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: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:57 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:58 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.


I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sunday troll humor.

Image kept dropping out in this one if you want to delete it Michael.


Last edited by Macport on Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Besides all the mixed blood evidence, the cell phone trail and all the other obvious inconsistencies, the big one for me was when they stated how everyone was clamored around Meredith's door (When Luca was preparing to break the door down) EXCEPT Raffi and Amanda. Here we have a young woman who has spent all her time trying to be the center of attention and according to testimony, her and Raffi were in the other room? I gather it's because they already knew what was behind the door.
One final comment: the description of her injuries made me extremely angry as well as sad. There is no way in hell that one person did all this and no way in hell that one person is Rudy Guede.........
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
Sunday troll humor.


LOL...agreed....Skep or Michael, anytime you'd like to hit the "troll eject" button, we're all behind you
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 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

To me, one of the most damning things, is Amanda's excellent recall of events that evening and morning, oh, except for a few pivotal hours. Fish for dinner, blood on Raff's hand, the movie Amelie, shower, cleaning of ears, conversations of being called a lesbian at school. It's simply ridiculous for both of them to have amnesia, at the same time. Very convenient, to block out what you need to. Including the phone call to mom. Pfft.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:08 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.


In a nutshell piktor, that is exactly it. It's painful to watch people twisting and turning and making fools of themselves in order to cover AK and RS's lies. If it were anyone else they wouldn't give two hoots. But Amanda is 'special' (read 'pretty' and 'American') so anything she says is fine, or 'misremembered'. I wish people could see how foolish they look trying to cover for the lying little toerags. Lies, lies, lies...that's exactly why they are in jail, yes. 'Oh, I can't remember what I did that morning/that evening...it's all too much for me...I'd had a joint. You know, drugs? Yes, I am rather cool in that way! I don't expect any of you have had any drugs have you! Well, you see...they make you forget fings...and I am wery pretty, and wery young...shall I do a cartwheel for you???'

PUKE.

Liars. That's all it comes down to...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.


I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?


Ok, I will NEVER stand up for a troll again. You heard it here first. I am going to trust people who know, even if it is Spidey, and JREF would say that there is no PROOF for spidey sense. It clearly exists.

Hit the 'Eject Troll' Button Skep!!!! Mea culpa, mea culpa... bricks-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Two thumbs up for the Bard! Very well stated! So many things! I almost forgot that pesky double dna knife........That too! Why did those two potheads even keep that cheap, crappy knife? Shows they really didn't pay attention much when watching CSI....
Skep, I have a female Physician friend and we laughed many times at ER over the years and how many times she actually stated they would have probably killed the patient more times than not :)
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 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
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.

I was just answering an earlier question as to what each of us thought was the strongest and weakest of the evidence. To me it is hard to select one item as the strongest, so I picked a handful of things that stand out. But really, the single most persuasive thing to me is less one thing that it is so many things, that she had so much 'splainin' to do.

To me, the shoe print could have been AK's based on her shoe size, but it doesn't become more probably than not her shoe print for 1) lack of a shoe of hers that matches, 2) the possibility that it could have been due to a fold in the pillow case, and 3) I don't see her taking off her shoes knowing that she is then going to be walking in her bare feet in the blood of the person she has just killed, so my speculation is that she was barefoot before the assault commenced.
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 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

AND, no remorse. I wouldn't say I hate Amanda. The word loathe is more like it. It turns my stomach to read those emails, to her fans. Singing, playing guitar, etc. It's monstrous that they will serve so little time (and cushy, at that) in prison, for this senseless, horrific crime. I wish they would extradite her...U.S. pprisons are not a holiday camp for murderers.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 7:20 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?


My purpose is a simple explanation of why a knife was brought to the cottage just to slice mushrooms when...

Lots of knives already at the cottage
You don't really need a big knife for mushrooms
Amanda doesn't seem the knife carry sort
Raff had his own tactical knife
The attack probably wasn't pre-planned
The murder wasn't planned
They were there to get/steal money from MK (Amanda probably felt she was owed has MK had taken her job)
They were there to do/get drugs (Raff probably felt it better not to take them at home upsetting his dad)
If they wanted a meal they would have fixed one at Raffs.

If they used a knife from the cottage/RG to kill MK and they then get accused of using another one they know they never used, it might make them think...

They are in someway innocent of the charges
They might beat the charges
It's easier to lie when presented with the wrong evidence
To keep up their story they need some semblance of truth to cling to

If later a knife is found with only MK's blood that matches the mark left on the bed then the killers could use it as a get out of jail card.

Thats why you need an Innocent-Bystander knife.

I'll keep on reading the report...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
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

One of the things I caught in the video that was reaffirming was the latex gloves disposed of in the kitchen trash. That would mean that AK and RS likely had these gloves in their possession when they did the clean up and staging, therefore no finger prints.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
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?


It's not an open position. The court says "These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00pm on Nov 2." There is no maybe there.

Despite the courts acceptance of it, it simply tries to throw cold water on their own acceptance of the time: "Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendant’s defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers)"

Nowhere, that I have yet to discover, is the claim that Sollecito made his call to the Carabinieri after the arrival of the postal police. Nowhere is this suggested. The court simply begrudges the defense the very determination the court has accepted.
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 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I actually have a twinge of sympathy for the mods at the Jref thread, one of whom stated that *they would have to read every brain numbing thread*. The trolls are here, because the thread over their is beyond painfully boring. Just shows how idiotic they are.. believing that they're not going to get sussed out over here. Or be successful in destroying this site. And, according to homicide detectives, they trust that hinkey feeling they have. They have it down pat. It comes from years of having to deal with liars. And they will tell you, when you lie, there's a damn good reason for it. Most murderers do NOT confess. But they sure as hell lie, don't have good alibis, and have lots of don't remembers when hard questions are put to them. Oh, and have been known to blame others, in some instances their own children, for the crime. And, look how many show no remorse. Or empathy.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sunday troll humor.


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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
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.


In a nutshell piktor, that is exactly it. It's painful to watch people twisting and turning and making fools of themselves in order to cover AK and RS's lies. If it were anyone else they wouldn't give two hoots. But Amanda is 'special' (read 'pretty' and 'American') so anything she says is fine, or 'misremembered'. I wish people could see how foolish they look trying to cover for the lying little toerags. Lies, lies, lies...that's exactly why they are in jail, yes. 'Oh, I can't remember what I did that morning/that evening...it's all too much for me...I'd had a joint. You know, drugs? Yes, I am rather cool in that way! I don't expect any of you have had any drugs have you! Well, you see...they make you forget fings...and I am wery pretty, and wery young...shall I do a cartwheel for you???'

PUKE.

Liars. That's all it comes down to...


The lies are now exposed in the Massei Report. It is thorough, consistent and credible.

The defence will now call two jailbirds, one of them a murderer, and set their clients free...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tigger3498


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
I actually have a twinge of sympathy for the mods at the Jref thread, one of whom stated that *they would have to read every brain numbing thread*. The trolls are here, because the thread over their is beyond painfully boring. Just shows how idiotic they are.. believing that they're not going to get sussed out over here. Or be successful in destroying this site. And, according to homicide detectives, they trust that hinkey feeling they have. They have it down pat. It comes from years of having to deal with liars. And they will tell you, when you lie, there's a damn good reason for it. Most murderers do NOT confess. But they sure as hell lie, don't have good alibis, and have lots of don't remembers when hard questions are put to them. Oh, and have been known to blame others, in some instances their own children, for the crime. And, look how many show no remorse. Or empathy.

and also because it brings them great joy to control the situation and mislead every chance they get. I still really wonder how much of a role RS had and how it played out. We'll probably never know the truth and I hope their lack of remorse and all their lies seals their fates and the court increases their sentences. It will give them one final chance at their final appeal
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.


I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?


Ok, I will NEVER stand up for a troll again. You heard it here first. I am going to trust people who know, even if it is Spidey, and JREF would say that there is no PROOF for spidey sense. It clearly exists.

Hit the 'Eject Troll' Button Skep!!!! Mea culpa, mea culpa... bricks-)


You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....
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 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Patzu wrote:
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?


My purpose is a simple explanation of why a knife was brought to the cottage just to slice mushrooms when...

Lots of knives already at the cottage
You don't really need a big knife for mushrooms
Amanda doesn't seem the knife carry sort
Raff had his own tactical knife
The attack probably wasn't pre-planned
The murder wasn't planned
They were there to get/steal money from MK (Amanda probably felt she was owed has MK had taken her job)
They were there to do/get drugs (Raff probably felt it better not to take them at home upsetting his dad)
If they wanted a meal they would have fixed one at Raffs.

If they used a knife from the cottage/RG to kill MK and they then get accused of using another one they know they never used, it might make them think...

They are in someway innocent of the charges
They might beat the charges
It's easier to lie when presented with the wrong evidence
To keep up their story they need some semblance of truth to cling to

If later a knife is found with only MK's blood that matches the mark left on the bed then the killers could use it as a get out of jail card.

Thats why you need an Innocent-Bystander knife.

I'll keep on reading the report...




One of my most favourite candidates is something that Skep's dream echoed; that per his diary he sent Amanda off to her cottage on the day of the murder while he had some more sleep saying that he would make lunch (see diary etc). He took all his stuff over there to make lunch including a knife because he couldn't remember if they had something and / or he was just being a considerate boyfriend and took "everything he needed". It was then left in the knife drawer at the cottage from which Amanda withdrew it during the argument that led to the murder. This is why she shakes so uncontrollably when shown the drawer that she has to be led from the room. Amanda's reaction makes it, to me, seem extraordinarily likely that the knife was in that drawer which again goes to a normal-use transport and temporary storage

Weapons of opportunity are where they are for banal reasons. Banal and simple often = truth.

Someone asked for weakest evidence. I'm on a busman's holiday in this case and I'm not going to do the defence's job for them here. But Massei's idea that the knife might have been in Amanda's bag for 4 or 5 days is a silly inclusion in the report. It doesn't add anything and there's no evidence for it. Fortunately it's also banal.

_________________
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 piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
Sunday troll humor.


I could not see it before and now I can. Thanks, Macport.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
The Bard wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.


I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?


Ok, I will NEVER stand up for a troll again. You heard it here first. I am going to trust people who know, even if it is Spidey, and JREF would say that there is no PROOF for spidey sense. It clearly exists.

Hit the 'Eject Troll' Button Skep!!!! Mea culpa, mea culpa... bricks-)


You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....


Deviation from the rules of English as we know them.

Mood, would you care to rephrase that sentence? No-one knows what the monkey's bum you're talking about...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream

That's a very disappointing answer you gave me.... One more go to see if you're actually answering or dodging the question which with the "I stopped reading" you have to realise it looks like you are. It also looks like a dodge that you answered on behalf of Amanda's recollection when anyone knows it is Raffaele's non-recollection that is the most difficult issue as well as hers. Go on - read it all - it'll take you less than two minutes. And then answer it properly. I'll answer you anything you like about the case - any question you like go on.

Since you said people are holding Amanda to too high a standard then let me set you straight; in a criminal case the standard applied to anyone about their memory is the same as anyone else's memory in real life. If you are sat in the jury facing two people who have been accused of such a serious crime you are going to take whether they tell the truth very seriously indeed. If you think, by the same standard you apply to anyone else, that it seems odd / unconvincing that suspects in a murder cannot remember what they did on the most stunning and memorable day of their lives - finding a flatmate brutally murdered - and there is a critical reason to the case why they might have lied about how long they were awake, this sole feeling that someone is lying may take you an extremely long way to finding them unbelievable in all that they do and therefore to conviction

I can buy that I couldn't tell you what I did when I woke up on Monday of last week. That's because it was a normal morning and thus unmemorable. However, and this is the very serious issue for Raffaele and Amanda; the list of events (not questions) I posted do not constitute a normal morning at all. The list of events we can put together from the computer and phone records show Raffaele having a very non-normal and annoying morning in the real world. They said they went to bed late. Raffaele said about 1am at one point. If you;

Wake up at 5am(ish) and lie in bed and can't sleep (even after only 4+ hours sleep)
And then you go through that awful thinking period of "god I'm tired but for some reason I'm awake and why can't I go back to sleep"
And then you are so awake that you finally decide to get out of bed, probably really fed up (we know Raffaele is a heavy sleeper from his diary - see day before)
And then you restart your computer
And then have to get up and then that weird sequence of things happens with two crashes of VLC and then you have to start iTunes (a very non-normal and because it is irritating memorable set of events)
And then you listen to music while your girlfriend is still asleep in bed
and then you are sitting there not only listening to music but *thinking* about, why can't I sleep, why am I up, isn't this a ridiculous hour, am I hungry?, am I thirsty?, do I need to go to the loo?, what track should I listen to next?, what are we going to do at Gubbio today?, wow didn't we get stoned last night?, I wonder when I'm going to get my thesis finished?, what time shall I wake Amanda up?, why does dad pester me to hell?
And then you think, where's my phone?
And then you find your phone
And then you turn it on,
and then you read a text from your dad first thing
And then you think "see he can't leave me alone, I was right to turn my phone off last night"
And then you decide you don't need to text him back
And so then you put your phone down and go off to do...
And then you have not one but two but three phonecalls in a row with your father which terminate and restart abruptly (a very non-normal and therefore memorable set of events)
and then either go back to bed OR your girlfriend wakes up and says "hey couldn't you sleep?"

and you tell the jury / police that you can't remember ANY of this the next day when questioned after the most memorable day of your life when every detail will be etched on your brain and gone over and over again? Instead you say "I got up at 10 / 10.30?". If you had a morning like that when all you wanted to be doing was sleeping late, what are the chances that you wouldn't remember it?

So your question;

How credible on a probability basis do you rate Raffaele being unable to recount a morning like that? Score out of 100 with 100 as total credibility and 0 with no credibility. Simply number...

Ancilliary;

He is not giving any testimony but this remains in the evidence. I'd be tearing my hair out. How do we deal with this? It's awful for the case for the defence. Do you understand why, for someone like me as a defence lawyer for nearly 20 years I am telling you that this is an extremely problematic area of the case for Raffaele?

_________________
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 Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
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.


Okay, so, they are too stressed to clean up the cottage right away, so they wait until early morning. Amanda thinks someone sees her. Raffaele believes his phone calls will be traced to Perugia.

That all I get. Of course its speculative, etc., but that’s fine. It makes sense that it could be. But I don’t get what that has to do with going back to the cottage after she has finished cleaning up. There is nothing unusual in her walking around Perugia, or being in Perugia. She is still better going off to Gubbio. There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
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 correct TOD would, in this scenario, deprive them of an alibi, for one thing. Also, it unexpectedly and needlessly ( because they should have been in another city that day) attaches them to the crime scene. Between the two choices, suspicion would more likely fall their way ( which it did) if they are found in front of the house, then if they are called back from a pre arranged trip out of town.
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 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream: Why do you keep doing double posts? It doesn't give them any more credibility :(

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

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Moodstream

That's a very disappointing answer you gave me.... One more go to see if you're actually answering or dodging the question which with the "I stopped reading" you have to realise it looks like you are. It also looks like a dodge that you answered on behalf of Amanda's recollection when anyone knows is Raffaele's non-recollection that is the most difficult issue as well as hers. Go on - read it all - it'll take you less than two minutes. And then answer it properly. I'll answer you anything you like about the case - any question you like go on.

Since you said people are holding Amanda to too high a standard then let me set you straight; in a criminal case the standard applied to anyone about their memory is the same as anyone else's memory in real life. If you are sat in the jury facing two people who have been accused of such a serious crime you are going to take whether they tell the truth very seriously indeed. If you think, by the same standard you apply to anyone else, that it seems odd / unconvincing that suspects in a murder cannot remember what they did on the most stunning and memorable day of their lives - finding a flatmate brutally murdered - and there is a critical reason to the case why they might have lied about how long they were awake, this sole feeling that someone is lying may take you an extremely long way to finding them unbelievable in all that they do and therefore to conviction

I can buy that I couldn't tell you what I did when I woke up on Monday of last week. That's because it was a normal morning and thus unmemorable. However, and this is the very serious issue for Raffaele and Amanda; the list of events (not questions) I posted do not constitute a normal morning at all. The list of events we can put together from the computer and phone records show Raffaele having a very non-normal and annoying morning in the real world. They said they went to bed late. Raffaele said about 1am at one point. If you;

Wake up at 5am(ish) and lie in bed and can't sleep (even after only 4+ hours sleep)
And then you go through that awful thinking period of "god I'm tired but for some reason I'm awake and why can't I go back to sleep"
And then you are so awake that you finally decide to get out of bed, probably really fed up (we know Raffaele is a heavy sleeper from his diary - see day before)
And then you restart your computer
And then have to get up and then that weird sequence of things happens with two crashes of VLC and then you have to start iTunes (a very non-normal and because it is irritating memorable set of events)
And then you listen to music while your girlfriend is still asleep in bed
and then you are sitting there not only listening to music but *thinking* about, why can't I sleep, why am I up, isn't this a ridiculous hour, am I hungry?, am I thirsty?, do I need to go to the loo?, what track should I listen to next?, what are we going to do at Gubbio today?, wow didn't we get stoned last night?, I wonder when I'm going to get my thesis finished?, what time shall I wake Amanda up?, why does dad pester me to hell?
And then you think, where's my phone?
And then you find your phone
And then you turn it on,
and then you read a text from your dad first thing
And then you think "see he can't leave me alone, I was right to turn my phone off last night"
And then you decide you don't need to text him back
And so then you put your phone down and go off to do...
And then you have not one but two but three phonecalls in a row with your father which terminate and restart abruptly (a very non-normal and therefore memorable set of events)
and then either go back to bed OR your girlfriend wakes up and says "hey couldn't you sleep?"

and you tell the jury / police that you can't remember ANY of this the next day when questioned after the most memorable day of your life when every detail will be etched on your brain and gone over and over again? Instead you say "I got up at 10 / 10.30?". If you had a morning like that when all you wanted to be doing was sleeping late, what are the chances that you wouldn't remember it?

So your question;

How credible on a probability basis do you rate Raffaele being unable to recount a morning like that? Score out of 100 with 100 as total credibility and 0 with no credibility. Simply number...

Ancilliary;

He is not giving any testimony but this remains in the evidence. I'd be tearing my hair out. How do we deal with this? It's awful for the case for the defence. Do you understand why, for someone like me as a defence lawyer for nearly 20 years I am telling you that this is an extremely problematic area of the case for Raffaele?


Gosh, there are so many of you. And only one of me. And only so many hours in the day.

This post looks like your opinion of Raffeale's night (morning of ) Nov 2. Could you please restate it as (hopefully) quotes from testimony, or at least paraphrases, and then tell me what you are quoting from ( and if possible how to locate it) so that I can get a feel for what happened. That way I can give you a better, more deliberate answer than just something off the cuff.

Thank you so much.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....


Please let's dispense with this entire RG, MK, AK, relationship distraction and cut to the chase, okay?

Because you are certain AK was not involved, which one of the following do you believe to be true:

1. Rudy broke in through the window.
2. Rudy entered through the door and staged the break-in.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Moodstream

That's a very disappointing answer you gave me.... One more go to see if you're actually answering or dodging the question which with the "I stopped reading" you have to realise it looks like you are. It also looks like a dodge that you answered on behalf of Amanda's recollection when anyone knows is Raffaele's non-recollection that is the most difficult issue as well as hers. Go on - read it all - it'll take you less than two minutes. And then answer it properly. I'll answer you anything you like about the case - any question you like go on.

Since you said people are holding Amanda to too high a standard then let me set you straight; in a criminal case the standard applied to anyone about their memory is the same as anyone else's memory in real life. If you are sat in the jury facing two people who have been accused of such a serious crime you are going to take whether they tell the truth very seriously indeed. If you think, by the same standard you apply to anyone else, that it seems odd / unconvincing that suspects in a murder cannot remember what they did on the most stunning and memorable day of their lives - finding a flatmate brutally murdered - and there is a critical reason to the case why they might have lied about how long they were awake, this sole feeling that someone is lying may take you an extremely long way to finding them unbelievable in all that they do and therefore to conviction

I can buy that I couldn't tell you what I did when I woke up on Monday of last week. That's because it was a normal morning and thus unmemorable. However, and this is the very serious issue for Raffaele and Amanda; the list of events (not questions) I posted do not constitute a normal morning at all. The list of events we can put together from the computer and phone records show Raffaele having a very non-normal and annoying morning in the real world. They said they went to bed late. Raffaele said about 1am at one point. If you;

Wake up at 5am(ish) and lie in bed and can't sleep (even after only 4+ hours sleep)
And then you go through that awful thinking period of "god I'm tired but for some reason I'm awake and why can't I go back to sleep"
And then you are so awake that you finally decide to get out of bed, probably really fed up (we know Raffaele is a heavy sleeper from his diary - see day before)
And then you restart your computer
And then have to get up and then that weird sequence of things happens with two crashes of VLC and then you have to start iTunes (a very non-normal and because it is irritating memorable set of events)
And then you listen to music while your girlfriend is still asleep in bed
and then you are sitting there not only listening to music but *thinking* about, why can't I sleep, why am I up, isn't this a ridiculous hour, am I hungry?, am I thirsty?, do I need to go to the loo?, what track should I listen to next?, what are we going to do at Gubbio today?, wow didn't we get stoned last night?, I wonder when I'm going to get my thesis finished?, what time shall I wake Amanda up?, why does dad pester me to hell?
And then you think, where's my phone?
And then you find your phone
And then you turn it on,
and then you read a text from your dad first thing
And then you think "see he can't leave me alone, I was right to turn my phone off last night"
And then you decide you don't need to text him back
And so then you put your phone down and go off to do...
And then you have not one but two but three phonecalls in a row with your father which terminate and restart abruptly (a very non-normal and therefore memorable set of events)
and then either go back to bed OR your girlfriend wakes up and says "hey couldn't you sleep?"

and you tell the jury / police that you can't remember ANY of this the next day when questioned after the most memorable day of your life when every detail will be etched on your brain and gone over and over again? Instead you say "I got up at 10 / 10.30?". If you had a morning like that when all you wanted to be doing was sleeping late, what are the chances that you wouldn't remember it?

So your question;

How credible on a probability basis do you rate Raffaele being unable to recount a morning like that? Score out of 100 with 100 as total credibility and 0 with no credibility. Simply number...

Ancilliary;

He is not giving any testimony but this remains in the evidence. I'd be tearing my hair out. How do we deal with this? It's awful for the case for the defence. Do you understand why, for someone like me as a defence lawyer for nearly 20 years I am telling you that this is an extremely problematic area of the case for Raffaele?


Gosh, there are so many of you. And only one of me. And only so many hours in the day.

This post looks like your opinion of Raffeale's night (morning of ) Nov 2. Could you please restate it as (hopefully) quotes from testimony, or at least paraphrases, and then tell me what you are quoting from ( and if possible how to locate it) so that I can get a feel for what happened. That way I can give you a better, more deliberate answer than just something off the cuff.

Thank you so much.



This is getting pretty lame. Since you are tired and your time is so limited, why do you persist then? You have been asked by a moderator (me) to go away and read the report and a few other things. You keep ignoring me. You can't. I'm a moderator. You have been warned. And you cannot continue to deal with substantive posts like this one in this way. That doesn't cut it.

Moreover, the "one of me many of you" attitude is exactly what we have worked hard to avoid here. This is a collegial discussion forum. I think you are out of your depth and element.
No one asked you to come here, so stop complaining about the engagement and appealing to your minority status.

_________________
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 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
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.



Filomena was certain to return sometime. The entire purpose of the staging is to have it be discovered, and presumably Filomena would be the discoverer. How did they use her to 'build their appearance of innocence'? What do you think they had in mind. I don't get it.

'Expected in Gubbio' is a short hand way of saying that prior to the murder, prior to Nov 1( I am guessing at this, but it seems likely), AK/RS had already planned to go to Gubbio. If MK's body was discovered, and AK/RS were in Gubbio, that would not raise a suspicion, because they had already planned, and announced their plan prior to the murder. Also, other house mates planned that day to make day trips, and AK/RS would not be acting out of expectation, relative to how other housemates' behavior on that day. I guess you are requesting that I spell things out more for you. Is that right?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream wrote:

Quote:
You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....



I don't see how "months" instead of "weeks" qualifies as a typo. More like wishful thinking or a Freudian slip if you ask me.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Catnip wrote:
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.


I'm trying not to do readers' work for them. It took me a couple minutes to go back and find five reasons to disbelieve Amanda's claim that she awoke around 10 am on 02 NOV 2007. It took about ten minutes to go back to the report to find ten reasons (and a chapter reference) for the court to have found that the burglary was staged.

I could go right up and down the list for each of these pieces of the puzzle. What's impressed me about Massei's work is that there is nothing there that's superfluous or irrelevant. Nothing is hand-waved away. There are reasons provided even for disbelieving Kokomani.

And before we consider Massei's work to be exceptional, this is actually how judges work, think, and write. Not just Italian judges. I've known a couple of judges and even at play they rarely appear to make arbitrary or uncorroborated statements.

It's a very tight case and it would take an awful lot more than criticising Stefanoni's science or discrediting Quintavalle to create sufficient doubt in the minds of the court.
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 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. Imagine for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. Imagine this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. Imagine this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour iwould odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Giorgio Gamberucci the psychic with a cosmic consciousness... http://psychosensory.info/ is no longer credited by Bruce & Kevad at the IIP site. mop-)

Poor Giorgio he's worked so hard and now is been dropped! em)
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. <b>Imagine</b> for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. <b>Imagine </b>this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. <b>Imagine</b> this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour iwould odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).



Yes, well, imagine is the keyword there. I don't get why she would feel she would get more attention if they don't act at all. What evidence do you have that the manipulated Filomena? Why do you think they could? Why do you think they thought they could?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. Imagine for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. Imagine this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. Imagine this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour iwould odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).



It is also interesting in this regard that AK phoned Filomena (and somehow forgot to mention she had tried on of Meredith's phones just a minute before) and not Laura. She says (in her email) that Filomena's door was closed when she first went back to the cottage and she did not open it; RS says it was wide open when they arrived together. I think this could be an important discrepancy. Who could have opened the door between the time AK left and AK/RS arrived, especially considering that AK claims to have locked the front door.
Filomena's room was the stage for the fake break-in. Laura was in Rome. Her room was not touched. Why ransack just one room if you are a burglar looking for valuables? Why not ransack AK's room and Laura's room?

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
This post looks like your opinion of Raffeale's night (morning of ) Nov 2. Could you please restate it as (hopefully) quotes from testimony, or at least paraphrases, and then tell me what you are quoting from ( and if possible how to locate it) so that I can get a feel for what happened.


Computer on at 5:32, two vlc crash, itunes on, a sequence of songs lasting a bit more than half an hour, a cellphone on at 06:02, two phone calls... all this is not an opinion.

There are two chaters of the report devoted to these issues quoting technical reports. It is your job to read the judges report and gain knowledge of the evidence set. It is not intellectually correct to ask SomeAlibi to quote and give proof on areas of facts of which you lack knowledge completely. First you have read a bit of to these topics.
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 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. Imagine for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. Imagine this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. Imagine this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour would [be] odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).



It is also interesting in this regard that AK phoned Filomena (and somehow forgot to mention she had tried on of Meredith's phones just a minute before) and not Laura. She says (in her email) that Filomena's door was closed when she first went back to the cottage and she did not open it; RS says it was wide open when they arrived together. I think this could be an important discrepancy. Who could have opened the door between the time AK left and AK/RS arrived, especially considering that AK claims to have locked the front door.
Filomena's room was the stage for the fake break-in. Laura was in Rome. Her room was not touched. Why ransack just one room if you are a burglar looking for valuables? Why not ransack AK's room and Laura's room?
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 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.


I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?



picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: For that, you now have a formal warning. I won't give a second. That was just bloody rude and to a site Admin no less. It has not taken you very long since your arrival to drop the façade and show your true colours. Any more of that and you're out. You're here on sufferance as it is!

_________________
"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 moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
moodstream wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Moodstream

That's a very disappointing answer you gave me.... One more go to see if you're actually answering or dodging the question which with the "I stopped reading" you have to realise it looks like you are. It also looks like a dodge that you answered on behalf of Amanda's recollection when anyone knows is Raffaele's non-recollection that is the most difficult issue as well as hers. Go on - read it all - it'll take you less than two minutes. And then answer it properly. I'll answer you anything you like about the case - any question you like go on.

Since you said people are holding Amanda to too high a standard then let me set you straight; in a criminal case the standard applied to anyone about their memory is the same as anyone else's memory in real life. If you are sat in the jury facing two people who have been accused of such a serious crime you are going to take whether they tell the truth very seriously indeed. If you think, by the same standard you apply to anyone else, that it seems odd / unconvincing that suspects in a murder cannot remember what they did on the most stunning and memorable day of their lives - finding a flatmate brutally murdered - and there is a critical reason to the case why they might have lied about how long they were awake, this sole feeling that someone is lying may take you an extremely long way to finding them unbelievable in all that they do and therefore to conviction

I can buy that I couldn't tell you what I did when I woke up on Monday of last week. That's because it was a normal morning and thus unmemorable. However, and this is the very serious issue for Raffaele and Amanda; the list of events (not questions) I posted do not constitute a normal morning at all. The list of events we can put together from the computer and phone records show Raffaele having a very non-normal and annoying morning in the real world. They said they went to bed late. Raffaele said about 1am at one point. If you;

Wake up at 5am(ish) and lie in bed and can't sleep (even after only 4+ hours sleep)
And then you go through that awful thinking period of "god I'm tired but for some reason I'm awake and why can't I go back to sleep"
And then you are so awake that you finally decide to get out of bed, probably really fed up (we know Raffaele is a heavy sleeper from his diary - see day before)
And then you restart your computer
And then have to get up and then that weird sequence of things happens with two crashes of VLC and then you have to start iTunes (a very non-normal and because it is irritating memorable set of events)
And then you listen to music while your girlfriend is still asleep in bed
and then you are sitting there not only listening to music but *thinking* about, why can't I sleep, why am I up, isn't this a ridiculous hour, am I hungry?, am I thirsty?, do I need to go to the loo?, what track should I listen to next?, what are we going to do at Gubbio today?, wow didn't we get stoned last night?, I wonder when I'm going to get my thesis finished?, what time shall I wake Amanda up?, why does dad pester me to hell?
And then you think, where's my phone?
And then you find your phone
And then you turn it on,
and then you read a text from your dad first thing
And then you think "see he can't leave me alone, I was right to turn my phone off last night"
And then you decide you don't need to text him back
And so then you put your phone down and go off to do...
And then you have not one but two but three phonecalls in a row with your father which terminate and restart abruptly (a very non-normal and therefore memorable set of events)
and then either go back to bed OR your girlfriend wakes up and says "hey couldn't you sleep?"

and you tell the jury / police that you can't remember ANY of this the next day when questioned after the most memorable day of your life when every detail will be etched on your brain and gone over and over again? Instead you say "I got up at 10 / 10.30?". If you had a morning like that when all you wanted to be doing was sleeping late, what are the chances that you wouldn't remember it?

So your question;

How credible on a probability basis do you rate Raffaele being unable to recount a morning like that? Score out of 100 with 100 as total credibility and 0 with no credibility. Simply number...

Ancilliary;

He is not giving any testimony but this remains in the evidence. I'd be tearing my hair out. How do we deal with this? It's awful for the case for the defence. Do you understand why, for someone like me as a defence lawyer for nearly 20 years I am telling you that this is an extremely problematic area of the case for Raffaele?


Gosh, there are so many of you. And only one of me. And only so many hours in the day.

This post looks like your opinion of Raffeale's night (morning of ) Nov 2. Could you please restate it as (hopefully) quotes from testimony, or at least paraphrases, and then tell me what you are quoting from ( and if possible how to locate it) so that I can get a feel for what happened. That way I can give you a better, more deliberate answer than just something off the cuff.

Thank you so much.



This is getting pretty lame. Since you are tired and your time is so limited, why do you persist then? You have been asked by a moderator (me) to go away and read the report and a few other things. You keep ignoring me. You can't. I'm a moderator. You have been warned. And you cannot continue to deal with substantive posts like this one in this way. That doesn't cut it.

Moreover, the "one of me many of you" attitude is exactly what we have worked hard to avoid here. This is a collegial discussion forum. I think you are out of your depth and element.
No one asked you to come here, so stop complaining about the engagement and appealing to your minority status.



How lame? I persist, at least for now because I don't want to be driven away. Because I believe the people responding are being sincere, and off and on make good points.

This is the second time I have asked a poster who has asked me to respond if they would kindly cite to me the source of their information so that I can provide a more informed answer. Your answer is go through voluminous texts until I discover it on my own. Thanks for the offer. On the other hand, it would be helpful if the original poster could back up their argument with a cite.
In this case, the evidence used for the post seems to be a lot of personal interpretation about evidence. I am just asking for the source, and how it became so interpreted. Is that against policy?

As far as one against many, just check out the threads. I am not complaining. But, it is a fact.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
moodstream wrote:
You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....


Please let's dispense with this entire RG, MK, AK, relationship distraction and cut to the chase, okay?

Because you are certain AK was not involved, which one of the following do you believe to be true:

1. Rudy broke in through the window.
2. Rudy entered through the door and staged the break-in.


I guess moodstream isn't comfortable with sharing his theory of how the crime took place. Perhaps he knows his theory is weak?
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

[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.[/quote]


<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.[/quote]

I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?[/quote]


picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: For that, you now have a formal warning. I won't give a second. That was just bloody rude and to a site Admin no less. It has not taken you very long since your arrival to drop the façade and show your true colours. Any more of that and you're out. You're here on sufferance as it is!
[/quote]

[quote="Michael"][quote="moodstream"][quote="Skeptical Bystander"][quote="moodstream"]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

___________


Bloody Rude! Your people curse at me!!!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. <b>Imagine</b> for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. <b>Imagine </b>this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. <b>Imagine</b> this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour iwould odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).



Yes, well, imagine is the keyword there. I don't get why she would feel she would get more attention if they don't act at all. What evidence do you have that the manipulated Filomena? Why do you think they could? Why do you think they thought they could?


Still ignoring my request, eh Moodstream? Are you unable to stop yourself from posting? As for evidence that Filomena was played, I can't answer for Yummi, but Yummi was exploring a psychological dimension that is indeed interesting. As for evidence, it is not easy to come by when the question is psychological disposition. However, we do know that AK had already called one of Meredith's phones just before (a minute before!) calling Filomena and yet failed to inform Filomena of this absolutely critical fact in their phone call. She also failed to take a couple of (surely) frantic calls from Filomena, probably because she and RS were trying to figure our their next move. Filomena, in the meantime, became increasingly frantic and took action. I doubt either RS or AK realized how swiftly she would act. Perhaps they did intend to go to Gubbio up to the end but Filomena's phone call (finally answered) informing them of an imminent arrival put the brakes on that. It would have looked absolutely horrible had they gone to Gubbio at that point. Interestingly, and significantly, it was not until after they knew Filomena was rushing over that they finally called the police. I think they felt it was the only course left to them at that point. And they thought it would make them look more innocent than jumping in the car and heading to Gubbio.

_________________
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 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
moodstream wrote:
You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....


Please let's dispense with this entire RG, MK, AK, relationship distraction and cut to the chase, okay?

Because you are certain AK was not involved, which one of the following do you believe to be true:

1. Rudy broke in through the window.
2. Rudy entered through the door and staged the break-in.


I guess moodstream isn't comfortable with sharing his theory of how the crime took place. Perhaps he knows his theory is weak?


That conversation would take weeks...
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 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
She says (in her email) that Filomena's door was closed when she first went back to the cottage and she did not open it; RS says it was wide open when they arrived together. I think this could be an important discrepancy. Who could have opened the door between the time AK left and AK/RS arrived,


Yes, I was leaving out, for now, the worse inconsistencies in Amanda's recollection.
(Filomena's open/closed door, Meredith's locked door, the search for her laptop in her room, the failed/interruted attempt to break down Meredith's door, the strange phone conversations by Raffaele and his conversations with the Postal POlice....)
If you leave out all those things, and just focus on the oddity of the behaviour of having a shower and leaving the house after seing the feces to go to mop somwhere else, in the way she did those things, you have already anyway a strange behaviour.
Top Profile 

Offline moodstream


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:17 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. <b>Imagine</b> for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. <b>Imagine </b>this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. <b>Imagine</b> this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour iwould odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).



Yes, well, imagine is the keyword there. I don't get why she would feel she would get more attention if they don't act at all. What evidence do you have that the manipulated Filomena? Why do you think they could? Why do you think they thought they could?


Still ignoring my request, eh Moodstream? Are you unable to stop yourself from posting? As for evidence that Filomena was played, I can't answer for Yummi, but Yummi was exploring a psychological dimension that is indeed interesting. As for evidence, it is not easy to come by when the question is psychological disposition. However, we do know that AK had already called one of Meredith's phones just before (a minute before!) calling Filomena and yet failed to inform Filomena of this absolutely critical fact in their phone call. She also failed to take a couple of (surely) frantic calls from Filomena, probably because she and RS were trying to figure our their next move. Filomena, in the meantime, became increasingly frantic and took action. I doubt either RS or AK realized how swiftly she would act. Perhaps they did intend to go to Gubbio up to the end but Filomena's phone call (finally answered) informing them of an imminent arrival put the brakes on that. It would have looked absolutely horrible had they gone to Gubbio at that point. Interestingly, and significantly, it was not until after they knew Filomena was rushing over that they finally called the police. I think they felt it was the only course left to them at that point. And they thought it would make them look more innocent than jumping in the car and heading to Gubbio.


Why did they call Filomena at all again.... I know there was reason... I just forgot.

I guess the idea that AK/RS ( as innocent) simply did not process the gravity of situation is beyond your consideration as a possibility.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
[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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.[/quote]

I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?[/quote]


picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: For that, you now have a formal warning. I won't give a second. That was just bloody rude and to a site Admin no less. It has not taken you very long since your arrival to drop the façade and show your true colours. Any more of that and you're out. You're here on sufferance as it is!
[/quote]

Michael wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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

___________


Bloody Rude! Your people curse at me!!!!



Okay, that's it for you. Now you have insulted the other moderator. Thanks for stopping by! It was most enjoyable having you here. On your way out the door, stop by my office and select your parting gift. We have t-shirts, tote bags and baseball caps with the words THANKS FOR STOPPING BY emblazoned on them. I see you have also followed the by now well-established protocol of posting your formal warning. Good job, Moodswing!*


*Sorry, but I could not resist. Michael is right. You were rude to me and I let it go.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
moodstream wrote:
You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....


Deviation from the rules of English as we know them.

Mood, would you care to rephrase that sentence? No-one knows what the monkey's bum you're talking about...


sp-))

Bard, I have no clue what mindspring's point is either. What are this poster's "salient points"? (Thanks, thoughtful).

So far it appears it's mere incredulity. I find it tough to grasp that an American woman would go to Europe and hook up with one guy who likes bestiality porn [Massei, p. 61] and another one known as a woman-botherer [Massei, p. 366]. But Knox picked the people she wanted to hang out with and now she's in prison. It doesn't matter how unbelievable *I* might think that is. It's what happened.

Moonbeam really needs an opportunity to buckle down and do some serious reading. He's got an ample reference book now that may help answering the serious questions about the case posed by The Machine.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream says:

"This is the second time I have asked a poster who has asked me to respond if they would kindly cite to me the source of their information so that I can provide a more informed answer. Your answer is go through voluminous texts until I discover it on my own. Thanks for the offer. On the other hand, it would be helpful if the original poster could back up their argument with a cite.
In this case, the evidence used for the post seems to be a lot of personal interpretation about evidence. I am just asking for the source, and how it became so interpreted. Is that against policy?"

Why don't you finish reading the Report, and then come and discuss it.
As many have said, we aren't here to do your homework for you.
So far I haven't seen anyone referring to anything mysterious or arcane in responding to you.
"Your answer is go through voluminous texts until I discover it on my own."
Yes, that's the answer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
There is no advantage to either calling Romanelli or the police, or waiting for them outside the cottage.


The call to Filomena could be - as said - to do so that Filomena would discover the body, or at least be there on the discovery of the body. The concrete circumstances like day and time can play a role in the decision. But also subjective charachters, psychology and personalities determine decisions. <b>Imagine</b> for example Amanda, given her charachter, at a certain moment subjectively sees the idea to involve Filomena in order to "act" with her, to "play a part" so to manipulate a witness. <b>Imagine </b>this decision is taken in the context of a feeline, a mood, a feeling maybe that the scenario as it is may be not enough convincing, hence the temptation to "over-act" to strengenth the staging. <b>Imagine</b> this feeling of Amanda could arise while she is in the company of Raffaele, Amanda feels he appears maybe too passive and - as a theatre person can feel - she feels they will attract more attention if they don't act at all... Many hypothesis of either objective or subjective/situational nature can be considered when we have to look to some strange behaviour.

Moreover, there is a method problem before those. We should consider things on a scale, and look at the fact that Amanda's behaviour iwould odd and not well explainable in both cases, even in the hypothesys that she is innocent and her account of facts is true (find an open door, hava a shower without seeing blood stains on the carpet, leaving feces in toilet and feeling unconfortable, go to mop the floor in another apartment ... i skip the heavviest unlikelinesses).



Yes, well, imagine is the keyword there. I don't get why she would feel she would get more attention if they don't act at all. What evidence do you have that the manipulated Filomena? Why do you think they could? Why do you think they thought they could?


Still ignoring my request, eh Moodstream? Are you unable to stop yourself from posting? As for evidence that Filomena was played, I can't answer for Yummi, but Yummi was exploring a psychological dimension that is indeed interesting. As for evidence, it is not easy to come by when the question is psychological disposition. However, we do know that AK had already called one of Meredith's phones just before (a minute before!) calling Filomena and yet failed to inform Filomena of this absolutely critical fact in their phone call. She also failed to take a couple of (surely) frantic calls from Filomena, probably because she and RS were trying to figure our their next move. Filomena, in the meantime, became increasingly frantic and took action. I doubt either RS or AK realized how swiftly she would act. Perhaps they did intend to go to Gubbio up to the end but Filomena's phone call (finally answered) informing them of an imminent arrival put the brakes on that. It would have looked absolutely horrible had they gone to Gubbio at that point. Interestingly, and significantly, it was not until after they knew Filomena was rushing over that they finally called the police. I think they felt it was the only course left to them at that point. And they thought it would make them look more innocent than jumping in the car and heading to Gubbio.


Why did they call Filomena at all again.... I know there was reason... I just forgot.

I guess the idea that AK/RS ( as innocent) simply did not process the gravity of situation is beyond your consideration as a possibility.



AK called Meredith's phone to ensure it had not been found. The idea was to call Filomena and then head out of town. But Filomena friggin' flipped out! So there went the idea of going to Gubbio. Is that clear enough?

_________________
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 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
moodstream wrote:
You're right about one thing. I word was weeks - not months. That's just a typo. It's one word. If you can't accept every other quote out of your own translation , to support an answer to a question you posed ....


Please let's dispense with this entire RG, MK, AK, relationship distraction and cut to the chase, okay?

Because you are certain AK was not involved, which one of the following do you believe to be true:

1. Rudy broke in through the window.
2. Rudy entered through the door and staged the break-in.



Yes, but before we dispense with it I'd like to comment. First of All, in ALL of the witness testimony, every time Rudy visited and Meredith was present so was Amanda. At no time does any witness relate a time when it was only Meredith. However, we do know of at least one occasion when Rudy and Amanda met when Meredith was not present (at Le Chic). By witness testimony, it was also Amanda that Rudy was interested in and fancied. Therefore, it cannot be said that Meredith knew Rudy and vice versa, better then Amanda. Therefore, despite Moodstream's quotes from the report this fact is unchanged as none of those quotes relate anything different to what I have stated above.

And now we've dispensed with that...yes exactly. Moodstream while posting the possibility that Meredith let Rudy into the cottage has completely failed to explain in that scenario the 'break-in'. It actually is a perfect example of how Knox defenders debate...they assert a scenario while ignoring the most important facts that then need to be explained if that scenario is to be correct. This is not how one debates or poses scenarios if one is genuinely seeking truth as Moodstream has claimed.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Why call Filomena?
Because she is in town, a loose cannon, likely to turn up at any moment.
Yes, she's hanging out with her boyfriend, but she could drop by the cottage at any time to drop off laundry or the like.
Their time-line for clean-up and staging is based on her possible return - early, but not too early, morning.
She is the most likely first audience for their show of a break-in.

Why not just let it wait until she turns up?
Well, for one thing they are exhausted, hence the call to prompt her.
The longer they put off the discovery, the longer they will have before they can crash.
And in terms of credibility, it might be difficult to just stay away until she comes by on her own.
Because that could be days.
And eventually AK would have to have either left town for her day-trip without coming by the cottage (but that is dangerous if anyone saw her in the vicinity before she left), or would have to go and make the discovery on her own.

So, why not discover the break-in themselves and call the police?
My guess is that it seemed to them to be better to have someone else doing the talking, and making the discoveries.
I think they meant to have stayed in the background admiring the success of their plan.
But strategically?
I think it is to do with their awareness of the coming crash - let Filomena handle the officers and do all the work - and say all the scripted bits that they might slip up on.
(And did.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ok I am now feeling REALLY guilty about not allowing the baptism of fire to go ahead. Moonbeam is a twonk. I don't know what that is, but he IS one. Asking SA to cite is just L A Z Y and incredibly boring. Get clued up before you come and play with the big boys mood. You are an embarrassment to your team, as are all the trolls and trollettes that try to engage here.

There really is NO-ONE of equal calibre on Amanda's case is there...

The clever money is on guilt.

I even saw a lame attempt by a troll to insinuate himself into a Bard family discussion of the case whilst I was dining in a superb restaurant in Poitiers. I think it is LondonJohn. The hair colour is so outré...


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

_________________
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 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Moodstream says:

"This is the second time I have asked a poster who has asked me to respond if they would kindly cite to me the source of their information so that I can provide a more informed answer. Your answer is go through voluminous texts until I discover it on my own. Thanks for the offer. On the other hand, it would be helpful if the original poster could back up their argument with a cite.
In this case, the evidence used for the post seems to be a lot of personal interpretation about evidence. I am just asking for the source, and how it became so interpreted. Is that against policy?"

Why don't you finish reading the Report, and then come and discuss it.
As many have said, we aren't here to do your homework for you.

So far I haven't seen anyone referring to anything mysterious or arcane in responding to you.
"Your answer is go through voluminous texts until I discover it on my own."
Yes, that's the answer.



I know, it's only about 400 pages...one would think it's a million or something. As it is, Moodstream's already 'written' in their combined posts almost half the amount of words in the report. I exaggerate slightly, but they've written a lot. If they can write a lot, then they can read a lot. They don't want to learn anything about the case, just opine. But then, they stated as much when they arrived. Some seeker of truth.

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

moodstream wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Moodstream

That's a very disappointing answer you gave me.... One more go to see if you're actually answering or dodging the question which with the "I stopped reading" you have to realise it looks like you are. It also looks like a dodge that you answered on behalf of Amanda's recollection when anyone knows is Raffaele's non-recollection that is the most difficult issue as well as hers. Go on - read it all - it'll take you less than two minutes. And then answer it properly. I'll answer you anything you like about the case - any question you like go on.

Since you said people are holding Amanda to too high a standard then let me set you straight; in a criminal case the standard applied to anyone about their memory is the same as anyone else's memory in real life. If you are sat in the jury facing two people who have been accused of such a serious crime you are going to take whether they tell the truth very seriously indeed. If you think, by the same standard you apply to anyone else, that it seems odd / unconvincing that suspects in a murder cannot remember what they did on the most stunning and memorable day of their lives - finding a flatmate brutally murdered - and there is a critical reason to the case why they might have lied about how long they were awake, this sole feeling that someone is lying may take you an extremely long way to finding them unbelievable in all that they do and therefore to conviction

I can buy that I couldn't tell you what I did when I woke up on Monday of last week. That's because it was a normal morning and thus unmemorable. However, and this is the very serious issue for Raffaele and Amanda; the list of events (not questions) I posted do not constitute a normal morning at all. The list of events we can put together from the computer and phone records show Raffaele having a very non-normal and annoying morning in the real world. They said they went to bed late. Raffaele said about 1am at one point. If you;

Wake up at 5am(ish) and lie in bed and can't sleep (even after only 4+ hours sleep)
And then you go through that awful thinking period of "god I'm tired but for some reason I'm awake and why can't I go back to sleep"
And then you are so awake that you finally decide to get out of bed, probably really fed up (we know Raffaele is a heavy sleeper from his diary - see day before)
And then you restart your computer
And then have to get up and then that weird sequence of things happens with two crashes of VLC and then you have to start iTunes (a very non-normal and because it is irritating memorable set of events)
And then you listen to music while your girlfriend is still asleep in bed
and then you are sitting there not only listening to music but *thinking* about, why can't I sleep, why am I up, isn't this a ridiculous hour, am I hungry?, am I thirsty?, do I need to go to the loo?, what track should I listen to next?, what are we going to do at Gubbio today?, wow didn't we get stoned last night?, I wonder when I'm going to get my thesis finished?, what time shall I wake Amanda up?, why does dad pester me to hell?
And then you think, where's my phone?
And then you find your phone
And then you turn it on,
and then you read a text from your dad first thing
And then you think "see he can't leave me alone, I was right to turn my phone off last night"
And then you decide you don't need to text him back
And so then you put your phone down and go off to do...
And then you have not one but two but three phonecalls in a row with your father which terminate and restart abruptly (a very non-normal and therefore memorable set of events)
and then either go back to bed OR your girlfriend wakes up and says "hey couldn't you sleep?"

and you tell the jury / police that you can't remember ANY of this the next day when questioned after the most memorable day of your life when every detail will be etched on your brain and gone over and over again? Instead you say "I got up at 10 / 10.30?". If you had a morning like that when all you wanted to be doing was sleeping late, what are the chances that you wouldn't remember it?

So your question;

How credible on a probability basis do you rate Raffaele being unable to recount a morning like that? Score out of 100 with 100 as total credibility and 0 with no credibility. Simply number...

Ancilliary;

He is not giving any testimony but this remains in the evidence. I'd be tearing my hair out. How do we deal with this? It's awful for the case for the defence. Do you understand why, for someone like me as a defence lawyer for nearly 20 years I am telling you that this is an extremely problematic area of the case for Raffaele?


Gosh, there are so many of you. And only one of me. And only so many hours in the day.

This post looks like your opinion of Raffeale's night (morning of ) Nov 2. Could you please restate it as (hopefully) quotes from testimony, or at least paraphrases, and then tell me what you are quoting from ( and if possible how to locate it) so that I can get a feel for what happened. That way I can give you a better, more deliberate answer than just something off the cuff.

Thank you so much.



So you don't know an absolutely critical set of primary evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the shape of the computer and telephone records from the 2nd of November. Which leaves us two options;

i) Either you are so utterly unaware of the evidence in this case that you cannot possibly by anyone's estimation (no matter which side they are on) be able to form a view on innocence or guilt

ii) You are seeking to avoid to answer the question so comprehensively that the "point" of your game is up.


Ding. You're out either way.

PLEASE send someone who can argue logically and credibly. This is getting stupid. Where's a proper opposition???

_________________
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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
Yes, well, imagine is the keyword there. I don't get why she would feel she would get more attention if they don't act at all. What evidence do you have that the manipulated Filomena? Why do you think they could? Why do you think they thought they could?


I think this answer by moodstream is ok. Just illustrates a bit the limit of the whole thread. Something barren in moodstream's path.
The structure of the discussion of this point you rose, moodstram, in my point of view is as follows:

1. you made a point, a claim, affirming there is a logical inconsistence in a scenario in which Amanda is guilty and she calls Filomena
2. my observation (and others) is that your point is weak, because the validity of premises depend on too many variants which all belong to the reigh of possibilities and are suitable to explain the fact
3. i also observed there is a logical problem, which is the necessity to weigh at the same time the analogue issues in the alternative hypothesys

I understand you might be totally blind to the obvious possibility that Amanda could have thought to manipulate Filomena. But I consider this blindfold as the effect of a positive bias towards Amanda. I cannot describe in a post all of my perception of reality. I want you just to consider that if you can't see this possibility, this must depend on what you see - because if you think this manipulation is impossible, obviously you see things in a way from which you deduce this is impossible - so it is about your way of looking at reality. You could be summoned to explain why this is impossible, so you could equally be asked to describe the way you see things.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
And now we've dispensed with that...yes exactly. Moodstream while posting the possibility that Meredith let Rudy into the cottage has completely failed to explain in that scenario the 'break-in'. It actually is a perfect example of how Knox defenders debate...they assert a scenario while ignoring the most important facts that then need to be explained if that scenario is to be correct. This is not how one debates or poses scenarios if one is genuinely seeking truth as Moodstream has claimed.


My sincere compliments to our Moderator, Michael

He has displayed the absolute patience of a Saint, yet again.

US Congressman Barney Frank, himself no slouch in lively partisan "discussions", once said of an opponent: "Trying to have a productive discussion with you is like talking to my dining room table"
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
moodstream wrote:
[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.



<b>This is simply not supported by the facts.</b> The relationship between Meredith and Giacomo had begun two months before? Are you sure? On September 1, 2007? I don't think so. <b>Go back to the report.</b> 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.


I am quoting entirely ( as to reference to Guede) from YOUR TRANSLATION of the Massei report. ONLY FROM YOUR TRANSLATION.

Haven't you read it?[/quote]


picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: For that, you now have a formal warning. I won't give a second. That was just bloody rude and to a site Admin no less. It has not taken you very long since your arrival to drop the façade and show your true colours. Any more of that and you're out. You're here on sufferance as it is!
[/quote]

Michael wrote:
moodstream wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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

___________


Bloody Rude! Your people curse at me!!!!



Okay, that's it for you. Now you have insulted the other moderator. Thanks for stopping by! It was most enjoyable having you here. On your way out the door, stop by my office and select your parting gift. We have t-shirts, tote bags and baseball caps with the words THANKS FOR STOPPING BY emblazoned on them. I see you have also followed the by now well-established protocol of posting your formal warning. Good job, Moodswing!*


*Sorry, but I could not resist. Michael is right. You were rude to me and I let it go.[/quote]

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 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'd like to commend the FOA on posting the video of Raffaele's apartment on the net. I wish all of the video evidence was posted and all of the pics. Clearly the pro-Amanda side has it all - please post the video of the cottage etc. If we have as much evidence as we can get then we ALL stand a better chance of forming the best possible view of this case. The translation is PMF's major contribution these past few months, it would be great to see more released from the other side.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Ok I am now feeling REALLY guilty about not allowing the baptism of fire to go ahead. Moonbeam is a twonk. I don't know what that is, but he IS one. Asking SA to cite is just L A Z Y and incredibly boring. Get clued up before you come and play with the big boys mood. You are an embarrassment to your team, as are all the trolls and trollettes that try to engage here.

There really is NO-ONE of equal calibre on Amanda's case is there...

The clever money is on guilt.

I even saw a lame attempt by a troll to insinuate himself into a Bard family discussion of the case whilst I was dining in a superb restaurant in Poitiers. I think it is LondonJohn. The hair colour is so outré...



Cite is ok.... but not if it is one of the absolutely critical pieces of evidence and the translation is properly available. It's like watching two people having an argument about the existence / non-existence of Jesus and the doubter saying "so can you show me where these so-called disciples are then?"

!!!!

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Moodstream wrote:
Filomena was certain to return sometime. The entire purpose of the staging is to have it be discovered, and presumably Filomena would be the discoverer. How did they use her to 'build their appearance of innocence'? What do you think they had in mind. I don't get it.

'Expected in Gubbio' is a short hand way of saying that prior to the murder, prior to Nov 1( I am guessing at this, but it seems likely), AK/RS had already planned to go to Gubbio. If MK's body was discovered, and AK/RS were in Gubbio, that would not raise a suspicion, because they had already planned, and announced their plan prior to the murder. Also, other house mates planned that day to make day trips, and AK/RS would not be acting out of expectation, relative to how other housemates' behavior on that day. I guess you are requesting that I spell things out more for you. Is that right?


I already gave you very good reasons why it would have been a bad idea for them to go to Gubbio. You have completely ignored them. I gave you very good reasons why they wanted and needed Filomena to discover the crime and be there when she did. You have ignored them too.

And yes it would raise suspicion if they were in Gubbio, because NOBODY KNEW they were going to Gubbio. They discover one housemate dead and another missing (Amanda) and nobody knows where she is...don't you think that would be an issue??? The spotlight would be on finding Amanda and nobody would have known where she was, for the first part to make sure she was safe, a spotlight Amanda and Raffaele wanted to avoid. Having Filomena take charge of the situation by getting her to check out the cottage and discover the crime and then take charge would divert that spotlight from them. It doesn't take a genius to grasp this basic logic.

_________________
"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 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport:

Love the t-shirt! But Moodring has requested a mug. Do we have any of those in stock?

:)

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sunday night question; courtesy of the video; how many cloths and sponges with which you could usefully mop up a spill are directly under the sink within centimetres of the broken pipe, occupying the very same cupboard?

Answer:

http://tinyurl.com/2e9d2ez

!!!!!!!!!! (two are in a packet if you look closely)


If we move from centimeters to feet; how many cloths, towels and sponges appear within the video within the reach of a few feet of the spill???

Answer;

http://tinyurl.com/2w6q4os

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I've *so* not finished with that sink by the way - I'm just going to gestate on it overnight. It's flippin' lovely! It's now made my Grade A "right buggers" list.


Oh one other thing - we had lots of conjecture that the reason Raffaele might have had to return the knife to the drawer was because maybe it wasn't his and he might have to account to the landlord for it. Nice to see this closed off and confirmed in the middle of the flat inventory signed by the landlord. Two coltelli grandi (two large knives). The other is the serrated bread-knife in the picture we all know which is also seen in the video.


Attachment:
Flat Inventory 2 Large Knives.JPG



and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...


Attachment:
Pizza memorial.JPG



I shall return with the sink and other stuff.


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

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sunday night question; courtesy of the video; how many cloths and sponges with which you could usefully mop up a spill are directly under the sink within centimetres of the broken pipe, occupying the very same cupboard?

Answer:

http://tinyurl.com/2e9d2ez

!!!!!!!!!! (two are in a packet if you look closely)


If we move from centimeters to feet; how many cloths, towels and sponges appear within the video within the reach of a few feet of the spill???

Answer;

http://tinyurl.com/2w6q4os

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SA,

I'm good with details but in this video you are an eagle!

I also saw the pile of paper napkins and assorted rags and sponges. You DO NOT need a mop hundreds of yards away to collect and dry a sink spill.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Sunday night question; courtesy of the video; how many cloths and sponges with which you could usefully mop up a spill are directly under the sink within centimetres of the broken pipe, occupying the very same cupboard?

Answer:

http://tinyurl.com/2e9d2ez

!!!!!!!!!! (two are in a packet if you look closely)


If we move from centimeters to feet; how many cloths, towels and sponges appear within the video within the reach of a few feet of the spill???

Answer;

http://tinyurl.com/2w6q4os

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SA,

I'm good with details but in this video you are an eagle!

I also saw the pile of paper napkins and assorted rags and sponges. You DO NOT need a mop hundreds of yards away to collect and dry a sink spill.


Especially one that is already long dry by the time you bring the mop to bear on it, nearly 12 hours later.

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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It is impressive that you actually proves this SA: but in truth the mop story is odd even without any video evidence of this sort. I have no idea what the mop is all about. But it is not important cos of a need to mop up the sink spill, I am sure of that
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 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
It is impressive that you actually proves this SA: but in truth the mop story is odd even without any video evidence of this sort. I have no idea what the mop is all about. But it is not important cos of a need to mop up the sink spill, I am sure of that



Absolutely true Fiona and of course.... but... I think we can move it from a very odd and dubious story to an absolute howling stinker of a story. It's not just the cloths, towels and sponges - oh no... I will do it justice - let me sleep on 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 The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sunday night question; courtesy of the video; how many cloths and sponges with which you could usefully mop up a spill are directly under the sink within centimetres of the broken pipe, occupying the very same cupboard?

Answer:

http://tinyurl.com/2e9d2ez

!!!!!!!!!! (two are in a packet if you look closely)


If we move from centimeters to feet; how many cloths, towels and sponges appear within the video within the reach of a few feet of the spill???

Answer;

http://tinyurl.com/2w6q4os

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Brilliant Holmes! It is, and always was, a preposterous excuse. This just adds weight to that certainty. The thought of anyone leaving something like that until the following morning is simply ridiculous. When a spill occurs you simply throw all the teatowels and cloths to hand at the puddle. It's instinctive, surely? It's redolent of the stoopid kid trying to get away with a huge lie with the 'oh so thought out' story. They must think we were born yesterday...

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

Quote:
Oh one other thing - we had lots of conjecture that the reason Raffaele might have had to return the knife to the drawer was because maybe it wasn't his and he might have to account to the landlord for it. Nice to see this closed off and confirmed in the middle of the flat inventory signed by the landlord. Two coltelli grandi (two large knives).


Beautiful closeup!
I just want to draw your attention on other two items:
"1 secchio pulizie"
"1 spazzolone"

traslation: one bucket for floor cleaning, one mop
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Oh one other thing - we had lots of conjecture that the reason Raffaele might have had to return the knife to the drawer was because maybe it wasn't his and he might have to account to the landlord for it. Nice to see this closed off and confirmed in the middle of the flat inventory signed by the landlord. Two coltelli grandi (two large knives).


Beautiful closeup!
I just want to draw your attention on other two items:
"1 secchio pulizie"
"1 spazzolone"

traslation: one bucket for floor cleaning, one mop


Holy Moley!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Oh one other thing - we had lots of conjecture that the reason Raffaele might have had to return the knife to the drawer was because maybe it wasn't his and he might have to account to the landlord for it. Nice to see this closed off and confirmed in the middle of the flat inventory signed by the landlord. Two coltelli grandi (two large knives).


Beautiful closeup!
I just want to draw your attention on other two items:
"1 secchio pulizie"
"1 spazzolone"

traslation: one bucket for floor cleaning, one mop


Holy Moley!


Also known as the Mop and Bucket that ran away, never to be found again, ever. Unconfirmed and unconfirmable rumor has it they somehow wound up in a dumpster, ending their days as landfill. Mamma mia!

With respect to the floor mop, spazzolone could also be a scrub brush (of the kind used to scrub a floor). I think we had this discussion long ago, but a "spazzolone con manico e panno/ricambio" is specifically a type of floor mop with a handle and a removable sponge. Italian speakers, please correct me on this.

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
It is impressive that you actually proves this SA: but in truth the mop story is odd even without any video evidence of this sort. I have no idea what the mop is all about. But it is not important cos of a need to mop up the sink spill, I am sure of that


It is simply an unfolding trail of implausible scenarios and explanations that do not add up.

Evidence that Knox is not credible does keep on adding up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Oh one other thing - we had lots of conjecture that the reason Raffaele might have had to return the knife to the drawer was because maybe it wasn't his and he might have to account to the landlord for it. Nice to see this closed off and confirmed in the middle of the flat inventory signed by the landlord. Two coltelli grandi (two large knives).


Beautiful closeup!
I just want to draw your attention on other two items:
"1 secchio pulizie"
"1 spazzolone"

traslation: one bucket for floor cleaning, one mop


Holy Moley!


Also known as the Mop and Bucket that ran away, never to be found again, ever. Unconfirmed and unconfirmable rumor has it they somehow wound up in a dumpster, ending their days as landfill. Mamma mia!


Hang on, let me get this straight. When RS rented the flat there was a mop and bucket present. By the time AK came round for the fateful Pasta evening that mop and bucket had disappeared without trace??? Was any explanation asked for and/or given by RS for this?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Och you know how things just wink out of existence sometimes, The Bard. It happens to me all the time when I really really need to find something.....
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 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.

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


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I missed the Sunday Times, windfall... what was the point of the article on Amanda?
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.


Actually, it wasn't one of Romero's, though it was clearly playing a riff off of his Night of the Living Dead. It was directed by Dan O'Bannon, who also wrote the screenplay, I think. He wrote more than he directed, had a hand in one or two of the Alien movies and John Carpenter's Lifeforce. You're right, though. Definitely anticipated the ironic horror genre that Scream kicked off, 10 years ahead of time.

And am I really the only one who read that article in the Sunday Times?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.


To be fair to Mr Wilkes that claim was made in testimony at the trial, so far as I remember
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Bard, I don't think anyone has said that the mop and bucket were already missing prior to the spill. I am just speculating that, though they are listed on the inventory, they must have been disposed of at some point or else the story about needing to get a mop to wipe up a spill just doesn't fly.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Ok that's a hell of a thing that mop and bucket in the inventory. Yummi great spot on that pic. The inventory is from oct 2006. How the hell do you lose a mop and a bucket in a year? Ever?

Skep sounds like your all encompassing memory needs to bring some of us noobs up to speed.

Fiona; yes it'll need more thought. Of course in the Agatha Christie, the cottage and the flat had mops and buckets bought from the same store. The cottage one is in the dumpster. Raffaele's just got taken to replace it nice and clean!

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Michael wrote:
SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.


To be fair to Mr Wilkes that claim was made in testimony at the trial, so far as I remember


Now I am confused. I thought the vigil was on Nov 5th. In Nadeau's book, page 64, she refers to AK being called in for questioning on the 4th and her sending RS out for a pizza, which they ate at the police station. I think the receipt in the photo is for that pizza. They did skip the vigil, however, and I believe they went out for a pizza instead. But on the 5th.

_________________
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 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Ok that's a hell of a thing that mop and bucket in the inventory. Yummi great spot on that pic. The inventory is from oct 2006. How the hell do you lose a mop and a bucket in a year? Ever?

Skep sounds like your all encompassing memory needs to bring some of us noobs up to speed.

Fiona; yes it'll need more thought. Of course in the Agatha Christie, the cottage and the flat had mops and buckets bought from the same store. The cottage one is in the dumpster. Raffaele's just got taken to replace it nice and clean!


Elementary, my dear.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
And am I really the only one who read that article in the Sunday Times?


I don't read Murdoch trash unless it is for work. I would certainly not give the man money unless it was entirely necessary. You are reading it for work, therefore you are given a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Please tell us what was in the article windfall.

I am SCARRED by Murdoch, I tell you. I have a retch reflex that goes back to the mid-eighties...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.


Actually, it wasn't one of Romero's, though it was clearly playing a riff off of his Night of the Living Dead. It was directed by Dan O'Bannon, who also wrote the screenplay, I think. He wrote more than he directed, had a hand in one or two of the Alien movies and John Carpenter's Lifeforce. You're right, though. Definitely anticipated the ironic horror genre that Scream kicked off, 10 years ahead of time.

And am I really the only one who read that article in the Sunday Times?


This info is greatly appreciated, windfall. I could have done the research myself but am working on something else right now that has my attention. Anyway, I loved this movie. It came about about the same time as The Company of Wolves with Angela Lansbury, directed by Neil Jordan (and adapted from an Angela Carter short story). A very underrated film, at least in the US.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Michael wrote:
SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.


To be fair to Mr Wilkes that claim was made in testimony at the trial, so far as I remember


Now I am confused. I thought the vigil was on Nov 5th. In Nadeau's book, page 64, she refers to AK being called in for questioning on the 4th and her sending RS out for a pizza, which they ate at the police station. I think the receipt in the photo is for that pizza. They did skip the vigil, however, and I believe they went out for a pizza instead. But on the 5th.


Yes, I thought they were under surveillance at that point and were observed in a pizza restaurant on the evening of the vigil. Is this right? Lots of pizza being eaten by those two...!

_________________
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 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Michael wrote:
SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.


To be fair to Mr Wilkes that claim was made in testimony at the trial, so far as I remember


Yet the evidence disproves any such testimony (if there actually was). Do you think Wilkes didn't know about that pizza receipt? He claims to have all the evidence on the case.

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


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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I missed the Sunday Times, windfall... what was the point of the article on Amanda?


hi. I'll try and summarise briefly. Follain bases the article around a visit to the prison and observes Amanda at mass (a Christian one, Giuliano, OK? Just kidding).

First para, "The young woman who was once called to her pretty face in court 'a she-devil, an explosive concentrate of sex, drugs and alcohol', looks almost angelic as she recites the Lord's Prayer... [quotes a few lines from prayer] ... Amanda Knox intones in a strong, steady voice, her blue eyes bright, her small hands turned palms-upwards by her chest"...

Goes on to summarise the case; Follain descibes watching Knox go about her business wheeling a trolley around the wing; comments from prison supervisor Rita Rapponi on AK's good behaviour and her (AK's) conviction that she will soon be free; Father Scarabattoli introduces Follain to AK and Follain tells her he is writing a book about the case. "Oh great", she says, with another broad smile. He asks if he can write to her and she says OK. ... Refs to the Oggi article; to the fact AK spends a lot of time reading her case files and the motivations report; Follain goes on to summarise the motivations reconstruction of events; ... Scarabattoli clearly close to AK but AK reserved with almost everyone else in prison; One prisoner is quoted as saying that "Most of us think she's innocent". Ref to letters - about 300 a month - uncensored [presumably that means by the prison, not by the KM clan - Ed.] ... Some more refs to how quiet and well behaved she us. .... a look ahead to the appeal.

Final para I thought was interesting: "As I watched Knox chant in the prison chapel with her palms facing up, I couldn't help staring at those delicate hands and thinking of what she has been convicted of doing with them." Then a bit more on the appeal and the fact if she is not acquitted, with good beehaviour she could be out "in her early 40s". Final line quotes "and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" line from Lord's Prayer. Wondered for a moment, after that little hands quiver, whether Follain was talking to himself there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

OT but interesting: The so-called Craigslist killer has just been found dead in his jail cell, an apparent suidice.

From MSN article:
BOSTON — A former medical student accused of killing a masseuse he met through Craigslist committed suicide in the Boston jail where he was awaiting trial, authorities said Sunday.

Philip Markoff, 24, was found unresponsive in his cell Sunday morning in the Nashua Street Jail, the Suffolk County district attorney's office said in an e-mailed statement, and he was pronounced dead at about 10:15 a.m.

"Markoff was alone in his cell, and all evidence collected thus far indicates that he took his own life," the statement said.

Authorities will investigate to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding his death, the district attorney said.

Saturday would have been Markoff's first wedding anniversary, but his nuptials were canceled after his arrest.

Markoff, a former Boston University student, pleaded not guilty in the fatal shooting of Julissa Brisman, of New York City, and the armed robbery of a Las Vegas woman. Both crimes happened at Boston hotels within the span of four days in April 2009. Rhode Island prosecutors also accused him of attacking a stripper that week.

His trial in the Massachusetts cases was expected in March.

Markoff's lawyer, John Salsberg, said he was shocked and saddened about his client's death. He would not comment further.

Markoff had met the women through advertisements for erotic services posted on Craigslist, a classified advertising Web site, prosecutors said.

The Boston Police Department crime lab identified two blood stains taken from swabs on a handgun that was seized during a search of Markoff's apartment in Quincy, Mass., said prosecutors, who alleged Markoff used the weapon to bludgeon Brisman

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
And am I really the only one who read that article in the Sunday Times?


I don't read Murdoch trash unless it is for work. I would certainly not give the man money unless it was entirely necessary. You are reading it for work, therefore you are given a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Please tell us what was in the article windfall.

I am SCARRED by Murdoch, I tell you. I have a retch reflex that goes back to the mid-eighties...


Done what I can with a little summary, Bard. I may try and scan the thing if I get some time. It's interesting, given its prominence, length, and the fact it's in the Sunday Times. I know what you mean. I give myself a slap every time I switch on the Sky box, too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I missed the Sunday Times, windfall... what was the point of the article on Amanda?


hi. I'll try and summarise briefly. Follain bases the article around a visit to the prison and observes Amanda at mass (a Christian one, Giuliano, OK? Just kidding).

First para, "The young woman who was once called to her pretty face in court 'a she-devil, an explosive concentrate of sex, drugs and alcohol', looks almost angelic as she recites the Lord's Prayer... [quotes a few lines from prayer] ... Amanda Knox intones in a strong, steady voice, her blue eyes bright, her small hands turned palms-upwards by her chest"...

Goes on to summarise the case; Follain descibes watching Knox go about her business wheeling a trolley around the wing; comments from prison supervisor Rita Rapponi on AK's good behaviour and her (AK's) conviction that she will soon be free; Father Scarabattoli introduces Follain to AK and Follain tells her he is writing a book about the case. "Oh great", she says, with another broad smile. He asks if he can write to her and she says OK. ... Refs to the Oggi article; to the fact AK spends a lot of time reading her case files and the motivations report; Follain goes on to summarise the motivations reconstruction of events; ... Scarabattoli clearly close to AK but AK reserved with almost everyone else in prison; One prisoner is quoted as saying that "Most of us think she's innocent". Ref to letters - about 300 a month - uncensored [presumably that means by the prison, not by the KM clan - Ed.] ... Some more refs to how quiet and well behaved she us. .... a look ahead to the appeal.

Final para I thought was interesting: "As I watched Knox chant in the prison chapel with her palms facing up, I couldn't help staring at those delicate hands and thinking of what she has been convicted of doing with them." Then a bit more on the appeal and the fact if she is not acquitted, with good beehaviour she could be out "in her early 40s". Final line quotes "and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" line from Lord's Prayer. Wondered for a moment, after that little hands quiver, whether Follain was talking to himself there.


tu-))

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
windfall wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.


Actually, it wasn't one of Romero's, though it was clearly playing a riff off of his Night of the Living Dead. It was directed by Dan O'Bannon, who also wrote the screenplay, I think. He wrote more than he directed, had a hand in one or two of the Alien movies and John Carpenter's Lifeforce. You're right, though. Definitely anticipated the ironic horror genre that Scream kicked off, 10 years ahead of time.

And am I really the only one who read that article in the Sunday Times?


This info is greatly appreciated, windfall. I could have done the research myself but am working on something else right now that has my attention. Anyway, I loved this movie. It came about about the same time as The Company of Wolves with Angela Lansbury, directed by Neil Jordan (and adapted from an Angela Carter short story). A very underrated film, at least in the US.


Company of Wolves did pretty well over here, I think. I like Neil Jordan. I even like that Jodie Foster-does-Charles-Bronson movie, The Brave One. I teach a module that covers violent film, and zombie movies usually come up when the students do their independent research. Seen far too many of them than can be strictly healthy. And while we're OT, I'll just put out a special mention for a book called THE PASSAGE that had me gripped on holiday. Vampire apocalypse but a long way from Twilight. Great stuff. The author got something like a 5 million dollar advance on the trilogy (the first one's 800pp) and sold the film rights to Ridley Scott for 1.5mil. And the b*****d's a darn English professor. There's gold in them thar hills.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
windfall wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I missed the Sunday Times, windfall... what was the point of the article on Amanda?


hi. I'll try and summarise briefly. Follain bases the article around a visit to the prison and observes Amanda at mass (a Christian one, Giuliano, OK? Just kidding).

First para, "The young woman who was once called to her pretty face in court 'a she-devil, an explosive concentrate of sex, drugs and alcohol', looks almost angelic as she recites the Lord's Prayer... [quotes a few lines from prayer] ... Amanda Knox intones in a strong, steady voice, her blue eyes bright, her small hands turned palms-upwards by her chest"...

Goes on to summarise the case; Follain descibes watching Knox go about her business wheeling a trolley around the wing; comments from prison supervisor Rita Rapponi on AK's good behaviour and her (AK's) conviction that she will soon be free; Father Scarabattoli introduces Follain to AK and Follain tells her he is writing a book about the case. "Oh great", she says, with another broad smile. He asks if he can write to her and she says OK. ... Refs to the Oggi article; to the fact AK spends a lot of time reading her case files and the motivations report; Follain goes on to summarise the motivations reconstruction of events; ... Scarabattoli clearly close to AK but AK reserved with almost everyone else in prison; One prisoner is quoted as saying that "Most of us think she's innocent". Ref to letters - about 300 a month - uncensored [presumably that means by the prison, not by the KM clan - Ed.] ... Some more refs to how quiet and well behaved she us. .... a look ahead to the appeal.

Final para I thought was interesting: "As I watched Knox chant in the prison chapel with her palms facing up, I couldn't help staring at those delicate hands and thinking of what she has been convicted of doing with them." Then a bit more on the appeal and the fact if she is not acquitted, with good beehaviour she could be out "in her early 40s". Final line quotes "and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" line from Lord's Prayer. Wondered for a moment, after that little hands quiver, whether Follain was talking to himself there.


tu-))


Oops. There goes that retch reflex again.
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 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Michael wrote:
SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.


To be fair to Mr Wilkes that claim was made in testimony at the trial, so far as I remember


Now I am confused. I thought the vigil was on Nov 5th. In Nadeau's book, page 64, she refers to AK being called in for questioning on the 4th and her sending RS out for a pizza, which they ate at the police station. I think the receipt in the photo is for that pizza. They did skip the vigil, however, and I believe they went out for a pizza instead. But on the 5th.


Yes, I thought they were under surveillance at that point and were observed in a pizza restaurant on the evening of the vigil. Is this right? Lots of pizza being eaten by those two...!



It was, for a long time, one of the major talking points of the FOA (one heavily promoted by Wilkes and the likes of Paul Ciolino [hasn't he gone quiet lately?]) that the police 'believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of murder because a policeman saw them eating a pizza'. The part they didn't mention in this talking point, is that this pizza was being eaten while Meredith's vigil was taking place. And as I have stated in the past and this is just my opinion from reading between the lines, Raffaele was given permission to go to the police station so late because the police were given the impression that they were going to the vigil. That's why Giobbi's response when he heard that they were instead out eating Pizza was 'Get them in here NOW!'.

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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.


Well that is possible, Piktor. But I don't buy it because if they had used the mop and bucket in the clean up or whatever; then ditched them and got RS's mop and bucket to replace them, then they did not need to draw the mop to anyone's attention. They could have just put them in the cupboard. Why would they hang around outside with them? The whole thing is weird. AK went out of her way to draw attention to the mop, so far as I can see.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Michael wrote:
SA wrote:
and here's a little slice of infamy (note the date and time)...



Thanks SA. That puts to bed the claim by Charlie Wilkes elsewhere that on the 4th, during the vigil, Amanda and Raffaele were having dinner at one of Raffaele's friends (which might, conceivably, provide an excuse for their not being at the vigil...if the dinner was a pre-planned event). As I always maintained, they were out at some pizzeria having pizza instead of going to the vigil, as a matter of deliberate CHOICE.


To be fair to Mr Wilkes that claim was made in testimony at the trial, so far as I remember


Now I am confused. I thought the vigil was on Nov 5th. In Nadeau's book, page 64, she refers to AK being called in for questioning on the 4th and her sending RS out for a pizza, which they ate at the police station. I think the receipt in the photo is for that pizza. They did skip the vigil, however, and I believe they went out for a pizza instead. But on the 5th.


Yes, I thought they were under surveillance at that point and were observed in a pizza restaurant on the evening of the vigil. Is this right? Lots of pizza being eaten by those two...!


They surely knew the police were onto them. I'd be very hungry. ih)
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 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
With respect to the floor mop, spazzolone could also be a scrub brush


Well spazzolone can be a scrub brush with a long stick, for the same job as a mop: to wash the floor. But there isn't a specific word for "mop" in Italian, or better there is one ("mocio") but some people won't use it maybe because sounding not elegant or informal. I think if you have a mop you would write likely "spazzolone" in an inventory, rather than "spazzolone con ricambio".
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 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
piktor wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.


Well that is possible, Piktor. But I don't buy it because if they had used the mop and bucket in the clean up or whatever; then ditched them and got RS's mop and bucket to replace them, then they did not need to draw the mop to anyone's attention. They could have just put them in the cupboard. Why would they hang around outside with them? The whole think is weird. AK went out of her way to draw attention to the mop so far as I can see.


Yes, but, they would also have considered the fact...had they have taken a bucket and/or mop to the cottage or elsewhere afterwards someone may have witnessed them walking through the streets with it. Seeing someone walking down the road without a mop is not such a memorable event as say, someone walking down the road with one, so it may be something someone may remember.

But there's more to it then that. Amanda needed as many 'innocent' excuses as possible to require her return to the cottage. Plus, the whole leak thing was also useful for them to shore up their alibi for the night of the 1st (Oh yes, while Meredith was being murdered we were occupied with a leak).

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

There was a fascinating documentary on BBC1 on Monday evening, about two sisters who ran into the path of oncoming traffic on a motorway. Amazingly they survived, despite being hit by a lorry and a car. One even got up and lamped the policewoman who was trying to help her. After brief hospital treatment the powers that be decided this was entirely rational behaviour on the part of the less injured sister (no sign of alcohol or drugs) and released her. She went to the police station, was charged with assaulting an officer and motorway trespass and set free. She seemed co-operative and 'normal', although a few hours earlier it had taken six officers to restrain her from killing herself, while she shouted 'Call the police, they are going to steal your organs!'. Clearly, even to a layman, suffering from something rather serious from the neck up, she was released again. A few hours later she stabbed a man who had offered to help her, and he died. She ran off down the road hitting herself on the head with a hammer.

I mention this because the forensic psychiatrists who were asked to diagnose the woman when she was finally arrested gave two different, but equally intriguing diagnoses.

The defence argued for Folie a Deux, which is an incredibly rare psychological condition whereby one person becomes almost 'infected' by the mental instabilty of another. In this case it was two sisters who were so close that one took on the psychosis of the other. Once she was apart from the sister this settled for a while but resurfaced when her intense paranoia returned when she was with the kind man she stabbed.

The prosecution psychiatrist argued for something different, the French name of which escapes me, but translated as 'a puff of madness'. This is another extremely rare condition in which psychosis appears for a brief time - hours or days - and then disappears without trace, leaving little or no memory of what happened during this time. The consultant describing these conditions had seen maybe two or three cases of the first diagnosis in thirty years practice, and zero cases of the second diagnosis.

It was one of the strangest cases I have heard about, and left the sentencing judge in a quandry. It was felt that when the acts were committed the defendant was insane. Subsequently she was not and was deemed 'low risk'. Because of the 'low risk' assessment he had to impose a sentence of detirmined length, and it ended up as being five years. However the psychiatrist said that if the defendant was suffering from Folie a Deux and came within the sphere of influence of the other sister after her release, it was highly likely that she could re-offend.

All very tricky indeed. And very interesting. I found myself wondering about Folie a Deux, and also about the Puff of Madness with regard to the perps in this crime...The sister who seemed to 'come round' in the police station seemed to have no memory of what had occurred whatsoever, and began flirting with the police officer in charge...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:


It was, for a long time, one of the major talking points of the FOA (one heavily promoted by Wilkes and the likes of Paul Ciolino [hasn't he gone quiet lately?]) that the police 'believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of murder because a policeman saw them eating a pizza'. The part they didn't mention in this talking point, is that this pizza was being eaten while Meredith's vigil was taking place. And as I have stated in the past and this is just my opinion from reading between the lines, Raffaele was given permission to go to the police station so late because the police were given the impression that they were going to the vigil. That's why Giobbi's response when he heard that they were instead out eating Pizza was 'Get them in here NOW!'.


FWIW, I seem to recall Dempsey's book defending them on this point, saying that the press had been hassling *all* the flatmates, and that they all stayed away from the vigil for that reason. I may be misremembering, though... would have to check.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:09 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.

I think Rudy's whole trial was only a couple of weeks long though, wasn't it? So it may be that the appeals process would be different for him too.

I'm not saying you're wrong on this, since I have very little information on it other than the TJMK article. From what Yummi says it sounds as if the length of the appeal will hinge on whether the Judge grants the requests for new testing, new witnesses and so on that the defence are asking for.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

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

The Bard wrote:
There was a fascinating documentary on BBC1 on Monday evening, about two sisters who ran into the path of oncoming traffic on a motorway. Amazingly they survived, despite being hit by a lorry and a car. One even got up and lamped the policewoman who was trying to help her. After brief hospital treatment the powers that be decided this was entirely rational behaviour on the part of the less injured sister (no sign of alcohol or drugs) and released her. She went to the police station, was charged with assaulting an officer and motorway trespass and set free. She seemed co-operative and 'normal', although a few hours earlier it had taken six officers to restrain her from killing herself, while she shouted 'Call the police, they are going to steal your organs!'. Clearly, even to a layman, suffering from something rather serious from the neck up, she was released again. A few hours later she stabbed a man who had offered to help her, and he died. She ran off down the road hitting herself on the head with a hammer.

I mention this because the forensic psychiatrists who were asked to diagnose the woman when she was finally arrested gave two different, but equally intriguing diagnoses.

The defence argued for Folie a Deux, which is an incredibly rare psychological condition whereby one person becomes almost 'infected' by the mental instabilty of another. In this case it was two sisters who were so close that one took on the psychosis of the other. Once she was apart from the sister this settled for a while but resurfaced when her intense paranoia returned when she was with the kind man she stabbed.

The prosecution psychiatrist argued for something different, the French name of which escapes me, but translated as 'a puff of madness'. This is another extremely rare condition in which psychosis appears for a brief time - hours or days - and then disappears without trace, leaving little or no memory of what happened during this time. The consultant describing these conditions had seen maybe two or three cases of the first diagnosis in thirty years practice, and zero cases of the second diagnosis.

It was one of the strangest cases I have heard about, and left the sentencing judge in a quandry. It was felt that when the acts were committed the defendant was insane. Subsequently she was not and was deemed 'low risk'. Because of the 'low risk' assessment he had to impose a sentence of detirmined length, and it ended up as being five years. However the psychiatrist said that if the defendant was suffering from Folie a Deux and came within the sphere of influence of the other sister after her release, it was highly likely that she could re-offend.

All very tricky indeed. And very interesting. I found myself wondering about Folie a Deux, and also about the Puff of Madness with regard to the perps in this crime...The sister who seemed to 'come round' in the police station seemed to have no memory of what had occurred whatsoever, and began flirting with the police officer in charge...


Interesting. The French love their Folies a Deux so much, they came up with a name for them.

The classic one is the Papin sisters who murdered and mutilated their mistress and her daughter. Jean Genet was loosely inspired by the story to write his amazing and unhinged THE MAIDS.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.


I was about to post the same... -if- the mops were the same, then the switch could be made.

A lot of their stories have the same need as Raf's lie that Meredith was over his place for dinner- to cover up something/to make something seem particularly normal. With that in mind, the question is what does the story of the -transit- of the mop attempt to make seem like a particularly normal event? Two possibilities arise-To make it seem normal that Amanda was seen in the street carrying a mop, or to make it seem normal that Raf was missing a mop.

The first possibility then leads to reasons why Amanda would have been seen carrying a mop in the streets. If it was to cover up the potential purchase of a mop when the supply store opened shortly after eight in the morning, that mop then could have been used by amanda when she went back to "shower" in the morning. But then there's two mops at the house, so one would have to be disposed of.. but that's ok, because you've already come up with a story of why you might be seen walking through town with a mop.

If the story is designed to cover up Raf's missing mop, then it leads to the conclusion that: there were originally two mops. One of the two was used at some point in time to assist with a cleanup (or to erase tracks in the blood in the bedroom). There's only the mop at amanda's, so... they disposed of the other mop. And have a story as to why amanda would have been seen walking through town with a mop.

If there was only one mop, the one from amanda's place, then what good does it do to come up with a story about having to carry a mop across town? That's a pretty scary coincidence to have been carrying a mop across town on the same morning your roommate was found murdered. To clean up a spill from 12 hours earlier. And not use the towels and sponges nearby. Of course, someone familiar in forensics might think that blood would be less likely to be detected if they cleaned the mop in another apartment. An apartment that wouldn't be closed off as a crime scene immediately upon discovery of the body. An apartment that would continue to have the occupants using the shower and sinks for the days after the discovery, diluting the possibility of any blood remaining from cleaning a mop.

The fact that there -was- cleaning in the hallway is pretty incontrovertible. Luminol detected prints, and a half a bloody footprint in the bathroom with no match elsewhere.

Keep in mind that late at night they wouldn't have turned on the lights to clean (used AK's lamp in M's bedroom) . Which is probably why they missed the bathmat. They couldn't get a good sense of the scene late at night, so they needed a quick scope the next morning to see what they missed by the light of a silvery 40-watt lamp.

I think the water under the kitchen sink is the extension of the story; most rational people would grab a towel and mop it up and throw the towel in the wash. Particularly if you've been living in a place without a mop. I think in this instance the criminal mind would have to explain away the possibility of being witnessed carrying a mop, -then- create a story of why.

Essentially, cause and effect are reversed here.

However, its an odd contradiction that Raf would be concerned about replacing the knife but not the mop. Perhaps he thought that a mop was more generic then a knife, and less likely to be noticed if a purchased replacement was different.

Pat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BobTheDnky


Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:01 am

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it

Maybe Amanda felt she needed a "reason" to return to the cottage. A la: "There was still water on the floor from the spill the night before, so I headed over to the cottage to get the mop. When I got there, I decided to take a shower..."

IMO, a plausible, but not likely, reason for returning to the cottage instead of heading to Gubbio first thing after waking up as they'd planned.


I do have a bit of disagreement with the Massei report in regards to the discussion of multiple showers in such a short time frame. If, as the two had asserted happened, the couple had had the shower (whoops, there's that had had conjunction again) after dinner and then retired to bed, where they engaged in sexual activity, it would not be unusual for Amanda to desire a shower in the morning. My GF would likely do the same (as has most any other girl who I have spent the night in bed with...).

I've also been back and forth over the probability that Amanda would both take a shower and do the bathmat boogie buck-naked down a hallway with the front door open (or at least it was unlocked and there was a possibility of it swinging open - remember, she didn't lock it closed in case one of her roommates returned, whichever one left the front door open in the first place). On one hand, Amanda seems like the kind of girl that would invite admirers should someone arrive/the door swing open and someone get a peek. On the other hand, I don't know many girls that would behave in the same manner. This, it appears, may be a case of "YMMV" ("Your Mileage Might Vary" for those who don't know).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
With respect to the floor mop, spazzolone could also be a scrub brush


Well spazzolone can be a scrub brush with a long stick, for the same job as a mop: to wash the floor. But there isn't a specific word for "mop" in Italian, or better there is one ("mocio") but some people won't use it maybe because sounding not elegant or informal. I think if you have a mop you would write likely "spazzolone" in an inventory, rather than "spazzolone con ricambio".



Thanks for the clarification. I think it is unlikely that the mop in question is a scrub mop with a bristled brush. I thought spazzolone was kind of a generic term, and your reply confirms this.

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

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

Fiona wrote:
piktor wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.


Well that is possible, Piktor. But I don't buy it because if they had used the mop and bucket in the clean up or whatever; then ditched them and got RS's mop and bucket to replace them, then they did not need to draw the mop to anyone's attention. They could have just put them in the cupboard. Why would they hang around outside with them? The whole thing is weird. AK went out of her way to draw attention to the mop, so far as I can see.


Knox drew attention to it precisely because she knew she had outfoxed the police. That mop had no evidence whatsoever. Certain kind of culprits use distractions like the mop to create confusion and dead end pursuits. You see it all the time in mystery novels and TV shows. As they say: the more mud you throw, the more is likely to stick. It all fits a pattern of deception designed to confound and create false leads. The broken window makes no sense, the email where Knox states her "panic", which is not expressed to police, the floormat cha-cha and on and on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it

Maybe Amanda felt she needed a "reason" to return to the cottage. A la: "There was still water on the floor from the spill the night before, so I headed over to the cottage to get the mop. When I got there, I decided to take a shower..."

IMO, a plausible, but not likely, reason for returning to the cottage instead of heading to Gubbio first thing after waking up as they'd planned.


I do have a bit of disagreement with the Massei report in regards to the discussion of multiple showers in such a short time frame. If, as the two had asserted happened, the couple had had the shower (whoops, there's that had had conjunction again) after dinner and then retired to bed, where they engaged in sexual activity, it would not be unusual for Amanda to desire a shower in the morning. My GF would likely do the same (as has most any other girl who I have spent the night in bed with...).

I've also been back and forth over the probability that Amanda would both take a shower and do the bathmat boogie buck-naked down a hallway with the front door open (or at least it was unlocked and there was a possibility of it swinging open - remember, she didn't lock it closed in case one of her roommates returned, whichever one left the front door open in the first place). On one hand, Amanda seems like the kind of girl that would invite admirers should someone arrive/the door swing open and someone get a peek. On the other hand, I don't know many girls that would behave in the same manner. This, it appears, may be a case of "YMMV" ("Your Mileage Might Vary" for those who don't know).


This makes Nadeau's comment all the more interesting: it was never brought up in court but some of the officers (think of those photos of AK talking to several of them, clustered around) were surprised by the claim of a shower because AK smelled like a combination of BO and sex.

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:


It was, for a long time, one of the major talking points of the FOA (one heavily promoted by Wilkes and the likes of Paul Ciolino [hasn't he gone quiet lately?]) that the police 'believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of murder because a policeman saw them eating a pizza'. The part they didn't mention in this talking point, is that this pizza was being eaten while Meredith's vigil was taking place. And as I have stated in the past and this is just my opinion from reading between the lines, Raffaele was given permission to go to the police station so late because the police were given the impression that they were going to the vigil. That's why Giobbi's response when he heard that they were instead out eating Pizza was 'Get them in here NOW!'.


FWIW, I seem to recall Dempsey's book defending them on this point, saying that the press had been hassling *all* the flatmates, and that they all stayed away from the vigil for that reason. I may be misremembering, though... would have to check.


My assessment is that she glosses over the event, saying that none of the roommates were captured in any of the photographs of the event.
"None of the cottage flatmates were pictured in the photographs. They were trying to stay away from the media, it was said, and wished to avoid any public spectacle." p136.
(emphasis added by me; dempsey has no citations in her book, other then her love for frank).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

pataz1 wrote:
windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:


It was, for a long time, one of the major talking points of the FOA (one heavily promoted by Wilkes and the likes of Paul Ciolino [hasn't he gone quiet lately?]) that the police 'believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of murder because a policeman saw them eating a pizza'. The part they didn't mention in this talking point, is that this pizza was being eaten while Meredith's vigil was taking place. And as I have stated in the past and this is just my opinion from reading between the lines, Raffaele was given permission to go to the police station so late because the police were given the impression that they were going to the vigil. That's why Giobbi's response when he heard that they were instead out eating Pizza was 'Get them in here NOW!'.


FWIW, I seem to recall Dempsey's book defending them on this point, saying that the press had been hassling *all* the flatmates, and that they all stayed away from the vigil for that reason. I may be misremembering, though... would have to check.


My assessment is that she glosses over the event, saying that none of the roommates were captured in any of the photographs of the event.
"None of the cottage flatmates were pictured in the photographs. They were trying to stay away from the media, it was said, and wished to avoid any public spectacle." p136.
(emphasis added by me; dempsey has no citations in her book, other then her love for frank).


I doubt that Dempsey ever talked to either of the roommates. It was said? By whom?

And let's not forget that Dempsey was the source and defender of the story (false, it turns out) that the reason AK and RS did not go is that they were being questioned by police. I guess she finally had to let that one go and find another creative way around the problem.

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:


It was, for a long time, one of the major talking points of the FOA (one heavily promoted by Wilkes and the likes of Paul Ciolino [hasn't he gone quiet lately?]) that the police 'believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of murder because a policeman saw them eating a pizza'. The part they didn't mention in this talking point, is that this pizza was being eaten while Meredith's vigil was taking place. And as I have stated in the past and this is just my opinion from reading between the lines, Raffaele was given permission to go to the police station so late because the police were given the impression that they were going to the vigil. That's why Giobbi's response when he heard that they were instead out eating Pizza was 'Get them in here NOW!'.


FWIW, I seem to recall Dempsey's book defending them on this point, saying that the press had been hassling *all* the flatmates, and that they all stayed away from the vigil for that reason. I may be misremembering, though... would have to check.


My assessment is that she glosses over the event, saying that none of the roommates were captured in any of the photographs of the event.
"None of the cottage flatmates were pictured in the photographs. They were trying to stay away from the media, it was said, and wished to avoid any public spectacle." p136.
(emphasis added by me; dempsey has no citations in her book, other then her love for frank).


Thanks for pinning that one down.

Just one more thing on the Sunday Times article: it's called "Foxy Knoxy the 'she-devil' waits serene". And the pics are interesting: Meredith smiling in almost-profile top left, Knox and Sollecito below (the usual one of him embracing her as she looks slightly down and away), and then a large picture opposite these two which is an extreme close-up (well, head and shoulder) of Knox coming into court for the slander case with the short haircut. White top, bra strap visible, eyes downcast, facial expression suiting the general sainted/martyred aura the article seems to be trying to create.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I missed the Sunday Times, windfall... what was the point of the article on Amanda?


hi. I'll try and summarise briefly.


Thanks for the summary, windfall ( not quoted here for redundancy; see the full post above)

I was interested in the article since you first mentioned it ( albeit not interested enough to become Times subscriber, though)

Mr Follain seems well credentialed:
1) 11 years as Times Italy correspondent
2) 2 years of in depth interviews
3) Past prolific writer of several Times Articles about the case (subscription required)

He has written a book that is scheduled to be released soon: Death in Perugia
1) Amazon; http://tinyurl.com/354k4ly
2) WHSmith: http://tinyurl.com/37n3jjg

Google John Follain+Amanda Knox gives a couple of pages referencing his articles
http://tinyurl.com/3ydak38

WHSmith description of the upcoming book book:
Death in Perugia
Shortly after 12.30 p.m. on November 2, 2007, police officers entered the home of 21-year-old British student Meredith Kercher in the picturesque Italian town of Perugia. Inside, Kercher's half-naked body lay on the floor under a beige quilt. She had been stabbed three times in the neck. This is the unrivalled account of a murder investigation full of twists and turns, and the fascinating trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. As the Italy correspondent for the Sunday Times for the past eleven years, John Follain is ideally placed to tell this story. Uniquely, his book is based on two years of in-depth interviews and access to the complete, 10,000-page files of the investigation. This is investigative reporting at its best -- a compelling account of how the Italian dream turned into a nightmare.

Based on *very* fragmentary information available now (without subscription), and in light of windfall's summary (and Bards great reaction to the end quote), as well as the jailhouse interview was probably heavily PR Marriott policed, at this point, I surmise it *may* paint Amanda in as favorable light as practical.
In a scale with the Food Blogger on the left, and Barb Nadeau on the right, I again *surmise* the book may be significantly closer to the left.
Time will tell

Thanks again for the 'read over your shoulder' summary
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 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
Now I am confused. I thought the vigil was on Nov 5th. In Nadeau's book, page 64, she refers to AK being called in for questioning on the 4th and her sending RS out for a pizza, which they ate at the police station. I think the receipt in the photo is for that pizza. They did skip the vigil, however, and I believe they went out for a pizza instead. But on the 5th.


Oops. Yeah, you're right. Of course, the vigil was on the 5th.

I think I'm going senile...I'm starting to get tangled in my dates :(

_________________
"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 pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:

I've also been back and forth over the probability that Amanda would both take a shower and do the bathmat boogie buck-naked down a hallway with the front door open (or at least it was unlocked and there was a possibility of it swinging open - remember, she didn't lock it closed in case one of her roommates returned, whichever one left the front door open in the first place). On one hand, Amanda seems like the kind of girl that would invite admirers should someone arrive/the door swing open and someone get a peek. On the other hand, I don't know many girls that would behave in the same manner. This, it appears, may be a case of "YMMV" ("Your Mileage Might Vary" for those who don't know).


Wow! that actually makes the whole shower after finding an open door much more difficult to accept. She -knew- the door would open on its own without locking it. Without checking to find anyone else, she took a shower without locking the door, having just been reminded not ten minutes earlier that it does and will open if it isn't locked.

I also wonder what the towel arrangement was; if she had her own towel, then she should have been in the habit of either carrying it with her to the bathroom, and/or looking to make sure it was hanging before taking a shower. If they used shared towels, then she should have been in the habit of making sure she carried one in with her, or there were still some in whatever storage place may have been in the bathroom.

But taking a shower with a cottage front door that might open at any time without checking to make sure you had a towel with you?

She certainly gets "f" marks for hitchhiking.

Pat
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 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
windfall wrote:
Michael wrote:


It was, for a long time, one of the major talking points of the FOA (one heavily promoted by Wilkes and the likes of Paul Ciolino [hasn't he gone quiet lately?]) that the police 'believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of murder because a policeman saw them eating a pizza'. The part they didn't mention in this talking point, is that this pizza was being eaten while Meredith's vigil was taking place. And as I have stated in the past and this is just my opinion from reading between the lines, Raffaele was given permission to go to the police station so late because the police were given the impression that they were going to the vigil. That's why Giobbi's response when he heard that they were instead out eating Pizza was 'Get them in here NOW!'.


FWIW, I seem to recall Dempsey's book defending them on this point, saying that the press had been hassling *all* the flatmates, and that they all stayed away from the vigil for that reason. I may be misremembering, though... would have to check.


My assessment is that she glosses over the event, saying that none of the roommates were captured in any of the photographs of the event.
"None of the cottage flatmates were pictured in the photographs. They were trying to stay away from the media, it was said, and wished to avoid any public spectacle." p136.
(emphasis added by me; dempsey has no citations in her book, other then her love for frank).


I doubt that Dempsey ever talked to either of the roommates. It was said? By whom?

And let's not forget that Dempsey was the source and defender of the story (false, it turns out) that the reason AK and RS did not go is that they were being questioned by police. I guess she finally had to let that one go and find another creative way around the problem.



The vigil began at 7 pm and went on until past 11 pm, with many coming and going during those hours. Hundreds, if not thousands of people in total attended. Dempsey looked at the very few (three or four) press photographs from it, none of which held more then a couple of handfuls of people in shot and on the basis that in those two or three photos, since they weren't in them, declared Meredith's housemates didn't attend. That was the extent of her investigation. Numerous FOA members have since parroted that claim...the origin for which is Dempsey.

On the basis of the same criteria Dempsey applied, we can declare Patrick didn't attend either, yet we know he did...he was one of the organisers of 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 Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
Apparently, unable to love Amanda and to see the goodness and purity in her, I am consigned to the status of a "hater." I have also been told that, as someone who approves of the verdict against an American, that I must needs be part of a wider British conspiracy to undermine American prestige in the world. And, on at least two occasions, if I may say, I was told that I was none other than Skeptical Bystander bent, I think, on corrupting the innocence of the FOA people.
Here below is a sampling of the sort of fruitful exchanges I've had with Mary:
"There is irrefutable evidence of a staged clean-up."
"No, there isn't."
"Amanda and Raffaele told whoppers."
"No, they didn't."
"The forensic evidence clearly places them at the scene of the crime."
"No, it doesn't."
"I disagree with you."
"No, you don't."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The mop is outside the cottage when the police arrive, IIRC.

What is being proposed here is that this is RS's mop, brought to the cottage that morning, to replace one which needed to be got rid of. Let me suppose for a moment that is true: and further, that before deciding to bring that mop AK intended to buy one at the shop: only perhaps they didn't have any. It is more likely to me that they didn't have mops and buckets than that they didn't have cleaning fluids, anyway. So now we have her first at the shop and then taking RS's mop through the streets. She gets there whenever she gets there. Why not put the damn thing away? There is no need to put it outside and announce this ridiculous story of the spill. If she has been seen bringing it she can explain when she has to: and if she intended first to buy one then there is a very high chance that would be remembered given the early hour. I don't suppose many people buy a mop and bucket just when the shop opens: perhaps I am wrong about that. But if that is how it went then had she succeeded in buying a mop she can't have been worried about being seen: whatever she intended to say

But then if we assume that she did not go to the shop to buy a mop there is still the fact that she would be seen taking the mop from RS's to the cottage: not the other way around. And the story of the spill does not help with that scenario at all. It only helps if someone saw her taking it back. But she did not take it back: it was at the cottage when the police arrived.

No I can't make sense of that at all
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
BobTheDnky wrote:

I've also been back and forth over the probability that Amanda would both take a shower and do the bathmat boogie buck-naked down a hallway with the front door open (or at least it was unlocked and there was a possibility of it swinging open - remember, she didn't lock it closed in case one of her roommates returned, whichever one left the front door open in the first place). On one hand, Amanda seems like the kind of girl that would invite admirers should someone arrive/the door swing open and someone get a peek. On the other hand, I don't know many girls that would behave in the same manner. This, it appears, may be a case of "YMMV" ("Your Mileage Might Vary" for those who don't know).


Wow! that actually makes the whole shower after finding an open door much more difficult to accept. She -knew- the door would open on its own without locking it. Without checking to find anyone else, she took a shower without locking the door, having just been reminded not ten minutes earlier that it does and will open if it isn't locked.

I also wonder what the towel arrangement was; if she had her own towel, then she should have been in the habit of either carrying it with her to the bathroom, and/or looking to make sure it was hanging before taking a shower. If they used shared towels, then she should have been in the habit of making sure she carried one in with her, or there were still some in whatever storage place may have been in the bathroom.

But taking a shower with a cottage front door that might open at any time without checking to make sure you had a towel with you?

She certainly gets "f" marks for hitchhiking.

Pat


And I would like to add the temperature which I believe should had been more or less 16 centigrades and she stated she did not put the heating.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
Wow! that actually makes the whole shower after finding an open door much more difficult to accept. She -knew- the door would open on its own without locking it. Without checking to find anyone else, she took a shower without locking the door, having just been reminded not ten minutes earlier that it does and will open if it isn't locked.

I also wonder what the towel arrangement was; if she had her own towel, then she should have been in the habit of either carrying it with her to the bathroom, and/or looking to make sure it was hanging before taking a shower. If they used shared towels, then she should have been in the habit of making sure she carried one in with her, or there were still some in whatever storage place may have been in the bathroom.

But taking a shower with a cottage front door that might open at any time without checking to make sure you had a towel with you?

She certainly gets "f" marks for hitchhiking.

Pat


Exactly, and as previously noted:
1) All this without turning on any heat in the 'chilly' cottage
2) According to investigators she had a definite 'ripe' aroma not associated with a recent washing
3) Even to the most untrained eye, her hair looked like it had definitely not seen showery soap and shampoo that morning
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
Apparently, unable to love Amanda and to see the goodness and purity in her, I am consigned to the status of a "hater." I have also been told that, as someone who approves of the verdict against an American, that I must needs be part of a wider British conspiracy to undermine American prestige in the world. And, on at least two occasions, if I may say, I was told that I was none other than Skeptical Bystander bent, I think, on corrupting the innocence of the FOA people.
Here below is a sampling of the sort of fruitful exchanges I've had with Mary:
"There is irrefutable evidence of a staged clean-up."
"No, there isn't."
"Amanda and Raffaele told whoppers."
"No, they didn't."
"The forensic evidence clearly places them at the scene of the crime."
"No, it doesn't."
"I disagree with you."
"No, you don't."


Greetings Earl Grey!!! You already have stripes for tangling with the Mary H creature, so you come here with a pedigree. What a relief! She really is a dreadful old bag isn't she! (Hi Mary! Yes you are!!!)

However, your avatar is scary. Who is it?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
Apparently, unable to love Amanda and to see the goodness and purity in her, I am consigned to the status of a "hater." I have also been told that, as someone who approves of the verdict against an American, that I must needs be part of a wider British conspiracy to undermine American prestige in the world. And, on at least two occasions, if I may say, I was told that I was none other than Skeptical Bystander bent, I think, on corrupting the innocence of the FOA people.
Here below is a sampling of the sort of fruitful exchanges I've had with Mary:
"There is irrefutable evidence of a staged clean-up."
"No, there isn't."
"Amanda and Raffaele told whoppers."
"No, they didn't."
"The forensic evidence clearly places them at the scene of the crime."
"No, it doesn't."
"I disagree with you."
"No, you don't."


Welcome, Earl Grey. You have to make allowances for MaryH: she had a deprived childhood.
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 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDonkey wrote:
I do have a bit of disagreement with the Massei report in regards to the discussion of multiple showers in such a short time frame. If, as the two had asserted happened, the couple had had the shower (whoops, there's that had had conjunction again) after dinner and then retired to bed, where they engaged in sexual activity, it would not be unusual for Amanda to desire a shower in the morning. My GF would likely do the same (as has most any other girl who I have spent the night in bed with...).


Only, our little virgin Raffaele remembers no such sexual activity.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
I was told that I was none other than Skeptical Bystander bent, I think, on corrupting the innocence of the FOA people.


Earl:
1) Welcome
2) Love the Avatar
3) Have read most of those eight hate filled harsh pages of WSH comments, and absolutely applaud your 'voice of reason' there. You are indeed a well spoken gem.

mul-)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
Apparently, unable to love Amanda and to see the goodness and purity in her, I am consigned to the status of a "hater." I have also been told that, as someone who approves of the verdict against an American, that I must needs be part of a wider British conspiracy to undermine American prestige in the world. And, on at least two occasions, if I may say, I was told that I was none other than Skeptical Bystander bent, I think, on corrupting the innocence of the FOA people.
Here below is a sampling of the sort of fruitful exchanges I've had with Mary:
"There is irrefutable evidence of a staged clean-up."
"No, there isn't."
"Amanda and Raffaele told whoppers."
"No, they didn't."
"The forensic evidence clearly places them at the scene of the crime."
"No, it doesn't."
"I disagree with you."
"No, you don't."


Welcome to PMF, Earl Grey! I have received some emails from friends telling me that there is some "Peggy" bashing going on over there, but I don't have the inclination to take a peek. Life is better without exposure to a toxic dump site. And one of my emailers mentioned that someone called Earl Grey was actually accused of being me. Since they know I am not British, I get bashed for being a europhile. Same difference, I guess. And with a name like Earl Grey, you can only be one of them perfid albions I reckon.

_________________
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 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
I was about to post the same... -if- the mops were the same, then the switch could be made.


And it should be remembered, neither Filomena or Laura were ever asked 'Can you verify, is this your mop?' So, they didn't even have to be the same.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
BobTheDonkey wrote:
I do have a bit of disagreement with the Massei report in regards to the discussion of multiple showers in such a short time frame. If, as the two had asserted happened, the couple had had the shower (whoops, there's that had had conjunction again) after dinner and then retired to bed, where they engaged in sexual activity, it would not be unusual for Amanda to desire a shower in the morning. My GF would likely do the same (as has most any other girl who I have spent the night in bed with...).


Only, our little virgin Raffaele remembers no such sexual activity.


And the Investigator's sense of smell detected an aroma sorely lacking any 'recent' soap and water


Last edited by stint7 on Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Greetings Earl Grey!!! You already have stripes for tangling with the Mary H creature, so you come here with a pedigree. What a relief! She really is a dreadful old bag isn't she! (Hi Mary! Yes you are!!!)

However, your avatar is scary. Who is it?"

Hello, Bard. I have absolutely no idea who that is in my avatar. I thought of him as more of a bumbling, brandy-sniffing, comical-type figure when I first found him. Well, I hope it doesn't turn out that he's a fascist Prussian politician or something from the 30s.
As for Mary, well, bless her. She is consistent if nothing else. The last time I spoke to her, she urged me to become one of the "good guys."


Last edited by Earl Grey on Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Why not put the damn thing away? There is no need to put it outside and announce this ridiculous story of the spill.


There were TWO mops at the cottage. The one in front wasn't the only one.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Welcome Earl Grey! :)

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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

[quote=Earl Grey]I have also been told that, as someone who approves of the verdict against an American, that I must needs be part of a wider British conspiracy to undermine American prestige in the world.[/quote]


Any suggestion of chauvinism applied to MaryH is false: she told me so herself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks for the Times summary! I dithered about subscribing for the £1 special offer, but decided I couldn't be arsed, LOL.

Re zombies and so forth, can I recommend author Jonathan Maberry? Patient Zero and The Dragon Factory. Not really my cup of tea but according to those in the household so inclined, very good. I think ABC may be making a series based upon these.
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 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
I doubt that Dempsey ever talked to either of the roommates.


As part of Dempsey's quest for kudos she'd have screamed it from the roof tops if she had.

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Welcome Earl Grey! Happy to greet another tea-inclined. :)
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Interesting that the WSH Comments Earl mentioned have already cut and pasted the *verbatim) post from here banning moodstream so they can all appropriately congratulate and applaud.
This within an hour or so of happening here.
1) Don't we have nice guests here
2) I suppose that the copy is for their 'citation' accompanying the award ceremony for the dog turd chest medal with the oft derided "thanks for stopping by" engraved in fools gold

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/0 ... tra?page=7
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Welcome to PMF, Earl Grey! I have received some emails from friends telling me that there is some "Peggy" bashing going on over there, but I don't have the inclination to take a peek. Life is better without exposure to a toxic dump site. And one of my emailers mentioned that someone called Earl Grey was actually accused of being me. Since they know I am not British, I get bashed for being a europhile. Same difference, I guess. And with a name like Earl Grey, you can only be one of them perfid albions I reckon."

Hello, Skeptical Bystander! Oh, it wasn't pretty up there; I can tell you that. The wolves were massing and foaming at the mouth. I think some of the people who were not pro-Amanda barely made it out alive. I haven't been back since yesterday afternoon, I think it was, and I'm not eager to go back any time soon. Chaos reins. The truly frightening part was when Darth Chris Mellas showed up. I didn't know what fear was until then. I felt tempted to write something to him, but my courage was lacking. I wouldn't have known where to begin with him. I think there was a lie or a hypocrtical comment or a threat or a snide, arrogant, scattershot insult in every single sentence he wrote. I think he condemns himself and his cause just by his short appearance. Even his most fervent supporters must have cringed a little. I thought to myself -- well -- hm-- so <i>this</i> is the (step-) father that raised Amanda. Is it any wonder she is what she is and did what she did?


Last edited by Earl Grey on Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Just back from weekend away and catching up with weekend rags. Raising a quivering arm to admit to getting Observer, Indy, Torygraf and Times on a Sunday... have a bad newspaper habit and I can't claim it's just because of work, but it is, partly.

I could get some scans of that Follain article together in 30mins or so (I also refuse to subscribe to such a damn nosy site that demands postcodes and DOBs - pox on it). The paper will need some careful scissoring, then I'll have a death-struggle with machine, then will try to upload. Any prefs on where to?

Bard - I caught that twins doc on iPlayer. Most strange and, like you, I thought of the Lovebird Follies as soon as the psych stuff started. Rather feel for the cameraman, who was only there to make a modest obs doc about traffic police. The chances of being present with that sort of lunacy kicking off is minimal. He did a good job. God I felt for that brother of the murdered man. And for the exasperated judge. Proof that the full bonkers range of human behaviour cannot be encompassed by legislation (if such proof were needed).

Catnip - I'll pop back later. Apologies for being away and not replying to your excellent comeback on the Macbeth quotation! I shall do, after scanning.

EDIT to remove is) from first paragraph (it's all too true, but turned up bizarrely after I stuck a bracket after 'is'!)


Last edited by Viv on Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
The mop is outside the cottage when the police arrive, IIRC.

What is being proposed here is that this is RS's mop, brought to the cottage that morning, to replace one which needed to be got rid of. Let me suppose for a moment that is true: and further, that before deciding to bring that mop AK intended to buy one at the shop: only perhaps they didn't have any. It is more likely to me that they didn't have mops and buckets than that they didn't have cleaning fluids, anyway. So now we have her first at the shop and then taking RS's mop through the streets. She gets there whenever she gets there. Why not put the damn thing away? There is no need to put it outside and announce this ridiculous story of the spill. If she has been seen bringing it she can explain when she has to: and if she intended first to buy one then there is a very high chance that would be remembered given the early hour. I don't suppose many people buy a mop and bucket just when the shop opens: perhaps I am wrong about that. But if that is how it went then had she succeeded in buying a mop she can't have been worried about being seen: whatever she intended to say

But then if we assume that she did not go to the shop to buy a mop there is still the fact that she would be seen taking the mop from RS's to the cottage: not the other way around. And the story of the spill does not help with that scenario at all. It only helps if someone saw her taking it back. But she did not take it back: it was at the cottage when the police arrived.

No I can't make sense of that at all


Don't exhaust yourself, Fiona. The mop story doesn't have to make sense. It is a Knox story. That is all.

The only thing that counts is the mops were of no use to police.

Knox uses the mop saga to explain her to-and-fros that morning. She knew police would not find anything on any mop.

We have two elements: a) hard evidence and b) Knox's tales. Believe Knox at your own peril.
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)



WEST SEATTLE HERALD


Just for our records ;)


"to turn to turn"

You mean...spin?

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


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

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
I was told that I was none other than Skeptical Bystander bent, I think, on corrupting the innocence of the FOA people.


Earl:
1) Welcome
2) Love the Avatar
3) Have read most of those eight hate filled harsh pages of WSH comments, and absolutely applaud your 'voice of reason' there. You are indeed a well spoken gem.

mul-)


Thank you, Stint. Very kind of you. Well -- ha -- I think my insufferably preachy attitude didn't win me many friends there. And Mary H. and I won't be dating any time soon.

I sensed that my constant harping on the paid-bloogers subject started to really get on their nerves. They seemed to get very defensive. Maybe not a sure sign that I had struck home, but, well, I did find their defensiveness interesting.

In the end, though, being there is like being in a pig poke trying to appeal to the pigs not to oink.
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

BobTheDnky wrote:
I've also been back and forth over the probability that Amanda would both take a shower and do the bathmat boogie buck-naked down a hallway with the front door open (or at least it was unlocked and there was a possibility of it swinging open - remember, she didn't lock it closed in case one of her roommates returned, whichever one left the front door open in the first place).



Hmmm,
There's a plot hole in the script at this point:

Filomena - away
Laura - away
Meredith - locked bedroom door, therefore away
Front door open

Who left it unlocked?

Meredith wasn't the last to leave the cottage the day before, so she didn't leave the front door unlocked. Amanda was the last to leave.

Perhaps there is supposed to be an implied scene where Amanda thinks Meredith came back home, went to sleep with her door locked, and forgot (or didn't) close the front door?


Alternatively,

Meredith - locked bedroom door, therefore asleep (before Amanda's "panic" started)

Scene 4:
<< Slow realisation dawns as she surveys the scene of disarray around her, what with one sign and another, and the front door being open: it must have been a "burglar". >> She immediately initiates events to seek help

CUT TO
Boyfriend's place



I see signs of two independent story threads having become tangled together at this point.

The locked bedroom door and the unlocked front door don't go together, in this sense: the significance and meaning being given to the two items, and how they relate to each other, switches tracks partway through the story narrative.

This part of the mental mopping up of the narrative requires a bit more work.


---

If I am presented with a pizza of a plot by a creative writing student, I may as well bring the pizza-plot creative-writing critical analysis tools to the table.
D+

Bring on the zombies! Grrr Aargh! :)
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
I doubt that Dempsey ever talked to either of the roommates.


As part of Dempsey's quest for kudos she'd have screamed it from the roof tops if she had.



The gaps and silences and shadows tell a story as much as the spotlight and speeches and free "fill-in" bits of the mosaic being handed over.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh, Good. Another excellent poster here. Welcome, Earl Grey. You are a breath of fresh air, after the last few. I took a lot of flack over on the other side, re : The MOP. I believe I said that Amanda was caught mop handed. In any event, the picture of Amanda outside, *'splaining* , you cant' miss the one I mean..The police look completely befuddled, you can see part of a big red bucket. Why would that be outside?

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

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Welcome Earl Grey! Happy to greet another tea-inclined. :)


Pleased to know you, Bucketoftea. If there's a better drink than tea, I haven't heard of it. I think it must be the preferred drink of God Himself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Oh, Earl, you don't even come close when it comes to insufferable preachy attitude. That title goes to Loooongjohn. In fact, he has the trophy, and won't be losing it for a loong time.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Interesting that the WSH Comments Earl mentioned have already cut and pasted the *verbatim) post from here banning moodstream so they can all appropriately congratulate and applaud.
This within an hour or so of happening here.
1) Don't we have nice guests here
2) I suppose that the copy is for their 'citation' accompanying the award ceremony for the dog turd chest medal with the oft derided "thanks for stopping by" engraved in fools gold

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/0 ... tra?page=7



Good for them, they've just got Moodstream BANNED.

I'm not having them play this game...putting up a troll and then cheering them on from the sidelines and using them to score what they think are points by attacking members or the moderating team here. So, for that, Moodstream is gone. As will, from this point, any other Team Knox arrival that they use as a tool. We can play hard ball too. We don't have to put up with this shit. (Moodstream wasn't actually banned, just requested to go away for a while and read the report...but they ARE banned now).


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Moodstream...that's the final straw, you are now banned. Thank your 'friends'

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Hello, Bard. I have absolutely no idea who that is in my avatar. I thought of him as more of a bumbling, brandy-sniffing, comical-type figure when I first found him. Well, I hope it doesn't turn out that he's a fascist Prussian politician or something from the 30s.



Hi Earl,

Welcome.

I think I remember seeing that film, an Ealing comedy about a circus or a hoist or something, and a get-rich-quick scheme? With a car chase?

I should have taken notes.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
With respect to the floor mop, spazzolone could also be a scrub brush


Well spazzolone can be a scrub brush with a long stick, for the same job as a mop: to wash the floor. But there isn't a specific word for "mop" in Italian, or better there is one ("mocio") but some people won't use it maybe because sounding not elegant or informal. I think if you have a mop you would write likely "spazzolone" in an inventory, rather than "spazzolone con ricambio".



Thanks for the clarification. I think it is unlikely that the mop in question is a scrub mop with a bristled brush. I thought spazzolone was kind of a generic term, and your reply confirms this.



What a long and interesting video. At 21:28 while we are in Sollecito's closet, there is a vacuum and 2 impliments with "stick" handles for cleaning; one looks to resemble a medium sized push broom and the other a stick with a scrub brush on the end of it? I can't tell.

Maybe someone can grab a screen shot - it could be a mop/brush like thing? Skep, we don't call those mops here though, do we? That would be something I would scrub my driveway or patio with...

I think the latex gloves in the garbage are fascinating. Why more that one pair - what were they needed for?

Brillo Pads. Does anyone still use these things? (Besides to smoke crack as it's been mentioned before!) Is it the norm to keep one's used Brillo Pad up in the cupboard with your clean plates, cups and pans, etc.? It looked strangely out of place to me. How does one clean those things and get the food particles out anyway; especially without a dishwasher?

On the counter next to some brand new tweezers is a piece of paper entitled "Richiesta Ragamento Vaglia Veloce Banco Posta" with good samples of Sollecito's handwriting on it - both numerals and alphas. I would be so appreciative if someone could grab a nice screenshot of that as well? It's at about 2:30 into the video.

Looking forward to your analysis, Some Alibi! You're right, it would be great to have more of these videos.

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Tara wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
With respect to the floor mop, spazzolone could also be a scrub brush


Well spazzolone can be a scrub brush with a long stick, for the same job as a mop: to wash the floor. But there isn't a specific word for "mop" in Italian, or better there is one ("mocio") but some people won't use it maybe because sounding not elegant or informal. I think if you have a mop you would write likely "spazzolone" in an inventory, rather than "spazzolone con ricambio".



Thanks for the clarification. I think it is unlikely that the mop in question is a scrub mop with a bristled brush. I thought spazzolone was kind of a generic term, and your reply confirms this.



What a long and interesting video. At 21:28 while we are in Sollecito's closet, there is a vacuum and 2 impliments with "stick" handles for cleaning; one looks to resemble a medium sized push broom and the other a stick with a scrub brush on the end of it? I can't tell.

Maybe someone can grab a screen shot - it could be a mop/brush like thing? Skep, we don't call those mops here though, do we? That would be something I would scrub my driveway or patio with...

I think the latex gloves in the garbage are fascinating. Why more that one pair - what were they needed for?

Brillo Pads. Does anyone still use these things? (Besides to smoke crack as it's been mentioned before!) Is it the norm to keep one's used Brillo Pad up in the cupboard with your clean plates, cups and pans, etc.? It looked strangely out of place to me. How does one clean those things and get the food particles out anyway; especially without a dishwasher?

On the counter next to some brand new tweezers is a piece of paper entitled "Richiesta Ragamento Vaglia Veloce Banco Posta" with good samples of Sollecito's handwriting on it - both numerals and alphas. I would be so appreciative if someone could grab a nice screenshot of that as well? It's at about 2:30 into the video.

Looking forward to your analysis, Some Alibi! You're right, it would be great to have more of these videos.


The second one is the spazzolone. I have seen people transform these into mops by wrapping a towel or rag around the brush.

As for the brillo pads, I used them in France. I kept mine on a small plate next to the kitchen sink. But I had a dishwasher and washed it frequently.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.



For Mary H, this is a labor of love. She is acting out of irrational, blind, hopelessly devoted love for AK's alma mater, Seattle Prep. No money is required.

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

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.



For Mary H, this is a labor of love. She is acting out of irrational, blind, hopelessly devoted love for AK's alma mater, Seattle Prep. No money is required.


Very interesting. I didn't know this.

I could actually respect her persistence and dedication, etc., if it wasn't for the out-and-out lies that crop up in her posts. Also annoying to me is when a solid pro-verdict point is raised, she responds as if she's never ever in her life heard this before, when, in reality, she must have been confronted with it right in her face literally dozens of times before on perhaps ten different message boards.
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.


I don't think the FOA or Marriott (for the Knox account) has quite so much money these days ;)

In truth, I don't think Marriott pays (or has paid) people to blog. Marriott's sphere is as media manipulator...he's macro scale. Marriott and the FOA are two separate things...Marriott is Curt's strategy, the FOA is the Mellas project. Internally, at the top level, the two don't like each other much. The FOA don't pay people, they just hold their hand out. But, the two are not one entity, that's not the dynamic. So, you actually have three dynamics each going their own way: (1) Marriott (2) the FOA (3) the poor Italian defence lawyers that somehow have to deal with the other two while at the same time winning an impossible legal battle. That's the score ;)

_________________
"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 Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Hello, Bard. I have absolutely no idea who that is in my avatar. I thought of him as more of a bumbling, brandy-sniffing, comical-type figure when I first found him. Well, I hope it doesn't turn out that he's a fascist Prussian politician or something from the 30s.



Hi Earl,

Welcome.

I think I remember seeing that film, an Ealing comedy about a circus or a hoist or something, and a get-rich-quick scheme? With a car chase?

I should have taken notes.


Hello, Catnip.
You may be on to something. I seem to remember something with Alec Guinness and a lot of car-chasing scenes and a bank or museum robbery or something like that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.



For Mary H, this is a labor of love. She is acting out of irrational, blind, hopelessly devoted love for AK's alma mater, Seattle Prep. No money is required.


Very interesting. I didn't know this.

I could actually respect her persistence and dedication, etc., if it wasn't for the out-and-out lies that crop up in her posts. Also annoying to me is when a solid pro-verdict point is raised, she responds as if she's never ever in her life heard this before, when, in reality, she must have been confronted with it right in her face literally dozens of times before on perhaps ten different message boards.


It is just my suspicion, based on different elements, that what drives Mary H is devotion to Seattle Prep. She is too old to have gone there (it was not always co-ed), but she has a daughter about AK's age who may well have. If you look at Mary H's non-AK related posts in various local papers, you see a pattern of strong opinions on issues related to the Catholic Church. Also, Mary H claims to have some past connection with me, and has made it plain that some kind of animosity related to this alleged past connection has made her a proud supporter of AK. Of course, there is no proof whatsoever of her claim, other than statements about what I was doing 25 years ago that would be easy enough to determine from information in the public domain.

Whoever she is, Mary H has a tremendous capacity for the kind of mendacity in debate that you describe; she also seems to suffer from insomnia. Once, for fun, I catalogued all of her comments over several days and was astounded at the nearly 24/7 nature of them and the number logged in at all hours of the night.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:19 am   Post subject: Mops   

At the mop level:

Quote:
"The illiterates of the 21st century are the ones who don't know how to work images”.


ItaloSapgnola Blog, 18 January 2010

And those who read me know that I always use

spaces

to highlight

the meaning

of



Words.




Freddy's blog, when he discovers a whole mare magnum of choices choices choices at the shop, which set of floor-cleaning utensils to get for the new place:


freddynietzsche Blog, 27 July 2007
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: Mops   

Catnip wrote:
At the mop level:

Quote:
"The illiterates of the 21st century are the ones who don't know how to work images”.


ItaloSapgnola Blog, 18 January 2010

And those who read me know that I always use

spaces

to highlight

the meaning

of



Words.




Freddy's blog, when he discovers a whole mare magnum of choices choices choices at the shop, which set of floor-cleaning utensils to get for the new place:


freddynietzsche Blog, 27 July 2007



As a fan of Neet-chy I find this Peach-y.
And I must confess I own a pair of slippers that are quite similar. Mine are pink.

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

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

[quote="Skeptical Bystander"][quote="Earl Grey"][quote="Skeptical Bystander"][quote="Earl Grey"][quote="Michael"]Mary H:


"It is just my suspicion, based on different elements, that what drives Mary H is devotion to Seattle Prep. She is too old to have gone there (it was not always co-ed), but she has a daughter about AK's age who may well have. If you look at Mary H's non-AK related posts in various local papers, you see a pattern of strong opinions on issues related to the Catholic Church. Also, Mary H claims to have some past connection with me, and has made it plain that some kind of animosity related to this alleged past connection has made her a proud supporter of AK. Of course, there is no proof whatsoever of her claim, other than statements about what I was doing 25 years ago that would be easy enough to determine from information in the public domain.

Whoever she is, Mary H has a tremendous capacity for the kind of mendacity in debate that you describe; she also seems to suffer from insomnia. Once, for fun, I catalogued all of her comments over several days and was astounded at the nearly 24/7 nature of them and the number logged in at all hours of the night."

It'll be interesting to see what she does after the appeals run out. Perhaps long after Amanda's supporters have turned out the light and gone home, Mary will be carrying on with her tireless crusade.

Well, I suppose she's happy in her deluded world.
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks for posting the John Follain article in the 'Media' subforum Viv :)

viewtopic.php?p=55205#p55205

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Sometimes, you need to take a good, long, hard look at things and then you realise...they look a bit...'strange'.


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

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


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

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hullo Michael - that was quick of you! Was just about to post link to the article, but am moving rather slooow.

Follain's article is pretty clever. Soft soaps the reader with just enough emetic sanctity then wallops in the atrocious facts of the crime, which do rather colour the final columns concerning fellow-inmates warbling about their faith in her innocence and Knox's reading habits. Dostoevsky eh? He had a take on dodgy students and their blade-wielding habits. "Death in Perugia" is due to be published next January, which I hope might give Follain time to include the appeal details. At any rate, he's bound to be treading a prudent journalistic line at the moment - he still needs access to people who take umbrage as readily as they breathe (there's a passing reference to the 'publicist for her parents' - that's an alarm bell for anyone not familiar with the case).

Also got distracted by:
Quote:
Hello, Catnip.
You may be on to something. I seem to remember something with Alec Guinness and a lot of car-chasing scenes and a bank or museum robbery or something like that.


Greetings to Earl Grey (a fine brew) - I've seen your posts in Other Places and think they're terrific, so very chuffed that you've come here. After reading your conversation with Catnip, I reckon the film you're remembering is "The Lavender Hill Mob". Still can't place your avatar though - he looks to me like he's escaped from the canvases of Otto Dix. Like it!
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.


I don't think the FOA or Marriott (for the Knox account) has quite so much money these days ;)

In truth, I don't think Marriott pays (or has paid) people to blog. Marriott's sphere is as media manipulator...he's macro scale. Marriott and the FOA are two separate things...Marriott is Curt's strategy, the FOA is the Mellas project. Internally, at the top level, the two don't like each other much. The FOA don't pay people, they just hold their hand out. But, the two are not one entity, that's not the dynamic. So, you actually have three dynamics each going their own way: (1) Marriott (2) the FOA (3) the poor Italian defence lawyers that somehow have to deal with the other two while at the same time winning an impossible legal battle. That's the score ;)



Fascinating stuff.

I was always of the opinion that they were holding out hope of landing a big contribution by some in-the-dark millionaire from where ever. In fact, I 've often wondered if they haven't already taken in a significant amount. Perhaps the whole PR campaign is kept going in order to take money in until the big payoff of a book or "Amanda Story" movie materialises down the road.

If all the full-time rabid pro-Knox posters are not being paid, then I really wonder what motivates them -- what sustains them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:48 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Tara wrote:
On the counter next to some brand new tweezers is a piece of paper entitled "Richiesta Ragamento Vaglia Veloce Banco Posta" with good samples of Sollecito's handwriting on it - both numerals and alphas. I would be so appreciative if someone could grab a nice screenshot of that as well? It's at about 2:30 into the video.


Here you go:

Attachment:
sollecito_apartment.mp4_snapshot_02.39.jpg


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

Offline John


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:27 am

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
AND, no remorse. I wouldn't say I hate Amanda. The word loathe is more like it. It turns my stomach to read those emails, to her fans. Singing, playing guitar, etc. It's monstrous that they will serve so little time (and cushy, at that) in prison, for this senseless, horrific crime. I wish they would extradite her...U.S. prisons are not a holiday camp for murderers.



This is exactly how I feel as well, she is not nearly paying a hefty enough price for what she has done, and the only thing worse is what Rudie is paying - he could be walking free in just 5 more years and look at his envolvement and what he most likely did before - during and after the murder.
Amanda sits in jail playing guitar, listening to music CD's, watching TV, particapating in plays, reading mail and answering them, writing love letter to RS again, next thing you know, they will start allowing them conjugal visits. Just sickening......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Tara wrote:
What a long and interesting video. At 21:28 while we are in Sollecito's closet, there is a vacuum and 2 impliments with "stick" handles for cleaning; one looks to resemble a medium sized push broom and the other a stick with a scrub brush on the end of it? I can't tell.

Maybe someone can grab a screen shot - it could be a mop/brush like thing? Skep, we don't call those mops here though, do we? That would be something I would scrub my driveway or patio with...


Attachment:
sollecito_apartment.mp4_snapshot_21.29.jpg


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Michael wrote:
Mary H:

Mary H wrote:
Mary H. wrote 15 hours 39 min ago
User ID's

My user ID on The Seattle P-I is indeed "to turn to turn." Good eye. My user ID on The Seattle Times is "just someone." I had those user IDs before I started commenting on the Amanda Knox case. I have used my Mary H. user ID on most blogs since I started commenting on the case, except on the Times and P-I. I use one ID per blog, that is, I never post as more than one poster per discussion thread.

I don't get paid. Wish I did! :)


Hello, Michael.
My question to Mary -- and I really was on the verge of asking her -- is WHY, if she's not a paid blogger for Marriot, she doesn't apply to be one... or at least inquire if there might be a vacancy coming up one of these days. She certainly has the right background. She has a large body of work to be judged on. I don't think in her case that there are any ethical constraints, so I don't see what holds her back.


I don't think the FOA or Marriott (for the Knox account) has quite so much money these days ;)

In truth, I don't think Marriott pays (or has paid) people to blog. Marriott's sphere is as media manipulator...he's macro scale. Marriott and the FOA are two separate things...Marriott is Curt's strategy, the FOA is the Mellas project. Internally, at the top level, the two don't like each other much. The FOA don't pay people, they just hold their hand out. But, the two are not one entity, that's not the dynamic. So, you actually have three dynamics each going their own way: (1) Marriott (2) the FOA (3) the poor Italian defence lawyers that somehow have to deal with the other two while at the same time winning an impossible legal battle. That's the score ;)



Fascinating stuff.

I was always of the opinion that they were holding out hope of landing a big contribution by some in-the-dark millionaire from where ever. In fact, I 've often wondered if they haven't already taken in a significant amount. Perhaps the whole PR campaign is kept going in order to take money in until the big payoff of a book or "Amanda Story" movie materialises down the road.

If all the full-time rabid pro-Knox posters are not being paid, then I really wonder what motivates them -- what sustains them.


Well, let's say...some are depending on certain Knox books and a potential Knox movie for their pay checks in return for services rendered. Some have already been paid in such a way...a certain Cook from Seattle for example...and a certain vertical gardener also has a book coming out, each of which has depended on the full co-operation of the family/FOA and disclosure of info from the case files the family has.

The problem for the movie deal though, is that for the really lucritive one, Knox has to be found innocent, otherwise any sort of movie is a non starter.

This is a pie with a lot of grubby fingers in 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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.


This is another example of not having enough information and Amanda's tendency to yak and yak regardless of the relevance of the subject matter. We only know about the mop because it came up at the trial and in the alibi email.

The unofficial side of the investigation, the stuff not covered by the media, includes lengthy police dialogues with Knox before her arrest and the tales of her talking endlessly about the murder at the university.

The mop was likely included by Knox simply because she thought it would be important. The trouble with her story is that it focused police attention on exactly when and how this massive flood had devastated Raffaele's suite and why they would leave it standing until the morning. The mop and the subsequent pipe-breaking story wound up causing them problems since it set the time of the dinner earlier than Knox and Sollecito claimed:

Quote:
Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill" (p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink.


[Massei p. 78]

These are simply additional elements of what SomeAlibi has called those niggling details. There was a leak and they had had dinner at Raffaele's. Yet their stories timed these events later than they were and they were caught in a lie (again).

(Thought I'd include a "had had" just for the benefit of our latest troll.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quick catch-up with previous page.

Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
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.

or an axe to the back of the royal neck! Interesting thought - and I also like the idea of the Crowned Bod being at a disadvantage through not knowing what their subjects are muttering about them. The Normans learned English pretty fast. Even the Georges sort of got the hang of it...

Catnip wrote:
Quote:
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.

I'm not surprised to find you picked out a vague challenge in my maunderings, and aced it! You've reminded me of a long-ago pub conversation, converting pukka English into cliché-criminal-poetic (using the very appealing yet seldom-taught fifth [?] past tense: the Improper Perfect). For example, a dry court statement about a burglar's actions was rendered by a friend into "E''s gone in there, e's done the blag, and he's 'ad it away on 'is toes". Even my scary English teacher would have to admit there's a sweet anapaestic trimeter in there.

The 411 wrote:
Quote:
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."

I'd have put money on poor old Ringo failing to get his face in the Bayeux Tapestry, as well as that photo. The Curse of the Drummer, gawd bless him.


Last edited by Viv on Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did 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.

I think Rudy's whole trial was only a couple of weeks long though, wasn't it? So it may be that the appeals process would be different for him too.

I'm not saying you're wrong on this, since I have very little information on it other than the TJMK article. From what Yummi says it sounds as if the length of the appeal will hinge on whether the Judge grants the requests for new testing, new witnesses and so on that the defence are asking for.


It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I was having a very nice relaxed Sunday evening, UNTIL I started trying to figure out who Earl Grey's avatar is :( Bloody Hell. The closest I've come to is Ian Holm, but I really don't think so. THANKS, Earl Grey. Grrr.........

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yes, thank you very much, Viv, for the Times article scan. For some reason, and I don't know why, this article reminds me of Gertrude Baniszewski, the woman who was charged as ringleader in the death of 16-year old Sylvia Likens in Indiana in 1965. She also claimed "no memory" of certain events leading up to Sylvia's death due to drugs (phenobarbitol). She also seemed to have taken a perverse delight in her 1966 trial. She was sentenced to life in prison (while a son and daughter recieved much shorter sentences), however, articles written through the years about her claimed that she had turned to religion, befriended prison priests and pastors, was said to have changed dramatically( even by her own children, who had feared her), was a well-behaved model prisoner and was released on parole in 1985, amid much controversy, for good behaviour and expressed remorse even though she claimed that she couldn't remember what happened in 1965 because she was "on drugs". With the advent of the internet, many women, and some prison staff members, who claimed to have spent time in prison with Gertrude, started popping up on message boards related to the case(one woman even wrote a book about it), claiming that Gertrude was a "deceitful" and "well-rehearsed actress", who feigned remorse only to get out of prison. This is the impression that I get from Amanda Knox. I would very much like to be wrong, but I get an impression that she, like Gertrude Baniszewski, is just putting on a show.


Last edited by mortytoad on Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Hello. Is there room for one more at the table?
In recent days I've been passing the time battling Mary H. and the hobgoblin forces of darkness at the "West Seattle What's-It-Now."
Apparently, unable to love Amanda and to see the goodness and purity in her, I am consigned to the status of a "hater."


I'm glad you find her amusing even if she is unintentionally so. My first encounter with Mary at the JREF was her explanation of Amanda's arrest being due to the police officers in Perugia getting horny at being found in her presence and wanting her around the Questura more. She also "theorised" that Italians are likely to be Fascists because Mussolini was a Fascist and political ideology is hereditary.

One thing about Mary: there's almost sure to be one or two howlers in each set of her posts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

A BIG THANK YOU to REBEL for those SCREENSHOTS!

mul-)


Yay-)

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I've found the monocled chappie in the Getty collection (creative images): www.gettyimages.co.uk [search for 'monocle'] Am rather sad he's not an Ealing character.
Top Profile 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Starting at 39:00 in the video an investigator took interest in a legal document he found in Raffaele's desk drawer:

----------------------------------
All'avvocato Tiziano Tedeschi
e per conoscenza
alla Prefettura di Bari

Io sottoscritto Raffaele Sollecito, nato a
Bari il 26 marzo 1984, residente in via
Solforino n.4 a Giovinazzo (BA); codice
fiscale SLLRFL84C26A662J.
In riferimento alla richiesta di chiarimenti
in merito a

Chiedo un rinvio a non prima del 24 luglio
perché attualmente impossibilitato per
motivi di studio.

Con osservanza
[Raffaele's signature]

Perugia,
28/5/2007
----------------------------------
Google translate:

Lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi
and knowledge
the Prefecture of Bari

I signed Raffaele Sollecito, born in
Bari March 26, 1984, residing on a
Solforino No.4 in Giovinazzo (BA) code
SLLRFL84C26A662J tax.
With reference to the request for clarification
on

Ask a court to no earlier than July 24
because currently unable to
study.

With best regards
[Raphael's signature]

Perugia
05/28/2007
----------------------------------

Tiziano Tedeschi was Raffaele's initial lawyer after Meredith's murder, but it looks like he had had [!] business with this lawyer about 5 months prior. Probably nothing significant here, but thought I would mention it for the record.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Wow!!! Thanks Viv!!!!!! I notice the photographers last name is Whacker :)

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

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Tara wrote:
A BIG THANK YOU to REBEL for those SCREENSHOTS!

mul-)


Yay-)


No problemo. I am not much of a writer but am glad to be able to contribute in other ways.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Mortytoad wrote:
Quote:
Yes, thank you very much, Viv, for the Times article scan. For some reason, and I don't know why, this article reminds me of Gertrude Baniszewski, the woman who was charged as ringleader in the death of 16-year old Sylvia Likens in Indiana in 1965. She also claimed "no memory" of certain events leading up to Sylvia's death due to drugs (phenobarbitol). She also seemed to have taken a perverse delight in her 1966 trial. She was sentenced to life in prison (while a son and daughter recieved much shorter sentences), however, articles written through the years about her claimed that she had turned to religion, befriended prison priests and pastors, was said to have changed dramatically( even by her own children, who had feared her), was a well-behaved model prisoner and was released on parole in 1985, amid much controversy, for good behaviour and expressed remorse even though she claimed that she couldn't remember what happened in 1965 because she was "on drugs". With the advent of the internet, many women, and some prison staff members, who claimed to have spent time in prison with Gertrude, started popping up on message boards related to the case(one woman even wrote a book about it), claiming that Gertrude was a "deceitful" and "well-rehearsed actress", who feigned remorse only to get out of prison. This is the impression that I get from Amanda Knox. I would very much like to be wrong, but I get an impression that she, like Gertrude Baniszewski, is just putting on a show.


Cheers, Mortytoad - my pleasure. Gertrude Baniszewski sounds like a real piece of work... and the parallels are striking. She's certainly not the only one who's played that game (especially regarding the miraculous acquisition of religion). I was exposed to the blather of Jonathan "simple sword of truth" Aitken at a tender age, and so have an automatic distrust of those who get God in clink. Prior to that, someone who'd been at my school (although not a contemporary) was jailed for 90 years for being an accessory to the murder of her own parents in Virginia while her boyfriend got life for the crime, despite no DNA or usable fingerprints being found (according to Wikipedia). Moreover, the backgrounds of Aitken and Haysom, when compared to Knox's, make the Seattle Prep gal look like she's one of the Bash Street Kids. So I'm not impressed by the 'nice middle-class white people don't do bad shit' angle either.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Capealadin wrote:
Quote:
Wow!!! Thanks Viv!!!!!! I notice the photographers last name is Whacker :)

*monocle pops out* Good lord! So it is. How ... appropriate :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
[

Don't exhaust yourself, Fiona. The mop story doesn't have to make sense. It is a Knox story. That is all. The only thing that counts is the mops were of no use to police.
Knox uses the mop saga to explain her to-and-fros that morning. She knew police would not find anything on any mop. We have two elements: a) hard evidence and b) Knox's tales. Believe Knox at your own peril.


I think that you could describe this entire board as an effort at making sense of things...

I do see a pattern with amanda and raf of coming up with stories of actions that, oh, by the way, happen to conveniently explain something. Like the 'meredith came over for dinner' story. And Knox touching the blood drops when she comes home to shower. Another story that seems designed to cover up something else is Raf trying to bang down the door and the door 'cracking'. It conveniently provides an explanation of damage to M's door and potential evidence of sollecito on said door.... which also might have happened during the murder.

In short, if it looks like an innocent explanation for something that is otherwise incriminating, its likely to be a fabricated excuse for something incriminating. Knox's story would potentially have her being seen by a witness taking a mop -away- from the cottage; she came home, took a shower, grabbed it and went back to Sollecito's to clean up. In her letter home she makes sure to include this, but neglects to talk about bringing it back home, which would highlight the taking the mop away from the apartment as the important part of the story.

On another note:
Trial testimony:
"I think I called Filomena, and she explained to me that Laura was in Rome, and that I should call back Meredith and then return to the house to see if there was anything stolen. I told her, look, everything seemed to be there, not as if someone entered and took things away, because my computer was still in my room, I saw that the television was still in the living room. For me, I hadn't even thought that there was a robbery. I thought maybe someone went in and out really quickly (...) This time we opened the doors, for example the door to Filomena's room, and I saw that her window was broken and there was a big mess. That's when I thought, oh gosh, it was a
robbery. And I was running around everywhere."

Letter home:
"i unlocked the door and im going to tell this really slowly to get
everything right so just have patience with me. the living
room/kitchen was fine. looked perfectly normal. i was checking for
signs of our things missing, should there have been a burglar in our
house the night before
.filomenas room was closed, but when i opned
the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely
broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always
was and this confused me. convinced that we had been robbed i went to
lauras room and looked quickley in, but it was spottless, like it
hadnt even been touced. this too, i thought was odd. i then went into
the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room
for things missing, which there werent
""

She has very odd phrasing in both versions, and it occurs both times -before- she gets to the part where she checks the house. In the trial, she states she wasn't concerned because "it's not as if someone entered and took stuff away." Which in hindsight is curious because we know exactly that this didn't happen. In the other, she separates "things missing" from "a burglar in our house the night before." Though contradictory in -when- she was concerned, both versions have funny phrasing that foreshadows the end result. In the first, she's unconcerned about something that in reality didn't happen; nobody "entered and took things away" (except for the cell phones). In the second, she addresses it as looking to see if "a burglar in our house the night before"; and then bang crash-she opens the door to find there was (gasp!) a burglar in their house the night before!

In neither version is she concerned about meredith until they try to open her door, last, despite: meredith being the only one home the night before; at least two different attempts to contact her; concern expressed by F almost a half hour earlier; having seen blood in the shower and a door wide open when she came home, with nobody still at home when she left.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Excellent, Pataz. AND, you'd think she'd really be desperate to speak to Meredith...You're checking all the rooms, but can't get into Meredith's. And, why did she think it odd, that Laura's room was spotless? Nothing was amiss in hers.

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'm actually starting to wonder if there was something they forgot about until just after she called F, or even during the phone call. That their original plan was to call F, say "gosh, this was odd" and let F head home and find the scene.

F: "Have you tried meredith? was anything missing?"
A: " uh.. no..my computer was there.. it didn't look like there was a break in... (realizes something) i'll try meredith now and call you back (this sets up a delaying action).
A to R: um... damn.. i forgot to... (perhaps close filomena's door?!?!; they had been doing drugs again that morning, probably to calm their nerves).
R: Fu--!
A&R rush back to the cottage, ignoring F's phone calls on the way.
At the cottage, F calls again and finally A answers, relaying what the scene looks like. F tells her to call the police. They delay, not wanting to be the ones to find/report the body- R calls his sister, A calls her mother. They see the cop car driving by and panic, with R finally calling just before the postal police walk up. They look surprised because they didn't realize the postal police car was actually looking for their place and didn't expect the postal police that appeared on foot walking down the driveway. Perhaps they had been conversing about something that would have been incriminating and fear they may have been overheard.
Later, in his diary, raf goes with a bit of truth- when they got there F's door was wide open. Amanda knows this is a problem since she was home earlier for the shower and had locked the door when she left, so she says F's was closed the whole time she was home. It's interesting that in Raf's diary right after he says f's door was open, he immediately 'remembers', 'oh yea, and amanda opened up the house with her key". As amanda says, "perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me."

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline John


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:27 am

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Oh I don't mean to dismiss it. It is just that of all the odd things in this case the mop has always struck me as the oddest. I could not make any sense of it then and I can't now. I feel it is important is some way but I cannot even make up a story which satisfies me about it


You find it odd, Fiona, because it IS odd. Makes sense to Knox... exclusively.

Anyway, the mop at Pergola 7 was of no value to investigators. I am thinking they exchanged mop and bucket for Sollecito's and the ones at the cottage were made to disappear.


More likely, the one's from RS's place were taken to Amada's, then taken back to RS's and disposed of - that way Filomena and Laura wouldn't be able to say it was a different mop and pail and the story of needing the mop over at RS's to clean up the spilled water was used just in case anyone saw them moving RS's mop & pail around in the streets, Amanda would just say it was hers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Wishing everyone a moptastic Monday.

New ava*cough* in honour....

;)

_________________
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 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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think Moodstream does not know how to read.

When Moodstream posted this, allegedly quoting from the report:

Quote:
"[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)." — posted by moodstream [XVIII.11] (Post 54955 on 15-Aug-2010), re: in the context of apparently citing Yummi citing Meredith and Guede's knowledge of each other.



the phrase “a couple of months” sounded strange to my ears. I didn’t remember that. But perhaps there was a typing error in the report.



And, in fact, shortly after, Skep responded with:

Quote:
"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." — posted by Skeptical Bystander [XVIII.11] (Post 54960 on 15-Aug-2010)



The report, it turns out, has this:

Quote:
He had had a romantic relationship with Meredith, which had begun a couple of weeks before she was killed.

– p 38 [25]




What is going on with Moodstream? Why did Moodstream commit the basic error of quoting from memory? No time to check details? No interest in being accurate? Cavalier with the facts?

And why compound it by not acknowledging the weakness of memory?

This sloppy technique deducts 50% off Moodstream’s credibility as far as facts are concerned; and raises the question of the reliability of any reasoning based upon those “facts”, and further, that the reasoning is possibly very likely merely all “bluster” and “hot air”.

The fallacy of the thesaurus might be in play: synonyms are treated as equal in meaning, instead of different in meaning, and so “weeks” and “months” become interchangeable, since both are units of time on the calendar.

It is all slightly loopy.
But how would Moodstream know what I mean?

Slightly = negligibly, microscopically, scantily, merely, hardly
Loopy = curved

“Hardly curved” = “straight”
:)


Windfall,
You may need an annexure to your thesis about the Romeo-Lear masculinity archetype trap, and have something dealing with the Pausanias Trap.


A cloud like a whale.
Very like a whale, my lord.
Or a moose.
Aye, a moose.

---
P.S.
Thanks, SomeAlibi.
I already had had (!) a moptastic Monday by the time you posted.
The way the world turns, and all that. :)
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
What is going on with Moodstream? Why did Moodstream commit the basic error of quoting from memory? No time to check details? No interest in being accurate? Cavalier with the facts?

And why compound it by not acknowledging the weakness of memory?


Moodstream did try to pass it off as a "typo" but unfortunately had already self-righteously blasted away at Skep by accusing: "don't you read what you translate?"

It was glorious for a moment - what a coup! Mission Accomplished - Moodstream had checkmated Skep!

But then, the classic meltdown and self-destruction as the sad realization set in - so beautiful, so strange.

Moodstream then staggered out the door stammering, “there’s so many of you” just like an acid tinged Grace Slick moaning the words to “Rejoyce” in white shirt and tie and wedding ring.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:35 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Welcome on the table -Earl Grey!

Five are invited, ten people have come,
add water to the soup,
say to everybody 'welcome'

mul-)


Of course I did immediately recognize your Avatar - no doubt - it is ...... Hercule Poirot!!
wor-))

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip, give me some masculinity, preferably the anxious type, even more preferably either contemporary or Shakespearean rather than anything in between, and I am all over it like a rash.

Thanks to Viv for going where I feared to tread and scanning and posting the full Sunday Times article so that others could see the real thing.

I do hope that Viv's more charitable reading of Follain than mine is correct. I do think that Follain's account will be more balanced than Dempsey's and more detailed and comprehensive than Barbie's. I wish I had pulled all The Times coverage when I had the chance, but I went with The Guardian as my sample broadsheet instead. I do recall that the commentary on Follain's coverage here on PMF was broadly favourable, but I did think the "staring at her delicate hands" thing was a little strange. What do others think?

It may well be a soft soap to keep the right parties on board while he finishes the book. I did not read the Amanda-as-devout-Christian modulating into brutal crime description as I think Viv does... my impression of the article as a whole is more the sense of: do you really think someone like this could have done something like that?

The Knox of Follain's article here is a far cry from the loud, free-spirited, inappropriate Amanda we heard so much about. But then I guess maybe that's the reality too. Or perhaps it is just another (Sister) Act.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:52 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

If one piece of hard evidence was allowed at trial, for me, it would be that double DNA knife.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

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

windfall wrote:
I do recall that the commentary on Follain's coverage here on PMF was broadly favourable, but I did think the "staring at her delicate hands" thing was a little strange. What do others think?

It may well be a soft soap to keep the right parties on board while he finishes the book. I did not read the Amanda-as-devout-Christian modulating into brutal crime description as I think Viv does... my impression of the article as a whole is more the sense of: do you really think someone like this could have done something like that?

The Knox of Follain's article here is a far cry from the loud, free-spirited, inappropriate Amanda we heard so much about. But then I guess maybe that's the reality too. Or perhaps it is just another (Sister) Act.



1. Agreed, Follain needs to keep the right parties happy to give him access.

2. Follain needs to keep the publisher happy and so has to keep the 'story' alive and the main way to do this is : "do you really think someone like this could have done something like that?" as you say.

3. AK knows enough that the previous behaviour before the verdict was going to get her nowhere fast so has modified the behaviour to manipulate her 'audience' to think more favourably towards her. This is why I think she is more along the NPD scale rather than classed with asperger's syndrome, she molds herself in a manner that will benefit herself.

4. I thought she had temporarily lost the job of sorting the prisoners purchases after her conviction...? So maybe this is just old parts of the story put in the article to convey the compliant, helpful Amanda...

5. I love the prisoner quote, Davis (39) "The worse the crimes are, the less people admit they are guilty"

How else would we expect a guilty person to behave? I think Amanda's behaviour even now in prison convinces me she is guilty.

If anyone one of us 'normal' girls/women, and I say that tongue in cheek, were in prison for murder which we did not commit, we would be swinging from the bars shouting our innocence, demanding to confront Guede, studying LAW!! not Chinese and getting the hell out of there!!


Last edited by H9 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

How come Follain is allowed into the prison to mix freely with and observe people who are convicted killers? Even if he had had an escort, I question why HE was allowed such access. On what grounds was his access granted?

Follain mentions in his piece that Oggi magazine never actually spoke to Amanda Knox but indeed wrote their article based on an interview with her mother.
What happened to the stupendous 'Amanda Knox interview' her family, her PR company people and agents - were dangling like the proverbial carrot in front of the collective noses of the worlds press, magazine and TV companies earlier this summer; the interview that never happened due to a JUDICIAL RULING being made that Amanda Knox was forbidden to give interviews to journalists?

ETA - And this is before we get to the fantasy he has painted in his article.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.


Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I don't think there will be any audiometric testing seeing how there was a second ear witness to the scream. Also, not easy to reconstruct identical conditions...wind speed and direction, temperature and even humidity. All these will bear on the results. Really unlikely.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.



I support the extra testing; the cost is relatively low and three people's freedom is at stake. For your side Katy we may as well hold the appeal in two parts;

If you can't overturn the bathmat print as being Sollecito's, then Raffy and Amanda go back to do the rest of the sentence plain and simple. Shut up shop and don't bother to do anything else; they go down. I wish I could get through the photoshop / not photoshop debate and hear the *signal* on this.

If you do then you've got to get the Double DNA knife out which frankly I don't believe there's anyone in this debate on either side who can speak with authority about how the court of appeal might view it which is not to infer a fault in the court of first instance; just simply it is a decision which I don't believe we know how it will go.

Then you've got to get the bra-strap DNA gone which I don't think you have a good chance of doing at all. The length of time etc is sub-optimal. The movement around the room is definitely sub-optimal. But you've got no way of explaining how the "contamination" occured such that there is copious amounts of Raffaele's DNA on it which wasn't contested by the defence. There's no other DNA of Raffaele in the cottage. How is this possible? Not even an inkling of this and they go back to jail and complete the term. If by a miracle you do;

Then you've got to get the co-mingled DNA + Blood gone in the bathroom which is again something that I don't believe anyone can talk with authority about concerning the possibility of existing DNA having blood mixed into it. I think this is a looking prima faciae harder than the knife because there's a clear statement on dead cells & DNA plausibility.

Then you've got to get the staged break-in gone which I think is very difficult for you. Bruce had a good go at it on IIP - it's a good effort as it happens. But it's not a convincing one. The mechanics of the climb, the shutters, the choice of the climb, the perfectly believeable testimony. We can see the hedging around this that well maybe it was a Rudy-staged-break-in. Looking hard.

Then you've got to get the computer and phone-records vs morning-of-the-2nd-story gone and this I think is fatal. I can't see it at all. Help me understand how you do it?

Then you've got to get the conflicting stories of the 1st gone and that's really bad too. Really bad.


So I can envisage the possibility of some overturns with an indeterminate likelihood. But the mat, the bra and the 2nd and 1st stories are going to do them in before anything else gets thrown in the mix to. The weight of cumulative evidence here is horrible for your case....

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Black Dog wrote:
How come Follain is allowed into the prison to mix freely with and observe people who are convicted killers? Even if he had had an escort, I question why HE was allowed such access. On what grounds was his access granted?

Follain mentions in his piece that Oggi magazine never actually spoke to Amanda Knox but indeed wrote their article based on an interview with her mother.
What happened to the stupendous 'Amanda Knox interview' her family, her PR company people and agents - were dangling like the proverbial carrot in front of the collective noses of the worlds press, magazine and TV companies earlier this summer; the interview that never happened due to a JUDICIAL RULING being made that Amanda Knox was forbidden to give interviews to journalists?

ETA - And this is before we get to the fantasy he has painted in his article.


The interview you're talking about, before they could fully arrange it, they had to get permission from the judge who'll be judging the appeal. They've had to wait since he has only in the last two or three days been appointed. My guess is they'll be requesting very soon that he give them permission. The fact is, this interview is going to be for money while they're going to tell the judge that it isn't (hence why Chris and Cyrt rushed out so fast to deny it was for money, even though the Italian news station that was bidding had said that it was).

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think that Folian's book was due out in March. I also seem to remember that his writing was fairly balanced. With a flurry of books all coming out at approximately the same time, it seems that he is playing the long game. Access to Ms. Knox and her family is tightly controlled, nothing but the guarantee of a favourable piece would get a journalist any where near.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that the forthcoming book will not be so fawning.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
but I did think the "staring at her delicate hands" thing was a little strange. What do others think?

It may well be a soft soap to keep the right parties on board while he finishes the book. . my impression of the article as a whole is more the sense of: do you really think someone like this could have done something like that?


Me thinks that you are absolutely correct on both of the above:
Now hear this: "Someone as nice as this"...repeat over and over in outright and submerged messages.

1) "Someone as nice as this could not have been a murderess" repeated over again and everywhere is the primary image that the PR Firm uses as the overriding objective of all the propaganda that they spew out.
This is also the the obvious 'message' they drill into Edda and Curt for the Dog and Pony "interviews", as well as the objective of the powder puff questions the prostituted producers must ask in order to get access.

2) Yes, Yes, the "delicate hands" was *very* creepy, kinda spine chilling, concluding (most remembered and great book promo) comments ever so completely meets the objective of my #1 above. ("delicate" hands do not wield big knives)
The seemingly unrelated repetition of the PR talking point version of how 'Foxy Knoxy' ninkname was derived was also very strictly crafted to reinforce the objective from #1 above, as was the demure chanting at Mass (but not mentioned no communion), and on and on with PR theme.

3) After reading article provided so graciously by VIV, I am leaning even more to suspecting Mr Follain's "definitive" book may be very closely 'cloned' to the Food Blogger, and will not be on my gotta read list.
But again, the surmise is based on very fragmentary evidence so far, and I hope I am wrong,

4) As a side thought, maybe the PR evident 'guiding/holding/restricting hand' to Follain accounts for his meaningless (who other than PR minions really cares what convicted fellow convicts 'think' about guilt) inclusion of how all the other convicts feel she is innocent will somehow make the Appeals reported use of the 'jailbird visionaries' testimony more reasonable ???

My most sincere gratitude again to VIV for her efforts in making Follain article (including pictures) available here
Top Profile 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I support the extra testing; the cost is relatively low and three people's freedom is at stake. For your side Katy we may as well hold the appeal in two parts;

If you can't overturn the bathmat print as being Sollecito's, then Raffy and Amanda go back to do the rest of the sentence plain and simple. Shut up shop and don't bother to do anything else; they go down. I wish I could get through the photoshop / not photoshop debate and hear the *signal* on this.

If you do then you've got to get the Double DNA knife out which frankly I don't believe there's anyone in this debate on either side who can speak with authority about how the court of appeal might view it which is not to infer a fault in the court of first instance; just simply it is a decision which I don't believe.

Then you've got to get the bra-strap DNA gone which I don't think you have a good chance of doing at all. The length of time etc is sub-optimal. The movement around the room is definitely sub-optimal. But you've got no way of explaining how the "contamination" occured such that there is copious amounts of Raffaele's DNA on it which wasn't contested by the defence. There's no other DNA of Raffaele in the cottage. How is this possible? Not even an inkling of this and they go back to jail and complete the term. If by a miracle you do;

Then you've got to get the co-mingled DNA + Blood gone in the bathroom which is again something that I don't believe anyone can talk with authority about concerning the possibility of existing DNA having blood mixed into it. I think this is a looking prima faciae harder than the knife because there's a clear statement on dead cells & DNA plausibility.

Then you've got to get the staged break-in gone which I think is very difficult for you. Bruce had a good go at it on IIP - it's a good effort as it happens. But it's not a convincing one. The mechanics of the climb, the shutters, the choice of the climb, the perfectly believeable testimony. We can see the hedging around this that well maybe it was a Rudy-staged-break-in. Looking hard.

Then you've got to get the computer and phone-records vs morning-of-the-2nd-story gone and this I think is fatal. I can't see it at all. Help me understand how you do it?

Then you've got to get the conflicting stories of the 1st gone and that's really bad too. Really bad.


So I can envisage the possibility of some overturns with an indeterminate likelihood. But the mat, the bra and the 2nd and 1st stories are going to do them in before anything else gets thrown in the mix to. The weight of cumulative evidence here is horrible for your case....

Yes, agreed that in this sort of situation all avenues should be explored (re: further tests). It'll be interesting to see what the Judge decides, and if s/he orders some/all of the testing.

My feeling on what you've listed above is that the bra clasp is by far the strongest piece of evidence. In fact in answer to the question someone posted earlier, about what the strongest/weakest pieces of evidence are (one of the rare questions which pretty much everyone on all sides of the case should be able to answer!) I would've said the bra clasp and the confession, albeit the latter obviously in an 'unofficial' sense. The bra clasp is critical, in my view, and I think the whole case may hinge on what the new jury makes of it.

As regards the rest of the evidence, the problem I have with it is that there are both 'innocent' and 'guilty' explanations for it all; and that in a court case, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the accused. The knife is maybe the most vulnerable piece of evidence (although also very important) and I think there's a fairly high chance that one or other of the appeal courts will rule it inadmissible. It's as crucial as the bra clasp, but far more vulnerable. If we were to dismiss both the bra clasp and the knife, the alternative 'innocent' explanations for the rest of the evidence would come into play: the footprint (could be Guede's; inconclusive); the bathroom DNA (may have been left at an earlier time); the break-in (relies on witness evidence; inconclusive; even if staged, can't be linked to Knox and Sollecito in particular); the luminol prints (may not have been made in blood). The defence don't need to prove those things are innocent (or they shouldn't), they just need to show that it's possible they could be.

I think that what tips the above evidence into the 'guilty' category at the moment, rather than the jury giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, are the two crucial pieces of forensic evidence, and that's why I think the new jury's verdict on those two pieces of evidence will be very important. The knife can (and I think will, at some point) be overturned; the bra clasp will be trickier, and probably crucial.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?

I have no idea, since I wasn't there. The defence are claiming there were no buses running to the clubs that night, and argue this undermines Curatolo's story, since he made reference to them; so make of that what you will...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline katy_did


Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:30 pm

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I don't think there will be any audiometric testing seeing how there was a second ear witness to the scream. Also, not easy to reconstruct identical conditions...wind speed and direction, temperature and even humidity. All these will bear on the results. Really unlikely.

I think they're trying to find out how loud the scream would need to have been, for Nara to hear it through the double glazing. Presumably it's possible or they wouldn't have asked for it, but I'm certainly no expert on audiometric testing, so I'm not sure how easy/difficult it would be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
windfall wrote:
but I did think the "staring at her delicate hands" thing was a little strange. What do others think?

It may well be a soft soap to keep the right parties on board while he finishes the book. . my impression of the article as a whole is more the sense of: do you really think someone like this could have done something like that?


Me thinks that you are absolutely correct on both of the above:
Now hear this: "Someone as nice as this"...repeat over and over in outright and sublime media.

1) "Someone as nice as this could not have been a murderess" repeated over again and everywhere is the primary image that the PR Firm uses as the overriding objective of all the propaganda that they spew out.
This is also the the obvious 'message' they drill into Edda and Curt for the Dog and Pony "interviews", as well as the objective of the powder puff questions the prostituted producers must ask in order to get access.

2) Yes, Yes, the "delicate hands" was *very* creepy, kinda spine chilling, concluding (most remembered and great book promo) comments ever so completely meets the objective of my #1 above. ("delicate" hands do not wield big knives)
The seemingly unrelated repetition of the PR talking point version of how 'Foxy Knoxy' ninkname was derived was also very strictly crafted to reinforce the objective from #1 above, as was the demure chanting at Mass (but not mentioned no communion), and on and on with PR theme.

3) After reading article provided so graciously by VIV, I am leaning even more to suspecting Mr Follain's "definitive" book may be very closely 'cloned' to the Food Blogger, and will not be on my gotta read list.
But again, the surmise is based on very fragmentary evidence so far, and I hope I am wrong,

4) As a side thought, maybe the PR evident 'guiding/holding/restricting hand' to Follain accounts for his meaningless (who other than PR minions really cares what convicted fellow convicts 'think' about guilt) inclusion of how all the other convicts feel she is innocent will somehow make the Appeals reported use of the 'jailbird visionaries' testimony more reasonable ???

My most sincere gratitude again to VIV for her efforts in making Follain article (including pictures) available here


'Someone as nice as this' ?????

Someone as nice as this thought it was absolutely hilarious to say 'My people killed your people!!!' to the Jewish boy she was working with.

Someone as nice as this thought it was acceptable to comfort shocked and grieving friends of Meredith's with the words 'What do you think? She fucking bled to death!'

Someone as nice as this retorted 'Shit happens' to one of Meredith's friends a couple of days after the murder...

Someone as nice as this shagged a total stranger in a train toilet while her little sister waited for her, alone, in a foreign country.

Someone as nice as this has lied and lied and lied...

Sweet and innocent? Delicate little hands? Give me a break. She's what is known as ROUGH where I come from! She's not a little pansy flower. She's tough as old boots. Jump in the puddle Amanda! Splosh...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I wonder if Raffy used those Brillo pads to scrub the knife...

_________________
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?

I have no idea, since I wasn't there. The defence are claiming there were no buses running to the clubs that night, and argue this undermines Curatolo's story, since he made reference to them; so make of that what you will...


Are you sure the defence are claiming there were no buses at all running to the clubs that night?
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
If we were to dismiss both the bra clasp and the knife, the alternative 'innocent' explanations for the rest of the evidence would come into play: the footprint (could be Guede's; inconclusive); the bathroom DNA (may have been left at an earlier time); the break-in (relies on witness evidence; inconclusive; even if staged, can't be linked to Knox and Sollecito in particular); the luminol prints (may not have been made in blood). The defence don't need to prove those things are innocent (or they shouldn't), they just need to show that it's possible they could be.


There isn't a plausible innocent explanation for the multiple conflicting alibis or the repeated lies.

The break-in evidence relies on corroborated witness testimony and photographs. The break-in can be linked to Amanda Knox because her DNA is mixed with Meredith's blood on the floor of Filomena's room. Furthermore, Sollecito knew that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room.

The luminol traces were clearly made in blood. Judge Massei provided compelling reasons for dismissing the possibilty that the luminol was reacting to any other substance.

Knox's admission that she was involved in Meredith's murder won't be ruled inadmissible because she made it voluntarily.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I don't think there will be any audiometric testing seeing how there was a second ear witness to the scream. Also, not easy to reconstruct identical conditions...wind speed and direction, temperature and even humidity. All these will bear on the results. Really unlikely.

I think they're trying to find out how loud the scream would need to have been, for Nara to hear it through the double glazing. Presumably it's possible or they wouldn't have asked for it, but I'm certainly no expert on audiometric testing, so I'm not sure how easy/difficult it would be.


I can't see it. What about the other ear witness? Again, temp, wind, etc I don't see how they can come up with a definitive answer.

What other tests should be done? The alleged semen stain? I don't see the point with the computers, either. How can there be anything on them that changes the facts? Raff may not be thrilled if his is revived.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:36 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Maybe my enjoyment of writers who always seem to 'hit the nail on the head' is creeping into my comments below.

That unbent, unbroken, unmoved, un scraped, unmolested sole rusty nail that would have to have been directly in the path of any spider like suction-cupped handed mortal shinnying, foot flailing and pulling himself up to the broken window makes my reading of even Cousin Brucie's expansive explanation of the break in as well as all the other less expansive FOAKer talking point versions seem ever so absolutely unworkable and unacceptable.

That ever so evident nail is like a digital middle finger to anyone proposing the theory that a human went past/over it and up that wall and thru the window.

The discovery of that nail is like the last crescendo of a 'Perry Mason moment' of cross examination in the last 5 minutes of his TV show, or a more recent "don't fit, must acquit" legal monument moment

Of course the other evidence of the staged break in is also overwhelming, but that one item just 'hit the nail on the head' for me

b-))
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Just which extra testing is being proposed all together?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_did wrote:
Yes, agreed that in this sort of situation all avenues should be explored (re: further tests). It'll be interesting to see what the Judge decides, and if s/he orders some/all of the testing.


I can't imagine why they would. A zillion experts have looked at the data and given testimony on it already. What would more experts achieve? How many experts does one need?

Katy_did wrote:
My feeling on what you've listed above is that the bra clasp is by far the strongest piece of evidence. In fact in answer to the question someone posted earlier, about what the strongest/weakest pieces of evidence are (one of the rare questions which pretty much everyone on all sides of the case should be able to answer!) I would've said the bra clasp and the confession, albeit the latter obviously in an 'unofficial' sense. The bra clasp is critical, in my view, and I think the whole case may hinge on what the new jury makes of it.


Get rid of the clasp and you still have the fake break-in. That's a killer. Amanda supporters seem to be under the rather strange idea that if only the clasp and the knife could be gotten rid of Amanda walks. This seems to be rooted in a law they themselves have arbitrarily written: 'One can only be convicted if there is forensic evidence against them.' This rule actually doesn't exist, in 'any' legal system I am aware of, be it common or civil law.

Katy_did wrote:
As regards the rest of the evidence, the problem I have with it is that there are both 'innocent' and 'guilty' explanations for it all;


Only if you take each item, completely remove it from the context and argue it in isolation (but even then, many of the arguments against certain pieces of evidence are just simply not credible). This is the same for all and any evidence in any trial.

For example, I can take a streak of green I see in the sky and in isolation offer all sorts of arguments for what it is and why it's there. I can do the same for a streak of pink...and a streak of yellow and a streak of blue and so on. But when I leave them all together in context I have to admit that none of those other explanations are true because the context clearly shows it is actually a rainbow.

Katy_did wrote:
I have no idea, since I wasn't there. The defence are claiming there were no buses running to the clubs that night, and argue this undermines Curatolo's story, since he made reference to them; so make of that what you will...


Those were the club buses only. The public transport buses were still running.

And it's a plain fact Curatolo was there, a witness (the kiosk owner) puts him there in the piazza that evening.

_________________
"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 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

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

Michael wrote:
Those were the club buses only. The public transport buses were still running.

And it's a plain fact Curatolo was there, a witness (the kiosk owner) puts him there in the piazza that evening.


Other clubs or organisations could have also been running buses that night.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I think Amanda's behaviour even now in prison convinces me she is guilty.

If anyone one of us 'normal' girls/women, and I say that tongue in cheek, were in prison for murder which we did not commit, we would be swinging from the bars shouting our innocence, demanding to confront Guede, studying LAW!! not Chinese .........


Me too !!!!!!

Cooking/eating crab cakes (chased with chocolate cake?) , demurely chanting in church while uplift tilting one's delicate hands( although previously a self described Agnostic), strumming my guitar( both chords) and singing (Let it be is the solitary stanza) does not really conform to accepted and expected behavior IMHO of an "innocent" young lady.

More to me conforms to Bard's absolutely accurate defining and destructive examples of "someone... *NOT*... as nice as this" who finally resigns herself to being accurately found overwhelmingly and unanimously guilty of murdering her young innocent roommate for absolutely no apparent reason other than a self described drug induced period of idiocy
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

TM wrote:
Knox's admission that she was involved in Meredith's murder won't be ruled inadmissible because she made it voluntarily.


And also because it is judged to be a crime in and of itself, that of calunnia and classed a crime in continuation. This means it is classed as a crime committed in continuation of the murder...the staging, etc. And this over rules the ruling of the High Court, because the High Court's ruling was made retrospectively, back to the time when Patrick was still an official suspect so the false accusation was not clear and the charge of calunnia committed in continuation of the main crime hadn't been formulated. This is a highly complex issue and the FIA fail to grasp it. Although, I think Yummi would do a far better job of explaining it then I.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

‘Model prisoner’ Amanda Knox prepares for appeal

By Eliot Sefton

LAST UPDATED 6:59 AM, AUGUST 16, 2010


THE FIRST POST

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


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy_did wrote:
Katy_did wrote:
As regards the rest of the evidence, the problem I have with it is that there are both 'innocent' and 'guilty' explanations for it all;


Couple responses"

1) Is not both "innocent and guilty explanations" the very heart and soul of every case brought before every court of law ?
2) Is not both 'innocent and guilty explanations" what we have from nearly very person charged with a crime by law enforcement everywhere ?

Most rational people however:
A) after 19 judges decide the guilty explanations are "overwhelming" enough to merit trial
b) after a year of closely listening and examining *both* explanations, jurors *unanimously* decide in favor of the guilty explanation

After all that most rational people do not share your inexplicable "problem" with the 2 explanations, and easily accept the ever so obvious.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
‘Model prisoner’ Amanda Knox prepares for appeal

By Eliot Sefton

LAST UPDATED 6:59 AM, AUGUST 16, 2010


THE FIRST POST


Nice read; thanks, Michael

Be sure to click red hyperlinks in article Michael cited for previous articles and some nice high definition pictures
Although you probably have seen the pic below previously I thought the facial expressions as well as body language of the 3 subjects was interesting


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

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho wrote: "…And before we consider Massei's work to be exceptional, this is actually how judges work, think, and write. Not just Italian judges. I've known a couple of judges and even at play they rarely appear to make arbitrary or uncorroborated statements…"


I completely agree. Judges think work and write this way, there is nothing exceptional, especially in non-adversarial systems where judges look for the truth in all possible ways examining each and every element (in adversarial systems the skills and tactics of "trial lawyers" are more important and the judge more an arbiter between contenders).

This is why even the judges who faced the defendants before the trial are relevant and their opinion should not be dismissed concurring for a gradual search of the truth (GUP and freedom tribunal and in this case even judges of Cassazione have examined the case or aspects of it).

Furthermore it is not appropriate to call the court of Assise presided by Massei a "jury". In a strict sense the members of a jury just vote guilty or not guilty according to their understanding and morals. In this system the non professional members of the judging body are part of a Court, they have 1 vote as everyone else and they have to vote on single points and motivate every single point as by art. 111 of the Italian Constitution. This is why in the report we notice more objectivity than any member of the public, expert or not, may ever have. Each member read tens of thousands of pages from prosecution and defense, heard all the trial, interviewed many witnesses and forensic experts yet most of the public commenting the case think he/she is more objective than them.

Interestingly, people reading this forum can consider more evidence that what the Massei court of Assise can or wish to use for conviction. Nobody's guilt can be proved by statements of a person who, by his/her free choice, was not available to be examined by defendant/defendant lawyer (art 526 sub 1 of the Italian criminal procedure code and art. 111 of the Italian Constitution). This is an element of an adversarial system (trial based), even if the overall Italian system is mostly non-adversarial (systems in which finding the truth can be very well achieved outside the trial/courtroom and presented "on paper" to Court).

One of the things I guess the Massei court cannot use is Guede's confessions accusing the 2 defendants. Guede did not make himself available to the defendants and their lawyers, it follows his declarations cannot be used against them. And this is why Sollecito's diaries most probably were not used even if they incriminate Amanda. Amanda’s lies in court instead (eg ref the time they woke up as demonstrated by computers and mobile phones and many more) can be used against Sollecito.

As far as the psychological points we can make on Amanda and Sollecito, the Massei court did not use them much as they are not an element of "incompatibility" or "exclusion". No character point can exclude Amanda and Sollecito. Clearly the opposite is also true - no character point can make them guilty eg1 if Amanda and Raffaele had proven record of heroine cocaine addiction this alone would not make them guilty and would not exclude them eg2 if Amanda was a Nobel prize winner for literature - as FOA almost wishes the public to believe despite the signs of scarce knowledge of language in her writings - this would not be incompatible with being a murderer.

Therefore in this forum:

A) we can discuss - and I think it is very interesting - the different strategies the lawyers of each of the three defendants and how they evolved over time. Why RG asked for a fast track (apart from discount)? This was a good choice. Why did he give gradually different versions on his partners in crime and why did he accuse the two on his trial but not on their trial ? Why RS does not support Amanda’s alibi and strongly incriminates her with his declarations and diaries but then on trial he does not talk (making some people think he loves Amanda so much so he must be innocent too rather than her worst enemy – at least in trial) ? Why Amanda talks about possibly RS raping and murdering MK in her memos/diaries ? Why did Amanda take the stand at the end ? Is it because (a) trial is what counts in her US advisors mentality and was useful to PR back in US or (b) she is a narcissistic personality so she will always wish to save face in spite of it all (possibly the reason why she killed MK if we listen to Guede…her declarations regarding not to want the mask of a killer imposed on her are interesting to study if we talk about narcissism) or (c) knowing the other 2 did not talk she did not risk retaliation (d) she needed to justify her own declaration against Patrick (those in the memo were still admitted) which in the story presented on trial by many policemen and the translator looked very spontaneous if not with a bit of exaggerated acting by Amanda (when she shouted “it is him, it is him, he is bad”), certainly not coerced. All these tactics and people avoiding to talk suggest willing escalation of violence or even premeditation (people talk much more and confess when murders are committed by mistake or unintentionally during a fight – especially in Italy where courts are often on the lenient side).

B) we can observe that a lot of the things which have been kept outside of the trial strongly incriminate the defendants rather than the opposite, so we - IN THIS FORUM - have more “usable” reasons than Massei and court to point to guilt. I mentioned the account of how RS found Filomena's door (he said it was wide open showing the mess and this is the first thing he noticed without, he probably forgot to lie strongly incriminating Amanda who said it was closed - but not used by Massei). Then reading Massei we realise the court did not need more to be beyond reasonable doubt. This is clearly a non controversial case. Many “independent” pieces of evidence of various nature concur to indicate the guilty which makes statistically insignificant the probability of their innocence. Defense lawyers will have to fight a lot to reverse completely the fate of their clients while they may modify slightly outcome of trial (conviction time and mitigating circumstances) if their clients talk.

C) Last but not least, we can observe that pro-Amanda sites think the court may have decided based on the “cartwheels” and the “psychology arguments” etc. because they think the court/jury is made of plain "voters"/"jurors" - a bit US style - who, having to say just guilty/not guilty, may forget to apply the basic instructions given (and on with all the BS of sequestration, which btw rarely happens even in the US). Totally wrong, this is not a jury, it is a court, which decide on every point by vote and have to motivate everything so that the “being convinced” by personal morals or belief is clearly limited by the fact they have to write their motives and make sense otherwise a superior court may invalid the sentence.

So we discover - what a surprise - that the Massei report is more objective than we thought and Stilicho rightly says....this is not exceptional, a judge/judging body must be impartial and objective.

Pro-Amanda sites are in desperation as they used for months the wrong basis for their arguments without reading the various Italian originals of the verdict reports which was available to them at the cost of a translation. The conclusion is that the promoters of the websites and PR campaign are likely to have had full knowledge of the reports, the followers were just deceived.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline cyyates


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am

Posts: 64

Location: U.S. Nebraska

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
I wonder if Raffy used those Brillo pads to scrub the knife...


....or Amanda?!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Would like opinion of Yummi and legal experts here:

In my view if in THEORY:

- Rudy made a good choice in going for fast track trial
- Amanda made a bad choice going for full trial
- RS is the only one for whom one could understand the choice of full trial (to dispute in particular 1 forensic result and create doubt which was more difficult to create by AK's lawyers. Then the fact he did not talk in trial means he could choose fast track conditioned to expert discussion or something similar).

In PRACTICE:
The reason both went to trial was the other was there. They each needed to fend off possible attacks by the other (by taking the stand if needed). This is why once the first decided the second had to go too or they (their lawyers) decided together.

Amanda was the worst enemy of RS in this case and viceversa, from the very beginning.
Rudy probably did not testify in the A+R trial as they did not accuse him directly. If they had accused him with direct declarations he would have also taken the stand.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?

I have no idea, since I wasn't there. The defence are claiming there were no buses running to the clubs that night, and argue this undermines Curatolo's story, since he made reference to them; so make of that what you will...


Are you sure the defence are claiming there were no buses at all running to the clubs that night?


To avoid confusion it seems that posters will need to clarify whether they are quoting from:
1. Bruce's summaries of the defence appeal documents.
2. The actual defence appeal documents themselves.

:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
Amanda made a bad choice going for full trial


Actually, Amanda's family made that decision for her - they quickly determined that she would be innocent all the way, no ifs, ands, or buts.
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper,

Interesting and useful post.


Popper wrote:
Furthermore it is not appropriate to call the court of Assise presided by Massei a "jury". In a strict sense the members of a jury just vote guilty or not guilty according to their understanding and morals. In this system the non professional members of the judging body are part of a Court, they have 1 vote as everyone else and they have to vote on single points and motivate every single point as by art. 111 of the Italian Constitution.


The alderman model (scabinato) applies (like the town council), rather than the petty jury model (like on TV).

A case before the Assize Court is like a coronial inquest, or a board of inquiry, or a Royal Commission.

The "translation" of corte d'assise into "jury" oversimplifies, and has led the naive ones astray in their expectations of what will/could/should happen.

Too much energy has been wasted.


Quote:
Pro-Amanda sites are in desperation as they used for months the wrong basis for their arguments without reading the various Italian originals of the verdict reports which was available to them at the cost of a translation. The conclusion is that the promoters of the websites and PR campaign are likely to have had full knowledge of the reports, the followers were just deceived.

[/quote]

I get the impression that it is more likely a lack of supervision, a laissez-faire in learning, that the older children are "teaching" the younger children because there is no-one around mature enough to do the leading and learning (why not? very often, money seems to be first priority). Alternative parallel explanation: a Moses-worshipper dynamic is being exploited (arising from historical reasons, very likely) where the worshippers believe and follow and the prophet-figure leads them (somewhere, hopefully).

In both cases, the naive ones are being led astray. To great injury, psychologically.

A similar dynamic is occurring with the science-worshippers and the anti-science worshippers. Plus also, wagon-and-fort thinking provides a template.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Sweet and innocent? Delicate little hands? Give me a break. She's what is known as ROUGH where I come from! She's not a little pansy flower. She's tough as old boots. Jump in the puddle Amanda! Splosh...


Well, this is Amanda's new position in life: "Model Prisoner"

Her skills are being put to the test and she needs to pull it off to prove her family right.
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Windfall,

I found an apposite epigraph for your thesis: the self-aware chivalrous knight:


Quote:

December 7, 2009
The White Charger Stays In The Stable

As a campaigner for liberty, and a sucker for damsels in distress, I was looking to work up a piece in defence of Amanda Knox.

Incarceration is a horrible thing. We lock up far, far too many people in the UK. Punishment is necessary in society, but there are innumerable other forms of punishment possible apart from prison. The only real reason I can think of to lock somebody away is that they pose a physical danger to others; why we lock people up for non-violent property crime I have no idea, especially as in the vast majority of cases the cost of incarceration is greater than the value of the property which was stolen.

But I am genuinely sorry to say that the more I researched the more I came to the conclusion that locking up Amanda Knox is rather sensible. Having previously simply seen the odd bit of news coverage, I am quite sure after further research that the balance of that reporting has been rather kinder to Amanda Knox than she deserved.

– [ Craig Murray ] Blog
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?

I have no idea, since I wasn't there. The defence are claiming there were no buses running to the clubs that night, and argue this undermines Curatolo's story, since he made reference to them; so make of that what you will...


Are you sure the defence are claiming there were no buses at all running to the clubs that night?


To avoid confusion it seems that posters will need to clarify whether they are quoting from:
1. Bruce's summaries of the defence appeal documents.
2. The actual defence appeal documents themselves.

:lol:



From what I have seen of Bruce's "glosses" on the appeals, I agree that anyone providing information from this source needs to specify as much. Or specify that "Bruce claims that the defense claims...."
The accuracy of Bruce's glosses has been convincingly challenged; this development needs to be taken into account.

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

Offline Patzu


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm

Posts: 158

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Maybe my enjoyment of writers who always seem to 'hit the nail on the head' is creeping into my comments below.

That unbent, unbroken, unmoved, un scraped, unmolested sole rusty nail that would have to have been directly in the path of any spider like suction-cupped handed mortal shinnying, foot flailing and pulling himself up to the broken window makes my reading of even Cousin Brucie's expansive explanation of the break in as well as all the other less expansive FOAKer talking point versions seem ever so absolutely unworkable and unacceptable.

That ever so evident nail is like a digital middle finger to anyone proposing the theory that a human went past/over it and up that wall and thru the window.

The discovery of that nail is like the last crescendo of a 'Perry Mason moment' of cross examination in the last 5 minutes of his TV show, or a more recent "don't fit, must acquit" legal monument moment

Of course the other evidence of the staged break in is also overwhelming, but that one item just 'hit the nail on the head' for me

b-))


The nail that sealed their fate...

Etruscan mirror from Perugia showing Athrpa (Atropos) hammering the nail of fate


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


Last edited by Patzu on Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Was there testimony that a mop and bucket was outside with Amanda and Raffaele when the postal police arrived? In his diary Raffaele says he put the mop in the entrance:

Quote:
As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance
and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the
devil had happened.


Charlie Wilkes has posted a photo at JREF of a mop and bucket in the closet at the girls' flat that appears to be identical to the mop Catnip posted up-thread.

Charlie has also posted another photo at JREF of a mop and bucket located outside the flat. If the mop and bucket (which is photographed outside) had anything to do with the crime scene it would not have been left outside in the elements would it?

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/mop_in_closet_dec_18.jpg

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_with_mop.jpg
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:

Amanda was the worst enemy of RS in this case and viceversa, from the very beginning.


Not a legal expert, but I can see the tactical advantage of sticking together (like a shoal of fish): if no-one says anything, then danger to the group is minimised, and therefore to members of the group.

Defending the client leads logically to defending the client's partners/co-conspirators, because if one falls, they all fall.

Tactically good; strategically, self-defeating. Because the maximum strength of the group comes from the weakest part of the picture and no more than that. What holds the group together (besides fear of itself)? In strategic terms, the implication must be drawn that all are equally involved in terms of purpose and motivation for what happened.


Plus, outside the lawyers' offices:

-- (money) somebody pays for experts, so partnerships become thinkable
-- (emotion) lovebirds are lovebirds, and some of them can be very stubborn
-- (ego) visible from the timing and the phrasing of statements and press releases and articles, there is a cat-and-mouse game going on in the long-term in the piazza, the public forum: who is the more sophisticated?: the raffinato or the plebs? The magic mirror on the wall knows the answer.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:

Quote:
Therefore in this forum:

A) we can discuss - and I think it is very interesting - the different strategies the lawyers of each of the three defendants and how they evolved over time. Why RG asked for a fast track (apart from discount)? This was a good choice. Why did he give gradually different versions on his partners in crime and why did he accuse the two on his trial but not on their trial ? Why RS does not support Amanda’s alibi and strongly incriminates her with his declarations and diaries but then on trial he does not talk (making some people think he loves Amanda so much so he must be innocent too rather than her worst enemy – at least in trial) ? Why Amanda talks about possibly RS raping and murdering MK in her memos/diaries ? Why did Amanda take the stand at the end ? Is it because (a) trial is what counts in her US advisors mentality and was useful to PR back in US or (b) she is a narcissistic personality so she will always wish to save face in spite of it all (possibly the reason why she killed MK if we listen to Guede…her declarations regarding not to want the mask of a killer imposed on her are interesting to study if we talk about narcissism) or (c) knowing the other 2 did not talk she did not risk retaliation (d) she needed to justify her own declaration against Patrick (those in the memo were still admitted) which in the story presented on trial by many policemen and the translator looked very spontaneous if not with a bit of exaggerated acting by Amanda (when she shouted “it is him, it is him, he is bad”), certainly not coerced. All these tactics and people avoiding to talk suggest willing escalation of violence or even premeditation (people talk much more and confess when murders are committed by mistake or unintentionally during a fight – especially in Italy where courts are often on the lenient side).


Interesting post, Popper. Yes, we can discuss lots of aspects of the case and introduce lots of data that were not considered by the court in its final verdict. We are not a court and we are not bound by what the court has argued or found salient.

The recent arrival en masse of Bruce zombies and subsequent disruption have been instructive in this regard. The ethos of this board, unlike that of other forums, can be compared to the underly philosophy of a truth-seeking system of justice as opposed to an adversarial one. I know that some here have expressed the desire to see the board show more patience with those who join as adversaries (while others seem to have a zero tolerance view), but I think they are merely disruptive and don't offer the most efficient or honest path to something approaching the truth. Is conflict ever beneficial? -- that is the underlying question. I believe in "confronting" different points of view, but I'm equally convinced that this should be done in a setting that is collegial rather than confrontational and divisive. Sometimes, the resulting truth is simply that the issue at hand is undecidable with 100% certainty. And that has to be enough, because anything more is a distortion and/or an oversimplification of the reality.

If people take the time to read through the ongoing discussion here, I think they will find that progress has been made when people are on the same page. This doesn't exclude the fact that some of the more adversarial and divisive moments have also produced "takeaways" that benefit everyone. But they are small takeaways that could have been derived collegially.

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

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Popper,

Interesting and useful post.


Popper wrote:
Furthermore it is not appropriate to call the court of Assise presided by Massei a "jury". In a strict sense the members of a jury just vote guilty or not guilty according to their understanding and morals. In this system the non professional members of the judging body are part of a Court, they have 1 vote as everyone else and they have to vote on single points and motivate every single point as by art. 111 of the Italian Constitution.


The alderman model (scabinato) applies (like the town council), rather than the petty jury model (like on TV).

A case before the Assize Court is like a coronial inquest, or a board of inquiry, or a Royal Commission.

The "translation" of corte d'assise into "jury" oversimplifies, and has led the naive ones astray in their expectations of what will/could/should happen.

Too much energy has been wasted.


Quote:
Pro-Amanda sites are in desperation as they used for months the wrong basis for their arguments without reading the various Italian originals of the verdict reports which was available to them at the cost of a translation. The conclusion is that the promoters of the websites and PR campaign are likely to have had full knowledge of the reports, the followers were just deceived.



I get the impression that it is more likely a lack of supervision, a laissez-faire in learning, that the older children are "teaching" the younger children because there is no-one around mature enough to do the leading and learning (why not? very often, money seems to be first priority). Alternative parallel explanation: a Moses-worshipper dynamic is being exploited (arising from historical reasons, very likely) where the worshippers believe and follow and the prophet-figure leads them (somewhere, hopefully).

In both cases, the naive ones are being led astray. To great injury, psychologically.

A similar dynamic is occurring with the science-worshippers and the anti-science worshippers. Plus also, wagon-and-fort thinking provides a template.[/quote]


Correct, "scabinato" in Italian law since 1930s.

On second point probably you are right. I justify parents - if they are the naive ones. We cannot justify the disgraceful reporting of most US TV networks which, influencing the mass audience, should have kept a bit of objectivity. It is laughable people in this forum translated the Massei report rather than the big networks with all their money. Shame on them and all of the lies they have spread - in complete ignorance - often forgetting even to mention the name of the victim.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Popper wrote:
Amanda made a bad choice going for full trial


Actually, Amanda's family made that decision for her - they quickly determined that she would be innocent all the way, no ifs, ands, or buts.



Yes you are right, Amanda parents decided (rather than her) - but I think that her lawyers were important and lawyers as a rule (in Italy fast track trial is relatively young) choose accordingly to the co-defendants if the co-defendants are "dangerous" to their client case. I guess lawyers also make more money in full trials, but this is not a huge difference as the first degree, appeal and Cassazione are quite long in both scenarios
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline odeed


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:49 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Those were the club buses only. The public transport buses were still running.

And it's a plain fact Curatolo was there, a witness (the kiosk owner) puts him there in the piazza that evening.


Other clubs or organisations could have also been running buses that night.


When buses argument was brought up on JREF, I did a quick search for Perugia bus time tables for November, though I could not find anything for 2007 but I did find references to extra bus services/routes being put on by local transport authority for the Day of the Dead festivities for the first week of November.

Also I have been reading early news articles (November 3-5 2007), they indicate that the police were looking for someone who knew Meredith, and that they thought that the break in was faked after the murder.

BTW, thank you for the translation of the motivations, had a quick read through initially.


Last edited by odeed on Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
It is laughable people in this forum translated the Massei report rather than the big networks with all their money.


True. They no longer want the Scoop, they want the money.

On the other hand, one Italian-speaker in one network would have given that network the scoop and the money.

The implication is that they are talking to themselves.
More mirrors on the wall.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Windfall,

I found an apposite epigraph for your thesis: the self-aware chivalrous knight:


Quote:

December 7, 2009
The White Charger Stays In The Stable

As a campaigner for liberty, and a sucker for damsels in distress, I was looking to work up a piece in defence of Amanda Knox.

Incarceration is a horrible thing. We lock up far, far too many people in the UK. Punishment is necessary in society, but there are innumerable other forms of punishment possible apart from prison. The only real reason I can think of to lock somebody away is that they pose a physical danger to others; why we lock people up for non-violent property crime I have no idea, especially as in the vast majority of cases the cost of incarceration is greater than the value of the property which was stolen.

But I am genuinely sorry to say that the more I researched the more I came to the conclusion that locking up Amanda Knox is rather sensible. Having previously simply seen the odd bit of news coverage, I am quite sure after further research that the balance of that reporting has been rather kinder to Amanda Knox than she deserved.

– [ Craig Murray ] Blog



What an interesting blog. Here is one of the comments left under the post Catnip linked to:

Quote:
Interesting response from an American perspective, to a rather simplistic Q&A in The Independent:

"Many Americans, contrary to media portrayal, do not wish to protest this verdict. We believe the Italian court did the right thing. Europe is seeing the U.S. through its media, and it's important to remember that the Knox family hired a professional PR firm. Many (if not most) Americans are grateful to the Italian court for its difficult decision and for being merciful. Also, many of us sincerely hope that the politicians stay out of it. There are so many real details about the case -- facts, events, witnesses, timelines (and, yes, Amanda's lies) -- that we don't hear about in our news."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 36076.html

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

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Popper wrote:
It is laughable people in this forum translated the Massei report rather than the big networks with all their money.


True. They no longer want the Scoop, they want the money.

On the other hand, one Italian-speaker in one network would have given that network the scoop and the money.

The implication is that they are talking to themselves.
More mirrors on the wall.



I saw one CBS journalist who was guest with many others at "Porta a porta" (famous program on Italian RAI 1). PaP dedicated 4 programs to the Perugia murder. She spoke Italian, although not very well, but had no idea of the case, probably never been to Court and never read the various sentences (Micheli sentence was already quite bad for the defendants). She was so pathetic. In the absence of AK lawyers (who were invited but declined, unlike all others) she was defending Amanda (and RS too) just with slogans. mr Vespa - the host himself a journalist - who is normally very kind and was very kind with all the other guests both accusing and defending AK and RS letting them speak at length - could not avoid showing his impatience for her ridiculous arguments.

You do not need one Italian-speaker journalist for the scoop/truth just one GOOD journalist with eyes and ears.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:

4. I thought she had temporarily lost the job of sorting the prisoners purchases after her conviction...? So maybe this is just old parts of the story


I don't know about the job, h9....but...
Based on what he described Amanda wearing, this meeting took place in the colder winter months--and not recently.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katy recently said on JREF:

I keep browsing other threads and wanting to post on them, but then I get so intimidated by the prospect of instantly appearing posts I chicken out...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
huh-) wtf)

You certainly seem (much to the silent exasperation of many) very *un* intimidated here with our instantaneous modus operandi.

More like a jack in the box or pesky mole than a scaredy cat chicken

That speaks volumes to me about the true inhibiting effect of the few " smart arses and Harsh-Harrys" here, sometimes so accused of driving people away.

Hats off despite our differing opinions...
Adult, world wary seasoned individuals such as yourself take some heat when they enter kitchens but return none the less as they deem necessary.
(unless their deliberate, agenda inspired presence tends to pollute the 'cookings')

In these rare instances the chef is forced to ask them to leave and closes the door on them.

And maybe slyly smile and say as they exit his kitchen>>>>>>>appropriate *drum roll* please>>>>>>"thanks for stopping by"
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

katy_did wrote:
stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.


There is always a possibility that the judge will order an examination of other claims. I am unsure about the claim of 'independent reviews' of the forensic evidence above all else. They already have independent observers who verified the work and the condition of the laboratories. There isn't much they can do to alter those results.

It's funny that the buses keep coming up. I would think a swift glance at the transit schedule for the operators would have accomplished the same thing. Did the lawyers really forget to do something so elementary the first time?

The fried hard disks sounds like a real fishing expedition. Is there reputed to be something relevant on there? Amanda's would be entirely irrelevant since it was at the cottage. How is it going to provide evidence that she wasn't there?

The audiometric test was already rejected with reason. That's a real coin toss since, as with the climbing stunt, it might wind up disproving the defence hypothesis.

The central problem with their statements and testimony is that each of them were proved to have lied to police and that means the onus is on them to fix those lies with corroboration. We know they didn't have dinner after about 20:30 on 01 NOV 2007, that the movie ended before they said it did, that Sollecito's conversation with his father was almost three hours prior to when he said it took place, and that they didn't awake first at around 10:00 on 02 NOV 2007. That means they need solid evidence to support their alibis. Does anything in the appeal provide that evidence?
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:17 pm   Post subject: Illusionism and the Iconostasis   

I was browsing through the gallery earlier today, going through the crime scene photos, and thinking:

  • what is the point of killing anyone? (or, more charitably to the perpatrators, letting the victim die?)
    and, perhaps it is the Australian Bush coming through in me, but looking at the little tell-tale tracks in the sand and soil always tells a story, and so:
    • the knife imprint on the bed looks rather neat, to my eye; similar to how I would use a rubber stamp on a piece of paper, perhaps a trifle too neat
    • the photos stuck on the wall and the side of the wardrobe were arranged in a rather pleasing repeating five-fold symmetry pattern, like the 5-side on dice; the impression is of a well-ordered, balanced artistic mind
    • so the notebook, positioned on the desk at right-angles to where the person seated at the desk would have been, stands out as anomalous; combined with the tissue paper, and the towel half-rolled up, half-strewn on the desk on the other side of the computer: all the items on the desk began to take on the air of having been arranged, posed; the tissues are in the exact position to be obviously incriminating, so tidily arranged.
    • the little tubes and containers of creams and lotions and bath things on the shelf on the wall between the wardrobe and the desk: some of those plastic bottles were lying on their side – not neatly standing up as you would have expected from a neat and organised person: they were knocked over, whether by a light tap on the shelf (from underneath, say) or by a heavy blow against the wall I couldn’t tell – depends what the wall is made of, and what marks it has.
    • the items around “L”: that dictionary was a Collins (old discussion with Brian S.!), and the items that were there when the blood started flowing but were no longer there when the photo was taken – from the shape of the outlines left behind, some cloth-like material was removed (the fabled towels? on the floor, though? the dressing gown was hanging up on something; maybe it was a mat that was lifted away?), and some other clean spaces on the floor where the blood flowed around some round-ended elongated objects, hard to guess what they were, shoe-shaped? maybe, but if so, what look like the heels are pointing in the same direction as the shoe that is still there – overall, combined with the skid marks and streaks on the other side, it looks like a sudden onslaught (dare I say, Blitzkrieg?) with frantic, brief, activity (and the dictionary looks as if it has been dropped), followed then by a longer cool-calm-collected and neater phase. Physically, and in terms of mental attitude, two or more minds were in on the attack, not one. If I were an investigator, I would have said Mr Messy would be an easy one to spot (and apprehend; uncoordinated, panicking, even), but Mr Quietly-Neat would be the more dangerous foe to apprehend, because you wouldn’t see him coming or anticipate his next move if you did see him (with hindsight, one can guess where Mr QN’s confidence stems from, if the conjecture is correct); signs of a sloppy lackadaisical third party – nothing there, physically; yet Mr Messy and Mr Neat would not be expected to take, or be expecting to be taking, orders from each other, so on this point, implicitly, there is an orchestrator somewhere
    • the pillow is in the wrong position for what Rudy claims he did – on that alone, he is a liar
    • the floor is not perfectly level; there is a slight dip downwards, where the blood pooled near the wardrobe, in the direction of the wall with the photos, the far wall, looking straight in from the doorway
  • All mere conjecture.
  • From nobody important.



Take it with a grain of salt.

Because, otherwise, a course of total denial and wall-to-wall lying is the only possible choice available for an individual, to say nothing of admitting it to someone else.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:

For example, I can take a streak of green I see in the sky and in isolation offer all sorts of arguments for what it is and why it's there. I can do the same for a streak of pink...and a streak of yellow and a streak of blue and so on. But when I leave them all together in context I have to admit that none of those other explanations are true because the context clearly shows it is actually a rainbow.


What a great visual analogy Michael! It's like a pointillist painting. If you are too close (in this case, too close emotionally) to the painting, all you see are many tiny points of color. Each one could easily be a part of a totally different reality. However, when you back away, the complete picture becomes clear. I think that's the way it is with this case. There is so much evidence from every angle, that it creates a whole picture. Only those who choose to hone in on each item singularly and do battle with it's value can't get it. Step away and look at the whole puzzle, every piece fits.
Top Profile 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.


Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?



May be I can help. Only the defense of Sollecito (not the defense of Amanda) claims in the appeal document (page 39) that no bus run that night from Piazza Grimana as clubs were closed. RS' defense asks the court of appeal to hear 2 witnesses on this matter (ms pucciarini and mr brughini, one an event organizer the other the owner of a disco, to confirm - and possibly other disco owners which were operating at the time the bus service to clubs). This, they claim, will re-evaluate Curatolo credibility.

It must be said that RS defense, while claiming that all clubs were closed (giving an explanation in the words of the new witnesses) forgets to observe that at least 2 clubs (i think they are called Domus and Velvet) were open as Rudy went there after the murder.


Last edited by Popper on Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
katy_did wrote:
stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.


There is always a possibility that the judge will order an examination of other claims. I am unsure about the claim of 'independent reviews' of the forensic evidence above all else. They already have independent observers who verified the work and the condition of the laboratories. There isn't much they can do to alter those results.

It's funny that the buses keep coming up. I would think a swift glance at the transit schedule for the operators would have accomplished the same thing. Did the lawyers really forget to do something so elementary the first time?

The fried hard disks sounds like a real fishing expedition. Is there reputed to be something relevant on there? Amanda's would be entirely irrelevant since it was at the cottage. How is it going to provide evidence that she wasn't there?
The audiometric test was already rejected with reason. That's a real coin toss since, as with the climbing stunt, it might wind up disproving the defence hypothesis.

The central problem with their statements and testimony is that each of them were proved to have lied to police and that means the onus is on them to fix those lies with corroboration. We know they didn't have dinner after about 20:30 on 01 NOV 2007, that the movie ended before they said it did, that Sollecito's conversation with his father was almost three hours prior to when he said it took place, and that they didn't awake first at around 10:00 on 02 NOV 2007. That means they need solid evidence to support their alibis. Does anything in the appeal provide that evidence?


I can't be certain, but I'm thinking the FOA mantra on this one is that if only those keystone cops hadn't fried them, there would be ample evidence of the close and loving relationship between Meredith and Amanda. Presumably in the form of pictures of the two together, one would guess.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 868

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Corrina wrote:
I can't be certain, but I'm thinking the FOA mantra on this one is that if only those keystone cops hadn't fried them, there would be ample evidence of the close and loving relationship between Meredith and Amanda. Presumably in the form of pictures of the two together, one would guess.


Hi Corinna. We know from sources that it is 99% unlikely that any such shots of AK and Meredith together existed. If they were taken people would have known - and frankly, they don't.

We also hear things that point to AK's growing unpopularity in general. By the time of the events of the night she seems to have had everyone keeping their distance - except RS, the peculiar loner, that is. If she sensed this, its hard to discern that she knew what to do to re-build some bridges. Drugs didnt help.

Out of interest, which if any of AK's shots in Perugia from her second ("permanent") time of arrival from Berlin forward have ever surfaced? She may have been an avid photographer, but distribution seems to have stopped short of the internet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
The Machine wrote:
katy_did wrote:
stilicho wrote:
It won't take long because they have nothing new excepting the jailhouse snitch. Everything else is already accounted for.

Other witnesses they're asking to introduce are the people who were running the buses to the clubs that night (or not running them, as it turns out) to point out inconsistencies in Curatolo's testimony. I think the key issue, though, may not be the witnesses but rather whether or not the judge orders any or all of the tests the defence is asking for: independent reviews of pretty well all the forensic evidence, audiometric testing on Nara's apartment, recovery of the various fried hard disks, etc... No idea on the likelihood or otherwise of the requests being granted.


Are you claiming there were no buses running in Perugia on 1 November 2007?



May be I can help. Only the defense of Sollecito (not the defense of Amanda) claims in the appeal document (page 39) that no bus run that night from Piazza Grimana as clubs were closed. RS' defense asks the court of appeal to hear 2 witnesses on this matter (ms pucciarini and mr brughini, one an event organizer the other the owner of a disco, to confirm - and possibly other disco owners which were operating at the time the bus service to clubs). This, they claim, will re-evaluate Curatolo credibility.


Rudy Guede went to a club after Meredith had been killed, so not all clubs were closed.

Stewart Home, who was in Perugia that evening, wrote the following:

"Give me a break! In Curatolo’s original deposition, he says he saw the buses for the disco and now and again he looked up (because of the noise) and saw the students passing by some with masks or dressed in black and some like witches, etc. This in fact matches Piazza Gimana that night perfectly. It’s is Thursday that the disco buses are there at 11:30 or so, and it was between Halloween and festa dei morti, there were tons of kids around that night in masks and costumes still. No doubt he was talking about November 1st. So he left out the masks and witches... big deal, it was not wrong. I was in Perugia… I don’t see any details in his testimony and/or deposition that were WRONG. In fact he was pretty darn on the mark! "
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Corrina wrote:
I can't be certain, but I'm thinking the FOA mantra on this one is that if only those keystone cops hadn't fried them, there would be ample evidence of the close and loving relationship between Meredith and Amanda. Presumably in the form of pictures of the two together, one would guess.


Hi Corinna. We know from sources that it is 99% unlikely that any such shots of AK and Meredith together existed. If they were taken people would have known - and frankly, they don't.

We also hear things that point to AK's growing unpopularity in general. By the time of the events of the night she seems to have had everyone keeping their distance - except RS, the peculiar loner, that is. If she sensed this, its hard to discern that she knew what to do to re-build some bridges. Drugs didnt help.

Out of interest, which if any of AK's shots in Perugia from her second ("permanent") time of arrival from Berlin forward have ever surfaced? She may have been an avid photographer, but distribution seems to have stopped short of the internet.


Pete, that's my idea on it as well. If these photos existed, somebody would have seen them. We have the photo of Amanda with Laura and Filomena.

******

Dempsey and her inflammatory bit about Rudy only getting 16 years yet not explaining why that is. Counting on the trolls, er, types that don't do their homework. It's been some time since Ms. Dempsey added to her blog. I'm happy that it does sound like she purchased herself a thesaurus.
Top Profile 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine: Correct. They were 2 clubs I think Velvet and Domus, I was writing it as edit in my last message as you wrote this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
The Machine: Correct. They were 2 clubs I think Velvet and Domus, I was writing it as edit in my last message as you wrote this.


Do you know how many buses go past Piazza Grimana?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

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

Corrina wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
Corrina wrote:
I can't be certain, but I'm thinking the FOA mantra on this one is that if only those keystone cops hadn't fried them, there would be ample evidence of the close and loving relationship between Meredith and Amanda. Presumably in the form of pictures of the two together, one would guess.


Hi Corinna. We know from sources that it is 99% unlikely that any such shots of AK and Meredith together existed. If they were taken people would have known - and frankly, they don't.

We also hear things that point to AK's growing unpopularity in general. By the time of the events of the night she seems to have had everyone keeping their distance - except RS, the peculiar loner, that is. If she sensed this, its hard to discern that she knew what to do to re-build some bridges. Drugs didnt help.

Out of interest, which if any of AK's shots in Perugia from her second ("permanent") time of arrival from Berlin forward have ever surfaced? She may have been an avid photographer, but distribution seems to have stopped short of the internet.


Pete, that's my idea on it as well. If these photos existed, somebody would have seen them. We have the photo of Amanda with Laura and Filomena.

******

Dempsey and her inflammatory bit about Rudy only getting 16 years yet not explaining why that is. Counting on the trolls, er, types that don't do their homework. It's been some time since Ms. Dempsey added to her blog. I'm happy that it does sound like she purchased herself a thesaurus.


The fact that no one in Meredith's entourage has come forward with photos of the two pals suggests that no such photos exist. If AK took photos, you would think she would have shared them somewhere.... on her MySpace page, for example, or with friends and family back home.

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

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

There is a moment in the Curt Knox interviews when he says "not a thread of fiber" in the murder room. He says it in a way that always strikes me as boasting.

In the Sollecito apartment we find a vacuum cleaner:

Attachment:
DeLonghi Colombina 1100.jpg


http://www.delonghi.com/it_it/family/stick-cleaners/

So, I looked for methods of evidence gathering and found:

Attachment:
collecting trace evidence.jpg


http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/corpse.html

The only place that needed scrupulous cleaning was Meredith's room. You might mop up markings on the floor but just as easily you can push fibers to the sides and leave them there for police to find. If you vacuum before mopping the chances of fibres turning up are diminished.

Knox's lamp on Meredith's floor and a CSI-style thorough clean-up becomes more likely.

They might have used a hand-held vacuum, not necessarily the vacuum at Sollecito's apartment.


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

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

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

Fast Pete wrote:
Corrina wrote:
I can't be certain, but I'm thinking the FOA mantra on this one is that if only those keystone cops hadn't fried them, there would be ample evidence of the close and loving relationship between Meredith and Amanda. Presumably in the form of pictures of the two together, one would guess.


Hi Corinna. We know from sources that it is 99% unlikely that any such shots of AK and Meredith together existed. If they were taken people would have known - and frankly, they don't.

We also hear things that point to AK's growing unpopularity in general. By the time of the events of the night she seems to have had everyone keeping their distance - except RS, the peculiar loner, that is. If she sensed this, its hard to discern that she knew what to do to re-build some bridges. Drugs didnt help.

Out of interest, which if any of AK's shots in Perugia from her second ("permanent") time of arrival from Berlin forward have ever surfaced? She may have been an avid photographer, but distribution seems to have stopped short of the internet.


Hello Peter,
From what I can see there is a rather large elephant in the room with regard to the social networking presence of Amanda Knox.
It is for instance well known that Amanda Knox posted on how she was getting on in Perugia and the great house she was living in with great people too - two great Italian girls by the names of Filomena and Laura, and Knox posted some happy shots of the three of them together which we are all familiar with.
One strange thing though, absolutely no mention of Meredith Kercher.
FOA members and various Knox groupies claim that this was because their heroine moved in before Meredith and these photo's were taken then. This is not true.
Amanda Knox laid a deposit before Meredith moved in but she did not move in at that time.
Meredith moved into the house before Amanda Knox did. Whatever the FOA and the groupies claim, this does not explain the subsequent updates on her social networking page (with no mention of Meredith) that Knox posted almost right up until the time of Merediths murder.
Edda Mellas would have everyone believe that Amanda and Meredith were absolutely devoted to each other, and she repeatedly mentions the chocolate festival they both went to as proof of this (as well as the phantom snaps on the "fried" hardrive) but of course anyone who was close to Amanda Knox and Meredith at the time have stated that they were not getting on at all and there relationship had cooled from the initial moving in and getting to know you phase to (on Merediths part) a distinct but subtle avoidance of Amanda Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Popper wrote:
The Machine: Correct. They were 2 clubs I think Velvet and Domus, I was writing it as edit in my last message as you wrote this.


Do you know how many buses go past Piazza Grimana?


Guede went to those 2 clubs (Velvet and Domus) which were therefore open. RS defense claims in the appeal that their investigatiion showed that all clubs [I read in Perugia] as usual on that day, were closed, therefore there were no club buses (navette). The point - if there were club buses or not - will be quite easy to ascertain for the court. Unlikely a mistake in first degree as everyone has known what Curatolo was saying for a long time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Popper wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Popper wrote:
The Machine: Correct. They were 2 clubs I think Velvet and Domus, I was writing it as edit in my last message as you wrote this.


Do you know how many buses go past Piazza Grimana?


Guede went to those 2 clubs (Velvet and Domus) which were therefore open. RS defense claims in the appeal that their investigatiion showed that all clubs [I read in Perugia] as usual on that day, were closed, therefore there were no club buses (navette). The point - if there were club buses or not - will be quite easy to ascertain for the court. Unlikely a mistake in first degree as everyone has known what Curatolo was saying for a long time.


Sollecito's defence team's claim that there were no club buses is clearly based on the false premise that that all the clubs in Perugia were closed on 1 November 2007.

Incidentally, there is a bus stop next to Piazza Grimana. The students that Antonio Curatolo saw could have taken public transport.


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 868

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks Skep. Hi Black Dog. Yeah the phasing of the arrivals is correct. Interesting insight that AK seemed to have not mentioned Meredith in the writings. It sure fits. AK seems to have been driven to partying even more than in her UW days. Poor Meredith working on her assigments with noisy partying etc 3-4 times a week in the next room and no sign of any let-up.

Again this brings us back to the issue of WHY was Knox's stay in Perugia so unusually so unstructured - and did Edda Mellas in particular sign off on AK heading to Perugia with only the vaguest study plans, not very much money, no Italian work permit that we know of, apparent psychological quirks, and a growing tendency to hit the drugs?

What did Edda know, and when did she know it? How wonderful if a tiger of an interviewer ever gets these out of her.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 12 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], The Machine and 0 guests

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

  

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


29,421,731 Views