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 Dec 13, 2017 1:05 pm
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:05 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 10 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
bolint wrote:
"I dont know maybe you read it wrong or maybe i read it wrong."

Hammerite understoood "they never met before the murder" as "they had never met before the murder", that is the misunderstanding.


Hi bolint and Chris,

No I did not misunderstand what Bruce was claiming and post the following for you to make up your own minds on whether

1) Hammerit misunderstood or
2) Bruce set out to deceive his readers.

Luckily I recorded the text at 12.02 pm Wednesday 11 August 2010 from the IIP site and this is the relevant part of what was presented to me under the heading “Strong Case For Appeal Page 1”.

"How does the court conclude that Amanda even knew Rudy Guede? Proof shows that Amanda never met with Rudy before the murder. Stating that all three participated in this heinous crime would involve prior knowledge by all three and yet they did not know each other".


Here the reader is clearly (to my understanding) led to doubt that Amanda even knew Rudy at all. In the interest of transparency I give you the whole paragraph that appeared on Bruce’s site at 12.02 pm Wednesday 11 August 2010. Immediately below this is the same paragraph as it now reads as at 10.19 am 12 August 2010. I have highlighted the original and redacted section for your ease. You will see that even Bruce acknowledges that his initial posting was plainly deceiving and only changed it after he was caught out. In matters of ethics and integrity Bruce leaves himself open to criticism by carrying on in this fashion and the family and supporters should give serious consideration as to the type of people they have publicly championing their cause.


12.02 pm Wednesday 11 August 2010

"The defense points out that the court’s theory of the crime would require a prior relationship among the attackers. The defense states that a required element for a group crime as described by the court is for there to be a collective knowledge among the attackers. How does the court conclude that Amanda even knew Rudy Guede? Proof shows that Amanda never met with Rudy before the murder. Stating that all three participated in this heinous crime would involve prior knowledge by all three and yet they did not know each other. They were not familiar with each others personalities, temperaments and reactions to the point that they could all agree to murder someone within such a short time of about 30 minutes. If Amanda and Raffaele had decided to join in, how would Amanda know that Rudy wouldn’t become violent against her? There is no logical scenario that can be made to suggest that these 3 strangers would come together to commit this horrible crime. The defense argues that the court’s motivation lacks proof of this essential point because it does not match reality. A chance encounter that night between Amanda and Rudy that led to murder is illogical and completely untrue".

10.19 am Thursday 12 August 2010.

"The defense points out that the court’s theory of the crime would require a prior relationship among the attackers. The defense states that a required element for a group crime as described by the court is for there to be a collective knowledge among the attackers. There is nothing to show that Amanda met with Rudy to plan out the attack. Stating that all three participated in this heinous crime would have to involve prior planning. They were not familiar with each others personalities, temperaments and reactions to the point that they could all agree to murder someone within such a short time of about 30 minutes. If Amanda and Raffaele had decided to join in, how would Amanda know that Rudy wouldn’t become violent against her? There is no logical scenario that can be made to suggest that these 3 strangers would come together to commit this horrible crime. The defense argues that the court’s motivation lacks proof of this essential point because it does not match reality. A chance encounter that night between Amanda and Rudy that led to murder is illogical and completely untrue."

ETA typo edit


I have had this very discussion on a different forum when talking and the words, KNEW and KNOW. Amanda did not KNOW Guede. She had been introduced to Guede 1 time. She had seen him 1 time at a club but didn't talk to him. Because she met(introduced) to Guede at a party attended by alot of people does not mean she met him before the murder. Thats the funny thing about the English language. Some words can apply different meanings.
Simple statements.
Knox knew Rudy: identity, Knox knew Rudy from a party they attended in the past.
Knox knew Rudy: familiar, Knox knew Rudy from a prior relationship with him.

Bruce did a good job at translating parts of the appeal and trying to explain what they where saying. Bruce is trying to explain what the lawyers are saying. Its even harder when you are trying to explain it while you are translating Italian law and trying to make it sound like American Law. Trust me I could go over that Massei report and talk about how big an idiot he is. You dont see me attacking the people that translated it. I personally think their intentions where to give an accurate translation. Also I think Bruce was trying to give an accuration translation and explain what Knox/Sollecito's lawyers where trying to say.

For the record, I have yet to find a reference anywhere that gives evidence or witness that Sollecito and Guede had ever met. If you have a picture or someone, other than a witness that describes Knox with a gap in her teeth, that testified he had seen Guede and Sollecito together, I would like very much to see that.



Well you are not on a "different forum" here, you are on PMF now and you should have noticed that the standards of proof are much higher here. Here we offer concrete evidence to back up what we discuss. It is not sufficient to simply state something and expect to be taken serious here. You need to back up your statements with a valid source, proof if you like.

Amanda knew Rudy before the night that they murdered Meredith. It looks like you should have checked in with the Mother Ship before you went down this road of denial Chris; because in case you haven’t noticed Bruce agrees with me and has changed the wording on his site to reflect this. In fact it is highlighted in my initial quote in this post for your ease. :)

None of this “even knew” or ”ever met” or ”did not know each other” confusion there now to obfuscate readers and deny the existence of the fact that Amanda and Rudy knew each other. The fact is they were seen chatting together on a number of occasions (SB & GC), they partied together (AK & RG), they did drugs together (AK & RG), they met around town (RG), they met at Amanda’s house (on 1 occasion by Stefano Bonassi, and on 2 or 3 occasions by Giorgio Cocciaretto), they met at Amanda’s workplace(RG & AK), and on one occasion that was witnessed Rudy told Amanda that he liked her (GC).

The facts show that Amanda knew Rudy. It is really stretching it to ask people to believe that she did not.

Bruce has let this go; he changed the wording and dropped the “Amanda didn’t know Rudy” misinformation on his site; why are you still hanging on using a conceded argument.


The facts, the testimony from several witnesses speaking under oath and her best version of the truth (not under oath) by Amanda Knox herself.

This kind of tiresome semantic pseudo-debate has no place here, Chris.

Lost in this discussion is the proper focus on just how awful Bruce's... what are we to call it?... summary (not quite right), translation (not at all)... anyway, whatever it is, it is just awful. The word "know" itself is quite problematic, but not exactly in the way suggested by CC. Just take a look at the most basic Italian-English dictionary to get some idea of the complexity. Look up the word "know" in English. The entry takes up almost a whole column of a two-column page in my lowly Barron's college dictionary. Between sapere, conoscere and riconoscere (savoir, connaitre and reconnaitre in French), there are many nuances to master.

But let's not forget three important things:

1. Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede were acquainted with one another prior to the murder. They had acquaintances in common, for one thing, including the guys who lived below AK and MK.

2. The prosecution was unable to establish that Raffaele Sollecito knew Rudy Guede prior to the night they spent together, during which Meredith Kercher was killed. This does not mean they didn't know eachother; but we don't know that they did and RS denies it. They lived just over 100 steps apart. RG is often accused of being a small-time dealer; RS was a regular user. Just sayin'.

3. If you look at the argument the appeal is making here, it is pretty weak. A chance encounter leading to murder is illogical... Rudy and Amanda and Raffaele could not have planned this. Judge Massei's court decided that there was no advance planning, so what is the point of this argument? I doubt it will be a game changer at the appeal level.

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I have had this very discussion on a different forum when talking and the words, KNEW and KNOW. Amanda did not KNOW Guede. She had been introduced to Guede 1 time. She had seen him 1 time at a club but didn't talk to him. Because she met(introduced) to Guede at a party attended by alot of people does not mean she met him before the murder. Thats the funny thing about the English language. Some words can apply different meanings.
Simple statements.
Knox knew Rudy: identity, Knox knew Rudy from a party they attended in the past.
Knox knew Rudy: familiar, Knox knew Rudy from a prior relationship with him.


You are playing with semantics here and we call those weasel words. If you are going to invent a whole new criteria for it to be said that someone 'knows' someone, just exactly what is that criteria to be? How many times must someone have met the other to be classed as 'knowing' them?

Twice?
Five times?
Ten times?
Fifty times?
A hundred times?
A thousand times?


Here is another meaning for Knox KNEW Rudy.

Well in the biblical sense if you “knew“ a member of the opposite sex it was highly likely that the female would produce a child “in the fullness of time” (ie 9 months). Much the same idea as to “begat”.

In fact there is much knowing and begating in the good book. hump-)

Getting back to this post; if Amanda KNEW Rudy in the biblical meaning of the word it does not look so good for the defence. It can be dangerious to play with the meaning of words Chris. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Hi katy,

You were missing for a while; I missed our little Lock chats. I believe we made concrete progress there.

We have moved way past summaries in this tragic case. And most important it appears as a weak and uncommitted effort to propose using a summary of the opinion of someone with a vested interest using Google translations of documents whose origins are not verifiable. As the name suggests a summery is only useful AFTER exploring an original document in “chapter and verse”. This matter is far and away too serious to accept a PR manifesto as a valid anchor for realistic debate.

If your colleagues place any weight on these original documents than you have an obligation to show your readers EXACYLY what is contained in them, prove that they are the genuine articles and provide an accurate translation so that readers can make up their own minds what to believe. A summary may be sufficient for the FOA camp but make no mistake it falls far short of what is required and acceptable to anyone genuinely trying to carry out an accurate evaluation of the guilt or otherwise of those already convicted of dear Meredith murder in the court of first instance in Italy.

You really owe it to Amanda to come up with something better than a mere summary and expect to be taken serious. If you and your colleagues are serious in your quest to deliver the truth then you are obliged to make a much bigger effort. The time for dismissing the other side as mistaken has passed. This matter has moved up to the next level. PMF and TJMK have accepted the challenge and upped their game accordingly. You (collectively) need to follow suit if you want to be seen as serious players in this most serious of tragedies.

The clock is ticking katy, you either step up to the plate and engage on a professional level or alternatively step back and watch from the bleachers. Of course I don’t mean you personally in this, your people have access to the defence, the family, the defence fund and it is most likely that Ted Simon has the original appeal documents professionally translated into English in his posession or he is not the professional attorney he claims to be. Bring them forward and we can have a serious debate. We are way past listening to Bruce’s opinions.

Hey Hammerite, yes, apologies for not replying to your locks post, and thanks for the info. I hadn't checked the board for a while, and by the time I came to post the discussion had rather moved on. I did have about six quotes showing the door was kept locked by the girls with a key, though, which perhaps renders discussion of the lock moot... (2 from Amanda, 2 from Micheli, 1 from Massei and 1 from Raffaele's appeal). Enough to quote from the Massei translation, probably: "All four girls had the keys to the front door of the house, which was a little faulty: it was in fact necessary to use the key to close it" (eng:16/it:29). Must admit that the lock still puzzles me rather, from a curiosity point of view. But anyway, I guess that's even more old hat now than it was before.

Now as to the rest of your post: the first thing I'd point out is that as helpful as translations are, they're really just window dressing, in a sense, since the original documents are obviously the important thing here. And all the documents in this case - the Massei report, and the two appeal documents - are available. Nothing's being hidden or redacted, as a browse of the appeal documents pretty clearly shows. It's all there. And if people can't read it, isn't that their deficiency? Complaining about not being given a translation seems a little like going to a different country and whining that no one can speak English. Since it's an Italian court case, naturally the documents are in Italian, and to dismiss them simply because they are in Italian and you (not you personally, more of an impersonal you) can't understand them seems a little like sticking your (impersonal) fingers in your ears because it's information you don't want to hear.

As to the issue of whether the appeals are going to be translated, well as I said earlier, you would have to ask Bruce that (I certainly don't have access to the defence, the family, the defence fund or anything else...) But what I would say is that given it took 5 months and 12 people to translate the Massei report, and given that taken together the appeals are quite a lot longer even than that (close to 500 pages, I believe) why would anyone expect an instant translation just because PMF have released theirs? Personally I hope they will be translated, but it seems a little unreasonable to clamour for some kind of immediate response. You might need to go to Google for that!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
I accept that fine. It is Bruce’s credibility and the credibility of his appeals summery that is destroyed. He seems to be spreading falsehoods for so long that it is just a habit now.

Well now, that might be a risky little game, LOL. Are you saying that if there's a mistake in the translated Massei report which works in favour of the prosecution case and against Knox and Sollecito, that the credibility of the translation will be instantly destroyed and all the translators' hard work will have been for nothing...?

(BTW & OT, what subject do you lecture in?)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_did wrote:

Quote:
Now as to the rest of your post: the first thing I'd point out is that as helpful as translations are, they're really just window dressing, in a sense, since the original documents are obviously the important thing here. And all the documents in this case - the Massei report, and the two appeal documents - are available. Nothing's being hidden or redacted, as a browse of the appeal documents pretty clearly shows. It's all there. And if people can't read it, isn't that their deficiency? Complaining about not being given a translation seems a little like going to a different country and whining that no one can speak English. Since it's an Italian court case, naturally the documents are in Italian, and to dismiss them simply because they are in Italian and you (not you personally, more of an impersonal you) can't understand them seems a little like sticking your (impersonal) fingers in your ears because it's information you don't want to hear.


A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

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

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think you mean much easier -- easy is the opposite of difficult. I don't find Massei to be unclear, though there is some ambiguity that is typical of this kind of writing. Massei also quotes directly from trial testimony; therefore, any lack of clarity with regard to those parts is not attributable to him. In fact, in some cases he clarifies what has been said.

No, I meant clearer, though perhaps ironically I wasn't quite clear on that: I find Massei's writing to be rather meandering at times and unclear, which in turn makes it difficult to translate (I was going through both documents side by side just now, and it's notable that many of his sentences have been split into 2, 3 or more sentences by the translators, which makes for a far more readable document). I find Bongiorno to be a much better writer, whilst Massei's sentence structure, his piling of clause upon clause and his allergy to commas sometimes obscures his meaning. Not that he's a terrible writer by any means; as I said in a previous post, he's certainly nowhere near as meandering as the judge who wrote Rudy's appeal motivation document, in which some of the sentences - no exaggeration - continue for over two pages...

It's personal preference to a certain extent (I have a strong bias in favour of lucid, elegant writing, which avoids unnecessary jargon), although I do think that at the moment where it obscures meaning, it just becomes bad writing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
I accept that fine. It is Bruce’s credibility and the credibility of his appeals summery that is destroyed. He seems to be spreading falsehoods for so long that it is just a habit now.

Well now, that might be a risky little game, LOL. Are you saying that if there's a mistake in the translated Massei report which works in favour of the prosecution case and against Knox and Sollecito, that the credibility of the translation will be instantly destroyed and all the translators' hard work will have been for nothing...?

(BTW & OT, what subject do you lecture in?)



This is obviously not what was meant. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing (see previous post).

Again, please read the disclaimer. We encourage readers to let us know if they spot any material errors in the report so that we can investigate and correct them. We did not stipulate that only errors that benefit one or the other party interest us because that is not the spirit in which this translation was undertaken or provided. Your insinuations are nasty and unfounded. Please apologize or leave for good. Enough is enough. You are insulting the hard work of many talented people.

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

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

I certainly don't mean to diminish this particular translation, or translation in general. Nonetheless, the original documents are the important thing here, and they are available, so it seems dishonest to me to pretend that anything is being withheld. If a person can't read those documents, then as I said, that's their deficiency.

I don't believe I did compare the PMF translation with Bruce's summary, did I?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think you mean much easier -- easy is the opposite of difficult. I don't find Massei to be unclear, though there is some ambiguity that is typical of this kind of writing. Massei also quotes directly from trial testimony; therefore, any lack of clarity with regard to those parts is not attributable to him. In fact, in some cases he clarifies what has been said.

No, I meant clearer, though perhaps ironically I wasn't quite clear on that: I find Massei's writing to be rather meandering at times and unclear, which in turn makes it difficult to translate (I was going through both documents side by side just now, and it's notable that many of his sentences have been split into 2, 3 or more sentences by the translators, which makes for a far more readable document). I find Bongiorno to be a much better writer, whilst Massei's sentence structure, his piling of clause upon clause and his allergy to commas sometimes obscures his meaning. Not that he's a terrible writer by any means; as I said in a previous post, he's certainly nowhere near as meandering as the judge who wrote Rudy's appeal motivation document, in which some of the sentences - no exaggeration - continue for over two pages...

It's personal preference to a certain extent (I have a strong bias in favour of lucid, elegant writing, which avoids unnecessary jargon), although I do think that at the moment where it obscures meaning, it just becomes bad writing.


Apparently, you have not been much exposed to legal writing or to the practice of translation. It is customary to break sentences up and sometimes change the order of presentation for reader comfort, especially when one is dealing with legal documents. I have read briefs in English in which each sentence is a paragraph; I have translated legal documents where this is also the case.

Who cares whether Bongiorno is a better writer than Massei? This is not a writing contest. Perhaps Bongiorno's political career has turned her into a better writer if the standard is not legal writing but something else.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
piktor wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Is this title taken from the original or has this been added by Bruce? (Sorry, I have not had time to look at the appeals documents and am looking for a shortcut from anyone who has...)


The Italian title is Atto di appello

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Amand ... Appeal.pdf


Which really just means "Appeal document/act/instrument" and not "strong case for appeal". Thanks for checking. I have to confess I never visit IIP or JREF. This means I have not seen the offensive avatar people are talking about here. I find the whole thing a bit of a downer; staying away is better for me.

Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].

"Strong Case For Appeal" by BF/DK:
First Violation
Second Violation
Third Violation
Fourth Violation

"Atto di appello" by Ghirga/Della Vedova:
Primo motivo
Secondo motivo
Terzo motivo
Quarto motivo

No doubt Ghirga and Della Vedova when checking IIP site and see what Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski produced out of their 'Atto di appello' document they'l be h-)) and screaming:Vergognosi!!
Top Profile 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This is obviously not what was meant. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing (see previous post).

Again, please read the disclaimer. We encourage readers to let us know if they spot any material errors in the report so that we can investigate and correct them. We did not stipulate that only errors that benefit one or the other party interest us because that is not the spirit in which this translation was undertaken or provided. Your insinuations are nasty and unfounded. Please apologize or leave for good. Enough is enough. You are insulting the hard work of many talented people.

I have repeatedly (and on various different sites) said how much I admire the work done by the translators. My point was merely addressing Hammerite's statement that this particular error destroyed the credibility of the summary as a whole, and whether that was a general rule or only applicable in this particular case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

I certainly don't mean to diminish this particular translation, or translation in general. Nonetheless, the original documents are the important thing here, and they are available, so it seems dishonest to me to pretend that anything is being withheld. If a person can't read those documents, then as I said, that's their deficiency.

I don't believe I did compare the PMF translation with Bruce's summary, did I?

Bull Shit.

You have added nothing to the discussion since you arrived. Now that the report is out, you do nothing but attempt to diminish the significance of the translation and compare it to the obviously biased mis-translation/summary Bruce is putting out.


Begone with you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

I certainly don't mean to diminish this particular translation, or translation in general. Nonetheless, the original documents are the important thing here, and they are available, so it seems dishonest to me to pretend that anything is being withheld. If a person can't read those documents, then as I said, that's their deficiency.

I don't believe I did compare the PMF translation with Bruce's summary, did I?


Thanks for pointing out Hammerite's deficiency in the Italian language. Yes, the appeals are available in Italian and many have taken the time to read them. That the original is what matters is an obvious point. Hammerite was specifically referring to what is stated and not stated in Bruce's "summaries" and not to the general withholding of information. More sophistry on your part of the kind not really appreciated here but encouraged elsewhere.

You said that a tranlation was window dressing and I corrected this ridiculous claim. Instead of responding, you have shifted the terms. You don't belong here, methinks. We don't do sophistic bullshit and don't tolerate it for long.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Some typos in the Massei Report:

p26 Fiammetta called Elisabetta, also in the Italian p13 (it may be correct, but strange )

p114 TOD november 2 23:00pm, also wrong in the Italian p108

p319 23:41 Time of Old Sollecito's SMS instead of 23.14, also wrong in the Italian p342
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

I certainly don't mean to diminish this particular translation, or translation in general. Nonetheless, the original documents are the important thing here, and they are available, so it seems dishonest to me to pretend that anything is being withheld. If a person can't read those documents, then as I said, that's their deficiency.

I don't believe I did compare the PMF translation with Bruce's summary, did I?

Bull Shit.

You have added nothing to the discussion since you arrived. Now that the report is out, you do nothing but attempt to diminish the significance of the translation and compare it to the obviously biased mis-translation/summary Bruce is putting out.


Begone with you.



I think it is obvious to everyone, even Katy_did. Back to JREF, hopefully for good.

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Some typos in the Massei Report:

p26 Fiammetta called Elisabetta, also in the Italian p13 (it may be correct, but strange )

p114 TOD november 2 23:00pm, also wrong in the Italian p108

p319 23:41 Time of Old Sollecito's SMS instead of 23.14, also wrong in the Italian p342



Thanks, Bolint. We haven't decided yet who will do the updates and how frequently. Maybe we could create a special thread for posts about any errors that are spotted. I'll let you and everyone know how this part of the process will be handled.

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
piktor wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Is this title taken from the original or has this been added by Bruce? (Sorry, I have not had time to look at the appeals documents and am looking for a shortcut from anyone who has...)


The Italian title is Atto di appello

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Amand ... Appeal.pdf


Which really just means "Appeal document/act/instrument" and not "strong case for appeal". Thanks for checking. I have to confess I never visit IIP or JREF. This means I have not seen the offensive avatar people are talking about here. I find the whole thing a bit of a downer; staying away is better for me.

Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].

"Strong Case For Appeal" by BF/DK:
First Violation
Second Violation
Third Violation
Fourth Violation

"Atto di appello" by Ghirga/Della Vedova:
Primo motivo
Secondo motivo
Terzo motivo
Quarto motivo

No doubt Ghirga and Della Vedova when checking IIP site and see what Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski produced out of their 'Atto di appello' document they'l be h-)) and screaming:Vergognosi!!


Mamma mia! I am willing to wager that Google does not translate motivo as violation!

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
Quote:
"Bruce is trying to explain what the lawyers are saying."


"I have not...to do with you crafty lawyars, neythar care I for the lawe, but I know what I wyll do." (Francis Drake)
Top Profile 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Bull Shit.

You have added nothing to the discussion since you arrived. Now that the report is out, you do nothing but attempt to diminish the significance of the translation and compare it to the obviously biased mis-translation/summary Bruce is putting out.


Begone with you.

I don't know if you're talking about some collective 'you' there, but I have certainly not done so. If you think I have, feel free to quote.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:
Bull Shit.

You have added nothing to the discussion since you arrived. Now that the report is out, you do nothing but attempt to diminish the significance of the translation and compare it to the obviously biased mis-translation/summary Bruce is putting out.


Begone with you.

I don't know if you're talking about some collective 'you' there, but I have certainly not done so. If you think I have, feel free to quote.


Enough, go away now. You have had your five minutes of attention. "You" and your friends have chased most of the intelligent life away from JREF. Stop hunting them down and bothering them here.

"Thanks for stopping by".

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Chris C wrote:
Quote:
"Bruce is trying to explain what the lawyers are saying."


"I have not...to do with you crafty lawyars, neythar care I for the lawe, but I know what I wyll do." (Francis Drake)



Bruce is trying to explain what the Italian lawyers are saying based on either summaries of the appeals documents or a google translation or both, and without having any special training in the law, whether it be that of the US or any other country.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Justinian wrote:
I'm saying that it is plausible that there was no scream. Remember that the witness, under cross examination, could NOT be certain of either the time or day of the scream.



This is simply not true. Nara Capezzali was absolutely certain she heard the scream the night before Meredith's body was discovered. She never claimed that she was certain about the time she heard the scream.


Justininian: I wish I could just ignore some of the "talking points your 'agenda' prompts you to bestow on us.
But the last one you so pompously ask us to "remember" is just over the top

Would you please do enough research to understand and learn from *the entire testimony* before you get on a pedestal and request that we here "remember" something that is so basic and elementary as to be embarrassing.

Try and "remember" that the witness testified as Machine states "she heard the scream the night before the body was discovered".
Read that again, slowly

Now, under cross examination, the Defense repeats her testimony, and then from page 3 of Perry Mason's Primer for slick lawyers, he slyly asks.... "What was the *DATE* that you heard the scream"

The witness who is no spring chicken could not immediately rattle off the date, but was certain it was the *day after the body was discovered*.

Under cross exam, she also stated that she did not look at the clock.

Justinian, read this slowly......Nina was deemed by ALL the jurors *as a very credible witness*
She did not look at her calendar or clock, but ..*it was the night before the body was discovered*
I'm sure you carry some digital calendar, Justininian, but maybe you do not even 'trust that'

Read that again, and do your own research next time before you demean all of us here by asking us to "remember" and then toss out talking points of the FOAKers that were discredited *ages ago* by anyone who has read *anything* in addition to your Food Blogger

Finally, since you state you do not trust courts or anything, I'm sure you do not trust me.
Fine. I do not intend to read the Transactions *for you* either.

In fact I intend to try a lot harder to ignore you, and regret the warm welcome I extended to you.

PS Sorry, Bard, if this seems "harsh"
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Justinian wrote:
I'm saying that it is plausible that there was no scream. Remember that the witness, under cross examination, could NOT be certain of either the time or day of the scream.



This is simply not true. Nara Capezzali was absolutely certain she heard the scream the night before Meredith's body was discovered. She never claimed that she was certain about the time she heard the scream.


Justininian: I wish I could just ignore some of the "talking points your 'agenda' prompts you to bestow on us.
But the last one you so pompously ask us to "remember" is just over the top

Would you please do enough research to understand and learn from *the entire testimony* before you get on a pedestal and request that we here "remember" something that is so basic and elementary as to be embarrassing.

Try and "remember" that the witness testified as Machine states "she heard the scream the night before the body was discovered".
Read that again, slowly

Now, under cross examination, the Defense repeats her testimony, and then from page 3 of Perry Mason's Primer for slick lawyers, he slyly asks.... "What was the *DATE* that you heard the scream"

The witness who is no spring chicken could not immediately rattle off the date, but was certain it was the *day after the body was discovered*.

Under cross exam, she also stated that she did not look at the clock.

Justinian, read this slowly......Nina was deemed by ALL the jurors *as a very credible witness*
She did not look at her calendar or clock, but ..*it was the night before the body was discovered*
I'm sure you carry some digital calendar, Justininian, but maybe you do not even 'trust that'

Read that again, and do your own research next time before you demean all of us here by asking us to "remember" and then toss out talking points of the FOAKers that were discredited *ages ago* by anyone who has read *anything* in addition to your Food Blogger

Finally, since you state you do not trust courts or anything, I'm sure you do not trust me.
Fine. I do not intend to read the Transactions *for you* either.

In fact I intend to try a lot harder to ignore you, and regret the warm welcome I extended to you.

PS Sorry, Bard, if this seems "harsh"



Am I missing something or did you mean "before" and not "after"?

_________________
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: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This is obviously not what was meant. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing (see previous post).

Again, please read the disclaimer. We encourage readers to let us know if they spot any material errors in the report so that we can investigate and correct them. We did not stipulate that only errors that benefit one or the other party interest us because that is not the spirit in which this translation was undertaken or provided. Your insinuations are nasty and unfounded. Please apologize or leave for good. Enough is enough. You are insulting the hard work of many talented people.

I have repeatedly (and on various different sites) said how much I admire the work done by the translators. My point was merely addressing Hammerite's statement that this particular error destroyed the credibility of the summary as a whole, and whether that was a general rule or only applicable in this particular case.


We don't even need to linger on ONE error, the 'error's' (rather a euphemism since many go beyond errors and into the territory of what most would call 'lies', which is best suited to inserted data that doesn't appear in the original and is not marked out as being inserted) permeate almost every single paragraph of their...interpretation. The 'error' that was the point of focus was merely one of many taken to highlight just how incorrect and misleading their rendition is. Yet, you let all that slide by without note and rush here to defend it. People want the truth, not excuses. You people have been making them for so long on behalf of the accused convicted parties that you've forgotten how to do anything else and so now make them as SOP for your fellow FOA members 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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:
Bull Shit.

You have added nothing to the discussion since you arrived. Now that the report is out, you do nothing but attempt to diminish the significance of the translation and compare it to the obviously biased mis-translation/summary Bruce is putting out.


Begone with you.

I don't know if you're talking about some collective 'you' there, but I have certainly not done so. If you think I have, feel free to quote.


I realize KD was referring to the charge of diminishing the significance of the translation but in reference to Bob's other charge, that of adding nothing to the discussion here, proving it would require merely reposting everything KD posted today. But I think once is enough and will instead just leave the entire sorry string to stand or fall on its own merit or lack thereof.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep, thanks for the catch.

Certainly, I meant *before* as Machine accurately shows in the quote I referenced, and I got it right the first time I typed it.

I guess since I am even older than Nara, do not carry a calendar, and can make *lots * of little OOOPS
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_dis wrote:
As to the issue of whether the appeals are going to be translated, well as I said earlier, you would have to ask Bruce that (I certainly don't have access to the defence, the family, the defence fund or anything else...) But what I would say is that given it took 5 months and 12 people to translate the Massei report, and given that taken together the appeals are quite a lot longer even than that (close to 500 pages, I believe) why would anyone expect an instant translation just because PMF have released theirs? Personally I hope they will be translated, but it seems a little unreasonable to clamour for some kind of immediate response. You might need to go to Google for that!


Total tosh, considering 70 - 80% of the appeal documents actually consist of quotes of long tracts from the Massei report, not the verbiage of the actual appeal arguments themselves.

_________________
"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 Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'm working my way through the Motivations. I'm in a rough-going area, the autopsy.

I noticed what seems to be an error on p 114 [p 108 in the original, if that's what the square bracket nos. mean]. I'm not sure if it's a translation error or in the original.

"He [Dr. Lalli] also pointed out that the intermediate value - equal to 26 hours before the first survey - placed the time of death at 23:00 pm on November 2, 2007."

I think that should be "November 1, 2007".

Also, some of the nos. right above seem off. For example, there's a 9-hour difference in the death window (21:30 hrs - 30:30 hrs prior to exam), but only an 8-hour difference in the time of death window: 20:00 pm - 4:00 am.

Also, there's a spelling error - which probably I shouldn't mention, but it's one of my big bugabears!! Sorry!! "Lead" instead of "led", right above where I'm talking about. "... lead Dr. Lalli..." should be ".... led Dr. Lalli...."

I know, everyone makes that error now, so often that it's almost probably accepted... except by me!! LOL

I'm glad to be finally able to read this report in English. Thank you, translators and editors. I can't believe I got to p 114 before discovering an error. (I used to be an editor, so discovering errors is second-nature to me.)
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I've enjoyed the past few days of idiocy since the translated report has been available. Really shouldn't, but I can't stop this wave of elation. There are people with serious increased pain because of it's release. Now, the truth is irrefutable.

The Family and loved ones of Meredith are my only concern, now.

ETA... More Mungo, please.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Some typos in the Massei Report:

p26 Fiammetta called Elisabetta, also in the Italian p13 (it may be correct, but strange )

p114 TOD november 2 23:00pm, also wrong in the Italian p108

p319 23:41 Time of Old Sollecito's SMS instead of 23.14, also wrong in the Italian p342


Thanks Bolint.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_did wrote:

Quote:
As to the issue of whether the appeals are going to be translated, well as I said earlier, you would have to ask Bruce that (I certainly don't have access to the defence, the family, the defence fund or anything else...) But what I would say is that given it took 5 months and 12 people to translate the Massei report, and given that taken together the appeals are quite a lot longer even than that (close to 500 pages, I believe) why would anyone expect an instant translation just because PMF have released theirs? Personally I hope they will be translated, but it seems a little unreasonable to clamour for some kind of immediate response. You might need to go to Google for that!


I don't believe anyone expects this at all. It would be great if our team could get back to work tomorrow and translate the appeals documents, but I think most are on well-deserved holidays and/or back to work and family obligations. The appeals documents have been out for awhile now. Had the effort been made immediately by a similar group of friends of Knox to translate them, the job would be not done but at least on the way to being done. As things stand, these documents have not been translated and their content is accessible only to those who have reading knowledge of Italian.

I am a bit surprised that the AK Defense site hasn't allocated some of its donations to a translation of the instrument concerning her appeal at the very least. It would be money well spent and would benefit all of her supporters who are not able to read Italian as well as those who feel she was justifiably convicted for her participation in the death of Meredith Kercher.

In the meantime, it looks as if the "summaries" provided by Bruce Fisher are somewhat problematic. I am basing this statement on what has been posted here. I have not read the Bruce's "explanations" of what the defense lawyers are arguing.

ETA: In fact, the implication of the "just because" link KD makes is equally dishonest. It may just be a coincidence that Bruce whipped out his little thing [someone help here; I really don't know what to call it] on August 9, one day after the Massei report in English was published. It may also be a tactical move (though a bad one IMO), which could explain the low quality of Bruce's product. Perhaps Bruce was in a rush to compete or something, as if there could be any comparison at all. As I posted above, a fully translated document without editorial additions (our Massei report in English) is not comparable to a "thing" of the kind Bruce produced. Not really a summary because he has added stuff that was not in the original, starting with "strong case for" appeal. I truly don't know what to call this kind of document, other than propaganda of some sort. It is more like a sales brochure or political pamphlet than anything else. It could (and should) lose the editorial comments to escape this designation.

Anyway, I'm done having any comparative discussion of the two documents. There is no basis for comparison whatsoever.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bolint wrote:
Some typos in the Massei Report:

p26 Fiammetta called Elisabetta, also in the Italian p13 (it may be correct, but strange )

p114 TOD november 2 23:00pm, also wrong in the Italian p108

p319 23:41 Time of Old Sollecito's SMS instead of 23.14, also wrong in the Italian p342



Thanks, Bolint. We haven't decided yet who will do the updates and how frequently. Maybe we could create a special thread for posts about any errors that are spotted. I'll let you and everyone know how this part of the process will be handled.


Yeah, I stated yesterday...I'm going to create a topic in the 'Projects for Meredith' subforum for members to indicate either factual errors or even just typos they may come across when reading the report. Then, our translators can simply review that thread and ensure all fixes are made in the revised addition when we release it.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
I'm working my way through the Motivations. I'm in a rough-going area, the autopsy.

I noticed what seems to be an error on p 114 [p 108 in the original, if that's what the square bracket nos. mean]. I'm not sure if it's a translation error or in the original.

"He [Dr. Lalli] also pointed out that the intermediate value - equal to 26 hours before the first survey - placed the time of death at 23:00 pm on November 2, 2007."

I think that should be "November 1, 2007".

Also, some of the nos. right above seem off. For example, there's a 9-hour difference in the death window (21:30 hrs - 30:30 hrs prior to exam), but only an 8-hour difference in the time of death window: 20:00 pm - 4:00 am.

Also, there's a spelling error - which probably I shouldn't mention, but it's one of my big bugabears!! Sorry!! "Lead" instead of "led", right above where I'm talking about. "... lead Dr. Lalli..." should be ".... led Dr. Lalli...."
I know, everyone makes that error now, so often that it's almost probably accepted... except by me!! LOL

I'm glad to be finally able to read this report in English. Thank you, translators and editors. I can't believe I got to p 114 before discovering an error. (I used to be an editor, so discovering errors is second-nature to me.)



Mea culpa on that error (and all of them, really, since I was the last person to read the document). I am embarrassed to have missed it because it is one of my pet spelling peeves as well. It ranks right up there with "loose" for "lose" -- only "loosers" make that one!

:oops:

And have you noticed that when the cursor finds this emoticon you see the word "embarrassed" misspelled?!

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

Earthling wrote:
I'm working my way through the Motivations. I'm in a rough-going area, the autopsy.

I noticed what seems to be an error on p 114 [p 108 in the original, if that's what the square bracket nos. mean]. I'm not sure if it's a translation error or in the original.

"He [Dr. Lalli] also pointed out that the intermediate value - equal to 26 hours before the first survey - placed the time of death at 23:00 pm on November 2, 2007."

I think that should be "November 1, 2007".

Also, some of the nos. right above seem off. For example, there's a 9-hour difference in the death window (21:30 hrs - 30:30 hrs prior to exam), but only an 8-hour difference in the time of death window: 20:00 pm - 4:00 am.

Also, there's a spelling error - which probably I shouldn't mention, but it's one of my big bugabears!! Sorry!! "Lead" instead of "led", right above where I'm talking about. "... lead Dr. Lalli..." should be ".... led Dr. Lalli...."

I know, everyone makes that error now, so often that it's almost probably accepted... except by me!! LOL

I'm glad to be finally able to read this report in English. Thank you, translators and editors. I can't believe I got to p 114 before discovering an error. (I used to be an editor, so discovering errors is second-nature to me.)



Thanks Earthling. Since a few spots are coming in now, I think I'll make that thread in the 'Projects for Meredith' subforum some time later tonight.

_________________
"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 piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This is the result when people with no training in translation get involved without any supervision in this sort of project. When you add to the lack of training in the ethics and practice of translation zero familiarity with the source language and a reliance on translation software (especially the Italian to English pair, which is notoriously bad) what you get is garbage.


You're wrong, Skep.

What you get is a...
* v-)) NUGATORY v-)) *


Attachment:
violations or nugatories.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 Aug 12, 2010 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_did wrote:
why would anyone expect an instant translation just because PMF have released theirs?


We did not "expect" or ask them to release a translation of the appeals and we certainly did not ask them to do so when we released our report. It was 'their' decision to rush out a release of a half arsed interpretation of the appeal to match and torpedo the release of the Report.

We do not expect "instant" translations, but we do expect competent and faithful ones.

_________________
"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 DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT) Google translation of a LaNazione article. Florence August 12, 2010.

‘It 'died in Rome after a long illness, the writer and scholar Gabriella Pasquali Carlizzi, known for her work on some of the most complex Italian news reports, including the murders of the Monster of Florence. Controversial character, Gabriella Carlizzi as a witness had frequent contacts with prosecutors and investigators involved in the investigation, which suggested their proposed thesis investigation, especially in the story of the Monster, particular interpretations related to the influence of seven-inspired Masonic esoteric-type the 'Red Rose'…..
Gabriella Pasquali Carlizzi has also dealt with the mysterious death of Francesco Narducci of Perugia doctor, as the case of Meredith Kercher murder and the murder of Cogne. The funeral will be held tomorrow at the Institute of Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Rome.’

I remember her as a frequent critic of Mignini, and often mentioned by the FOA as laying the groundwork for the satanic cult theory. She was a very prolific Italian blogger. RIP

The Massei report is riveting. Can not say enough accolades for all those responsible for providing this ‘window’ into this all encompassing document. All one has to do is follow the yellow brick road.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh...she's dead...!

Harry Wilkens will be most upset, they were good friends.

Thanks for letting us know DLW.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh, Piktor! You've done it again!!!

I stand corrected. It ain't garbage; it's a nugatory!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Oh...she's dead...!

Harry Wilkens will be most upset, they were good friends.

Thanks for letting us know DLW.



I fully expect her to speak to us from beyond, however.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I've now created an error reporting thread in the 'Projects for Meredith' subforum here: MASSEI REPORT: TRANSLATION ERROR REPORTING THREAD

Please report any errors there. For those of you who've already reported some errors here in the main discussion thread, it would be appreciated if you could copy your posts into that thread so that they will all be in one place.

Thank You

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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

WRT Kevin_Lowe's ava: you won't get anywhere complaining about that I don't think. It is arguably tasteless but it does not breach the MA of JREF in any way that I can see. One must remember that KL used to have a sig that said something like: people who are easily offended should be offended often. That is not accurate but you get the gist ...and the outlook on life it implies :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Oh, Piktor! You've done it again!!!

I stand corrected. It ain't garbage; it's a nugatory!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Attachment:
CHECK !!!.png


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 Aug 12, 2010 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
But let's not forget three important things:

1. Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede were acquainted with one another prior to the murder. They had acquaintances in common, for one thing, including the guys who lived below AK and MK.

2. The prosecution was unable to establish that Raffaele Sollecito knew Rudy Guede prior to the night they spent together, during which Meredith Kercher was killed. This does not mean they didn't know eachother; but we don't know that they did and RS denies it. They lived just over 100 steps apart. RG is often accused of being a small-time dealer; RS was a regular user. Just sayin'.

3. If you look at the argument the appeal is making here, it is pretty weak. A chance encounter leading to murder is illogical... Rudy and Amanda and Raffaele could not have planned this. Judge Massei's court decided that there was no advance planning, so what is the point of this argument? I doubt it will be a game changer at the appeal level.


A lot is made by the groupies of the social interactions leading to the confrontation in Meredith's room. It's simply an argument from incredulity, though. Massei's scenario fits the evidence. The report spends little time on the Guede-Sollecito connection but much more on the Knox-Guede and Knox-Sollecito connections. Those are integral to understanding how and why a 'mere' sexual assualt escalated into murder. Knox was the catalyst even if she was not the instigator.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:
katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

I certainly don't mean to diminish this particular translation, or translation in general. Nonetheless, the original documents are the important thing here, and they are available, so it seems dishonest to me to pretend that anything is being withheld. If a person can't read those documents, then as I said, that's their deficiency.

I don't believe I did compare the PMF translation with Bruce's summary, did I?

Bull Shit.

You have added nothing to the discussion since you arrived. Now that the report is out, you do nothing but attempt to diminish the significance of the translation and compare it to the obviously biased mis-translation/summary Bruce is putting out.


Begone with you.



I think it is obvious to everyone, even Katy_did. Back to JREF, hopefully for good.




You know.. I am beginning to think there was something very wise in the old practice of shunning. People might learn something then.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
A translation is more than window dressing; it is a window for those who would otherwise be unable to understand a text. Your statement needs to be corrected. The original documents have legal status that the English translation does not have, which we were careful to state in the disclaimer. This type of disclaimer is standard practice. In today's global world, business could not be done without faithful translations of everything from instructions on how to operate helicopters to contracts to prospectuses for international bond issues. The UN would not be able to function without translations.

Your comparison of Massei's report, which was fully translated, with the summary provided by Bruce Fisher is off the mark and I suspect you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, Katy_did, so I think it is time for you to hurry back to JREF, where sophistry is a staple.

I certainly don't mean to diminish this particular translation, or translation in general. Nonetheless, the original documents are the important thing here, and they are available, so it seems dishonest to me to pretend that anything is being withheld. If a person can't read those documents, then as I said, that's their deficiency.

I don't believe I did compare the PMF translation with Bruce's summary, did I?


The Italian originals must have already been translated into English or the non-Italians (Knox's family, Ted Simon, etc) would have no idea what they said if they wanted to read them for themselves. However, we do know that the Family did not bother paying for an interpreter in court so it's plausible the Massei Report was not translated for them either.

This would be a failing on the part of the Family, who better darned well know what the judgement was based upon before paying the same cast of characters even more money for the appeals.

Regardless of other translations, though, this one is the only one available for the sizeable English-speaking market. It trumps any of the English language books about the case. That's what makes it such an important historical document.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

In fact, for the sake of those who claim the "summaries" were written by Bruce and David in good faith trying to be as faithful as possible to the original, no Google translator nor dictionary in the world could ever translate "motivo" as "violation". This is a first exampe of the kind of choices made in their document, it is made on purpouse and belongs to the pattern of style/content of their writing.

The Bruce/David document wants to be aggressive, to point accusations against people or authorities. To reflect a tone of self-confidence, we can define it arrogant and judgeing, it is aggresively attacking and appears eager to shift the focus of dispute from the defendants to the trial (the judges, the prosecution, the experts,thir mistakes and possible wrongdoing).
This is the pattern the choice to replace "motivio" with the word "violation" reveals, readable just from the index titles.

The content of actual document is diferent. The resulting difference is regarding the content, not just a stilistic nuance: the Appeal document is not at all based on "violation" and "wrongdoing", does not try to put somebody under trial and does not rely on the lever of accusing somebody or something. The actual Appeal is more cautious. It speaks to the judges from a level on a lower position compared to the Bruce/David's document. It is humble, defensive, focused on proposing a re-reading of procedure, criticizing testimonies, and demands the introduction of new investigation.
Top Profile 

Offline moyalua


Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Justinian please at least have the modicom of respect to spell Meredith's name correctly. I wish to echo a previous post. Go. Away.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
In fact, for the sake of those who claim the "summaries" were written by Bruce and David in good faith trying to be as faithful as possible to the original, no Google translator nor dictionary in the world could ever translate "motivo" as "violation". This is a first exampe of the kind of choices made in their document, it is made on purpouse and belongs to the pattern of style/content of their writing.

The Bruce/David document wants to be aggressive, to point accusations against people or authorities. To reflect a tone of self-confidence, we can define it arrogant and judgeing, it is aggresively attacking and appears eager to shift the focus of dispute from the defendants to the trial (the judges, the prosecution, the experts,thir mistakes and possible wrongdoing).
This is the pattern the choice to replace "motivio" with the word "violation" reveals, readable just from the index titles.

The content of actual document is diferent. The resulting difference is regarding the content, not just a stilistic nuance: the Appeal document is not at all based on "violation" and "wrongdoing", does not try to put somebody under trial and does not rely on the lever of accusing somebody or something. The actual Appeal is more cautious. It speaks to the judges from a level on a lower position compared to the Bruce/David's document. It is humble, defensive, focused on proposing a re-reading of procedure, criticizing testimonies, and demands the introduction of new investigation.


I am just now starting to read the actual material, kindly provided for us here by Macport. But I am fairly sure you have it right, Yummi. Legal systems differ from one another with respect to details and, to a lesser extent with respect to some underlying principles. However, the world over, competent lawyers respect the process and their peers, even when they are on opposite sides of the bench or bar. Lawyers whose job is to defend their clients at the appeals level generally do not come out of the gate shooting from the hip and taking pot shots at anything that moves.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.

Also, I just noticed a "Knox Amanda Marie" on page 394 of the English and another top of 395.


Last edited by thoughtful on Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This is obviously not what was meant. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing (see previous post).

Again, please read the disclaimer. We encourage readers to let us know if they spot any material errors in the report so that we can investigate and correct them. We did not stipulate that only errors that benefit one or the other party interest us because that is not the spirit in which this translation was undertaken or provided. Your insinuations are nasty and unfounded. Please apologize or leave for good. Enough is enough. You are insulting the hard work of many talented people.

I have repeatedly (and on various different sites) said how much I admire the work done by the translators. My point was merely addressing Hammerite's statement that this particular error destroyed the credibility of the summary as a whole, and whether that was a general rule or only applicable in this particular case.


huh-)

No. What Bruce and Dave have done is neither summarise nor translate. They have provided an ever-changing interpretation of what they think the lawyers ought to be arguing. This is not even a question of integrity or credibility. It's like having chimpanzees explaining particle physics. There's no reason to mistrust the chimps because they haven't done anything and listening to them will not bring you any closer to understanding particle physics.

Does that help?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Mea culpa on that error (and all of them, really, since I was the last person to read the document). I am embarrassed to have missed it because it is one of my pet spelling peeves as well. It ranks right up there with "loose" for "lose" -- only "loosers" make that one!

:oops:

And have you noticed that when the cursor finds this emoticon you see the word "embarrassed" misspelled?!

Ha ha, Skep! Welll, actually, I didn't notice it when I first read it. Horrors on me!!! :oops: I only noticed it after noticing the other factual error and looking more carefully. So, do not feel bad!!! :)

YOU proofread this whole thing, that's quite an accomplishment!!! Yeah for you!!!! wor-))

cl-) th-) dm-) Yay-)

That's a lot of: co-)

And Michael, sorry I didn't know about the Error thread, I will definitely copy this to there! I'll go over and do that right away!!!

P.S. I wish I could have helped with the editing, but I was taking a class this summer, then I had a tooth pulled - so I've been kind of overwhelmed!


Last edited by Earthling on Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


Thanks, Thoughtful. Right on both counts. You mean informatique is not informatics?! :)
Just kidding. I thought I had spotted every instance of informatics but here's proof I did not.

P.S. I think Michael has created a special place.

P.P.S. I am ready and willing to do a first update this weekend to correct the typos and minor errors spotted so far. I am delighted that nothing more subtantive has been found. To tell the truth, as Clander knows, I went away for a long weekend last Thursday and had to rush the last part of the final reread, since Clander was raring to go. And rightly so!

_________________
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: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
And Michael, sorry I didn't know about the Error thread, I will definitely copy this to there! I'll go over and do that right away!!!


No problem, I didn't create the thread until after you had posted :)


Thoughtful wrote:
Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


Thoughtful, please view my earlier post here: viewtopic.php?p=54564#p54564

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


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
No. What Bruce and Dave have done is neither summarise nor translate. They have provided an ever-changing interpretation of what they think the lawyers ought to be arguing. This is not even a question of integrity or credibility. It's like having chimpanzees explaining particle physics. There's no reason to mistrust the chimps because they haven't done anything and listening to them will not bring you any closer to understanding particle physics.

Does that help?


Stilicho, I love that analogy.

mul-)

Maybe Piktor can complement his previous artistic masterpieces today with another incredible impression showing a Chimp with chalkboard and pointer listing some laws of nature for "student" Katy in front row.........with Dunce Cap
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
No. What Bruce and Dave have done is neither summarise nor translate. They have provided an ever-changing interpretation of what they think the lawyers ought to be arguing. This is not even a question of integrity or credibility. It's like having chimpanzees explaining particle physics. There's no reason to mistrust the chimps because they haven't done anything and listening to them will not bring you any closer to understanding particle physics.

Does that help?


Stilicho, I love that analogy.

mul-)

Maybe Piktor can complement his previous artistic masterpieces today with another incredible impression showing a Chimp with chalkboard and pointer listing some laws of nature for "student" Katy in front row.........with Dunce Cap



Still Life with Chimp, Pointer and Dunce Cap.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


No. Informatics is not an italian term.

Informatics (academic field), a broad academic field encompassing information science, information technology, algorithms, and social science. (wikipedia)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.

Also, I just noticed a "Knox Amanda Marie" on page 394 of the English and another top of 395.



Just yanking your chain :p

Can't check cos on iPad but the reversal of the Knox Amanda Marie at 394/395 sounds consistent with the formal pronouncement of guilt / recording of verdict at the end of the document? Would be a strange thing for a translator to do off their own back. Sounds right to me with no evidence to support?

Or are you going to confirm the nullity of my nuggetory?

_________________
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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.

Also, I just noticed a "Knox Amanda Marie" on page 394 of the English and another top of 395.



Just yanking your chain :p

Can't check cos on iPad but the reversal of the Knox Amanda Marie at 394/395 sounds consistent with the formal pronouncement of guilt / recording of verdict at the end of the document? Would be a strange thing for a translator to do off their own back. Sounds right to me with no evidence to support?

Or are you going to confirm the nullity of my nuggetory?



Yes, but it was decided (arbitrarily) to go with first name followed by middle name (where it appears) and then last name. The report is not consistent in this regard, for reasons that are totally comprehensible. Since this has no material impact on the meaning, we decided to harmonize the document. But we did so after I had looked at the conclusions and the first part.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.



Well you know Michael and I did a final Saturday / Sunday read through to try and back you up. I've been doing a lot of proof reading of my own stuff the past few months on an 85,000 word piece but it's something I find you just have to have multiple pairs of eyes and go rounds on. I have no idea how professional proof-readers do it. Inhuman. The translation thread will tell a tale when it is opened up clean of first names and stuff. But anyway I'll stand next to you for pages 200-400.



Umm unless it gets really hairy then I'll be at the back fetching the drinks.

_________________
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 SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.

Also, I just noticed a "Knox Amanda Marie" on page 394 of the English and another top of 395.



Just yanking your chain :p

Can't check cos on iPad but the reversal of the Knox Amanda Marie at 394/395 sounds consistent with the formal pronouncement of guilt / recording of verdict at the end of the document? Would be a strange thing for a translator to do off their own back. Sounds right to me with no evidence to support?

Or are you going to confirm the nullity of my nuggetory?



Yes, but it was decided (arbitrarily) to go with first name followed by middle name (where it appears) and then last name. The report is not consistent in this regard, for reasons that are totally comprehensible. Since this has no material impact on the meaning, we decided to harmonize the document. But we did so after I had looked at the conclusions and the first part.



Ok I understand your logic but just to make the point - a pronouncement of sentencing section should have the reversal as it appears here to my eyes. This is stylistically correct as it appears imho so please don't change it. There is a sense of transmutation of the individual to a convicted person in the way the name is turned round which is proper to the function of that section.

_________________
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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
p.61 [No Italian reference Thoughtful!]


On purpose just to be a meanie?

Well, in the absence thereof, I went to the English p. 61 and almost instantly found a typo.

SKEP ALERT (until we have a special place to put these corrections)

"Raffaele Sollecito moved to Perugia in 2002 from his region, Giovinazzo, after which in 2002 HE obtained his graduation diploma" (the word HE is missing).

Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.

Also, I just noticed a "Knox Amanda Marie" on page 394 of the English and another top of 395.



Just yanking your chain :p

Can't check cos on iPad but the reversal of the Knox Amanda Marie at 394/395 sounds consistent with the formal pronouncement of guilt / recording of verdict at the end of the document? Would be a strange thing for a translator to do off their own back. Sounds right to me with no evidence to support?

Or are you going to confirm the nullity of my nuggetory?



Yes, but it was decided (arbitrarily) to go with first name followed by middle name (where it appears) and then last name. The report is not consistent in this regard, for reasons that are totally comprehensible. Since this has no material impact on the meaning, we decided to harmonize the document. But we did so after I had looked at the conclusions and the first part.



Ok I understand your logic but just to make the point - a pronouncement of sentencing section should have the reversal as it appears here to my eyes. This is stylistically correct as it appears imho so please don't change it. There is a sense of transmutation of the individual to a convicted person in the way the name is turned round which is proper to the function of that section.



Hey, you're the lawyer so it's whatevah you says.
I'll make a note of that and ensure the names stay as they are in the section(s) related to the actual sentencing.

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


No. Informatics is not an italian term.

Informatics (academic field), a broad academic field encompassing information science, information technology, algorithms, and social science. (wikipedia)


I was in favor of getting rid of it, in part because it isn't familiar to lots of people but mainly because I personally find the term quite ugly. There is no logic to that at all. It just sounds bad to my ears. In any case, this is just a matter of terminology and has no material bearing on the case.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT but Biblical, hence relevant.

Hammerite wrote:
Quote:
...to “begat”


It's "to beget"! Lots of Biblical "knowing and begetting", indeed.

Begat is the past tense of beget in King James English. Nowadays one (who used this word) would say "begot" and "begotten". Like "an ill-begotten bastard." Olde English meaning of the latter word too, of course.
Top Profile 

Offline tripod


Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:40 pm

Posts: 26

Highscores: 9

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


No. Informatics is not an italian term.

Informatics (academic field), a broad academic field encompassing information science, information technology, algorithms, and social science. (wikipedia)


I was in favor of getting rid of it, in part because it isn't familiar to lots of people but mainly because I personally find the term quite ugly. There is no logic to that at all. It just sounds bad to my ears. In any case, this is just a matter of terminology and has no material bearing on the case.


I agree that it's an extremely inelegant word and fairly meaningless to people not familiar with the field, but in the interests of accuracy should it not remain if that is how the faculty actually names itself?

An informatics department in which I was employed in a UK university had only a very few academics who identified themselves as computer scientists; the terms are really quite different. If it were to be changed at all, I would argue it should be changed to 'Information Science' or 'Information Systems'. (Not that I would do so here of course as the argument would bore everybody, including myself, rigid.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Justinian wrote:
Michael wrote:
Justinian wrote:
My question is how did anyone hear the scream? She was being stabbed, strangled and asphiated at the same time. Furthermore, has anyone actually tried to scream when really scared? My loudest scream once sounded like a hoarse whisper. I thought someone had broken into my apartment.


Yet, in your lifetime you have, I presume, heard people scream when they are afraid? You also are aware that the fact that frightened screams occur and exist is well documented throughout human history? Therefore, in light of that, is it so difficult to accept that Meredith screamed?


Not used to having a girlfriend in my apartment, I woke up one night to hear noises in the kitchen. I entered the kitchen to see a dark figure moving. I screamed in my most masculine voice: "Get the f... out! My scream was like a loud whisper. I've just read that drowning victims don't make a noise for the same reason.

Meridith would plausibly have had only one chance to scream before someone started choking her.

In my opinion, the scream wasn't heard and didn't exist.


I'm happy to tell Justinian to piss off if no one else wants to.

You really are talking total bollocks now Justinian...
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sorry I've messed up the quotes. I will tell you-know-who to you-know-what.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Justinian wrote:
I'm saying that it is plausible that there was no scream. Remember that the witness, under cross examination, could NOT be certain of either the time or day of the scream.



This is simply not true. Nara Capezzali was absolutely certain she heard the scream the night before Meredith's body was discovered. She never claimed that she was certain about the time she heard the scream.


Justininian: I wish I could just ignore some of the "talking points your 'agenda' prompts you to bestow on us.
But the last one you so pompously ask us to "remember" is just over the top

Would you please do enough research to understand and learn from *the entire testimony* before you get on a pedestal and request that we here "remember" something that is so basic and elementary as to be embarrassing.

Try and "remember" that the witness testified as Machine states "she heard the scream the night before the body was discovered".
Read that again, slowly

Now, under cross examination, the Defense repeats her testimony, and then from page 3 of Perry Mason's Primer for slick lawyers, he slyly asks.... "What was the *DATE* that you heard the scream"

The witness who is no spring chicken could not immediately rattle off the date, but was certain it was the *day before the body was discovered*.

Under cross exam, she also stated that she did not look at the clock.

Justinian, read this slowly......Nina was deemed by ALL the jurors *as a very credible witness*
She did not look at her calendar or clock, but ..*it was the night before the body was discovered*
I'm sure you carry some digital calendar, Justininian, but maybe you do not even 'trust that'

Read that again, and do your own research next time before you demean all of us here by asking us to "remember" and then toss out talking points of the FOAKers that were discredited *ages ago* by anyone who has read *anything* in addition to your Food Blogger

Finally, since you state you do not trust courts or anything, I'm sure you do not trust me.
Fine. I do not intend to read the Transactions *for you* either.

In fact I intend to try a lot harder to ignore you, and regret the warm welcome I extended to you.

PS Sorry, Bard, if this seems "harsh".


Thank you, Stint. You said some stuff I wanted to say. (I fixed your "after" to "before" above.)

Justinian, I would ask that you please see pp 95-97 of the translation of the Motivations. It describes the relevant testimony in great detail.

There were TWO (independent) witnesses to the scream at around 11-12 pm November 1, 2007 in the vicinity of 7 Via della Pergola. The first is the widow, Nara Capezzali. She heard what she described as "a scream that was not a normal scream." She testified that she had never heard anything like it before, even in a film: "because films don't do anything to me whereas this gave me goose bumps." She further testified that the scream was so upsetting to her that she could not return to sleep immediately but rather had to make some chamomile tea to calm herself down.

As to the date, she testified: "that night there was that scream and in the morning they found that girl dead."

I think that means she knows the night she heard the scream: November 1, 2007.

There was apparently some more to-ing and fro-ing, with further Perry Mason-esque obfuscation by the defense because she said something about the next day seeing the newspaper posters of the murder, and they didn't appear for at least a day. In his typically elegant way, Judge Massei destroyed this little obfuscation on p 97, third paragraph:

"It is therefore to be held that the strong impression made by the scream heard that night and the succeeding discovery of the lifeless body of the girl, with the significance given to the event by the newspapers for days and days, catalyzed the attention of Mrs. Capezzali, making it difficult for her to reconstruct the precise sequence in regard to the newspaper posters which continued to give news of the murder."

In other words, we all mix up dates and sequences, elders even moreso, when events are not very significant (such as newspaper posters). I think we can safely say, though, that Mrs. Capezzali found the scream itself and the murder itself both to be very significant events, and she didn't mess up the sequence of those two events, nor their relationship to each other (the former happening one particular night, the latter happening the next day).

The second person who heard the scream is Antonella Monacchia. She also testified that she heard "an extremely loud scream," and the next day heard about the murder. She also testified that the scream came precisely from the murder cottage, which lies in her field of vision out of her window.

Mrs. Capezzali also heard two separate sets of running footsteps immediately after the scream, going in two different directions; hence at least two people seemed to be running from the crime scene.

The running footsteps were confirmed independently by witness Maria Ilaria Dramis, who heard running footsteps as well. These footsteps were unlike the usual night noises and woke her up again as she was drifting off to sleep at about 11:30 pm November 1. She is sure of the date because she had seen a particular film that night with her sister.

Let me close, Justinian, with the following from the Motivations (p 96, last paragraph). I'd suggest you read it very very carefully and slowly, several times, before you again question the validity of the scream testimony:

"Several times in the course of her own deposition Mrs. Capezzali spoke of a special scream, heart-rending to the point that after she heard it she could not get back to sleep; a scream the likes of which she had never heard before. If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."

You also commit the fallacy of specific to general rationalization (generalization). Just because you cannot scream, does not mean no-one can scream. Just because everyone could not scream, does not mean Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher could not scream while being held at knife-point on November 1, 2007.

I am glad you are on a time-out, and I hope you use that time well.


Last edited by Earthling on Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
I'm happy to tell Justinian to piss off if no one else wants to.
You really are talking total bollocks now Justinian...

mul-)

Hey Bard; I could not agree more.

A new mantra for me is:
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Still Life with Chimp, Pointer and Dunce Cap.

nin-) YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND nin-)


Attachment:
what they meant to say.jpg


Quote:
No. What Bruce and Dave have done is neither summarise nor translate. They have provided an ever-changing interpretation of what they think the lawyers ought to be arguing. This is not even a question of integrity or credibility. It's like having chimpanzees explaining particle physics. There's no reason to mistrust the chimps because they haven't done anything and listening to them will not bring you any closer to understanding particle physics.

Does that help?

. cl-) stilicho cl-)
came up with this gem


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


Last edited by piktor on Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Quote:
Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].


Well, I think Jools is exaggerating a little here. Firstly, although the title of Bruce's web page containing the appeal summary is "Strong case for appeal", the title of the summary itself, placed at the beginning of the summary over the names of the two summarizers is "Appeal summary for Amanda Knox", which seems fair enough. Secondly, although there are eleven motives for appeal in the appeal document, which are indeed called "primo motivo", "secondo motivo", etc., each of these "motivi" has a title, and the first three are respectively:

1) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 63, comma 2, c.p.p. in punto alle “dichiarazioni spontanee” di Amanda Knox rese il 6 novembre 2007 alle ore 5,54 e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. sulle modalità di acquisizione della prova atte ad influire sulla libertà di autodeterminazione o ad alterare la capacità di ricordare e di valutare i fatti.

[Violation and false application of article 63, paragraph 2 of the criminal code [cpp=codice di procedura penale] concerning the "spontaneous declarations" of Amanda Knox given on Nov. 6, 2007 at 5:54, and of article 188 of the criminal code on the manner of acquisition of this evidence, which was capable of influencing the liberty of self-determination or of modifying the capacity for recalling and evaluating facts.]

2) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 237 c.p.p. (acquisizione dei documenti provenienti dall’imputato) e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. (Libertà morale della persona nell’assunzione della prova)

[Violation and false application of article 237 of the criminal code (acquisition of documents emanating from the accused) and of article 188 of the criminal code (moral liberty of the person in acquiring evidence

3) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 192 1 e 2 comma (valutazione delle prove) c.p.p. e 533 1 comma (ragionevole dubbio) c.p.p.

[Violation and false application of article 192, paragraphs 1 and 2 (evaluation of the evidence) and 533, paragraph 1 (reasonable doubt) of the criminal code.]


All right, Bruce and his co-author have gone on and called all eleven points violations, whereas not all of the remaining 8 points of the appeal are called that in their titles (some are), but they do have titles like "Erronea e carente motivazione di struttura di reato complesso plurisoggettivo"="Erroneous and lacking motivation for a plurisubjective (multiple attacker) structure of the crime" or "La erronea valutazione del reperto 36 (coltello)" = "The erroneous evalution of exhibit 36 (the knife)".

I don't think that using the words "violation" and "violating Italian law" are really incorrect or misleading. That is what the appeal is saying, in large part.

The problems with the summary seem to me to concern more the fact that the content occasionally veers away from the actual content of the appeal, towards precise (and very familiar) statements that Bruce wants to mention, such as the bathroom denial. On top of this, he adds personal opinion within the text, preceded by a phrase such as "I would like to point out", which should not be there.

(There's also a definite difference in tone between Ghirga and Fisher, as Yummi points out. But it's the differences in content that get to me more. If I have time I'll hunt out some more...but, the south of France beckons.)


Last edited by thoughtful on Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tripod wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


No. Informatics is not an italian term.

Informatics (academic field), a broad academic field encompassing information science, information technology, algorithms, and social science. (wikipedia)


I was in favor of getting rid of it, in part because it isn't familiar to lots of people but mainly because I personally find the term quite ugly. There is no logic to that at all. It just sounds bad to my ears. In any case, this is just a matter of terminology and has no material bearing on the case.


I agree that it's an extremely inelegant word and fairly meaningless to people not familiar with the field, but in the interests of accuracy should it not remain if that is how the faculty actually names itself?

An informatics department in which I was employed in a UK university had only a very few academics who identified themselves as computer scientists; the terms are really quite different. If it were to be changed at all, I would argue it should be changed to 'Information Science' or 'Information Systems'. (Not that I would do so here of course as the argument would bore everybody, including myself, rigid.)


As I have indicated, this is not a major issue as far as the case is concerned. I'll take a look at the context and decide.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I'm happy to tell Justinian to piss off if no one else wants to.
You really are talking total bollocks now Justinian...

mul-)

Hey Bard; I could not agree more.

A new mantra for me is:
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me


Stint, the first quote is not me. The second most certainly is. Once I hear trip-trapping over that bridge I am fine. It's just recognising the sound of hoof on wood that I miss immediately on occasion...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline tripod


Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:40 pm

Posts: 26

Highscores: 9

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
tripod wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


No. Informatics is not an italian term.

Informatics (academic field), a broad academic field encompassing information science, information technology, algorithms, and social science. (wikipedia)


I was in favor of getting rid of it, in part because it isn't familiar to lots of people but mainly because I personally find the term quite ugly. There is no logic to that at all. It just sounds bad to my ears. In any case, this is just a matter of terminology and has no material bearing on the case.


I agree that it's an extremely inelegant word and fairly meaningless to people not familiar with the field, but in the interests of accuracy should it not remain if that is how the faculty actually names itself?

An informatics department in which I was employed in a UK university had only a very few academics who identified themselves as computer scientists; the terms are really quite different. If it were to be changed at all, I would argue it should be changed to 'Information Science' or 'Information Systems'. (Not that I would do so here of course as the argument would bore everybody, including myself, rigid.)


As I have indicated, this is not a major issue as far as the case is concerned. I'll take a look at the context and decide.


Yes, it's not a substantive issue at all, and I really did not mean my observation in any way, shape or form to take away from the immense job done by the entire team involved in the translation. I apologise if it did so.

[Edited because I'm a fool who pressed submit too soon.]


Last edited by tripod on Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Still Life with Chimp, Pointer and Dunce Cap.

nin-) YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND nin-)


Attachment:
what they meant to say.jpg


Wonderful pik! I thought of you today when I saw a quote by Pablo P:

'Yo no pinto las cosas como las veo, yo pinto como las peinso'

'I don't paint what I see, I paint what I think...'

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Jools wrote:
Quote:
Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].


Well, I think Jools is exaggerating a little here. Firstly, although the title of Bruce's web page containing the appeal summary is "Strong case for appeal", the title of the summary itself, placed at the beginning of the summary over the names of the two summarizers is "Appeal summary for Amanda Knox", which seems fair enough. Secondly, although there are eleven motives for appeal in the appeal document, which are indeed called "primo motivo", "secondo motivo", etc., each of these "motivi" has a title, and the first three are respectively:

1) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 63, comma 2, c.p.p. in punto alle “dichiarazioni spontanee” di Amanda Knox rese il 6 novembre 2007 alle ore 5,54 e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. sulle modalità di acquisizione della prova atte ad influire sulla libertà di autodeterminazione o ad alterare la capacità di ricordare e di valutare i fatti.

[Violation and false application of article 63, paragraph 2 of the criminal code [cpp=codice di procedura penale] concerning the "spontaneous declarations" of Amanda Knox given on Nov. 6, 2007 at 5:54, and of article 188 of the criminal code on the manner of acquisition of this evidence, which was capable of influencing the liberty of self-determination or of modifying the capacity for recalling and evaluating facts.]

2) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 237 c.p.p. (acquisizione dei documenti provenienti dall’imputato) e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. (Libertà morale della persona nell’assunzione della prova)

[Violation and false application of article 237 of the criminal code (acquisition of documents emanating from the accused) and of article 188 of the criminal code (moral liberty of the person in acquiring evidence

3) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 192 1 e 2 comma (valutazione delle prove) c.p.p. e 533 1 comma (ragionevole dubbio) c.p.p.

[Violation and false application of article 192, paragraphs 1 and 2 (evaluation of the evidence) and 533, paragraph 1 (reasonable doubt) of the criminal code.]


All right, Bruce and his co-author have gone on and called all eleven points violations, whereas not all of the remaining 8 points of the appeal are called that in their titles (some are), but they do have titles like "Erronea e carente motivazione di struttura di reato complesso plurisoggettivo"="Erroneous and lacking motivation for a plurisubjective (multiple attacker) structure of the crime" or "La erronea valutazione del reperto 36 (coltello)" = "The erroneous evalution of exhibit 36 (the knife)".

I don't think that using the words "violation" and "violating Italian law" are really incorrect or misleading. That is what the appeal is saying, in large part.

The problems with the summary seem to me to concern more the fact that the content occasionally veers away from the actual content of the appeal, towards precise (and very familiar) statements that Bruce wants to mention, such as the bathroom denial. On top of this, he adds personal opinion within the text, preceded by a phrase such as "I would like to point out", which should not be there.


I disagree on this point, especially since the motivo (grounds) for appeal involve the notion of violazione. There is absolutely no reason not to use the perfectly comprehensible and correct term in English that I can see, except that "violation" sounds more dramatic. And that is why it is a questionable word choice at best.

And the addition of personal opinion, whether or not it is flagged with a phrase of the type you indicate, makes this document not a summary or a translation but something else entirely. The WS Herald has already made the mistake of calling it a translation. I tried to correct them when they called the Italian original of the Massei report the "Italian translation" and got the most bizarre and incoherent rebuff on the part of Steve Shay. So I don't think the injection of personal opinion is a minor matter at all. And I think that motivo are motivo and not violazione.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

About the Knox Amanda Maries on p. 394 and 395, it seems to me they occur before the sentencing part, in which it's always written KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele. I didn't mention those because I figured they'd been left on purpose.

About informatics, hum. I've never met an informatics student nor seen an informatics department, and it sounded to me like Raffaele was doing things that a typical computer science major does. However, a glance at google showed me that ttrroonniicc is right and certain "informatics students" and "informatics departments" do exist. But they seem rare. Yale and Princeton, for instance, both have computer science departments and no informatics, as do Oxford and Cambridge. As for France, we have our "departement d'informatique" of course, but it corresponds to a regular computer science department. Skep's call, I guess.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
Well, I think Jools is exaggerating a little here.


Well, I think Thoughtful is underestimating, not by little but hugely, Bruce and Kevad's intentions.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: House of Cards Falling Down   

Judge Rules Sheriff Can Release Report of Anne Bremner's DUI arrest

Bremner immediately filed for a 14-day stay of the judge's ruling so the decision can be appealed. But in allowing the release of the report Judge Laura Inveen declined to allow the release of a surveillance video showing Bremner in a holding cell after her arrest. nnn-))

Let's hope that video never finds it way to YouTube!

Also, prosecutor Sarah Roberts of Tara's city of Kenmore revealed today that she hasn't made a decision on whether or not to charge Bremner with DUI and declined to say why it has taken more than two months to review the case.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The term we would use for Bruce's version of the appeals is 'sexed up'...rather like the infamous so-called 'Dodgy Dossier' which was used to make the case for Britain's involvement in the war in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 43960.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 piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:

Wonderful pik! I thought of you today when I saw a quote by Pablo P:

'Yo no pinto las cosas como las veo, yo pinto como las pienso'

'I don't paint what I see, I paint what I think...'


Hi Bard!

I was tempted to do an image of your bunny sightings on your way back from La France. Waaay off topic...

Mungo has turned into one handsome Señor Bunny!

The Picasso quote applies to all painters. The inner world is a lot more interesting than the objective world.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Tripod wrote:

Quote:
Yes, it's not a substantive issue at all, and I really did not mean my observation in any way, shape or form to take away from the immense job done by the entire team involved in the translation. I apologise if it did so.


Your comment was helpful, actually. No harm done at all. As a professional translator, I may be a little overly sensitive to ex post facto quibbles over word choice. I think the other professional translators in our group understand what I mean. I would think Information Science would be the most academically sound and current translation, since it would encompass many different areas, as does informatics. (Even writing that word makes my ears hurt, by the way. I don't know why.)

In a document like the Massei report, the real and constant challenge is to capture the meaning, tone and intent of the original without saying more or less than it does. This requires, in some cases, using a comma where Massei does not, and making syntactical changes. It can involve making two sentences out of one. It is an intuitive process that is driven by deep knowledge of two languages. The odd thing is that many perfectly bilingual speakers are not good translators.... something else is going on in translation than just transposition.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is what Bruce and Kevad claimed are in the appeal report:
Quote:
Final Conclusions

The ruling of September 14, 2009 violates the principles of a fair trial, and rights of the defense. The parties are to come before the court on equal terms, independent and impartial. Data was withheld on scientific matters, especially on exhibit 36, the knife. Dr. Sarah Gino has provided ample explanation of the unreliability of the outcome of tests by Dr. Stefanoni, and the lack of genetic compliance with protocols along with numerous inconsistencies and serious documentary issues. The failure to disclose all documents is a violation of the right of defense. The motivation does not address this and thus the order must be declared invalid.

The order of January 16, 2009 is also challenged. The defense states that there is a problem with the file format regarding the documents that allowed the Judge to see items he was not supposed to see. These items undermined the judge’s impartiality.

The defense is challenging the order of June 12, 2009 regarding allowing the 5:45am statement, and the February 06, 2009 rejection to expunge hearing the details of the statements of November 6, 2007. Also an order of October 9, 2009 is challenged regarding the request for expert evidence on genetics.

The defense argues that the court was negligent for refusing to investigate Aviello Luciano. The defense has included Aviello’s recorded statement taken March 31, 2010. The defense argues that the refusal to investigate the details of Aviello shows that the court did not exhaust all avenues of information.

The defense asks for independent testing to determine the genetic findings of biological traces on Raffaele’s kitchen knife. The defense also asks for independent testing to be done on the footprints that were detected with luminol.

The defense is asking the court of appeals to nullify the orders of the court hearing on January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009. The defense also requests the suspension of payment of sums, and they want the complete reformation of the judgment. Lastly, the defense also asks the court of appeals to reject the claim of Patrick Lumumba for his civil action.


This is from what is claimed to be the original appeal document.
(my quick translation)
Quote:
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
It is requested therefore that the Illustrious Appeal Court of Assizes should, in reforming the imposed conviction, to acquit Amanda Marie Knox under Article. 530, paragraph[s] 1 and 2 c.p.p. of all charges contested here. It further asks, that this Illustrious Court should:

a) prior review of trial briefs to determine (a) the genetic-type of the biological traces of exhibit 36 (knife), (b) the genetic-type of footprints of the bare feet highlighted with the Luminol;

b) to declare the nullity of the writs [trial] hearing of January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009, with every subsequent pronouncement;

c) to suspend the execution of the imposed sentence in regard of the payment of sums by means of provisional ex Article 600 paragraph 3 c.p.p.;

d) by way of further petition, for mere completeness of defending, to reform the imposed sentence, with reference to the degree of the punishment, at judgment evaluating the circumstances and the legal requirements conducted;

e) to reject the claim for damages of the civil party Diya Lumumba in so far unrealistic, not having specified its conclusions (as stated on page. 4, para. 4 of the sentence).
With reservation of possible further [motivi] arguments.
The commission to filed is by lawyer Maria Del Grosso of the Forum in Rome.
Attached are the following documents:

1) the original minutes of March 31, 2010 with DVD regarding the video recording of the interview between this defence and Mr. Luciano Aviello drawn at the Casa Circondariale di Ivrea (TO) [Ivrea jail] in Via Vercelli 165.
Perugia April 16 2010
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND


Loved it...Thanks again
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: House of Cards Falling Down   

Fly by Night wrote:
Judge Rules Sheriff Can Release Report of Anne Bremner's DUI arrest

Bremner immediately filed for a 14-day stay of the judge's ruling so the decision can be appealed. But in allowing the release of the report Judge Laura Inveen declined to allow the release of a surveillance video showing Bremner in a holding cell after her arrest. nnn-))

Let's hope that video never finds it way to YouTube!

Also, prosecutor Sarah Roberts of Tara's city of Kenmore revealed today that she hasn't made a decision on whether or not to charge Bremner with DUI and declined to say why it has taken more than two months to review the case.


A comment from one reader:

Quote:
If she had followed the standard script (acknowledge the problem, accept responsbility, take lumps and move on), I wouldn't have thought less of her. I wouldn't have cared enough to register on this website and begin commenting. Her efforts to stymie the investigation, obfuscate, hide, lie, invent fabulous confabulations, and AVOID responsibility have turned this into front-page news. And Anne, thank you for that.

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
piktor wrote:
YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND


Loved it...Thanks again

stint, you are welcome. mul-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
About the Knox Amanda Maries on p. 394 and 395, it seems to me they occur before the sentencing part, in which it's always written KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele. I didn't mention those because I figured they'd been left on purpose.

About informatics, hum. I've never met an informatics student nor seen an informatics department, and it sounded to me like Raffaele was doing things that a typical computer science major does. However, a glance at google showed me that ttrroonniicc is right and certain "informatics students" and "informatics departments" do exist. But they seem rare. Yale and Princeton, for instance, both have computer science departments and no informatics, as do Oxford and Cambridge. As for France, we have our "departement d'informatique" of course, but it corresponds to a regular computer science department. Skep's call, I guess.



I may ask for SomeAlibi's input on the name issue (in which specific parts of the report we should go with KNOX Amanda Marie, SOLLECITO Raffaele and GUEDE Rudy Hermann). I haven't looked yet, but I think we may be 95% correct, since those instances are the ones with the last names in all caps. It took a lot more time to change the names throughout the report, where usage was not consistent and not dictated by the concern SA raised.

As for the second point, I agree that informatics is not much used, possibly because it is of more recent coinage (not sure about this) and has a vaguely European ring to it. Complicating matters, the University of Washington now has both a computer science (and engineering) department AND an informatics program:

Quote:
Informatics students drive innovation as they explore the boundary where technology intersects with human values. Their passion for analyzing and solving problems is reflected in the creativity they bring to the design and creation of information systems, user interfaces, mobile technologies, and social media.

The Informatics major's user-centered approach to designing and building novel applications of technology empowers you to pursue a rewarding career in the information and technology fields. Our graduates can be found in the private, public, and non-profit sectors. The emphasis of the major is on understanding the relationships among people, information, and technology. This "information perspective" is a powerful lens through which to view the world.

Areas of strength in the Information School include:

•Human-Computer Interaction
•Information Architecture
•Networks and Information Assurance
•Social computing and social informatics
Human-Computer Interaction and Information Architecture are offered as degree options. A degree option is an area of study recognized by the University of Washington. On completion of their degree, students will see Bachelor of Science in Informatics as well as the designation "Human-Computer Interaction" or "Information Architecture" on their UW transcript.

Informatics: An Emerging Field

The term Informatics is broadly used throughout much of the world to describe the study and practice of creating, storing, finding, manipulating and sharing information. Informatics at the UW elaborates on this approach by focusing on the skills students must have to explore and pursue their passions upon graduation, in whatever area they may lie.

As a result, undergraduates who choose Informatics out of more than 140 majors at the University of Washington find the choice is less about narrowing options than expanding possibilities—in their careers and in their lives. The major draws upon areas such as computer science, information science, sociology, psychology, design, and information management. As a result, graduates are well-rounded information and technology professionals with the ability to apply their knowledge to positively impact organizations, their communities, and society.

In the informatics program, students learn how to:

•Design and build systems that are effective and easy to use
•Design the information architecture necessary to store and access repositories of information
•Analyze national and global information policy
•Assure the security and integrity of information systems


Informatics students make a difference



Note that the web page for the program feels the need to explain what this field of study involves. And it is definitely separate from computer science. There seems to be an effort to tie it into the social sciences and medical fields as well.

Language is a living thing.

Car le mot, qu'on le sache, est un être vivant - Victor Hugo.

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

(about Jools' translation)
at letter d) in my translation I would insert the word "mitigating" (or "extenuating") : "at judgment evaluating the mitigating circumstances and the legal requirements conducted; "


Now, compare the two writings,
first Bruce/David:


" The defense is asking the court of appeals to nullify the orders of the court hearing on January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009. The defense also requests the suspension of payment of sums, and they want the complete reformation of the judgment. "


Then, Jool's translation (or the original):

" d) by way of further petition, for mere completeness of defending, to reform the imposed sentence, with reference to the degree of the punishment, at judgment evaluating the extenuating circumstances and the legal requirements conducted; "

*

The meaning is totally altered by David and Bruce in regard to letter d), and Jools gives the correct text.
The "complete reform" asked by David and Bruce is something that does not exist as a legal category in the Italian law. The word "reform" in legal context and in this case means the partial acceptance (or partial re-affirmation) of a verdict, because the reform specifies its sphere of application. In this case you see how it is specified that a reform is asked for the imposed sentence, with reference to the sole degree of the punishment. Essentially, the B plan is: about the imposed sentence, still guilty but punishment reduced. If a sentence of guilt is reformed with reference to the degree of punishment, the person is still guilty.
Thus "complete reform" would be a ridiculous expression. The appropriate term would be "reformed in the matter" (as opposed to "reformed in the degree of the punishment") - which still anyway does not mean "not guilty" - but the reform on the matter is not asked here in letter d). This point asks a reform limited to the degree of punishment, which implies that would apply in case the matter of the imposed verdict remains the same.

Ghirga and Dalla Vedova are adding here a secondary request, the "B- plan" in case they loose.


Last edited by Yummi on Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
This is what Bruce and Kevad claimed are in the appeal report:
Quote:
Final Conclusions

The ruling of September 14, 2009 violates the principles of a fair trial, and rights of the defense. The parties are to come before the court on equal terms, independent and impartial. Data was withheld on scientific matters, especially on exhibit 36, the knife. Dr. Sarah Gino has provided ample explanation of the unreliability of the outcome of tests by Dr. Stefanoni, and the lack of genetic compliance with protocols along with numerous inconsistencies and serious documentary issues. The failure to disclose all documents is a violation of the right of defense. The motivation does not address this and thus the order must be declared invalid.

The order of January 16, 2009 is also challenged. The defense states that there is a problem with the file format regarding the documents that allowed the Judge to see items he was not supposed to see. These items undermined the judge’s impartiality.

The defense is challenging the order of June 12, 2009 regarding allowing the 5:45am statement, and the February 06, 2009 rejection to expunge hearing the details of the statements of November 6, 2007. Also an order of October 9, 2009 is challenged regarding the request for expert evidence on genetics.

The defense argues that the court was negligent for refusing to investigate Aviello Luciano. The defense has included Aviello’s recorded statement taken March 31, 2010. The defense argues that the refusal to investigate the details of Aviello shows that the court did not exhaust all avenues of information.

The defense asks for independent testing to determine the genetic findings of biological traces on Raffaele’s kitchen knife. The defense also asks for independent testing to be done on the footprints that were detected with luminol.

The defense is asking the court of appeals to nullify the orders of the court hearing on January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009. The defense also requests the suspension of payment of sums, and they want the complete reformation of the judgment. Lastly, the defense also asks the court of appeals to reject the claim of Patrick Lumumba for his civil action.


This is from what is claimed to be the original appeal document.
(my quick translation)
Quote:
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
It is requested therefore that the Illustrious Appeal Court of Assizes should, in reforming the imposed conviction, to acquit Amanda Marie Knox under Article. 530, paragraph[s] 1 and 2 c.p.p. of all charges contested here. It further asks, that this Illustrious Court should:

a) prior review of trial briefs to determine (a) the genetic-type of the biological traces of exhibit 36 (knife), (b) the genetic-type of footprints of the bare feet highlighted with the Luminol;

b) to declare the nullity of the writs [trial] hearing of January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009, with every subsequent pronouncement;

c) to suspend the execution of the imposed sentence in regard of the payment of sums by means of provisional ex Article 600 paragraph 3 c.p.p.;

d) by way of further petition, for mere completeness of defending, to reform the imposed sentence, with reference to the degree of the punishment, at judgment evaluating the circumstances and the legal requirements conducted;

e) to reject the claim for damages of the civil party Diya Lumumba in so far unrealistic, not having specified its conclusions (as stated on page. 4, para. 4 of the sentence).
With reservation of possible further [motivi] arguments.
The commission to filed is by lawyer Maria Del Grosso of the Forum in Rome.
Attached are the following documents:

1) the original minutes of March 31, 2010 with DVD regarding the video recording of the interview between this defence and Mr. Luciano Aviello drawn at the Casa Circondariale di Ivrea (TO) [Ivrea jail] in Via Vercelli 165.
Perugia April 16 2010



So, if I have understood correctly, the summary of this section is 353 words, while the section of which it is a summary is only 261 words.

Dictionary definition of summary (Oxford Concise): as a noun, a brief account; an abridgement. As an adjective: dispensing with needless details.

It is strange that the summary is not siginificantly shorter than the original it purports to provide the gist of. What's with that? No wonder it didn't seem much like a summary to me.

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
(about Jools' translation)
at letter d) in my translation I would insert the word "mitigating" (or "extenuating") : "at judgment evaluating the mitigating circumstances and the legal requirements conducted; "


Now, compare the two writings,
first Bruce/David:


" The defense is asking the court of appeals to nullify the orders of the court hearing on January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009. The defense also requests the suspension of payment of sums, and they want the complete reformation of the judgment. "


Then, Jool's translation (or the original):

" d) by way of further petition, for mere completeness of defending, to reform the imposed sentence, with reference to the degree of the punishment, at judgment evaluating the extenuating circumstances and the legal requirements conducted; "

*

The meaning is totally altered by David and Bruce in regard to letter d), and Jools gives the correct text.
The "complete reform" asked by David and Bruce is something that does not exist as a legal category in the Italian law. The word "reform" in legal context and in this case means the partial acceptance (or partial re-affirmation) of a verdict, because the reform specifies its sphere of application. In this case you see how it is specified that a reform is asked for the imposed sentence, with reference to the sole degree of the punishment. Essentially, the B plan is: about the imposed sentence, still guilty but punishment reduced. If a sentence of guilt is reformed with reference to the degree of punishment, the person is still guilty.
Thus "complete reform" would be a ridiculous expression. The appropriate term would be "reformed in the matter" (as opposed to "reformed in the degree of the punishment") which still anyway does not mean "not guilty".

Ghirga and Dalla Vedova are adding here a secondary request, the "B- plan" in case they loose.


If I may summarize, Yummi: Bruce and David do not know the first thing about Italian law, Italian language, translation, what it means to provide a summary, the difference between providing information and twisting it to suit an agenda.... I could go on and on, but I think this is enough.

It is a pity, actually. I for one would welcome an objective and competent summary of the appeals documents because I really don't have time to read them in Italian right now. And my reading in Italian is much, much slower than in English. I sometimes have to translate something into French to make sense of the Italian.

In other words, I have no desire to criticize for the sake of criticism but this kind of crap does not help anyone. Il ne faut pas prendre les gens pour des cons! Translate that!

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
This is what Bruce and Kevad claimed are in the appeal report:
Quote:
Final Conclusions

...lack of genetic compliance with protocols...




Apparently the DNA on the knife refused to comply with established lab protocols.

Therefore, the DNA takes on hostile witness status?

What impact might this have on the appeals process?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Still Life with Chimp, Pointer and Dunce Cap.

nin-) YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND nin-)


Attachment:
what they meant to say.jpg


Quote:
No. What Bruce and Dave have done is neither summarise nor translate. They have provided an ever-changing interpretation of what they think the lawyers ought to be arguing. This is not even a question of integrity or credibility. It's like having chimpanzees explaining particle physics. There's no reason to mistrust the chimps because they haven't done anything and listening to them will not bring you any closer to understanding particle physics.

Does that help?

. cl-) stilicho cl-)
came up with this gem


I have to admit it: this brought on a serious case of uncontrollable laughter.

"The ayes apes have it."

br-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
All right, Bruce and his co-author have gone on and called all eleven points violations, whereas not all of the remaining 8 points of the appeal are called that in their titles (some are) [....]

I don't think that using the words "violation" and "violating Italian law" are really incorrect or misleading. That is what the appeal is saying, in large part.


I think I have to disagree - although my iterest is not to give a judgment on the "summary", because a judgmenet would depend on what the object is meant to be in the first instance: judge it as a translation? - my disagreement is because I can see their document has a specific pattern of content different from the original Appeal document, the "small differences" are all in one directions. On the word "violation", this appears in the document amid the titles but it is evident its misuse and displacement in the summary: its role and meaning in the structure is different, so that in the "summary" the use of this word has a different structure, and chapters have a different meaning too.
Even in those chapters where "violation" appears in the Italian title, in fact the chapter would consist in a request and give other explanations to support and demonstrate the claim of violation and its legal value, so that the "violation" would not be the self-evident concept addressed by Bruce/David, but rather something that requires a search, a definition, a demonstration of its possible relevance/influence in reviewing decisions or having weight in the process.


Last edited by Yummi on Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
The meaning is totally altered by David and Bruce in regard to letter d), and Jools gives the correct text.


Thank you Yummi, after hearing that I 'exaggerate a little' is very nice to hear this from a REAL ITALIAN!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Anne Bremner, celebrity lawyer, goes 'Jane Doe' to keep her arrest records private

By LEVI PULKKINEN AND SCOTT GUTIERREZ
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF


SEATTLE PI

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Jools wrote:
Quote:
Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].


The problems with the summary seem to me to concern more the fact that the content occasionally veers away from the actual content of the appeal, towards precise (and very familiar) statements that Bruce wants to mention, such as the bathroom denial. On top of this, he adds personal opinion within the text, preceded by a phrase such as "I would like to point out", which should not be there.


So how does this mean Bruce and David have provided either a summary or a translation? If it's neither of these things then what exactly is it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Jools wrote:
Quote:
Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].


Well, I think Jools is exaggerating a little here. Firstly, although the title of Bruce's web page containing the appeal summary is "Strong case for appeal", the title of the summary itself, placed at the beginning of the summary over the names of the two summarizers is "Appeal summary for Amanda Knox", which seems fair enough. Secondly, although there are eleven motives for appeal in the appeal document, which are indeed called "primo motivo", "secondo motivo", etc., each of these "motivi" has a title, and the first three are respectively:

1) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 63, comma 2, c.p.p. in punto alle “dichiarazioni spontanee” di Amanda Knox rese il 6 novembre 2007 alle ore 5,54 e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. sulle modalità di acquisizione della prova atte ad influire sulla libertà di autodeterminazione o ad alterare la capacità di ricordare e di valutare i fatti.

[Violation and false application of article 63, paragraph 2 of the criminal code [cpp=codice di procedura penale] concerning the "spontaneous declarations" of Amanda Knox given on Nov. 6, 2007 at 5:54, and of article 188 of the criminal code on the manner of acquisition of this evidence, which was capable of influencing the liberty of self-determination or of modifying the capacity for recalling and evaluating facts.]

2) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 237 c.p.p. (acquisizione dei documenti provenienti dall’imputato) e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. (Libertà morale della persona nell’assunzione della prova)

[Violation and false application of article 237 of the criminal code (acquisition of documents emanating from the accused) and of article 188 of the criminal code (moral liberty of the person in acquiring evidence

3) Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 192 1 e 2 comma (valutazione delle prove) c.p.p. e 533 1 comma (ragionevole dubbio) c.p.p.

[Violation and false application of article 192, paragraphs 1 and 2 (evaluation of the evidence) and 533, paragraph 1 (reasonable doubt) of the criminal code.]


All right, Bruce and his co-author have gone on and called all eleven points violations, whereas not all of the remaining 8 points of the appeal are called that in their titles (some are), but they do have titles like "Erronea e carente motivazione di struttura di reato complesso plurisoggettivo"="Erroneous and lacking motivation for a plurisubjective (multiple attacker) structure of the crime" or "La erronea valutazione del reperto 36 (coltello)" = "The erroneous evalution of exhibit 36 (the knife)".

I don't think that using the words "violation" and "violating Italian law" are really incorrect or misleading. That is what the appeal is saying, in large part.

The problems with the summary seem to me to concern more the fact that the content occasionally veers away from the actual content of the appeal, towards precise (and very familiar) statements that Bruce wants to mention, such as the bathroom denial. On top of this, he adds personal opinion within the text, preceded by a phrase such as "I would like to point out", which should not be there.


I disagree on this point, especially since the motivo (grounds) for appeal involve the notion of violazione. There is absolutely no reason not to use the perfectly comprehensible and correct term in English that I can see, except that "violation" sounds more dramatic. And that is why it is a questionable word choice at best.

And the addition of personal opinion, whether or not it is flagged with a phrase of the type you indicate, makes this document not a summary or a translation but something else entirely. The WS Herald has already made the mistake of calling it a translation. I tried to correct them when they called the Italian original of the Massei report the "Italian translation" and got the most bizarre and incoherent rebuff on the part of Steve Shay. So I don't think the injection of personal opinion is a minor matter at all. And I think that motivo are motivo and not violazione.

Specially if stated as "Violation of Italian Law" which, although I haven't read both original documents entirely, I read enough of them and didn't spot defence claiming this 'Violation of Italian law.'
IMO what they are putting forward are arguments they believe motivate breaches and misaplications of some articles within the penal code.
I'm not a lawyer and don't know the English for what Ghirga/DLV are stating in their doc., but to me defence are not insinuating or accusing the Court of Assizes and its judges of 'violating Italian law'.
h-))
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Jools wrote:
Quote:
Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].


The problems with the summary seem to me to concern more the fact that the content occasionally veers away from the actual content of the appeal, towards precise (and very familiar) statements that Bruce wants to mention, such as the bathroom denial. On top of this, he adds personal opinion within the text, preceded by a phrase such as "I would like to point out", which should not be there.


So how does this mean Bruce and David have provided either a summary or a translation? If it's neither of these things then what exactly is it?

They provided a lot of codswallop!
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Anne Bremner, celebrity lawyer, goes 'Jane Doe' to keep her arrest records private

By LEVI PULKKINEN AND SCOTT GUTIERREZ
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF


SEATTLE PI


"and, in a statement submitted to the court on her behalf by her doctor, alleged that she was manhandled by the sheriff's deputy."

Jesus %$@#&! Christ
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 Aug 13, 2010 12:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Anne Bremner, celebrity lawyer, goes 'Jane Doe' to keep her arrest records private

By LEVI PULKKINEN AND SCOTT GUTIERREZ
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF


SEATTLE PI


From the article:

Quote:
"If embarrassment or mental health considerations were recognized exemptions to the public records act, law enforcement would be withholding a whole lot more records from the public than we do now," [Senior Deputy Prosecutor] Cobb told the court.


Ouch.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Thank you Yummi, after hearing that I 'exaggerate a little' is very nice to hear this from a REAL ITALIAN!



de nada . I am a balanced ff) guy

And I can become the more Italian on requst ser-) depending on the compliments

anyway I don't think the works of Bruce/David are evil, it is just they have a too poor quality to be useful, and unfortunately reveal the comprehension by the authors of the real appeal is still a bit a shallow ...
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Jools wrote:
This is what Bruce and Kevad claimed are in the appeal report:
Quote:
Final Conclusions

...lack of genetic compliance with protocols...




Apparently the DNA on the knife refused to comply with established lab protocols.

Therefore, the DNA takes on hostile witness status?

What impact might this have on the appeals process?

. h-))
Attachment:
argumentative DNA.jpg


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:

Quote:
Specially if stated as "Violation of Italian Law" which, although I haven't read both original documents entirely, I read enough of them and didn't spot defence claiming this 'Violation of Italian law.'


In fact, there is no proper addressing of violation of the Italian Law. The cited articles are all from the c.p.p. A violation of the c.p.p. is not the same of an illegal action. A null act has nothing to do with an illegal act, they are totally different things.
But this concept seems has always been non comprehensible for a selected number of Amanda supporters.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I can see their document has a specific pattern of content different from the original Appeal document.


Yes. I agree with that.

About "violating Italian law", well, I'm not a lawyer, so I turn this question over to the lawyers. I thought, from my layman's point of view, that "violating an article of the criminal code" was just one specific way of "violating the law". But maybe that the latter phrase is not used in such a way, and implies something more severe. Is that so?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The jealousy of some posters on other sites is palpable, imo. Loooongjohn was so impatient for the translation to come out, and yet, even before he read it, he tried to diminish any importance to the translation. Now, of course, all over it like white on rice......I expected nothing different from posters like him, as they cannot accept one, even slightly negative thing against Amanda. Not even that she was demoted by Patrick :). Bruce seems obsessed about PMF's standing and is highly competitive. Unfortunately for him, people aren't stupid, and can *read* him like a book. He's on a fool's errand, I'm sorry to say. Kevin Lowe's avatar is a new low, but, it speaks volumes about not only his choice of avatar, but also the fact that none of his *FANS* have condemned it. They're pussy whipped, the lot of them.

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
"violating an article of the criminal code" was just one specific way of "violating the law". But maybe that the latter phrase is not used in such a way, and implies something more severe. Is that so?


No, it is that the c.p.p. is not the criminal code! :) It is just the procedure, the rules to instruct a criminal proceeding. A "violation of the c.p.p." not necessarily has consequences. In a sense, it is difficult to define what we mean exactly by saying "violation" of the c.p.p., because the procedure itself has plenty of provisions for its own violations.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
The jealousy of some posters on other sites is palpable, imo. Loooongjohn was so impatient for the translation to come out, and yet, even before he read it, he tried to diminish any importance to the translation. Now, of course, all over it like white on rice......I expected nothing different from posters like him, as they cannot accept one, even slightly negative thing against Amanda. Not even that she was demoted by Patrick :). Bruce seems obsessed about PMF's standing and is highly competitive. Unfortunately for him, people aren't stupid, and can *read* him like a book. He's on a fool's errand, I'm sorry to say. Kevin Lowe's avatar is a new low, but, it speaks volumes about not only his choice of avatar, but also the fact that none of his *FANS* have condemned it. They're pussy whipped, the lot of them.



I recall seeing posts by Charlie Wilkes here and there after the report came out in the original language about its content being "gibberish". How he would have known that is anyone's guess since he is unfamiliar with Italian. A couple of days ago, someone posted a comment he made with regard to the English translation, in which he ironically applauded the translators for translating "gibberish". I was just wondering how he could have known without reading the report that it was gibberish. Was he relying on google or Bruce Fisher?

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I can see their document has a specific pattern of content different from the original Appeal document.


Yes. I agree with that.

About "violating Italian law", well, I'm not a lawyer, so I turn this question over to the lawyers. I thought, from my layman's point of view, that "violating an article of the criminal code" was just one specific way of "violating the law". But maybe that the latter phrase is not used in such a way, and implies something more severe. Is that so?


Why don't we ask Bruce and David? Seriously, if we're going to discuss their stuff --whatever it is--then we're asking the wrong people. They supplied something on their site; nobody here has done any work whatsoever. They ought to be answering your questions.

I don't think Bruce and David have the slightest clue about what they're doing but should we really care? It's the Massei Report English translation that has garnered international attention. Bruce and David's shape-shifting web page has been exactly publicised by two sites: Steve Shay's and here in our attempts to figure out what the f**k it is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I can see their document has a specific pattern of content different from the original Appeal document.


Yes. I agree with that.

About "violating Italian law", well, I'm not a lawyer, so I turn this question over to the lawyers. I thought, from my layman's point of view, that "violating an article of the criminal code" was just one specific way of "violating the law". But maybe that the latter phrase is not used in such a way, and implies something more severe. Is that so?


Why don't we ask Bruce and David? Seriously, if we're going to discuss their stuff (whatever it is) then we're asking the wrong people. They supplied something on their site; nobody here has done any work whatsoever.

I don't think Bruce and David have the slightest clue about what they're doing but should we really care? It's the Massei Report English translation that has garnered international attention. Bruce and David's shape-shifting web page has been exactly publicised by two sites: Steve Shay's and here in our attempts to figure out what the f**k it is.


I pretty much agree, though I don't want them to come here and answer the question. So if you want to ask them and report back, fine. It probably is not worth the trouble, however. I have seen enough of their work to conclude that it is not a translation, is not a summary, and contains explanations that are not qualified, by which I mean that the people providing them do not have the expertise to be considered reliable.

As a translator, I am not too surprised by this outcome. When you start with monkeys, what you end up with ain't worth peanuts.

For those who engage in debate with these people, it may be useful to have some sense of their deviations from the original so they don't get away with peddling fictions. But I don't, so it isn't a concern for me.

'Nuff said!

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
capealadin wrote:
The jealousy of some posters on other sites is palpable, imo. Loooongjohn was so impatient for the translation to come out, and yet, even before he read it, he tried to diminish any importance to the translation. Now, of course, all over it like white on rice......I expected nothing different from posters like him, as they cannot accept one, even slightly negative thing against Amanda. Not even that she was demoted by Patrick :). Bruce seems obsessed about PMF's standing and is highly competitive. Unfortunately for him, people aren't stupid, and can *read* him like a book. He's on a fool's errand, I'm sorry to say. Kevin Lowe's avatar is a new low, but, it speaks volumes about not only his choice of avatar, but also the fact that none of his *FANS* have condemned it. They're pussy whipped, the lot of them.



I recall seeing posts by Charlie Wilkes here and there after the report came out in the original language about its content being "gibberish". How he would have known that is anyone's guess since he is unfamiliar with Italian. A couple of days ago, someone posted a comment he made with regard to the English translation, in which he ironically applauded the translators for translating "gibberish". I was just wondering how he could have known without reading the report that it was gibberish. Was he relying on google or Bruce Fisher?


Charlie calls it jibberish and not gibberish. I've never heard of the first term; it's simply gibberish to me.
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 Aug 13, 2010 1:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:

Why don't we ask Bruce and David? Seriously, if we're going to discuss their stuff --whatever it is--then we're asking the wrong people. They supplied something on their site; nobody here has done any work whatsoever.

I don't think Bruce and David have the slightest clue about what they're doing but should we really care? It's the Massei Report English translation that has garnered international attention. Bruce and David's shape-shifting web page has been exactly publicised by two sites: Steve Shay's and here in our attempts to figure out what the f**k it is.


I pretty much agree, though I don't want them to come here and answer the question. So if you want to ask them and report back, fine. It probably is not worth the trouble, however. I have seen enough of their work to conclude that it is not a translation, is not a summary, and contains explanations that are not qualified, by which I mean that the people providing them do not have the expertise to be considered reliable.

As a translator, I am not too surprised by this outcome. When you start with monkeys, what you end up with ain't worth peanuts.

For those who engage in debate with these people, it may be useful to have some sense of their deviations from the original so they don't get away with peddling fictions. But I don't, so it isn't a concern for me.

'Nuff said!


I don't want them to answer the questions here either. I am simply asking thoughtful and others who care about the appeals to talk about it there and not here. Frankly, I don't give a damn about the appeals or even their "salient points". If the FOA is too lazy or bankrupt to offer a full translation then that really speaks to their dedication to that cause.

One thing I admire about all of the people at PMF is the unrelenting promise to keep Meredith's memory for posterity. I don't care if Knox, Sollecito and Guede are forgotten for all time. If I were as passionate as the groupies pretend to be then I'd be trying to assemble a PMF-style team of academics and professionals to do the same thing for the accused. Instead they're stuck with a vertical gardener, a vain Australian, a couple of chimpanzees, a North Carolinian with a fondness for evidence contrary to his own position, and various hangers-on who are panting at their keyboards waiting for Amanda to walk free because they think she's "hot".

Your work and publication of an English version of the sentencing report is as much love as one can express for a victim of violent crime and to her family and friends. I'm not sure I've ever seen such respect and dedication in action.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
***About "violating Italian law", well, I'm not a lawyer, so I turn this question over to the lawyers. I thought, from my layman's point of view, that "violating an article of the criminal code" was just one specific way of "violating the law". But maybe that the latter phrase is not used in such a way, and implies something more severe. Is that so?
*** I have seen enough of their work to conclude that it is not a translation, is not a summary, and contains explanations that are not qualified, by which I mean that the people providing them do not have the expertise to be considered reliable. ***

To Stilicho's point, failure to comply with a code of criminal procedure isn't a violation of law in that criminal procedure doesn't command or prohibit conduct in the sense that the substantive criminal law does. Procedure means that if you want to bring about a certain result, there are certain things you have to do, and time limits within which to do them. If you don't comply, there is no penalty other than you don't get what you want. You wouldn't necessarily get what you want even if you complied with all the procedural requirements

Skeptical was musing earlier over what to call alleged translation. I think "transmogrification" may be the term.


Last edited by TomM on Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
capealadin wrote:
The jealousy of some posters on other sites is palpable, imo. Loooongjohn was so impatient for the translation to come out, and yet, even before he read it, he tried to diminish any importance to the translation. Now, of course, all over it like white on rice......I expected nothing different from posters like him, as they cannot accept one, even slightly negative thing against Amanda. Not even that she was demoted by Patrick :). Bruce seems obsessed about PMF's standing and is highly competitive. Unfortunately for him, people aren't stupid, and can *read* him like a book. He's on a fool's errand, I'm sorry to say. Kevin Lowe's avatar is a new low, but, it speaks volumes about not only his choice of avatar, but also the fact that none of his *FANS* have condemned it. They're pussy whipped, the lot of them.



I recall seeing posts by Charlie Wilkes here and there after the report came out in the original language about its content being "gibberish". How he would have known that is anyone's guess since he is unfamiliar with Italian. A couple of days ago, someone posted a comment he made with regard to the English translation, in which he ironically applauded the translators for translating "gibberish". I was just wondering how he could have known without reading the report that it was gibberish. Was he relying on google or Bruce Fisher?


Charlie calls it jibberish and not gibberish. I've never heard of the first term; it's simply gibberish to me.


Actually, probably by accident, he's 'sort' of right. The middle eastern alchemist and philosopher Jābir ibn Hayyān, known in the West as 'Geber' wrote a great many esoteric alchemical works codified in the language of alchemy. Only those initiated into alchemy could understand his writings...it is from him for that reason, as a corruption of 'Geber', that the term 'gibberish' originated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I recall seeing posts by Charlie Wilkes here and there after the report came out in the original language about its content being "gibberish". How he would have known that is anyone's guess since he is unfamiliar with Italian. A couple of days ago, someone posted a comment he made with regard to the English translation, in which he ironically applauded the translators for translating "gibberish". I was just wondering how he could have known without reading the report that it was gibberish. Was he relying on google or Bruce Fisher?


Charlie calls it jibberish and not gibberish. I've never heard of the first term; it's simply gibberish to me.


Actually, probably by accident, he's 'sort' of right. The middle eastern alchemist and philosopher Jābir ibn Hayyān, known in the West as 'Geber' wrote a great many esoteric alchemical works codified in the language of alchemy. Only those initiated into alchemy could understand his writings...it is from him for that reason, as a corruption of 'Geber', that the term 'gibberish' originated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n


I am pretty sure that Charlie wasn't referencing an ancient Arabic source. As usual, he wasn't sourcing anything at all. I've never seen an English-speaking person write that beer is a grain fermentation producing al-kuhul or noticing the sun approaching its samt.

Speaking of Arabic astronomy, though, I expect to be able to survey the Perseids tonight in what's supposed to be their most spectacular appearance so soon after sunset.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
capealadin wrote:
The jealousy of some posters on other sites is palpable, imo. Loooongjohn was so impatient for the translation to come out, and yet, even before he read it, he tried to diminish any importance to the translation. Now, of course, all over it like white on rice......I expected nothing different from posters like him, as they cannot accept one, even slightly negative thing against Amanda. Not even that she was demoted by Patrick :). Bruce seems obsessed about PMF's standing and is highly competitive. Unfortunately for him, people aren't stupid, and can *read* him like a book. He's on a fool's errand, I'm sorry to say. Kevin Lowe's avatar is a new low, but, it speaks volumes about not only his choice of avatar, but also the fact that none of his *FANS* have condemned it. They're pussy whipped, the lot of them.



I recall seeing posts by Charlie Wilkes here and there after the report came out in the original language about its content being "gibberish". How he would have known that is anyone's guess since he is unfamiliar with Italian. A couple of days ago, someone posted a comment he made with regard to the English translation, in which he ironically applauded the translators for translating "gibberish". I was just wondering how he could have known without reading the report that it was gibberish. Was he relying on google or Bruce Fisher?


Charlie calls it jibberish and not gibberish. I've never heard of the first term; it's simply gibberish to me.


As I was writing my post, I uncharacteristically hesitated at the word. Now I know why: in my mind's eye, I saw Charlie's misspelling. It isn't surprising. He seems to have developed a fondness for the word since March. Maybe he is confusing it with jib, as in jib sail?

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 2:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
***About "violating Italian law", well, I'm not a lawyer, so I turn this question over to the lawyers. I thought, from my layman's point of view, that "violating an article of the criminal code" was just one specific way of "violating the law". But maybe that the latter phrase is not used in such a way, and implies something more severe. Is that so?
*** I have seen enough of their work to conclude that it is not a translation, is not a summary, and contains explanations that are not qualified, by which I mean that the people providing them do not have the expertise to be considered reliable. ***

To Stilicho's point, failure to comply with a code of criminal procedure isn't a violation of law in that criminal procedure doesn't command or prohibit conduct in the sense that the substantive criminal law does. Procedure means that if you want to bring about a certain result, there are certain things you have to do, and time limits within which to do them. If you don't comply, there is no penalty other than you don't get what you want. You would necessarily get what you want even if you complied with all the procedural requirements

Skeptical was musing earlier over what to call alleged translation. I think "transmogrification" may be the term.


This is what I thought on a very primitive level but I was unable to express it as you so eloquently have. Thank you for this clarification.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:

Why don't we ask Bruce and David? Seriously, if we're going to discuss their stuff --whatever it is--then we're asking the wrong people. They supplied something on their site; nobody here has done any work whatsoever.

I don't think Bruce and David have the slightest clue about what they're doing but should we really care? It's the Massei Report English translation that has garnered international attention. Bruce and David's shape-shifting web page has been exactly publicised by two sites: Steve Shay's and here in our attempts to figure out what the f**k it is.


I pretty much agree, though I don't want them to come here and answer the question. So if you want to ask them and report back, fine. It probably is not worth the trouble, however. I have seen enough of their work to conclude that it is not a translation, is not a summary, and contains explanations that are not qualified, by which I mean that the people providing them do not have the expertise to be considered reliable.

As a translator, I am not too surprised by this outcome. When you start with monkeys, what you end up with ain't worth peanuts.

For those who engage in debate with these people, it may be useful to have some sense of their deviations from the original so they don't get away with peddling fictions. But I don't, so it isn't a concern for me.

'Nuff said!


I don't want them to answer the questions here either. I am simply asking thoughtful and others who care about the appeals to talk about it there and not here. Frankly, I don't give a damn about the appeals or even their "salient points". If the FOA is too lazy or bankrupt to offer a full translation then that really speaks to their dedication to that cause.

One thing I admire about all of the people at PMF is the unrelenting promise to keep Meredith's memory for posterity. I don't care if Knox, Sollecito and Guede are forgotten for all time. If I were as passionate as the groupies pretend to be then I'd be trying to assemble a PMF-style team of academics and professionals to do the same thing for the accused. Instead they're stuck with a vertical gardener, a vain Australian, a couple of chimpanzees, a North Carolinian with a fondness for evidence contrary to his own position, and various hangers-on who are panting at their keyboards waiting for Amanda to walk free because they think she's "hot".

Your work and publication of an English version of the sentencing report is as much love as one can express for a victim of violent crime and to her family and friends. I'm not sure I've ever seen such respect and dedication in action.



I understood your point but was afraid Bruce and David would not, and would take your comment as an invitation extended. It was bad enough having to deal with Katy_did's not-so-sly attempt to insinuate some sort of basis for comparison between the translation of the Massei report and the Bruce/David "transmogrification" (thanks, TomM).

Your description of Team Amanda (Fuck yeah!) is perfect.

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: Bruce and Giorgio   

[quote="Rebel"]From Brucie's introduction to his summary of the appeals: "A special thanks to Giorgio Gamberucci for his assistance with translation."

So who is this Giorgio fellow? A quick Google search for "Giorgio Gamberucci" revealed a lot of crazy shit.

A few choice quotes from http://twitter.com/georgy_it:

"hi, my name is Giorgio Gamberucci, I am a cultural dissident of Italy , looking for comprehensive asylum in some country with better values"
"the insanity of a psychiatrist can be outmost devastating,as being the last one to expect to get his mind blown away from psychic warfare"
"Amanda Knox victime of prejudices which declared her guilty even before she was proven so, injustice was rendered again to please moloch"
"amanda knox, view as a cruel bloody assassin accused of an awful crime by the italian justice which want to prevail at any cost to save face"

From Giorgio Gamberucci's own website - http://psychosensory.info/:

"Having presented "the man and his horse", I am going here to speak about a psychic phenomenon named "Ante Sensus" and its psychosensory capacity, probably being the solo and last human who was born with this faculty and able to manifest it in a natural and spontaneous way, I am posing on it a high scientific and humanistic value, which encompasses a pulsating living entity with predestined psychophysical functions, making ultimately this outmost condition, an integral part of my existence."

This same Giorgio Gamberucci is friends with Bruce Fisher on facebook - http://www.facebook.com/giorgio.gamberucci

How can anyone take these guys seriously?[/quote

I don’t want to be seen as attempting to mitigate for Bruce Fuckwit in anyway but if you use a combination of Google and someone who appears to have difficulty with reality and apparent issues with the Italian judicial system as a consultant for your translation you can hardly expect anything rational and unbiased. I’m confident that none of our translation team was wearing tin foil hats while working on the document.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: Bruce and Giorgio   

Brogan wrote:
Rebel wrote:
From Brucie's introduction to his summary of the appeals: "A special thanks to Giorgio Gamberucci for his assistance with translation."

So who is this Giorgio fellow? A quick Google search for "Giorgio Gamberucci" revealed a lot of crazy shit.

A few choice quotes from http://twitter.com/georgy_it:

"hi, my name is Giorgio Gamberucci, I am a cultural dissident of Italy , looking for comprehensive asylum in some country with better values"
"the insanity of a psychiatrist can be outmost devastating,as being the last one to expect to get his mind blown away from psychic warfare"
"Amanda Knox victime of prejudices which declared her guilty even before she was proven so, injustice was rendered again to please moloch"
"amanda knox, view as a cruel bloody assassin accused of an awful crime by the italian justice which want to prevail at any cost to save face"

From Giorgio Gamberucci's own website - http://psychosensory.info/:

"Having presented "the man and his horse", I am going here to speak about a psychic phenomenon named "Ante Sensus" and its psychosensory capacity, probably being the solo and last human who was born with this faculty and able to manifest it in a natural and spontaneous way, I am posing on it a high scientific and humanistic value, which encompasses a pulsating living entity with predestined psychophysical functions, making ultimately this outmost condition, an integral part of my existence."

This same Giorgio Gamberucci is friends with Bruce Fisher on facebook - http://www.facebook.com/giorgio.gamberucci

How can anyone take these guys seriously?[/quote

I don’t want to be seen as attempting to mitigate for Bruce Fuckwit in anyway but if you use a combination of Google and someone who appears to have difficulty with reality and apparent issues with the Italian judicial system as a consultant for your translation you can hardly expect anything rational and unbiased. I’m confident that none of our translation team was wearing tin foil hats while working on the document.



He sounds like the love child of Harry Wilkens and Gabriella Carlizzi. :)

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

Offline jw


Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:

Yes, this has always played on my mind, it's a red flag. Even with Raffaele's gloss, the leaving and the nature of it always sounded 'abrupt'...not in keeping with three people who were good friends and were having a 'nice afternoon' together, as painted by Raffaele. In addition to the context...Raffaele stating that he was cooking and Meredith refused it, even just to have a polite nibble adds to a narrative that is written between the lines. It's not evidence, never can be...just intuition suggests that something wasn't 'quite' right.


Yes, and Meredith leaving without disclosing her destination and expected time of return is not consistent with the testimony
as to her character: considerate and conscientous.

Since *all* of the Italian housemates were gone for the weekend, and Meredith was aware of the empty flat downstairs
as she was watering their plants, it seems that she would be aware that she and Amanda were more vulnerable than
usual as it was potentially only them staying in the house that weekend.

Consistent with Meredith's traits of being considerate and conscientous would be Meredith making a point of telling Amanda
where Meredith was going, confirming how she could be reached, and about what time she would return to the house. This
would not only be considerate but an important security consideration should either of them need to reach the other in
case of a problem with the house that weekend (especially since Meredith had the keys to downstairs and was at least
responsible for feeding the plants and looking out for the injured cat who lived with the young men downstairs).

AK's version of events once again lacks the resonance of fact.

jw
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

FWIW

This is a great site for real-time astronomy. http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php

Put in your own location.

I'm waiting for the meteor shower tonight. It's supposed to be well lit this year.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The other day someone mentioned emailing the report to one's Kindle. I did that. I had read the first third or so of the report on the computer, but when I resumed on the Kindle, having converted into Kindle format so I could change font size, etc., I started noticing errors. Once, for example, there was a two-line fragment of the first sentence of a new paragraph, followed by the complete paragraph. When I checked the bracketed page number in the PDF version there was no error.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It has been pointed out on another site that Patrick accused Amanda of having no soul. I'm very impressed with Patrick's insight.

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
It has been pointed out on another site that Patrick accused Amanda of having no soul. I'm very impressed with Patrick's insight.

SA posted the article that was quoted from some time back - perhaps a repost.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks, Mac. I must have missed it. I liked knowing it, anyway.

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
It has been pointed out on another site that Patrick accused Amanda of having no soul. I'm very impressed with Patrick's insight.

I believe this is the one. The quote though is "But I don't even think she's evil. To be evil you have to have a soul."

Daily Mail
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Better and better :)

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Why don't we ask Bruce and David? Seriously, if we're going to discuss their stuff --whatever it is--then we're asking the wrong people. They supplied something on their site; nobody here has done any work whatsoever. They ought to be answering your questions.

I don't think Bruce and David have the slightest clue about what they're doing but should we really care? It's the Massei Report English translation that has garnered international attention. Bruce and David's shape-shifting web page has been exactly publicised by two sites: Steve Shay's and here in our attempts to figure out what the f**k it is.

[off-topic]

Whenever I see discussion of "Bruce and Dave," for some reason, I start picturing "Doug and Dave," those old crop circle makers - Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, who claimed they made the majority of the crop circles in England in the '80s:





(Go here for info about them.)

[/off-topic]
(I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. :) hbc)
Top Profile 

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Chris C wrote:
If you said you didn't murder Meredith, wouldn't you say you also never met up before the murder? I mean if they didn't kill Meredith then how could they have possibly met up before the murder.


The court determined they did meet before the murder and that Knox was the one who let Guede into the cottage.

@MacPort: No, there is no reason we should have to digest the redacted Word docs presumed to be some part(s) of the two appeals. Right now there are who-knows-how-many versions of the appeals vying for attention. There are Rose's documents, Bruce and Dave's interpretations, and other sources. None of them even match so which ones are the real ones?


How did they determine that they met up before the murder?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The $$$ must keep coming in to the defense-fund.

Since the Massei-Report is now available in English, lot of people now have the opportunity to gain additional unbiased original informations (don't forget the word-of-mouth-recommandation!!) and think twice before doing a bank-transfer.

Regarding the 'summary of the appeals' the FOA-people have no interest in showing the respectful and civilised speech of the original document, hence the blatant 'summary',
and the urgent need to hype this file.


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

Offline Chris C


Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:09 am

Posts: 18

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I have had this very discussion on a different forum when talking and the words, KNEW and KNOW. Amanda did not KNOW Guede. She had been introduced to Guede 1 time. She had seen him 1 time at a club but didn't talk to him. Because she met(introduced) to Guede at a party attended by alot of people does not mean she met him before the murder. Thats the funny thing about the English language. Some words can apply different meanings.



You're relating some but not all of Amanda's version of the extent of their relationship. She and Rudy are fairly consistent about the fact that the certainly did know each other but that it wasn't a deep relationship. Dealer-client relationships usually aren't.

However your mentions of when they met, what they discussed when they did and how many times they met are even more sanitised than both Amanda's and Rudy's. Which means you've got an agenda or don't know the source material very well or of course both.

Sigh. Trial testimony of Amanda Knox;

Knox Testimony, Audio #1AK: Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

GCM: Avvocato, please begin.

AK: Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

GCM: Avvocato, please begin.

CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for
Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my questions in
simpler Italian. May I start?

AK: Thank you, yes.

CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.


So yes she knew him. She didn't know him that well. She knows him. Next!


CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.


Here Amanda is downplaying the extent of their interaction. She does this (we call it lying in legal circles) because of course she needs to minimise the relationship to almost nothing. The same way she says perjured herself on the stand in court by saying she and Raffaele only had one joint on the evening of the 1st (late at night) when multiple diary entries from Raffaele which are evidence in the case show they smoked several spinelli / joints / pipes starting around 6pm and that he was "intent" on blasting himself into a state of "complete tranquility" i.e. they were getting majorily stoned. Amanda lied about this despite the fact that both she and Rudy both swear in their diaries independently that they will never smoke dope again. That is a VERY odd thing to say for Amanda who only smoked one joint eh? Why would she have such regret because dope can have played absolutely no part in her predicament if what she said on the stand was true.

Lets see what Rudy writes in his German diary at this point about the same party. Remember, he will not implicate Amanda until the appeal directly over a year and a half later so he's got no axe to grind here. It's a rather more believable version than Amanda's sanitisation.

"Amanda sat down and she too, began to smoke. Then and there, I knew she smoked a lot because the guys told me so, and I saw it with my own eyes. For the entire evening she had a joint in her mouth, and she was smoking and smoking. I, in comparison, was a real novice, which I am with regard to smoking, because I know little. That evening my glance and Amanda’s glance kept meeting a lot, and she exchanged with me, a smile of the type….”"

Rudy is in Germany he doesn't know what Amanda will say. She's a BIG dope smoker but she's still willing to lie about it under oath.

Under cross-examination we get this from Girgha;

LG: Did you know Guede?

AK: I had met Rudy, but I didn't really know him, because actually, I couldn't
even remember his name
.

Which is also perjury and rather screwed by the diary of one Amanda Knox where she said;

"un ragazzo che conosco vagamente che si chiama Rudy"
"a boy whom I know vaguely called Rudy."


She lies a lot this one and in stupid ways where she is caught out by her own mouth.


And as to frequency;

GB: Miss Knox, you are accused together with Raffaele Sollecito of murdering
Meredith together with Rudy Guede. I would like you to tell me exactly what
kind of relations you had with Rudy Guede. You already said that you saw each
other few times, but I would like to ask for more information about this aspect.

AK: I didn't have any relations with Rudy Guede. I knew him in the sense that
someone said "Look, this is Rudy, this is Amanda." I saw him around a few
times. But I didn't have any relations with him.

And from Rudy;

"It was inside the club where I met Amanda. I remember very well that she approached me with a smile stamped on her face. That evening I was by myself. I began to talk with her “How are you… Where are you from,” until she told me she was from Seattle. I was happy because a few days before that, a guy with whom I’d become very close, who was from Seattle, had left Italy. I told myself, who knows, perhaps she knows him? And then I told her I had a friend from Seattle who studies at UW, that is, University of Washington, whose name is Victor. At once she said yes, then asked if he was Chinese. I said no, Victor is part Russian, and I realized we were speaking about two different people. But there and then, between one thing and the other, we began to talk. I asked her if they played Hip Hop or R&B in the club, because that evening they were doing Latin American type of Music, which I don’t care for much. And she said that here they play Salsa and African Music. That evening I drank sangria, and it was Patrick, I remember, who served it. I even remember the price, 2 Euros. Then I left the club and went to meet the guys I would often go out with."

It was the first time that I met Amanda and after that, I ran into her many times, but it was always “hi” and “bye” each going our own way. I didn’t strike up a relationship (with her).

and after that

"In the days to come I saw Amanda and Meredith around town. We said "hi" and that was it."

and after that

"From there, like all the times, I met Amanda and The guys at the court."


... which brings us full circle because that's where Amanda met him around about 8pm for the first time on the night of the 1st to arrange a little party treat and to which she brought back Raffaele and she "invited" him into the flat on that night.

The one you represent lies a lot. There's a reason for this. I find it astonishing you still can't see it. It reminds me of the spouse in an abusive relationship where ever everyone knows the other spouse is cheating on them and treating them badly but the wronged spouse still keeps on making excuse no matter how many times their noses are rubbed in it.


So what your saying is Rudy is infatuated with Amanda, and has approached her numerous times and she basicly blew off his advances everytime. Then on the night of the murder after turning down his advances, she decided to have a 4 way sex game with him? According to your statement he even approached her at knox's work trying to strike up a conversation. So basicly Rudy was stalking Knox. It sounds to me that Rudy showed up at the apartment hoping to rape Amanda and settled for Meredith.

picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: This is a formal warning and will be your last. Familiarise yourself with the rules here. Blatantly dishonest argument is a big No No. From PMF Rules:

1. Read these simple rules before posting, and refer to them whenever you are in doubt as to whether or not you really want to hit the “submit” button.

8. Be intellectually honest. Don’t misrepresent other posters’ views or create a straw man to attack. Remember that the force of the better argument is what matters. In this particular case, remember: this isn’t about you; it’s about Meredith.

viewtopic.php?p=40&f=2#p40
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 - re what they provide   

Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Jools wrote:
Quote:
Bruce & Kevad are intentionally misleading readers by describing the defence's points of ["Motivo"] reasons/motives of the appeal document as *VIOLATIONS*.

This is Bruce Fisher and Dave Kamanski's style and it bears no resemblance to Lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova's "Atto di appello" [Appeal document].


The problems with the summary seem to me to concern more the fact that the content occasionally veers away from the actual content of the appeal, towards precise (and very familiar) statements that Bruce wants to mention, such as the bathroom denial. On top of this, he adds personal opinion within the text, preceded by a phrase such as "I would like to point out", which should not be there.


So how does this mean Bruce and David have provided either a summary or a translation? If it's neither of these things then what exactly is it?

They provided a lot of codswallop!


Jools, it's what could be described as a "steaming heap"!
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I have had this very discussion on a different forum when talking and the words, KNEW and KNOW. Amanda did not KNOW Guede. She had been introduced to Guede 1 time. She had seen him 1 time at a club but didn't talk to him. Because she met(introduced) to Guede at a party attended by alot of people does not mean she met him before the murder. Thats the funny thing about the English language. Some words can apply different meanings.



You're relating some but not all of Amanda's version of the extent of their relationship. She and Rudy are fairly consistent about the fact that the certainly did know each other but that it wasn't a deep relationship. Dealer-client relationships usually aren't.

However your mentions of when they met, what they discussed when they did and how many times they met are even more sanitised than both Amanda's and Rudy's. Which means you've got an agenda or don't know the source material very well or of course both.

Sigh. Trial testimony of Amanda Knox;

Knox Testimony, Audio #1AK: Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

GCM: Avvocato, please begin.

AK: Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

GCM: Avvocato, please begin.

CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for
Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my questions in
simpler Italian. May I start?

AK: Thank you, yes.

CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.


So yes she knew him. She didn't know him that well. She knows him. Next!


CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.


Here Amanda is downplaying the extent of their interaction. She does this (we call it lying in legal circles) because of course she needs to minimise the relationship to almost nothing. The same way she says perjured herself on the stand in court by saying she and Raffaele only had one joint on the evening of the 1st (late at night) when multiple diary entries from Raffaele which are evidence in the case show they smoked several spinelli / joints / pipes starting around 6pm and that he was "intent" on blasting himself into a state of "complete tranquility" i.e. they were getting majorily stoned. Amanda lied about this despite the fact that both she and Rudy both swear in their diaries independently that they will never smoke dope again. That is a VERY odd thing to say for Amanda who only smoked one joint eh? Why would she have such regret because dope can have played absolutely no part in her predicament if what she said on the stand was true.

Lets see what Rudy writes in his German diary at this point about the same party. Remember, he will not implicate Amanda until the appeal directly over a year and a half later so he's got no axe to grind here. It's a rather more believable version than Amanda's sanitisation.

"Amanda sat down and she too, began to smoke. Then and there, I knew she smoked a lot because the guys told me so, and I saw it with my own eyes. For the entire evening she had a joint in her mouth, and she was smoking and smoking. I, in comparison, was a real novice, which I am with regard to smoking, because I know little. That evening my glance and Amanda’s glance kept meeting a lot, and she exchanged with me, a smile of the type….”"

Rudy is in Germany he doesn't know what Amanda will say. She's a BIG dope smoker but she's still willing to lie about it under oath.

Under cross-examination we get this from Girgha;

LG: Did you know Guede?

AK: I had met Rudy, but I didn't really know him, because actually, I couldn't
even remember his name
.

Which is also perjury and rather screwed by the diary of one Amanda Knox where she said;

"un ragazzo che conosco vagamente che si chiama Rudy"
"a boy whom I know vaguely called Rudy."


She lies a lot this one and in stupid ways where she is caught out by her own mouth.


And as to frequency;

GB: Miss Knox, you are accused together with Raffaele Sollecito of murdering
Meredith together with Rudy Guede. I would like you to tell me exactly what
kind of relations you had with Rudy Guede. You already said that you saw each
other few times, but I would like to ask for more information about this aspect.

AK: I didn't have any relations with Rudy Guede. I knew him in the sense that
someone said "Look, this is Rudy, this is Amanda." I saw him around a few
times. But I didn't have any relations with him.

And from Rudy;

"It was inside the club where I met Amanda. I remember very well that she approached me with a smile stamped on her face. That evening I was by myself. I began to talk with her “How are you… Where are you from,” until she told me she was from Seattle. I was happy because a few days before that, a guy with whom I’d become very close, who was from Seattle, had left Italy. I told myself, who knows, perhaps she knows him? And then I told her I had a friend from Seattle who studies at UW, that is, University of Washington, whose name is Victor. At once she said yes, then asked if he was Chinese. I said no, Victor is part Russian, and I realized we were speaking about two different people. But there and then, between one thing and the other, we began to talk. I asked her if they played Hip Hop or R&B in the club, because that evening they were doing Latin American type of Music, which I don’t care for much. And she said that here they play Salsa and African Music. That evening I drank sangria, and it was Patrick, I remember, who served it. I even remember the price, 2 Euros. Then I left the club and went to meet the guys I would often go out with."

It was the first time that I met Amanda and after that, I ran into her many times, but it was always “hi” and “bye” each going our own way. I didn’t strike up a relationship (with her).

and after that

"In the days to come I saw Amanda and Meredith around town. We said "hi" and that was it."

and after that

"From there, like all the times, I met Amanda and The guys at the court."


... which brings us full circle because that's where Amanda met him around about 8pm for the first time on the night of the 1st to arrange a little party treat and to which she brought back Raffaele and she "invited" him into the flat on that night.

The one you represent lies a lot. There's a reason for this. I find it astonishing you still can't see it. It reminds me of the spouse in an abusive relationship where ever everyone knows the other spouse is cheating on them and treating them badly but the wronged spouse still keeps on making excuse no matter how many times their noses are rubbed in it.


So what your saying is Rudy is infatuated with Amanda, and has approached her numerous times and she basicly blew off his advances everytime. Then on the night of the murder after turning down his advances, she decided to have a 4 way sex game with him? According to your statement he even approached her at knox's work trying to strike up a conversation. So basicly Rudy was stalking Knox. It sounds to me that Rudy showed up at the apartment hoping to rape Amanda and settled for Meredith.


No. I do not think that is what anyone is saying. This is why I can't be bothered to engage with this stuff: if you cannot engage with what is actually being said there is no basis for discussion.

Let us look at this:

Quote:
So what your saying is Rudy is infatuated with Amanda,


If fancying someone is "infatuation" then a great many people seem to be infatuated with her. In reality many young men fancy many young women (and vice versa) and there is nothing particularly unusual or worrying about it. It is what makes the world go round

Quote:
and has approached her numerous times and she basicly blew off his advances everytime.


Where are you getting that from? He liked her: he asked if she was in a relationship and at the time he asked she wasn't. He frequented some of the places she did: and since he liked her he tried to get to know her better. Sound perfectly usual to me. She was not interested and shortly was in a relationship with RS: and, as you would expect, he stopped trying. Doesn't mean he stopped fancying her and doesn't mean he might not hope her new relationship would be short lived. Don't see anything odd about that, myself. But apparently you do: or you claim you do.

Quote:
Then on the night of the murder after turning down his advances, she decided to have a 4 way sex game with him?


Can you point to the part of what you quoted that says that? I seem to have missed it. Can you point to any part of any post on this board where someone has claimed that? I do not remember any such statement: but again I may have missed it.,

Quote:
According to your statement he even approached her at knox's work trying to strike up a conversation.


What? A young man tried to chat up a young barmaid? Is that unheard of where you are? Here it is a big part of the reason that pubs employ young hot barmaids: it brings in the punters and it makes them spend more. Clearly it is very different where you live. I was not aware. So since your experience is so different let me assure you: this is not out of the ordinary for a lot of young people where I live: others can let us know how it works where they are and we will both learn a little more about social norms.

Quote:
So basicly Rudy was stalking Knox.


lolwut?


Quote:
It sounds to me that Rudy showed up at the apartment hoping to rape Amanda and settled for Meredith.


I am afraid that is such a bizarre notion that I can't even take it seriously enough to answer properly. But if that is how your world works I suggest you try to get out more
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Chris C wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Chris C wrote:
I have had this very discussion on a different forum when talking and the words, KNEW and KNOW. Amanda did not KNOW Guede. She had been introduced to Guede 1 time. She had seen him 1 time at a club but didn't talk to him. Because she met(introduced) to Guede at a party attended by alot of people does not mean she met him before the murder. Thats the funny thing about the English language. Some words can apply different meanings.



You're relating some but not all of Amanda's version of the extent of their relationship. She and Rudy are fairly consistent about the fact that the certainly did know each other but that it wasn't a deep relationship. Dealer-client relationships usually aren't.

However your mentions of when they met, what they discussed when they did and how many times they met are even more sanitised than both Amanda's and Rudy's. Which means you've got an agenda or don't know the source material very well or of course both.

Sigh. Trial testimony of Amanda Knox;

Knox Testimony, Audio #1AK: Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

GCM: Avvocato, please begin.

AK: Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

GCM: Avvocato, please begin.

CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for
Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my questions in
simpler Italian. May I start?

AK: Thank you, yes.

CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.


So yes she knew him. She didn't know him that well. She knows him. Next!


CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.


Here Amanda is downplaying the extent of their interaction. She does this (we call it lying in legal circles) because of course she needs to minimise the relationship to almost nothing. The same way she says perjured herself on the stand in court by saying she and Raffaele only had one joint on the evening of the 1st (late at night) when multiple diary entries from Raffaele which are evidence in the case show they smoked several spinelli / joints / pipes starting around 6pm and that he was "intent" on blasting himself into a state of "complete tranquility" i.e. they were getting majorily stoned. Amanda lied about this despite the fact that both she and Rudy both swear in their diaries independently that they will never smoke dope again. That is a VERY odd thing to say for Amanda who only smoked one joint eh? Why would she have such regret because dope can have played absolutely no part in her predicament if what she said on the stand was true.

Lets see what Rudy writes in his German diary at this point about the same party. Remember, he will not implicate Amanda until the appeal directly over a year and a half later so he's got no axe to grind here. It's a rather more believable version than Amanda's sanitisation.

"Amanda sat down and she too, began to smoke. Then and there, I knew she smoked a lot because the guys told me so, and I saw it with my own eyes. For the entire evening she had a joint in her mouth, and she was smoking and smoking. I, in comparison, was a real novice, which I am with regard to smoking, because I know little. That evening my glance and Amanda’s glance kept meeting a lot, and she exchanged with me, a smile of the type….”"

Rudy is in Germany he doesn't know what Amanda will say. She's a BIG dope smoker but she's still willing to lie about it under oath.

Under cross-examination we get this from Girgha;

LG: Did you know Guede?

AK: I had met Rudy, but I didn't really know him, because actually, I couldn't
even remember his name
.

Which is also perjury and rather screwed by the diary of one Amanda Knox where she said;

"un ragazzo che conosco vagamente che si chiama Rudy"
"a boy whom I know vaguely called Rudy."


She lies a lot this one and in stupid ways where she is caught out by her own mouth.


And as to frequency;

GB: Miss Knox, you are accused together with Raffaele Sollecito of murdering
Meredith together with Rudy Guede. I would like you to tell me exactly what
kind of relations you had with Rudy Guede. You already said that you saw each
other few times, but I would like to ask for more information about this aspect.

AK: I didn't have any relations with Rudy Guede. I knew him in the sense that
someone said "Look, this is Rudy, this is Amanda." I saw him around a few
times. But I didn't have any relations with him.

And from Rudy;

"It was inside the club where I met Amanda. I remember very well that she approached me with a smile stamped on her face. That evening I was by myself. I began to talk with her “How are you… Where are you from,” until she told me she was from Seattle. I was happy because a few days before that, a guy with whom I’d become very close, who was from Seattle, had left Italy. I told myself, who knows, perhaps she knows him? And then I told her I had a friend from Seattle who studies at UW, that is, University of Washington, whose name is Victor. At once she said yes, then asked if he was Chinese. I said no, Victor is part Russian, and I realized we were speaking about two different people. But there and then, between one thing and the other, we began to talk. I asked her if they played Hip Hop or R&B in the club, because that evening they were doing Latin American type of Music, which I don’t care for much. And she said that here they play Salsa and African Music. That evening I drank sangria, and it was Patrick, I remember, who served it. I even remember the price, 2 Euros. Then I left the club and went to meet the guys I would often go out with."

It was the first time that I met Amanda and after that, I ran into her many times, but it was always “hi” and “bye” each going our own way. I didn’t strike up a relationship (with her).

and after that

"In the days to come I saw Amanda and Meredith around town. We said "hi" and that was it."

and after that

"From there, like all the times, I met Amanda and The guys at the court."


... which brings us full circle because that's where Amanda met him around about 8pm for the first time on the night of the 1st to arrange a little party treat and to which she brought back Raffaele and she "invited" him into the flat on that night.

The one you represent lies a lot. There's a reason for this. I find it astonishing you still can't see it. It reminds me of the spouse in an abusive relationship where ever everyone knows the other spouse is cheating on them and treating them badly but the wronged spouse still keeps on making excuse no matter how many times their noses are rubbed in it.


So what your saying is Rudy is infatuated with Amanda, and has approached her numerous times and she basicly blew off his advances everytime. Then on the night of the murder after turning down his advances, she decided to have a 4 way sex game with him? According to your statement he even approached her at knox's work trying to strike up a conversation. So basicly Rudy was stalking Knox. It sounds to me that Rudy showed up at the apartment hoping to rape Amanda and settled for Meredith.



I have reposted the entire quote because I invite every pro-Amanda and pro-prosecution reader to read Chris's suggestion of what I said and then re-read what I posted above. If you can possibly make any connection between what Chris says I was "saying" and what I posted, please explain it to me. In the meantime, this is my personal post to Chris;

Chris, what I posted was all the testimony and evidence from Amanda and Rudy about how well they knew each other. Not so well they said as invidividuals but they met plenty of times. You have to remember that Rudy's daily hangout, the basketball courts is right on top of Amanda's college and directly in between the cottage and college separated by only a couple of hundred feet and tens of feet respectively (cottage / college).

This upset you because you were trying to prove they didn't. Using the primary evidence, I showed you that even the individuals themselves say, in terms, you are plain wrong.

I posted only quotes and two suggestions;

i) That you didn't know the evidence on this particular subject terribly well and
ii) That Amanda tried to minimise the extent of their contact in her testimony to a degree which is palpably false.

Nothing else.

What you turned it into even with you quoting me directly above your post is that apparently I was suggesting;

i) Rudy was infatuated with Amanda - I didn't say this
ii) That he approached her numerous times - I didn't say this
iii) She basicly blew off his advances everytime - I didn't say this (although Rudy harbours a fond memory of her smile "of a type..." with the periods hanging over its meaning (whatever Rudy imagines it to be) which is polar opposite to "brush off" - he's inferring she gave him a saucy smile.
iv) That on the night of the murder she turned down his advances - I didn't say this
v) She decided to have a 4 way sex game with him. - I didn't say this (getting bored now - perhaps I shall have a stamp made)
vi) That "according to your statement he even approached her at knox's work trying to strike up a conversation" - I didn't say that, Rudy's diary in evidence says it. Sounds pretty normal to me since he was a regular in all the bars, knew of Patrick and had a picture taken with him. What is odd about that at all?
vii) That "so basicly Rudy was stalking Knox" - what???? Is this the time the fourth margherita kicked in? Of course I shall add... I didn't say this...


You're embarrassing yourself in the extreme with this sort of response. It suggests that when you are comprehensively shown to be wrong you throw all your toys out of the pram and spew generalised invective. I mean it is literally incoherent.

On the other hand, looking at the time of your post (assuming you are in the US) and looking at the total lack of connection between it and my post, it looks suspiciously like someone who had been drinking...

Or, when you boil it all down....both....

Not pretty to watch someone make such a fool of themselves by their own hand...

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ah, Justinian has arrived on the JREF where he belongs:

Justinian2 wrote:
Hello!

I'm new to this forum. I have been thrown off six other forums in which I've presented my arguments on the Amanda Knox case. It seems that the way most of the world handles free speech is to lock the thread or your member name.

Anyway, I've just finished "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey. Candace gave a very complete discussion of the case and I am starting to feel that Amanda's innocence is 100%. There is no way she could be guilty. Ok, a fact in the book might possibly be wrong, but that seems unlikely. What is absolutely certain is that Amanda got very bad justice. Extremely bad justice.

I started reading the translation of the Massei Report. I was asking how Meridith could have screamed while being strangled and suffocated with a knife wound in her neck when I was thrown off my last forum. They explained that she got off one scream before this happened. I said that a recent report on Yahoo said that drowning victims are never heard since people don't scream loudly when terrified. Indeed, when I thought I encountered an intruder in my apartment, my scream - meant to terrify the intruder - was more like a hoarse whisper.

Then my membership in another forum bit the dust. Probably because if there was no scream, then Amanda's confession was entirely incorrect and merely the result of police "questioning".

Oh yeah, I was also talking about the Murder Hot Line in Boston MA. The minute a person is charged with murder, lawyers trained in murder cases are instantly assigned to the accused. The result is that no person in Boston would ever get harrassed the way Amanda was. Amanda would never have gone to court in Boston.

Anyway, I've been thrown out of six forums talking this way. Hope this forum really does believe in freedom of speech.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=4348

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I do like a good lolwhut Fiona :)

Ah there's nothing finer than watching an FOA explode in a terminal brainsplurge when they can't deal with facts and logical argument anymore. It's like Rumplestiltskin or perhaps when Pris gets shot in Bladerunner - all that frenzied hammering of feet and fits while screaming at the top of the voice*.


* Apologies for using a non-real world analogy here as we all know screams aren't loud. I must tell Ridley Scott and Darryl Hannah next time I see them. Mmmm Darryl Hannah... sigh.... :) (It's friday, I've helped Chris C self-destruct already - cut me some slack here ;) )

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No, it is that the c.p.p. is not the criminal code! :) It is just the procedure, the rules to instruct a criminal proceeding. A "violation of the c.p.p." not necessarily has consequences. In a sense, it is difficult to define what we mean exactly by saying "violation" of the c.p.p., because the procedure itself has plenty of provisions for its own violations.


Very interesting. I see what you're saying.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Chris the Banned said:
Quote:
It sounds to me that Rudy showed up at the apartment hoping to rape Amanda and settled for Meredith.


I am afraid that is such a bizarre notion that I can't even take it seriously enough to answer properly. But if that is how your world works I suggest you try to get out more


It's not only bizarre. It makes my heart sink. It makes me feel ill.

I find it difficult sometimes to understand exactly how other people's worlds work. I have to return to writers like Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn to really get it. Those people were in regular contact with people who think as Chris C does.

I hesitate to imagine that there are more people like that than I'd hoped. We all have evil within us but does it always have to rise to the surface so effortlessly?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No, it is that the c.p.p. is not the criminal code! :) It is just the procedure, the rules to instruct a criminal proceeding. A "violation of the c.p.p." not necessarily has consequences. In a sense, it is difficult to define what we mean exactly by saying "violation" of the c.p.p., because the procedure itself has plenty of provisions for its own violations.


Very interesting. I see what you're saying.


It's ok and in fact correct to say violation of a code of practice or code of ethics. Or you can say it was in contravention of or not in compliance with.

Of course our friendly "translators" at IIP had not the first clue about the subtly of the distinction of this relating to the c.p.p. compared to their view of the "violated" rights of Amanda Knox.

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Also, in the next line, "informatics" is usually called "computer science" in English-speaking universities.


No. Informatics is not an italian term.

Informatics (academic field), a broad academic field encompassing information science, information technology, algorithms, and social science. (wikipedia)


I was in favor of getting rid of it, in part because it isn't familiar to lots of people but mainly because I personally find the term quite ugly. There is no logic to that at all. It just sounds bad to my ears. In any case, this is just a matter of terminology and has no material bearing on the case.


___________________________

It may sound bad to American ears because it sounds like Veg-O-Matics, kitchen gadgets popular in America in the 1960s for effortless slicing, dicing, and so much more. gadgets

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

INFORMATICA is the correct Italian term. The meaning you describe above is right.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
INFORMATICA is the correct Italian term. The meaning you describe above is right.


As you say, I would translate the Italian "INFORMATICA" as "computer science" or "information science". The term informatics exists but not much used (for example with a further definition...MIT department of biomedical informatics or Urban informatics)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona to Chris C:

Quote:
No. I do not think that is what anyone is saying. This is why I can't be bothered to engage with this stuff: if you cannot engage with what is actually being said there is no basis for discussion.


And this, in a nice nutshell, is why Chris C, Katy_did et al do not qualify for posting privileges here. Yes, that's what I said: posting is a privilege not a right. We have a set of board rules, written more than two years ago, and they do a really thorough job of laying the groundwork for fruitful discussion and lively debate that enables people to truly engage by indicating how destructive disputes can be avoided.

People whose only concept of debate involves twisting what others say to suit an agenda or construct an easy target don't belong here. They drag the level of discussion down, down, down until it grinds to a halt and everyone goes home mad or frustrated or both. This probably comes as a surprise to them, but this is not the goal of discussion or debate. On the contrary, it should be invigorating and satisfying.

My thanks to everyone here who understands the board ethos and abides by our ground rules, even in the face of incredibly bad faith and immaturity.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
Popper wrote:
INFORMATICA is the correct Italian term. The meaning you describe above is right.


As you say, I would translate the Italian "INFORMATICA" as "computer science" or "information science". The term informatics exists but not much used (for example with a further definition...MIT department of biomedical informatics or Urban informatics)



I am tempted to say it sounds like applied computer science but that is probably not right. Incidentally, I mentioned the term last night to an incoming freshman at the University of Washington who went through orientation yesterday. She said she had in fact never heard it until yesterday, when the UW's different programs were being presented.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Chris the Banned said:
Quote:
It sounds to me that Rudy showed up at the apartment hoping to rape Amanda and settled for Meredith.


I am afraid that is such a bizarre notion that I can't even take it seriously enough to answer properly. But if that is how your world works I suggest you try to get out more


It's not only bizarre. It makes my heart sink. It makes me feel ill.

I find it difficult sometimes to understand exactly how other people's worlds work. I have to return to writers like Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn to really get it. Those people were in regular contact with people who think as Chris C does.

I hesitate to imagine that there are more people like that than I'd hoped. We all have evil within us but does it always have to rise to the surface so effortlessly?


For some, it is effortless because the evil remains close to the surface at all times.

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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Ah, Justinian has arrived on the JREF where he belongs:

Justinian2 wrote:
Hello!

I'm new to this forum. I have been thrown off six other forums in which I've presented my arguments on the Amanda Knox case. It seems that the way most of the world handles free speech is to lock the thread or your member name.

Anyway, I've just finished "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey. Candace gave a very complete discussion of the case and I am starting to feel that Amanda's innocence is 100%. There is no way she could be guilty. Ok, a fact in the book might possibly be wrong, but that seems unlikely. What is absolutely certain is that Amanda got very bad justice. Extremely bad justice.

I started reading the translation of the Massei Report. I was asking how Meridith could have screamed while being strangled and suffocated with a knife wound in her neck when I was thrown off my last forum. They explained that she got off one scream before this happened. I said that a recent report on Yahoo said that drowning victims are never heard since people don't scream loudly when terrified. Indeed, when I thought I encountered an intruder in my apartment, my scream - meant to terrify the intruder - was more like a hoarse whisper.

Then my membership in another forum bit the dust. Probably because if there was no scream, then Amanda's confession was entirely incorrect and merely the result of police "questioning".

Oh yeah, I was also talking about the Murder Hot Line in Boston MA. The minute a person is charged with murder, lawyers trained in murder cases are instantly assigned to the accused. The result is that no person in Boston would ever get harrassed the way Amanda was. Amanda would never have gone to court in Boston.

Anyway, I've been thrown out of six forums talking this way. Hope this forum really does believe in freedom of speech.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=4348



And amazingly, Just In even learned to say "hello" when joining a discussion.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
Michael wrote:
Ah, Justinian has arrived on the JREF where he belongs:

Justinian2 wrote:
Hello!

I'm new to this forum. I have been thrown off six other forums in which I've presented my arguments on the Amanda Knox case. It seems that the way most of the world handles free speech is to lock the thread or your member name.

Anyway, I've just finished "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey. Candace gave a very complete discussion of the case and I am starting to feel that Amanda's innocence is 100%. There is no way she could be guilty. Ok, a fact in the book might possibly be wrong, but that seems unlikely. What is absolutely certain is that Amanda got very bad justice. Extremely bad justice.

I started reading the translation of the Massei Report. I was asking how Meridith could have screamed while being strangled and suffocated with a knife wound in her neck when I was thrown off my last forum. They explained that she got off one scream before this happened. I said that a recent report on Yahoo said that drowning victims are never heard since people don't scream loudly when terrified. Indeed, when I thought I encountered an intruder in my apartment, my scream - meant to terrify the intruder - was more like a hoarse whisper.

Then my membership in another forum bit the dust. Probably because if there was no scream, then Amanda's confession was entirely incorrect and merely the result of police "questioning".

Oh yeah, I was also talking about the Murder Hot Line in Boston MA. The minute a person is charged with murder, lawyers trained in murder cases are instantly assigned to the accused. The result is that no person in Boston would ever get harrassed the way Amanda was. Amanda would never have gone to court in Boston.

Anyway, I've been thrown out of six forums talking this way. Hope this forum really does believe in freedom of speech.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=4348



And amazingly, Just In even learned to say "hello" when joining a discussion.


Bless. Justinian was a bit out of his depth here, wasn't he...Perhaps someone should set up a Remedial Site for Friends of Amanda Innocenti - like one of those Al Qaeda reprogramming courses in Saudi. The information IS quite complicated to follow, as LondonJohn freely admitted...

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ah!
Now I understand a bit better.

"Freedom of speech" is interpreted as "freedom to make a speech".

No wonder so much confusion arises.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:34 pm   Post subject: n   

Fly by Night wrote:
Judge Rules Sheriff Can Release Report of Anne Bremner's DUI arrest

Bremner immediately filed for a 14-day stay of the judge's ruling so the decision can be appealed. But in allowing the release of the report Judge Laura Inveen declined to allow the release of a surveillance video showing Bremner in a holding cell after her arrest. nnn-))

Let's hope that video never finds it way to YouTube!

Also, prosecutor Sarah Roberts of Tara's city of Kenmore revealed today that she hasn't made a decision on whether or not to charge Bremner with DUI and declined to say why it has taken more than two months to review the case.


I just checked the comments section of the article about Anne Bremner's situation and found a comment that I would like to respond to here. For the sake of full disclosure, I generally do not post elsewhere and have not posted at the Seattle PI or Times since my brief stay at Italian Woman on the Table came to an abrupt halt in about February of 2008. On the rare occasion that I post elsewhere, it is either under my real name or as lectrice56 at the Daily Beast. One of the reasons I don't post, as Fiona suggested, is that I have an aversion to arguments that quickly descend to the level of name-calling.

Here is the comment I found this morning:

Quote:
What a bizarre comment sectiuon.

No doubt the records should go public. My only question is whether video should go public before there is a hearing on the case. I don't believe the hit and run story, but I have heard of people arrested and booked for drunkenness when in fact they had some medical condition. I wouldn't want someone that had such a condition having their video released, but in this case I doubt there is a condition.

What is the weirdest thing about this are the links to Amanda Knox sites that hate Bremner because she has supported Knox and questioned the case.

Many of the commenters are from those sites and one Flanders Houlighan sure seems to be their leader, a woman that goes under the name Skeptical Bystander.

Another woman using the odd name Harry Rag has linked to her site. I little reading there demonstrated their raison d'être - hate.

Anne should not get special treatment and we can hate it if she does "get off" but these people go overboard.


I am not Flanders Houlighan or any other person posting about Anne Bremner. There are many reasons I have stayed out of the debate, and I am happy to share them with you in the interest of full disclosure:

1. I have respect for Anne Bremner as an attorney, even though I think she is misguided and ill-informed about the Knox case. I know many lawyers in Seattle, including people who know Anne Bremner. It would simply be wrong to publicly share any information or gossip I may be privy to through those contacts. In fact, I think it would be a violation of Anne Bremner's right to privacy and dignity. Being involved in the Knox case in a public way has made me the target of a lot of nastiness (like the post above), including that leveled by people like "Mary H", who allude to some past relationship with me. It's kind of creepy.

2. Without naming names, I happen to know some of the peripheral protagonists in this case. I have no desire to protect them, but it would be wrong for me to use my relationship with them to obtain information or share it.

3. Anne Bremner's current problems are unrelated to her role in the FOA group.

4. People close to me have been devastated by accidents related to drinking and driving. For personal reasons, I want law enforcement and the courts to show no leniency in cases that involve drunk driving. I am not sure jail time is the best solution, but treatment for substance addiction should be mandatory and driver's licences should be taken away for as long as is necessary. These are my personal views, based on personal tragedy, but they make it difficult for me to be objective in such matters.

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

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I cannot agree more with those who criticise unfaithful translations. There is nothing more dishonest. It is a play on the [partial] ignorance of the poor reader. This was to be expected however in a case where falsifications and partiality have been unprecedented, especially in US media and on TV.

On the current state of the case I would like to discuss 3 points:

1) SLANDER (calunnia) case vs Police: my view is that Amanda is likely to lose the case because (a) no witness will confirm the slaps allegedly given by the policewoman (b) the slaps she spoke about in the trial - although AK minimized and did not press charges vs police - became something more in US media often fed by her parents. The slander is always to be put in the context of where/when it happens and who heard it

2) DIARIES AND MEMOS - Who has read the Massei report now in English will notice jury does not use much the diaries/memos of Amanda and Raf to prove guilt although they represent a very interesting source to understand the lies of the two, at times very incriminating. I would say they could be used alone or with little else to prove guilt. One example I mentioned above is that RS writes (in diary to father) the door of Filomena's room was wide open when they arrived at via Pergola showing the glass on the floor and the mess. Amanda MUST obviously maintain it was closed and she always does that otherwise her reconstruction goes to hell. Could it be a way RS used to incriminate Amanda? Possibly, after all RS' defense tried to separate RS’ position from AK’s much more than people are led to believe. I think the "open door" version makes sense (why would someone who breaks in - or stages a break in - close it ?). RS says that he remembered well this part as he was alarmed and tense. This is a key moment, how can the 2 versions be different? They cannot. One of the 2 lies and not by mistake. If RS is guilty he just forgot to lie (say it was closed to be consistent with AK) on this may be because this detail does not incriminate him as much as it incriminates Amanda.

3) RS vs AK CHANCES
My very personal estimation is that, on appeal, the 2 defendants run a risk of about 1 in 2 (50%) to be given life in prison (with cancellation of some mitigating circumstances which appear weak eg having covered victim, being diligent at school, being behind the others when Meredith door was opened etc.) and only 10% to have their position improved in terms of years in prison.

RS has very low chances (5% ?) to be found innocent in appeal but his chances are higher than AK's. The bra clasp, witnesses, RG statements, lies RS told police and the existence of Amanda (who has so much against her) make them low. On the other hand, the Massei report is less focused on RS and this is an advantage for him. I read Bongiorno/Maori's appeal (281 pages) which is not a bad document, certainly better than AK's appeal, which looks hopeless against a mountain of evidence. However, even in this appeal RS' defense lawyers do not really point the finger directly to Amanda.

What I find totally inexplicable and laughable is that some US media and pro-AK websites, completely clueless of the case, strongly support RS. This makes no sense. The famous Italian TV program Porta a Porta (which for once CNN/ABC/CBS should take as example of good and objective journalism) made a program on this “game theory tactics” among the 3 defendants – each accusing the others more or less vaguely over time. The CBS journalist trying to defend AK/RS was pathetic in her arguments if I remember well.

RS is in fact:
(a) the one who more than everybody else incriminates Amanda
(b) the one whose conviction plainly contradicts their huge reverse-racial and nationalistic prejudice.


Last edited by Popper on Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Michael wrote:
Ah, Justinian has arrived on the JREF where he belongs:

Justinian2 wrote:
Hello!

I'm new to this forum. I have been thrown off six other forums in which I've presented my arguments on the Amanda Knox case. It seems that the way most of the world handles free speech is to lock the thread or your member name.

Anyway, I've just finished "Murder in Italy" by Candace Dempsey. Candace gave a very complete discussion of the case and I am starting to feel that Amanda's innocence is 100%. There is no way she could be guilty. Ok, a fact in the book might possibly be wrong, but that seems unlikely. What is absolutely certain is that Amanda got very bad justice. Extremely bad justice.

I started reading the translation of the Massei Report. I was asking how Meridith could have screamed while being strangled and suffocated with a knife wound in her neck when I was thrown off my last forum. They explained that she got off one scream before this happened. I said that a recent report on Yahoo said that drowning victims are never heard since people don't scream loudly when terrified. Indeed, when I thought I encountered an intruder in my apartment, my scream - meant to terrify the intruder - was more like a hoarse whisper.

Then my membership in another forum bit the dust. Probably because if there was no scream, then Amanda's confession was entirely incorrect and merely the result of police "questioning".

Oh yeah, I was also talking about the Murder Hot Line in Boston MA. The minute a person is charged with murder, lawyers trained in murder cases are instantly assigned to the accused. The result is that no person in Boston would ever get harrassed the way Amanda was. Amanda would never have gone to court in Boston.

Anyway, I've been thrown out of six forums talking this way. Hope this forum really does believe in freedom of speech.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=4348



And amazingly, Just In even learned to say "hello" when joining a discussion.


Bless. Justinian was a bit out of his depth here, wasn't he...Perhaps someone should set up a Remedial Site for Friends of Amanda Innocenti - like one of those Al Qaeda reprogramming courses in Saudi. The information IS quite complicated to follow, as LondonJohn freely admitted...



I see Justinian still has not figured out how to spell the victim's name. Her first name. I hope undecided is all over his ass for that.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
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 Aug 13, 2010 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

After reading yesterday, between downloads 1066 and 1069 (it's now 1359 as I type), the posts from readers -- saying how they found parts of the report harrowing and hard-going emotionally -- must have stuck with me subconsciously because, later, when I was moving mentally up and down the years of the timeline, mentally preparing for some other things, in a relaxed sort of way just before going to sleep, the phrase "attend her wedding" floated up from who knows where and latched onto a powerful surge of emotion, a wave, of grieving sadness. A brief moment.

Friends and family must be deeply saddened. More than can be put into words.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
" I mentioned the term last night to an incoming freshman at the University of Washington who went through orientation yesterday. She said she had in fact never heard it until yesterday"

Be prepared for "informatician" or "informaticist".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/informatician
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Re: Anne Bremner

Thank you, Skep, for your post on Ms. Bremner. I too do not wish to discuss her alleged drinking problems or DUI problems. I don't see the relevance to the Meredith case. This is just my own personal feeling. Personally, I have no interest in Ms. Bremner's problems except to the extent that I hope she resolves them and gets help, if she needs it.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
"a discipline of science which investigates the structure and properties of scientific information as opposed to the content"

-- Macquarie Dictionary, 5th edition: informatics


I suppose that's what comes of doing those statistical mash-ups called meta-analyses. Not to mention the database guys. A VR-world is just one giant spreadsheet table, and anything with more than a thousand widgets with 15 power-levels each, and customisable in 6 different ways is going to need some way of organising that information, and some way to decide how to organise organising that information efficiently before the competing company ships their product.

Informatics will have a bright future, I predict.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
After reading yesterday, between downloads 1066 and 1069 (it's now 1359 as I type), the posts from readers -- saying how they found parts of the report harrowing and hard-going emotionally -- must have stuck with me subconsciously because, later, when I was moving mentally up and down the years of the timeline, mentally preparing for some other things, in a relaxed sort of way just before going to sleep, the phrase "attend her wedding" floated up from who knows where and latched onto a powerful surge of emotion, a wave, of grieving sadness. A brief moment.

Friends and family must be deeply saddened. More than can be put into words.



r-((
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
Re: Anne Bremner

Thank you, Skep, for your post on Ms. Bremner. I too do not wish to discuss her alleged drinking problems or DUI problems. I don't see the relevance to the Meredith case. This is just my own personal feeling. Personally, I have no interest in Ms. Bremner's problems except to the extent that I hope she resolves them and gets help, if she needs it.


Exactly.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Skep wrote:
" I mentioned the term last night to an incoming freshman at the University of Washington who went through orientation yesterday. She said she had in fact never heard it until yesterday"

Be prepared for "informatician" or "informaticist".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/informatician


Yikes!

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The etymology dictionary on the origin of the word:

Quote:
"informatics
1967, translating Russian informatika (1966)."
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi. This is my first post. Full disclosure: I believe strongly in the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The reason I am writing however is first, to express my thanks for the tremendous job you folks did translating the motivation document. I mean that with complete sincerity. It is a tremendous aide to understanding the case, and from the remarks I have heard it is true to the record. Thank you very much for all of what must have been a lot of time, effort, and trouble.

I have started reading it. I am not changing my mind. But the gulf between those who believe in their guilt and the those who believe in their innocence has become so wide and deep, and I believe this will help bring the two sides back to normal, rational discourse. Hopefully we can leave behind the name calling and mis-characterizations of motive.

I am starting to read it. I think of questions about it from time to time. I have read up to p 60, and then most of the part on the DNA evidence. I am still working on what all that means.

One thing I would like to have clarified. On p. 25 the motivation report says: "Also present were an inspector and an officer of the Postal Police ..... who arrived a little before 1pm

On p. 27 the motivation report says "These are .. the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1 pm on Nov 2, 2007 {*typo alert - the report reads 2009*} of the postal police team ..."

But then, on the same page 27 the report reads " Twice, [Postal Police Inspector] Battistelli had {*typo alert - second had in sentence - maybe techincally correct, but at least in the U.S., not used*} to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.

Anyone with any understanding of the case understands the difference in the implications between these two times.

My reading of this document says the postal police arrived shortly before 1pm. The postal police believed they arrived about 12:30. However, the court understands the 12:30 time to be incorrect. The correct time of arrival is shortly before 1pm.

Is this clarified later in the report? Am I correct in my understanding of this passage?

Thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Hi. This is my first post. Full disclosure: I believe strongly in the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.


Hi Moodstream. I have some questions for you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Re: Anne Bremner

Thank you, Skep, for your post on Ms. Bremner. I too do not wish to discuss her alleged drinking problems or DUI problems. I don't see the relevance to the Meredith case. This is just my own personal feeling. Personally, I have no interest in Ms. Bremner's problems except to the extent that I hope she resolves them and gets help, if she needs it.


Exactly.


Well Said, and I agree to the point that personal failings do not interest me that much either.

However, as you seem to question, I see a *very* direct relevance to the Merideth case.

Ms Bremner has used every bit of the media pretty talking head card that she possibly could, in addition to being an embryonic force in the entire FOA fiasco to further the Public Relations blitz designed to circumvent the Italian Legal system.
All this to help a convicted murderess who happens to have attracted some other higher ups in the home town they share.
In so doing, she incessantly publicly denigrated, excoriated and insulted the Italian legal system...and everyone in it

Now, she uses every ounce of her personal IOU's and lawyer/judge good old boy string pulling to try and frustrate her own Seattle legal system and "smooth over" some long simmering significant public endangering personal deficiencies .

Briefly, she was arrested June 2-3 in what the arresting officer described as a very cut and dried straightforward DUI.
She *later* gave the stupidest 'dog ate homework' excuse imaginable..absolutely absurd and bizzare.
DUI is an offense that apparently she has significant previous personal acquaintance with.
From June 2 thru August 13, she has used *and abused* every legal technicality intended to protect the truly innocent.
As an understatement, she has made an absolute mockery of her Seattle justice system.

Numerous injunctions, stays, BS, etc so that even arrest documents as well as video are still not released to the public, as they would have been long ago for a common Joe Blow beer drinker.
The Sheriff, when directly asked recently why after over 2 months no charges have even been filed yet....*refused to reply"

PS: Skep above references an article saying Judge decides Sheriff can release report today:
*It will not be released*
Guess what; as of noon, 13 Aug... Bremner filed yet another legalese nit pick injunction to again prevent any public access

Bottom line:
The relevance is that a high profile Attorney who spent years whining about the deficiencies of Italian Law when that suited her purpose, now when she faces just punishment uses "questionable at best" legal maneuvers to totally corrupt the personnel and procedures of her own local law enfocement to suit her own purpose.
Therefore, Emerald,I see a very direct relevance, but am open to 'enlightenment from wiser heads here.
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Is there any reason why you do not wish to answer any of the questions The Machine poses, moodstream? They seem to be on topic and they seem to me to be good questions
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.


In other words, you can't answer my questions. I thought so. :D
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Quote:
"My reading of this document says the postal police arrived shortly before 1pm. The postal police believed they arrived about 12:30. However, the court understands the 12:30 time to be incorrect. The correct time of arrival is shortly before 1pm."


Yes. The prosecutors argued that the postals had arrived before the call to the carabinieri was made. The court seems to have accepted the counter-argument of the Sollecito defence so the prosecution's version is not used by the court.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Hi. This is my first post. Full disclosure: I believe strongly in the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The reason I am writing however is first, to express my thanks for the tremendous job you folks did translating the motivation document. I mean that with complete sincerity. It is a tremendous aide to understanding the case, and from the remarks I have heard it is true to the record. Thank you very much for all of what must have been a lot of time, effort, and trouble.
I have started reading it. I am not changing my mind.
SNIPPPPPPPPPPPPP


Your gracious appreciation for the efforts of Volunteers here is certainly appreciated.

This, I may add, is in direct contrast to so many others who you are apparently are very closely allied with .(reference your somewhat snarky reply to Machine's 20 questions)

With all due respect, although others here may differ, quite frankly I prefer to abstain from any assistance to further the 'agenda' you propose to impose on us here.

At the risk of being impolite, reference your "question" YAWN, YAWN, YAWN

Glad you appreciate Translations, politely suggest you answer Machine properly, or just read more without boring us here with some nitty nat questiion after you disgrace the Memory of Meredith that we so cherish here with your stated reluctance to identify her unanimously convicted murderess
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.

Then please choose any area of the evidence you feel you have fully familiarized yourself with through extensive reading and present a case.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

At least this one began with a "Hi".

Has anyone seen the bridge? Where's the confounded...

GONG!
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
What I find totally inexplicable and laughable is that some US media and pro-AK websites, completely clueless of the case, strongly support RS. This makes no sense. The famous Italian TV program Porta a Porta (which for once CNN/ABC/CBS should take as example of good and objective journalism) made a program on this “game theory tactics” among the 3 defendants – each accusing the others more or less vaguely over time. The CBS journalist trying to defend AK/RS was pathetic in her arguments if I remember well.

RS is in fact:
(a) the one who more than everybody else incriminates Amanda
(b) the one whose conviction plainly contradicts their huge reverse-racial and nationalistic prejudice.


You hit the nail on the head. Sollecito sat mute virtually the whole way through the trial. The trial really did wind up looking like the trial of Knox and 'some other anonymous guy'.

Sollecito was the first one to fold. Sollecito decoupled himself from Knox in front of the Supreme Court. Sollecito said nothing to confirm her alibi in court. He wasn't even with her during the 'touch-up' phase at the cottage.

None of this makes me think he wasn't there, of course, but it's clear to me that his attitude towards Amanda changed dramatically in the days following Meredith's murder. How it isn't clear to everyone--especially media people--is a little hard to fathom but in the age of sound bites and competition with dancing YouTube gophers I suppose anything's possible.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
Re: Anne Bremner

Thank you, Skep, for your post on Ms. Bremner. I too do not wish to discuss her alleged drinking problems or DUI problems. I don't see the relevance to the Meredith case. This is just my own personal feeling. Personally, I have no interest in Ms. Bremner's problems except to the extent that I hope she resolves them and gets help, if she needs it.


The relationship of Ms. Bremner's current predicament to the Meredith Kercher case is real and critical, but not because of any alleged drinking problems. Even so, if it can be demonstrated that she was drunk that night she will undoubtedly suffer irreparable career damage. Bremner completely understands this, and that is why she has pulled out all the stops to fight the DUI charge in spite of the downside of going-all-out in doing so.

Forget for a minute about the ramifications of any substance abuse issues. As an outspoken and high profile representative of standards and leadership for the Seattle community this current crisis has everything to do with accountability, professionalism, ethics, integrity, and community service because, like it or not, her role in the community does come with a strong measure of social responsibility. So Bremner has a lot on the line here, including the residual value of her very outspoken reputation-underscored position on the Meredith Kercher case.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.


In other words, you can't answer my questions. I thought so. :D


And you're right. It's not a game of twenty questions.

Those who approach the senseless murder of a young woman, the incarceration of three others, the ruination of an innocent man's business, and the horrors inflicted by the perpetrators on the family and friends of the victims as a game should really take the time to pause, look in a mirror, breathe deeply, and figure out for themselves exactly what kind of person is peering back at them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.



People who come in the door with a loaded gun don't last long. I referred earlier to our board rules; please spend a day or two reading them. You are joining a conversation in progress. The polite and prudent course is to think before jumping in. It's great that you are reading the Massei report. It's long, so you might want to spend lots of time on that and then read what we have been up to for the last two years before jumping in to 24/7 posting mode.

If you are the latest envoy of Bruce Fisher (and this always becomes obvious at some point, even if one lies about it), then you should just leave now and spare everyone the trouble. Not to mention more embarrassment for Bruce. He seems desperate to show that this is all just a game for him; we feel quite differently. It isn't a game and it isn't about scoring points.

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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT and apologies to the board for responding to something I saw elsewhere here, but since the person commenting obviously reads here, I'll be brief:

1. Please. Don't call me "hon".
2. It's Corrina, or Corrine, not Corri.
3. If you're ever unfortunate enough to have a loved one get mixed up in cocaine (and then on to other things when that's not enough), trust you will learn all sorts of things you wish you didn't know.
4. My mother is a very wise woman and she once told me I need not explain myself to idiots.
5. I will, from here on, heed her advice.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I have been away but will start reading the report this weekend.

Thank you, thank you, you splendid people. r-(( r-(( r-(( Extraordinary work and I am so proud of you all. I hope you're proud of yourselves, because you've done something quite remarkable for Meredith and those who knew and loved her, out of pure altruism and a desire to set the truth of the court's deliberations before a wider audience.

I've looked at some reactions in other places, and have been thinking about all that has happened between the first reports of the crime, and the release of the English translation of Massei's report. Shortly after Meredith's murder, I was reading comments below a PI article (I think this was before the cook got her pots boiling) and made my first comment about the case. I was responding to a cruelly ignorant spiel about London house prices, Croydon, and family incomes in the south-east of England. The twerp who wrote that repulsive guff astonished me. Not long after, I started reading and eventually joined in at Steve Huff's board.

After two and a half years I am no longer astonished by the cruelty and ignorance that is either casually or vindictively aimed at the Kercher family by people whose amour propre is so inflated that I would be surprised if they could squeeze themselves through a barn door. They certainly don't give a damn about Meredith. I doubt some of them even care much about the defendants' interests either, so long as they can nurture their egos or xenophobia online. I've not sought them out, having had my own family bereavements in the meantime. The thought of reading anything approaching such vile remarks, if it were aimed at my relatives, makes me shudder. The thought of Meredith's family reading the ogres' rants does the same. It also inspires a cold anger.

I've thought of them as ogres for a long time, these people. They remind me of Auden's monster. I know his ogre was a representation of the Russian machine rolling into Prague, but there's a similarity... mumping liars claiming to bat for virtue and justice, deaf to logic, spouting uninformed party lines and utterly intolerant of reasoned dissent.

August 1968
The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master speech.

About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

It took over twenty years, but the ogre was beaten in the end.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
At least this one began with a "Hi".

Has anyone seen the bridge? Where's the confounded...

GONG!


Led Zeppelin!!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Corrina wrote:
At least this one began with a "Hi".

Has anyone seen the bridge? Where's the confounded...

GONG!


Led Zeppelin!!!!


You got it, Bard. Must confess, whenever I see a post by Black Dog, I hear Robert Plant "hey hey mama".
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'm thinking *Bridge of Sighs* :(

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
I'm thinking *Bridge of Sighs* :(

uuuuh a Trower fan.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Corrina wrote:
At least this one began with a "Hi".

Has anyone seen the bridge? Where's the confounded...

GONG!


Led Zeppelin!!!!

I was thinking the gong at the beginning of The Lemon Song.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
capealadin wrote:
I'm thinking *Bridge of Sighs* :(

uuuuh a Trower fan.

Mmmm Day of the Eagle.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Whenever I see 'Gong' I think of teapots and, er, pot-head pixies.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Corrina wrote:
At least this one began with a "Hi".

Has anyone seen the bridge? Where's the confounded...

GONG!


Led Zeppelin!!!!

I was thinking the gong at the beginning of The Lemon Song.


I'm gonna fall right outta bed
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Viv wrote:
Whenever I see 'Gong' I think of teapots and, er, pot-head pixies.



Okay, I'm lost on the teapots, but I think I know where you're going with the pot-head pixies.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Mac: Huh? What ya smokin ? :)

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
One thing I would like to have clarified. On p. 25 the motivation report says: "Also present were an inspector and an officer of the Postal Police ..... who arrived a little before 1pm

On p. 27 the motivation report says "These are .. the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1 pm on Nov 2, 2007 {*typo alert - the report reads 2009*} of the postal police team ..."

But then, on the same page 27 the report reads " Twice, [Postal Police Inspector] Battistelli had {*typo alert - second had in sentence - maybe techincally correct, but at least in the U.S., not used*} to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.


On what concerns typos and translation errors, there is a thread created to address them where I invite you to post :

Translation errors discussion thread

On what concerns content issues, I didn't understand what exactly you are rising. I think the issue could be due to the comprehension of the prose translated in English.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I don't know where moodstream can see an issue.
The quoted snippet (p.27) is a paragraph citing what was stated by Battistelli in court. And what it says is clear (the report even stresses the subjective perspective of the officers point of view):

As stated by Battistelli (page 80, hearing of February 6, 2009) they had some difficulty finding the house, as they had gone along Viale S. Antonio, which is alongside and in part hides the house. Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.

The court does not give a definitive statement on the time of arrival of the police, as far as I know. The first priority of the document is not to estabilish this particular time of arrival, and not necessarily this has to be estabilished as a firm point somewhere.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hullo Corrina! Unless I'm failing to remember my best troofs, I think there's a line in Oily Way that goes: 'fill yer teapot up with tea...'

Oh, and on a grammatical matter...
Moodstream wrote:
Quote:
Twice, [Postal Police Inspector] Battistelli had {*typo alert - second had in sentence - maybe techincally correct, but at least in the U.S., not used*} to get out of the car


Hullo Moodstream - I'm not informed enough to answer your queries about minute case detail, but I'm intrigued to hear that the past perfect of 'have' may have evaporated anywhere in North America. (I suspect Skep and others would disagree). For an explanation of 'had had' and other quirky English tenses still very much used by native speakers like me, BBC World Service is yr friend.
Top Profile 

Offline Lex Rex


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:33 am

Posts: 136

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.



Why not try to answer ONE of them?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
I don't know where moodstream can see an issue.
The quoted snippet (p.27) is a paragraph citing what was stated by Battistelli in court. And what it says is clear (the report even stresses the subjective perspective of the officers point of view):

As stated by Battistelli (page 80, hearing of February 6, 2009) they had some difficulty finding the house, as they had gone along Viale S. Antonio, which is alongside and in part hides the house. Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.

The court does not give a definitive statement on the time of arrival of the police, as far as I know. The first priority of the document is not to estabilish this particular time of arrival, and not necessarily this has to be estabilished as a firm point somewhere.



There is nothing to add to this post by Yummi, except perhaps that the Court notes the divergence of viewpoint on this matter and does not make an issue of it because, in my opinion, it really does not matter in terms of making the case.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 8:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Viv wrote:
Hullo Corrina! Unless I'm failing to remember my best troofs, I think there's a line in Oily Way that goes: 'fill yer teapot up with tea...'

Oh, and on a grammatical matter...
Moodstream wrote:
Quote:
Twice, [Postal Police Inspector] Battistelli had {*typo alert - second had in sentence - maybe techincally correct, but at least in the U.S., not used*} to get out of the car


Hullo Moodstream - I'm not informed enough to answer your queries about minute case detail, but I'm intrigued to hear that the past perfect of 'have' may have evaporated anywhere in North America. (I suspect Skep and others would disagree). For an explanation of 'had had' and other quirky English tenses still very much used by native speakers like me, BBC World Service is yr friend.



Rest assured, Viv. In spite of allegations to the contrary, the past perfect does indeed continue to exist, be used and be understood in the lower 48 states as well as the other US states.

There is no typo in the sentence.

Moodstream, here's how it works and what it is used for. You can try it at home!

The past perfect tense describes an action that took place in the past before another past action. This tense is formed by using had with the past participle of the verb.

For example:
By the time the hundredth Bruce Fisher recruit showed up at PMF, the normally patient moderator had had enough.

In this example, the verb is "to have" (infinitive form), so the past participle is "had".

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
I cannot agree more with those who criticise unfaithful translations. There is nothing more dishonest. It is a play on the [partial] ignorance of the poor reader. This was to be expected however in a case where falsifications and partiality have been unprecedented, especially in US media and on TV.

On the current state of the case I would like to discuss 3 points:

1) SLANDER (calunnia) case vs Police: my view is that Amanda is likely to lose the case because (a) no witness will confirm the slaps allegedly given by the policewoman (b) VERY IMPORTANT - in the memorandum written after the arrest AK does not talk about them. If she had received slaps she would have written about them. In the memorandum she speaks a lot about RS not supporting her alibi which is the obvious explanation of her confession to be on crime scene (c) the slaps she spoke about in the trial - although AK minimized and did not press charges vs police - became something more in US media often fed by her parents. The slander is always to be put in the context of where/when it happens and who heard it.


* * *

______________

Popper,

Amanda did mention being hit by the cops in her hand-written declaration of November 6, 2007. You can read it here on this site, PMF > Board Index > In Their Own Words > Amanda Knox.

"I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

///


Last edited by fine on Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

On the highlighted "typo" addressed by moodstream,

Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house

there was an interesting problem for translators.
Translators and editors made the choice to leave all tenses as faithcul as possible as they are used in the original Italian. This leads naturally to verbal forms not used in US English, but the insertion of this tenses in the translation is necessary to preserve information and sometimes becomes essential to a to the understanding of the document to avoid ambiguities in extremly important parts.
Italian is a languege much more rich in verb tensens than English, and in Italian there are different kinds of past tense with logical functions. Italian derives from Latin, and uses the "consecutio tempora". In other words, it is essential in Italian to indicate "what" past time you are referring to. If you abolish the difference between pasts you loose important information and sometimes you make capital mistakes. It is the case of this document in which large portion of text are reporting indirectly what people "stated" or "told" in court or in document (so, in the past) but the different choice of tenses allows to distinguish when the past is in respect to the reader, or to the person who is telling the story in that moment, in court or in the cited document.
This verbally inflected construction of speeh is normal in Italian but doesn't exist in English, and if everything is translated with the usual English verbal tenses, it becomes ambiguous or incoprehensible, or anyway some information expressed by the verb is lost.
Hence, the decision in principle to be always precise and try to express the actual meaning of tenses, which in the document are meant to be differentiated and precise in the consecutio tempora, even if their use sounds very strange in English.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
On the highlighted "typo" addressed by moodstream,

Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house

there was an interesting problem for translators.
Translators and editors made the choice to leave all tenses as faithcul as possible as they are used in the original Italian. This leads naturally to verbal forms not used in US English, but the insertion of this tenses in the translation is necessary to preserve information and sometimes becomes essential to a to the understanding of the document to avoid ambiguities in extremly important parts.
Italian is a languege much more rich in verb tensens than English, and in Italian there are different kinds of past tense with logical functions. Italian derives from Latin, and uses the "consecutio tempora". In other words, it is essential in Italian to indicate "what" past time you are referring to. If you abolish the difference between pasts you loose important information and sometimes you make capital mistakes. It is the case of this document in which large portion of text are reporting indirectly what people "stated" or "told" in court or in document (so, in the past) but the different choice of tenses allows to distinguish when the past is in respect to the reader, or to the person who is telling the story in that moment, in court or in the cited document.
This verbally inflected construction of speeh is normal in Italian but doesn't exist in English, and if everything is translated with the usual English verbal tenses, it becomes ambiguous or incoprehensible, or anyway some information expressed by the verb is lost.
Hence, the decision in principle to be always precise and try to express the actual meaning of tenses, which in the document are meant to be differentiated and precise in the consecutio tempora, even if their use sounds very strange in English.



No it exists very nicely in the English language thank you. Our Friend just doesn't know the difference between the perfect and the pluperfect tenses.

I had had a nice morning and I had a smile on my face

The use of the pluperfect allows you to understand that the morning had been concluded (in some part) and subsequently I had a smile on my face.

If you say - I had a nice morning and I had a smile on my face you lose the ability to distinguish the progression of events - they are simply two things that happened and one cannot determine the sequence of events.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Lex Rex wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.



Why not try to answer ONE of them?


I think we are leaping a little prematurely with moodstream. I like to think that ANYONE can come along here and discuss the case, and moodstream was polite and respectful, and honest about his/her position in the first post he made. I think until that changes he should be welcome. Ok, he did not chose to answer TM's questions, but how many new posters could do so straight off. I believe there are many levels of thinking you know this case, and some people's understanding is more narrow than others. I know I joked earlier about the complexity of the evidence, but in fact it is incredibly complex. So much detail.

And how many times have I read that people came here thinking AK and RS were innocent, but came away believing they were guilty after a very short time. What if mood is one of those?

I know I am seen as a bit of a soft touch, and I freely admit it. I just don't want the board to come across as too intimidating to post doubts and questions on. I don't see anything wrong with saying where you stand from the off either. At least it is honest, unlike Justinian, LondonJohn etc, who pretended to be open and unbiased.

Just some thoughts. Please feel free to tell me I am being totally STUPID... :D

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
On the highlighted "typo" addressed by moodstream,

Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house

there was an interesting problem for translators.
Translators and editors made the choice to leave all tenses as faithcul as possible as they are used in the original Italian. This leads naturally to verbal forms not used in US English, but the insertion of this tenses in the translation is necessary to preserve information and sometimes becomes essential to a to the understanding of the document to avoid ambiguities in extremly important parts.
Italian is a languege much more rich in verb tensens than English, and in Italian there are different kinds of past tense with logical functions. Italian derives from Latin, and uses the "consecutio tempora". In other words, it is essential in Italian to indicate "what" past time you are referring to. If you abolish the difference between pasts you loose important information and sometimes you make capital mistakes. It is the case of this document in which large portion of text are reporting indirectly what people "stated" or "told" in court or in document (so, in the past) but the different choice of tenses allows to distinguish when the past is in respect to the reader, or to the person who is telling the story in that moment, in court or in the cited document.
This verbally inflected construction of speeh is normal in Italian but doesn't exist in English, and if everything is translated with the usual English verbal tenses, it becomes ambiguous or incoprehensible, or anyway some information expressed by the verb is lost.
Hence, the decision in principle to be always precise and try to express the actual meaning of tenses, which in the document are meant to be differentiated and precise in the consecutio tempora, even if their use sounds very strange in English.


Yummi,

Would you agree that for this reason you can find lots of would'ves and could'ves in a translation?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Lex Rex wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.



Why not try to answer ONE of them?


I think we are leaping a little prematurely with moodstream. I like to think that ANYONE can come along here and discuss the case, and moodstream was polite and respectful, and honest about his/her position in the first post he made. I think until that changes he should be welcome. Ok, he did not chose to answer TM's questions, but how many new posters could do so straight off. I believe there are many levels of thinking you know this case, and some people's understanding is more narrow than others. I know I joked earlier about the complexity of the evidence, but in fact it is incredibly complex. So much detail.

And how many times have I read that people came here thinking AK and RS were innocent, but came away believing they were guilty after a very short time. What if mood is one of those?

I know I am seen as a bit of a soft touch, and I freely admit it. I just don't want the board to come across as too intimidating to post doubts and questions on. I don't see anything wrong with saying where you stand from the off either. At least it is honest, unlike Justinian, LondonJohn etc, who pretended to be open and unbiased.

Just some thoughts. Please feel free to tell me I am being totally STUPID... :D


I can tell you in just one word, Bard: DONNIE

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

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thank you, Yummi! I don't know Italian, but I can believe its tenses are very subtle and can just imagine the traps that lay in the translators' paths during the work. However, 'Battistelli had had to get out of the car...' does not sound in the least bit strange to me and it's alarming to think that anyone would find it peculiar. I often think that non-native speakers of English have a better grasp of its grammar than native speakers do. I don't know why - lack of teaching in schools, or not enough reading? I'm actually rubbish at explaining grammar, but I have never had trouble using it, possibly because I have always been addicted to reading and to scribbling. It's instinctive: I know when something's wrong by the sound, like a bum note in a piece of music, but I couldn't necessarily explain why. Before I got stuck into Anglo-Saxon at university, I had had [ ;) ]ten years of translating chunks of English into Latin and Latin into English. The former tied me up in knots, but there was always a way to express the sense of either language through translation. Greek, however...

Thinking of the Alfred the Great wrote some wise stuff about translations. I'm going to see if I can dig it out of my bookshelves.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The past perfect tense describes an action that took place in the past before another past action. This tense is formed by using had with the past participle of the verb.

For example:
By the time the hundredth Bruce Fisher recruit showed up at PMF, the normally patient moderator had had enough.

In this example, the verb is "to have" (infinitive form), so the past participle is "had".


Damn that was good. :lol: :lol:

I kind of suck when it comes to language arts (I found calculus much easier), but I do appreciate the lessons I've been getting since I started reading this board. And speaking of tense and language lessons:

Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

(( OT OT ))

As many here seem to be very interested in language and words, some may find this article interesting:



Slang dictionary of 17th-century London revealed

By Rob Hastings

Thursday, 12 August 2010

THE INDEPENDENT


(I really love the word 'arsworm' :) )

_________________
"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 bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong, (I have been on a few occasions - Donnie for example ) but I thought that Moodstream's post was reasonable. Why not just address the question posed? Does any new poster have to go through the twenty questions procedure?

I would have thought that a more polite response would have reflected better on this site. Perhaps an examination as to why Moodstream was so convinced of Knox's innocence could have followed. I appreciate that I may be in the minority here, but I felt the need to weigh in with my opinion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hah! There you go... a great explanation of the past perfect / pluperfect (that's what we called it in Latin) from SomeAlibi. Thank gawd for lawyerly brains. EDIT - whoops - and from Skeptical Bystander - thank gawd for translated brainz too! And thinking about what Jools wrote above, I'm much more likely to say "I'd had" rather than "I had had". I write the contracted version more often than not, but will drop into Proper non-contracted English when writing pompous snarks to the local council or letters to my nonagenarian and somewhat exacting grandfather.


Last edited by Viv on Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:03 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 Aug 13, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Bard. I agree with you in essence, however, why would someone come here, state that he/she is a confirmed innocenter, and then refuse to engage as to how or why that conclusion was reached? No attempt was made to answer even one question..just a snarky reply. It seems to me that we have a lot of trolls coming here, each one trying a different tactic, but the agenda is the same.

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
No it exists very nicely in the English language thank you. Our Friend just doesn't know the difference between the perfect and the pluperfect tenses.


I think it does exist, but he said "in the US" (?) . I don't know, my knowlege of US English is very limited.
Italian has four active past tenses. Parts of the text told by testimonies is in imperfective, a kind of past similar to the simple past but not present in English.
But what Jools says extendes the topic to the issue of conjunctive and conditional tense modes. Because the implication is in the use of past tenses when they are inflected in these modes (the issue of many of "could" and "would"). Spanish is the same. (but i think Spanish lacks of conditional mode, I now recall)


Last edited by Yummi on Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

fine wrote:
Popper wrote:
I cannot agree more with those who criticise unfaithful translations. There is nothing more dishonest. It is a play on the [partial] ignorance of the poor reader. This was to be expected however in a case where falsifications and partiality have been unprecedented, especially in US media and on TV.

On the current state of the case I would like to discuss 3 points:

1) SLANDER (calunnia) case vs Police: my view is that Amanda is likely to lose the case because (a) no witness will confirm the slaps allegedly given by the policewoman (b) VERY IMPORTANT - in the memorandum written after the arrest AK does not talk about them. If she had received slaps she would have written about them. In the memorandum she speaks a lot about RS not supporting her alibi which is the obvious explanation of her confession to be on crime scene (c) the slaps she spoke about in the trial - although AK minimized and did not press charges vs police - became something more in US media often fed by her parents. The slander is always to be put in the context of where/when it happens and who heard it.



* * *

______________

Popper,

Amanda did mention being hit by the cops in her hand-written declaration of November 6, 2007. You can read it here on this site, PMF > Board Index > In Their Own Words > Amanda Knox.

"I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

///



Thanks you are right I found it.
I had seen a partial version I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Hi. This is my first post. Full disclosure: I believe strongly in the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The reason I am writing however is first, to express my thanks for the tremendous job you folks did translating the motivation document. I mean that with complete sincerity. It is a tremendous aide to understanding the case, and from the remarks I have heard it is true to the record. Thank you very much for all of what must have been a lot of time, effort, and trouble.

I have started reading it. I am not changing my mind. But the gulf between those who believe in their guilt and the those who believe in their innocence has become so wide and deep, and I believe this will help bring the two sides back to normal, rational discourse. Hopefully we can leave behind the name calling and mis-characterizations of motive.

I am starting to read it. I think of questions about it from time to time. I have read up to p 60, and then most of the part on the DNA evidence. I am still working on what all that means.

One thing I would like to have clarified. On p. 25 the motivation report says: "Also present were an inspector and an officer of the Postal Police ..... who arrived a little before 1pm

On p. 27 the motivation report says "These are .. the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1 pm on Nov 2, 2007 {*typo alert - the report reads 2009*} of the postal police team ..."

But then, on the same page 27 the report reads " Twice, [Postal Police Inspector] Battistelli had {*typo alert - second had in sentence - maybe techincally correct, but at least in the U.S., not used*} to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen.

Anyone with any understanding of the case understands the difference in the implications between these two times.

My reading of this document says the postal police arrived shortly before 1pm. The postal police believed they arrived about 12:30. However, the court understands the 12:30 time to be incorrect. The correct time of arrival is shortly before 1pm.

Is this clarified later in the report? Am I correct in my understanding of this passage?

Thanks.



Moodstream,

Your thanks was well mannered and is phrased sincerely. I use my words precisely. Please forgive the suspicion here - we have been suffering from a tag-team approach from FOA people posting as non-partisan or just trolling the boards. It remains the case that you are welcome to post here whatever your belief although it inevitably leads, at best, to a stand off. JREF used to be a place where people could discuss the case in a neutral forum but it has become overrun by one side and has an imbalanced moderation so sadly that's no longer possible. If you are sensitive about excess passion on either side, I am sure you will agree that Kevin Lowe's avatar is a despicable one to use given that the innocent party in all of this was Meredith Kercher and her family. Would you agree? (I trust this is a question you can answer). It will tend to establish your bona fides (or not).

On the timing, your interpretation is as valid as anyone elses - take of it what you will.

On the pluperfect - see above.

On the report, I would strongly counsel you not to skip ahead. These reports are laid out so that the sequencing establishes the necessary facts in order to be able to interpret what comes later as well. Since you strongly believe in their innocence and you have never had access to the report before and you are from the US, it seems likely that you have learned about this case from "one side". You may freely believe in that side when you've finished, of course, but it is like all indoctrination; it will be hard for you to gain a proper perspective on this case unless you can critically distinguish these two things;

Evidence

and

Opinion

The case for the defence is very strong on opinion and is very short on evidence. Indoctrination instils opinion in people as if it were fact. This is not the case. Whatever you choose to believe I can tell you that EVERY real world jury which hears the case for the defence in cases which are anything other than open and shut is highly influenced by that 'reality' and thinks the best of defendants. It is also in the nature of most human beings. That is until they hear the other side of the coin. You must give yourself SPACE to truly 'hear' the other side of the coin and not say "Oh that's that thing that's not true because Chris / Bruce says....." mentally. Treat everyone as if they are telling the truth without edge and then see which is more likely. Until you have heard both sides (which is only possible by reading Massei ultimately) then you are imbalanced with the best will in the world.

Answer me one question (other than the above) and this only. Why do Amanda and Raffaele say they get up at 10 / 10.30 the next morning? We know (and there has never been any refutation that is other than tissue-paper thin on this);

Someone "wakes up" sometime before 5.30 and lies awake long enough to realise they are not going back to sleep
Someone gets out of bed <5.30am (if they were asleep)
Someone moves a mouse to knock off a screen-saver
Someone starts VLC and it crashes
Someone starts VLC again and it crashes
Someone switches to iTunes and starts it
Someone hits play on a specific track in iTunes
Someone plays music between 5.32 and approximately 6
Someone creates a playlist between that time.
Someone switches a mobile phone on shortly after 6am
Somoene receives an SMS on that phone
Raffaele's phone receives a phonecall after 9 where Raffaele's father talks to his son for over four minutes straight - 262 seconds
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Less than a minutes later the phone rings again and there is another call for 38 seconds.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Within seconds the phone rings again and it is Raffaele's father once more

It is the start of a day that will be unforgettable. How is it that Raffaele forgot all of that happening to him? How? That's your second question. I am still waiting for anyone who can explain it to me. I have never heard any answer to this of any substance whatsoever. If you can't find an answer here then your human experience should be telling you that there is something very wrong given the importance of that morning for a clean-up "if they did it". It tells you something. Do you see it?



Cheers SA

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No it exists very nicely in the English language thank you. Our Friend just doesn't know the difference between the perfect and the pluperfect tenses.


I think it does exist, but he said "in the US" (?) . I don't know, my knowlege of US English is very limited.
Italian has four active past tenses. Parts of the text told by testimonies is in imperfective, a kind of past similar to the simple past but not present in English.
But what Jools says extendes the topic to the issue of conjunctive and conditional tense modes. Because the implication is in the use of past tenses when they are inflected in these modes (the issue of many of "could" and "would"). Spanish is the same.



As a native speaker of US English, I can confirm that it does indeed exist in the US, insofar as a grammatical tense can be said to exist. It is used in the US may be more accurate.

As for the number of past tenses in English, there are four. Here is a link to all verb tenses in English, in table form.

http://tinyurl.com/52lab4

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I would agree with a little more time to evaluate and trust before the nth degree on new posters, even if the hit-rate is disappointingly monotonous on the not-bona-fide side. I see nothing in Moodstream as yet that could not be.

I couldn't have done a Machine 20 questions 7 months ago and given I am obstreperous obnoxious git I probably would have said "back off man". You *very* nearly lost me in the first couple of weeks so lets keep that trusting heart to the fore eh?

And no "damn if only we had tried harder, a little longer" is *not* a good thought to be having right now :P

_________________
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 Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong, (I have been on a few occasions - Donnie for example ) but I thought that Moodstream's post was reasonable. Why not just address the question posed? Does any new poster have to go through the twenty questions procedure?

I would have thought that a more polite response would have reflected better on this site. Perhaps an examination as to why Moodstream was so convinced of Knox's innocence could have followed. I appreciate that I may be in the minority here, but I felt the need to weigh in with my opinion.


Bolint swiftly offered a reasoned response, and there were more - however, for a "newbie" moodstream was very quick to give the proverbial middle finger to The Machine which is a very strong indicator that someone is operating under false pretenses.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
No it exists very nicely in the English language thank you. Our Friend just doesn't know the difference between the perfect and the pluperfect tenses.


[/b]I think it does exist, but he said "in the US" (?) . I don't know, my knowlege of US English is very limited.
Italian has four active past tenses. Parts of the text told by testimonies is in imperfective, a kind of past similar to the simple past but not present in English.[/b]
But what Jools says extendes the topic to the issue of conjunctive and conditional tense modes. Because the implication is in the use of past tenses when they are inflected in these modes (the issue of many of "could" and "would"). Spanish is the same.



It was decided upon that British-English would be the spelling/grammar format for the Report, since that is the language/spelling format of Meredith and her family and that is who the report is dedicated to.

So, if Moodstream thinks something is wrong in terms of American spelling/grammar, well that doesn't matter since that wasn't the format used. If it's correct in British English, then it's correct. If not, then it's a typo or a misspelling.

But also as Yummi has said, the 'style' we tried to keep as reflecting the Italian, or more precisely, the Italian legal style of language that Massei uses (his voice) as much as possible.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong, (I have been on a few occasions - Donnie for example ) but I thought that Moodstream's post was reasonable. Why not just address the question posed? Does any new poster have to go through the twenty questions procedure?

I would have thought that a more polite response would have reflected better on this site. Perhaps an examination as to why Moodstream was so convinced of Knox's innocence could have followed. I appreciate that I may be in the minority here, but I felt the need to weigh in with my opinion.



For a new and seemingly polite poster, moodstream's reply to The Machine's standard drill was not acceptable. It was hostile, not polite. So I see a seemingly polite début followed by immediate testiness.

And that is a huge red flag. How about this? Moodstream can apologize for that and then do as I suggest in terms of reading our rules very carefully before posting.

It is fine to weigh in each time Michael or I make this kind of call with regard to someone. I would only note in passing that we have a pretty good track record. Had certain people (ahem) not insisted that Donnie had to be coddled and given a chance, he would have been weeded out much sooner. Just sayin'. Not that Donnie made much of a dent, mind you. But as I noted yesterday, il ne faut pas prendre les gens pour des cons (Don't take people for fools is a polite way of putting that) and that is just what Donnie did to y'all for several months.

I have some advice for new posters who hold a "different" viewpoint but who come in good faith (i.e., not sent over by Bruce and co.): it doesn't hurt to send a PM to one or both moderators when you sign up, just to say hi and assure us that you have read our rules and promise to abide by them. And it sure doesn't hurt to refrain from snarky comments in reply to "standard testing" from our Machine that should come as no surprise by now.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

We started it first :P :P :P :P and the UK had, had had, has had, will have had and will be having had had a perfectly good use of the pluperfect for several hundred years, "fanks darlin'". Just because it might have been taken out of use in certain people's experience, personally or in micro-geography does not mean that is right if it is use back at HQ when translating for a multi-english-speaking-nations audience!

And apart from that, Skep has clarified it is in use in the US and if you argue with Skep about language it is highly probably that you are attempting to start an arse kicking competition with a centipede.

p.s. I'M *KIDDING* ABOUT THE MOTHERLAND THING. WHY YEW GUYS I OUGHTA....

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
bilko wrote:
I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong, (I have been on a few occasions - Donnie for example ) but I thought that Moodstream's post was reasonable. Why not just address the question posed? Does any new poster have to go through the twenty questions procedure?

I would have thought that a more polite response would have reflected better on this site. Perhaps an examination as to why Moodstream was so convinced of Knox's innocence could have followed. I appreciate that I may be in the minority here, but I felt the need to weigh in with my opinion.


Bolint swiftly offered a reasoned response, and there were more - however, for a "newbie" moodstream was very quick to give the proverbial middle finger to The Machine which is a very strong indicator that someone is operating under false pretenses.



And also to note that he/she already knew all about The Machine. I know that TM has sparred with many of you in the past and that he can be rather blunt at times. But he has more than earned his stripes on this board. I don't like to be put in a position to takes sides or defend people, and I don't always agree with TM. But he has earned my deep respect and gratitude. I won't allow newcomers to join the board which I have the privilege to co-moderate and immediately tell TM to stick it. Sorry. Not happening. And I resent brand new posters who put me and Michael in this position.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
We started it first :P :P :P :P and the UK had, had had, has had, will have had and will be having had had a perfectly good use of the pluperfect for several hundred years, fanks darlin'. Just because it might have been taken out of use in certain people's experience, personally or in micro-geography does not mean that is right if it is use back at HQ when translating for a multi-english speaking nation audience!

And apart from that, Skep has clarified it is in use in the US and if you argue with Skep about language it is highly probably that you are attempting to start an arse kicking competition with a centipede.

p.s. I'M *KIDDING* ABOUT THE MOTHERLAND THING. WHY YEW GUYS I OUGHTA....



In the US, we would call it an ASS kicking contest. Be that as it may, I am known in these parts as the Grammar Nazi, a title I wear with pride.:)

_________________
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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi, Bard. I agree with you in essence, however, why would someone come here, state that he/she is a confirmed innocenter, and then refuse to engage as to how or why that conclusion was reached? No attempt was made to answer even one question..just a snarky reply. It seems to me that we have a lot of trolls coming here, each one trying a different tactic, but the agenda is the same.


Well, it's nice that they at least thanked us for providing the English translation of the report and also tried to be helpful by indicating possible errors and we do encourage people, from all sides of the debate, to do that. The more that do, the sooner we'll have a 'perfect' report, which is our goal. I acknowledge and appreciate that contribution. They also said hi, were polite and were honest about their position from the get go.

For my part, both as poster and Moderator, I won't prejudge Moodstream on the basis of their opinion or stance but on their future actions, debate and behaviour. I believe in giving everyone a chance. I won't treat someone as a troll until and unless they show themselves to be. We'll see how it goes.

_________________
"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 bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Some Alibi: "Your thanks was well mannered and is phrased sincerely."
Sounds reasonable, to me.

"I use my words precisely." You certainly do.

Fly By Night: "Bolint swiftly offered a reasoned response," I agree.

"moodstream was very quick to give the proverbial middle finger to The Machine which is a very strong indicator that someone is operating under false pretenses."
I disagree. I would have preferred to have seen the response to Bolint, before putting a newbie under the grill.

Having said this, I can certainly see signs of FOAKers have been submitting other sites with sustained attacks aimed at swamping any reasonable discussion of the case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

So... Amanda's new story has 'static' characters. This is a new term to me, not having written short stories before but I do find static character has a definition:

Static characters are minor characters in a work of fiction who do not undergo substantial change or growth in the course of a story. Also referred to as "two-dimensional characters" or "flat characters," they play a supporting role to the main character, who as a rule should be round, or complex.


Now, she tells us these new 'static' characters are quirky as well...

Where have we heard quirky before?....

So could this be another 'Tale of Amanda' but the names have been changed to protect the guilty?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
We started it first :P :P :P :P and the UK had, had had, has had, will have had and will be having had had a perfectly good use of the pluperfect for several hundred years, fanks darlin'. Just because it might have been taken out of use in certain people's experience, personally or in micro-geography does not mean that is right if it is use back at HQ when translating for a multi-english speaking nation audience!

And apart from that, Skep has clarified it is in use in the US and if you argue with Skep about language it is highly probably that you are attempting to start an arse kicking competition with a centipede.

p.s. I'M *KIDDING* ABOUT THE MOTHERLAND THING. WHY YEW GUYS I OUGHTA....



In the US, we would call it an ASS kicking contest. Be that as it may, I am known in these parts as the Grammar Nazi, a title I wear with pride.:)



I've always liked donkeys but... if you wish to be that indeterminate about it, I wish either your posterior or Eeyore a soft cushion when it's all over.

:P

To use a popular idiom; I am *so* hiding after that one :D

_________________
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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Bilko wrote:
Having said this, I can certainly see signs of FOAKers have been submitting other sites with sustained attacks aimed at swamping any reasonable discussion of the case.


That's been their SOP for a very long time.

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
Some Alibi: "Your thanks was well mannered and is phrased sincerely."
Sounds reasonable, to me.

"I use my words precisely." You certainly do.

Fly By Night: "Bolint swiftly offered a reasoned response," I agree.

"moodstream was very quick to give the proverbial middle finger to The Machine which is a very strong indicator that someone is operating under false pretenses."
I disagree. I would have preferred to have seen the response to Bolint, before putting a newbie under the grill.

Having said this, I can certainly see signs of FOAKers have been submitting other sites with sustained attacks aimed at swamping any reasonable discussion of the case.



Moodstream's reply was "I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you" . That is plainly very rude. There were a hundred other ways of answering that one doesn't want to answer a list of questions.

_________________
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 bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I hadn't spotted Bard's post. Just to say that thanks. You managed to say what I was thinking, but unable to express. I would also like to apologise for any anti-bunny remarks that I may have made in the past.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Sorry, Machine, I didn't join this site to play 20 questions with you. You're not the troll at the foot of the bridge. I would like to add with all due respect, but your reputation precedes you.



Let me suggest a rewrite of this second post: Machine, I have already seen your questions and will do my best to answer them. I won't be able to do that all at once, however, and ask for your patience as I get situated here. Thanks in advance for your patience.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fair points made re mood, and (ahem) donnie. And, I might add, it is seldom me that answers these posters, as I don't feel confident enough in my recall of evidence, so it is not me that is having my time wasted! BUT, but, but...I just always think of the truly genuine person who might be put off by the response, that's all, maybe someone who has looked at the report and come to the site as a result of it? Maybe that is the reason for the higher number of new people? Who knows. Agree, judgments have seldom been wrong in the past. But I do remember the hard time SA got too, and look where he ended up! It's not for the faint-hearted, that's for sure!

Alors, I will always weigh in, but it is not meant as a criticism of anyone's judgment, just an alternative viewpoint.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael: "That's been their SOP for a very long time."

I know. I have been out of touch recently and not following things too closely. However, it seems that they have been particularly aggressive recently.
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 Aug 13, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
bilko wrote:
I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong, (I have been on a few occasions - Donnie for example ) but I thought that Moodstream's post was reasonable. Why not just address the question posed? Does any new poster have to go through the twenty questions procedure?

I would have thought that a more polite response would have reflected better on this site. Perhaps an examination as to why Moodstream was so convinced of Knox's innocence could have followed. I appreciate that I may be in the minority here, but I felt the need to weigh in with my opinion.


Bolint swiftly offered a reasoned response, and there were more - however, for a "newbie" moodstream was very quick to give the proverbial middle finger to The Machine which is a very strong indicator that someone is operating under false pretenses.



And also to note that he/she already knew all about The Machine. I know that TM has sparred with many of you in the past and that he can be rather blunt at times. But he has more than earned his stripes on this board. I don't like to be put in a position to takes sides or defend people, and I don't always agree with TM. But he has earned my deep respect and gratitude. I won't allow newcomers to join the board which I have the privilege to co-moderate and immediately tell TM to stick it. Sorry. Not happening. And I resent brand new posters who put me and Michael in this position.


Well yes, reading between the lines it's clear that while they may be new to this board (at least under that nic ;) ), they aren't new to the case.

As for TM, he's earned a great deal of respect from many. The other side hate him of course, for exactly the same reason we respect him :)

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The new poster intro is an interesting one actually. Some people just arrive and fit in like they have been here for years. Others just always seem to get it wrong. The best example of this was LondonJohn. Now THAT was an intro...!

Agree on the rewording Skep, it is how I would have responded.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
(( OT OT ))

As many here seem to be very interested in language and words, some may find this article interesting:



Slang dictionary of 17th-century London revealed

By Rob Hastings

Thursday, 12 August 2010

THE INDEPENDENT


(I really love the word 'arsworm' :) )


I found 'arsworm' very amusing as well. But I stumbled on this:

Quote:
Breeches were known as "farting-crackers"


What are 'breeches'?
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
The new poster intro is an interesting one actually. Some people just arrive and fit in like they have been here for years. Others just always seem to get it wrong. The best example of this was LondonJohn. Now THAT was an intro...!

Agree on the rewording Skep, it is how I would have responded.



I particularly enjoyed the 'dude' who had to go iron his shirts.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy.. I laugh everytime I see your avatar. Biz must be slow for The Donald. He is now weighing in on the plane incident.

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Re: Anne Bremner

Thank you, Skep, for your post on Ms. Bremner. I too do not wish to discuss her alleged drinking problems or DUI problems. I don't see the relevance to the Meredith case. This is just my own personal feeling. Personally, I have no interest in Ms. Bremner's problems except to the extent that I hope she resolves them and gets help, if she needs it.


Exactly.


Well Said, and I agree to the point that personal failings do not interest me that much either.

However, as you seem to question, I see a *very* direct relevance to the Merideth case.

Ms Bremner has used every bit of the media pretty talking head card that she possibly could, in addition to being an embryonic force in the entire FOA fiasco to further the Public Relations blitz designed to circumvent the Italian Legal system.
All this to help a convicted murderess who happens to have attracted some other higher ups in the home town they share.
In so doing, she incessantly publicly denigrated, excoriated and insulted the Italian legal system...and everyone in it

Now, she uses every ounce of her personal IOU's and lawyer/judge good old boy string pulling to try and frustrate her own Seattle legal system and "smooth over" some long simmering significant public endangering personal deficiencies .

Briefly, she was arrested June 2-3 in what the arresting officer described as a very cut and dried straightforward DUI.
She *later* gave the stupidest 'dog ate homework' excuse imaginable..absolutely absurd and bizzare.
DUI is an offense that apparently she has significant previous personal acquaintance with.
From June 2 thru August 13, she has used *and abused* every legal technicality intended to protect the truly innocent.
As an understatement, she has made an absolute mockery of her Seattle justice system.

Numerous injunctions, stays, BS, etc so that even arrest documents as well as video are still not released to the public, as they would have been long ago for a common Joe Blow beer drinker.
The Sheriff, when directly asked recently why after over 2 months no charges have even been filed yet....*refused to reply"

PS: Skep above references an article saying Judge decides Sheriff can release report today:
*It will not be released*
Guess what; as of noon, 13 Aug... Bremner filed yet another legalese nit pick injunction to again prevent any public access

Bottom line:
The relevance is that a high profile Attorney who spent years whining about the deficiencies of Italian Law when that suited her purpose, now when she faces just punishment uses "questionable at best" legal maneuvers to totally corrupt the personnel and procedures of her own local law enfocement to suit her own purpose.
Therefore, Emerald,I see a very direct relevance, but am open to 'enlightenment from wiser heads here.



I agree with most of what you have expressed here. For the reasons I gave initially, I am reluctant to discuss Anne Bremner's current troubles in the context of the Perugia case. The main reasons have to do with information (and gossip) I may be privy to, people we know in common and my personal acquaintance with the tragedy of what can happen when someone drives under the influence, not to mention the ravages caused by untreated alcoholism (if this happens to be the case). For all these reasons, I cannot be objective. I have very strong feelings about drunk driving and alcoholism but I also know that behind these words lie human beings and human sorrows. If Bremner has a problem, I sincerely hope she gets treatment; if the legal profession and law enforcement in my region are aware of the problem, then they need to find a way to do the right thing before something bad happens.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
The Bard wrote:
The new poster intro is an interesting one actually. Some people just arrive and fit in like they have been here for years. Others just always seem to get it wrong. The best example of this was LondonJohn. Now THAT was an intro...!

Agree on the rewording Skep, it is how I would have responded.



I particularly enjoyed the 'dude' who had to go iron his shirts.


Yes, we've had some cracking trolls - there was even a 'troll of the week' award at one point I seem to recall. I remember the shirt one too!!! Didn't that turn out to be someone quite close to the family?

OT, just remembered it was NOT the troll that trip trapped over the bridge, but the Billy Goats Gruff. I am getting my fairy-tales confused.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
What are 'breeches'?


That's the British English spelling for them. Tight trousers, usually ending just around the knee, most popular in the 18th century. The name for them stuck and is still in use as a vernacular today.

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
bilko wrote:
I am prepared to admit that I may be wrong, (I have been on a few occasions - Donnie for example ) but I thought that Moodstream's post was reasonable. Why not just address the question posed? Does any new poster have to go through the twenty questions procedure?

I would have thought that a more polite response would have reflected better on this site. Perhaps an examination as to why Moodstream was so convinced of Knox's innocence could have followed. I appreciate that I may be in the minority here, but I felt the need to weigh in with my opinion.


Bolint swiftly offered a reasoned response, and there were more - however, for a "newbie" moodstream was very quick to give the proverbial middle finger to The Machine which is a very strong indicator that someone is operating under false pretenses.



And also to note that he/she already knew all about The Machine. I know that TM has sparred with many of you in the past and that he can be rather blunt at times. But he has more than earned his stripes on this board. I don't like to be put in a position to takes sides or defend people, and I don't always agree with TM. But he has earned my deep respect and gratitude. I won't allow newcomers to join the board which I have the privilege to co-moderate and immediately tell TM to stick it. Sorry. Not happening. And I resent brand new posters who put me and Michael in this position.


Well yes, reading between the lines it's clear that while they may be new to this board (at least under that nic ;) ), they aren't new to the case.

As for TM, he's earned a great deal of respect from many. The other side hate him of course, for exactly the same reason we respect him :)

And I would like to add that the "your reputation precedes you" always directed at The Machine and Harry Rag is Bruce Fisher and the rest of the wannabe foakers motto.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
Michael: "That's been their SOP for a very long time."

I know. I have been out of touch recently and not following things too closely. However, it seems that they have been particularly aggressive recently.



What I like best about you Bilko is that totally un-politically correct ciggie hanging outta ya' mouth!

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

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Itchy.. I laugh everytime I see your avatar. Biz must be slow for The Donald. He is now weighing in on the plane incident.


Thanks cape. I laugh at it too. The Donald's doo is almost as amusing as Phil Spector's...

Attachment:
Phil-Spector-hair.jpg


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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It's amazing, and not a little scary :) how some men end up looking like not very attractive older women. Preston is well on his way, too.

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
Michael: "That's been their SOP for a very long time."

I know. I have been out of touch recently and not following things too closely. However, it seems that they have been particularly aggressive recently.



Three reasons for that:

1) The emergence of Bruce Fisher and Chris H, with their sites and the former running around spamming everywhere to get people to come to his site.

2) The impending release of the English version of the report.

3) The release of the appeals, giving Team Knox who up to now have been on the losing side, a morale booster since they feel they now have something to hit back with.

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OMG!! Itchy......The jacket Phil is wearing is so shabby, (not chic) and, well, grimy. It may have happened when he stuck his finger in the electric socket, though.......

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

But on the other hand, addressing a newcomer with 20 questions in one post is quite openly a provocation.
I think we cannot make an issue of the exchange between moodstream and The Machine. They already know each other. Moodstream knows The Machine and doesn't want to have a dialogue with him. On the other hand we also can say we know something of moodstream, if we just take time to research a bit in his posts on other blogs. We already know what he thinks and we have matterial to say it is possible to understand a bit of the kind of poster moodstream is, and draw a picture of his ideology, personality and intellectual stature. I don't think there is something to say about his finger to The Machine. Moodstream will chose his interlocutors if he is interested in discussing with somebody, and only those interested in discussing with moodstream will take the time to engage him.
About my opinion, I think moodstream is a kind of poster who reveals topical aspects his personality and mentality gradually. At first open minded and polite, the "fundamentals" of his thought will be clear only later through the unfolding of his arguments.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Itchy.. I laugh everytime I see your avatar. Biz must be slow for The Donald. He is now weighing in on the plane incident.


Thanks cape. I laugh at it too. The Donald's doo is almost as amusing as Phil Spector's...

Attachment:
Phil-Spector-hair.jpg


Is he copying Anne B's style? Looks exactly like her!
eek-)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
But on the other hand, addressing a newcomer with 20 questions in one post is quite openly a provocation.
I think we cannot make an issue of the exchange between moodstream and The Machine. They already know each other. Moodstream knows The Machine and doesn't want to have a dialogue with him. On the other hand we also can say we know something of moodstream, if we just take time to research a bit in his posts on other blogs. We already know what he thinks and we have matterial to say it is possible to understand a bit of the kind of poster moodstream is, and draw a picture of his ideology, personality and intellectual stature. I don't think there is something to say about his finger to The Machine. Moodstream will chose his interlocutors if he is interested in discussing with somebody, and only those interested in discussing with moodstream will take the time to engage him.
About my opinion, I think moodstream is a kind of poster who reveals topical aspects his personality and mentality gradually. At first open minded and polite, the "fundamentals" of his thought will be clear only later through the unfolding of his arguments.


As usual, your cool, almost anthropological approach makes a lot of sense. I especially like your concluding analysis. Only time will tell.

_________________
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 Aug 13, 2010 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Mamma Mia :) Jools: I must say, I wouldn't mind having a peek at the arrest photo. Sorry, back to PMF topic.....

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I want to add my compliments to SomeAlibi's for his post on Sollecito's computer activity is excellent, polite, documented and precisely written, and clearly outlines the boundaries of its topic. I would love to see moodsream answering to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Itchy.. I laugh everytime I see your avatar. Biz must be slow for The Donald. He is now weighing in on the plane incident.


Thanks cape. I laugh at it too. The Donald's doo is almost as amusing as Phil Spector's...



itchy's avatar reminds me of the saying "Lie like a hairy egg"...


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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
It is the case of this document in which large portion of text are reporting indirectly what people "stated" or "told" in court or in document (so, in the past) but the different choice of tenses allows to distinguish when the past is in respect to the reader, or to the person who is telling the story in that moment, in court or in the cited document.
This verbally inflected construction of speeh is normal in Italian but doesn't exist in English, and if everything is translated with the usual English verbal tenses, it becomes ambiguous or incoprehensible, or anyway some information expressed by the verb is lost.
Hence, the decision in principle to be always precise and try to express the actual meaning of tenses, which in the document are meant to be differentiated and precise in the consecutio tempora, even if their use sounds very strange in English.


Now, wait a minute! Of course Yummi may be right in general, but I wouldn't say that the use of "had had" in English to reflect the recounting or recalling of past events is in any way strange or unusual. That poster who said it wasn't normal has a very superficial grasp of English. I mean, you have to use that tense just to put normal past tense sentences into recalled past tense.

SomeAlibi gave an example of "had had" in "I had had a nice morning and I had a smile on my face". That's typical of the fact that one is "recalling and recounting" some past event. It could be the beginning of a book.

It might be more familiar to Americans in the contracted form:
"She'd had car trouble several times, so she knew the number of the garage by heart."

Anyway, you simply have to use it when putting a normal past tense event into recounted form (this is exactly what is happening in the Massei report):

Normal past tense:

"When the teacher asked the question, the student wanted to answer, but he had to keep silent as he had been told."

But in recalling the past event:

"He remembered how it had been.
When the teacher had asked the question, the student had wanted to answer, but he had had to keep silent as he had been told."

Sorry for the lecture! But English is so beautiful and rich.


Last edited by thoughtful on Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fanciful float as I enter the twighlight zone; I had been focusing on the duration of the calls but not how little time there was *between* them. When you consider how fast the 2nd and 3rd phonecalls followed the 1st and 2nd disconnects / terminations of the phonecalls;

Raffaele's phone receives a phonecall after 9 where Raffaele's father talks to his son for over four minutes straight - 262 seconds
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
*Less than a minute* later the phone rings again and there is another call for 38 seconds.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
*Within seconds* the phone rings again and it is Raffaele's father once more


Then I can see possible scenarios;

Cut of transmission because Raffaele's father is calling him from a car? Any evidence? Would have to be two tunnels in a row since you wouldn't go through *two* cell changeovers that quickly.

Or a really forgetful father rings once for over four minutes but then forgets to add something. And then forgets to add something *again*?

Can't be consecutive calls to check he is getting out of bed because they follow *too fast* in a matter of less than a minute / seconds.

OR (fancying thought), it's a pattern of cut-offs and quick re-commencements that is entirely consistent with an *argument* isn't it...

What DID Doc Sollecito's statements say about that morning's calls in relation to the *cut-out and restarts, not once but twice*? Anyone know?

_________________
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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Quote:
And no "damn if only we had tried harder, a little longer" is *not* a good thought to be having right now!


What would we do without you, you old ba....rista ?!
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Therefore, Emerald,I see a very direct relevance, but am open to 'enlightenment from wiser heads here.

I think you meant me, Earthling.

I understand what you're saying. Her actions in this case have been execreble. I guess I just meant that this issue doesn't interest me. Just my personal feeling. I probably should have kept my mouth shut. :? is)
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Or a really forgetful father rings once for over four minutes but then forgets to add something. And then forgets to add something *again*?


Or Raffaele realizes the battery of his phone is over, he forgot to charge it because he had a very busy night.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
Quote:
Grammar Nazi, a title I wear with pride.


Oo Skep, no! That's a bit scary URGH. Visions of Amanda laughing behind her machine gun (not to mention Dave Strange, another one who takes the name of the Nazi in vain). How about changing that to "the Grammar Guru" !
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 10 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


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

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

  

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


29,722,128 Views