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 1:04 pm
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:04 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

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. ....SNIPPPP .....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.


Understand your position completely, and actually greatly admire you for taking that stance.

My position, and apparently the huge majority of comments to Seattle PI articles, is boiling outrage when any prominent personality uses high priced lengthy legal slick stalling tactics, maneuverings, and in this case some very questionable 'cronyism' to get some very special treatment under the legal system.
For many such 'personalities', this results in no, or greatly reduced charges.

As I noted, I feel Ms Bremner is Fair Game and very relevant here, because for literally *years* she used and abused her very visible media sweetheart pedestal to brutally slime the legal system of Italy, and most damning, to use her visibility (and PR Firm connections) to excoriate Prosecutor Mignini both as a person, and as a professional.

Mr Mignini's offense never endangered other driver's, their occupant's or pedestrian lives.
He never was accused of the Seattle type Cronyism and abuse of her 'good old boy' position legal status that is so obvious in the failure to allow Public assess as well as the unbelievable delay in bringing charges after arrest.

Mr Mignini's only relation to Bremner is he happened to Prosecute (and convict) a murderess who happened to catch the fancy of the same Seattle big wigs that Bremner now uses to abort justice.

Bremner uses a sickening double standard for respecting the very legal profession her Seattle Law School degree gained her entry to.

That is despicable, and that is why I and apparently so many others are outraged

Attached is picture (not recent and obviously *very* heavily airbrushed and photoshopped) that Bremner posted on the Internet *herself* to advertise


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


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is probably the earliest statement in English as to why good translations really matter. I'm posting it in honour of PMF's own 'learned interpreters'. The version below is a paraphrase by Mike Swanton in Anglo-Saxon Prose (I pig-headedly refuse to describe modern English renderings of Anglo-Saxon as 'translations', since as far as I'm concerned it's still recognisably my own language, but I know there are good arguments to the contrary!)

King Alfred wrote a preface to his own translation of Pope Gregory's Pastoral Care, and sent it in the form of a letter - together with the translation and a valuable book-marker - to Bishop Waerferth of Worcester in the 890s. In it, he describes how the Viking raids have 'ravaged and burnt' the books in church and monastic libraries. He laments that, even before those raids, most people in holy orders couldn't understand the texts, since they had lost any knowledge of foreign languages. He continues:

... I wondered greatly at those good wise men who formerly existed throughout the English people and had fully studied all those books, that they did not wish to translate any part of them into their own language. But then I immediately answered myself and said: 'They did not imagine that men should ever become so careless and learning so decayed; they refrained from it by intention and hoped that there would be the greater knowledge in this land the more languages we knew.'

Then I remembered how the law was first found in the Hebrew language, and afterwards, when the Greeks learned it, they translated it all into their own language, and all the other books as well. And afterwards in the same way the Romans, when they had learned them, they translated them all into their own language through learned interpreters... Therefore it seems better to me, if it seems so to you, that we should translate certain books which are most necessary for all men to know, into the language that we can all understand, and also arrange it... so that all the youth of free men now among the English people, who have the means to be able to devote themselves to it, may be set to study for as long as they are of no other use, until the time they are able to read English writing well; afterwards one may teach further in the Latin language those whom one wishes ... to promote to holy orders.

Then when I remembered how the knowledge of Latin had previously decayed through the English people, and yet many could read English writing, I began amidst other various and manifold cares of this kingdom to translate into English the book which is called
Pastoralis in Latin and 'Shepherd's Book' in English... When I had learned it, I translated it into English as I understood it and as I could interpret it most intelligibly**; and I will send one to every bishopric in my kingdom; and in each there will be a book-marker worth fifty mancuses. And in the name of God I command that no one remove the book-marker from the book, nor the book from the minster...

I have always liked the suggestion that the head of one of Alfred's book-markers has survived, and is this gorgeous little object in the Ashmolean Museum.

Long before any damfool thought it right and proper to murder people who dared to translate the Bible into their own languages, Alfred's educational reforms led to an Anglo-Saxon Bible, written in the 990s. Aelfric was the translator, and his preface includes a paragraph that the translators here will recognise, I think:

Now the aforesaid book on many levels is so closely packed with very deep and holy meanings... that we dare write no more in English than the Latin has, nor change the word order, except where it is proved that Latin and English do not have the same order of words: always we should translate to show the Latin in English, after arranging it so that the English has the same sense; otherwise it will be very confusing to read, as the Latin in no way is.

He finishes with a justifiably nervous plea for accurate copying, and a final warning that might benefit the unappealing summary-mongers of this earth:

I now urge in God's name, that whoever will rewrite this book, that he copy it out correctly, since I have no control; and if he bring error through untrue writings then it will be his fault, not mine. Much evil does the bad writer, if he will not correct his writings.


**The BBC is running a Norman season at the moment. I am not a fan of those last and most successful land-grabbing big-boss totalitarian one-step-removed-from-Norse bandits. William the Conq (unlike King Harold) could not read or write in any language at all. Which adds a frisson of family disharmony to his scholarly son Henry's reported remark that "an illiterate king is a crowned ass".

ps - arsworm is FAB. Cheers Michael - I'll be after that book this weekend! You might like this Regency lexicon too.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Just ti point out a little hypocrisy from Team Knox over at the JREF (not in short supply I know), but since there was recent discussion here on just this, I thought it needed highlighting (emboldened part by me):

Mary H wrote:
Justinian, according to many nightmares I've had over the years, my response would be very much like yours -- hoarse to the point of silence!

Meredith knew Rudy. If she had time to react to seeing him unexpectedly in her house, her reaction would probably have been like your girlfriend's -- "You scared me." I said the same thing to a neighbor who once came in my back door without knocking.

The scenario Charlie describes, of Rudy aggressively grabbing Meredith from behind and pushing her face into the floor, is more likely. And, as other poster have pointed out, if Meredith had the time or phsyical capacity to scream, no one would have heard her.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=4386


I see, we can state that Meredith 'knew' Rudy, but when it comes to Amanda we can insist she didn't know Rudy...even though she knew him better then Meredith, having met him more times (and Amanda was after all the one he fancied). But saying Meredith 'Knew' Rudy, when it suits our purposes is just dandy.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Viv wrote:
ps - arsworm is FAB. Cheers Michael - I'll be after that book this weekend! You might like this Regency lexicon too.


Hi Viv and thanks. I love old words. In fact, it's a shame that some have fallen out of fashion or have been totally forgotten, as some of them are excellent. I also find the origins of words quite fascinating.


Viv wrote:
**The BBC is running a Norman season at the moment. I am not a fan of those last and most successful land-grabbing big-boss totalitarian one-step-removed-from-Norse bandits. William the Conq (unlike King Harold) could not read or write in any language at all. Which adds a frisson of family disharmony to his scholarly son Henry's reported remark that "an illiterate king is a crowned ass".


I feel exactly the same way :)

I very much recommend reading: 1066, The Year of the Three Battles, by Frank McLynn.

You'll feel even worse about it after reading that.

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


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I just want to be clear, when I describe opinions on language issues, native languages as systems are all equal in complexity and richness. They form different systems and carry in some way the background of human societies and way of life, but there are no "more simple" or more complex languages, nor poor or rich languages. This as long as we speak about "language" as a system of daily communication.
The only observations I made was that different languages also carry with them different ways of organizing a text and expressing concepts. So when it comes to translate an Italian text for example in another language, you have also to tackle the fact that the structure of "thinking", of organizing concepts in written sentences, is functional to the properties of one specific language, and could be difficult to express the same thoughts, logical concepts, in the same logical order, in a language which has different properties. Among the very simple comparison, Italian and English as languages tend to express differences from each other in the way they are used to build phrases and texts, one difference for example is English phrases are strongly dependent from the order of words, the subject is higlighted and the verb must be found in a rigid position; while in Italian the order of words in phrases can be relatively free, the position of the verb is higly movable, while the subject in most cases is absent, implicit. If we consider English as a language with a "rigid" position of main verb compared to romance languages, French and German are someway between English and Italian, while Spanish is very close to Italian. Latin and Greek are the languages with the most mobile verb and most free word orders. A detail, like the word movement, is a property that can go unnoticed as long as you don't have to translate an authentic piece of writing for which you must - as you have to translate it into English - think to an "English" word order. You have to think at a structure of the sentence, must look for an order of structure into it and express it, which an Italian speaker wouldn't think about. When you have long periods like in the sentencing report you see some of this coloured effects, like gerundiums that you don't know how to link, disappeared subjects, periphrasis to replaceme the effect of word order. Simple parametres of languages - like word order, impliit subject - contribute to create different texts. Considering this the work done with this translation is absolutely excellent, albeit I am not able to evaluate its being or not in a correct English, I admire the faithful pattern it is able to render, the palpable sense of respect for the original it is able to express, and I find it fascinating.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Syint7 wrote:
As I noted, I feel Ms Bremner is Fair Game and very relevant here, because for literally *years* she used and abused her very visible media sweetheart pedestal to brutally slime the legal system of Italy, and most damning, to use her visibility (and PR Firm connections) to excoriate Prosecutor Mignini both as a person, and as a professional.


I also feel it DOES have relevance to this case, simply because Bremner's tale in her defence reeks of exactly the same type of excuses born of ridiculous intellectual gymnastics that we have seen propagated on Amanda's behalf. Indeed, anyone new to the case who needs a quick introduction to the FOA and understand them completely within ten minutes need only be shown Bremner's story and tactics in order to get out of being charged for drink driving and to try and con the public. The FOA have been taking the same approach to win their cause with regularity from the beginning.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is so interesting, Yummi. I have to say, an Italian learning english can cause some big huh? moments. My Italian boyfriend would ask me if I'm angry. No, I'd say. Him: You want something to heat? I'd reply. umm, no. It took a while to fig out, he was asking me if I was Hungry, and did I want something to eat. Umm, those are the ONLY things I am willing to repeat :)

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Didn't post any Zeppelin nor any Robin Trower but how about a Friday tune . . .

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Viv wrote:
ps - arsworm is FAB. Cheers Michael - I'll be after that book this weekend! You might like this Regency lexicon too.


Hi Viv and thanks. I love old words. In fact, it's a shame that some have fallen out of fashion or have been totally forgotten, as some of them are excellent. I also find the origins of words quite fascinating.


Viv wrote:
**The BBC is running a Norman season at the moment. I am not a fan of those last and most successful land-grabbing big-boss totalitarian one-step-removed-from-Norse bandits. William the Conq (unlike King Harold) could not read or write in any language at all. Which adds a frisson of family disharmony to his scholarly son Henry's reported remark that "an illiterate king is a crowned ass".


I feel exactly the same way :)

I very much recommend reading: 1066, The Year of the Three Battles, by Frank McLynn.

You'll feel even worse about it after reading that.


Stephen Fry has a new series coming out called "Planet Word"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/stephen-fry-bbc-planet-word
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Patzu wrote:
Stephen Fry has a new series coming out called "Planet Word"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/ju ... lanet-word


I'll make sure I don't miss 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 capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I like it, Mac. AND, I'm gonna play Superdrag's SUCKED OUT at may poker game tomorrow :)

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

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

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. ....SNIPPPP .....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.


Understand your position completely, and actually greatly admire you for taking that stance.

My position, and apparently the huge majority of comments to Seattle PI articles, is boiling outrage when any prominent personality uses high priced lengthy legal slick stalling tactics, maneuverings, and in this case some very questionable 'cronyism' to get some very special treatment under the legal system.
For many such 'personalities', this results in no, or greatly reduced charges.

As I noted, I feel Ms Bremner is Fair Game and very relevant here, because for literally *years* she used and abused her very visible media sweetheart pedestal to brutally slime the legal system of Italy, and most damning, to use her visibility (and PR Firm connections) to excoriate Prosecutor Mignini both as a person, and as a professional.

Mr Mignini's offense never endangered other driver's, their occupant's or pedestrian lives.
He never was accused of the Seattle type Cronyism and abuse of her 'good old boy' position legal status that is so obvious in the failure to allow Public assess as well as the unbelievable delay in bringing charges after arrest.

Mr Mignini's only relation to Bremner is he happened to Prosecute (and convict) a murderess who happened to catch the fancy of the same Seattle big wigs that Bremner now uses to abort justice.

Bremner uses a sickening double standard for respecting the very legal profession her Seattle Law School degree gained her entry to.

That is despicable, and that is why I and apparently so many others are outraged

Attached is picture (not recent and obviously *very* heavily airbrushed and photoshopped) that Bremner posted on the Internet *herself* to advertise



I agree as well, but much respect and appreciation to Skeptical Bystander, as someone who knows all too well where you're coming from. I myself, come from a long-line of alcoholics. I guess that I was a little irked that Anne would seemingly throw in the "manhandling" by the officer that arrested her. He may have saved her life. It also reeked a little of the tactic that Amanda used, or tried to use. Though I know that they're two completely different situations.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael, I'm right with you on the fascinating origin of words, and tend to pick up the defunct ones that appeal to me. For example, thanks to Patrick O'Brian, I've added 'grass-combing buggers' (very satisfactory when spoken) to my vocabulary.

Yippee - another Fry series! That should be great fun. Thank you for the link, Patzu.

"The Year of Three Battles" crossed my desk a few years ago, and I raided its index while researching the struggle that the Nasty Normans (hoick, spit) might well have named the "English Insurgency". I do regret that I didn't have time to read it all through, but shall do soon, now that you've reminded me of it - so very many thanks. I have Peter Rex's "The English Resistance" (Frank McLynn is quoted on the back cover: 'Portrays William as he really was - a bloody, ruthless war criminal'). Julian Rathbone's "The Last English King" is a lively fictional imagining of how bloody awful it all was; I enjoyed that.

Apologies for wandering well off topic in my post above, but it was sparked by this week's discussions of translation standards. References to redundant slang, plus arse- and ass-kicking, have led me on an evening wander to revisit heroic verbal smack-downs, past and present (I recommend "The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy" for some truly choice exchanges). There are many on PMF who could more than hold their own in a no-holds-barred 15th century flyting contest, but are much more civil than Dunbar! During many months of lurking I have greatly appreciated the elegant, concise and frequently hilarious refutations and rebuttals posted here. Wishing you a good (if damp) weekend.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Interesting that our recent 'new' poster, Justinian is happily ensconced with his fellow 'birds of a feather' at JREF.

Today, after adequately kissing posteriors by telling them:
"Good to be in a forum that appreciates fact and logic". mop-)
He then adds the ever so telling addendum: "Anyway, I hope this post appears in real time." fc-))

He presently is in deep discussion with Chris C about time of Death and get this..... "bleed out time"
Just a slight refinement of Amanda's ever so classy: " F---in bled to death" I guess tu-))

Suggestions for Just:
1) Keep planting puckers on posteriors, and your next posts *may* also get real time
2) Keep reading the Food Blogger, and throw out what you consider to be Candace-gems for JREF
3) The egotistical self aggrandizing epistle writers who have self destructed that once proud medium there love to get on podium for serving Kool Aid to newbies and feeding off each others hair brained and 'bleed out' type despicable deceitful diatribes.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Viv wrote:
"The Year of Three Battles" crossed my desk a few years ago, and I raided its index while researching the struggle that the Nasty Normans (hoick, spit) might well have named the "English Insurgency". I do regret that I didn't have time to read it all through, but shall do soon, now that you've reminded me of it - so very many thanks. I have Peter Rex's "The English Resistance" (Frank McLynn is quoted on the back cover: 'Portrays William as he really was - a bloody, ruthless war criminal'). Julian Rathbone's "The Last English King" is a lively fictional imagining of how bloody awful it all was; I enjoyed that.


McLynn more often referred to him as 'William the lucky Bastard' as in every field, political or military, extraordinary luck went his way. The 'bastard' part was a pun on the fact that he was born out of wedlock (and he was very sensitive about that too). Edward the Confessor, McLynn dubbed 'Edward the Saintly Neurotic'.

On a side note, the Church built by Harold's father Godwin (and where he's buried if I remember rightly) is just up the road from me, a ten minute drive. It's where Harold's fleet sat but was unable to set sail and intercept William's or cut him off from his ships once he'd landed as the wind was against them. It's also where the mighty King Canute ordered the tide to go back.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stint7 wrote:
Interesting that our recent 'new' poster, Justinian is happily ensconced with his fellow 'birds of a feather' at JREF.

Today, after adequately kissing posteriors by telling them:


Your post puts it far better then I could have. Nothing to add.

_________________
"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 Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Stint7 wrote:
Interesting that our recent 'new' poster, Justinian is happily ensconced with his fellow 'birds of a feather' at JREF.

Today, after adequately kissing posteriors by telling them:


Your post puts it far better then I could have. Nothing to add.



Been watching this puppy unfold and not surprised either. They are so cute at that site.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Syint7 wrote:
As I noted, I feel Ms Bremner is Fair Game and very relevant here, because for literally *years* she used and abused her very visible media sweetheart pedestal to brutally slime the legal system of Italy, and most damning, to use her visibility (and PR Firm connections) to excoriate Prosecutor Mignini both as a person, and as a professional.


I also feel it DOES have relevance to this case, simply because Bremner's tale in her defence reeks of exactly the same type of excuses born of ridiculous intellectual gymnastics that we have seen propagated on Amanda's behalf. Indeed, anyone new to the case who needs a quick introduction to the FOA and understand them completely within ten minutes need only be shown Bremner's story and tactics in order to get out of being charged for drink driving and to try and con the public. The FOA have been taking the same approach to win their cause with regularity from the beginning.


Exactly! Complete and total denial of reality as well as a sense of self-importance that makes them (Anne & Amanda) think they are above the law! That's probably what attracted Anne to "The Amanda Knox Case." (in quotes is meant as sarcasm)
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander 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.



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.


I'd like to add that moodstream was under no obligation to reply whatsoever to The Machine. There is no reason to address The Machine but not answer his questions.

The Machine's "welcome" may appear slightly abrupt to some people but it's no different than the questions asked any conspiracy theorist on the 9/11 threads at the JREF. If someone arrives and appears to simply want to disrupt the discussion or to create an agenda of their own then it's certainly within anyone's rights to ask them the "twenty questions".

I know that when I have tried to answer them--regardless of how "open" I think my mind is--I always arrived at the same conclusion that most of us here have: there is a mountain of evidence against Sollecito, Knox, and Guede, and this is not a game.

In addition, I'd like to offer a "re-welcome" wave to Viv, justlookin, and a couple other people who have contributed to this site long before I joined. They are the ones who I've returned to for information from long before the verdict was pronounced. Those were the days when real issues in the media were being contorted and distorted for (largely) the American public. It was also the time of some concern that the prosecution case might not be successful in putting the three killers behind bars.

So a hearty wave to all those returning to download and digest the sentencing report. I hope they will add their own perspectives to those from us 'n00bs' because I for one feel much richer from their experiences.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'm going to enjoy that book, Michael! I think only one of the chroniclers managed to get in a reference to "Willelm Bastard" (v discouraging to have Norman abbots breathing down yr neck), but he really was a sensitive little flower about that term, wasn't he?! Godwin wasn't much of a saint either... I'm not sure if you're near Southampton or Bosham, but if the latter, that would be perfect for an archaeologist, with Fishbourne nearby. Enviable location.

Yummi's post about the structure of European languages is fascinating. It's got me thinking about the shifting structures of English... perhaps it's more rigid now than it was in the past, which is a great shame. Shakespeare drew the winning lottery ticket - writing at a time when English erupted in a fantastical flourish, and you could park your verbs where you bloody well liked and yet be understood. He can still be understood - it's a matter of getting your ears tuned in. But were I to write something like "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow / Creeps in this petty pace from day to day", I'd be accused of high-flown archaic pretension, or of channelling Yoda. Boo and hiss. One of my favourites is "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it was done quickly." One just cannot render that percussive, breathless outburst of a man who is gibbering with nerves into the straightforward English that the modern world prefers. Not without making a pig's ear of it. Tweaking sentence construction in what would now be called 'poetic' fashion is certainly not the way forward for legal translations, but the manner in which we play with the language in everyday speaking and writing, using puns, alliteration, internal rhyme, jamming the natural iambic rhythms and twisting syntax... that, I love. I'm also a keen eavesdropper on the non-British-English slang grammar and vocabulary that whirls about me in London. Perhaps not tomorrow and tomorrow though. I've just clocked the, er, clock.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

ps... (not quite in the nest, but nearly) - thank you for your kind welcome, Stilicho. (Best Vandal ever.) I'm the one who's a n00b! The dimensions of knowledge about the details of the crime that you and all the other regular posters have assimilated are way beyond what I understood before the court began to sit. It was a horrible thing to see - that distortion and venom in the first twelve months or so - and I was actually relieved when the process started. For various reasons last year I decided not to post until it was over in December, and then for quite some time after that. But I have read the board throughout and think you're a splendid group of loyal, tenacious and sharp-witted bastards (meant in the most affectionate way, of course: Aussie-style).
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Viv wrote:
"The Year of Three Battles" crossed my desk a few years ago, and I raided its index while researching the struggle that the Nasty Normans (hoick, spit) might well have named the "English Insurgency". I do regret that I didn't have time to read it all through, but shall do soon, now that you've reminded me of it - so very many thanks. I have Peter Rex's "The English Resistance" (Frank McLynn is quoted on the back cover: 'Portrays William as he really was - a bloody, ruthless war criminal'). Julian Rathbone's "The Last English King" is a lively fictional imagining of how bloody awful it all was; I enjoyed that.


McLynn more often referred to him as 'William the lucky Bastard' as in every field, political or military, extraordinary luck went his way. The 'bastard' part was a pun on the fact that he was born out of wedlock (and he was very sensitive about that too). Edward the Confessor, McLynn dubbed 'Edward the Saintly Neurotic'.

On a side note, the Church built by Harold's father Godwin (and where he's buried if I remember rightly) is just up the road from me, a ten minute drive. It's where Harold's fleet sat but was unable to set sail and intercept William's or cut him off from his ships once he'd landed as the wind was against them. It's also where the mighty King Canute ordered the tide to go back.


I know it's OT but relevant to yours and Viv's discussion.

I watched six episodes of David Starkey's Monarchy on our public television station recently. The presentation is bold and "starky". I'm fond of medieval history in general and the development of the institution of monarchy has always fascinated me. When I was much younger, I always wondered why Canada's head of state lived in a foreign country but my experience with the development of the American executive has made me rather glad ours lives somewhere else.

Pertinent to the issue of English as a language as well as a people, the royals didn't always speak the same language as the people they ruled, and were often not natives of England. The monarchy was composed variously of Normans, Danes, French, Scots, Dutch, and Germans. Rarely has the executive branch been "English".

For most nations in the world this might be a considerable problem but for the UK it appears to be an advantage. Its other institutions (especially Parliament, the Church, universities, the common law, and commercial enterprise) had to develop a dialogue with the Crown. Mind you, that dialogue sometimes came in the form of a mace struck to the side of the skull.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh and did anyone catch this? the police "manhandled" poor Anne!!!

"…alleged that she was manhandled by the sheriff's deputy"

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/100595924.html
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bedelia wrote:
Oh and did anyone catch this? the police "manhandled" poor Anne!!!

"…alleged that she was manhandled by the sheriff's deputy"

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/100595924.html


I take it then that she won't be defending the officer like the one she represented last year who kicked a young girl around a cell.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I have gone past the point where I have any sympathy for new members like Justininan or Moodstream as I really do not believe anyone who claims to be new to the case unless there ISP is livingunderarock.com, the trial was the tipping point for the undecided. Prior to the trial everything was speculative as we did not actually know what was going to be presented by the prosecution. The majority of people who were following the trial had based their opinions on the press coverage in the lead up and it pretty much depended on how much of the PR spin they where subject to. Once the trial was over the majority lost interest and all that the FOA had left where those who had spent the year with their hands to their ears shouting la la la.

I don’t think this site should be about debating guilt or innocence any longer as it is pointless debating with people who cannot accept the reality of the verdict. This site is full of like minded people, we may all have different theories about the how’s and why’s but basically we all agree that the verdict was correct and justice was served. I feel we should leave the hand wringing of the Amanda cultists of the FOA to their own devices, we aren’t going to change their opinions as opinions are all they have, we have the facts. The facts being the issues debated in a court of law by qualified professionals not cyberspace conspiracy theories opined by armatures with access to Google who think they can make some kind of impact. I have this mental image of Bruce et al showing up at the appeal with a list of internet links and insisting that they must be innocent as all of the members on my site say so.

As We all know that Amanda’s Glee club read this forum while waiting their turn to see who can be banned quickest from PMF for being a dick. I would suggest that they look up the mechanics of death by having your throat cut. As the Army trained me to do that sort of malarkey, I know while it isn’t instant it is pretty quick but Amanda described a slow painful death before the autopsy results where made public, how did she know that unless she had prior knowledge. As for Justinians belief that the scream didn’t happen, Meredith was not drowning or woken by a friend poking around her kitchen she was suffering an attempted rape, rape victims do scream and often their screams are heard.

OT
I have a little habit while reading the board of assigning you all a different voice that I hear while reading your posts ( it’s a dyslexia coping strategy) and I have to know how close I am so if you could choose a celebrity who you sound like who would it be, Bilko don’t bother as all I hear is Phil Silvers, Skep I’ve seen the TV interview’s so your off the hook as well. Some Alibi, I really hope you sound like Tom Baker because that’s what I hear in my head when I read your posts, oddly I was born a couple of minutes walk from where Tom Baker was born and we all talk like just like him, the scouse accent is just an affectation we use to distract everyone else from our real agenda.
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ah Brogan, love and agree with your post. But now I'm going to have these voices blaring in my brain when I read subsequent posts, trying to pin them in an artsy way on our fair and fabulous posters. Thanks a lot! !@#$$^T$^%$&%^&$&#.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

And everyone also has a matching birthstone and a corresponding word or phrase from another language to go with the voice.


SomeAlibi reminds me of old Durbeyville’s horse:


老馬識途
老(lǎo) (Old)
馬(mǎ) (horse)
識(shí) (to know/to recognise/to discern)
途(tú) (a way/a road)

An old horse which knows the way = an experienced person



And a Farmer Lardarse proverb reminds me of cuckoo chicks who go plop! into the nest, open their beaks, and expect to be fed and fed, and then fed some more. And they remind me of the “Come on, come and convince me; give it your best shot” posters who don’t know how to read up on things, or don’t want to. No get up and go, until they get up and go because they were never really here in the first place.


守株待兔
守(shǒu) (To wait/to abide)
株(zhū) (a tree/roots above ground)
待(dài) (to await/to wait for)
兔(tù) (a hare/a rabbit)

Waiting by a tree-stump for a hare to turn up = Do nothing but wait, unimaginative, stuck
Top Profile 

Offline mogur


User avatar


Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 am

Posts: 8

Location: Whidbey Island, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brogan, I am new here, and i resent your comments. So be it. I have three posts, and you have a couple hundred. So I should shut up and not interfere with your logic.

No one welcomed me, as opposed to many boards that welcome new members, and if you think that the number of your posts grants you superiorty, then good for you.

Even though I am new, I grant you that Justinian is a fool. But the boards that I am familiar with, (including those that I was either a mod or an administer on), treated new people with respect. I know that he started off wanting people to spoon him the juicy passages, but come on, either lead him to new insight or give up the mission to convince people of amanda's guilt. Which is more important, your arrogance or the truth?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

When toddlers and other youngsters are pummelling each other during a heated argument, their fists move in great big circles, like a windmill.

In the verbal sphere, there's a apposite word in German, which often comes to mind: Phrasendrescher = "windbag", to describe the unsearch for truth some are wedded to at all costs, or the putting-on-of-airs of the self-appointed football team captains.

From the verb Phrasen dreschen("phrase thrashing") = "to churn out one cliché after another".

The feminine form is Phrasendrescherin = "windbaguette".
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
... but come on, either lead him to new insight or give up the mission to convince people of amanda's guilt. Which is more important, your arrogance or the truth?


Hi Mogur,

Welcome to PMF.
Hope you enjoy your stay.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything, so can't help you there.
Sorry.

"but come on": does that mean you want to pummel someone?
I can help you with that one!
Who, what, where and why?




Edited to add (just in case you belong to the don't know about "had" and "had had" group): :)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Mogur. I really think Brogan's post is very on point. Perhaps it's the *tone* that some posters use, that can get one's goat up. Also, if someone posts here , quoting Ms. Dempsey's book, which was discussed here at some length, and then continues to do so, it can be frustrating. Perhaps, if new posters would take the time to read before posting, that would be helpful as well. And, then of course, some are just blatantly disingenous. The posters here are on alert, because we know how the Jref thread has been destroyed, and we don't want that to happen here. In any event, welcome.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Viv wrote:
One of my favourites is "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it was done quickly."


Hi Viv,

"If you’re going to do it, do it and don’t dawdle," said the burglar to his mate.


Burglars being pressed for time, of course.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
This is so interesting, Yummi. I have to say, an Italian learning english can cause some big huh? moments. My Italian boyfriend would ask me if I'm angry. No, I'd say. Him: You want something to heat? I'd reply. umm, no. It took a while to fig out, he was asking me if I was Hungry, and did I want something to eat. Umm, those are the ONLY things I am willing to repeat :)


How very funny! I had the exact same thing with my french girlfriend! "Are you 'ngry'?".. no...why would I be angry?

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Interesting that our recent 'new' poster, Justinian is happily ensconced with his fellow 'birds of a feather' at JREF.

Today, after adequately kissing posteriors by telling them:
"Good to be in a forum that appreciates fact and logic". mop-)


I'd be interested for him to come back and see what he things of Frank's "murder in italy"... errr.. I mean Candace's book "With photos!"

(3/4 of her references are postings from frank's blog).

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi Pataz, Yes, and it was interesting how the aitch was dropped when it shouldn't be, and added when it shouldn't. Saying that, it was so attractive, and like in * A FISH CALLED WANDA" I can quite understand when Jamie Lee screamed " Speak to me in Italian". So sexy...........errrr (blush)

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

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brogan wrote:
I have gone past the point where I have any sympathy for new members like Justininan or Moodstream

Moodstream gave himself/herself away by essentially declaring that nothing in the report would change his/her opinion. Otherwise, the entrance was above par for that cohort.
Brogan wrote:
*** As the Army trained me to do that sort of malarkey, I know while it isn’t instant it is pretty quick but Amanda described a slow painful death before the autopsy results where made public, how did she know that unless she had prior knowledge.

To me, that is about the most compelling evidence in the case. If she was not there, as she claimed, she would have no way of knowing how Meredith died. A trained assassin could render someone unconscious within minutes and dead within five or six.
Brogan wrote:
As for Justinians belief that the scream didn’t happen, Meredith was not drowning or woken by a friend poking around her kitchen she was suffering an attempted rape, rape victims do scream and often their screams are heard.

Back in the 1960s Kitty Genovese, after being stabbed twice in the back, screamed loud enough on a cold November New York night to alert at least a half-dozen people who were comfortably inside their apartments with windows closed. Still, several people in different apartments heard her scream "Oh my God, he stabbed me! Help me!"

This incident gave rise to an urban legend that 38 witnesses observed the entire attack and didn't call the police or do anything to help. This was pre-911 and apparently several people did call the police. The attack was not stationary, so no one was in a position to see the entire thing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It's not Moravia, nor Dostoyevsky, but what the US journalists in old films called the "human-interest" side of the case has been summed up by Racine a long time ago (? had been summed up):

Quote:

Phèdre:
Grâces au ciel, mes mains ne sont point criminelles
Plût aux dieux que mon cœur fût innocent comme elles!

Œnone:
Et quel affreux projet avez-vous enfanté
Dont votre cœur encor doive être épouvanté?

Phèdre:
Je t’en ai dit assez. Épargne-moi le reste.
Je meurs, pour ne point faire un aveu si funeste.

– Racine, Phèdre Acte 1, scène 3, 221-226


"P: Thank Heavens! My hands aren’t stained with th'crime
And, by the Gods!, that my heart be as clean as them!

Œ: And what frightful plan hast thou nurtured
That it frightens thy heart so?

P: I’ve said enough. Spare me the rest.
I’d die, to avoid such a mortifying advowal.


A better translation of the cris de cœur: [ here ].
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Interesting that our recent 'new' poster, Justinian is happily ensconced with his fellow 'birds of a feather' at JREF.

Today, after adequately kissing posteriors by telling them:
"Good to be in a forum that appreciates fact and logic". mop-) ***

Justinian's love of fact and logic is just like Mark Twain's love of work: "I love work, I could watch it all day.."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi Pataz, Yes, and it was interesting how the aitch was dropped when it shouldn't be, and added when it shouldn't. Saying that, it was so attractive, and like in * A FISH CALLED WANDA" I can quite understand when Jamie Lee screamed " Speak to me in Italian". So sexy...........errrr (blush)


Completely agree ;)

On the flip side, my italian girlfriend got points taken off in her english examination after I told her nihilism was pronounced nigh-hi-lis-im, and her Australian english teacher said it was pronounced nee-hi-lis-im. Turned out we were both correct. :/

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Justinian’s manly-scream hypothesis reminded me of the real-life scenarios that you get from, of all things, novels:

Quote:
One evening, Franco blocked me on the stairs. I had gone down into the kitchen to get a bottle of wine. There were people for dinner and they were all outside, eating on the terrace. He pressed me forcibly against the wall, I felt his hard body against the fragility of mine. His lips were at my eye-level, I watched them move as he whispered: “Don’t you want to have fun anymore?”

“I’ll scream.”


– Susanna Tamaro, Rispondimi (“Talk To Me”), BUR 2001, p 91
Top Profile 

Offline mogur


User avatar


Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 am

Posts: 8

Location: Whidbey Island, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thank you both for the welcome. It's a good feeling. Okay, I know that it was solicited, but I'm cheap and easily cajoled.

Anyone that is a fan of Meredith must want the true murderers incarcerated. I am convinced that it was Rudy and Amanda. I think most here feel the same. Amanda is a flaming, lying, manipulative bitch that will screw anyone she can. Trust me, I know a manipulative person when I see him/her. I am 63 and a half, and know when someone thinks that they can control others. The smiling, calculating, and teasing nature of Amanda is not proof of murder, but the evidence is. I will accept any evidence of her innocence in a second, and defend her to the end, but I'm afraid that any evidence of her innocence is buried under unicorn crap.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quite the cajoler, hey? :)


mogur wrote:


Even though I am new, I grant you that Justinian is a fool.


Hi Mogur,

I don't understand your allegation.

No question is stupid.
The only stupid question is the unasked one.
Everyone has to start from somewhere.
Newbies start with nothing.
You're not a newbie, because you have already classed Justinian as a "fool", straight out of the starting gates.
If he needs assistance with anything, he can, will, and has asked.
Locking him out of your circle advantages him (no tediousness for him to overcome to establish a line of communication), and you lose a perspective (possibly to your detriment, but how can you tell?).

Cases are not races, so all the rushing about achieves exactly what in the end?: it is self-defeating.

Being prepared to press the "ban" button on somebody is not how to sincerely be part of a team where ideas flow.

Justinian is not a fool.

The ethical thing would be to apologise to Justinian.


Are you ready?




OK, so maybe you have a race against time. Is that how it works?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
I will accept any evidence of her innocence in a second, and defend her to the end, but I'm afraid that any evidence of her innocence is buried under unicorn crap.



Doesn't quite work like that, old chap.

The only choices are: "guilty", or "not guilty" (or, in rare cases, "absolved of all charges").

This "evidence of her innocence" stuff is pure imaginary gush-guff for unicorn farmers and non-lawyers, whichever is the bigger.


P.S.
I can help with the cantankerous masque, if you like.
You still need some practice to get the polish just so.
Top Profile 

Offline mogur


User avatar


Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 am

Posts: 8

Location: Whidbey Island, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ok, you are absolutely right, Catnip.

Justinian, I apologise.

I was a fool, not you. I wanted to endear myself to this group. And I am delighted that someone stuck up for you. Even though, the rampant sentiment here was to belittle you, I am sorry that I jumped on the bandwagon.

I, not you, are the foolish one. Sorry.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mogur


User avatar


Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 am

Posts: 8

Location: Whidbey Island, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip, what is gush-guff for unicorn farmers and non-lawyers? I just admitted that I was a fool, and I am not a lawyer, but that is rather obscure....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur addressing Justinian wrote:
And I am delighted that someone stuck up for you.


No-one stuck up for Justinian, though he has been Voltaired in a few different ways.

The "this group" that you profess an inclination to be endeared to, must be difficult when it is either all unicorn guff or doesn't exist (two types of nullity, there - how interesting!)

I look all around and cannot see the "this group" anywhere -- maybe you are fighting an imaginary battle, like the DonQ, and his windmills, and all that tilting stuff.

Or practicing in a mirror.



Thanks for providing the lead-in re the windmills. That's been the theme du jour.
You are so refreshing!

I'm off to have some dinner, not iron a shirt, watch some TV, pummel the remote control, so I'll see you in eight hours or so when the cows come home.

Don't fall off your perch in the meantime!
You're 63 and a half and a bit now, so careful how you go, especially with the huffing and puffing.

Cheers!
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
...what is gush-guff ...



The category "evidence of innocence" does not exist. It is as imaginary as the unicorns you mentioned.

The only choices are "guilty" or "not guilty" (and a person can be innocent under either one).

The categories on how you classify things determines what you look for, and how you go about looking for it.

Do some research in the meantime (think of it as homework, in a way; there are various sites to search for; start with "verdicts", say) and we can resume the discussion later. See if you can find the Scots' third alternative, "not proven", so you can explain to me how you understand it fits with the guilty/not guilty categories.

There is plenty of time.


A presto!
:)
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
mogur wrote:
...what is gush-guff ...



The category "evidence of innocence" does not exist. It is as imaginary as the unicorns you mentioned.

The only choices are "guilty" or "not guilty" (and a person can be innocent under either one).

***


Well according to Wikipedia there is the so-called Scottish verdict. Guilty. Innocent. Or Not proven.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

On the subject of new people arriving: I am somewhat torn. When I came here I was strongly attacked by one long standing poster who spoke to me in a very rude and patronising manner: I was puzzled and really put off this board because I could not understand that and I really did not like it. I do not think I am alone in that experience. I stayed but it was not a clear cut decision.

Since then I have watched this happen to a number of people, and given what has happened I now realise that it is necessary for the moderators to be robust in dealing with some of those who arrive because they do indeed have an agenda and they are more than capable of reducing a place to rubble in very short order.

The suspicions are usually correct, I think. But we are subject to a little confirmation bias: they were wrong in my case and, as has been said, in somealibi's case as well. There are probably other instances and we cannot know if we are driving people away who would be real assets here. Not all the time.

On balance I think we should be a little slower to condemn: but when we do see evidence of disingenuous posting then I very much support the short shrift outcome

I know, I am a wimp: takes all sorts :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Not a wimp Fiona. Not at all. I think you just see both sides of the problem. Often it is very clear who is and who is not sincere. Michael has an instinct for this, but it can seem bewildering to those who don't share it. My knee-jerk is just to welcome people, others do this but want to know more about them before they engage. It's just a different style I guess. We always end up at the same conclusion in the end - either they're fine or they're not. And yes, I think of you and SA and Stilicho in this discussion. Mood is tricky as his first post was fine by my, his second wasn't. Yummi's POV was good, but I can also see that the twenty questions are a really good place to start. Swings and roundabouts! So my view is now like Michael's: let's just see how it goes!

Oh and nice to meet you mogur!!! What is that location on your avatar???

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
Thank you both for the welcome. It's a good feeling. Okay, I know that it was solicited, but I'm cheap and easily cajoled.

Anyone that is a fan of Meredith must want the true murderers incarcerated. I am convinced that it was Rudy and Amanda. I think most here feel the same. Amanda is a flaming, lying, manipulative bitch that will screw anyone she can. Trust me, I know a manipulative person when I see him/her. I am 63 and a half, and know when someone thinks that they can control others. The smiling, calculating, and teasing nature of Amanda is not proof of murder, but the evidence is. I will accept any evidence of her innocence in a second, and defend her to the end, but I'm afraid that any evidence of her innocence is buried under unicorn crap.


Welcome to the board, mogur! Allow me to add a few supplementary details to your post:

Anyone that is a fan of Meredith...

I think it is better not to take this personal to anybody involved in this horrendous crime.
This is not about beeing a fan of somebody, or a hater, or a guilter (dreadful word!).
It is all about justice and we are against the constant efforts to whitewash the convicted murderers and give - especially Amanda Knox - the status of an innocent victim .


must want the true murderers incarcerated
The true murderers are incarcerated, all we want is, that they stay there to serve their sentences.

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

Offline mogur


User avatar


Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 am

Posts: 8

Location: Whidbey Island, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ok, Catnip, I have apologized. Yet you still tear me down. Are you going to ask for an apology from all the others who have ripped on Justianin? I think not, because you are a bully. You prey on who think are weak. But guess what you fool... you are weak. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I have researched. Go ahead, bully, and impress your friends how arrogant you are. I started to contribute here, check the translation typo thread. But, you don't stop to consider anyone but yourself. You don't really mean to defend Justinonia or whatever the fuck his name is, he is an idiot, and everyone on this board knows it. Now they know that you are an idiot for trashing someone that had something to bring to this table (me), in favor of puffing yourself up. Well, good luck my friend, and I feel sorry for anyone who tries to please you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
I started to contribute here, check the translation typo thread.




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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Wind your neck in Mogur. By the age 63 and a half you ought to know the dIfference between a gentle tease and a bullying remark. When you join any social group on the intermit you can't start wading into established people when no-one knows (since you are partial to a bit of Anglo-Saxon) who the fuck you are. Respect is earned not a right to demand with a big huff when you are under 10 posts. It is like forcing your way into a closed circle at a social gathering of people who know each other well and saying of their good friend who is standing there "you seem a bit of a dick". Who looks like the dick? No guesses, right...

You may have a point about perhaps being teased is a tiny bit unwelcoming but while perhaps you had a minor point, you blow it if you hit the full orbital launch button in your reply. You may have something to contribute and I hope you do but you ought to consider the irony of the puffing yourself up comment when you are so insistent that you "have something to offer" by posting typos. That's like contributing to the moon mission by passing cheese sandwiches at mission control.

Now let us see your character by how you deal with it.

_________________
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 H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I lurked a bit having been interested in the case for many months and certainly found this board intimidating, balanced by a number of 'friendly' posts. Though I didn't come in all politely and introduce myself, I jumped in with a few contributions, many ignored, some picked up... I too was suspect, I imagine. As with most of these discussion boards, time tells, and without encouraging the team Amanda types, who take great delight in trying to be subversives here, they soon go when they do not get the appropriate attention they desire.


I would like to sincerely thank all the genuine posters. This is a delightful board ( most of the time) and the cause is honorable and I do believe that you have helped to serve the case for insuring justice is served for Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I lurked a bit having been interested in the case for many months and certainly found this board intimidating, balanced by a number of 'friendly' posts. Though I didn't come in all politely and introduce myself, I jumped in with a few contributions, many ignored, some picked up... I too was suspect, I imagine. As with most of these discussion boards, time tells, and without encouraging the team Amanda types, who take great delight in trying to be subversives here, they soon go when they do not get the appropriate attention they desire.


I would like to sincerely thank all the genuine posters. This is a delightful board ( most of the time) and the cause is honorable and I do believe that you have helped to serve the case for insuring justice is served for Meredith Kercher.



All I know is you are a blonde who works for M16 and loves her technology. I have several friends who would probably like to make a proposal of marriage ;)

_________________
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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Long experience + observation has shown that if one has anything real to bring to the table, it's best just to lay it on straight, without trying to please anyone in particular (let alone everyone!)
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
Ok, Catnip, I have apologized. Yet you still tear me down. Are you going to ask for an apology from all the others who have ripped on Justianin? I think not, because you are a bully. You prey on who think are weak. But guess what you fool... you are weak. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I have researched. Go ahead, bully, and impress your friends how arrogant you are. I started to contribute here, check the translation typo thread. But, you don't stop to consider anyone but yourself. You don't really mean to defend Justinonia or whatever the fuck his name is, he is an idiot, and everyone on this board knows it. Now they know that you are an idiot for trashing someone that had something to bring to this table (me), in favor of puffing yourself up. Well, good luck my friend, and I feel sorry for anyone who tries to please you.


I am sorry you are upset but I do have to say that I think you could not be more wrong if you see Catnip as a bully. To coin a phrase: you have no idea who he is. Take some time to read Catnip's posts: the practical work done as well as the really interesting posts about language: the tangential references which often serve to widen my thinking and consider connections never made in my head at all. There is a lot to learn from Catnip. There may be a lot to learn from you too: but we don't know that yet
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I just jumped in and never felt intimidated. But, now as I've been here for awhile, I realize I should have been a bit. Such incredibly smart, funny, and all the rest, people. So hang in there, Mogur. It may work out......

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

In the latest contributions solicited from Michael about the Bremner episode, jodyodyo gets my vote :

This is the best reality of truths that happened:

While I was dining with my high power judicial friends, a drifter from the Ivory coast who was posing as a valet stole my Beautiful High Powered BMW Driving Machine. Over the course of our dinner, I told my friends of my plan to raise money to build schools in third world countries like Italy. Because, that is like, so like me to help the people who have no edumacation such as a tv personality such as myself haves. After my friends and I wrapped up our lovely conversation reviewing the film Amelie and conversing in various other languages that are not american, I went to reclaim my vehicle. But before I could give my ticket to the valet, some of my many fans (jurors) recognized me from my various (court cases) tv appearances and begged me to play some tunes for them on my accordion and/or guitar. After playing the one song I know about five or six times, the crowd begged me to do a bout of gymnastics. While doing my regular gymnastic/yoga moves, I hit my head and rang my bell. Next thing I knew, the Ivory coast drifter came by with my BHP BMW DM into which he had planted some spinellas. He must have smoked some of the weed in my BHP BMW DM which still smelled of it when I entered the said BHP BMW DM. Since my head was filled with fluids by now, the weed made me lose all memory of the evening! I regained consciousness as the 40 or 45 police officers were beating me on the back of my head. I was sore afraid. The officers handed me a mop and told me to clean the joint up and hit the showers. While in my jail cell, the officials sent a priest from Our Lady Queen of Bingo who washed my feet and confessed to me that he found me kinda hot. You can imagine why this would be embarrassing for the good people of Seattle to hear about, so I tried to shield them from the whole incident. It is just like me to protect other people, just ask my Mom and Dad and my puppy and my kitten. Plus, on the other hand, I wouldn’t want my friend Nancy who has that tv show, to berate the good people of Seattle for treating a tv personality like a common criminal!

Now give it a rest, I just want my life back. Shit happens.



HOWEVER.. the best post ever from the 411 was this classic... About Amanda Knox!


Most of us couldn't care less one way or the other about her sexuality, the number of partners she has had, whether she's HIV positive or not, has herpes , does it in a train, does it in a plane, does it with herself, does it with an elf, does it with a toy, does it with a boy, does it ten times a day, or not at all...As long as she's doing it with another consenting adult or even adults, (and not animals) or with someone she really loves (i.e., herself). As long as she's doing it in private, and not infringing on other people's sensibilities and rights, she can do it till the cows come home. And nude photos taken of her, sex videos....Frankly, (YAWN)I don't think most people care one way or the other.



"does it in a train, does it in a plane" gets me every time... :)


btw, cute one SA :)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I also like Emerald's. * I BELIEVE AMANDA, SHE SAID SHE WAS THERE*.

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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:38 am   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?)


No katy the translation is a verbatim translation of a document. It is presented side by side with the original document and its purpose is to inform the reader of what EXACTLY is contained in the original. The reader can make their own mind based on its accurate content. The reader is invited to report any errors if they appear in the interest of complete accuracy. The translation is faithful to the original document and considerable time and expertise were expended by the translatiors, experts and entire production team to ensure accuracy. There is no attempt to fool the reader.

Bruce is suggesting that he is offering a summary of another document (x2). The reader is told say in Amanda’s case that they are reading an “ Appeal Summary for Amanda Knox” and will erroneously assume that they are reading an accurate summary of the appeal. Once the author’s interpretation are inserted throughout the text the document is no longer valid as a summary. An accurate summary with the author’s opinions and interpretations inserted as footnotes or endnotes would have been an improvement but this wasn’t done here. Bruce simply presented his own ideas and talking points and claimed them to be those of the defence team. That is fraudulent behaviour by even the lowest of loose standards. There is an attempt to fool the reader.

For instance if Hammerite were to present a summary of President Obama’s inaugural speech and claimed in it that the President stated that he was proud to be the first Black Irish President of the US this would discredit my entire summery. Because in my oppinion I thought Mr Obama meant to say this but just didn’t get around to saying it in so many words does not allow me the claim that he did state it. The reader would not know what other parts to trust or believe in the remainder of the summery and it is clearly an attempt to decieve the audience. See the following:-

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

A true summary should read something like

....and the president finished with a rousing “God Bless America” **

And the footnote to this should read something like

**and the President finished by declaring that he was proud to be the first Black Irish President of the USA :)

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

The use of footnotes in tandem with the correct data allows the reader to make up their own mind in this example whether my interpretation of “God Bless America” is correct and I can state what he meant to declared was "that he was proud to be the first Black Irish President of the USA" or not. Surely NOT. The same applies for Bruce's "alleged" summery. He cannot change the integrity of the Defence appeal in his "alleged" summery. To do so is dishonest. Don’t call it a summery if it is not a summery. The translation is there to give the reader the facts; the summery is there to give the reader a biased interpretation of the facts. In the end it all comes down to integrity.


Last edited by Hammerite on Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ah I forgot something quite good some might like... :)

I was talking to my friend who works as a forensic psychologist yesterday. I can't recall if I mentioned this before but they are trying to get a better understanding of and create an analysis approach to internet-based postings as for both the facebook-related killings and cases where killers have posted up on the web before may or may not offer profiling clues when trying to analyse suspects in live cases. I met before with my friend for lunch and we talked for a couple of hours, this was part two.

A major (continued) topic of discussion was the difficulty of trying to discern true signal from the noise of online based discussions because of course online discussion tends to much greater extremes of expression and has none of the typical moderation of real-life. How does one discern true signal in that environment etc. We also had discussions on pecking-orders / social hierarchy tending to promote / demote individual users extent of expression in forums etc and we got well stuck in to all of that as well.

Anyhoo the group that is building the approach / model is obviously doing a lot of field work so they were looking for "interesting" cases so I told the profiler about Kevin Lowe's new avatar in the context of this heated, 2 year+ discussion and the pro and anti camps. The profiler is quite unreconstructed as well as bloody good at what they do so what I got was; "could be several things" such as "shock-geek" "high functioning autistic?" and then to end with a sip of the coffee "an almost certain conclusion is; arsehole." Which made me laugh really quite a lot.

We then ended up discussing that little group on JREF (the profiler jotting it down in the notebook; I have a feeling traffic might minutely increase there for a few weeks now :) ) and I coined a new phrase, which I hope is original, when I termed it a "Hook-Smee" environment. In Hook-Smee, the closed group has a lead figure or lead figures who think they are tremendously important and preen their virtual twirly moustaches a great deal as opposed to more well balanced forums where authority is carried lightly as a personal achievement although the authority has real responsibility. In Hook-Smee, of course, under no normal circumstances whatsoever can Hook be seen either to be wrong or brook any other view from their own. Should a new fact or item come to light which cannot be ignored, they draw themselves up to their full height with a momentary bristle and then pretend they knew it all along or that it is irrelevant. They tend also to be orbited by Smees who can be rather deferential but all secretly think the captain is stupid and they should be running the ship.

The irony of the Hook-Smee environment is of course that they all believe their little cadre's universe is tremendously important when of course, openly, they are merely afloat in an imaginary sea and everyone else is laughing at them. Their self-professed tremendous skills and dexterousness is undone quickly by those that simply interact in a more socially open way, a key characteristic of which is acknowledging error and crediting other's insights. The declarative is always defeated by the discursive. All the Smees but not the Hooks know that their enterprise is ridiculous but yet they still put all their energy into trying to ignore the rest of the world and get on with the closed little universe.

Anyway, that was more a fun Friday than some. As far as analogies go I think it's got a little something. Not sure vis a vis the other analogies and analogues that have gone around. Tom Baker? Not so mellifluous I'm afraid although the posh twang with occasional foul use of language is there I'm afraid. As to Durbeyville's horse. Hrrmmm. "Prince required but slight attention, lacking energy for superfluous movements of any sort. The poor creature looked wonderingly round at the night, at the lantern, at their two figures, as if he could not believe that at that hour, when every living thing was intended to be in shelter and at rest, he was called upon to go out and labour." I hope I've got a bit more in me than that! Dependable plodder on course is not exactly a lifetime's ambition. Nor is getting skewered by the mail-cart :)

Anyway, Saturday, work calls....

Yours,
Dobbin

p.s. Yes... in the Hook-Smee universe... The Machine is The Crocodile ;)

_________________
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 Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Does this mean that if I don't clap my hands MaryH will die?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Petulant, likes everybody to look at her, throws a fit at a drop of hat and huffs massively? It all fits...

If only she was entirely mute too... what a happy tale that would be....

Here; have this candyfloss and glow-stick I bought you ;)

_________________
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 Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"On balance I think we should be a little slower to condemn: but when we do see evidence of disingenuous posting then I very much support the short shrift outcome

I know, I am a wimp: takes all sorts"

Thank you Fiona. I really appreciate your posts.

Yours Bilko (ex-troll of the week)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
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.


In any case it would be pretty obvious after 9 months that someone had had her. :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
In the latest contributions solicited from Michael about the Bremner episode, jodyodyo gets my vote :

This is the best reality of truths that happened:

While I was dining with my high power judicial friends, a drifter from the Ivory coast who was posing as a valet stole my Beautiful High Powered BMW Driving Machine. Over the course of our dinner, I told my friends of my plan to raise money to build schools in third world countries like Italy. Because, that is like, so like me to help the people who have no edumacation such as a tv personality such as myself haves. After my friends and I wrapped up our lovely conversation reviewing the film Amelie and conversing in various other languages that are not american, I went to reclaim my vehicle. But before I could give my ticket to the valet, some of my many fans (jurors) recognized me from my various (court cases) tv appearances and begged me to play some tunes for them on my accordion and/or guitar. After playing the one song I know about five or six times, the crowd begged me to do a bout of gymnastics. While doing my regular gymnastic/yoga moves, I hit my head and rang my bell. Next thing I knew, the Ivory coast drifter came by with my BHP BMW DM into which he had planted some spinellas. He must have smoked some of the weed in my BHP BMW DM which still smelled of it when I entered the said BHP BMW DM. Since my head was filled with fluids by now, the weed made me lose all memory of the evening! I regained consciousness as the 40 or 45 police officers were beating me on the back of my head. I was sore afraid. The officers handed me a mop and told me to clean the joint up and hit the showers. While in my jail cell, the officials sent a priest from Our Lady Queen of Bingo who washed my feet and confessed to me that he found me kinda hot. You can imagine why this would be embarrassing for the good people of Seattle to hear about, so I tried to shield them from the whole incident. It is just like me to protect other people, just ask my Mom and Dad and my puppy and my kitten. Plus, on the other hand, I wouldn’t want my friend Nancy who has that tv show, to berate the good people of Seattle for treating a tv personality like a common criminal!

Now give it a rest, I just want my life back. Shit happens.


love this!
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hammerite wrote:
In any case it would be pretty obvious after 9 months that someone had had her. :)

:D
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

finished the motivations on Tuesday. What a fascinating read and once again, thank you to all who participated. this must have been a daunting task! I have nothing to add other than I think Catnip is a big pussycat and I like the
machine too ;)
I cannot imagine the convictions not standing after that written report.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
mogur wrote:
Ok, Catnip, I have apologized. Yet you still tear me down. Are you going to ask for an apology from all the others who have ripped on Justianin? I think not, because you are a bully. You prey on who think are weak. But guess what you fool... you are weak. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I have researched. Go ahead, bully, and impress your friends how arrogant you are. I started to contribute here, check the translation typo thread. But, you don't stop to consider anyone but yourself. You don't really mean to defend Justinonia or whatever the fuck his name is, he is an idiot, and everyone on this board knows it. Now they know that you are an idiot for trashing someone that had something to bring to this table (me), in favor of puffing yourself up. Well, good luck my friend, and I feel sorry for anyone who tries to please you.


I am sorry you are upset but I do have to say that I think you could not be more wrong if you see Catnip as a bully. To coin a phrase: you have no idea who he is. Take some time to read Catnip's posts: the practical work done as well as the really interesting posts about language: the tangential references which often serve to widen my thinking and consider connections never made in my head at all. There is a lot to learn from Catnip. There may be a lot to learn from you too: but we don't know that yet


Mogur, I saw from an earlier post that you say you did not get a welcome. That was an oversight. It happens once in awhile. I apologize and welcome. And I saw one of your error spottings on the report in that thread: thank you. Your comment about Catnip is exactly why I urge people to suss things out before posting. Catnip -- of all people -- is anything but a bully. Your outburst above, no matter what the cause, is really unnecessary. Read the board rules: if you have an issue with someone that turns personal, take it offline. Use the PM system. Work it out. I hope you'll stay with us; it's really up to you.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
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" !


I will submit this request to my "entourage", since it is the source of the name. I would much prefer to be thought of as a guru! I almost didn't post because of the connotations of the word nazi.

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

Offline cyyates


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am

Posts: 64

Location: U.S. Nebraska

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:27 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 think it's wonderful that Machine jumped right to the questions! Moonstream admitted that he/she WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR OPINION, so what better way to avoid the same ol conversations then to highlight points of the case that indicate the most guilt on Amanda/Raf's part. If moonstream wanted to come here for discussion, then he/she SHOULD see right away the details most important to discuss. Otherwise, we have to see the same old tennis match (Donnie) over and over....

Even if moonstream does not answer the questions, at least he/she had a chance to read the most important details indicating guilt. Let's just hope he/she read The Machines questions to begin with....although I doubt it, given their decision to NOT CHANGE THEIR MIND. This tends to indicate the person WANTS to believe in their innocence....and that is a separate battle to over come.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: John, Paul, George....   

Michael wrote:

I very much recommend reading: 1066, The Year of the Three Battles.



OK, I don't want y'all to think I have basic reading comprehension problems, but this is how I first "read" the above sentence by Michael:

"I very much recommend reading: "1966, The Year of the Three Beatles."



is)

Send Coffee STAT!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

cyyates wrote:
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 think it's wonderful that Machine jumped right to the questions! Moodstream admitted that he/she WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR OPINION, so what better way to avoid the same ol conversations then to highlight points of the case that indicate the most guilt on Amanda/Raf's part. If moonstream wanted to come here for discussion, then he/she SHOULD see right away the details most important to discuss. Otherwise, we have to see the same old tennis match (Donnie) over and over....

Even if moodstream does not answer the questions, at least he/she had a chance to read the most important details indicating guilt. Let's just hope he/she read The Machines questions to begin with....although I doubt it, given their decision to NOT CHANGE THEIR MIND. This tends to indicate the person WANTS to believe in their innocence....and that is a separate battle to over come.


I believe that some of the recent posters can accurately be described as "activists" working toward a cause they deeply believe in. I have no wish to engage in debate with true believers, because in my experience rational, enlightened and good faith debate is not possible under these circumstances. It is admirable that Moodstream announced upfront that he/she has an unshakable belief in the innocence of AK and RS; but I am not sure I see anywhere to go from this belief. It's like believing in God, UFOs, a flat earth, etc. I have said many times that the purpose of this board is not to convince anyone of anything. By now, those following the case know all the innocentisti talking points and/or where to find them with the click of a mouse. If Moodstream wants to advocate for the cause, there are places and ways to do 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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
It is admirable that Moodstream announced upfront that he/she has an unshakable belief in the innocence of AK and RS; but I am not sure I see anywhere to go from this belief. It's like believing in God, UFOs, a flat earth, etc. I have said many times that the purpose of this board is not to convince anyone of anything. By now, those following the case know all the innocentisti talking points and/or where to find them with the click of a mouse. If Moodstream wants to advocate for the cause, there are places and ways to do so.


Well, I'm not actually sure WHY Moodstream was here. They didn't say they were here because they wanted to debate the case with us. I was thinking maybe they were just stopping by to thank us for the report :)

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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think that is a good point, Michael. If someone had the courtesy to ackowledge the work that went into the translation, while being honest about their position I am not sure what more we can ask: especially if they took the trouble to to try to improve it by pointing out errors, as people have been asked to do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Fiona wrote:
I think that is a good point, Michael. If someone had the courtesy to ackowledge the work that went into the translation, while being honest about their position I am not sure what more we can ask: especially if they took the trouble to to try to improve it by pointing out errors, as people have been asked to do.



I must have missed the post where MS pointed out an error, unless you are referring to the alleged typo (double "had") that was in fact not one.

In any case, it was nice of MS to stop by and thank the translators for their work, and unfortunate that he/she and TM got into a little tiff.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yes, but I'd still encourage people to point out something they think 'may' be a mistake. If it isn't one, that's very quickly worked out. I think it's better people point out mistakes if they are not sure, then to not point out mistakes if they are not sure.

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


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

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Taking a few minutes away from my New KITTEN!
Really, everything else pales at the moment.
(None of you guys are chasing your own tails.... oh wait, I was gonna say something about Moonstream.)

Wanted to say, you know, it is not necessary to come into a site the first time waving your Free-Amanda flag.
No one cares.
You had a single short question about a specific point in the translation.
Fine - you'll notice, you did get your answer.

But everything else you said was just provocation.
Which is why The Machine responded.
If you can't take the heat, don't be throwing matches on dry wood.
And then complain if there are sparks.
Imagine yourself in, not a virtual world, but a real one.
What you just did like those Phelps twerps who turn up to harangue people about gays.
They didn't turn up to discuss the topic, because they arrive with their position already fixed.
They are only there to inflame the issue.

And, I would point out, if you take TM's questions as an attack, that is really sad.
Take them, instead, as a guide to reading.
If you are indeed certain AK and RS are innocent, you should be expect to find answers to these questions that will show them to be.
The information is all out there.
So, use them, use the Report, and get back to us when you get it all sorted out.

Edit: Not Moonstream, but Moodstream. Too bad, I must have been dazzled by the unicorn crap earlier.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stint& says:
"Interesting that our recent 'new' poster, Justinian is happily ensconced with his fellow 'birds of a feather' at JREF.
Today, after adequately kissing posteriors by telling them:
"Good to be in a forum that appreciates fact and logic". mop-)"

It's sort of like when you hear an ex-, un-regretted boyfriend has gotten together with some annoying twat.
All tidy, and logical, and how nice for them both.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bedelia wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
In the latest contributions solicited from Michael about the Bremner episode, jodyodyo gets my vote :

This is the best reality of truths that happened:

While I was dining with my high power judicial friends, a drifter from the Ivory coast who was posing as a valet stole my Beautiful High Powered BMW Driving Machine. Over the course of our dinner, I told my friends of my plan to raise money to build schools in third world countries like Italy. Because, that is like, so like me to help the people who have no edumacation such as a tv personality such as myself haves. After my friends and I wrapped up our lovely conversation reviewing the film Amelie and conversing in various other languages that are not american, I went to reclaim my vehicle. But before I could give my ticket to the valet, some of my many fans (jurors) recognized me from my various (court cases) tv appearances and begged me to play some tunes for them on my accordion and/or guitar. After playing the one song I know about five or six times, the crowd begged me to do a bout of gymnastics. While doing my regular gymnastic/yoga moves, I hit my head and rang my bell. Next thing I knew, the Ivory coast drifter came by with my BHP BMW DM into which he had planted some spinellas. He must have smoked some of the weed in my BHP BMW DM which still smelled of it when I entered the said BHP BMW DM. Since my head was filled with fluids by now, the weed made me lose all memory of the evening! I regained consciousness as the 40 or 45 police officers were beating me on the back of my head. I was sore afraid. The officers handed me a mop and told me to clean the joint up and hit the showers. While in my jail cell, the officials sent a priest from Our Lady Queen of Bingo who washed my feet and confessed to me that he found me kinda hot. You can imagine why this would be embarrassing for the good people of Seattle to hear about, so I tried to shield them from the whole incident. It is just like me to protect other people, just ask my Mom and Dad and my puppy and my kitten. Plus, on the other hand, I wouldn’t want my friend Nancy who has that tv show, to berate the good people of Seattle for treating a tv personality like a common criminal!

Now give it a rest, I just want my life back. Shit happens.


love this!


Me Too,

A *real tummy* tickler

Thanks for lighting up my morning

mul-)
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
Brogan, I am new here, and i resent your comments. So be it. I have three posts, and you have a couple hundred. So I should shut up and not interfere with your logic.

No one welcomed me, as opposed to many boards that welcome new members, and if you think that the number of your posts grants you superiorty, then good for you.

Even though I am new, I grant you that Justinian is a fool. But the boards that I am familiar with, (including those that I was either a mod or an administer on), treated new people with respect. I know that he started off wanting people to spoon him the juicy passages, but come on, either lead him to new insight or give up the mission to convince people of amanda's guilt. Which is more important, your arrogance or the truth?



Mogur I went back and read what I believe was your first post at 3.45 am on Thursday morning, I didn’t notice that you where a new member as there was no introduction indicating you as such so you can’t really complain about the lack of a welcome. That being said I feel it is a bit disingenuous to complain about my post as it was not aimed at you in fact you put yourself in that category not me so I’ll let the rest of your post slip.

My post was directed at the recent crop of drifters from pro Amanda sites that seem to be running a book on how fast they can be shown the door as some sort of badge of honour or as I would prefer a Tin Foil hat of stupidity. As I indicated they usually start their first posts with “ I’m new to this case” and then start to trot out the tired old crap that is the daily fare on sites like IIP. This is then followed by a pile on by members pointing out the inconsistencies in their narrative which will tie up the board for hours and even days. Some Amanda cultists would be more than happy to see PMF degenerate into something like Perugia Shock, you can see what they have done to the thread on Jref Where established members were stifled by a slew of new members who arrived to post on that one thread,. I stand by my comment that we past the guilt v innocence debate a long time ago.

I see Justinian has popped up at Jref, his first post was on the 12th so he must have registered a couple of days earlier as their registration process takes up to 48 hours plus the thread is moderated so posting is further delayed, he is exactly the sort of poster I was talking about, he posted drivel here so he can go running to Bruce claiming he is being repressed by those nasty PMF types.
Top Profile 

Offline tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I have been reading here at least once a day for as long as the board has been running, and just occasionally I look in in JREF and even Bruce's place, neither of which I can take for very long because they make me feel so uncomfortable. But I also have to admit that I often feel a tad intimidated by PMF, so I have only rarely posted in case I step on some toes. Now, I am no spring chicken, and my family would roll about laughing at any suggestion I am a wimp, so this is not easy for me to own up to: I just have this feeling that occasionally, some of the posters on this board come on pretty strongly at times. And it makes me almost cringe.

As, of course do the 'other side'. And I am reminded of the trench warfare of the Great War: each side dug in, lobbing shells across no man's land, neither side yielding or gaining an inch, each side utterly convinced the truth is all on their own side and the opponents are the devil incarnate.

I don't wish to take the analogy any further, since I truly believe the guilty verdicts were correct and that the motivations report makes this very clear. I do not like the tricks played by the trolls, but I do wonder if some among us are a bit quick on the draw. Wouldn't just ignoring them be worth trying?

Just sayin'. . . (Ducking for cover shielding my head, crying 'don't taser me, bro!')
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Cousin Brucie's "Summaries"

Why would anyone waste their time to read this "summary" of a controversial subject such as Appeals content?

In this case, the "summary" has been authored, edited, re-arranged, re-sequenced, modified, and shamelessly spun by a guy that is probably the *most* biased, single minded my way or highway, close minded spewer of simple lies, falsehoods, half truths and carefully parsed paragraphs that I have ever seen.

The fact that this "summary" miraculously made its appearance concurrently with the Translations is a quick acid test of the motives, methodology, sincerity, and sneaky manners inherent with any of "Cousin Brucie's recent "productions".
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Can a Naples wiseguy spring Amanda Knox?

Amanda Knox's summer of discontent
By Candace Dempsey, author of Murder In Italy


SEATTLE PI


(She's Back!)

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Candace also deserves a Beatles song:

Paperback writer
"Dear Sir or Madam, will you read my book?
It took me years to write, will you take a look?"
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
Brogan, I am new here, and i resent your comments. So be it. I have three posts, and you have a couple hundred. So I should shut up and not interfere with your logic.

No one welcomed me, as opposed to many boards that welcome new members, and if you think that the number of your posts grants you superiorty, then good for you.

Even though I am new, I grant you that Justinian is a fool. But the boards that I am familiar with, (including those that I was either a mod or an administer on), treated new people with respect. I know that he started off wanting people to spoon him the juicy passages, but come on, either lead him to new insight or give up the mission to convince people of amanda's guilt. Which is more important, your arrogance or the truth?


Mogur:
1) sorry I missed your earlier arrival here, but as with all new people, WELCOME
2) When you open a door to enter a room filled with new people you have *never met*, and hope to join, it is neither customary or approved etiquette to run around and piss on each person's shoes because *you think* they treated Justinian unfairly.
3) No one that I know here has ever in any way placed any reverence on "number of posts granting superiority" .
The fact that you imply this indicates to my non psychologist mind, creeping paranoid tendencies.
If numbers do impress you, might I suggest JREF.
Most there are at best long winded (very), and post as often in a day as most here in a month.
Be advised your posts will be definitely delayed, and probably often deleted
4) Your self described past Moderator and Administrator expertise is granted due adulation. However, the quality (not quantity) of what you bring to the table is the best criteria here.

Again..WELCOME
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mogur wrote:
Ok, Catnip, I have apologized. Yet you still tear me down. Are you going to ask for an apology from all the others who have ripped on Justianin? I think not, because you are a bully. You prey on who think are weak. But guess what you fool... you are weak. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I have researched. Go ahead, bully, and impress your friends how arrogant you are. I started to contribute here, check the translation typo thread. But, you don't stop to consider anyone but yourself. You don't really mean to defend Justinonia or whatever the fuck his name is, he is an idiot, and everyone on this board knows it. Now they know that you are an idiot for trashing someone that had something to bring to this table (me), in favor of puffing yourself up. Well, good luck my friend, and I feel sorry for anyone who tries to please you.



Mogur, in an earlier reply to you I happened to use the analogy of pissing on shoes.

Now I see you attempting to insult, challenge, and engage in a pissing contest with Catnip.
Mr mogur, be advised that (despite the fact you emptied your bladder previously on our shined shoes), you are outrageously outclassed.

Catnip is a long time excellent *humble* contributor with an unbelievable knowledge of this case as well as the ability to share his expertise in a most gentlemanly and eloquent manner.

The Almighty gave us two eyes, two ears and one mouth.
May I respectfully suggest you ponder on the proper utilization of that that ratio before senselessly and shamefully attacking anyone else here.
Top Profile 

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt wrote:
I have been reading here at least once a day for as long as the board has been running, and just occasionally I look in in JREF and even Bruce's place, neither of which I can take for very long because they make me feel so uncomfortable. But I also have to admit that I often feel a tad intimidated by PMF, so I have only rarely posted in case I step on some toes. Now, I am no spring chicken, and my family would roll about laughing at any suggestion I am a wimp, so this is not easy for me to own up to: I just have this feeling that occasionally, some of the posters on this board come on pretty strongly at times. And it makes me almost cringe.

As, of course do the 'other side'. And I am reminded of the trench warfare of the Great War: each side dug in, lobbing shells across no man's land, neither side yielding or gaining an inch, each side utterly convinced the truth is all on their own side and the opponents are the devil incarnate.

I don't wish to take the analogy any further, since I truly believe the guilty verdicts were correct and that the motivations report makes this very clear. I do not like the tricks played by the trolls, but I do wonder if some among us are a bit quick on the draw. Wouldn't just ignoring them be worth trying?

Just sayin'. . . (Ducking for cover shielding my head, crying 'don't taser me, bro!')


Seconded. Well, I like to think I'm somewhat of a spring chicken (not 40 for another few months!), but otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.

I'm also a huge supporter of SomeAlibi's occasional suggestions that it doesn't do any harm to acknowledge that some of the evidence is stronger than other, and that there are many unknown (and unknowable) aspects to the case (which do not weaken the guilty verdicts at all). I don't like any questioning of any of the evidence resulting in accusations or implications that the asker is JAQ-ing off in an suspect-undercover-FOA manner. I think that as long as people post respectfully and sincerely, they should be treated with respect, and that ignoring trolls is SO much more effective than engaging with them (if only for a day or two before they're asked to leave).

I'm nobody here and don't expect my opinions to be treated as pillars of wisdom (ha!), but I did agree with your post, tjt.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brogan wrote:

Quote:
My post was directed at the recent crop of drifters from pro Amanda sites that seem to be running a book on how fast they can be shown the door as some sort of badge of honour or as I would prefer a Tin Foil hat of stupidity. As I indicated they usually start their first posts with “ I’m new to this case” and then start to trot out the tired old crap that is the daily fare on sites like IIP. This is then followed by a pile on by members pointing out the inconsistencies in their narrative which will tie up the board for hours and even days. Some Amanda cultists would be more than happy to see PMF degenerate into something like Perugia Shock, you can see what they have done to the thread on Jref, where established members were stifled by a slew of new members who arrived to post on that one thread,. I stand by my comment that we past the guilt v innocence debate a long time ago.


In the early 80's I saw a mock horror film (I forget the name, the director, everything) in which a continuous stream of zombies fed on human flesh, which caused them to multiply even faster and become even hungrier. In one memorable and funny scene, a bunch of cop cars arrive at a scary looking mansion in response to a 911 call. As they emerge from their squad cars, they are of course ambushed by hordes of zombies. From one of the squad cars dangles a police radio microphone and someone back at headquarters can be heard over the radio asking what's going on. One of the zombies grabs the microphone and croaks "Send more cops" as if he is ordering a bunch of pizzas for his buddies.

Similarly, some of the people who turn up here have been sent in steady supply to stir up trouble. They are fairly easy to spot and, believe it or not, most of them have left ample tracks of their fervor elsewhere on the Internet. I don't generally post the information I may find as justification for getting rid of them and I don't plan to start any time soon. Equally, though, I refuse to see the same tired approach used over and over again, with the same predictable results. Yes, it has become a game to join this board in the aim of being banned. Yes, the ban is worn as a badge of honor. And yes, these zombies would like nothing more than to see this board become the shameful den that is JREF or the sorry playpen that is Perugia Shock. It isn't going to happen.

But I would like everyone to know that no one is banned unless and until due diligence is done. SomeAlibi refers to having gotten a rough ride at the start. I vaguely remember that. I don't think I was part of it, but if so, I apologize. At the same time, I suspect that all communities subject newcomers to various kinds of rituals and tests. How newcomers handle these tests determines their fitness. And the bottom line is simple: the use of avatars protects individuals but I don't personally think it should be an excuse for pretending to be someone or something you are not, or for not disclosing relevant details (like, by the way, Bruce Fisher asked me if I would post here). Pretending to be something you are not, in my humble opinion, turns this into a silly game. And that dishonors the memory of Meredith Kercher. Incidentally, I have been told by numerous sources that people close to her look in at PMF. So please excuse me for refusing to suffer fools who pretend to be something they are not and tarnish Meredith's memory (or cause hurt to her family) to boot.

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

Offline Tiziano


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am

Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 - breeches / britches   

Michael wrote:
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.


Back in the late 60's there was a fad for a type of female underwear which was known as
"witches' britches" here in Australia: they were just-below-the-knee tight panties embellished generously around the end of the legs with lace. A favourite colour, I seem to remember, was
purple!

This is the best I can find: not quite as they were, but you get the idea?



I found in my search for a picture that witches britches these days are three quarter cycling pants for girls.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

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

mogur wrote:
Ok, Catnip, I have apologized. Yet you still tear me down. Are you going to ask for an apology from all the others who have ripped on Justianin? I think not, because you are a bully. You prey on who think are weak. But guess what you fool... you are weak. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I have researched. Go ahead, bully, and impress your friends how arrogant you are. I started to contribute here, check the translation typo thread. But, you don't stop to consider anyone but yourself. You don't really mean to defend Justinonia or whatever the fuck his name is, he is an idiot, and everyone on this board knows it. Now they know that you are an idiot for trashing someone that had something to bring to this table (me), in favor of puffing yourself up. Well, good luck my friend, and I feel sorry for anyone who tries to please you.


Oh dear mogur. You picked the wrong person to spar with here. Catnip is the most removed from being a bully I can possibly imagine. If you have been following the board for any length of time you will know what Catnip contributes and how amazing his posts are. He lies a short way off, in the shade, just like his avatar, and I cannot imagine the board being without his gentle wisdom and insights. So please don't insult one of the real gentlemen on the site. Catnip is NOT weak, nor a bully, nor arrogant nor does he puff himself up. These are ridiculous assertions, as I think you are fully aware.

Sheeeesh...is it a full moon or something?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

modest_ex wrote:
tjt wrote:
I have been reading here at least once a day for as long as the board has been running, and just occasionally I look in in JREF and even Bruce's place, neither of which I can take for very long because they make me feel so uncomfortable. But I also have to admit that I often feel a tad intimidated by PMF, so I have only rarely posted in case I step on some toes. Now, I am no spring chicken, and my family would roll about laughing at any suggestion I am a wimp, so this is not easy for me to own up to: I just have this feeling that occasionally, some of the posters on this board come on pretty strongly at times. And it makes me almost cringe.

As, of course do the 'other side'. And I am reminded of the trench warfare of the Great War: each side dug in, lobbing shells across no man's land, neither side yielding or gaining an inch, each side utterly convinced the truth is all on their own side and the opponents are the devil incarnate.

I don't wish to take the analogy any further, since I truly believe the guilty verdicts were correct and that the motivations report makes this very clear. I do not like the tricks played by the trolls, but I do wonder if some among us are a bit quick on the draw. Wouldn't just ignoring them be worth trying?

Just sayin'. . . (Ducking for cover shielding my head, crying 'don't taser me, bro!')


Seconded. Well, I like to think I'm somewhat of a spring chicken (not 40 for another few months!), but otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.

I'm also a huge supporter of SomeAlibi's occasional suggestions that it doesn't do any harm to acknowledge that some of the evidence is stronger than other, and that there are many unknown (and unknowable) aspects to the case (which do not weaken the guilty verdicts at all). I don't like any questioning of any of the evidence resulting in accusations or implications that the asker is JAQ-ing off in an suspect-undercover-FOA manner. I think that as long as people post respectfully and sincerely, they should be treated with respect, and that ignoring trolls is SO much more effective than engaging with them (if only for a day or two before they're asked to leave).

I'm nobody here and don't expect my opinions to be treated as pillars of wisdom (ha!), but I did agree with your post, tjt.


I don't think SomeAlibi is the only poster who holds this view. It could be used to describe many others as well.

I have a great idea, though. How about if Modest Ex and tjt co-moderate and co-administer the board for a week or two? I am of course just kidding and being deliberately provocative. However, the suggestion that trolls be ignored is not always possible. I don't expect people here to have noticed, but I start to get riled when I see that a new poster is desperately trying to post as many discredited FOA talking points as possible or mention a particular book in every post, as if to advertise. I consider those things to be a misuse of the board and don't see why I as co-moderator should allow that to go on and on without nipping it in the bud. For one thing, when these things start to happen, it means I have to keep an eye on things or that Michael does. Perhaps you have forgotten, but Harry Wilkens, masquerading as someone else, posted an incredibly disgusting pornographic photo one night, after posting loads of garbage that went unchallenged. From a practical as well as an ethical perspective, my goal is to cultivate and maintain a board that is, well, cultivated and self-maintaining, in part so that I don't have to worry about things degenerating while I sleep (I think all of this holds for Michael as well).

Anyway, the bottom line is that sometimes one has to step in and stop a problem before it gets out of hand. Predictably, this doesn't always sit well with everyone. In an ideal world, I would not have to ban anyone or delete any comments (this almost never happens, by the way -- ask yourselves why!). But in this one, things are different.

_________________
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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt wrote:
I have been reading here at least once a day for as long as the board has been running, and just occasionally I look in in JREF and even Bruce's place, neither of which I can take for very long because they make me feel so uncomfortable. But I also have to admit that I often feel a tad intimidated by PMF, so I have only rarely posted in case I step on some toes. Now, I am no spring chicken, and my family would roll about laughing at any suggestion I am a wimp, so this is not easy for me to own up to: I just have this feeling that occasionally, some of the posters on this board come on pretty strongly at times. And it makes me almost cringe.

As, of course do the 'other side'. And I am reminded of the trench warfare of the Great War: each side dug in, lobbing shells across no man's land, neither side yielding or gaining an inch, each side utterly convinced the truth is all on their own side and the opponents are the devil incarnate.

I don't wish to take the analogy any further, since I truly believe the guilty verdicts were correct and that the motivations report makes this very clear. I do not like the tricks played by the trolls, but I do wonder if some among us are a bit quick on the draw. Wouldn't just ignoring them be worth trying?

Just sayin'. . . (Ducking for cover shielding my head, crying 'don't taser me, bro!')


Well said, tjt; *very* well said.

Your sentiments have been also put forward by some of the long time posters here who I deeply respect.

Hope I am not being "immodest" by feeling that *maybe* (probably ?) I could easily be considered as one "coming on too strong".

Couple considerations:
1) my intent is certainly not to humiliate or drive away anyone who comes to a Forum that I gratefully participate in only as a common member, and only at the pleasure of Moderator's monitoring.
2) At my age, I have all experience and qualifications to meet title of "Grumpy Old Man"
3) I tend to interact here pretty much the way I interacted throughout a several decades long career as a Military and Commercial Pilot.
4) If I appear abrupt maybe it is because some topics (and some individuals seem) analogous to action required when one finds himself with a situation in which he is rapidly running out of airspeed, altitude, *and ideas*....quick decisive, incisive (and insensitive) action required.
"Ignoring the problem" is not an option; 'deliberately delivered' trolls here get 'undelicate' responses
5) Must admit, I try to entertain as well as educate, so admittedly some of my comments are indeed very sarcastic, tongue in cheek, and rightly could be considered by some as not humorous, but just wise ass, pompous and snarky.
6) Finally, I do try and treat everyone as I would like to be treated, and sometimes, I accept the fact that others have every right to "make me cringe" with some harsh words...so be it, and have at it.

No need for cover certainly based on that fine post, and no tasers, bro,
c'mon, hop on in
Based on your long time readership, I am sure you have much to offer
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"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?"

Hi,

I stopped reading with that comment. There were just too many directed at me, so commenting on them all is more than I can do.

First, there is a lot of activity about “had had”. I do believe I stated in my comment that is correct. It simply is not used often. At least I can say I don’t hear it spoken, and I can’t recall reading it in modern written works. It’s perfectly correct though and it is a better descriptor than a single ‘had’. You are absolutely correct about it being valid, and better in many ways than a single had. It just sounded a little funny because it doesn’t get much use. Again, I do believe I implied that in my actual comment about the typo.

As for answering the machine. He is a well known poster to many media articles. Notorious some would say, for creating misleading implications, such as the existence of female bloody shoe prints in the victims room. Moreover, the questions he asks are loaded, controversial, and he, as well as most of the posters to this board can well anticipate the answers I am likely to give. Does anybody really want to go through that drill? (that was rhetorical, please).

I do post at Bruce Fishers blog, under the same user id. I am not trying to hide.

I am working my way through the motivations report. Thank you again for translating. It is a great job. I agree, that should and will be my priority. This, and the need to make a living, will limit my posting here.

To those who say why furnish help ‘to the other side’, I respond there is only one truth. I no more want to see the real killer of Ms Kercher escape justice than you would want her innocent friend to spend twenty six years in jail due to a mistake. There is one truth and all posters who are sincere are looking for it honestly.

As to the question above. My answer is that when she spoke, that was her opinion. It may have been the longest day of her life, but her recollection does not have to be perfect. Maybe she is even correct. But if she is or is not, she is giving her own subjective recollection. The standard you are holding her to is too high. She just woke up in the morning. She is reporting when she thought she woke up. She did not write it down in a diary. By 10:30 I guess I would hold her to be saying not especially early. Since Raffaele’s father called about 9:30, I would guess it corroborates her having woken up after that sometime. I believe you are trying to force into this bit of information more meaning than it contains.

As to the time of arrival of the Postal Police, it is important because I have heard for some time that AK/RS called the Carabinieri after the arrival of the Postal Police, to set up an alibi. I have read on in the motivations report and the court does not accept this. At the point I have read to ( about p120), it seems the court accepts the defense proposition that the call to the Carabinieri came before the arrival of the Postal Police, but seems to begrudge them that, by saying it’s due to the fact the Postal Police did not account for several calls, to AK’s flatmates as well as the Carabinieri, that would have all occurred before 1., So, the time must be adjusted to be shortly before 1pm. I say begrudged because the as you point out, even with that, the Court simply leaves the time of arrival open.

Because the call went out before the arrival of the Postal Police, it does need to be explained why someone who had just committed a murder would call the police on themselves. The motivations report does add an explanation, but I will have to read it again to get the full gist of it. It is rather odd on the first reading, seeming at one point to have them explaining to the Carabinieri with the purpose of declaring in advance that no burglary occurred, but then in the very next moment after, explaining to the Postal Police the exact opposite, that a burglary did occur. It is explained, but I would add, to me, on the first reading, not especially satisfactorily. (PMF Translation beginning on p. 87 but esp. p. 89 para. 2).

Also, it is a fact that AK/RS were planning a trip for that weekend. It was already planned for on the morning of Nov 2. My reading of the motivation report says they abandoned that trip in order to appear innocent and keep tabs on the progress of the investigation. Is that really a superior choice to just getting the heck out of dodge, and feigning surprise later? It does seem here that the motivation report is saying they are acting exactly as you would expect if they were innocent, and that’s why we think they are guilty. How can one defend oneself against that?

again, mhe need to earn a living, plus my intent to read through the motivation report will limit my ability to post here, I apologize in advance.

To the extent that you are willing to explain the meaning of the text of the motivation report, I thank you in advance.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT I know, but Tiziano, I remember when I used to wear witches' britches (parts of New Zealand have pretty cool winters!) and they did not cover the knees, were close fitting and stretchy, a fore-runner to the Lycra you mentioned. I seem to recall a tiny edging of lace. I remember having a bright pillarbox red pair... thanks for the reminder!
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
As for answering the machine. He is a well known poster to many media articles. Notorious some would say, for creating misleading implications, such as the existence of female bloody shoe prints in the victims room. Moreover, the questions he asks are loaded, controversial, and he, as well as most of the posters to this board can well anticipate the answers I am likely to give. Does anybody really want to go through that drill? (that was rhetorical, please).


Two imprint experts testified at the trial that there was a woman's bloody shoeprint, which matched Knox's foot size, on the pillow under Meredith's body. That is a statement of fact.

I don't think you're able to answer my questions. Please prove me wrong.

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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:

As for answering the machine. He is a well known poster to many media articles. Notorious some would say, for creating misleading implications, such as the existence of female bloody shoe prints in the victims room. Moreover, the questions he asks are loaded, controversial, and he, as well as most of the posters to this board can well anticipate the answers I am likely to give. Does anybody really want to go through that drill? (that was rhetorical, please).

I do post at Bruce Fishers blog, under the same user id. I am not trying to hide.

To those who say why furnish help ‘to the other side’, I respond there is only one truth. I no more want to see the real killer of Ms Kercher escape justice than you would want her innocent friend to spend twenty six years in jail due to a mistake.


Moon beam (sp)

1) To which "innocent" (innocent ?) friend are you suggesting we concern ourselves with ?
Most certainly not the one who was *unanimously* convicted, and is still working to the best she can remember on her *fourth* version of where she was when the murder occurred.

2) Your *personal* and certainly obviously biased and opinionated *slurs* about The Machine are not *in the least* shared by most of us *here*, who are most familiar with his knowledge of the case (and his canny ability to quickly expose... "undesirables").

3) In fact your justifications for the term 'notorious', as well as your rating of his questions, and accusatory terminology such as misleading and loaded are in fact a near perfect description of your "acquaintance", Cousin Brucie.

4) I absolutely agree; please do not B-O-R-E us with your "answers". The tired talking points you dispense have been individually and collectively discredited over an unfathomable amount of discussions here.

5) Since you adopt the 'soul baring' and 'honest to the core' attributes adopted and applauded by past similar newcomers..may I ask..Who did the enticing, and how were you enticed to play this recently recurring game here ?


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream says:

"First, there is a lot of activity about “had had”. I do believe I stated in my comment that is correct. It simply is not used often. At least I can say I don’t hear it spoken, and I can’t recall reading it in modern written works. It’s perfectly correct though and it is a better descriptor than a single ‘had’. You are absolutely correct about it being valid, and better in many ways than a single had. It just sounded a little funny because it doesn’t get much use. Again, I do believe I implied that in my actual comment about the typo."

Actually, you do come across it spoken quite often, though usually in the form of a contraction:

"I'd had a year of Italian before I started reading Dante."
"She'd had it with his excuses even before he tried the new story."
"I'd had a few drinks with dinner, but was not intoxicated when I left."

These all sound perfectly colloquial to me.
But if they read instead:

"I had had a year of Italian..."
"She had had it with his excuses..."
"I had had a few drinks..."

Suddenly it sounds strange.
We just don't like the sound of the repeated "had."
But in a formal written report, contractions are not acceptable.
What sounds awkward here is the formality, not the verbal construction.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Quote:
As to the question above. My answer is that when she spoke, that was her opinion. It may have been the longest day of her life, but her recollection does not have to be perfect. Maybe she is even correct. But if she is or is not, she is giving her own subjective recollection. The standard you are holding her to is too high. She just woke up in the morning. She is reporting when she thought she woke up. She did not write it down in a diary. By 10:30 I guess I would hold her to be saying not especially early. Since Raffaele’s father called about 9:30, I would guess it corroborates her having woken up after that sometime. I believe you are trying to force into this bit of information more meaning than it contains.


You evade the question. It was not about a single wake up time with which you try to downplay it. It was a period of 5 hours which both Amanda and Raffaele avoided to discuss. Like you. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
moodstream wrote:
As for answering the machine. He is a well known poster to many media articles. Notorious some would say, for creating misleading implications, such as the existence of female bloody shoe prints in the victims room. Moreover, the questions he asks are loaded, controversial, and he, as well as most of the posters to this board can well anticipate the answers I am likely to give. Does anybody really want to go through that drill? (that was rhetorical, please).


Two imprint experts testified at the trial that there was a woman's bloody shoeprint, which matched Knox's foot size, on the pillow under Meredith's body. That is a statement of fact.


This is absolutely true. The shoeprint evidence was an unresolved court dispute and played no role in the convictions. There were those who thought it was, indeed, a woman's shoeprint, and those who thought it could only be Rudy Guede's print. But sitting right in the middle of things we find Amanda Knox's legal team who took the position that it was impossible to determine one way or the other if those were shoeprints or mere creases in the pillow. So how is The Machine's personal view of that element in any way misleading?

I find The Machine's questions to be direct, no-nonsense inquires that anyone deeply interested in this case should have a considered response for. If you're not to the point where you can provide a well thought out response to The Machine's questions, moodstream, then I'd say you haven't studied the case deeply enough.

It's not always a matter of being right or wrong, but sometimes simply a matter of having a response that is more than baseless conjecture or wishful thinking. Simply ignoring the key and significant elements of this murder case will get you nowhere on this board.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
"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?"


As for answering the machine. He is a well known poster to many media articles. Notorious some would say, for creating misleading implications, such as the existence of female bloody shoe prints in the victims room. Moreover, the questions he asks are loaded, controversial, and he, as well as most of the posters to this board can well anticipate the answers I am likely to give. Does anybody really want to go through that drill? (that was rhetorical, please).

As to the question above. My answer is that when she spoke, that was her opinion. It may have been the longest day of her life, but her recollection does not have to be perfect. Maybe she is even correct. But if she is or is not, she is giving her own subjective recollection. The standard you are holding her to is too high. She just woke up in the morning. She is reporting when she thought she woke up. She did not write it down in a diary. By 10:30 I guess I would hold her to be saying not especially early. Since Raffaele’s father called about 9:30, I would guess it corroborates her having woken up after that sometime. I believe you are trying to force into this bit of information more meaning than it contains.



Ok, this really helps mood. Whilst I was happy to give you another chance I don't think it is respectful for you to arrive here and slate TM on the second AND THIRD post you make. If you believe Machine's assertions are misleading you must explain how, not just state it as fact. I think Machine's questions are designed to make a very strong point. I don't think they 'mislead' I think they offer pause for thought to people who believe Amanda and Raffaelle to be innocent. No-one has answered them satisfactorily from the FOA to date. Your reply to SA's question is simply not good enough. 'Her own subjective recollection'. What about just the pure unvarnished truth? Why is the standard we are holding her to too high? A young woman was brutally murdered. If you were anywhere in the vicinity you need to provide a totally watertight account of where you were and when. Neither could do this. Subsequently things they said did not check out. That is the problem you have, and you can't wriggle out of it by saying 'It was the best truth she could remember'. It just isn't good enough.

Tell me mood - if it was your daughter who had been murdered, would these answers from the chief suspect be good enough for you? Would you accept the 'best truth' they could remember?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream wrote:
As to the question above. My answer is that when she spoke, that was her opinion. It may have been the longest day of her life, but her recollection does not have to be perfect. Maybe she is even correct. But if she is or is not, she is giving her own subjective recollection. The standard you are holding her to is too high. She just woke up in the morning. She is reporting when she thought she woke up. She did not write it down in a diary. By 10:30 I guess I would hold her to be saying not especially early. Since Raffaele’s father called about 9:30, I would guess it corroborates her having woken up after that sometime. I believe you are trying to force into this bit of information more meaning than it contains.


I'm afraid it's not so easy to hand wave it away merely as an 'imperfect memory'. We are not talking about little details here. One does not require a perfect or even good memory to know that you actually got very little, if any, sleep that morning. One doesn't need a perfect memory to remember that one went down the shop that morning. And one also must have something very wrong with their brains to turn a four hour expedition to the cottage into one hour. Four hours is a long time to fill with too much activity which is too much to forget. Taking a shower drying hair and getting dressed doesn't take four hours. Moreover, despite being 'reminded' of her activities of that morning by the witnesses, experts and computer evidence, she still maintained her dis-proven timeline. This is well beyond a case of 'simply slipping the mind', this is total amnesia!


Moodstream wrote:
As to the time of arrival of the Postal Police, it is important because I have heard for some time that AK/RS called the Carabinieri after the arrival of the Postal Police, to set up an alibi. I have read on in the motivations report and the court does not accept this. At the point I have read to ( about p120), it seems the court accepts the defense proposition that the call to the Carabinieri came before the arrival of the Postal Police, but seems to begrudge them that, by saying it’s due to the fact the Postal Police did not account for several calls, to AK’s flatmates as well as the Carabinieri, that would have all occurred before 1., So, the time must be adjusted to be shortly before 1pm. I say begrudged because the as you point out, even with that, the Court simply leaves the time of arrival open.


At the end of the day, it actually isn't important, since it doesn't in any way contribute to any of the reasons for which she was convicted. As you said yourself, Massei leaves it open.

Moodstream wrote:
Also, it is a fact that AK/RS were planning a trip for that weekend. It was already planned for on the morning of Nov 2. My reading of the motivation report says they abandoned that trip in order to appear innocent and keep tabs on the progress of the investigation. Is that really a superior choice to just getting the heck out of dodge, and feigning surprise later? It does seem here that the motivation report is saying they are acting exactly as you would expect if they were innocent, and that’s why we think they are guilty. How can one defend oneself against that?


Actually, the trip was planned for the 'day', not the weekend. Why would they 'get out of Dodge'? How would that benefit them? It wouldn't give them any alibi and worse, they would have no idea what was going on, they would not be able to shape the investigation in any way, neither would they have the opportunity to provide an act that would make them appear innocent and they'd still have to return to face the music later, but in ignorance instead of in the know. That would have been a major disadvantage. It was also important for Amanda to return and make last minute touches to the clean-up and staging and check that nothing glaring and incriminating had been missed. It would have also been a good idea to perform some 'innocent' activity at the cottage (taking a shower) that would leave further traces of her that may serve to mask traces she may have left during the crime. I also imagine, it wouldn't have looked that great from an innocence point of view to have been found to have left town the morning after your house mate was murdered.

_________________
"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 tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote
I have a great idea, though. How about if Modest Ex and tjt co-moderate and co-administer the board for a week or two? I am of course just kidding and being deliberately provocative.I However, the suggestion that trolls be ignored is not always possible. I don't expect people here to have noticed, but I start to get riled when I see that a new poster is desperately trying to post as many discredited FOA talking points as possible or mention a particular book in every post, as if to advertise. I consider those things to be a misuse of the board and don't see why I as co-moderator should allow that to go on and on without nipping it in the bud.


Your point is taken, Skep. I was not thinking of either you or Michael, as it happens; I think you both are doing a superb job of moderating and administration. I also understand that much of the trolling is a ploy to disrupt and degrade PMF and no, it cannot be allowed. I am referring to what I call, for lack of a better term, 'smart-arsery' . Stirring the pot is not my intention. I just can't help feeling that the tone adopted by some of our posters is giving the 'others' ammunition to use against us.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think it helps, if one isn't too thin skinned. Lookit, The Machine doesn't muck about. He's too busy righting wrongs. Now, Mogur, tjt I feel, has a good approach, and I feel that is a good trait in all social interactions. BTW. Welcome, tjt. Sorry for the oversight, and to all new posters I may have missed.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt wrote:
Your point is taken, Skep. I was not thinking of either you or Michael, as it happens; I think you both are doing a superb job of moderating and administration. I also understand that much of the trolling is a ploy to disrupt and degrade PMF and no, it cannot be allowed. I am referring to what I call, for lack of a better term, 'smart-arsery' . Stirring the pot is not my intention. I just can't help feeling that the tone adopted by some of our posters is giving the 'others' ammunition to use against us.


Unfortunately, while perfection may be desirable, we have to settle for the 'best compromise' in order to protect the security and integrity of the board and current members. The balance may not be exactly right all the time, but it's as close as we can get to it. Also, while Skep and I may enforce the rules and all the other stuff Moderators are supposed to enforce, we aren't the thought police. We can't dictate to members what they must think about new members. At best, we can only guide and that goes only so far, we're not a hive mind.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Actually, tjt, I thought initially you were another poster, tsit, or something close.

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
It may have been the longest day of her life, but her recollection does not have to be perfect. Maybe she is even correct. But if she is or is not, she is giving her own subjective recollection. The standard you are holding her to is too high. She just woke up in the morning. She is reporting when she thought she woke up. She did not write it down in a diary.


Just a moment, moodstream. You skipped entirely all aspects of the topic addressed by SomeAlibi. How can you be satisfied with an answer which is patently contradicting a huge number of points, and has nothing to do with quality of memory or perfection?
It is not about Amanda alone. Raffaele also stated he couldn't remember anything but having been asleep. Is this answer credible? Is it credible that two people get their memories canceled or completely wrong on a most obvious datum - like: this morning I woke up as usual, or not - at the same time? Is it possible that Raffaele and Amanda forgot all about their computer activities? Is it possible Amanda didn't notice at all Raffaele's phone activity?
Amanda was used to wake up early, at about 8:00. Waking up at 10:30 was an unusual event. You forget having waken up a time unusual for you this morning - and btw in this case unexpected, since they say they had a plan to leave early for Gubbio that morning - or you remember having waken up at an unusual time instead of the usual one, while this is not true? Think about it: do you get wrong the most basic fact of today, when you got up? Was it normal time? Normal routine? You have a shower and you have breakfast in relax and within this acivities your memory gets altered and sees a changing in the basic conditions of the morning?
A person who experiences this would be called in state of mental confusion (which is a clinical state, not an emotional condition).
Do you really think normal people would consider Amanda's answer credible? No way, moodstream. If your recollection of facts is crazy, you are crazy. If it's consistent and not credible, you are telling the false.
Your naming a "subjective recollection" and your claim the "standard is too high", sound purely delusional.
Try to reflect rationally instead on an elment. Simply admit there is an element - a piece of information - that doesn't add up. There is a problem. Admit it, before going further into the analysis of all other facts.


Last edited by Yummi on Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: John, Paul, George....   

The 411 wrote:
Michael wrote:

I very much recommend reading: 1066, The Year of the Three Battles.



OK, I don't want y'all to think I have basic reading comprehension problems, but this is how I first "read" the above sentence by Michael:

"I very much recommend reading: "1966, The Year of the Three Beatles."



is)

Send Coffee STAT!



:lol: :lol: :lol: Me too !!! It must be dog hairs in the eyes or something!!

th-) A big belated thanks to all the translators for the work on the report. th-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
moodstream wrote:
As for answering the machine. He is a well known poster to many media articles. Notorious some would say, for creating misleading implications, such as the existence of female bloody shoe prints in the victims room. Moreover, the questions he asks are loaded, controversial, and he, as well as most of the posters to this board can well anticipate the answers I am likely to give. Does anybody really want to go through that drill? (that was rhetorical, please).


Two imprint experts testified at the trial that there was a woman's bloody shoeprint, which matched Knox's foot size, on the pillow under Meredith's body. That is a statement of fact.

I don't think you're able to answer my questions. Please prove me wrong.

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.

TM,

I don't think moodstream has the intention of answering any of your questions. Perhaps you can find some answers in these moodstream's posts somewhere else:

moodstream in another blog/forum:
Quote:
The interrogation is important to the extent that it can be used to measure Amanda Knox’s involvement and guilt. Let’s say she is guilty, and she is interrogated for 100 hours without break, without sleep, food, water, she is slapped on the back of the head, and she breaks and tells all. Then, the interrogation is unfortunate, perhaps illegal, but despite the poor treatment, in the end what matters is she is guilty. On the hand, let’s say she is not guilty, but is a spoiled brat with no respect for the police and her idea of fun is to blame her boss so he gets arrested for a crime she knows he did not commit. That sure would not make her look like anyone I would want to know, but the important fact here is despite this, she is not guilty of murder.
The point I am trying to make is, everything about the interrogation is largely irrelevant except that it can be used to gauge Amanda Knox’s likely involvement in the murder of her roommate. Was it four hours or forty hours? It’s not that important.
The lack of corroborating audio and video evidence forces everyone to consider the interrogation from a he (Manginni) said / she ( Amanda Knox) said frame work. For me, the lack of corroborating audio and video indicates that Amanda’s version of events is more likely to be closer to what actually happened. Manginni was so determined to show that he had the killer that if she had simply opened up and made a clear honest confession, the odds are pretty strong that that is something he would want on video tape, and the world over would have watched her confession again and again on CNN and other major news outlets. It would be a major triumph for him, and the fact that we aren’t watching that means to me that it probably did not happen.
So, let’s take a look at it from the point of view of what we can say and what we know. We can say that she is either guilty or innocent, and we know what documentary evidence we have. 
Let’s remove the name Amanda Knox. Let’s start with an average twenty year girl, who does smoke pot ( illegally if commonly), on an exchange program in another country, who is in every other ordinary sense of the word law abiding and trusting of the police, but has found herself wrapped up in an extraordinarily tragic, shocking, and stressful situation. She is now being told by those same police that they know she was involved, and that her boyfriend says the same. She says that cannot be and they say that she is blocking it out. She says it can’t be and they say she can’t leave until she says it is. She says it can’t be and they say well at least they know he boss was involved and they just need her help to trap him. She says she does not understand and they say they just want her to imagine what it would have been like if she had been there and he was the killer, just imagine a story. She reluctantly imagines that for them and advises them this is her imagination. They say that’s okay, they just need a document that will place him there and then they can do their job and get the right man, and she can go home, and the only way she is going home is to sign the document. Reluctantly she signs the document, and within hours understands the actual implications of what she has done and recants.
Does that sound unlikely?
What about the opposite? Suppose she is guilty. She says no. The police say is all they need is a document that puts her in the house at the time of the crime. Does anyone think she would say yes to that? Especially one that blames someone who she knows will have an alibi? No one guilty would agree to sign the document she signed. What could be gained? In this scenario, she knows she is guilty, why would she implicate herself at all, but if she did, why wouldn’t offer an actual confession. It would be all or nothing at all. 
Let’s face it, the reason that document involves her boss is that she does not have a clue what happened in that cottage and that’s because of the simple fact that she was not there.
--------
moodstream also said:
(continued) 
As to your other comments, I don’t know enough about the document to reply to how it made a difference that she was in addition to signing it, signing also to the fact that it was the truth. Without knowing much about it I have to say I don’t get the difference. If the police want me to sign a document intended to show I am telling them something, if it contains language that it is also truthful doesn’t add much, as far as the decision to sign.

I was able to locate a news transcript of the hand written note Amanda gave to the police on Nov 6th, the day she was arrested. I guess that would be hours after the interrogation. I encourage you to re-read it. To me this is a message from a woman who trusts the police and wants to help them. The writing shows clearly not that she is unwilling to come to terms with her culpability in the crime but rather that she has yet to realize how roundly she is being abused by the police she still trusts. 

I would be interested in your take on it though. The link is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

As to Manginni being present. I did not mean to suggest that, although for all I know he was. It is via his office as prosecutor that he wanted Amanda to confess, and if he had obtained one, I am positive we would have seen it on tv ad infinitum. I am also positive the interrogation was taped, but because it did not turn out the way they wanted, the tape was lost.
-----
More from moodstream:
there is simply no need for, nor reason to believe in, additional killers than Rudy Guede. Amanda and Raffaele are guilty because of a fantasy the court wants to believe in. 

My understanding of the appeal though is that it is like a new trial. They do not have to accept the prior jury's conclusions or rationale. In fact, I think I read on this site somewhere that the jury is better educated on the appeal, which certainly will help Amanda and Raffaele.

Also, I am hoping the defense will be able to present evidence to refute the dna claims of the prosecution, which I am told they were not allowed at trial. Plus, it would be interesting to find out what is on those hard drives, wouldn't it be. Perhaps that will be allowed. 

In short, on appeal, at least there is hope they will receive a fair trial based on evidence before an impartial, educated jury. In that case, they are as good as free.

:roll:
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh. Jools. Well truffled. I think I can see the extent of the problem now...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:

Quote:
.... it seems the court accepts the defense proposition that the call to the Carabinieri came before the arrival of the Postal Police, but seems to begrudge them that, by saying it’s due to the fact the Postal Police did not account for several calls, to AK’s flatmates as well as the Carabinieri, that would have all occurred before 1., So, the time must be adjusted to be shortly before 1pm. I say begrudged because the as you point out, even with that, the Court simply leaves the time of arrival open.


There has been an interesting discussion here about this open position by the Court. It was observed that in fact the Court shows that both possibilities lead to a problem, to a contradition for the defendant. If the Carabinieri call was after the police arrival, the reason for suspicion would be obvious. Massei starts the reasoning from the assumption that the defence theory is true - Carabinieri were called before the arrival of Postal Police - and shows that also this one leads to a contradiction. The contradiction emergs when we juxtappose the content of the conversations, what Raffaele told to the Carabinieri and what he told to the Postal Police officers. If it is true the postal police officers spoke with him after he spoke with the Carabinieri, why then he shows and acts as if knows less about the break in than a few minutes earlier?
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Oh. Jools. Well truffled. I think I can see the extent of the problem now...

Here is a better one, in this one which he posted in mid April, long before the Massei report was translated and publish by PMF.
Moo said:
Quote:
The essential problem with the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is there is no compelling motive and no inconvertible evidence. I was only dimly aware of the trial and to the extent I thought about it at all, I presumed the Italian authorities knew what they were doing. When the conviction made news, my first thought was that some crazy American girl had murdered her roommate. But as I thought about the verdict, and the motivation, the more strongly I became convinced that nobody, not even crazy people, would act out the lurid fantasy that the prosecution claimed preceded the murder. Now I have read a quite a bit and I fully realize how wronged these two college students have been, by the Italian authorities, by many journalists, and by many more who for their own private purposes want Amanda Knox to suffer. 
I am not saying it is impossible to sincerely hold that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. I am saying having looked at the facts I think objectively, I find it very difficult to wrap my mind around how they can be considered guilty. The best I can come up with is sincere but misplaced loyalty to the victim and the victim’s family. Except for a few though, it is hard to rise above the cynical feeling that many people at this point just derive pleasure from Amanda Knox's misfortune, or are pursuing private gain and are indifferent to her plight. It's strikes me as quite odd. For many of these people Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and even justice for the victim seem slight considerations at best.
This is certainly a tragedy. A very sad tragedy. Even for the murderer, Rudy Guede. It's too bad that we live in a world where we have a relative fortune to spend trying and incarcerating criminals, but so little money available to identify potential criminals and reach out to them effectively before they commit serious crimes and thus make the expensive trials and jails unneeded.

bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

From what I understand, the appeal is not a new trial. That seems to be a myth.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The flurry of phone calls from knox and sollecito were because they saw the postal police looking for the address.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

mortytoad wrote:
From what I understand, the appeal is not a new trial. That seems to be a myth.


Well, it's only going to last seven days, so I don't see how it can be.

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote: (She's Back!)

eee-)Candace wrote: ‘The Amanda Knox media circus keeps cranking out shameless bucks for tabloidistas who hate her with every breath she takes.’

Kind of reminds me of feeding time at the zoo. Somebody has to feed the lions (FOA faithful’s) until the appeals. Well I learned a new word. I figure ‘tabloidistas’ is a Mexican word for tabloid papers/magazines or the people who work for them. Meanwhile another boulder has just landed on Amanda head for English speaking folks who follow this case.

Nothing much new in this Italian article: .libero-news.it

‘Divided initially conflicting versions that saw them sometimes together, sometimes separated in that tragic night of November 1, 2007, were gradually brought together, and now, as Amanda had declared itself in a recent interview, "are made under each.’
(Translated by Google, an approved FOA method for all legal matters.)

Amanda’s still calling the shots. Are Amanda & Raffaele getting back together. Does Raffaele or his Dad have any choice. The Die has been cast.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

yuppi du wrote:
The flurry of phone calls from knox and sollecito were because they saw the postal police looking for the address.


Yes, that's a probable reason. Equally as probable is that having called Filomena she'd told them to call the police and they had stalled from doing so for as long as possible.

Here's how I think it went down. I think they desperately wanted Filomena to return to the cottage and with her acting as point and them in tow, have Filomena discover the crime and then make the call to the police. The thing was, Filomena hadn't returned as soon as they'd hoped. Filomena had told them to call the police...they put it off and put it off hoping she would get back first...so, they had to do it. As you say, the postal police may have arrived first, or they may have seen them cruising by and that may have been the final factor.

But, there is no doubt that they had a massive reluctance to call the police, as shown from the huge delay between Filomena instructing Amanda to call them, to which Amanda made no objection, and their actually doing so. Amanda and Raffaele (and their lawyers) never offered a reason for that delay.

_________________
"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 yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I agree michael.

It also explains Sollecito`s fumbling of the call to the carabinieri "nothings been taken" etc.

that `surprised` look on the faces of knox and sollecito is probably them thinking if they have been seen on the phone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

DLW wrote:
Candace wrote: ‘The Amanda Knox media circus keeps cranking out shameless bucks for tabloidistas who hate her with every breath she takes.’


Aww...she's just jealous because she's not getting paid for her reader blog...even though she out does the tabloids in being tabloid.

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I am intrigued by SA's theory about Papa and Raffy having a row on the phone that morning. Sounds like hang up the phone type row to me, given the timings. How often do you get cut off twice in the course of a phone call?

Papa was never asked to testify about that call, was he. Shame. I think he knows waaaaaay more than he's saying. But then we have always suspected that...

Would just love to know what they were talking about...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt wrote:
I just can't help feeling that the tone adopted by some of our posters is giving the 'others' ammunition to use against us.


TJ, May I respectfully request:

1) You peruse JREF for example and take note of the "tone" of any and all the very frequent very derogatory 'smart arse' comments about not only PMF, but also directly about individual posters here

2) Accept the *fact* that this 'tone' has in the past included identifying personalities here by *actual surname* and actual hometown before directing absolutely hate filled diatribes toward them.

3) Realize on a "hostility scale of 1 to 10, smart arse comments here are possibly a 4 or 5, and their diatribes are about an 11+

4) Far from "giving them ammunition", they revel in the ultimate final 'enough is enough' decision of PMF Moderators, and consider it a "badge of honor" to frequently refer to during their self praise sessions.
Frankly, they come seeking controversy sufficient to disrupt, and are praised by the rest of their ilk when they finally get banned.
Your long time reading must make you cognizant of that.

5) I concur wholeheartedly in your praise of our moderators.
However, I ask you when you finish scanning the last several pages of JREF notice how many times on these pages there is a very thinly veiled insult to our Moderator by a snarky (hostility scale, smart arse scale- 9) reference to the phrase "thanks for stopping by"

6) Finally, tj, in a perfect world, populated by perfect people, I might shed a tear for those too immature or worldly, or seasoned sufficiently to deflect and/or discuss what *they themselves* consider 'smart arse' remarks directed to them.

Just my opinion, humbly offered
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

yuppi du wrote:
I agree michael.

It also explains Sollecito`s fumbling of the call to the carabinieri "nothings been taken" etc.

that `surprised` look on the faces of knox and sollecito is probably them thinking if they have been seen on the phone.


I think it's a call they never wanted and most of all, never intended to make. They had marked Filomena to make the call. But that all went wrong. First of all, instead of Filomena saying 'Right, I'll call the police', she told Amanda to call the police. So, they went to plan B, hoping Filomena would get back any minute and they'd tell her they were about to do it but hadn't yet and have her do it instead, or better yet, have her discover Meredith and then have her call the police.

I struggle to find an innocent explanation for the delay, not that Amanda and Raffaele ever attempted to provide one that is...this whole matter got lost amongst the chaff.

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt and modest_ex. I enjoyed your posts

Skeptical Btstander: "Anyway, the bottom line is that sometimes one has to step in and stop a problem before it gets out of hand."

I appreciate this, although I feel that sometimes there is a tendency to step in to soon. Not everyone is in your position and shares your knowledge. Personally, I feel that suspect new posters should be given enough rope to hang themselves. It looks as if the new arrival is in the process of doing that themselves.

Of course, it could be that I am still smarting from being awarded "troll of the week" trophy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
tjt and modest_ex. I enjoyed your posts

Skeptical Btstander: "Anyway, the bottom line is that sometimes one has to step in and stop a problem before it gets out of hand."

I appreciate this, although I feel that sometimes there is a tendency to step in to soon. Not everyone is in your position and shares your knowledge. Personally, I feel that suspect new posters should be given enough rope to hang themselves. It looks as if the new arrival is in the process of doing that themselves.

Of course, it could be that I am still smarting from being awarded "troll of the week" trophy.


Of course that happens sometimes. It wouldn't in a perfect world, but as I tried to explain earlier, this can never be the perfect world...perfection can only ever be an aspiration. In the perfect world, Meredith would never have been murdered in the first place.

The fact is, you have to prioritise between that which needs protecting most. You can't have it all. It is however, easy to demand as a bystander...it's rather different when you have to make it happen. Maybe, you need to sit down and really think about what you want from your Moderators and your forum...and if that is actually obtainable. Could 'You' deliver it were you running things? What would PMF be like were you in charge? Would it be a better or inferior place to what it is now? Would it be troll free, have continuous ongoing debate, an intelligent honest membership, be ethical, prioritise Meredith, truth, justice and still be the first and foremost stop off point to learn about the case? These are the things you need to think about. Idealism is wonderful (I'm full of it)...but it must also be balanced with pragmatism. Have you taken the latter into account?

_________________
"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: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Under the broad heading of "smart arse", "hostility" in posts, and "ammunition":


Check out the comments from that Steve Shay (unremarkable) article last week.
Look at last page (7), for most recent, and scroll up

Skep, Modest Ex, Fly By Night and even tjt gets personal "recognition".

Chris Mellas says in a long ranting and raving..... page (6)
:...".On to the next group…Dearest tinfoil hat wearing, paranoid, payment suspecting, uberdorks, (hehe)
As for payment ............."

http://tinyurl.com/2g8642k
(My what a classy silver tongued individual)

Edited to add:1)Mary H quotes Fionia
2) Bruce Fisher chimes in on Chris Mellas:
Thankfully Chris Mellas posted some common sense for you all to read.
I would hope that you all took the time to read his post.
Oh definitely, Bruce ....... hehe


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Awww shucks, a big thank you to those of you who expressed appreciation for my silly post giving Anne Bremner some ideas to use in her case if indeed it ever goes to court and is not expunged from the records books (Like it appears all of her traffic violations between the years 2000 and 2010 have been). I am always happy to lighten the load and mood of the board which deals with the impossibly sad and horrific murder of dear Meredith. I read and learn so much here at PMF and contribute so very little and am pleased to have entertained you for a small bit. I am in awe of a great number of posters here at PMF and am grateful for your valuable insights and knowledge.

Thanks for the mention, H9 - along with The 411!! I think it was Jumpy who hears various voices for posters here. I must say, whenever I read The 411 I hear this song in the background: Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side, keep on the sunny side of life .....

Regarding the discussion of how we (or do we) follow Anne Bremner’s DUI case: Ms Bremner inserted herself into the high profile Knox case. This is how she stirs up business, by attaching her name to “hot” cases. Like it or not, people are going to be watching how she handles the entire DUI case. I know I will follow it. I have family members and friends who share the roads with her. I have taught my children to follow the rules of the road, the laws of our society and to respect such laws and act responsibly. Why in the world should Bremner get a free pass to act recklessly? I have great respect for your position, Skep, and I completely understand what you are saying. But I think it is reasonable for interested people to watch and comment.

To those of you fighting off the trolls or offering information to newbies I offer my deep appreciation. Especially Skep and Michael who do a most fabulous job moderating! I do think that Skep and Michael have a hair trigger reaction, quite rightly, from being in the battle now since the very beginning. But that is precisely why PMF is the board we all love today.

Lastly, for Catnip: a little scratch behind your ear and a nuzzle for your muzzle! Are you purrrrrrrring yet?
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
bilko wrote:
tjt and modest_ex. I enjoyed your posts

Skeptical Btstander: "Anyway, the bottom line is that sometimes one has to step in and stop a problem before it gets out of hand."

I appreciate this, although I feel that sometimes there is a tendency to step in to soon. Not everyone is in your position and shares your knowledge. Personally, I feel that suspect new posters should be given enough rope to hang themselves. It looks as if the new arrival is in the process of doing that themselves.

Of course, it could be that I am still smarting from being awarded "troll of the week" trophy.


Of course that happens sometimes. It wouldn't in a perfect world, but as I tried to explain earlier, this can never be the perfect world...perfection can only ever be an aspiration. In the perfect world, Meredith would never have been murdered in the first place.

The fact is, you have to prioritise between that which needs protecting most. You can't have it all. It is however, easy to demand as a bystander...it's rather different when you have to make it happen. Maybe, you need to sit down and really think about what you want from your Moderators and your forum...and if that is actually obtainable. Could 'You' deliver it were you running things? What would PMF be like were you in charge? Would it be a better or inferior place to what it is now? Would it be troll free, have continuous ongoing debate, an intelligent honest membership, be ethical, prioritise Meredith, truth, justice and still be the first and foremost stop off point to learn about the case? These are the things you need to think about. Idealism is wonderful (I'm full of it)...but it must also be balanced with pragmatism. Have you taken the latter into account?


I certainly wasn't thinking of either you OR Skep when I raised the issue of mood. Neither of you had even commented at that point! I don't think you are heavy-handed with new posters at all Michael, and I remember when SA and I first encountered donnie too! We were both more than suspicious, and you insisted people stop teasing him! I don't think the discussion has been aimed at either Mod, and I know I speak for everyone here (I hope and believe) when I say that the site would not BE the place it is without your judgment on these matters. It is clear that there are differing views on how newcomers should behave and be treated. It is inevitable. As Fiona says, eventually it is pretty obvious who is genuine and who isn't. In mood's case he has self destructed within the space of three posts, which must be some kind of a record! So much for my caution! :lol:

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stint7 wrote
Quote:
6) Finally, tj, in a perfect world, populated by perfect people, I might shed a tear for those too immature or worldly, or seasoned sufficiently to deflect and/or discuss what *they themselves* consider 'smart arse' remarks directed to them.

Just my opinion, humbly offered


Just as humbly, may I ask you to explain exactly what you mean in the bolded quote? I guess I must be a bear of very little brain, but these words puzzle me...

My use of the term 'smart-arsery' seems to have irritated you somewhat. I can't help that. But I don't remember implying that I think it is confined to this board. Indeed, I have read enough of JREF (especially recently) to be perfectly aware, thank you very much, just what sort of thing they say and how they say it. And I find it sickening, which is precisely why I would like to think PMF members would set themselves a considerably higher standard. Many do. Some, unfortunately, don't; and as a long-term supporter of the fundamental ethos of this board, I just hope we can keep up its reputation for reasoned debate, and leave the others to make utter fools of themselves.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Under the broad heading of "smart arse", "hostility" in posts, and "ammunition":


Check out the comments from that Steve Shay (unremarkable) article last week.
Look at last page (7), for most recent, and scroll up

Skep, Modest Ex, Fly By Night and even tjt gets personal "recognition".

Chris Mellas says in a long ranting and raving..... page (6)
:...".On to the next group…Dearest tinfoil hat wearing, paranoid, payment suspecting, uberdorks, (hehe)
As for payment ............."

http://tinyurl.com/2g8642k
(My what a classy silver tongued individual)

Edited to add:1)Mary H quotes Fionia
2) Bruce Fisher chimes in on Chris Mellas:
Thankfully Chris Mellas posted some common sense for you all to read.
I would hope that you all took the time to read his post.
Oh definitely, Bruce ....... hehe



Steve Shay is STILL using the word 'translation' about the summaries:

'UPDATE: We now have links to both their English translation of the motivation and an English translation of Amanda Knox's rebuttal to that motivation document.'

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh dear. No-one ever took Mary H to see Peter Pan...


Mary H:
'Since the subject of perugiamurderfile.org keeps being brought up on this thread, maybe it would be a good place for me to address this post from that site:

Fiona
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:48 pm
Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -

"Does this mean that if I don't clap my hands MaryH will die?"

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=255&sid=eb553a155041312...

Is this something I should be concerned about?'

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It seems like Steve Shay's comment section has become th new Cess Pit....

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
Awww shucks, a big thank you to those of you who expressed appreciation for my silly post giving Anne Bremner some ideas to use in her case if indeed it ever goes to court and is not expunged from the records books (Like it appears all of her traffic violations between the years 2000 and 2010 have been). I am always happy to lighten the load and mood of the board which deals with the impossibly sad and horrific murder of dear Meredith. I read and learn so much here at PMF and contribute so very little and am pleased to have entertained you for a small bit. I am in awe of a great number of posters here at PMF and am grateful for your valuable insights and knowledge.

Thanks for the mention, H9 - along with The 411!! I think it was Jumpy who hears various voices for posters here. I must say, whenever I read The 411 I hear this song in the background: Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side, keep on the sunny side of life .....

Regarding the discussion of how we (or do we) follow Anne Bremner’s DUI case: Ms Bremner inserted herself into the high profile Knox case. This is how she stirs up business, by attaching her name to “hot” cases. Like it or not, people are going to be watching how she handles the entire DUI case. I know I will follow it. I have family members and friends who share the roads with her. I have taught my children to follow the rules of the road, the laws of our society and to respect such laws and act responsibly. Why in the world should Bremner get a free pass to act recklessly? I have great respect for your position, Skep, and I completely understand what you are saying. But I think it is reasonable for interested people to watch and comment.

To those of you fighting off the trolls or offering information to newbies I offer my deep appreciation. Especially Skep and Michael who do a most fabulous job moderating! I do think that Skep and Michael have a hair trigger reaction, quite rightly, from being in the battle now since the very beginning. But that is precisely why PMF is the board we all love today.

Lastly, for Catnip: a little scratch behind your ear and a nuzzle for your muzzle! Are you purrrrrrrring yet?



I too laughed uproariously at your AB send-up. And just so everyone is clear: I wanted to explain why I am refraining from making comments about AB's current troubles. But in no way do I wish to dictate what others do. AB has brought most of the trouble on herself at this point, IMO, because she used her PR and media connections to get her version of the truth out there before the prosecutor. If I were her, I would fire the PR advisor if she ran her storyboard by him before going public. He should have known it would not fly because it is ludicrous.

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

Offline modest_ex


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:29 pm

Posts: 160

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

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
modest_ex wrote:
tjt wrote:
I have been reading here at least once a day for as long as the board has been running, and just occasionally I look in in JREF and even Bruce's place, neither of which I can take for very long because they make me feel so uncomfortable. But I also have to admit that I often feel a tad intimidated by PMF, so I have only rarely posted in case I step on some toes. Now, I am no spring chicken, and my family would roll about laughing at any suggestion I am a wimp, so this is not easy for me to own up to: I just have this feeling that occasionally, some of the posters on this board come on pretty strongly at times. And it makes me almost cringe.

As, of course do the 'other side'. And I am reminded of the trench warfare of the Great War: each side dug in, lobbing shells across no man's land, neither side yielding or gaining an inch, each side utterly convinced the truth is all on their own side and the opponents are the devil incarnate.

I don't wish to take the analogy any further, since I truly believe the guilty verdicts were correct and that the motivations report makes this very clear. I do not like the tricks played by the trolls, but I do wonder if some among us are a bit quick on the draw. Wouldn't just ignoring them be worth trying?

Just sayin'. . . (Ducking for cover shielding my head, crying 'don't taser me, bro!')


Seconded. Well, I like to think I'm somewhat of a spring chicken (not 40 for another few months!), but otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.

I'm also a huge supporter of SomeAlibi's occasional suggestions that it doesn't do any harm to acknowledge that some of the evidence is stronger than other, and that there are many unknown (and unknowable) aspects to the case (which do not weaken the guilty verdicts at all). I don't like any questioning of any of the evidence resulting in accusations or implications that the asker is JAQ-ing off in an suspect-undercover-FOA manner. I think that as long as people post respectfully and sincerely, they should be treated with respect, and that ignoring trolls is SO much more effective than engaging with them (if only for a day or two before they're asked to leave).

I'm nobody here and don't expect my opinions to be treated as pillars of wisdom (ha!), but I did agree with your post, tjt.


I don't think SomeAlibi is the only poster who holds this view. It could be used to describe many others as well.

I have a great idea, though. How about if Modest Ex and tjt co-moderate and co-administer the board for a week or two? I am of course just kidding and being deliberately provocative. However, the suggestion that trolls be ignored is not always possible. I don't expect people here to have noticed, but I start to get riled when I see that a new poster is desperately trying to post as many discredited FOA talking points as possible or mention a particular book in every post, as if to advertise. I consider those things to be a misuse of the board and don't see why I as co-moderator should allow that to go on and on without nipping it in the bud. For one thing, when these things start to happen, it means I have to keep an eye on things or that Michael does. Perhaps you have forgotten, but Harry Wilkens, masquerading as someone else, posted an incredibly disgusting pornographic photo one night, after posting loads of garbage that went unchallenged. From a practical as well as an ethical perspective, my goal is to cultivate and maintain a board that is, well, cultivated and self-maintaining, in part so that I don't have to worry about things degenerating while I sleep (I think all of this holds for Michael as well).

Anyway, the bottom line is that sometimes one has to step in and stop a problem before it gets out of hand. Predictably, this doesn't always sit well with everyone. In an ideal world, I would not have to ban anyone or delete any comments (this almost never happens, by the way -- ask yourselves why!). But in this one, things are different.



Skep, when I said trolls should be ignored, I should have qualified it by saying "if they're not just going to be insta-banned, then they should be ignored.". I see no reason to tolerate trolls, or to allow them to hang around, I'd err more on the side of the insta-ban. I did moderate and administrate a hugely busy parenting messageboard for about 4 years, and I actually know what it's like (and wouldn't do it again, FWIW), but it's that no-man's land in between where they're baited and engaged and argued with for a couple of days before they're asked to leave (even though everyone knows full well what they are) that I find difficult to stomach, gets a bit close to grandstanding sometimes for my ratrher weak stomach.

Now that sounds very negative...if I didn't like it here in general, I wouldn't read it so often. :)
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:22 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

modest_ex wrote:
...it's that no-man's land in between where they're baited and engaged and argued with for a couple of days before they're asked to leave (even though everyone knows full well what they are) that I find difficult to stomach, gets a bit close to grandstanding sometimes for my ratrher weak stomach.

Now that sounds very negative...if I didn't like it here in general, I wouldn't read it so often. :)


modex, I have NEVER seen that happen here. Seriously, I can't think of anyone who is a known troll being entertained for more than a couple of posts....bit mystified by this perception... :(

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt:

Please check your mail for PM reply to your question for me.

Thanks
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
yuppi du wrote:
I agree michael.

It also explains Sollecito`s fumbling of the call to the carabinieri "nothings been taken" etc.

that `surprised` look on the faces of knox and sollecito is probably them thinking if they have been seen on the phone.


I think it's a call they never wanted and most of all, never intended to make. They had marked Filomena to make the call. But that all went wrong. First of all, instead of Filomena saying 'Right, I'll call the police', she told Amanda to call the police. So, they went to plan B, hoping Filomena would get back any minute and they'd tell her they were about to do it but hadn't yet and have her do it instead, or better yet, have her discover Meredith and then have her call the police.

I struggle to find an innocent explanation for the delay, not that Amanda and Raffaele ever attempted to provide one that is...this whole matter got lost amongst the chaff.


Today I was wondering if they had intended on waiting for Filomena to come home to make the call, but then saw the postal police car driving up and down the street obviously looking for something, and panicked (if they had indeed called before the postal police "showed up").

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Under the broad heading of "smart arse", "hostility" in posts, and "ammunition":


Check out the comments from that Steve Shay (unremarkable) article last week.
Look at last page (7), for most recent, and scroll up

Skep, Modest Ex, Fly By Night and even tjt gets personal "recognition".

Chris Mellas says in a long ranting and raving..... page (6)
:...".On to the next group…Dearest tinfoil hat wearing, paranoid, payment suspecting, uberdorks, (hehe)
As for payment ............."

http://tinyurl.com/2g8642k
(My what a classy silver tongued individual)

Edited to add:1)Mary H quotes Fionia
2) Bruce Fisher chimes in on Chris Mellas:
Thankfully Chris Mellas posted some common sense for you all to read.
I would hope that you all took the time to read his post.
Oh definitely, Bruce ....... hehe


Oh Stint, thanks for posting that link! I can hardly stand to look at Steve Shay's articles. I cannot stomach Bruce's twisted site, the cooks smog, or Frank's pit either. It is rather like watching the old I Love Lucy shows where Lucy and Ethel get into so much trouble it is embarrassing. I like Skep's approach. I don't go there. They sure waste a lot of time talking about PMF don't they? Aren't they busy working on that appeal for whats her name?
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

yuppi du wrote:
The flurry of phone calls from knox and sollecito were because they saw the postal police looking for the address.


How funny that I was in a park away from phones and computers thinking this exact same thing today...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

modest_ex wrote:
tjt wrote:
I have been reading here at least once a day for as long as the board has been running, and just occasionally I look in in JREF and even Bruce's place, neither of which I can take for very long because they make me feel so uncomfortable. But I also have to admit that I often feel a tad intimidated by PMF, so I have only rarely posted in case I step on some toes. Now, I am no spring chicken, and my family would roll about laughing at any suggestion I am a wimp, so this is not easy for me to own up to: I just have this feeling that occasionally, some of the posters on this board come on pretty strongly at times. And it makes me almost cringe.

As, of course do the 'other side'. And I am reminded of the trench warfare of the Great War: each side dug in, lobbing shells across no man's land, neither side yielding or gaining an inch, each side utterly convinced the truth is all on their own side and the opponents are the devil incarnate.

I don't wish to take the analogy any further, since I truly believe the guilty verdicts were correct and that the motivations report makes this very clear. I do not like the tricks played by the trolls, but I do wonder if some among us are a bit quick on the draw. Wouldn't just ignoring them be worth trying?

Just sayin'. . . (Ducking for cover shielding my head, crying 'don't taser me, bro!')


Seconded. Well, I like to think I'm somewhat of a spring chicken (not 40 for another few months!), but otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.

I'm also a huge supporter of SomeAlibi's occasional suggestions that it doesn't do any harm to acknowledge that some of the evidence is stronger than other, and that there are many unknown (and unknowable) aspects to the case (which do not weaken the guilty verdicts at all). I don't like any questioning of any of the evidence resulting in accusations or implications that the asker is JAQ-ing off in an suspect-undercover-FOA manner. I think that as long as people post respectfully and sincerely, they should be treated with respect, and that ignoring trolls is SO much more effective than engaging with them (if only for a day or two before they're asked to leave).

I'm nobody here and don't expect my opinions to be treated as pillars of wisdom (ha!), but I did agree with your post, tjt.


I think it's important to hear different interpretations of the evidence too. It looks like most of us are capable of changing our minds when we produce an interpretation, it's discussed, sources are produced to show it's valid or not, and the subject becomes a part of the historical record.

I've been puzzling over the the part of the medical examiner's report which has been featured so prominently by the groupies:

Quote:
Dr. Lalli also took into consideration the state of digestion. He stated that solids are ingested into the stomach and are not able to reach the pyloric sphincter until they are reduced to a semi-fluid or fluid consistency; the emptying of the stomach then begins to occur when some of the contents have become sufficiently fluid to reach the pylorus, which happens the third or fourth hour after eating. This is when one can find food material at the level of the duodenum (page 63 of the Lalli report). It was also pointed out that a meal consisting of sugar would leave the stomach faster than a meal consisting of proteins which, in turn, are digested faster than a meal of fats. "Therefore, if undigested foods are found during the examination, signifying a more or less accentuated incompleteness of the kimification process, we can deduce that not more than 2 to 4 hours have elapsed since the last meal".


Massei Report p. 115.

This is the summary of a pathologist's report which likely included many pages of detailed text and photographs. It has been seized upon as "unscientific" and I think it's the part in the last sentence where the estimated time of death by that means is between 2 and 4 hours instead of 2 and 3 hours.

The range is relatively important since if the digestion process is never (or unreasonably rare) past that stage at 3 hours on the extreme limit then logically Meredith must have been alive at 21:30 at the latest. However, not only have pathologists published a cornucopia of papers on-line explaining that this method is not reliable on its own, but the other extreme limit sets the time of death at 20:00.

My impression of that part of the Massei Report was not to create confusion about the time of death--confirmed by witness Sophie Purton to be after 20:51--but to highlight the stage of digestion (ie. not at all) of the mushroom which Meredith likely consumed after her return to the cottage. When that's put into context with the last records on her mobile phone then the time of death was most probably between 2 and 4 hours (or 2 and 3 if you prefer) of the time her friend last saw her alive.

If there are any medical experts here I'd like to hear their opinions on this. Isn't that mushroom somewhat important?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Micheal said "Actually, the trip was planned for the 'day', not the weekend. Why would they 'get out of Dodge'? How would that benefit them? It wouldn't give them any alibi and worse, they would have no idea what was going on, they would not be able to shape the investigation in any way, neither would they have the opportunity to provide an act that would make them appear innocent and they'd still have to return to face the music later, but in ignorance instead of in the know. That would have been a major disadvantage."


I disagree. If they went out of town, on a pre planned trip, on an Italian holiday, that is not at all suspicious. I believe at least one of her Italian housemates was out of town, and the boys downstairs were all gone. So, to be informed that her flatmate had been murdered would not throw suspicion on her at all. In fact, if she had done that, cried crocodile tears on her return, and immediately hired a lawyer, as any guilty person with the means to do so would have done, she would have avoided the overnight interrogation, the voluntary statement, the captured emails, been informed of possible wiretaps on her phones. In fact, I believe had she done that she would be a free woman today. Guilty, but free. How she could "shape the investigation" is beyond me. As far as needing to clean up a little more, that is the heart of the problem as expressed in the report. They called the police. Why would they do that if they needed to clean up a little more.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Quote:
"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?"


As to the question above. My answer is that when she spoke, that was her opinion. It may have been the longest day of her life, but her recollection does not have to be perfect. Maybe she is even correct. But if she is or is not, she is giving her own subjective recollection. The standard you are holding her to is too high. She just woke up in the morning. She is reporting when she thought she woke up. She did not write it down in a diary. By 10:30 I guess I would hold her to be saying not especially early. Since Raffaele’s father called about 9:30, I would guess it corroborates her having woken up after that sometime. I believe you are trying to force into this bit of information more meaning than it contains.


I am sure others have responded but there are several issues with Knox's claim that she awoke around 10:00 am on 02 NOV 2007.

1] She did not know about Sollecito's activities on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 and yet she claimed to have awoken before him.
2] Her roommate testified that she was a morning person.
3] She was seen by a reliable witness on the streets of Perugia at 07:45 on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
4] She testified that she was planning a trip to Gubbio for that day.
5] Her claim of awaking late on that morning was not corroborated.

Even if you take away issue #3 you are left with considerable doubts that she woke up that late on 02 NOV 2007. Her lawyers would have to address all five points before the court would consider that Amanda's version was correct. Which ones are they disputing?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Quote:
"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?"


I am sure others have responded but there are several issues with Knox's claim that she awoke around 10:00 am on 02 NOV 2007.


Actually, stilicho, it appears to me no one has responded to moonbeam's (sp), latest "question"

The choice to ignore is probably very deliberate due to Jools's very revealing 'Donnie like' detective work of moonbeam's posts elsewhere noted above

Although I very much admire your informative and convincing reply, I doubt it will make a dent in moonbeam's agenda.

Standby for no acknowledgment, just another bunch of thinly veiled "questions".
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
yuppi du wrote:
I agree michael.

It also explains Sollecito`s fumbling of the call to the carabinieri "nothings been taken" etc.

that `surprised` look on the faces of knox and sollecito is probably them thinking if they have been seen on the phone.


I think it's a call they never wanted and most of all, never intended to make. They had marked Filomena to make the call. But that all went wrong. First of all, instead of Filomena saying 'Right, I'll call the police', she told Amanda to call the police. So, they went to plan B, hoping Filomena would get back any minute and they'd tell her they were about to do it but hadn't yet and have her do it instead, or better yet, have her discover Meredith and then have her call the police.

I struggle to find an innocent explanation for the delay, not that Amanda and Raffaele ever attempted to provide one that is...this whole matter got lost amongst the chaff.


Massei sees it this way too (p. 88):

Quote:
Adding to this that, having set up the [staging] scene mentioned above, it must be considered that, both relying on the good success of the simulating activity they could well let themselves be found on the place [farsi trovare] and call Romanelli to ask her to return home and call the Carabinieri because they had taken part: in such way they would have also strengthened their position of innocence and non-involvement and give more power of persuasion to the staging activity without which, lacking signs of forced entry at the door, Amanda Knox and with her Raffaele Sollecito would have been the first under suspicion.


I see few other options. They waited and waited to phone the cops until finally it was impossible to be found not to have done so and yet standing at a crimescene where there was a broken window, bloodstains, a locked door, and nobody else at home.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.

As far as the wake up goes. You may be right. It may be odd that Amanda answered that she got up at 10:30 when she was going out of town, her boyfriend was already up, and she usually got up earlier. And it may be odd and even questionable that Sollecito would not remember his computer use that morning. ( Where is the reference for that, btw). However, the problem I have with your argument is that it just is not necessarily so that Amanda or Raffaele are lying when they make these statement. It's not a law of physics. It can't be established irrefutably. It is also possible that under stress, either or both just answered the first thoughts that came to them and those thoughts turned out to be wrong. On the other hand, she could be correct about when she woke up, even though it seems unlikely to you.

Your simply making an assertion that you want to be true. It is no more or less true for that reason. Basing guilt on such trivial matters is what is often cited as a fault in the process by which they were found guilty. You need, I think, to establish guilt, not just assert that guilt exists. There is nothing in her rememberance of that morning that establishes that she is attempting to deceive. That is simply your speculation. You could be right, but you have no evidence of that, and in fact, you just as well could be wrong.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:

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


Self-preservation? Knox was obviously out when she got the txt from Patrick calling off work.. with the memory recall problems caused by the drugs they may not have been sure if she was out or not, so decided to adopt the 'strongest' alibi of both being together. Once it was clear that wasn't going to hold, Sollecito's story changed.


Quote:

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


The defence would state its because of her solo performance in the Bath Mat Surfing competition.

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


Meredith locked the door when she was out of town, for instance the last weekend of september.
This was early on in when Meredith was living, so this instance may have been the "first impression" that stuck in Amanda's mind; she may not have paid much attention as october wore on. One or two later instances where amanda saw meredith locking her door would have cemented this impression with her.

Quote:

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


Its pretty clear she called it long enough for it to roll over to voicemail...why she seemingly failed to tell that to F is a highly interesting question...

Quote:
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?


Drugs can induce the kind of problems with recalling sequences of events that they express.. however they'd still be able to recall in general what the events were. But cannibis' effect would be shorter lived, so they'd pretty much have to smoke ever half hour or so for the effect to last the 4+ hours of the evening. If it was laced with an hallucinogenic, like mushrooms, the effect would be heightened. A different kind of hallucinogenic drug like acid would induce those effects over a 6-10 hour period. I think its reasonable to follow Raf's "bored with the same evenings", his relationship (and succes) with Amanda, and Amanda's carefree attitude into the possibility that he may have been a little more courageous to try new, harder drugs that evening.

Of course, if they admit that, it weakens their overall position since it makes the prosecutions argument stronger.

And its entirely possible that amanda had developed her own connections even for the short month she lived there. She got the txt from patrick and found her evening free with no school the next day and decided to pick something on the way back home. I was on a study-abroad program in college and one of the other students (who coincidentally enough was female) was connected shortly after our arrival in the town we were staying in.

The hazy visions that Amanda reported in her first 'statement' on the 5th are also reminiscent of an acid trip.. disconnected images that seem as much unreal as they are real. I do recall there was a tripping scene or two in the 1991 movie "the doors" that conveys this.

As a semi-famous british rock band says on their tour, "We were young.. the air was fresh and the grass was green.. or the other way around, can't remember which.."

All in all though, the fuller set is an interesting and challenging set of questions.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
And it may be odd and even questionable that Sollecito would not remember his computer use that morning. ( Where is the reference for that, btw).
That would be included in the Massei report, if you would bother reading it. In fact, Raffaele claimed to have been asleep till 10:30am (or so). Why would he not remember being awake and active for at least 30 mins? Yes, sometimes I awake and roll back over. I don't always recall the time at which I do so, but I do generally recall that I awoke and went back to sleep - even when it happens multiple times in a day. Of course, if I get up for 30+ mins while it's still dark out, I would notice that I had been up before sunrise - even if I went back to sleep and woke up again later in the day when the sun was up, say around 10 or 10:30.

Quote:
However, the problem I have with your argument is that it just is not necessarily so that Amanda or Raffaele are lying when they make these statement. It's not a law of physics. It can't be established irrefutably. It is also possible that under stress, either or both just answered the first thoughts that came to them and those thoughts turned out to be wrong. On the other hand, she could be correct about when she woke up, even though it seems unlikely to you.
Obvious troll is obvious.

Quote:
Your simply making an assertion that you want to be true. It is no more or less true for that reason. Basing guilt on such trivial matters is what is often cited as a fault in the process by which they were found guilty. You need, I think, to establish guilt, not just assert that guilt exists. There is nothing in her rememberance of that morning that establishes that she is attempting to deceive. That is simply your speculation. You could be right, but you have no evidence of that, and in fact, you just as well could be wrong.
Impeding a criminal investigation, including but not limited to capital murder, is hardly a "trivial matter". In fact, the absence of a solid, corroborated alibi after 2 years is problematic and hardly a "trivial matter". How can you be so certain these two were not guilty when they have no valid alibi? Faith? Again, obvious troll is obvious.


Enough is enough, begone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Also, as to Amanda having the key. The Massei report makes it clear that Ms Kercher knew Guede, at least as well as Amanda. In fact, she knew Guede through her boyfriend who lives downstairs. Don't get me wrong. I am not making the argument she let him. I am making the argument it is no more likely that Amanda would. I could say, if Guede knocked and said he needed to use the bathroom, it is at least arguable that Merideth would have let him, because she was familiar with him through her boyfriend. He was friendly with her boyfriend, and it could have happened through that association. Again, I am absolutely not saying that is my opinion of what happened. I am saying there would have been no particular reason to suspect Amanda over the victim, in a situation where Amanda had gone away for the day on her trip, returned, sought counsel and stayed away from the police, and let Guede's fingerprints be identified. At that point, the police could no more suspcect Amanda opened the door than Ms Kercher. They had about the same level of familiarity with Guede, with, it seems to me from reading the report, Ms Kercher having a little more via her boyfriend.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
I disagree. If they went out of town, on a pre planned trip, on an Italian holiday, that is not at all suspicious. I believe at least one of her Italian housemates was out of town, and the boys downstairs were all gone. So, to be informed that her flatmate had been murdered would not throw suspicion on her at all. In fact, if she had done that, cried crocodile tears on her return, and immediately hired a lawyer, as any guilty person with the means to do so would have done, she would have avoided the overnight interrogation, the voluntary statement, the captured emails, been informed of possible wiretaps on her phones. In fact, I believe had she done that she would be a free woman today. Guilty, but free. How she could "shape the investigation" is beyond me. As far as needing to clean up a little more, that is the heart of the problem as expressed in the report. They called the police. Why would they do that if they needed to clean up a little more.


Why don't you write to Knox and ask her these questions? Why did she try to shape the investigation? We all know Sollecito had nothing but contempt for the "stupid policemen".

I think it's probably time for you to start answering the questions posed to you by The Machine. Not too many people here are terribly interested in your musings about "coulda/shoulda/woulda". Just answer them one by one if you don't have time to tackle all of them.

Since you have the Massei Report translation with you, you can use it as a guidebook for providing your answers, with page references if possible.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Also, as to Amanda having the key. The Massei report makes it clear that Ms Kercher knew Guede, at least as well as Amanda. In fact, she knew Guede through her boyfriend who lives downstairs. Don't get me wrong. I am not making the argument she let him. I am making the argument it is no more likely that Amanda would. I could say, if Guede knocked and said he needed to use the bathroom, it is at least arguable that Merideth would have let him, because she was familiar with him through her boyfriend. He was friendly with her boyfriend, and it could have happened through that association. Again, I am absolutely not saying that is my opinion of what happened. I am saying there would have been no particular reason to suspect Amanda over the victim, in a situation where Amanda had gone away for the day on her trip, returned, sought counsel and stayed away from the police, and let Guede's fingerprints be identified. At that point, the police could no more suspcect Amanda opened the door than Ms Kercher. They had about the same level of familiarity with Guede, with, it seems to me from reading the report, Ms Kercher having a little more via her boyfriend.

...and the staged break-in in Filomena's room?

That came from...?

And the lack of solid, corroborating alibis from Amanda and Raffaele? And the reason they lied, repeatedly, in regards to their whereabouts?

What about Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room?

Who locked Meredith's door? (Rudy's footprints show no signs of stopping to close/lock the door, rather they trail directly out the front door (with a bit of shuffling to put his coat on))




Obvious troll is, again, obvious.

Gone yet?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Your simply making an assertion that you want to be true. It is no more or less true for that reason. Basing guilt on such trivial matters is what is often cited as a fault in the process by which they were found guilty. You need, I think, to establish guilt, not just assert that guilt exists. There is nothing in her rememberance of that morning that establishes that she is attempting to deceive. That is simply your speculation. You could be right, but you have no evidence of that, and in fact, you just as well could be wrong.


Bullshit. These statements were a part of a detailed account that Knox confirmed when she took the stand and in her alibi email of 04 NOV 2007. She included a detailed account of picking up a mop and other specifics that do not support your assertion that she has a faulty memory. She has an excellent memory.

Bullshit reprise. This did not establish her guilt. It establishes that the court found five reasons to disbelieve her statement that she awoke around 10:00 am on 02 NOV 2007.

You need to buckle down and start reading the report, the evidence, and their own words (gathered here in a section for your convenience).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Bobthednky - I am not doubting you at all, but, to help me find it, where is it in the report. I have it here, but I am just a little too tired to search for it right now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream, perhaps you are midstream? In the middle of a stream or a river? You're in danger of drowning here.

Read the report if you want your questions answered. You look foolish not doing so.

Buh-bye.

PS Mac was it you who posted the Barbie buh-bye? Loved it! Anyway, midstream, Barbie says buh-bye, thanks for stoppin' by.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Also, as to Amanda having the key. The Massei report makes it clear that Ms Kercher knew Guede, at least as well as Amanda. In fact, she knew Guede through her boyfriend who lives downstairs. Don't get me wrong. I am not making the argument she let him. I am making the argument it is no more likely that Amanda would. I could say, if Guede knocked and said he needed to use the bathroom, it is at least arguable that Merideth would have let him, because she was familiar with him through her boyfriend. He was friendly with her boyfriend, and it could have happened through that association. Again, I am absolutely not saying that is my opinion of what happened. I am saying there would have been no particular reason to suspect Amanda over the victim, in a situation where Amanda had gone away for the day on her trip, returned, sought counsel and stayed away from the police, and let Guede's fingerprints be identified. At that point, the police could no more suspcect Amanda opened the door than Ms Kercher. They had about the same level of familiarity with Guede, with, it seems to me from reading the report, Ms Kercher having a little more via her boyfriend.


There was testimony to the effect that Meredith would not have opened the door to anyone she was not expecting. And I don't recall Massei making the claim that Meredith knew Rudy as well as Amanda did. On what page of the report did you find this sentence? And Massei never says that Meredith had contact with Rudy via her boyfriend.

Your scenarios of what could have happened (but did not) are rather implausible. I can see how you might want to believe them if your goal is to exonerate Knox and ignore the evidence as a whole (just taking one thing at a time, easier to examine piece by piece in a void).

In any case, it just won't do here to put words in Massei's mouth.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
moodstream, perhaps you are midstream? In the middle of a stream or a river? You're in danger of drowning here.

Read the report if you want your questions answered. You look foolish not doing so.

Buh-bye.

PS Mac was it you who posted the Barbie buh-bye? Loved it! Anyway, midstream, Barbie says buh-bye, thanks for stoppin' by.



And don't come here claiming to have found things in it that are not there. That looks foolish too.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Bobthednky - I am not doubting you at all, but, to help me find it, where is it in the report. I have it here, but I am just a little too tired to search for it right now.


Others are not here to do your homework for you. Sorry you are feeling so tired. Get some sleep. Get some fresh air.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Your simply making an assertion that you want to be true. It is no more or less true for that reason. Basing guilt on such trivial matters is what is often cited as a fault in the process by which they were found guilty. You need, I think, to establish guilt, not just assert that guilt exists. There is nothing in her rememberance of that morning that establishes that she is attempting to deceive. That is simply your speculation. You could be right, but you have no evidence of that, and in fact, you just as well could be wrong.


Bullshit. These statements were a part of a detailed account that Knox confirmed when she took the stand and in her alibi email of 04 NOV 2007. She included a detailed account of picking up a mop and other specifics that do not support your assertion that she has a faulty memory. She has an excellent memory.

Bullshit reprise. This did not establish her guilt. It establishes that the court found five reasons to disbelieve her statement that she awoke around 10:00 am on 02 NOV 2007.

You need to buckle down and start reading the report, the evidence, and their own words (gathered here in a section for your convenience).



Moodstream has already stated that his belief is rock solid. Nothing will shake it. But at the very least, have the patience and dedication to sit down with the report and slog through it. Many of your questions are answered in the report. There are no shortcuts. And those that aren't could be answered by some combination of Guede, Knox and Sollecito.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
moodstream wrote:
I disagree...


I think it's probably time for you to start answering the questions posed to you by The Machine. Not too many people here are terribly interested in your musings about "coulda/shoulda/woulda". Just answer them one by one if you don't have time to tackle all of them.


It's true - all of moodstream's coulda/shoulda/woulda ramblings deal with things that Amanda might have done to not attract attention to herself and get arrested - but - this has absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence. I agree that there are many things Amanda could have done that would have allowed her to get away with murder.

But that's not how it played out, and seeing how it did play out (via the Massei report) I think there's little chance that she can weasel her way out of anything at all during the appeal process. To the contrary, there is a strong likelihood that her sentence will be increased.
Top Profile 

Offline tjt


Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:20 am

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream:

The first thing you should do is learn to spell Ms Kercher's name correctly.

MEREDITH. Not Meridith.

We owe her that respect at the very least.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:

Quote:
As far as the wake up goes. You may be right. It may be odd that Amanda answered that she got up at 10:30 when she was going out of town, her boyfriend was already up, and she usually got up earlier. And it may be odd and even questionable that Sollecito would not remember his computer use that morning.


Yes but the word I used is not credible, rather than questionable or odd. Maybe they both (?) suffered such a stress that they became mentally confused temporarily. But they had plenty of days to recover and explain themselves, gving a consistent and credible recollection. They neved did so.
At leas one of them was awake most of the night, and he/she never told us, always gave a wrong recollection.
"it's not a law of physics" is probably a favourite concept of yours - incidentally I had studied physics at university and, I bet, your knowledge of the subject probably is lesser than mine - but apart the fact I think your epistemiologic idea of law of phisics could be idealistic and wrong, I also think is good to be well aware that a court of justice is not an accademy of science. It is not a speculation from a galielean research, pursueing an ideals of discovery though repeatable analysis. Deductions are not law of physics, but the defendant and the case are not the universe. A trial is a non-repeateble social rite. A social groups challenges an individual in the need also to perceive or find out if he/she is a reliable, believable.

then, another topi:

Quote:
, that is not at all suspicious. I believe at least one of her Italian housemates was out of town, and the boys downstairs were all gone. So, to be informed that her flatmate had been murdered would not throw suspicion on her at all. In fact, if she had done that, cried crocodile tears on her return, and immediately hired a lawyer, as any guilty person with the means to do so would have done, she would have avoided the overnight interrogation, the voluntary statement, the captured emails, been informed of possible wiretaps on her phones.


I agree on this point - as a general rule - that it would be better to be in Gubbio rather than in Perugia if there is a body to discover in Perugia. But this is true only as a general principle. In the particular case, we cannot exclude there could be needs (or feelings or fears) for a murder to hold him in Perugia, despite the related problems. Several other actions by the two defendants would have been deemed as strongly discouragable and self-damaging by a more rational person (starting from the possible action that caused Meredith's death). Only an crazy idiot would have remained in the house instead going for a trip, you say. Yes. Only a crazy idiot would have written the things Amanda and Raffaele wrote (or only a not too rational bird would have fled from Berlin leaving a job at the Bundestag after one day) or would take a shower in a bathroom full of bloodstains and carry a mop and bucket around Perugia or walk in a police station carrying a knife, yet they did so.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tjt wrote:
Moodstream:

The first thing you should do is learn to spell Ms Kercher's name correctly.

MEREDITH. Not Meridith.

We owe her that respect at the very least.


Thanks for that reminder. This is the second time in as many days...

I know I sound like a broken record, but I think Moodstream could benefit GREATLY from reading everything on this board and its earlier iterations. Numerous questions have been asked, debated answered, etc.

It doesn't seem right to ask others to answer questions that have already been discussed, in some cases several times.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
moodstream wrote:

Quote:
As far as the wake up goes. You may be right. It may be odd that Amanda answered that she got up at 10:30 when she was going out of town, her boyfriend was already up, and she usually got up earlier. And it may be odd and even questionable that Sollecito would not remember his computer use that morning.


Yes but the word I used is not credible, rather than questionable or odd. Maybe they both (?) suffered such a stress that they became mentally confused temporarily. But they had plenty of days to recover and explain themselves, gving a consistent and credible recollection. They neved did so.
At leas one of them was awake most of the night, and he/she never told us, always gave a wrong recollection.
"it's not a law of physics" is probably a favourite concept of yours - incidentally I had studied physics at university and, I bet, your knowledge of the subject probably is lesser than mine - but apart the fact I think your epistemiologic idea of law of phisics could be idealistic and wrong, I also think is good to be well aware that a court of justice is not an accademy of science. It is not a speculation from a galielean research, pursueing an ideals of discovery though repeatable analysis. Deductions are not law of physics, but the defendant and the case are not the universe. A trial is a non-repeateble social rite. A social groups challenges an individual in the need also to perceive or find out if he/she is a reliable, believable.

then, another topi:

Quote:
, that is not at all suspicious. I believe at least one of her Italian housemates was out of town, and the boys downstairs were all gone. So, to be informed that her flatmate had been murdered would not throw suspicion on her at all. In fact, if she had done that, cried crocodile tears on her return, and immediately hired a lawyer, as any guilty person with the means to do so would have done, she would have avoided the overnight interrogation, the voluntary statement, the captured emails, been informed of possible wiretaps on her phones.


I agree on this point - as a general rule - that it would be better to be in Gubbio rather than in Perugia if there is a body to discover in Perugia. But this is true only as a general principle. In the particular case, we cannot exclude there could be needs (or feelings or fears) for a murder to hold him in Perugia, despite the related problems. Several other actions by the two defendants would have been deemed as strongly discouragable and self-damaging by a more rational person (starting from the possible action that caused Meredith's death). Only an crazy idiot would have remained in the house instead going for a trip, you say. Yes. Only a crazy idiot would have written the things Amanda and Raffaele wrote (or only a not too rational bird would have fled from Berlin leaving a job at the Bundestag after one day) or would take a shower in a bathroom full of bloodstains and carry a mop and bucket around Perugia or walk in a police station carrying a knife, yet they did so.


People do not always act rationally, that's for sure. It seems fairly obvious, however, that most young women, upon returning home to an open front door, no one about, blood in places, etc. would not have taken a shower in the cottage. And yet AK claims she did. Are we to doubt her, then, on the grounds that it is not rational, logical or very smart to have done so? Not likely?

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

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Re Yummi - Meredith did not know Guede ( paraphrasing - I know you did not say exactly that)

[Giacomo Silenzi] .. had had a romantic relationship with Meredith, which had begun a couple of months before she was killed.. … He had known Rudy Guede since the year before …. (via the basketball court).

He recalled that [Guede] had been at their house one evening. … Amanda was there .. On this occasion Meredith was there too. p39
_____

Giorgio Cocciaretto.. was a visitor at the house. Visiting the house.. he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there; Rudy was talking to both of them.p41

___________

[Rudy Guede] also knew the girls, Meredith and Amanda, who lived on the upper floor. ..he chatted with both of them.

The house at via della Pergola 7 was thus, for Rudy Guede, a friendly house, and so it must have appeared to him: it was inhabited by friends and girls with whom he could socialize.p42



The point is not that Ms Kercher and Guede were friends. The point is, they did know each other, seemingly at least as well as Amanda knew Guede, and in addition, Ms Kercher’s boyfriend was on ongoing acquaintance, and Ms Kercher’s acquaintance with Guede could have been greater than Ms Knox’s thereby.

True the Massei report said Ms Kercher would not open the door for anyone if alone, and, assuming he is God, he is of course correct. Otherwise, he’s just saying so. I am not arguing that she did, as I believe I have tried to make completely clear, btw.

Thank you for informing me of your interest in physics, which can be used to help me understand why your post to me seemed so much more full of heat than light.

In that same vein, I want to thank so many of you here for the warm welcome.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Let me be also very clear about one thing. The tragedy that befell Ms. Kercher is terrible and I tremendously sad. I have total respect for her and her family. It is an awful, awful thing. Reading the medical reports section of the Massei report is very hard, and very sad. Accusing me of lack of respect for the deceased and her family is uncalled for, wrong, and upsetting. Thank you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Micheal said "Actually, the trip was planned for the 'day', not the weekend. Why would they 'get out of Dodge'? How would that benefit them? It wouldn't give them any alibi and worse, they would have no idea what was going on, they would not be able to shape the investigation in any way, neither would they have the opportunity to provide an act that would make them appear innocent and they'd still have to return to face the music later, but in ignorance instead of in the know. That would have been a major disadvantage."


I disagree. If they went out of town, on a pre planned trip, on an Italian holiday, that is not at all suspicious. I believe at least one of her Italian housemates was out of town, and the boys downstairs were all gone. So, to be informed that her flatmate had been murdered would not throw suspicion on her at all. In fact, if she had done that, cried crocodile tears on her return, and immediately hired a lawyer, as any guilty person with the means to do so would have done, she would have avoided the overnight interrogation, the voluntary statement, the captured emails, been informed of possible wiretaps on her phones. In fact, I believe had she done that she would be a free woman today. Guilty, but free. How she could "shape the investigation" is beyond me. As far as needing to clean up a little more, that is the heart of the problem as expressed in the report. They called the police. Why would they do that if they needed to clean up a little more.


I thought about this one myself. Why not just leave for the day and let others discover the crime? Well, the night before, Amanda was supposed to work. Assuming that she wasn't bringing a change of clothes to work with her, she would have had to return to the cottage for a change of clothes for her trip the next day, either that night or the next morning. It would look odd if she didn't notice the staged burglary and start the alarm. Her other choice would be to try to enter the cottage to retrieve clothes in a clandestine manner. She couldn't really risk this because there are too many factors involved. Someone might see her. Plus, I'm sure she wanted to see the action unfold, to know that she was the star. Only Amanda and her doting boyfriend knew the whole story.
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

uh- my post above it turns out is 50% for skeptical bystander, 50% Yummi. Sorry for that mis attribution
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Well, the night before, Amanda was supposed to work. Assuming that she wasn't bringing a change of clothes to work with her, she would have had to return to the cottage for a change of clothes for her trip the next day, either that night or the next morning."

Here though, according to the court, she would have had lots of time to get that change of clothes, as she spent most of the night at the cottage.
(incidently, probably my last post for the night, and you are right, those who think my time would be better spent reading the report, so hopefully, not too much more posting here for me at least for awhile.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Re Yummi - Meredith did not know Guede ( paraphrasing - I know you did not say exactly that)

[Giacomo Silenzi] .. had had a romantic relationship with Meredith, which had begun a couple of months before she was killed.. … He had known Rudy Guede since the year before …. (via the basketball court).

He recalled that [Guede] had been at their house one evening. … Amanda was there .. On this occasion Meredith was there too. p39
_____

Giorgio Cocciaretto.. was a visitor at the house. Visiting the house.. he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there; Rudy was talking to both of them.p41

___________

[Rudy Guede] also knew the girls, Meredith and Amanda, who lived on the upper floor. ..he chatted with both of them.

The house at via della Pergola 7 was thus, for Rudy Guede, a friendly house, and so it must have appeared to him: it was inhabited by friends and girls with whom he could socialize.p42



The point is not that Ms Kercher and Guede were friends. The point is, they did know each other, seemingly at least as well as Amanda knew Guede, and in addition, Ms Kercher’s boyfriend was on ongoing acquaintance, and Ms Kercher’s acquaintance with Guede could have been greater than Ms Knox’s thereby.
True the Massei report said Ms Kercher would not open the door for anyone if alone, and, assuming he is God, he is of course correct. Otherwise, he’s just saying so. I am not arguing that she did, as I believe I have tried to make completely clear, btw.

Thank you for informing me of your interest in physics, which can be used to help me understand why your post to me seemed so much more full of heat than light.

In that same vein, I want to thank so many of you here for the warm welcome.



This is simply not supported by the facts. The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. Go back to the report. Meredith Kercher's acquaintance could have been greater, you say. Yet there is tons of testimony that indicates it was not. Please read the report slowly, very slowly.

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

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
"Well, the night before, Amanda was supposed to work. Assuming that she wasn't bringing a change of clothes to work with her, she would have had to return to the cottage for a change of clothes for her trip the next day, either that night or the next morning."

Here though, according to the court, she would have had lots of time to get that change of clothes, as she spent most of the night at the cottage.
(incidently, probably my last post for the night, and you are right, those who think my time would be better spent reading the report, so hopefully, not too much more posting here for me at least for awhile.)


You don't think witnesses could identify the clothes she wore on Nov.1 as being the same or different as those on Nov. 2? Her change of clothes would place her at the cottage sometime between Patrick's text and their departure for their trip. Not looking good.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
"Well, the night before, Amanda was supposed to work. Assuming that she wasn't bringing a change of clothes to work with her, she would have had to return to the cottage for a change of clothes for her trip the next day, either that night or the next morning."

Here though, according to the court, she would have had lots of time to get that change of clothes, as she spent most of the night at the cottage.
(incidently, probably my last post for the night, and you are right, those who think my time would be better spent reading the report, so hopefully, not too much more posting here for me at least for awhile.)



When people are wasted and commit acts such as murder, they often forget simple things like a change of clothes. In addition, we have only Knox's word that she went home to get a change of clothing. If the trip to Gubbio was planned, as you believe, then she could have (coulda woulda shoulda) gotten her clothes the previous afternoon, obviating the need to return the next morning. Why didn't she? Not thinking ahead, perhaps.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Re Yummi - Meredith did not know Guede ( paraphrasing - I know you did not say exactly that)

[Giacomo Silenzi] .. had had a romantic relationship with Meredith, which had begun a couple of months before she was killed.. … He had known Rudy Guede since the year before …. (via the basketball court).

He recalled that [Guede] had been at their house one evening. … Amanda was there .. On this occasion Meredith was there too. p39
_____

Giorgio Cocciaretto.. was a visitor at the house. Visiting the house.. he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there; Rudy was talking to both of them.p41

___________

[Rudy Guede] also knew the girls, Meredith and Amanda, who lived on the upper floor. ..he chatted with both of them.

The house at via della Pergola 7 was thus, for Rudy Guede, a friendly house, and so it must have appeared to him: it was inhabited by friends and girls with whom he could socialize.p42



The point is not that Ms Kercher and Guede were friends. The point is, they did know each other, seemingly at least as well as Amanda knew Guede, and in addition, Ms Kercher’s boyfriend was on ongoing acquaintance, and Ms Kercher’s acquaintance with Guede could have been greater than Ms Knox’s thereby.

True the Massei report said Ms Kercher would not open the door for anyone if alone, and, assuming he is God, he is of course correct. Otherwise, he’s just saying so. I am not arguing that she did, as I believe I have tried to make completely clear, btw.

Thank you for informing me of your interest in physics, which can be used to help me understand why your post to me seemed so much more full of heat than light.

In that same vein, I want to thank so many of you here for the warm welcome.


He is not God and doesn't need to be. I disagree with your assessment of the physical properties of stilicho's post. It is very illuminating. And direct. I think you are the obfuscator. You chose to ignore the substance of his post. That won't fly here.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:57 am   Post subject: PERUGIA NEWS DIGEST 14 AUGUST 2010   

PERUGIA NEWS DIGEST 14 AUGUST 2010

Amanda is a morning person in prison and Raffaele sent her one of his paintings.



Holidays

Amanda and Raffaele are waiting eagerly for the appeal to start (n1). The pair are placing great hope in the appeal judges reversing the sentence in their favour (n2).

"Raffaele is looking forward to a positive outcome from the appeal (beginning on 24 November next -- ndr) because he is sure of his innocence and we are working on new defence statements [memorie]", his lawyer said. (n3)

Amanda Knox, the 23-year-old from Seattle who has split public opinion into innocentisti and colpevolisti continues, in the meantime, to do Italian courses and sit for university exams from her Capanne prison cell. (n4) "She plays the guitar and sings," said Perugian criminal lawyer Luciano Ghirga who is defending her together with Carlo Dallo Vedova and Maria Del Grosso. (n5) Amanda, continues the lawyer, gets up early, does a bit of yoga, and then sets herself to responding to the piles of letters she is continually getting from friends and admirers. (n6) She reads books in Italian, does translations and writes a lot. (n7) She also writes a lot to Raffaele Sollecito, with whom she has re-started a frequent correspondence. (n8) In the last few weeks, says her lawyers, Raffaele has sent her one of his paintings. (n9)

Their third August Holidays behind bars (n10) is being spent "normally" under the guidance of their daily routine (n11), two of their lawyers told ADN Kronos news agency. (n12) Luca Maori, defending Raffaele Sollecito together with Giulia Bongiorno, says that the lad is intent on studying for some exams that he will sit in September (n13). He is doing a specialist degree in intelligent multimedia systems at Verona University (n14).

But the two sentenced prisoners are not the only ones to go to appeal: the public prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi are asking the Court of Appeal to not grant extenuating circumstances, as the Assize Court did at first instance, and to sentence them to life. (n15).

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ocean, there are rumours of a film inspired by the Knox case. (n16) The famous blog, the Huffington Post, launched a survey amongst its readers about the most suitable actress to play Amanda Knox: Megan Fox, Lindsay Lohan or Kristen Stewart. (n17) The youngsters and their lawyers don't want to even hear about such an eventuality. (n18)


{ Note: All of the above is synthesized into one article by the Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno (“Southern Gazette”) (n19) }



Appeal

For the appeal, the prosecution will be represented by Prosecutor-General Giancarlo Costagliola, possibly flanked by Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini; appearing for the defence: Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova for the enigmatic American [Amanda] and the Honourable-Counsellor Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori for the Pugliese student [Raffaele]. Defenders of the civil parties will be Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna. In parallel, the Supreme Court of Cassation will make pronouncement on the third accused: Rudy Guede, sentenced to 16 years by fast-track procedures on appeal.

Excluding the criminal judges because of unsuitability, presiding over the Assize Appeal Court ought to be the president of the civil section, Sergio Matteini Chiari. A long career in the judiciary -- starting in 1967 -- culminating in occupying the highest seat, that of the Umbrian court of appeal. [Back then] the Commission of the Palace of Marshalls had put him forward, then the plenum had selected Wladimiro De Nunzio while Matteini-Chiari was destined to preside over the Tribunal for Minors (whose presidency had been vacant for a year)... (n20)

Notes
n1 – 3
n2 – 3
n3 – 1
n4 – 1
n5 – 1
n6 – 1
n7 – 1
n8 – 1
n9 – 4
n10 -- 2,4
n11 – 2
n12 – 2
n13 – 2
n14 – 2
n15 – 3
n16 – 3
n17 – 3
n18 – 3
n19 – 5
n20 – 6


References

1 - Omicidio Meredith: terzo Ferragosto in carcere per Amanda e Raffaele (2)(Third August holiday in prison for Amanda and Raffaele (2)) [Libero] 14 August 2010
2 - Omicidio Meredith: terzo Ferragosto in carcere per Amanda e Raffaele(Third August holiday in prison for Amanda and Raffaele) [Libero] 14 August 2010
3 - Omicidio Meredith: terzo Ferragosto in carcere per Amanda e Raffaele (4)(Third August holiday in prison for Amanda and Raffaele (4)) [Libero] 14 August 2010
4 - Omicidio Meredith: terzo Ferragosto in carcere per Amanda e Raffaele (3)(Third August holiday in prison for Amanda and Raffaele (3)) [Libero] 14 August 2010
5 - Omicidio Meredith, lettere e regalini tra Raffaele e l'ex(Meredith Murder: Raffaele and his ex exchange letters and gifts) [Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno] 14 August 2010
6 - Caso Mez, Matteini presidente della Corte(Mez Case: Matteini to be court president) [Nazione] 10 August 2010


Linguistic note:
“Ferragosto” (the iron [horse shoe] of August) refers to the peak period of the summer holidays, if you imagine a graph of holiday activity (and temperatures) shaped like a horse-shoe. A near-equivalent in English would be to say “during the summer break”, or, in Australia “in the Christmas holidays”.
Top Profile 

Offline Brooktrout


Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:26 pm

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi folks, I read a lot but just registered today.

Having now had time to read most of the translation of the motivations document, I was wondering what you all think is

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.
2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing.

BT
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Can a Naples wiseguy spring Amanda Knox?

Amanda Knox's summer of discontent
By Candace Dempsey, author of Murder In Italy


SEATTLE PI


(She's Back!)


Having just read the above, it left me thinking that the author is mentally ill.
"to be honest" she says.
Is it to assumed that anything preceding this statement isn't honest?

Her interpretation on reading the Massei report (courtesy of PMF of course) is that Massei ruled Meredith died because Sollecito read manga comics?
Candace Dempsey, you are a simpleton and a liar of the worst kind and you fool nobody except yourself.
I was hoping you would have choked on the first mouthful of Italian food you bought from the proceeds of the novel you wrote, but this is obviously not so.
Show some human decency and respect for the dead girl please.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Micheal said "Actually, the trip was planned for the 'day', not the weekend. Why would they 'get out of Dodge'? How would that benefit them? It wouldn't give them any alibi and worse, they would have no idea what was going on, they would not be able to shape the investigation in any way, neither would they have the opportunity to provide an act that would make them appear innocent and they'd still have to return to face the music later, but in ignorance instead of in the know. That would have been a major disadvantage."


I disagree. If they went out of town, on a pre planned trip, on an Italian holiday, that is not at all suspicious. I believe at least one of her Italian housemates was out of town, and the boys downstairs were all gone. So, to be informed that her flatmate had been murdered would not throw suspicion on her at all. In fact, if she had done that, cried crocodile tears on her return, and immediately hired a lawyer, as any guilty person with the means to do so would have done, she would have avoided the overnight interrogation, the voluntary statement, the captured emails, been informed of possible wiretaps on her phones. In fact, I believe had she done that she would be a free woman today. Guilty, but free. How she could "shape the investigation" is beyond me. As far as needing to clean up a little more, that is the heart of the problem as expressed in the report. They called the police. Why would they do that if they needed to clean up a little more.

So, you too believe that Amanda Knox is "guilty"? Hmm.

But aside from that, perhaps Freudian, slip, I'd like to point out that just because someone is out of town when a body is discovered, means nothing as far as guilt or innocence (although it is true, as you point out, that taking a trip is not, in and of itself, suspicious; since it was pre-planned, even less so).

However, as Michael points out, they would have had to face the music eventually, either way. In a murder investigation, all suspects are asked what they were doing in the relevant time-frame. Knox would've been a suspect by virtue of her presence in the house the day before, and still would have had to answer those questions. Maybe Knox wanted to "get it over with" sooner rather than later. Knowing her impetuous nature, it's not a stretch to think so.

Look at OJ Simpson. He left town right after a murder, on a pre-planned trip. Didn't seem to do him much good in the way of avoiding suspicion.

As to why they might stay in town, it sure is hard to clean a crime scene of incriminating evidence after you've left town.

And did they really call the police, as soon as they should have if innocent? Not necessarily. By Amanda's own account, she saw the state of the apartment (door open, blood drops, missing roommate with door locked to her room) at about 10:30 or 11 am; Raffaele called the police around 12:51 pm or so (someone correct me if I'm wrong). That's a delay of 1.75-2+ hours. Why the delay?

Why would Amanda take a shower in an apartment where the door had been left open and there was blood in the bathroom? And a locked door and a missing roommate? I would have been totally freaked out by those conditions, and the last thing I would have done would be to get undressed and pop into the shower.

There's also the very telling details in the report as to Amanda's and Raffaele's demeanor toward the Postal Police. Testimony was that they talked mainly about the broken window, whether or not anything was stolen, and the blood drops in the bathroom. In contrast, Amanda claimed in her Nov 4th email that she had been "panicking" about Meredith's locked door before the police arrived, trying to peer in the window from the balcony, and getting Raffaele to try to force the door. But suddenly, when the Postal Police arrive, no concern for the locked door at all? Hardly a mention of it? And even saying things like, Oh that Meredith, she's always locking her door, whenever she even goes to take a shower. Hmm.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream, how would you explain this?

From Raffaele's diary:
Quote:
"Mi ricordo che era giovedì, quindi Amanda doveva andare al pub dove lavora di solito, ma non mi ricordo quanto tempo si è assentata e ricordo che successivamente mi aveva detto che il pub era chiuso (ho dei forti dubbi riguardo al fatto che si sia assentata). "

I remember that it was a Thursday, therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually worked, but I don't remember how long time she was away and I remember that after that she told me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts regarding the fact that she was away)"


Yummi, I'm not sure of the translation of the last sentence in parentheses, please check it.
May it be "I have strong doubts regarding the fact if she was absent"?
Which one is the correct?


Last edited by bolint on Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
Catnip wrote:
mogur wrote:
...what is gush-guff ...


The category "evidence of innocence" does not exist. It is as imaginary as the unicorns you mentioned.

The only choices are "guilty" or "not guilty" (and a person can be innocent under either one).

***


Well according to Wikipedia there is the so-called Scottish verdict. Guilty. Innocent. Or Not proven.


Hi TomM,

You've implicitly set me a homework assignment! :)

I like Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is useful, more or less.

But, because of trolls and vandals, and even people who sincerely think they know what is credible, and other things besides, Wikipedia’s own disclaimer says:

Quote:
Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.[1][2]
Especially considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.

– [ Wikipedia ]



In any case, the Wikipedia article on Scots' law says:

Quote:
The Scots legal system is unique in having three possible verdicts for a criminal trial: "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven". Both "not guilty" and "not proven" result in an acquittal with no possibility of retrial.

– [ Wikipedia: Scots_law ] Page Last modified on 23 July 2010


so I'd be interested in tracking down the page you saw (perhaps it is more up-to-date, e.g.?)



But back to the purpose of the homework exercise --

I visit my friend Johnny.
The vase falls off the table and smashes into a million pieces.


A positive approach:
(a) If you can prove that I did it, then I am guilty and should be convicted.
(b) If you cannot prove that I did it, then I am not guilty and should not be convicted.

A negative approach:
(c) Can I prove that I did not do it?
(d) What happens if I cannot prove that I did not do it?


Besides the relative weight and resources available to a prosecution compared to an accused, I think a large part in the choice of using the positive approach has been the logical impossibility of proving a negative: like the proverbial "Prove to me that Santa Claus does not live at the North Pole".


In terms of proving that I did not do it, approach (c), how will I go about doing so?
I can show you scenario X.
Then what?
You can say, for example, “But, scenario X does not exclude the possibility that Y happened or exists.”
So I show you scenario X v1.1.
Then what?
And so on, ad infinitum.





By the way, the Procurator Fiscal's site still has this brochure/leaflet, but it is from a couple of years ago:

Quote:
At the trial, the jury will listen to all the evidence
and decide whether the verdict is guilty, not
guilty
or not proven. If the verdict is not guilty
or not proven, the accused can leave court and
that is the end of the case. If the accused pleads
or is found guilty, they will be sentenced then or
at a later date.

– from the victim information and advice leaflet, “VIA information about High Court Trial procedure” at the Scots Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) site:

[ COPFS ]

Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
che si sia assentata





"that she had gone out / had left (the house) / had gone away"
literally, to absent oneself from = to go away, to leave
Top Profile 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
...snip the JAQing off...

Ok. So Meredith and Rudy knew each other.

And the reason this has any bearing, whatsoever, on the evidence against Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele is?





Obvious troll is being completely, and utterly obvious.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The English translation of Raffaele's diary contains several errors resulting in mysterious interpretations.

For example:
Ah, dimenticavo, Amanda ha aperto la casa con le chiavi "cosa che mi hanno ripetutamente chiesto visto che lei mi aveva detto che aveva trovato la porta di ingresso spalancata quando era entrata"

Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened he house with the keys (that I have repeatedly asked myself inasmuch
as she had said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open when she entered before).

I understand the Italian as "which they have asked me repeatedly"

Or another:
"Dicono che mi avrebbero richiamato."
"They say that I would have to call again."

should be: "They said that I would be called back."


Wouldn't it be the time to check it and correct these mistakes to make it the same quality as the Massei Motivations?


Last edited by bolint on Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip,

My problem is not the absent or away or left, all are good.
My problem is which one is the correct?: "that she left" or "if she left"
About what has Raffaele strong doubts:
- if she tells the truth that the pub was closed
or
- if she left
?
That's what I don't understand in that sentence.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brooktrout wrote:
Hi folks, I read a lot but just registered today.

Having now had time to read most of the translation of the motivations document, I was wondering what you all think is

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.
2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing.

BT



H Brooktrout,

Welcome.

It's probably going to be the interpretation of the evidence that is going to more or less convinving.

The evidence is the evidence. For example, the nail in the wall underneath Filomena's window dents the hypothesis that someone actually climbed the wall to get through the window to get inside to non-burglarize the place before attacking Meredith and running away leaving the front door open but the bedroom door locked.

It's the net of inference that is strong or weak, rather than an individual piece of evidence.

The strongest incriminating factor would be the coordinted lying (and I include the staged burglary and sexual assault murderer "black-guy" did it scenario set-up as part of the lying), and then the lack of credible "straight" alibis (as opposed to plenty of contradictory and false alibis).

The court accepted the prosecution's case insofar as having shown that they were there. If the defence can show that the accused were not there, then there is Rudy's testimony (as far as it has gone so far) to deal with.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
The English translation of Raffaele's diary contains several errors resulting in mysterious interpretations.
...
Wouldn't it be the time to check it and correct these mistakes to make it the same quality as the Massei Motivations?


Good idea! :)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Catnip,

My problem is not the absent or away or left, all are good.
My problem is which one is the correct?: "that she left" or "if she left"
About what has Raffaele strong doubts:
- if she tells the truth that the pub was closed
or
- if she left
?
That's what I don't understand in that sentence.


if she left
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brooktrout wrote:

Quote:
"1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach."


The bra clasp and the accusation of Lumumba (on top of other lies).
Not that they won't approach them. :D

Quote:
"2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing."


The 20:18 SMS of Lumumba placing Amanda out of Raffaele''s place. Totally unproven.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:

From Raffaele's diary:
Quote:
"Mi ricordo che era giovedì, quindi Amanda doveva andare al pub dove lavora di solito, ma non mi ricordo quanto tempo si è assentata e ricordo che successivamente mi aveva detto che il pub era chiuso (ho dei forti dubbi riguardo al fatto che si sia assentata). "


"I recall that it was Thursday, and so Amanda would have had to go to the pub where she usually worked, but I don't remember how long she had gone out for, and I remember that later she had told me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts regarding the fact that she had gone out [at all])."


Interesting: The doveva ("would have") is a strong indicator that an actual memory is not being described, and the three-pronged assertion:

– she should have gone to work as usual (it was a Thursday)
– I don’t remember how long she was out (memory loss; or didn’t notice she was out; or maybe she hadn’t left at all)
– she told me later that the pub was closed (therefore she was not out at that moment)

leads to the doubts, which leads to the possibility of them being together all night (as asserted elsewhere), which leads to freedom.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks, Catnip
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Prego.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
moodstream wrote:
...snip the JAQing off...

Ok. So Meredith and Rudy knew each other.

And the reason this has any bearing, whatsoever, on the evidence against Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele is?

Obvious troll is being completely, and utterly obvious.


Could not agree more with Bob.
As I mentioned above:

When you answer a "question" that is driven by an overpowering underlying agenda, and is little more than a regurgitation of a tired talking point or a mindless cut and paste from the Food Blogger, do not expect your sincere effort in answering and pointing out error to make even the most miniscule dent in the 'agenda armor' of the 'person' asking the question.

Most long serious answers by other patient posters here do not even get the common courtesy of an acknowledgment from the troll 'person'; only another "question" (that is best reciprocally ignored)

It's the agenda that is paramount, and until the patience of the ever so competent Moderators is expired, and the 'person' finally does get the "thanks for stopping by",we best just grin and bear them.
The "thanks for stopping by" which the co conspirators constantly cite at JREF is to their warped (minds ?) in effect a badge of honor ardently coveted so they then can charge back to their cesspool of co conspirators as a 'conquering hero' who appropriately gets a standing ovation and a dog turd medal of achievement.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Black Dog wrote:
Candace Dempsey, you are a simpleton and a liar of the worst kind and you fool nobody except yourself.
I was hoping you would have choked on the first mouthful of Italian food you bought from the proceeds of the novel you wrote, but this is obviously not so.
Show some human decency and respect for the dead girl please.


mul-)

My nomination for the 'quote of the week'
Absolutely ever so appropriate and accurate

PS: moon beam (sp) please *hear !! hear !!* and as requested from many here, puh-leeez spare us further cut and paste "questions" from Ms Dempsey that your tremendously busy personal schedule, and your ever so understandable "need for rest" preclude you from acknowledging and *accepting* the concise correct replies that totally obliterate your "point"
Forums are intended as exchanges of meaningful information, not regurgitation of tired talking points and imposition on others to do your research which you then dutifully ignore anyway in rush to continue the all encompassing and empowering "agenda"


Last edited by stint7 on Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:45 am   Post subject: Re: PERUGIA NEWS DIGEST 14 AUGUST 2010   

Catnip wrote:
PERUGIA NEWS DIGEST 14 AUGUST 2010



Quite interesting, Cat

Thanks for translating and sharing

I wonder if Amanda's convicted cellmates are enjoying and appreciating her guitar and 'singing' that is cited, as much as her previous roommates did ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:
moodstream wrote:
...snip the JAQing off...

Ok. So Meredith and Rudy knew each other.

And the reason this has any bearing, whatsoever, on the evidence against Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele is?

Obvious troll is being completely, and utterly obvious.


Could not agree more with Bob.
As I mentioned above:

When you answer a "question" that is driven by an overpowering underlying agenda, and is little more than a regurgitation of a tired talking point or a mindless cut and paste from the Food Blogger, do not expect your sincere effort in answering and pointing out error to make even the most miniscule dent in the 'agenda armor' of the 'person' asking the question.
....



...Agenda armour, ...obvious troll. ...

This is pure VR role-playing game territory!

A Trollius phrasendrescherei at fifty-paces, with three DT medals!

Immediate Logistic Cartwheel time. Alley-oop!
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Was reading the prologue to Sarzanini's book this morning.

Describing the staged burglary:

Quote:
As if someone had been there but had wanted to simulate the ingress of persons unknown, as if they had wanted to make believe that burglars had entered. Although nothing at all had been stolen.

(p13)



The "make believe" part made me think: the staging of the scene did have an actual (objective) creative element to it -- could someone who was not a creative thinker or creative-type person have had the actual training and skill to think creatively, come up with a scenario, and set the scene up (all done while running out the front door backwards, and so on)?

The artistic nature of the staging is an element (another element, perhaps) that requires an explanation as to its credibility if a non-artistic, non-thinking type of chap is to be put in the frame for having done it.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote: Pataz1 with beautiful high brow humor answers....
Why were there three traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's room?

The defence would state its because of her solo performance in the Bath Mat Surfing competition.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
mul-)

That was ever so rich, Pataz

Lotsa good info in rest of that post too

Thanks
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I don't think this has been mentioned yet. UK board members may want to swallow their political principles if necessary and invest in a SUNDAY TIMES this morning (Times online is now subscription only). John Follain reports on Amanda Knox in prison. I won't say anymore except... all hail saint Amanda. Good fodder for me.

Oh, and Skep's zombie movie is, I think, Return of the Living Dead.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brooktrout wrote:

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.

BT


Most of the evidence is pretty strong, BT, and welcome. I provided an example on this page of five reasons in the report for the court to have disbelieved Knox awoke around 10 am 02 NOV 2007. I don't believe the lawyers are appealing against all five reasons but just one of them.

There are a number of elements of this case like that. Facts, statements, or arguments are presented and corroborated, with the reasons they were found acceptable, and tied into others similarly recognised during the deliberations. This makes it quite difficult for the defence lawyers to find weaknesses.

I just finished watching yet another "true crime" show about the conviction of Sam Parker of Georgia although the body of his wife was never found, no murder weapon was identified, the entire case was dependent largely on character witnesses, and the killer had at least a partial alibi for the night of the murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison: SAM PARKER. In contrast with that case, this one has virtually a royal flush of evidence: victim's body locked inside a room in a rental accommodation shared with one of the accused, DNA, luminol, and footprint evidence, mixed traces of DNA in several locations, a staged burglary, one of the weapons used found in the kitchen drawer of one of the accused, and so on and so on.

Virtually the only thing missing is a videotape of the assault and the murder. It's one of the tightest murder convictions I've ever heard of.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brooktrout wrote:
1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.

BT



Welcome to PMF Brooktrout. In terms of the strongest evidence, I think it would be wrong to offer single individual pieces of evidence (in my mind), for me rather it's 'sets' of evidence. In this case, that would be the (1) clear-cut evidence of a staged break- in and evidence of a partial clean-up and (2) the combined computer and phone evidence that totally trashes their alibis both of the night of the murder and the following morning.

The footprint evidence is a killer too, since not only does it directly implicate them in the murder, it also is the final nail in the coffin of any 'lone wolf' theory.

These evidences are strong and I don't see how the defence can offer any successful attacking of them.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Brooktrout wrote:
Hi folks, I read a lot but just registered today.

Having now had time to read most of the translation of the motivations document, I was wondering what you all think is

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.
2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing.

BT

The evidence is the evidence. For example, the nail in the wall underneath Filomena's window dents the hypothesis that someone actually climbed the wall to get through the window to get inside to non-burglarize the place before attacking Meredith and running away leaving the front door open but the bedroom door locked.

It's the net of inference that is strong or weak, rather than an individual piece of evidence.


That's around p. 50 of the report for any of our sleuths who want to follow along. There are many reasons for the court to have found that the burglary was staged:

1] The nail was undisturbed.
2] Vegetation beneath the grating was undisturbed.
3] There was no sign of scrapes or dirt on the wall beneath Filomena's window.
4] Filomena testified that the shutters were not wide open.
5] No instrument was found that could have been used to pry open the shutters.
6] No glass was found below the window.
7] Sollecito told the 112 operator there had been nothing stolen.
8] None of the portable items were assembled in a way suggesting a thief was preparing to pick them up and take them.
9] Glass was discovered on top of items that should have had items beneath them if the window were broken before the room was partially ransacked.
10] Anyone attempting to break into the cottage by that means would have been visible from the roadway above.

That's ten reasons right there (not an exhaustive list) and moreover there's an entire chapter devoted to the possibility of Guede having staged the burglary. It strains credibility to try to dismiss all this evidence. The court found (as most of us did when discussing it before the report was published) the staged burglary was easy for investigators to assess. It would be much harder for the defence teams to appeal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Is someone registered in yahoo who wants to answer this with a link to PMF?


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 251AAznBU8
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael on the appeal trial:
"it's only going to last seven days"

How do we know that?
Top Profile 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Michael on the appeal trial:
"it's only going to last seven days"

How do we know that?

Interested to know this too. This excellent article on TJMK says:

Quote:
As mentioned above, the appeal process in Italy is a brand new trial where all evidence and testimony is analyzed in the same terms as the first trial. The standards are however higher. The president of the Appeal Court of Assizes is in fact a judge from the Supreme Court of Cassation (the members of the Supreme Court are actually called “Consiglieri”). The requisites for being one of the 6 jurors are also higher. They must be all holding a high school degree (in the first trial the minimum required is only a middle school education). (...)

On average a criminal trial lasts 426 days in the first trial, and 730 days at the appeal trial, a duration much longer than any other EU country. The Perugia case was therefore faster than average, having lasted less than a year.

I wonder if the seven days being talked about is just an initial hearing, not the full appeal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hey Katy_did (or anyone else). Where was that video of Raffaele's appartment? I saw a link to it recently - 400mb I think it was?

_________________
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 Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks to Catnip/Michael for demolishing my first 2xDNA knife theory w-((

now crazy 2xDNA knife theory #2...


Is there a possibility the double DNA knife was not the murder weapon and never left Raffaelle's flat ?
Can we be sure as most kitchen knives are a similar design and could have left a similar wound ?
Could the DNA have gotten onto the knife after the murder ?

The murder knife used at the cottage could have belonged to RG or one of the girls (MK could even have had a knife hidden under the bed). After the initial attack , RG left RS+tactical knife holding MK and handed his knife to AK while he had his bathroom break. MK then tried to escape/fight back/scream so in a drugged up panic they kill her.

RS and AK then flee the crimescene to RS's flat still with the knives. At this point they are not thinking of a cover up. AK chucks her knife into the knife draw which transfers DNA to the 2xDNA knife.

RG meanwhile returns and realising whats happened maybe looks for his knife or something to steal before quickly making his escape.

Later as part of the cover up the blood stained murder weapon/keys are hidden for maybe a Mafioso's brother to stumble on later and later claim credit for the murder. The 2xDNA knife is given a good clean and kept, as it's not the murder weapon and it's not nice to break up a set!

Only 300 more pages of the report left to read. bricks-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2316

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Examiner has an article about the English translation of Judge Massei's report and provides a link to it:

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-nation ... -of-murder
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Michael on the appeal trial:
"it's only going to last seven days"

How do we know that?


Andrea Vogt.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_did wrote:
I wonder if the seven days being talked about is just an initial hearing, not the full appeal.


Katy_did, tell me, just how long did Rudy Guede's appeal 'full retrial' last? Three days wasn't it?

I think you guys are really in for a shock.

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Hey Katy_did (or anyone else). Where was that video of Raffaele's appartment? I saw a link to it recently - 400mb I think it was?


Charlie Wilkes:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/sollecito_apartment.mp4
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Katy_did wrote:
I wonder if the seven days being talked about is just an initial hearing, not the full appeal.


Katy_did, tell me, just how long did Rudy Guede's appeal 'full retrial' last? Three days wasn't it?

I think you guys are really in for a shock.


But Michael, you don't understand. Not only is she American - Amanda is SPECIAL!
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The appeal is a trial de novo. Teorethically it could last months. But practially in most cases would last only a few hearings.
This is because the appeal can use the evidence collected in the previous trial. The alòready existing bulk mass of testimonies and evidence files does not have to be collected again, and in most cases the additional evidence does not take more than a few days to be collected. There have been caes however in which the appeals lasted months or years, this usually happens only if the court rules for a new investigation or further expert reports. Things like new exceptional witnesses or new findings in the evidence can re-open new phases of evidence collection. If there is no re-collection of big files, the trial is obviously rather quick.


Last edited by Yummi on Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

In the Raffaele video it is interesting to watch his bathroom at about 14:37 (time stamp, not playing time).
Looks just like the bathroom in the cottage.
I don't know what "Amanda did not like" in it so that she had to go over to take a shower.

The broken pipe is also interesting at around 14:26 (time stamp).
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
...I want to thank so many of you here for the warm welcome.


If you were here to openly and honestly discuss the case, that might actually be true.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Patzu wrote:

now crazy 2xDNA knife theory #2...

Is there a possibility the double DNA knife was not the murder weapon and never left Raffaelle's flat ?


Hi Patzu,

It might be quicker and more efficient all around if you state what the intended purpose of the theory-building is.

It sounds like it might be: "How big is the set of robust theories where (a) Meredith's DNa got on to the knife, and (b) the knife found in the drawer was not directly "used" or "involved" in the murder in any way at all?" Sort of like: the case of the innocent-bystander knife.

Am I in the right ballpark?

Let's wait until you get past the attacks on Stefanoni's testimony covered in the report, though.

And I'll put my thinking cap on in the meantime, though as well. You never know where ideas can suddenly appear from.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
In the Raffaele video it is interesting to watch his bathroom at about 14:37 (time stamp, not playing time).
Looks just like the bathroom in the cottage.
I don't know what "Amanda did not like" in it so that she had to go over to take a shower.

The broken pipe is also interesting at around 14:26 (time stamp).



? She couldn't borrow the big girls' hairdryer (not without running down the street, anyway :) )

? Raffaele didn't clean it, so it was all dingy and yucky (at least, for a girl: I vaguely remember Raffaele writing that Amanda did not like it)

? What was the purpose of the "beauty-case" if there were showers at Raffaele's place? (serious question)
Does that mean the well-remembered shower, the one with the ears, was the first (or last)?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'm afraid I can't remember where, but I believe she gave 2 reasons why she didn't like Raff's shower; it leaked, and it was too small. Perhaps someone else recalls?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?

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


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Two weeks ago a Scottish woman almost became rich.


Quote:
30 July 2010

At the High Court in Edinburgh today, Mary Graham (42) pled guilty to being concerned in the supply of Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP), cannabis, cocaine and amphetamine, with a total street value in excess of £280,000, in Grangemouth between 1st January and 15th April 2010.

It is thought that this seizure of 45,761 tablets of TFMPP represents the largest haul of the drug so far in Central region.

She has been remanded in custody for sentencing on 7th September 2010 at Glasgow High Court.


"HMA v MARY GRAHAM"
COPFS


It doesn't say if she ever was an honours student. I mean, you would have to be, to pronounce what it is you are carrying around.

With all these drug busts going on everywhere, now I'm going to have to find out what Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine is called in Italian. I should start a glossary.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT

Knowledge is also going international.
The UP is expanding to Bethlehem.

Quote:
Wednesday 11/08/2010 21:05

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Fatah, Christian and Sports officials from Bethlehem gathered for the official opening of the John Paul II Building, which will house a new branch of Italy's University of Perugia.

The center will be one with a focus on teaching the Italian language to Palestinians, as well as a small sports school for football training supported by the Franciscan society.

Ma'an News
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Patzu wrote:
Thanks to Catnip/Michael for demolishing my first 2xDNA knife theory w-((

now crazy 2xDNA knife theory #2...


Is there a possibility the double DNA knife was not the murder weapon and never left Raffaelle's flat ?
Can we be sure as most kitchen knives are a similar design and could have left a similar wound ?
Could the DNA have gotten onto the knife after the murder ?

The murder knife used at the cottage could have belonged to RG or one of the girls (MK could even have had a knife hidden under the bed). After the initial attack , RG left RS+tactical knife holding MK and handed his knife to AK while he had his bathroom break. MK then tried to escape/fight back/scream so in a drugged up panic they kill her.

RS and AK then flee the crimescene to RS's flat still with the knives. At this point they are not thinking of a cover up. AK chucks her knife into the knife draw which transfers DNA to the 2xDNA knife.

RG meanwhile returns and realising whats happened maybe looks for his knife or something to steal before quickly making his escape.

Later as part of the cover up the blood stained murder weapon/keys are hidden for maybe a Mafioso's brother to stumble on later and later claim credit for the murder. The 2xDNA knife is given a good clean and kept, as it's not the murder weapon and it's not nice to break up a set!

Only 300 more pages of the report left to read. bricks-)


People should realize a murder case is a very serious offense. The jury will react grimly to deception, lies and evasive stories.

In a homicide case, you lie to the jury, you are toast.

The lies, the lies, the lies. That is why the accused are in jail. You do not lie in a murder trial and get away with it. The lawyers cannot defend lies, they can only repeat them. Did not work, will not work.

This case is rife with evasivness and obfuscation and fishy explanations by one side. You can throw away the knife evidence and the bra clasp evidence and you still have the "explanations", by the defence that mirror the weak replies and stories -the lies actually- of their clients.

Ted Simon, lawyer for the Knox Mellas family, has said the Sollecito defence will offer two convict's tales, one of them a child murderer, as new sterling proof of innocence. Is this a joke? No. The defence wants the appeal jury to swallow this new tripe.

The truth is the only thing that could get the defendants a shorter jail sentence. It is in short supply.

The prosecution has not presented a perfect case but it is a serious and strong case for conviction.

The jury made the choice for the thorough and serious presentation by the prosecution. It mirrors the seriousness of the crime.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

From last Thursday:

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

SPI

"Seated next to her civil attorney during an earlier hearing, "Jane Doe" was a stranger to none."

Doesn't the instinct to hide allow an inference to arise that there is something to hide?

Transparency of process and seeing justice done cannot occur if evidence is suppressed and hearings are behind closed doors.

Here, closed-session courts are used, e.g., when children are involved, because of the impact of the publicity and notoriety on their future development and well-being.

What would a grown-up attorney want to keep out of the view of the public? Her ethical obligation to the Court to see justice is done?

I'm glad I don't have to decide that one.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?



This is becoming hilarious (to use the Cook's favorite term), Moodstream. How can you malign Massei for his suppositions and then in all seriousness put forth such nonsense? I think you need to write to AK in prison (if you have not already) and find out how much she retained from years of watching Law & Order and Grey's Anatomy. And thanks for providing an interesting supposition for their actions on the morning of Nov 2: they waited until as long as possible to call Filomena (who they hoped would rush home and discover the body) and decided that going to Gubbio in the early morning (according to RS's dad) would be too dangerous. What if Filomena came home too early and discovered the body too early, thus messing up their carefully crafted TOD obfuscation plans?

:)

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Patzu wrote:

now crazy 2xDNA knife theory #2...

Is there a possibility the double DNA knife was not the murder weapon and never left Raffaelle's flat ?


Hi Patzu,

It might be quicker and more efficient all around if you state what the intended purpose of the theory-building is.

It sounds like it might be: "How big is the set of robust theories where (a) Meredith's DNa got on to the knife, and (b) the knife found in the drawer was not directly "used" or "involved" in the murder in any way at all?" Sort of like: the case of the innocent-bystander knife.

Am I in the right ballpark?

Let's wait until you get past the attacks on Stefanoni's testimony covered in the report, though.

And I'll put my thinking cap on in the meantime, though as well. You never know where ideas can suddenly appear from.



I had a dream last night in which RS brought the can of mushrooms and his knife over to the cottage to make lunch for AK on Nov 1. Remember our poster, Chef Tom, who insisted that it was perfectly normal for him to carry his kitchen knives around and cook at other people's homes? Maybe RS, good cook (according to AK) and knife "enthusiast" (for lack of a better term), simply could not conceive of making a meal without a decent knife, and he didn't know if the cottage had one. What did RS make for his lunch with AK? Pasta, I think. With what kind of sauce? As for the rest of this scenario, during lunch AK and RS watched a couple of Law & Order and Gray's Anatomy reruns they had downloaded earlier. Just to brush up on their post mortems.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?



This is becoming hilarious (to use the Cook's favorite term), Moodstream. How can you malign Massei for his suppositions and then in all seriousness put forth such nonsense? I think you need to write to AK in prison (if you have not already) and find out how much she retained from years of watching Law & Order and Grey's Anatomy. And thanks for providing an interesting supposition for their actions on the morning of Nov 2: they waited until as long as possible to call Filomena (who they hoped would rush home and discover the body) and decided that going to Gubbio in the early morning (according to RS's dad) would be too dangerous. What if Filomena came home too early and discovered the body too early, thus messing up their carefully crafted TOD obfuscation plans?

:)


Seriously! Amanda and Raffaele were by most accounts a couple of heavy-duty stoners who, as an afterthought, relied heavily on Google to try and solve the most pressing of their problems. Very much like the FOA camp is doing right now.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
I don't think this has been mentioned yet. UK board members may want to swallow their political principles if necessary and invest in a SUNDAY TIMES this morning (Times online is now subscription only). John Follain reports on Amanda Knox in prison. I won't say anymore except... all hail saint Amanda. Good fodder for me.

Oh, and Skep's zombie movie is, I think, Return of the Living Dead.



I thought it might be but was rushing out to enjoy the fabulous weather and did not take the time to look. Isn't the director George Romero? Thanks for that! It may be one of the first intentionally funny horror films, a sort of self-referential spoof.

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

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?



Why would they call Filomena? AK/RS were expected to be on a day trip out of town. What would necessitate their calling Filomena?

They don't need to be experts in forensics. I think most people have a general awareness that the police test for things like time of death. Don't you? In fact, if AK/RS are guilty, they caught a break in that the coroner was not able to perform tests that in most murder cases would have been performed right away, like body temp.

I don't think it would look more suspicious to wait for Filomena to arrive before deciding on a course of action. She does come across as the 'head of the household' as it were. AK could have been, and probably in reality was, waiting for Filomena to arrive to take charge of the situation. There is no reason for AK to call the police at all, or at that time in particular.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?



Why would they call Filomena? AK/RS were expected to be on a day trip out of town. What would necessitate their calling Filomena?

They don't need to be experts in forensics. I think most people have a general awareness that the police test for things like time of death. Don't you? In fact, if AK/RS are guilty, they caught a break in that the coroner was not able to perform tests that in most murder cases would have been performed right away, like body temp.

I don't think it would look more suspicious to wait for Filomena to arrive before deciding on a course of action. She does come across as the 'head of the household' as it were. AK could have been, and probably in reality was, waiting for Filomena to arrive to take charge of the situation. There is no reason for AK to call the police at all, or at that time in particular.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Brooktrout wrote:
Hi folks, I read a lot but just registered today.

Having now had time to read most of the translation of the motivations document, I was wondering what you all think is

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.
2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing.

BT

The evidence is the evidence. For example, the nail in the wall underneath Filomena's window dents the hypothesis that someone actually climbed the wall to get through the window to get inside to non-burglarize the place before attacking Meredith and running away leaving the front door open but the bedroom door locked.

It's the net of inference that is strong or weak, rather than an individual piece of evidence.


That's around p. 50 of the report for any of our sleuths who want to follow along. There are many reasons for the court to have found that the burglary was staged:

1] The nail was undisturbed.
2] Vegetation beneath the grating was undisturbed.
3] There was no sign of scrapes or dirt on the wall beneath Filomena's window.
4] Filomena testified that the shutters were not wide open.
5] No instrument was found that could have been used to pry open the shutters.
6] No glass was found below the window.
7] Sollecito told the 112 operator there had been nothing stolen.
8] None of the portable items were assembled in a way suggesting a thief was preparing to pick them up and take them.
9] Glass was discovered on top of items that should have had items beneath them if the window were broken before the room was partially ransacked.
10] Anyone attempting to break into the cottage by that means would have been visible from the roadway above.

That's ten reasons right there (not an exhaustive list) and moreover there's an entire chapter devoted to the possibility of Guede having staged the burglary. It strains credibility to try to dismiss all this evidence. The court found (as most of us did when discussing it before the report was published) the staged burglary was easy for investigators to assess. It would be much harder for the defence teams to appeal.

Very much agree with both you and Michael. It wasn't just any one or two items. It was the way each item of contention was analyzed and show to be inconsistent with the testimony/alibis. Completely amazing piece of work.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?



This is becoming hilarious (to use the Cook's favorite term), Moodstream. How can you malign Massei for his suppositions and then in all seriousness put forth such nonsense? I think you need to write to AK in prison (if you have not already) and find out how much she retained from years of watching Law & Order and Grey's Anatomy. And thanks for providing an interesting supposition for their actions on the morning of Nov 2: they waited until as long as possible to call Filomena (who they hoped would rush home and discover the body) and decided that going to Gubbio in the early morning (according to RS's dad) would be too dangerous. What if Filomena came home too early and discovered the body too early, thus messing up their carefully crafted TOD obfuscation plans?

:)


How did any action they took or did not take control the possiblity of Filomena coming home early?

Why is going to Giobbi dangerous? ( If this is they stayed at home to control the investigation - what did they do in this regard?)

Why would they want Filomena to rush home and discover the body?

If they believe they have a shot of influencing the investigation, they understand, at least generally the concept of forensic investigation. As you point out several popular tv shows explore the topic and it's a common knowledge. They would be the excpetion not to be aware of it, in a very general way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
bolint wrote:
che si sia assentata





"that she had gone out / had left (the house) / had gone away"
literally, to absent oneself from = to go away, to leave



It would be great to start from scratch and retranslate RS's writings. Is anyone interested in taking this much smaller project on? I would be happy to help out but only working as part of a collaborative group.

I think the right translation of this particular sentence would be "...serious doubts that she had gone out". In other words, RS is yet again falling back on his faulty memory due to cannibus use. Personally, I think it is logical, if AK thought she had to work at 8:30 pm, that she may have been on her way when she got the text message from PL, which she did not reply to until she was back at the apartment. Remember, according to Nadeau in her book, RS and AK gave different versions of their movements in the late afternoon/early evening of Nov 1. In at least one of them, RS stated that they went from the cottage into town, walked around and then parted company, with AK going to Le Chic to meet up with friends.

_________________
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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream wrote:
Why would they call Filomena? AK/RS were expected to be on a day trip out of town. What would necessitate their calling Filomena?


Because they were aware that Filomena may return to the cottage at any time and discover something was amiss. They needed to ensure they were there when that happened so they could with her and by using her, build their appearance of innocence. And you keep on with this 'expected to be in Gubbio' nonsense, expected by whom? Not Filomena or her friends, not Laura and not the police. The only person who thought they were going to Gubbio was Raffaele's father and he was all the way over in Bari.

Moodstream wrote:
They don't need to be experts in forensics. I think most people have a general awareness that the police test for things like time of death. Don't you?


Is it? Twenty year olds have a 'general awareness' of this fact do they? And what big difference would an hour or two make anyway? And even were you to argue it would make a big difference, how exactly would that really help Amanda and Raffaele?

Moodstream wrote:
I don't think it would look more suspicious to wait for Filomena to arrive before deciding on a course of action. She does come across as the 'head of the household' as it were. AK could have been, and probably in reality was, waiting for Filomena to arrive to take charge of the situation. There is no reason for AK to call the police at all, or at that time in particular.


The 'course of action' had already been decided, Filomena had told them to call the police. Now your arguments are becoming dishonest.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty. Reading the part of the report on the medical exam, I can see that there are good ways of determining the time of death, if the body is discovered soon enough after death occurs. Body temp and rigor mortis, for example. I would not expect AK/RS to know the full details of the process, but I would think they would have a general appreciation that those tools exist. Therefore, it is in their interest if guilty to avoid discovery of the body for as long as possible. This adds to the incentive to simply go on the trip they had already planned and everyone already expected them to take.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.

And since when were Amanda and Raffaele experts on post mortem examinations/science?



This is becoming hilarious (to use the Cook's favorite term), Moodstream. How can you malign Massei for his suppositions and then in all seriousness put forth such nonsense? I think you need to write to AK in prison (if you have not already) and find out how much she retained from years of watching Law & Order and Grey's Anatomy. And thanks for providing an interesting supposition for their actions on the morning of Nov 2: they waited until as long as possible to call Filomena (who they hoped would rush home and discover the body) and decided that going to Gubbio in the early morning (according to RS's dad) would be too dangerous. What if Filomena came home too early and discovered the body too early, thus messing up their carefully crafted TOD obfuscation plans?

:)


How did any action they took or did not take control the possiblity of Filomena coming home early?

Why is going to Giobbi dangerous? ( If this is they stayed at home to control the investigation - what did they do in this regard?)

Why would they want Filomena to rush home and discover the body?

If they believe they have a shot of influencing the investigation, they understand, at least generally the concept of forensic investigation. As you point out several popular tv shows explore the topic and it's a common knowledge. They would be the excpetion not to be aware of it, in a very general way.



Okay, so now you are at the stage of willfully not understanding the point. As for those TV shows I was joking about, I watch them as a way of relaxing, not boning up on my medical knowledge. Let's hope our physicians don't see them as useful training. My friends in the medical profession tell me these programs are actually a dangerous source of misinformation. Luckily, most people who watch them are not looking for an education.

You must be joking.

You are close to having lost all credit with me. Still reading the report are you? Or have you decided to camp out here and make yourself ever more ridiculous? Your call.

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Katy_did wrote:
I wonder if the seven days being talked about is just an initial hearing, not the full appeal.


Katy_did, tell me, just how long did Rudy Guede's appeal 'full retrial' last? Three days wasn't it?

I think you guys are really in for a shock.


But Michael, you don't understand. Not only is she American - Amanda is SPECIAL!

FbN, I know you meant this humorously, and i think there have been discussions about this before on here...

But do you all think Amanda has Aspberger's? Or high-functioning autism of some sort?

Her repetitive and inappropriate behaviors (guitar-playing, singing at odd moments) and clumsiness (didn't she fall off a table in Perugia, or something like that?), her social awkwardness (no real friends in Perugia except boyfriends/flirtations), etc. etc.

Wikipedia on Aspberger Syndrome
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I believe Amanda and Raff had to be there at the time of the discovery. In order to deflect suspitions as they might of arisen. The anxiety would have been too much, being away, wondering which way the investigation seemed to be going. To be able to quickly explain away any problems. To get an idea of which way the police were going. And ideas they certainly got. Hence, the lie about Meredith's locked door. The e-mail, which I believe was damning. Having Filomena there before the police, in the hope that Filomena would compromise the murder scene, and the fake breakin. Also damning. Everyone of Raff's statements are damning, from the * nothing is missing* to throwing Amanda under the bus. Naming Patrick, when Rudi would have been the more likely choice. And, of course, Amanda's supreme arrogance, her belief that she could sway the police . And she needed to be there, at the time the police arrived, to insert her winning ways. Oopla.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream wrote:
If they believe they have a shot of influencing the investigation, they understand, at least generally the concept of forensic investigation. As you point out several popular tv shows explore the topic and it's a common knowledge. They would be the excpetion not to be aware of it, in a very general way.


There is a difference between understanding the 'concept' of forensic investigation i.e. they take fingerpints, they test for DNA, they perform an autopsy to find out how a person was killed and gain a rough idea of when. However, the knowledge that every passing hour would mess up the TOD or make it more difficult to assess is rather more advanced knowledge.

And you've yet to explain how doing so would help them. They had deliberately rigged the scene so it pointed to a lone wolf intruder...what the hell would it have mattered to Amanda and Raffaele if the police were accurately able to work out the correct TOD as long as they believed that the crime had been committed by a lone burglar?

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:

Moodstream wrote:
I don't think it would look more suspicious to wait for Filomena to arrive before deciding on a course of action. She does come across as the 'head of the household' as it were. AK could have been, and probably in reality was, waiting for Filomena to arrive to take charge of the situation. There is no reason for AK to call the police at all, or at that time in particular.


The 'course of action' had already been decided, Filomena had told them to call the police. Now your arguments are becoming dishonest.

A seven year-old inside the body of a twenty-year-old. The jury will buy that every time!!! p-(((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Why would they call Filomena? AK/RS were expected to be on a day trip out of town. What would necessitate their calling Filomena?

They don't need to be experts in forensics. I think most people have a general awareness that the police test for things like time of death. Don't you? In fact, if AK/RS are guilty, they caught a break in that the coroner was not able to perform tests that in most murder cases would have been performed right away, like body temp
.

I think a murderer can perceive there is a general convenience in having the murder discovered as late as possible. This may not be so important for murderers totally unrelated to the victim, but I think this rule is expecially valid when the murderer knows for sure he will be investigated or will take part in the investigation, like when he is a close person related to the victim. It is true when the murderer knows he/she will need "time" in order to diminish evidence, orgainze alibi, scene, etc.

However this need must face the occurrence of other possible necessities and other contrasting interests.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have the necessity to be "away" from the scene but also time to be there on the place to alter the scene, to clean up some parts of the house and in Raffaele's house, to stage a brake in and an attempted rape, to check and control the situation so to clear their possible traces, to wash themselves, to change clothes and to eliminate items (such dirty clothes, drugs, murder weapon), to elaborate strategies, stories and alibies. I don't think they were in condition to decide and organize all this within the first hours after the murder. I don't think they re-entered the house immediately after the murder. The first decisions could have been taken hours later in the early morning.
Now, the result of this unfolding of facts could have been that Raffaele was still at home in the late morning, waiting for Amanda. Various inconvenients can have occured during in this time. Like Amanda could have thought somebody maybe has seen her wandering in town in the morning, Raffaele thought his presence in town was now detectable because of his phone calls, they realized late they forgotten to do something important inside the apartment. Amanda doesn't want to wait because feels the urgency to tell "something" to her mom or feels impatient to do something else, like organize her departure as soon as possible. For any reason, once they decided not to go to Gubbio and this new situation was estabilished, they had to base their action on this new scenario. They are in Perugia. They have to act as "normally" as possible in this new setting. At around 12:00, Amanda could be feeling that her she cannot stay away from home longer and have her phone off, without attracting suspicion. Subjective or personal reasons are i a large number.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Amanda marched to her own drum. Edda herself says how outspoken Amanda is. She didn't care about consequences, as is noted by her sudden departure from Germany. Amanda is no shrinking violet..she needed Filomena to be on the same page as her BEFORE the police arrived.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I agree with your reasoning, Yummi and Skep. Filomena's manner, tone, must have struck Amanda that Filomena expected her to call Meredith, call the police. There was no way they could have gone anywhere once Filomena was so concerned about Meredith. And we know that Amanda was only showing concern as to the state of the cottage. Mind you, not so concerned ... she took the time to take the mop to Raff, eat breakfast, etc, before she and Raff strolled back to the cottage. The finding of the phones so quickly, helped set the stage of everything unravelling very quickly, although the end result would have been the same. Guilty, because they are.

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

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, coming back from a long trip. First, my respects to the translators/contributors of the document, it is an incredible amount of work.

Can you give the link to posts some typo questions for the document? Thanks in advance

Loose lips sink ships (or AK/RS)
-----------------------
I think the most incriminatory ones are the ones in the sink and these:

a) page 75 [66]
"She recalled that she had told her mother that she was worried ‚because there’s a knife at Raffaele’s.‛ She was worried because she didn’t know how to explain such a thing.

b) page 76 [67]
"The house was cold and, upon arrival, she had not turned on any type of heating."
what was the temperature that day, to take a shower without heating?

c) page 76 [67]
"When she called Ms. Romanelli, around 12:10 pm, Amanda was at Raffaele’s house, though she wasn’t sure (about that). When she left the Via della Pergola house, there wasn’t anybody home, and since no one in the meantime had re-entered, obviously no one had locked the front door.
does it mean that she left the house without unlocking the front door?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Zopi wrote:
Can you give the link to posts some typo questions for the document? Thanks in advance


Welcome back Zopi, I hope you had a nice trip.

Here's the link for the thread to report typos in the Massei Report: MASSEI REPORT: TRANSLATION ERROR REPORTING THREAD

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
But do you all think Amanda has Aspberger's? Or high-functioning autism of some sort?

Her repetitive and inappropriate behaviors (guitar-playing, singing at odd moments) and clumsiness (didn't she fall off a table in Perugia, or something like that?), her social awkwardness (no real friends in Perugia except boyfriends/flirtations), etc. etc.

Wikipedia on Aspberger Syndrome


How about: a con job is a con job. It's the sociopath's stock in trade.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:


People should realize a murder case is a very serious offense. The jury will react grimly to deception, lies and evasive stories.

In a homicide case, you lie to the jury, you are toast.

The lies, the lies, the lies. That is why the accused are in jail. You do not lie in a murder trial and get away with it. The lawyers cannot defend lies, they can only repeat them. Did not work, will not work.

This case is rife with evasivness and obfuscation and fishy explanations by one side. You can throw away the knife evidence and the bra clasp evidence and you still have the "explanations", by the defence that mirror the weak replies and stories -the lies actually- of their clients.

(snip)

The jury made the choice for the thorough and serious presentation by the prosecution. It mirrors the seriousness of the crime.


That's actually very similar to the Scott Peterson trial in the US; an US citizen convicted by a US jury with the sentencing of death, with even less hard evidence then Knox & Sollecito were convicted on.

A Deadly Game, by court TV host Catherine Crier: "Nevertheless, in those first days there were plenty of pundits who scrambled to explain away Scott Peterson's behavior. Eminent defense attorneys stepped forward to proclaim that everyone grieves differently and that Scott's behavior displayed no evidence of a guilty mind. I disagreed. (...) Before long I began to raise questions on the air about whether he was showing signs of a behavior disorder. (...) Scott Peterson showed no normal signs or expressions of grief. (...) As the story developed, more and more evidence emerged to support this analysis. The inconsistencies in Scott's story failed to resolve themselves. (...) It's when such people turn violent that even the most insightful among us can be caught by surprise." intro x-xi.
"All twelve (of the jurors; e.d.) had agreed that innocent until proven guilty was their mantra throughout the process. As difficult as it was, each believe their decision was the right one. (...) Scott firmly believed that he could win this deady game. He planned his crime carefully. As a pathological liar, he had his delivery down pat." p429.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
But do you all think Amanda has Aspberger's? Or high-functioning autism of some sort?


No, because (in the USA at least) diagnostic criteria require significant impairment in day-to-day functioning.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Zopi wrote:
Can you give the link to posts some typo questions for the document? Thanks in advance


Welcome back Zopi, I hope you had a nice trip.

Here's the link for the thread to report typos in the Massei Report: MASSEI REPORT: TRANSLATION ERROR REPORTING THREAD


Thank you Michael, yes long, too long, but nice indeed! and actually gave me time to read half of the document and skim the other half.
I posted my humble contribution.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.


So, looking at a sequence of events:
Amanda gets home, finds the door open and nobody around, takes a shower, sees blood spots.
Walks back to Raf's place. Has breakfast. Mentions, "oh, by the way, do you think that was odd?"
Calls M's phone, no answer. Calls F, F tells her to try M's phones and amanda says she'll call F back. Amanda doesn't mention she already tried M once.
Amanda calls M a second time this time on both phones. No answer. She leaves no message.
Her lack of concern exhibited by taking a shower in a house with an open front door and two closed roommates doors continues- having walked away from that scene and with no answer from one of her roommates, amanda saunters back home, ignoring F's concern and two phone calls from F on the way.
Once home she finds the "break-in" and M's door closed, talks again to F who tells amanda to call the police.

On the one hand her lack of concern for her roommates is pretty sociopathic. On the other, arguing for the defence I could see her not wanting to be the one to call the police; she is in a foreign country, in a house she's only lived in for a month and a half, and wants to defer to the matron of the household. Particularly if amanda knows about the mary-jane plants downstairs, she could have wanted someone else to be the one to call the police in and deal with the wrath of the boys downstairs.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

To me, the strongest evidence:

Statements AK made indicating guilty knowledge:

“She f***ing bled to death” said days before the cause of death was determined.

Telling her mother she was “worried” about the knife taken from RS apartment. She would have no reason to worry unless she knew that the blade had come into contact with Meredith’s bodily tissues.

Also,

The double dna knife.

The mixed blood samples.

The bare foot prints.

The staged break in.


The weakest:

The alleged shoe print on the pillow. It is disputed whether this is a shoe print at all, and has never been matched to any shoe AK is known to have worn. In any event, I question whether either RS or AK was wearing shoes during the murder, but then took them off and padded around barefoot in the blood later. I speculate that the reason both RS and AK left bare foot prints is they may have commenced their amorous activities and were at least shoeless and sockless when they joined RG and Meredith.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Amanda marched to her own drum. Edda herself says how outspoken Amanda is. She didn't care about consequences, as is noted by her sudden departure from Germany. Amanda is no shrinking violet..she needed Filomena to be on the same page as her BEFORE the police arrived.


Amanda needs Filomena to discover the body, but let's not forget something else. Due to the peculiar day - Nov. 2. - Amanda is facing the serious risk that Filomena decides to stay out of home two days. As Filomena herself explained in court, she thought she could be going to stay out of home a couple of days.
If Amanda goes to Gubbio and Filomena doesn't come back meanwhile, Amanda will found herself back to the cottage at night, and would have not just to have a shower but to sleep at the cottage or discover the body herself. If at 12:00 Filomena has not discoverd the body yet, maybe it is better call her now to have her on the place and arrange the discovery.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
The weakest:

The alleged shoe print on the pillow. It is disputed whether this is a shoe print at all, and has never been matched to any shoe AK is known to have worn. In any event, I question whether either RS or AK was wearing shoes during the murder, but then took them off and padded around barefoot in the blood later. I speculate that the reason both RS and AK left bare foot prints is they may have commenced their amorous activities and were at least shoeless and sockless when they joined RG and Meredith.


I disagree, I don't think it's the weakest evidence against her at all, simply because the court did not accept it as evidence. They classed it as inconclusive. So, it does not constitute as any of the evidence her defence now need to fight in the appeal.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

tigger3498 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Brooktrout wrote:
Hi folks, I read a lot but just registered today.

Having now had time to read most of the translation of the motivations document, I was wondering what you all think is

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.
2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing.

BT

The evidence is the evidence. For example, the nail in the wall underneath Filomena's window dents the hypothesis that someone actually climbed the wall to get through the window to get inside to non-burglarize the place before attacking Meredith and running away leaving the front door open but the bedroom door locked.

It's the net of inference that is strong or weak, rather than an individual piece of evidence.


That's around p. 50 of the report for any of our sleuths who want to follow along. There are many reasons for the court to have found that the burglary was staged:

1] The nail was undisturbed.
2] Vegetation beneath the grating was undisturbed.
3] There was no sign of scrapes or dirt on the wall beneath Filomena's window.
4] Filomena testified that the shutters were not wide open.
5] No instrument was found that could have been used to pry open the shutters.
6] No glass was found below the window.
7] Sollecito told the 112 operator there had been nothing stolen.
8] None of the portable items were assembled in a way suggesting a thief was preparing to pick them up and take them.
9] Glass was discovered on top of items that should have had items beneath them if the window were broken before the room was partially ransacked.
10] Anyone attempting to break into the cottage by that means would have been visible from the roadway above.

That's ten reasons right there (not an exhaustive list) and moreover there's an entire chapter devoted to the possibility of Guede having staged the burglary. It strains credibility to try to dismiss all this evidence. The court found (as most of us did when discussing it before the report was published) the staged burglary was easy for investigators to assess. It would be much harder for the defence teams to appeal.

Very much agree with both you and Michael. It wasn't just any one or two items. It was the way each item of contention was analyzed and show to be inconsistent with the testimony/alibis. Completely amazing piece of work.



Actually, in terms of the strongest evidence against them, I would also like to add Meredith's bedroom door and Amanda and Raffaele's completely contradictory behaviour towards (it was locked and there was no answer, so we panicked...no need to panic, she normally locks her door, no mention of it to anyone). The defence cannot show this all to be untrue, it's been proven. Neither can they provide any credible innocent argument for it. The contradiction is too stark.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Moodstream wrote:
There is one other reason they would not call the police on themselves if guilty.


They had no choice but to call the police, Filomena had told them to. It would have looked bloody suspicious if they hadn't. As it was, they left it until the last moment before doing so.


So, looking at a sequence of events:
Amanda gets home, finds the door open and nobody around, takes a shower, sees blood spots.
Walks back to Raf's place. Has breakfast. Mentions, "oh, by the way, do you think that was odd?"
Calls M's phone, no answer. Calls F, F tells her to try M's phones and amanda says she'll call F back. Amanda doesn't mention she already tried M once.
Amanda calls M a second time this time on both phones. No answer. She leaves no message.
Her lack of concern exhibited by taking a shower in a house with an open front door and two closed roommates doors continues- having walked away from that scene and with no answer from one of her roommates, amanda saunters back home, ignoring F's concern and two phone calls from F on the way.
Once home she finds the "break-in" and M's door closed, talks again to F who tells amanda to call the police.

On the one hand her lack of concern for her roommates is pretty sociopathic. On the other, arguing for the defence I could see her not wanting to be the one to call the police; she is in a foreign country, in a house she's only lived in for a month and a half, and wants to defer to the matron of the household. Particularly if amanda knows about the mary-jane plants downstairs, she could have wanted someone else to be the one to call the police in and deal with the wrath of the boys downstairs.

Pat


This scene is key. It shows a pattern of deception. Both defendant's credibility is shot. It is the beginning of a trail of lies and deception:

In the already mentioned e-mail Amanda Knox thus writes:

Filomena's door was closed but when I opened it I saw that her room was in a mess and that the window was open and completely broken ... convinced that we had been robbed I went to Laura's room and looked quickly in, but it was spotless< I checked my room for things missing, which there were not. Then I knocked on Meredith’s [bedroom door]. At first I thought she was asleep, so I knocked gently, but when she didn’t respond, I knocked louder and louder until I was really banging on her door and shouting her name. No response. Panicking I ran out to the terrace to see if I could see inside... Raffaele told me he wanted to see if he could break down Meredith’s door. He tried and the door was cracked but we couldn’t open it. It was then that we decided to call the police.... At first Raffaele called his sister for advice, and then called the police. I then called Filomena who said she would be on her way home immediately. While we were waiting, two plainclothes policemen came to our house. I showed them what I could and told them what I knew‛.

In this email, Meredith’s locked door therefore acquires a central importance,even fundamental, by which, however, for that scenario, it would have had to have occurred if Amanda and Raffaele had truly spent the night at Corso Garibaldi without having entered the house of Via della Pergola again but for the morning of
November 2; precisely for this [84] logical requirement in this writing, to affirm their extraneity to the murder and to convince the recipients of the e-mail of this, Amanda cannot help but give central importance to this locked door and writes, therefore, that this fact induced her to run to the terrace, and to position herself on the window ledge to see if she could see something, and writes that this door being locked created in her a state of absolute panic, she "was panicking" and continues, writing that Raffaele tried to break down the door but couldn’t open it, which is how they came to decide to call the police (‚It was then that we decided to call the police‛), as well as to call Romanelli and tell her to come to the house.

Yet when the Postal Police arrived, the panic caused by that locked door was not expressed in any way and Amanda did not speak of that locked door in the phone conversation she had with Romanelli; it was instead Romanelli who asked Amanda about Meredith, as mentioned above.
- Translation p.91,92 [83],[84]

It is clear Knox/Sollecito are willing to stage the scene of a crime, play possum and lie in writing.

at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she
didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
-Knox Nov.4,2007 email

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -knox.html

The mary-jane plant is not Knox's problem or worry. Other than knowing the boys had it it was one plant, not a plantation.

All this in the middle of a homicide trial.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 11 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

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

  

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


29,722,113 Views