parents can hurt a child. Or animals, for that matter. Thank you so much everyone for your good wishes for the wedding.:) I am blessed.

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi, DJ. I think over here we are all empaths.Last nights show was especially bad for me as it concerned a little child. I will never, ever, understand how people, and especially parents can hurt a child. Or animals, for that matter. Thank you so much everyone for your good wishes for the wedding.:) I am blessed.



You are so right - one can only be thankful every day having every thing in the family in good order.


I will add my best wishes also!

_________________
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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I am fairly familiar with the Scott Peterson case since it was constantly in the local news; Modesto is just 90 miles to the north and Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey, lives in my community.

In Scott Peterson's case, they were never able to determine the cause of death; they were able to identify the remains, but the that was the extent of the scientific testimony.

There were approximately five witnesses who told police that they had seen Laci walking her dog the morning after authorities believe she had disappeared. Peterson's family contends that there were a total of 26 sightings of Laci within a one-mile radius of her home the day after authorities contend she was already dead..

I don't believe the jury was sequestered, but the trial was moved from Modesto to a community just south of San Francisco because of pre-trial publicity.

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.


I don't think Amanda Knox's demeanour during the trial had any bearing on the verdict.

How common is jury sequestration in America?


It probably had less bearing than is commonly thought. The best evidence for this is that Sollecito didn't act like an ass-clown in court and he was found guilty by the same people.

I think most of us are simply aghast that the lawyers didn't tell her how to dress and behave. Her attitude struck me as "Amanda-being-Amanda"; I couldn't care less about her Questura cartwheels, Beatles garb, or incessant loopiness. She was apparently trying to be charming or something.

What impressed me--especially as we are comparing the Scott Peterson case--is the literal 'royal flush' of evidence against her. The only thing missing was a photograph of her killing Meredith. There's print evidence, DNA evidence, lack of alibi, proof of continual lies and distractions...there was a freakin' staged burglary that could only have been the work of someone who lived there. I frankly don't know how much evidence the Amanda-groupies think is sufficient. The length of the trial was a function of just how much evidence there was to present to the court. It had little to do with any substantive debate.

As I said once before, I rarely used to watch those 'true crime' shows but I've probably watched about two dozen episodes in the past half year and tried to follow them on wiki and the internet as a followup. Those cases--some of which are controversial--sometimes have big holes in the prosecution case. There are contrasting explanations, other possible suspects, or a variety of other complications in those scenarios that simply aren't the case here. The only thing making this one unique is the participation of several people in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. But that only goes into the incredulity bin. We are shocked that three young people would brutalise another but all the evidence shows that's precisely what happened.

Sorry for the rant but I am appalled and mystified by the reasoning of anyone who thinks that she didn't murder Meredith with the help of the two guys. (Not directed at Tom, by the way, since I know you are fully convinced by the weight of evidence).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks so much Pelerine. And I love the flower bouquet. See you @ roulette :0 :0 :)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Thanks so much Pelerine. And I love the flower bouquet. See you @ roulette :0 :0 :)



I will add my best wishes!!!!

_________________
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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

You are exactly right, Stillicho. As for the Scott Peterson case, his behaviour went a long way to the quilty verdict, imo. Before DNA, people were found guilty. There usually is no smoking gun. I feel bad every time I think of it, but I did laugh at one point of the trial. When he was supposedly in Paris with his friend * Jacques* and in the meantime he was in Seattle.

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Merci, Skep :)

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I am fairly familiar with the Scott Peterson case since it was constantly in the local news; Modesto is just 90 miles to the north and Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey, lives in my community.

In Scott Peterson's case, they were never able to determine the cause of death; they were able to identify the remains, but the that was the extent of the scientific testimony.

There were approximately five witnesses who told police that they had seen Laci walking her dog the morning after authorities believe she had disappeared. Peterson's family contends that there were a total of 26 sightings of Laci within a one-mile radius of her home the day after authorities contend she was already dead..

I don't believe the jury was sequestered, but the trial was moved from Modesto to a community just south of San Francisco because of pre-trial publicity.

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.


I don't think Amanda Knox's demeanour during the trial had any bearing on the verdict.

How common is jury sequestration in America?



Not very...


SEQUESTRATION OF JURIES


...and that was way back in 2003. Sequestration is even less used now. A good descriptor of the practice these days would be 'archaic', the exception rather then the norm, even in high profile cases with a great deal of media attention.

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Thanks so much Pelerine. And I love the flower bouquet. See you @ roulette :0 :0 :)



I will add my best wishes!!!!



Me too!!! :)

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks, Michael. And again to everyone....thank you so much......

_________________
"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: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

***

I don't believe the jury was sequestered, but the trial was moved from Modesto to a community just south of San Francisco because of pre-trial publicity.

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.


I don't think Amanda Knox's demeanour during the trial had any bearing on the verdict.

How common is jury sequestration in America?


When I first started practicing law in 1977 I thought the law, the facts, and clear reasoning were the most important things in persuading judges or juries. Experience has taught me that while these things are important, they are not always decisive, that decisions are often made based on emotions. In the US there are jury consulting firms who, for a princely sum of money, devise a handful of questions for the attorney to ask prospective jurors. They accomplish this by finding a community outside the real jury pool that has demographics as close as possible to the community from which the jurors will come. They then get a cross-section of persons to serve as jurors who are asked a whole bunch of questions. The case is then tried in front of these people (the law firm hiring the consultant takes its best trial lawyers to present the other side, which they do with maximum zeal and skill.) and then the jurors deliberate. The deliberations are taped and the votes recorded. Thereafter the jury consultant compares the way each juror voted with their answers to all the questions. Most of the questions make no difference, but usually they find five or six questions whose response strongly correlate with voting one way, and five or six others that strongly correlate with voting the opposite. If the lawyer follows the plan, he or she knows which jurors to try to keep, and which ones to challenge.

In the OJ trial both sides had jury consultants (although I don't think they did the mock trial thing). Both gave their clients the same advice, specifically, that black female jurors would tend to favor OJ. Marcia Clark rejected that advice, believing her own belief that as females they would be motivated by the domestic violence to be very hard on OJ.

Jury sequestration is becoming increasingly rare. One reason is the expense of housing, feeding, and keeping bailiffs with them 24/7. Local government budgets are strained from tax-cutting measures, while at the same time passing various initiatives that mandate longer prison terms. And some doubt has been cast on whether it really works. It has resulted in juror misconduct in some cases.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

happy wedding!


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.


I don't think Amanda Knox's demeanour during the trial had any bearing on the verdict.

[/quote][/quote]

Rare case where I can see a lot of merit in seemingly opposite sides of discussion:

1) I don't think Amanda's wacky behavior and dress had much bearing on the Jury either.
But *only* because the evidence of her guilt and lies were so overwhelming.

2) Defendant dress and demeanor is a very important consideration for any trial attorney. Consider that in USA, an entire cottage industry of trial consultants has grown dramatically, especially since their advice paid such dividends in the OJ Simpson case.

In Amanda's case, total lack of effective parental positive influence over "loopy Amanda being Amanda" atmosphere made Ghirga powerless to provide effective dress/demeanor advice.

Apparently Simon has convinced Edda/Curt/Amanda differently
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Alex Higgins RIP

Was fortunate to have met him a number of times.

He was undoubtedly one of the finest in the sport.

RIP.


Last edited by Hammerite on Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:25 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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

How lovely, H9. Thanks........

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Tom, Often, when the jurors are interviewed after the verdict, many of them have said they watched the defendants often. Obviously, they have to consider the facts, but being human, it can make the difference when reasonable doubt comes into play. They haven't said that's the reason they voted quilty, but they'll say things like * he/she showed no emotion* at a particular part of the trial, etc. That adage * people show grief in different ways* is a crock. Maybe not everyone cries or goes hysterical, but neither do they go out partying, crack jokes, hit the porn button, ......

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
In the OJ trial both sides had jury consultants (although I don't think they did the mock trial thing). Both gave their clients the same advice, specifically, that black female jurors would tend to favor OJ. Marcia Clark rejected that advice, believing her own belief that as females they would be motivated by the domestic violence to be very hard on OJ.


Contrast her approach with this one: http://www.ewu.edu/groups/chemistry/Sleigh_Part2.pdf

This was a cold case of a little girl abducted and brutally assaulted, murdered, and left in a truck yard. It was an extremely high-profile case in Alberta. The evidence was not solid until DNA was fully developed. I recommend both parts of that PDF to anyone interested in murder cases and how it affects the law enforcement professionals who work on them. I'd certainly like to read how Meredith's murder had an impact on the personal lives of the men and women who worked tirelessly to solve it and to get a conviction. That's a book I'd buy.

Here is how the jurors were selected. (Royal is the defence attorney and Track is the crown prosecutor):

Royal used his veto to reject 20 men and women from sitting on the jury, making sure no teacher and no one who worked with children was a juror. Track rejected five people, eliminating anyone who looked rough around the edges. "I will do that always, always," he says. "Cowboys, bar fighters, people who look like they have a criminal record, they never sit on any of my juries."

Both professionals put a fair amount of thought into how the jury was composed.

I liked this part about Track's personality. I am sure you've encountered guys like this:

As a young Crown prosecutor in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Track relished the chance to put away society's worst criminals.
He could never see himself switching sides: "I'd rather pump gas than be a defence lawyer," he liked to say.
Track was known for cross-examining defence witnesses with such ferocity that they'd sometimes pass out on the stand. Five times he achieved this feat.
"I actually knew the colours they would change," he recalls. "They would turn yellow and green and then the colour would fade and they would just drop."
One day, under Track's withering barrage, a witness fainted and crashed to the floor, blood gushing from a cut on his head.


That's the guy they needed in the OJ case, I think.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hey Capealadin,

Happy Wedding and all the best to you and yours!
:D


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools: ( Quick in take of breath!!!) How lovely....and you took the trouble to make them from South Africa!!! Thank you so much....I have been so touched by everyone sending good wishes. I LOVE PMF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
"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: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
It is sad to witness the degeneration in standards over at JREF. It is understandable why some of the better quality posters have come to PMF where they can at the very least take part in an intelligent discussion; something that has gone out the window at their former home base. Interesting that the main contributors to the damage are those that only joined since the AK conviction obviously with the intention of hijacking the forum and clogging any possibility of intelligent debate. Of course JREF’s loss is our gain and for this we are thankful.


I answered Alt+F4 over there but one of my two posts was rejected. The one that was rejected took someone to task for outright lying. The moderators there are actually censoring statements if they contain the adjective "fact-free". Using the same techniques, they would have rejected almost everything on the Religion or Conspiracy Theory sections of the JREF. There is a serious problem there that I hadn't thought possible on a forum dedicated to scepticism. I can use precisely the same language on the Economics forum and my posts are never rejected or edited. Really scratching my head here. It seems possible that there are some vested interests at that Forum although I don't know why or how. We certainly know there is no objectivity in the moderation since Kevin_Lowe and Constable LockJaw--er, LJ--can say whatever they like without producing a solitary piece of evidence.

It seems probable that LashL has simply told the other moderators and administrators that Amanda is innocent and that anything contrary to that position should be rejected if it contains references to established lies by the various groupies. This would not necessarily entail any compensation by the PR firm but the effect is the same. It's not out of the question to assume that LashL's professional career has connected her to advocacy groups and she probably knows Anne Bremner through professional and personal connections.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Done, Hammerite :)

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

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
It seems probable that LashL has simply told the other moderators and administrators that Amanda is innocent and that anything contrary to that position should be rejected if it contains references to established lies by the various groupies.


This is reminiscent of the same M.O. of Candace Dempsey, is it known if she has anything to do with the JREF forum?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I do not think we should readily look for conspiracy of that sort, Stilicho. That way lies madness. It is very strange but I am pretty sure that LashL does not have that kind of power over the other mods. It is hard for me to see, but I suppose it may be more even-handed than it appears. It is difficult to be sure when one is being aggressively modded: but we do not know what else is being rejected there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
I do not think we should readily look for conspiracy of that sort, Stilicho. That way lies madness. It is very strange but I am pretty sure that LashL does not have that kind of power over the other mods. It is hard for me to see, but I suppose it may be more even-handed than it appears. It is difficult to be sure when one is being aggressively modded: but we do not know what else is being rejected there.


I doubt there's a conspiracy either. Yet the good Constable and KL are essentially allowed to post junk, mock anyone who dares to suggest that the three accused are guilty, and have not produced a scintilla of evidence to support their claims. Only Dan_O has ventured to supply an alternate narrative. We all remember how quickly he had to abandon it. None of the other groupies have produced anything close to a coherent narrative. When challenged, they just ignore it in favour of their latest red herring.

And it's all heavily censored to keep out any reference to proof of their lies. This doesn't happen on any of the other threads there. Go to anything on the Economics forum and look at the replies. Or Religion.

I don't know why that's happening, do you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Giustizia has written a great piece on TJMK, outlining the similarities between Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

***

I don't believe the jury was sequestered, but the trial was moved from Modesto to a community just south of San Francisco because of pre-trial publicity.

Both cases show that the demeanor of the defendant during the trial weighs very heavily with the jury.


I don't think Amanda Knox's demeanour during the trial had any bearing on the verdict.

How common is jury sequestration in America?


When I first started practicing law in 1977 I thought the law, the facts, and clear reasoning were the most important things in persuading judges or juries. Experience has taught me that while these things are important, they are not always decisive, that decisions are often made based on emotions. In the US there are jury consulting firms who, for a princely sum of money, devise a handful of questions for the attorney to ask prospective jurors. They accomplish this by finding a community outside the real jury pool that has demographics as close as possible to the community from which the jurors will come. They then get a cross-section of persons to serve as jurors who are asked a whole bunch of questions. The case is then tried in front of these people (the law firm hiring the consultant takes its best trial lawyers to present the other side, which they do with maximum zeal and skill.) and then the jurors deliberate. The deliberations are taped and the votes recorded. Thereafter the jury consultant compares the way each juror voted with their answers to all the questions. Most of the questions make no difference, but usually they find five or six questions whose response strongly correlate with voting one way, and five or six others that strongly correlate with voting the opposite. If the lawyer follows the plan, he or she knows which jurors to try to keep, and which ones to challenge.

In the OJ trial both sides had jury consultants (although I don't think they did the mock trial thing). Both gave their clients the same advice, specifically, that black female jurors would tend to favor OJ. Marcia Clark rejected that advice, believing her own belief that as females they would be motivated by the domestic violence to be very hard on OJ.

Jury sequestration is becoming increasingly rare. One reason is the expense of housing, feeding, and keeping bailiffs with them 24/7. Local government budgets are strained from tax-cutting measures, while at the same time passing various initiatives that mandate longer prison terms. And some doubt has been cast on whether it really works. It has resulted in juror misconduct in some cases.



That's interesting TomM. Fortunately, while it's not problem free, the Italian system doesn't suffer from this issue. The whole idea of 'questions' is interesting, for as you know, to get what you want it all depends on the questions you ask...this is important for lawyers. It's also important for politicians (or people asking politicians questions)..and polsters...always beware of polls. This clip explains it nicely...it's from the best political satire in the history of the planet, in fact, best comedy sitcom EVER made. It's funny not only because of the fantastic script (nobody writes this quality anymore), or because of the high quality of the actors..it's funny because it's true. From 'Yes Prime Minister':



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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
I doubt there's a conspiracy either. Yet the good Constable and KL are essentially allowed to post junk, mock anyone who dares to suggest that the three accused are guilty, and have not produced a scintilla of evidence to support their claims. Only Dan_O has ventured to supply an alternate narrative. We all remember how quickly he had to abandon it. None of the other groupies have produced anything close to a coherent narrative. When challenged, they just ignore it in favour of their latest red herring.

And it's all heavily censored to keep out any reference to proof of their lies. This doesn't happen on any of the other threads there. Go to anything on the Economics forum and look at the replies. Or Religion.

I don't know why that's happening, do you?


I have no idea. I think it is very damaging to the board. But it is not my call. In FM many long standing and very unhappy posters have bewailed the same thing: I recall Articulett and JJ amongst others. I suspect it is merely a function of a big board: mods find it very difficult and they have some basic rules about what counts as civil etc: so you get the inevitable problems; like you cannot call someone a liar but you can say that they have told a lie, if you can evidence that. Doesn't matter what you do it will always be subject to this kind of thing and I think a big board cannot ever effectively deal with implicature in the way smaller ones can.

I think there has been a recent change to the moderation, too:I thought it was a change in policy, though Darat has assured this is not the case: so I am forced to agree with Wolfman that it is down to individual moderators and their personal style. Not much you can do about that: especially if, as I gather from what you have said, it is not one mod with a particular problem about one thread.

I don't know. Modding is not easy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I doubt there's a conspiracy either. Yet the good Constable and KL are essentially allowed to post junk, mock anyone who dares to suggest that the three accused are guilty, and have not produced a scintilla of evidence to support their claims. Only Dan_O has ventured to supply an alternate narrative. We all remember how quickly he had to abandon it. None of the other groupies have produced anything close to a coherent narrative. When challenged, they just ignore it in favour of their latest red herring.

And it's all heavily censored to keep out any reference to proof of their lies. This doesn't happen on any of the other threads there. Go to anything on the Economics forum and look at the replies. Or Religion.

I don't know why that's happening, do you?


I have no idea. I think it is very damaging to the board. But it is not my call. In FM many long standing and very unhappy posters have bewailed the same thing: I recall Articulett and JJ amongst others. I suspect it is merely a function of a big board: mods find it very difficult and they have some basic rules about what counts as civil etc: so you get the inevitable problems; like you cannot call someone a liar but you can say that they have told a lie, if you can evidence that. Doesn't matter what you do it will always be subject to this kind of thing and I think a big board cannot ever effectively deal with implicature in the way smaller ones can.

I think there has been a recent change to the moderation, too:I thought it was a change in policy, though Darat has assured this is not the case: so I am forced to agree with Wolfman that it is down to individual moderators and their personal style. Not much you can do about that: especially if, as I gather from what you have said, it is not one mod with a particular problem about one thread.

I don't know. Modding is not easy.


JREF is a large board, with hundreds of active threads, thus, mods have their "home turf" forums that they attend to. In rare cases, those mods may ask another mod or admin for assistance with a thread - however, as it's done at the behest of the original mod, the views of the original mod are often carried through by the assisting mod/admin because he/she simply doesn't know any better in regards to the thread (and doesn't have time to read 14,000+ posts). This is, in fact, the opposite of what happened with Doc's interminably long evidence (or the lack thereof) thread - a mod who had little to no experience with the thread decided to address "off-topic" posts in the thread - without realizing that the 45 or so posts she was addressing were, in fact, very similar in nature to the other 14,000+ posts contained within the thread (this is a different moderator, btw).

Moderation is, indeed, not easy. However, when a mod has publicly stated his/her position in a confrontational manner and yet still continues to moderate the thread, something is wrong with the system. That she is allowed to continue to moderate the thread and that the wooists have won (it's easy, as has been pointed out, to see who they are in that thread) on an anti-woo board, is nothing less than a tragedy worthy of being listed amongst the great Greek tragedies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hehehe. I don't think we should get carried away, BobTheDonkey: nobody has lost an eye yet, or been torn into quarters by horses :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Hehehe. I don't think we should get carried away, BobTheDonkey: nobody has lost an eye yet, or been torn into quarters by horses :)



Well, I don't reckon anyone has been torn into quarters by the horse...but I think said horse has pood all over the lawn.

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


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

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
It is sad to witness the degeneration in standards over at JREF. It is understandable why some of the better quality posters have come to PMF where they can at the very least take part in an intelligent discussion; something that has gone out the window at their former home base. Interesting that the main contributors to the damage are those that only joined since the AK conviction obviously with the intention of hijacking the forum and clogging any possibility of intelligent debate. Of course JREF’s loss is our gain and for this we are thankful.


I answered Alt+F4 over there but one of my two posts was rejected. The one that was rejected took someone to task for outright lying. The moderators there are actually censoring statements if they contain the adjective "fact-free". Using the same techniques, they would have rejected almost everything on the Religion or Conspiracy Theory sections of the JREF. There is a serious problem there that I hadn't thought possible on a forum dedicated to scepticism. I can use precisely the same language on the Economics forum and my posts are never rejected or edited. Really scratching my head here. It seems possible that there are some vested interests at that Forum although I don't know why or how. We certainly know there is no objectivity in the moderation since Kevin_Lowe and Constable LockJaw--er, LJ--can say whatever they like without producing a solitary piece of evidence.

It seems probable that LashL has simply told the other moderators and administrators that Amanda is innocent and that anything contrary to that position should be rejected if it contains references to established lies by the various groupies. This would not necessarily entail any compensation by the PR firm but the effect is the same. It's not out of the question to assume that LashL's professional career has connected her to advocacy groups and she probably knows Anne Bremner through professional and personal connections.


You're right, any post that expresses the least doubt about Amanda's innocence is not allowed while the FOA side can say pretty much whatever the feel like and get their posts approved.
I've had two out of three posts killed so I quit posting altogether though I do still read the thread.

I'm pretty sure it's LashL based on her totally one sided post.

I don't think they even read the FOA's posts.

This plus the JREF's continually pandering to Anita Ikonen has disillusioned me with the whole JREF.

I'm no expert in law or in this case but I do know that if you start lying to the police and accusing innocent people then something is very wrong.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
I do not think we should readily look for conspiracy of that sort, Stilicho. That way lies madness. It is very strange but I am pretty sure that LashL does not have that kind of power over the other mods. It is hard for me to see, but I suppose it may be more even-handed than it appears. It is difficult to be sure when one is being aggressively modded: but we do not know what else is being rejected there.


Two out of three for me til I decided to quit banging my head on the wall. Both the rejected posts pointed out errors from LJ and/or asked questions, the one approved was carefully crafted to be completely bland.

tsig
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tsit wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I do not think we should readily look for conspiracy of that sort, Stilicho. That way lies madness. It is very strange but I am pretty sure that LashL does not have that kind of power over the other mods. It is hard for me to see, but I suppose it may be more even-handed than it appears. It is difficult to be sure when one is being aggressively modded: but we do not know what else is being rejected there.


Two out of three for me til I decided to quit banging my head on the wall. Both the rejected posts pointed out errors from LJ and/or asked questions, the one approved was carefully crafted to be completely bland.

tsig


I think the saddest part is that long term members are bing frozen out in favour of (with a few exceptions) a group of single thread posters who arrived around the same time to hijack the thread for thier agenda. Other boards I belong to would have killed the thread long before by now as most of what is posted is between 99 and 100% un subsansiated bollocks. On one of the other boards I regularly post on a group of new posters showing up around the same time with an agenda would be treated as a hostile invasion and handed their coats quick smart, the whole thing reflects badly on Jref.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Well, the JREF has paid the price. Having frozen out their longer term more intelligent and ethical posters they've in turn lost them and in affect exchanged them for a bunch of trolls. If that's their ambition for their site, then they've fulfilled it, in style...they should be happy.

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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I have not left JREF, Michael: I have left that thread. But I must admit to feeling a lot less positive about the board then I did before. That is not important in the scheme of things: but it is a pity
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
I have not left JREF, Michael: I have left that thread. But I must admit to feeling a lot less positive about the board then I did before. That is not important in the scheme of things: but it is a pity


Same thing. The thread is the JREF...part of it and as a part it it should by extension incorporate all the values of the JREF.

That signifies one of two things...either the beginning of a decline of the whole of the JREF, or a warning point where they wake up and put the site back on the right road. Which, is up to them.

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


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

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I have not left JREF, Michael: I have left that thread. But I must admit to feeling a lot less positive about the board then I did before. That is not important in the scheme of things: but it is a pity


Same thing. The thread is the JREF...part of it and as a part it it should by extension incorporate all the values of the JREF.

That signifies one of two things...either the beginning of a decline of the whole of the JREF, or a warning point where they wake up and put the site back on the right road. Which, is up to them.


Thanks for letting us do a little venting. I'm sure you're aware of how frustrating and unsettling it is to find out that a person or organization you thought a lot of and contributed a lot of time to isn't quite what you thought they were but I've been thru the IIDB meltdown and the RDF fiasco so I guess this too will pass.:)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Quote:
...trying to visualise tensor bundles intersecting and overlapping in n-space...


Do you do that really? Really really? :) :) :) :) :) :)



I once helped a chap go through Lie's original paper in French, A --> Ax, sort of thing.

His was doing a thesis involving partial differential equations, hence the interest in Lie groups.

I forgot what the exact thesis topic was. It was a long time ago.

It's not that much different to watching the Enterprise going from A to B through subspace, A --> B, and sometimes not arriving, or arriving everywhere at once, or arriving later than they'd left if they'd've gone the other way, or even, just arriving. :)

I'll get around to mapping FOA idea flows one day; they use the identity function (A=A) a lot, or circular reasoning, or starting the premise with the conclusion, or sticking their fingers in their ears, call it what you will. Whoever taught them that was quite clever, sly even. But that's for another day.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jref deleted 18 of my posts...and I thought they were really good......:) But then I came to the conclusion that it was because they could read my mind, and what I REALLY wanted to say ............

_________________
"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: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Amanda is innocent Amanda is innocent Amanda is innocent Amanda is innocent Amanda is innocent Amanda is innocent............(help - I start to believe it 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: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
I'll get around to mapping FOA idea flows one day; they use the identity function (A=A) a lot, or circular reasoning, or starting the premise with the conclusion, or sticking their fingers in their ears, call it what you will. Whoever taught them that was quite clever, sly even. But that's for another day.


Not to mention their "debunking" consists of posting something contrary to what the court found, often without any reference to what the prosecution said, and concluding that their opinion is correct.

Anyhow--back to something constructive--were you able to locate anything more on that defence expert who testified about pot smoking and memory loss? I am really interested in what he really said and whether it has anything to do with the selective memory loss that Amanda said she experienced.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
were you able to locate anything more on that defence expert who testified about pot smoking and memory loss? I am really interested in what he really said and whether it has anything to do with the selective memory loss that Amanda said she experienced.


No, other than what you already know: possible short-term memory loss and does not induce aggression.

Couldn't find anything in the permanent archives.

I get the impression that the Italian newspapers weren't all that interested in what a nobody-expert was waffling on about, moreover waffling on a topic that is more or less general knowledge. The London papers have more sensitive ears when the unmentionabe Demon Marijuana is mentioned, so I guess that's why they ran with it.

I'll check the archives here.

There was a push by the Amanda defence to explain the rambling/confusion/shock/slandering Patrick/etc as being caused by stress (rather than, say, hard drugs), -- and stress can do things to you psychologically -- but that push was half-hearted and didn't seem to go anywhere very much.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Tom, Often, when the jurors are interviewed after the verdict, many of them have said they watched the defendants often. Obviously, they have to consider the facts, but being human, it can make the difference when reasonable doubt comes into play. They haven't said that's the reason they voted quilty, but they'll say things like * he/she showed no emotion* at a particular part of the trial, etc. That adage * people show grief in different ways* is a crock. Maybe not everyone cries or goes hysterical, but neither do they go out partying, crack jokes, hit the porn button, ......

It has been my experience that jurors pay as much attention to the way things are said (and I define this broadly, meaning not only inflection and phrasing, but demeanor, and the general impression they have of a person), or heard, than the content of what is said. Having said that, there is some authority in my state that a jury can be instructed that they are not to consider a defendant's non-testimonial behavior as relevant evidence, unless the defense has made the defendant's character an issue, or if it is otherwise relevant. [As to the latter, there are several cases (one involving Charlie Manson) in which a prosecution witness drew a "throat-cutting" gesture from the defendant. From what I have read, I think both RS and AK put their characters in issue by making statements about their reactions to Meredith's murder.

Semi-OT. I have tried a fair number of jury cases--all of them civil; my knowledge of criminal law stems from law school, but has matured from having defended several cases where criminal defense lawyers were sued for malpractice. Early in my career, I was eager to talk to jurors after the trial. The valuable thing I learned from that was what personal habits and mannerisms I had that were annoying to the jury. And I learned the traits that they all liked. I can honestly say that I have never had a post-trial jury interview that could give reliable guidance on the persuasive capability of the evidence, itself. Juries , irrespective of the way they went (with a few exceptions) had me shaking my head (figuratively speaking) when they explained their reasons. We are all human beings. And most of our time and energy is spent on things that are not rational. Being sworn into jury service vaults no one onto planet Vulcan.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
In the OJ trial both sides had jury consultants (although I don't think they did the mock trial thing). Both gave their clients the same advice, specifically, that black female jurors would tend to favor OJ. Marcia Clark rejected that advice, believing her own belief that as females they would be motivated by the domestic violence to be very hard on OJ.


Contrast her approach with this one: http://www.ewu.edu/groups/chemistry/Sleigh_Part2.pdf

This was a cold case of a little girl abducted and brutally assaulted, murdered, and left in a truck yard. It was an extremely high-profile case in Alberta. The evidence was not solid until DNA was fully developed. I recommend both parts of that PDF to anyone interested in murder cases and how it affects the law enforcement professionals who work on them. I'd certainly like to read how Meredith's murder had an impact on the personal lives of the men and women who worked tirelessly to solve it and to get a conviction. That's a book I'd buy.

Here is how the jurors were selected. (Royal is the defence attorney and Track is the crown prosecutor):

Royal used his veto to reject 20 men and women from sitting on the jury, making sure no teacher and no one who worked with children was a juror. Track rejected five people, eliminating anyone who looked rough around the edges. "I will do that always, always," he says. "Cowboys, bar fighters, people who look like they have a criminal record, they never sit on any of my juries."

Both professionals put a fair amount of thought into how the jury was composed.

I liked this part about Track's personality. I am sure you've encountered guys like this:

As a young Crown prosecutor in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Track relished the chance to put away society's worst criminals.
He could never see himself switching sides: "I'd rather pump gas than be a defence lawyer," he liked to say.
Track was known for cross-examining defence witnesses with such ferocity that they'd sometimes pass out on the stand. Five times he achieved this feat.
"I actually knew the colours they would change," he recalls. "They would turn yellow and green and then the colour would fade and they would just drop."
One day, under Track's withering barrage, a witness fainted and crashed to the floor, blood gushing from a cut on his head.


That's the guy they needed in the OJ case, I think.

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting case. I can sort of relate to Track's journey.

This is the first I have heard of bodily injury resulting from cross-examination. I thnk the main problem in the OJ case was that the cops tried to frame a guilty guy.

So, Track is no Rumpole ("Rumpole only defends.")

I think, and I am not the first or only one to say so, the main reason for OJ being acquitted; the cops tried to frame a guilty guy.


Last edited by TomM on Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
Being sworn into jury service vaults no one onto planet Vulcan.


A broad cross-section of the community does allow an overlap of perspectives and experience to occur, as well as the knowledge each of them brings.

If all roads lead to Rome, then likely a conviction.
If the roads meander off in different directions and don't go anywhere much or peter out in the marshes, than likely acquit.

A "broad cross-section" is the key, though. A stack of clones from Episode III doesn't do anybody any good.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Re Maurizio Taglialatela, the gentleman who testified about pot use and short term memory loss:

He seems to be the real deal as far as being a scientist goes. I found him on the website "www.biomedexperts.com" which is supposed to be a meeting place for scientists seeking collaborators (according to the website) but would also seem to be a place where defense lawyers might go seeking expert witnesses. To find him, click on "Directory" on the home page and then follow the instructions. You do not have to log in to get the publication list as it would seem, just scroll further down the page. (Incidentally, many of the defense witnesses in the case have listings here.)

His area of interest seems, in large part, to deal with neurochemistry and he has a very long list of publications, more than it was reasonable to count, in what I believe are reputable journals. In a scan of them, I didn't see anything that actually mentioned marijuana use and I'm not sure that what he studies looks much at what kind of behaviour/mental state is induced by particular substances. I have little to no knowledge of neurochemistry, so I couldn't really make much of a judgement. His prime research interest seems to be in potassium channels.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks for the insights, TomM. It must be very tricky for both sides, because , you never really know with jurors. Deanna, Amanda's sister, was shocked I tell ya, SHOCKED, that the verdict was guilty. Why?? Because a couple of the jurors smiled at her!!! Some people think it doesn't look good, if the jury come in with their verdict and don't make eye contact ( that's usually correct). I think it's a wonderful thing, that you cared enough , to ask the jurors about your traits. Good on you :)

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho,

Nope, nothing about marijuana-expert guy in the archives here, either.


Just Raffaele saying he used only marijuana, and a bunch of dont' remembers from Miss Obfuscation:

[ Italian newspaper reports, page 3 ]:

  • that phone call home to Seattle before the body was discovered – don’t remember
  • when was the phone switched on that morning – don’t remember
  • who supplied the marijuana – don’t remember
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

beans wrote:
His prime research interest seems to be in potassium channels.


Beans,

Ion channel gating studies (potassium, calcium; the physics and genetics) help with tracking down how electrical signals in nerves work, especially the brain, e.g., to help cure (benign) epileptic seizures in babies.

---

As to marijuana's effect on the brain, I wonder whether courts will one day just look up such general knowledge things in a book or online, call it Jurispedia or MedicoLegalPedia, rather than have the defence call in an expensive expert witness (and/or a friend of the defendant's father). That way it would be the same quality starting defence for everybody (amongst other things).
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
TomM wrote:
Being sworn into jury service vaults no one onto planet Vulcan.


A broad cross-section of the community does allow an overlap of perspectives and experience to occur, as well as the knowledge each of them brings.

If all roads lead to Rome, then likely a conviction.
If the roads meander off in different directions and don't go anywhere much or peter out in the marshes, than likely acquit.

A "broad cross-section" is the key, though. A stack of clones from Episode III doesn't do anybody any good.

Well, Catnip, I think that depends on where you are. It seems to me that in Italy there is a culture that survives the need of a constitution or the influence of the Vatican.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think the defense, the family, the FOA - they all do just everything to keep that drug-theme quite in the background,

just enough for Amandas 'confused' and 'do-not-remember' statements, but the will not make this a bigger issue- that contradicts their 'All-American-girl' and 'Honor-Student'.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Stilicho,

Nope, nothing about marijuana-expert guy in the archives here, either.


Just Raffaele saying he used only marijuana, and a bunch of dont' remembers from Miss Obfuscation:

[ Italian newspaper reports, page 3 ]:

  • that phone call home to Seattle before the body was discovered – don’t remember
  • when was the phone switched on that morning – don’t remember
  • who supplied the marijuana – don’t remember


I suppose the lack of information about his testimony says as much as the testimony itself.

@Tom: My original impression of the OJ case was that the prosecution didn't explain exactly what DNA evidence was in a way that anyone in the courtroom could understand. I haven't really spent too much time looking at his case because it seemed that it was an example of a great legal team taking the prosecution to the cleaners.

If OJ had as much evidence against him as our darlings in Perugia do then it probably wouldn't have mattered. I still don't think Amanda's groupies really understand how much evidence there is against them in comparison with other murder cases. Most of the time the cops aren't lucky enough to find the accused standing right at the crime scene. They usually at least have to go looking for them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:27 am   Post subject: Under the Bus   

That Supreme Court decision that Jools linked me to the other day is interesting.


Two years ago, Raffaele’s appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision to continue to keep him in preventative custody was denied, in April 2008 ([ judgement here ]).

There were 11 grounds of appeal.

I did not realise that the 3rd ground of appeal was the throw-Amanda-under-the-bus attempt.


Quote:

  • (3) - arbitraria traslazione sul S. [Raffaele] degli indizi gravanti sulla K. [Amanda], sull’indebito presupposto che i due non potessero non trovarsi insieme al momento del fatto omicidiale;

“(3) - arbitrary transfer (or: shifting) onto S. [Raffaele] of the serious circumstantial evidence against K. [Amanda], on the unjust(ifiable) assumption that the two of them could not have been apart at the moment (or: time) of the fateful deed (or: murderous/homicidal act);”

(my numbering)



I had thought that the “erroneous assumption” statement of his (1) was only journalistic-style reporting of his usual adolescent arrogance about the limited reasoning powers of those in authority, this time directed towards the judiciary rather than the police (2).

But it really actually was one of the arguments presented by his legal team, intended to presuade the court to release him from preventative custody.

If Amanda considers this an example of the affection remaining after the love has gone, then she
  • is very forgiving
  • has not been told about it
  • did not understand its significance
  • has some other reason for disregarding it


Alternatively, Raffaele presented it
  • knowing it was just another “load of bollocks” and would fail anyway but wouldn’t hurt to try (no offence to Amanda, who he had referred to as a “simpleton” and has continued to exchange chocolates and letters with)


Brian S. has made some very perceptive remarks about the statement (search using “erroneous assumption”)


Notes
(1) "Raffaele: The clues against Amanda have been arbitrarily transferred to me on the erroneous assumption that we must have been together that evening." — posted by Michael [SUPREME COURT RULING.1] (Post 1173 on 01-Nov-2008), re: Frank Sfarzo's transcript-like post at PERUGIA SHOCK, in the context of Raffaele's on appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation.

(2) as in the fashionable disrespect of youthful slang: caràmba = the carabinieri. Coi caramba non ci puoi ragionare. Se li vedi, dattela a gambe. (“You can’t reason with the cops – if you see them, leg it.”)
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
I think the defense, the family, the FOA - they all do just everything to keep that drug-theme quite in the background,

just enough for Amandas 'confused' and 'do-not-remember' statements, but the will not make this a bigger issue- that contradicts their 'All-American-girl' and 'Honor-Student'.


So really we're back where we started with Amanda's self-diagnosed selective memory loss. And then the confusion and hitting or whatever to elicit an accusation against an innocent man.

Regardless of demeanour, those two things leap out when understanding how and why she was found guilty. I wonder exactly what was running through Raffaele's mind when he found out that Amanda had told the police that she accused him of lying and her ex-boss of killing Meredith. He must have known by then that she was one crazy b**** if he didn't already know.

I wonder what Ghirga must have been thinking when he got the phone call about getting this job. "Cha-ching" comes to mind. But also: "How the f*** am I going to win this one?"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
It seems to me that in Italy there is a culture that survives the need of a constitution or the influence of the Vatican.


You mean the Old Boys' clubs?

I'm reminded of Fred Flintstone being Grand Poobah at the Lodge of Water Buffaloes. :)

The P3 is currently causing waves (and P2 members were implicated in the Bologna bombing). It all gets very murky very quickly, this stuff.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

PSST!!!! Katody has been messing around in the photo gallery. I've been reading the chat......Bard and Mac will have a fit... :):):) while the mice are away, the cat will play.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pelerine wrote:
I think the defense, the family, the FOA - they all do just everything to keep that drug-theme quite in the background,

just enough for Amandas 'confused' and 'do-not-remember' statements, but the will not make this a bigger issue- that contradicts their 'All-American-girl' and 'Honor-Student'.


And Judge Heavey came at it from the other direction, disapproving of all that sex (even though he said he could understand it).
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:39 am   Post subject: Re: Under the Bus   

Catnip wrote:
That Supreme Court decision that Jools linked me to the other day is interesting.


Two years ago, Raffaele’s appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision to continue to keep him in preventative custody was denied, in April 2008 ([ judgement here ]).


I'd read that too. I notice that the Amanda-groupies typically argue that RS and AK "stand together" in protesting their innocence. Well, not exactly. Raffaele's lawyers have spent a lot of effort to distance him in oh-so-many ways from the Seattle ingenue.

Those entries on Frank's blog were among the better ones he'd posted. It was very apparent to anyone that the legal arguments were based on calling Amanda's version "erroneous". A subtle way of telling the court that she was a liar or at the very least unreliable.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
PSST!!!! Katody has been messing around in the photo gallery.


Ahh, so that's where the moonbeams went!

I was wondering why this Full Moon was so quiet.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

:)

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

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Knox will most likely be rich before she sells the movie rights. Her and Sollecito are going to make a fortune when their convictions get overturned.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

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

  

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


28,891,601 Views