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: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:57 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:57 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
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.

To go with that wouldn't there have been feedback coming in to Edda from the relatives in Germany where she blow off the internship. How many red flags ignored?
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 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Black Dog 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.


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.


The relationship between Meredith and Amanda doesn't appear to have made much of an impression on the court one way or the other. The worst that's written about it is from Robyn Butterworth:

Quote:
She also remembered that Meredith, talking about what was happening at home, sometimes expressed uneasiness.


[Massei, p. 34]

Any tension or unease they may have expressed for each other prior to 01 NOV 2007 doesn't figure into the sentencing report so I cannot see the point of resurrecting the hard drives to (dis)prove it.

Is anyone certain that this is really in the appeal? Any reason why? Maybe we're just chasing ghosts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi 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.



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....


Great post, SomeAlibi. I think your summary presents the challenge ahead for the convicted. One of the most downplayed aspects - downplayed by FOA that is, is the conflicting stories or as I like to call them, LIES of the convicted. You are absolutely right, the weight of the cumulative evidence is horrible - another fact that the FOA think they need not address. As if their (knox defenders) concocted, convoluted stories just wipe all of this magically away. Read the translated report! It cannot just be willed away!

Also, Popper - enjoyed reading your posts today.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
What did Edda know, and when did she know it? How wonderful if a tiger of an interviewer ever gets these out of her.


Hi Pete

As long as Edda is allowed her cordon of Palace Guards from the PR Firm forcing any interviewer's producers to prostitute themselves with only approved questions allowed in exchange for any access to her, nothing but subservient obedient church mice and cute, cuddly teddy bear type interviewers are going to keep tossing Edda the powder puffs talking points that the PR Firm wants the public to hear.

All questions and answers reinforce the superficial and subliminal PR main mantra.....Such a nice clean cut American college girl from Seattle could never do such a dirty deed
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I would like to add to my above post on the subject of the relationship between Amanda Knox and Meredith.
Concerning the well known bizarre behaviour of Amanda Knox and in particular the singing out loud when they were dining in a restaurant.
In Darkness Descending by Paul Russell and Graham Johnson, Meredith had held her hand out to Amanda Knox and invited her and Raffaele Sollecito to join her and her English friends to the meal.This was at the time when their relationship had certainly cooled.The conversation at the table between the English girls had left Amanda Knox in the background and she started singing out loud in protest, leaving all at the table acutely embarrassed. Later, instead of thanking Meredith for her company, Amanda Knox turned spitefully on Meredith.
A grinning Amanda Knox told Meredith "I fancy Giacomo aswell - he's cute, but I'll let you have him"

This to me is very threatening and intimidatory behaviour on the part of Amanda Knox towards Meredith and speaking like that to your "friend" about their boyfriend is nothing short of being downright horrible.
Edda Mellas says they got on great?
Yeah sure Edda.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Incidentally, there is a bus stop next to Piazza Grimana. The students that Antonio Curatolo saw could have taken public transport.


I would rate it as more than a bus stop. It is a major point for transferring between buses, and for exiting and entering the university area which is right behind the Università per Stranieri.

I can picture buses entering and exiting along five of the seven streets that arrive at the Piazza Grimana. The only two where I cannot picture buses is Garibaldi (too narrow, no turnaround) and Bartolo, which is very steep and cobbled at the lower end. (Via Bartolo in my view would be the main walking route of the girls up to Vanuci and the one Meredith and AK both mostly used.)

The other street up and down from Vanucci is longer: Ulise Rocchi (the one through the city gate) which is where some of the clubs are.

One of the odder sights in Perugia is seeing these large buses flying along through the narrow streets. Along with the new monorail, Perugia has terrific public transport.

There is a new very long escalator going in from the carpark above Meredith's house to Vanucci. That implies a future of a lot more parking construction in that area. My guess is Meredith's house will be one of the first to have to come down. Shots of all of these streets and the monorail are on TJMK if anyone is interested.

Added: I have wondered at times why Meredith and Sophie took the Via Pinturiccio route from the English girls' house in Bontempi. There is a faster prettier route by way of Via Delle Prome and then down those steps to Bartolo. The view at night from the top of those steps (Meredith's house is directly below but not visible) is quite stunning.

Added: Another factoid while I look at Mapquest. There is a road tunnel that passes right under the old town (Galleria Kennedy) and a pedestrian way up at its east end into the courts complex. AK and RS sometimes arrived at the court by that route to avoid the crowd in the piazza, and they left the court by that route on the night they were found guilty.


Last edited by Fast Pete on Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:27 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...

Judge Massei provided a credible motive for Amanda carrying the knife around: for protection while she walked home from her cafe job late at night.

If you don't accept that, how about this: Amanda was infatuated with a knife-obsessed immature guy, and she did it just to impress him, since she was so immature herself.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

How were these computer hard disks 'fried' may I ask? I am happy for you to tell me to "keep reading" but if there is a brief answer that would be appreciated. I do recall that RS coughed up a password but Amanda refused to give hers over.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
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.

I like your explanation the best of any so far, SA. Really explains AK's shaking fit when the knife drawer is opened.

Funny how she can lie and lie, but bodily reactions are another thing entirely.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
Patzu wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Patzu wrote:

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

I'll keep on reading the report...

Judge Massei provided a credible motive for Amanda carrying the knife around: for protection while she walked home from her cafe job late at night.

If you don't accept that, how about this: Amanda was infatuated with a knife-obsessed immature guy, and she did it just to impress him, since she was so immature herself.


The knife was a cheap one.. no need to bring to the cottage for preparing a meal. How about Amanda had the knife, waiting for a halloween prank opportunity and was inspired by the BF who carried knives too.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:46 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 ....

Pardon me, as I don't remember the original question.

However, your response is rambling and to no point that is clear.

So, Meredith was acquainted with Rudy. Please provide context as to what that proves or disproves.

Merely being acquainted with someone does not mean you will let them in your house, especially at night.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I have to admit a bit of a let down the Knox/Mellas circus has not taken to the airwaves since the availability of the translated report. If there was a public interest, the mainstream media would have been all over the story. If there was any possibility la_) was an innocent abroad, the public would care.

I'm getting bored waiting for the appeal, but the minute possibility Amanda will win keeps me coming back. Well, that and how the sentence may be changed.

Okay, maybe bit of anticipation for the Knox/Mellas hearing.

Can't think of anymore reasons to say Amanda is G*U*I*L*T*Y.

I've been living in this apartment for 3 years. Yesterday, I went to the kitchen sink and my mind went blank on which way to turn the faucet for hot water. Old timers? Oh, well. Always wanted to be an explorer when I grew up. Now everyday is an adventure. sur-)
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:12 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?


Machine:
Check this schedule under the heading "Fortebraccio, Piazza", which I think is the same as Pzza. Grimana.

http://www.apmperugia.it/pum/dovecome/dovecome2.htm
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 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
How were these computer hard disks 'fried' may I ask? I am happy for you to tell me to "keep reading" but if there is a brief answer that would be appreciated. I do recall that RS coughed up a password but Amanda refused to give hers over.


I don't think Sollecito volunteered his password:

Quote:
This was done and the machine was started by inserting the password ‚palmiottosollecito‛, obtained by combining the family names ‚Palmiotto‛ and ‚Sollecito‛ of the mother and father of the accused. (The laptop password was identified through intuition, being otherwise unknown to the Postal Police.)


[Massei, p. 303]

Most people don't set up their home computers with passwords. There's no real need for it unless you're also using it for work.

The 'fried' hard drives are mentioned, along with what appear to be duplicates of 'appeal points' settled during the first deliberations, on page 21 of the report. There are virtually unlimited ways to damage the contents on a hard drive. I still cannot understand what is supposed to be on Amanda's portable that will prove she was not at the cottage on the night of 01 NOV 2007.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pete (hi Pete!) said:

How wonderful if a tiger of an interviewer ever gets these out of her.

How wonderful to have an interviewer that didn't simper.

I rather fancy Chris Mellas vs Jeremy Paxman.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
How were these computer hard disks 'fried' may I ask? I am happy for you to tell me to "keep reading" but if there is a brief answer that would be appreciated. I do recall that RS coughed up a password but Amanda refused to give hers over.


I don't think Sollecito volunteered his password:

Quote:
This was done and the machine was started by inserting the password ‚palmiottosollecito‛, obtained by combining the family names ‚Palmiotto‛ and ‚Sollecito‛ of the mother and father of the accused. (The laptop password was identified through intuition, being otherwise unknown to the Postal Police.)


[Massei, p. 303]

Most people don't set up their home computers with passwords. There's no real need for it unless you're also using it for work.

The 'fried' hard drives are mentioned, along with what appear to be duplicates of 'appeal points' settled during the first deliberations, on page 21 of the report. There are virtually unlimited ways to damage the contents on a hard drive. I still cannot understand what is supposed to be on Amanda's portable that will prove she was not at the cottage on the night of 01 NOV 2007.



Sollecito did not volunteer his password; as indicated, the Postal Police found it intuitively. There is certianly nothing on AK's portable that would prove she was not in the cottage on the night of Nov 1, 2007. What on earth could that be? Massei, Cristiani and the jurors did not make much of AK's relationship with Meredith in reaching their verdict. So if the laptop contain(ed) data testifying to the nature of their relationship, it is irrelevant at this point.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
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 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

And that's something really irks me about Chris Mellas. If he's so arrogantly cocksure about everything, why doesn't the family allow a REAL hard-ball, non-mollycoddling interview with someone? I really would like to see Chris, Edda or Curt go toe to toe with someone who will argue the guilt of the convicted and display some intelligence and honesty in the process. I want to see Chris Mellas really put his money where his mouth is in an honest, non-PR sanctioned interview. And I don't mean Steve Shay. Is that too much to ask? I think that it is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

So have the police said what went 'wrong' when they tried to look for evidence on the computers and the hard disks were damaged?

As far as Amanda's computer.. yes photos... but imagine the wealth of AK writings and stories perhaps ;-)
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Two words for you Amanda and Raffaele;

Vileda
Supermocio


I get what you did you lying bastards, I'm sure of it! Incontrovertible proof? No, but it's absolutely sown-up-coherent. Smart, pretty smart!

Right - I understand the whole parade of the mop up and down the "high street"... I'm taking *pictures* and will be back tonight.


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.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hello again, after wonderful sunny week at the Adriatic I'm trying to catch up. Translated Motivation is very nice. I love the layout, fonts and easily searchable format. Good work!

I also just did some search on PMF last week posts using terms "Quintavalle" and "Volturno" to check how the discussion I had to leave went on.


I see that the insignificant issue of Quintavalle's and Volturno's conflicting testimonies have been briefly summarized by some posters. I must say that now, having the translated Report as a handy reference it is a pleasure to verify their claims.

The much more fundamental question of time of death got some time in the spotlight; I'm very happy!. If only I knew how to search PMF for time of death...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Two words for you Amanda and Raffaele;

Vileda
Supermocio


I get what you did you lying bastards, I'm sure of it! Incontrovertible proof? No, but it's absolutely sown-up-coherent. Smart, pretty smart!

Right - I understand the whole parade of the mop up and down the "high street"... I'm taking *pictures* and will be back tonight.


As a reminder, Kermit and May made a wonderful production about the whole mop thing. I am sure it is filed away somewhere here on PMF. I've just checked. It is in Media, under Kermit's ppts and presentations. It is called mopville mopcourt.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So have the police said what went 'wrong' when they tried to look for evidence on the computers and the hard disks were damaged?

As far as Amanda's computer.. yes photos... but imagine the wealth of AK writings and stories perhaps ;-)


I am certain someone explained it thoroughly in the case file but it didn't make it into the sentencing report. Why? Because it's irrelevant. The groupies make much of the 'incompetent police' frying the hard disks but nobody knows the extent of the damage let alone why it's supposed to be so vital. My limited experience is that it's pretty hard to wreck a hard drive so thoroughly that it's impossible to retrieve anything instead of simply difficult or expensive. You could probably do irretrievable damage by putting it in the microwave.

Back to the Massei Report: The reasons further effort or explanation wasn't put into those hard drives is that Sollecito's "offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise."

[Massei, p. 21]

That's a nice way of saying the other drives are irrelevant.
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 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Two words for you Amanda and Raffaele;

Vileda
Supermocio


I get what you did you lying bastards, I'm sure of it! Incontrovertible proof? No, but it's absolutely sown-up-coherent. Smart, pretty smart!

Right - I understand the whole parade of the mop up and down the "high street"... I'm taking *pictures* and will be back tonight.


As a reminder, Kermit and May made a wonderful production about the whole mop thing. I am sure it is filed away somewhere here on PMF. I've just checked. It is in Media, under Kermit's ppts and presentations. It is called mopville mopcourt.



I tried to get that earlier but unfortunately the file at filedropper no longer exists. Probably too old. Could someone re-upload it? I have no doubt Kermit may have got there first but could you give me the gist of any theory? Thanks!

_________________
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Massei Report:

...the hard disks were perfectly integral, pages 103-104, Assistant Trifici), and nothing of their external aspect gave any indication that three of them were non-functional.

[323] (The Encase software had not revealed the presence of working hard drives, as explained by the Postal Police testimony. To clone the hard drive, a write-prevention tool, Write Protect from Logic Cube, was applied; then another computer was used to read the linked hard drive: at this point, the Encase software and the operating system of the reader-computer ‚reported that no functioning hard drive was visible‛; page 99, Assistant Traffic’s deposition).

The first operation, which consisted of acquiring/copying the data, was carried out in the presence of the Sollecito Defence technical consultant Mr. Fabio Formenti. The initial activity had in fact been preceded by the appropriate written notification to the defence teams, and the Sollecito Defence team had appointed a consultant.

The cloning operations, concluded successfully, as mentioned, only for the MacBook PRO and Lumumba’s HP laptops, were carried out without any change of equipment in the same room where, being of interest, a few copies of Sollecito’s computer hard drive were produced. One of these, produced by the same means as the one used for the ‚analysis‛ activity of the Postal Police, was handed over to the Sollecito Defence consultant.- p. 300, 301.

I remember Michael saying it was the motherboards that were not working, not the hard drives.

It is clear several copies of the hard drives were made, to be used by investigators and defence teams.

Whatever was "fried", it is not an issue- all parties had a hard drive copy to work with.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So have the police said what went 'wrong' when they tried to look for evidence on the computers and the hard disks were damaged?

As far as Amanda's computer.. yes photos... but imagine the wealth of AK writings and stories perhaps ;-)


I am certain someone explained it thoroughly in the case file but it didn't make it into the sentencing report. Why? Because it's irrelevant. The groupies make much of the 'incompetent police' frying the hard disks but nobody knows the extent of the damage let alone why it's supposed to be so vital. My limited experience is that it's pretty hard to wreck a hard drive so thoroughly that it's impossible to retrieve anything instead of simply difficult or expensive. You could probably do irretrievable damage by putting it in the microwave.

Back to the Massei Report: The reasons further effort or explanation wasn't put into those hard drives is that Sollecito's "offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise."

[Massei, p. 21]

That's a nice way of saying the other drives are irrelevant.


There are generally two theories implied with respect to AK's hard drive:

1. That the police destroyed it through sheer incompetence;

2. That the police destroyed it as part of an active plot to suppress evidence that AK and MK were close friends, in order to advance the notion that AK killed MK because she hated her or they hated one another.

Obviously, the second insinuation is far more serious. Less obviously, but equally important, the first overstates the case. In other words, the police may have done something that resulted in this damage, but it doesn't mean they are incompetent. It could mean they made a mistake, which might include dropping the laptop.

Regardless, what both of these insinuations presume -- falsely -- is that the hard drive contained proof that would exonerate AK in some way. We know that the laptop was found in the cottage on Nov 2, so it could not contain support for AK's alibi. Therefore, the damage to the hard drive does not alter AK's situation or the evidence against her in the least.

And more importantly, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that anyone deliberately destroyed AK's hard drive. No evidence whatsoever has been presented to support this allegation.

It is a fact that, in today's world, people who become suspects in murder or other serious crime cases can expect to have their computers and cell phones seized. These objects and related records are part of investigative due diligence. In this case, it is too bad the hard drive got fried. But it changes absolutely nothing.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Two words for you Amanda and Raffaele;

Vileda
Supermocio


I get what you did you lying bastards, I'm sure of it! Incontrovertible proof? No, but it's absolutely sown-up-coherent. Smart, pretty smart!

Right - I understand the whole parade of the mop up and down the "high street"... I'm taking *pictures* and will be back tonight.


As a reminder, Kermit and May made a wonderful production about the whole mop thing. I am sure it is filed away somewhere here on PMF. I've just checked. It is in Media, under Kermit's ppts and presentations. It is called mopville mopcourt.



I tried to get that earlier but unfortunately the file at filedropper no longer exists. Probably too old. Could someone re-upload it? I have no doubt Kermit may have got there first but could you give me the gist of any theory? Thanks!

Here is the Mop Court video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKQpE1gyTQ
mop-) :lol:
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 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
The much more fundamental question of time of death got some time in the spotlight; I'm very happy!. If only I knew how to search PMF for time of death...


Why did Knox and Sollecito lie to the police about his call from his father (23:00) and her account of having a very bloody fish for supper some time later than 22:00? It appears each of them are in direct conflict with the defence claims that Meredith died between 20:00 and 21:30. They really wanted their alibis to cover the 23:00 timeframe.

Any idea why they thought that might be Meredith's actual time of death?
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 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
I remember Michael saying it was the motherboards that were not working, not the hard drives.


They popped three motherboards? Really? Actually, in all seriousness, that does sound really really stupid.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
The much more fundamental question of time of death got some time in the spotlight; I'm very happy!. If only I knew how to search PMF for time of death...


Why did Knox and Sollecito lie to the police about his call from his father (23:00) and her account of having a very bloody fish for supper some time later than 22:00? It appears each of them are in direct conflict with the defence claims that Meredith died between 20:00 and 21:30. They really wanted their alibis to cover the 23:00 timeframe.

Any idea why they thought that might be Meredith's actual time of death?


When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Well, yes unfortunate to mess up the computer investigation. Thanks for the detailed info, piktor and summary, skep. Does sound weird to disable several, however I accept that the chance of any significant information not being obtained is low.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I love super mocio. Very efficient and oddly more robust than sponge mops. :D
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 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Two words for you Amanda and Raffaele;

Vileda
Supermocio


I get what you did you lying bastards, I'm sure of it! Incontrovertible proof? No, but it's absolutely sown-up-coherent. Smart, pretty smart!

Right - I understand the whole parade of the mop up and down the "high street"... I'm taking *pictures* and will be back tonight.


As a reminder, Kermit and May made a wonderful production about the whole mop thing. I am sure it is filed away somewhere here on PMF. I've just checked. It is in Media, under Kermit's ppts and presentations. It is called mopville mopcourt.



I tried to get that earlier but unfortunately the file at filedropper no longer exists. Probably too old. Could someone re-upload it? I have no doubt Kermit may have got there first but could you give me the gist of any theory? Thanks!

Here is the Mop Court video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKQpE1gyTQ
mop-) :lol:



Thanks Jools. Kermit was going top send it to me so I could upload it to the board again but he never got around to it. I've now embedded it into the Kermit PowerPoint thread in the 'Media' subforum :)

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.


What do you think?
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 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
piktor wrote:
I remember Michael saying it was the motherboards that were not working, not the hard drives.


They popped three motherboards? Really? Actually, in all seriousness, that does sound really really stupid.


No, I don't think it was me that said it was the motherboards. It was the drives...blowing the boards shouldn't effect being able to read the drives anyway, since the drives are removed from the machine to do it. The police didn't even turn the computers on.

Anyway, Massei states in the report that the defence experts were present when the postal police examined the drives. They made no objections to any of their techniques.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
The much more fundamental question of time of death got some time in the spotlight; I'm very happy!. If only I knew how to search PMF for time of death...


Why did Knox and Sollecito lie to the police about his call from his father (23:00) and her account of having a very bloody fish for supper some time later than 22:00? It appears each of them are in direct conflict with the defence claims that Meredith died between 20:00 and 21:30. They really wanted their alibis to cover the 23:00 timeframe.

Any idea why they thought that might be Meredith's actual time of death?


When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.


Why not just answer the question? It is based on fact, not speculation. In fact, there are several questions. Why do you think Sollecito lied about the time of his father's call, saying it was after 11 pm when in fact it was just after 8:30 pm? Why did Knox say they ate very late, 10 or 11 pm, when Sollecito told his father when he called that they had eaten and he had just discovered a leak under the sink while doing the dishes? That both of them lied is not speculation. The question is why? Stilicho speculates that it may be because they wanted to give themselves an alibi for the time of Meredith's death, which (in this scenario) they knew because they were present when it happened. This is an intriguing idea, don't you think? It is also interesting that Sollecito claimed his father had called his landline (not his cell phone) at 11 pm, which in fact was not true. No conversation between the two took place at or around 11 pm.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.


Well, you're reading the Massei Report aren't you? It contains the whole debate and conclusions on the TOD. What do you want to know that isn't in the report?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

General information on TOD:

Evidence of the time elapsed since death, the post-mortem
interval, may come from the body of the deceased, from the
environment in the vicinity of the body, and from information
on the deceased’s habits, movements, and day-to-day
activities. All three sources of evidence - corporal,
environmental and anamnestic - should be explored and
assessed before offering an opinion on when death occurred.
The longer the post-mortem interval then the less accurate is
the estimate of it based upon corporal changes. As a
consequence, the longer the post-mortem interval then the
more likely it is that anamnestic or environmental evidence
will provide the most reliable estimates of the time elapsed...


Many physico-chemical changes begin to take place in the
body immediately or shortly after death and progress in a
fairly orderly fashion until the body disintegrates. Each change
progresses at its own rate which, unfortunately, is strongly
influenced by largely unpredictable endogenous and
environmental factors. Consequently, using the evolution of
post-mortem changes to estimate the post-mortem interval is
invariably difficult, and always of limited accuracy.

Body Cooling

Body cooling is the most useful single indicator of the postmortem
interval during the first 24 hours after death. The use
of this method is only possible in cool and temperate climates,
because in tropical regions there may be a minimal fall in
body temperature post-mortem, and in some extreme climates,
such as desert regions, the body temperature may even rise
after death.

Since body heat production ceases soon after death but loss of
heat continues, the body cools. The fall in body temperature
after death is mainly the result of radiation and convection.
Evaporation may be a significant factor if the body or clothing
is wet, and heat loss by conduction may be considerable if the
body is lying on a cold surface. Newton's law of cooling states
that the rate of cooling of an object is determined by the
difference between the temperature of the object and the
temperature of its environment, so that a graphical plot of
temperature against time gives an exponential curve.

However, Newton's law applies to small inorganic objects and
does not accurately describe the cooling of a corpse which has
a large mass, an irregular shape, and is composed of tissues of
different physical properties. The cooling of a human body is
best represented by a sigmoid curve when temperature is
plotted against time. Thus, there is an initial maintenance of
body temperature which may last for some hours - the socalled
‘temperature plateau’ - followed by a relatively linear
rate of cooling, which subsequently slows rapidly as the body
approaches the environmental temperature. The post-mortem
temperature plateau is physically determined and is not a
special feature of the dead human body. Any inert body with a
low thermal conductivity has such a plateau during its early
cooling phase. The post-mortem temperature plateau generally
lasts between a half and one hour, but may persist for as long
as three hours, and some authorities claim that it may persist
for as long as five hours.

It is usually assumed that the body temperature at the time of
death was normal i.e. 37°C. However, in individual cases the
body temperature at death may be subnormal or markedly
raised. As well as in deaths from hypothermia, the body
temperature at death may be sub-normal in cases of congestive
cardiac failure, massive haemorrhage, and shock. The body
temperature may be raised at the time of death following an
intense struggle, in heat stroke, in some infections, and in
cases of haemorrhagic stroke involving the pons. Where there
is a fulminating infection, e.g. septicaemia, the body
temperature may continue to rise for some hours after death.

Thus the two important unknowns in assessing time of death
from body temperature are the actual body temperature at the
time of death, and the actual length of the post-mortem
temperature plateau. For this reason assessment of time of
death from body temperature cannot be accurate in the first
four to five hours after death when these two unknown factors
have a dominant influence. Similarly, body temperature
cannot be a useful guide to time of death when the cadaveric
temperature approaches that of the environment. However, in
the intervening period, over the linear part of the sigmoid
cooling curve, any formula which involves an averaging of the
temperature decline per hour may well give a reasonably
reliable approximation of the time elapsed since death. It is in
this limited way that the cadaveric temperature may assist in
estimating the time of death in the early post mortem period.

Unfortunately the linear rate of post-mortem cooling is
affected by environmental factors other than the
environmental temperature and by cadaveric factors other than
the body temperature at the time of death. The most important
of these factors are body size, body clothing or coverings, air
movement and humidity, and wetting or immersion in water.
Body size is a factor because the greater the surface area of the
body relative to its mass, the more rapid will be its cooling.
Consequently, the heavier the physique and the greater the
obesity of the body, the slower will be the heat loss. Children
lose heat more quickly because their surface area to mass ratio
is much greater than for adults. The exposed surface area of
the body radiating heat to the environment will vary with the
body position. If the body is supine and extended, only 80% of
the total surface area effectively loses heat, and in the foetal
position the proportion is only 60%. Clothing and coverings
insulate the body from the environment and therefore slow
body cooling. The effect of clothing has a greater impact on
corpses of low body weight. A bedspread covering may at
least halve the rate of cooling. For practical purposes, only the
clothing or covering of the lower trunk is relevant.

Air movement accelerates cooling by promoting convection,
and even the slightest sustained air movement is significant if
the body is naked, thinly clothed or wet. Cooling is more rapid
in a humid rather than a dry atmosphere because moist air is a
better conductor of heat. In addition the humidity of the
atmosphere will affect cooling by evaporation where the body
or its clothing is wet. A cadaver cools more rapidly in water
than in air because water is a far better conductor of heat. For
a given environmental temperature, cooling in still water is
about twice as fast as in air, and in flowing water, about three
times as fast.

Simple formulae for estimating the time of death from body
temperature are now regarded as naive. The best tested and
most sophisticated current method for estimating the postmortem
interval from body temperature is that of the German
researcher Henssge. Even so, it is acknowledged that the
method may produce occasional anomalous results. It uses a
nomogram based upon a complex formula, which
approximates the sigmoid-shaped cooling curve. To make the
estimate of post-mortem interval, using this method requires
(a) the body weight, (b) the average environmental
temperature since death and (c) the core body temperature
measured at a known time, and assumes a normal body
temperature at death of 37.2oC. Empiric corrective factors
allow for the effect of important variables such as clothing,
wetting and air movement. At its most accurate this
sophisticated methodology provides an estimate of the time of
death within a time span of 5.6 hours with 95% probability.
Gathering the data necessary to use this method for estimating
time of death means that the body temperature should be
recorded as early as conveniently possible at the scene of
death. The prevailing environmental temperature should also
be recorded at the same time, and a note made of the
environmental conditions at the time the body was first
discovered, and any subsequent variation in those conditions.
Measuring the body core temperature requires a direct
measurement of the intra-abdominal temperature. Oral and
axillary temperatures of a corpse do not reflect the core
temperature and cannot be used. Either the temperature is
measured rectally, or the intra-hepatic or sub-hepatic
temperature is measured through an abdominal wall stab. An
ordinary clinical thermometer is useless because its range is
too small and the thermometer is too short. A chemical
thermometer 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 cm) long with a range
from 0 to 50°C is ideal. Alternatively a thermocouple probe
may be used and this has the advantage of a digital readout or
a printed record....


Gastric contents

If the last known meal is still present in the stomach of a
corpse and the time of that meal is known, then it can give
some general indication of the interval between the meal and
death. In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred
within 3 to 4 hours of eating. Similarly if half of the meal is
present then it is reasonably certain that death occurred not
less than one hour and not more than 10 hours after eating.
However, these are broad generalisations and difficulties arise
in individual cases because the biology of gastric emptying is
complex and influenced by a wide variety of factors including
the size and type of meal, drugs, stress and natural disease.

Remarkably liquids, digestible solids and non-digestible solids
ingested together in the same meal will leave the stomach at
different rates. The emptying of low-calorie liquids is volume-dependant
(monexponential) resulting from the motor activity
of the proximal stomach. By contrast digestible solids empty
more slowly, in an approximately linear pattern after an initial
lag period, primarily as a result of the motor activity of the
distal stomach. Non-digestible solids which cannot be ground
up by the stomach into smaller particles are emptied after the
liquid and digestible solids, during the so called inter-digestive
period, as a result of a specific wave of motor activity in the
stomach. In general meals of a higher osmotic and caloric
content are emptied more slowly.

However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.

There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours.



Read the whole lecture here: TIME SINCE DEATH

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
piktor wrote:
I remember Michael saying it was the motherboards that were not working, not the hard drives.


They popped three motherboards? Really? Actually, in all seriousness, that does sound really really stupid.


No, I don't think it was me that said it was the motherboards. It was the drives...blowing the boards shouldn't effect being able to read the drives anyway, since the drives are removed from the machine to do it. The police didn't even turn the computers on.

Anyway, Massei states in the report that the defence experts were present when the postal police examined the drives. They made no objections to any of their techniques.


The computer that supposedly was going to give RS an alibi [Amelie, etc] was the Apple Macbook-pro laptop and nothing happened with that one.


Last edited by Jools on Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:01 pm, 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 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
piktor wrote:
I remember Michael saying it was the motherboards that were not working, not the hard drives.


They popped three motherboards? Really? Actually, in all seriousness, that does sound really really stupid.


No, I don't think it was me that said it was the motherboards. It was the drives...blowing the boards shouldn't effect being able to read the drives anyway, since the drives are removed from the machine to do it. The police didn't even turn the computers on.

Anyway, Massei states in the report that the defence experts were present when the postal police examined the drives. They made no objections to any of their techniques.


Massei Report:

The computers of Knox, Sollecito, Lumumba and Meredith Kercher were examined first by the Scientific Police for fingerprints, and then, starting on 13 November 2007, five sets of technical tests were carried out by the Postal Police (cf. record of the Flying Squad, 3rd section produced at the 14 March 2009 hearing).

As far as the accused Raffaele Sollecito goes, the Postal Police technical examination was carried out only on his MacBook PRO Apple laptop. Insofar as his other PC, an ASUS L300D, as well as Amanda Knox’s Toshiba serial number 7541811OK and Meredith Kercher’s G4 iBook sustained damage, it was impossible to retrieve data from their respective hard drives. [page 299]

The verification of the MacBook PRO’s functioning ( only one, as before said, analysed, and the only one this report will discuss) within the aforementioned timeframe consisted of the performance of two fundamental operations.-

First, there was the ‚acquisition‛ of the entire contents of the laptop’s hard disk(s) (a kind of cloning/copying of the hard drive). Second, there was an ‚analysis‛ of the image obtained. [p.300]

This means Massei only discusses Sollecito's MacBook PRO hard drive contents.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.


Well, you're reading the Massei Report aren't you? It contains the whole debate and conclusions on the TOD. What do you want to know that isn't in the report?



Indeed, Massei does a good job of presenting and analyzing the issue. I don't see what we could add on this board.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Pete (hi Pete!) said:

How wonderful if a tiger of an interviewer ever gets these out of her.

How wonderful to have an interviewer that didn't simper.

I rather fancy Chris Mellas vs Jeremy Paxman.


He'd be toast..! Oh, it would be a dream...



_________________
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Piktor says:
"[quoting Report] The verification of the MacBook PRO’s functioning ( only one, as before said, analysed, and the only one this report will discuss) within the aforementioned timeframe consisted of the performance of two fundamental operations.-
First, there was the ‚acquisition‛ of the entire contents of the laptop’s hard disk(s) (a kind of cloning/copying of the hard drive). Second, there was an ‚analysis‛ of the image obtained. [p.300]

This means Massei only discusses Sollecito's MacBook PRO hard drive contents."


To dot the i's and cross the t's here:

Sollecito's MacBook was the one used to play the movie early in the evening, and fails to support their claim this happened late enough to provide an alibi.
And Sollecito's MacBook shows the early morning activity that demolishes his claim to have been asleep until later in the morning.

While I'd be happy to see what their other computers show, it is unclear that there could be anything useful to the defense on them, and the defense has not - that I've heard - claimed there would have been.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jeremy Paxman IS God.

Could he run the next Presidential So-Called Debates?
Please?
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 11:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Katody wrote:
When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.


Well, you're reading the Massei Report aren't you? It contains the whole debate and conclusions on the TOD. What do you want to know that isn't in the report?



Indeed, Massei does a good job of presenting and analyzing the issue. I don't see what we could add on this board.



Why is it, that the Knox supporters come here...take the report and then ask us to do all the work for them?

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


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

Offline Katody


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
Katody wrote:
When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.


What do you think?


My personal opinion is that Meredith was attacked as soon as she entered the house, and died of her wounds shortly after that. Lots of clues support it
    autopsy: stomach full, empty duodenum
    abnormal Meredith's phone activity
    unflushed Rudy's feces

What is apparent from the Report is the effort to push the time of attack, e.g. by very unconvincing explanation of abnormal phone activities, and emphasizing very improbable edge cases like:
Massei wrote:
assuming that Meredith began to eat at around 6 pm, the gastric emptying could have occurred around midnight, or even later.


As for the speculations about lying: You are of course entitled to believe that they lied (deliberately presented falsehoods to deceive). But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.
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 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.


Speaking as one of those who requested more patience, can I just say I have completely changed my view since moodstream's little game. In the end I could see within about seven posts that it was totally pointless engaging with someone like that. To suggest that we held Amanda to too high a standard was preposterous, and disrespectful to Meredith and her family in my view. This may seem melodramatic, but I do honestly think that if a member of the FOA's family had suffered as Meredith did they would feel quite differently about things. Any human being deserves the truth behind the circumstances of their death to be told if there is cause for concern. It is so basic, so intrinsic to the process of grieving that to suggest that a 'standard is too high' or to offer 'the best truth I can remember' simply does not cut it. It's just NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Meredith's family deserve the truth, the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth. To lower this bar is to devalue them, and by extension all of us.

In future I will try to bite my tongue and let more experienced people deal with trolls as they see fit (we have some troll spray left over I think). The discussion about new posters was interesting however. Just witness the elegant entry of Earl Grey! Nicely done... sun-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
e.g. by very unconvincing explanation of abnormal phone activities, and emphasizing very improbable edge cases like:

I am unfamiliar with the phrase "edge cases" can you define your meaning here?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:

My personal opinion is that Meredith was attacked as soon as she entered the house, and died of her wounds shortly after that. Lots of clues support it
    autopsy: stomach full, empty duodenum
    abnormal Meredith's phone activity
    unflushed Rudy's feces

What is apparent from the Report is the effort to push the time of attack, e.g. by very unconvincing explanation of abnormal phone activities, and emphasizing very improbable edge cases like:
Massei wrote:
assuming that Meredith began to eat at around 6 pm, the gastric emptying could have occurred around midnight, or even later.


As for the speculations about lying: You are of course entitled to believe that they lied (deliberately presented falsehoods to deceive). But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.


Well from my reading of the report absolutely none of the expert witnesses are are as confident as you about the time of death, based on the stomach contents. Maybe I have misunderstood

If you are going to criticise anyone for "speculation" I think you want to ditch the "abnormal phone activity" because it does not tell us anything

Do you have some way of determining the time the faeces were deposited? If not what do they tell us?

What is apparent is that nothing in the report "pushes" the time of the attack at all, so far as I can see.

As to them lying: there is no doubt in my mind at all that they were lying because that is what I call it when people do not tell the truth about things they cannot be in doubt about: such as the time they got up
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The phone records can't prove anything empirically about the TOD. The phone can't tell you who pushed the buttons. It could even be "ass-dialling" or "pocket-dialling" if the keypad isn't locked. It isn't illuminating.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
The much more fundamental question of time of death got some time in the spotlight; I'm very happy!. If only I knew how to search PMF for time of death...


Why did Knox and Sollecito lie to the police about his call from his father (23:00) and her account of having a very bloody fish for supper some time later than 22:00? It appears each of them are in direct conflict with the defence claims that Meredith died between 20:00 and 21:30. They really wanted their alibis to cover the 23:00 timeframe.

Any idea why they thought that might be Meredith's actual time of death?


When I mentioned time of death I meant facts like body temp, stomach contents and even phone activity. But it is interesting to see how far you can go with your speculations.

Meaning how far YOU want to go with the stomach content issue or am I missing your meaning?
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 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
autopsy: stomach full, empty duodenum
abnormal Meredith's phone activity
unflushed Rudy's feces


You only require 'clues' to assert a revised TOD, not actual evidence? What about all the clues and wait for it...'evidence' that she died some time after eleven? Are those inconvenient?

I don't see what the feaces has to do with it. Tidy could just as easily have left it there after eleven. As for the phone activity...I fiddle with my phone all the time, it doesn't mean I'm just about to die or have just been murdered.

As for the stomach contents, did you miss the little lecture I posted on TID just a few posts above? Here's the relevant part again, just for you:

Evidence of the time elapsed since death, the post-mortem
interval, may come from the body of the deceased, from the
environment in the vicinity of the body, and from information
on the deceased’s habits, movements, and day-to-day
activities. All three sources of evidence - corporal,
environmental and anamnestic - should be explored and
assessed before offering an opinion on when death occurred.

The longer the post-mortem interval then the less accurate is
the estimate of it based upon corporal changes. As a
consequence, the longer the post-mortem interval then the
more likely it is that anamnestic or environmental evidence
will provide the most reliable estimates of the time elapsed
...

Gastric contents

If the last known meal is still present in the stomach of a
corpse and the time of that meal is known, then it can give
some general indication of the interval between the meal and
death. In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred
within 3 to 4 hours of eating. Similarly if half of the meal is
present then it is reasonably certain that death occurred not
less than one hour and not more than 10 hours after eating.
However, these are broad generalisations and difficulties arise
in individual cases because the biology of gastric emptying is
complex and influenced by a wide variety of factors including
the size and type of meal, drugs, stress and natural disease.

Remarkably liquids, digestible solids and non-digestible solids
ingested together in the same meal will leave the stomach at
different rates. The emptying of low-calorie liquids is volume-dependant
(monexponential) resulting from the motor activity
of the proximal stomach. By contrast digestible solids empty
more slowly, in an approximately linear pattern after an initial
lag period, primarily as a result of the motor activity of the
distal stomach. Non-digestible solids which cannot be ground
up by the stomach into smaller particles are emptied after the
liquid and digestible solids, during the so called inter-digestive
period, as a result of a specific wave of motor activity in the
stomach. In general meals of a higher osmotic and caloric
content are emptied more slowly.

However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.

There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours.

_________________
"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 Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
As for the speculations about lying: You are of course entitled to believe that they lied (deliberately presented falsehoods to deceive). But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.

Meaning that AK and RS don't lie or what is this in response to? I'm not getting your meaning here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
As for the speculations about lying: You are of course entitled to believe that they lied (deliberately presented falsehoods to deceive). But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.


You sound simple-minded.

Was Amanda Knox telling the truth when she claimed Diya Lumumba had killed Meredith?

Was Raffaele Sollecito telling the truth when he claimed that he had accidentally pricked Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

Sollecito claimed that Knox was with him on the night of the murder and then he claimed that she wasn't with him from around 9.00pm to 1.00am.

Do you have the intellectual capacity to understand that one of these claims can't possibly be true?

Sollecito even admitted that he had lied to the police.

Was he lying or telling the truth?


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
I have to admit a bit of a let down the Knox/Mellas circus has not taken to the airwaves since the availability of the translated report. If there was a public interest, the mainstream media would have been all over the story. If there was any possibility la_) was an innocent abroad, the public would care.

I'm getting bored waiting for the appeal, but the minute possibility Amanda will win keeps me coming back. Well, that and how the sentence may be changed.

Okay, maybe bit of anticipation for the Knox/Mellas hearing.

Can't think of anymore reasons to say Amanda is G*U*I*L*T*Y.

I've been living in this apartment for 3 years. Yesterday, I went to the kitchen sink and my mind went blank on which way to turn the faucet for hot water. Old timers? Oh, well. Always wanted to be an explorer when I grew up. Now everyday is an adventure. sur-)


Nobody wants to talk to me? hbc)
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
Hello again, after wonderful sunny week at the Adriatic I'm trying to catch up. Translated Motivation is very nice. I love the layout, fonts and easily searchable format. Good work!

I also just did some search on PMF last week posts using terms "Quintavalle" and "Volturno" to check how the discussion I had to leave went on.


I see that the insignificant issue of Quintavalle's and Volturno's conflicting testimonies have been briefly summarized by some posters. I must say that now, having the translated Report as a handy reference it is a pleasure to verify their claims.

The much more fundamental question of time of death got some time in the spotlight; I'm very happy!. If only I knew how to search PMF for time of death...

Your refresher in the Adriatic sun seems to have left you all the more dependent on someone holding your hand and leading you through the evidence and where to access it and how to join in the dialogue that is occurring now hasn't it?


Last edited by Macport on Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
As for the speculations about lying: You are of course entitled to believe that they lied (deliberately presented falsehoods to deceive). But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.


Those are what we call 'weasel words'. I fail to see how any 'honest' individual can deny that Amanda and Raffaele told lies.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Emerald wrote:
I have to admit a bit of a let down the Knox/Mellas circus has not taken to the airwaves since the availability of the translated report. If there was a public interest, the mainstream media would have been all over the story. If there was any possibility la_) was an innocent abroad, the public would care.

I'm getting bored waiting for the appeal, but the minute possibility Amanda will win keeps me coming back. Well, that and how the sentence may be changed.

Okay, maybe bit of anticipation for the Knox/Mellas hearing.

Can't think of anymore reasons to say Amanda is G*U*I*L*T*Y.

I've been living in this apartment for 3 years. Yesterday, I went to the kitchen sink and my mind went blank on which way to turn the faucet for hot water. Old timers? Oh, well. Always wanted to be an explorer when I grew up. Now everyday is an adventure. sur-)


Nobody wants to talk to me? hbc)


Awwww....Emerald! I missed your post, and lots of others too. They're coming thick and fast suddenly!

hugz-)


As for the tap thing, don't worry. Tonight I did that thing where you put your casserole in the oven for ten minutes, then think 'Ooo I will put some fresh herbs in!' then potter out to get some, feeling all Jamie Oliver, come back in, get casserole out of the oven WITH OVEN GLOVES, and promptly take the lid off it with your BARE HANDS, leading to quite a lot of sweary type words and nasty smell of burning flesh. The synapses are just dying off slowly. It's nothing to worry about...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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.


Speaking as one of those who requested more patience, can I just say I have completely changed my view since moodstream's little game. In the end I could see within about seven posts that it was totally pointless engaging with someone like that. To suggest that we held Amanda to too high a standard was preposterous, and disrespectful to Meredith and her family in my view. This may seem melodramatic, but I do honestly think that if a member of the FOA's family had suffered as Meredith did they would feel quite differently about things. Any human being deserves the truth behind the circumstances of their death to be told if there is cause for concern. It is so basic, so intrinsic to the process of grieving that to suggest that a 'standard is too high' or to offer 'the best truth I can remember' simply does not cut it. It's just NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Meredith's family deserve the truth, the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth. To lower this bar is to devalue them, and by extension all of us.

In future I will try to bite my tongue and let more experienced people deal with trolls as they see fit (we have some troll spray left over I think). The discussion about new posters was interesting however. Just witness the elegant entry of Earl Grey! Nicely done... sun-)



I couldn't agree more and one of the things that I'm most sick of reading bt these FOA types is along the lines of "Meredith's death was a tragedy, but let's not let two more lives be destroyed by injustice", or whatever.

The only life that was destroyed was Meredith Kercher's and NO ONE ELSES! Get that through your thick skulls!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I shoulda known it - a key thing concerning the mop I was excited about had been spotted before by Kermit and partner(s) in the video linked above. Bah! At least I got that frisson of excitement of having spotted it though. Huzzah! It stands to reason others may have totally gone over ALL of the below on the mop before but since lots of people including me were discussing and scratching heads today, I believe I may as well post to clarify what exactly I think was going on imho. I hope it at least draws it all together even if it's all been said before.


The mop? What is it with that mop – as Fiona says it just doesn’t make any sense. If Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up a murder scene, what was Amanda doing walking that mop down the metaphorical “high street” from the cottage to Raffaele’s and then back again with it so conspicuously on parade? We know, just to recap, that the story of the spill is just a tiny tad inconsistent. Courtesy of the crimescene video, we can see there are 8 cloths and sponges in the very cupboard under the kitchen sink. Only *part* of the stash clipped here;

Attachment:
3 clothes and 1 sponge.JPG



Five of them are absorbent sponge clothes that could simply be wrung out in a pan. There is a towel over the oven hand-rail. There are two thick bath-towels just round the corner in the bathroom. Seems like they had an *awful* lot to mop up a spill without having to use a mop huh? They couldn’t mop it up, the FOA say, it was too prodigious – there was a deluge! Well actually we know it was only a leak – the pipe was not disconnected – that was done by the police. And we know it happened while Raffaele was doing the washing up – courtesy of Amanda Knox;


After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. “ – Amanda Knox; November 6th Note to police.


Flooded mind. Absolutely flooded. Hang on; I thought you said it happened while Raffaele was doing the washing up SA? Err yeah I did, sorry, that was from Amanda Knox;


i also needed to grab a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.” – Amanda Knox Email to family November 4th, 2007 (spellings by the original artist).


This from her extremely detailed email written in the dead of night on the 4th while she was trying to communicate her shock and grief to get her story across in minute detail to twenty close family and friends at about 3 o’clock in the morning or so. For a reason that is not entirely clear. Hang on SA, where’s the reference to the washing up? Oh, ah, sorry, that was from Amanda Knox;


I grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower, and i returned to raffael's place. after we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen– Ibid. Ermmm, no mention of washing up again SA.


She was cleaned up and had brought me a mop in order to help me to dry the floor around the sink.” No, sorry, that’s Raffaele’s diary.


"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. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket and it carried it in to another room" – No, sorry, that’s Raffaele’s diary *again*.


Wait a second - he manages to get a mop mention in despite needing to see "what the devil had happened" and then he’s recalling how he was “shaken and alarmed” and then segues to a *mop* again???? WHAT?!?! If that isn't the most incongruous double-mop-name-drop possible I will eat my hat.....


Which leaves us all thinking... WHY ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT THE DAMN MOP *SO MUCH*? AND WHERE'S THE REFERENCE TO THE WASHING UP?!?! .


It is, of course, because it was an attempt at a reasonably clever alibi the opportunity for which arose out of desperate necessity.


What actually happened - Excerpt from the book "Since They Did It";

The mop in the flat was used in the clean-up on the night of the murder. We know this from the clean-up noted by Judge Massei (evidence for which is, for instance, in the partial footprint on the blue mat et al et al et al). They couldn’t risk being seen walking through town at night / in the early morning or the next day carrying a mop and bucket without an alibi. They had no way of disposing of the mop without it being conspicuously absent to the other girls in the flat which would lead to the question of why there had been a clean-up and in turn point (to the police) to a likelihood of a close connection to Meredith being attempted to be hidden. They couldn’t find a replacement for it because it had a very noticeable torn label on the handle of the mop (there goes the interchanging-mop theories). They also couldn’t be in anyway sure that soaking and rinsing out the mop would have got rid of DNA evidence – there’s simply too much cloth in the mop head – it would look like a snare to their panicked brains.

Big frickin mop problem!

Fortunately Raffaele had already had a minor leak in this kitchen. How come minor you say – wasn’t it a deluge? Well it couldn’t have been could it – it occurred not while Raffaele had left a tap running but while he was doing the washing up;

he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired.” – Trial Testimony of Amanda Knox.

So hang on – it happened while he was doing the washing up. How did it become a deluge where “water flooded” or “a lot of water” (6th / 4th November 2007 respectively)? I mean if he was running water and it started leaking then he’d just turn the tap off. How much water are we talking from a small leak (the pipe is intact remember) before you spot it? So much that 8 cloths and sponges right there, a tea-towel on the oven and at least two bath-towels can’t mop up?

Maybe he had a sink full and he was running the water out at the end? That caused a deluge, so much so that Amanda had to get a mop the next day and the water absolutely flooded and mamma mia thank god for the mop!


he was in the bathroom, and I started to clean up the floor in the kitchen, but it was by now almost dry, just a bit of water left because it had evaporated.” – Trial Testimony of Amanda Knox.


Foxy, by now a long time on from those original statements has changed to “just a bit of water” and an evaporation theory(!) because it was noted there really wasn’t a lot of water in the flat and / or on the mop once it was transported back to the cottage. She’s never looked at the equations for the rate of evaporation of water over only TWELVE / THIRTEEN HOURS (11pm meal they say to the clean up next day) but let us say (with a quick nod to my friendly professional witness scientist who went on a lot about pressure and heat and stuff this afternoon) that the answer is pico-litres above ZERO. Sorry it is. So either you knew you had cleaned it up that much there wasn't anything left to talk of (in which case you don't need a mop) orrrrrrr we take it you are twisting and turning again and the gentle-Italian cross-examination isn't going to shred you like you would have been in a US or British court. Shredded that is. NB style marks for getting Raffy out of the kitchen in your alibi while you did this so there's no conflicting elements possible ever about how exactly she mopped up.


Summary; there was a “flood” that was so bad we couldn’t clear it up with 11 drying implements (even though we tried). Miraculously the remaining deluge that was so bad we had to go and get a mop from another house entirely became, in just around thirteen hours “just a bit of water left because it had evaporated”.

I may be a traditionalist but could I venture a “Come *on*!” at this stage?

So back to the mop. It is in the cottage from the night before and you couldn't take it out and risk being seen with it - it's big! It may have DNA on it. You are bricking it. (Note for Texans; "afeared"). It can’t be “lost” or disposed of. Fortunately you’ve noticed it is a Vileda Supermocio umm.... just... like… the… one… I… have… in… my… own… house… so this is what you do, courtesy of my own stunt-mop;

Attachment:
Mop whole.JPG



Attachment:
Mop head removed.JPG




As simple as that - you replace the head on it at Raffaele’s(c)Early PMF (unseen by me!). He either had one already since the Vileda is an extremely common mop type or you got this when you went to the store that morning and purchased probably a random bunch of stuff, say like soap, tampax and stuff. Stuff one can see in Raffaele’s bathroom with a shopping bag still there with stuff not taken out of it next to the sink. Great video. You probably shop-lifted the new mop-head under your coat because it is very early, there’s no-one in the shop and you want to make sure that it doesn’t show up on any receipt which you don’t know if there will be one. Takes a minor amount of balls but you’ve just committed a murder and this is a life-saving alibi you are putting into place.

Yep, you walk down the "high-street" whistling a happy tune of "Just taking this mop to the evaporation centre". Then you change the mop head and dispose of the old one. Then you parade a vigorously but easily cleaned bucket with the original handle with its distinctive torn sticker back up to the cottage and put it back in the cupboard with its replacement head.
THEN YOU TALK ABOUT IT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN because you know that it is totally clean of DNA and how could people in a murder possibly be doing something as hugely visible as walking around with a mop??? It's a stone cold double bluff which works really pretty nicely! What a great alibi you managed to pull out of the desperate necessity!

That’s what happened. We had theories of two mops etc but simply they changed the head. Simple, elegant, totally consistent. They thought it would make a really pretty good double bluff to put in front of the police and court COUNTLESS times. When you add the testimony to the mop head swap to the pictures of the numerous drying cloths under the sink to the unbelievable deluge that evaporates, you have a stinker of a story. The over-reference to the mop is also a big give away; over-talking / over-use is an absolute classic giveaway on false alibis. They thought they found something superb and this is why they banged on about it so damn much.

Not bad Raffy. Pretty nice try Amanda. If I was awarding marks, I’d say 25 (+1 for extra effort) out of 30.


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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I disagree on Skep and Michael's decision of sending away moodstream so early. I have to say that, on the other hand, by principle I would never interfer with the decision of a moderator. This because I probably would never be available to do the sacrifice for job they are doing, my position in the forum is confortable as I don't have any commitment and I don't feel the obligation of spending time to monitor things 24h. I don't know if I were a moderator, what would be the effect of moodstream's presence in augmenting the degree of stress in my work and on my nerves.

However, taking in account just my personal likes as a reader of PMF, i do not subscribe with the choice of not giving rope. I also think the assessment should be done case by case. Moodstream is a peculiar case in the group of FOA because he has aspects of personalities and modus operandi that can be dealt with consrtucively for some time. One interesting thing about Moodstreams is that he seems to be willing to provide a lot of insights of his mental processes and seems to have aspect of intellectual honesty, as a real "believer".

One disappointing limit of moodstream's participation, instead, seemed to me, was not the opposing view but the poor quality of his/her knowledge and analysis of facts. I develop the impression there is something unconsiously ideologic or biased by moodstream in this, about a refusal of having to deal with the cumbersome amount of pieces of information to process. There is really a lot of his "ideology" in - for example - refusing to take in consideration evidence because unable to "trust" the authorities (on a reasoning not totally dissimilar from RoseMontague). But there is also a more interactive mode in his/her expressing thir actual motivation.

Whatever, the idea is just to give "more rope" to this commenters if they want to engage on a topic. The case of moodstream is that he is also an interlocutor *per se* who comes out expressing ideologies and thoughts, not the usual buffoon blogger (Chris, etc) a meaningless provocator (Phanuel) or a liar ( .. ) or sclerotized conspiracy theorist (like Wilkens) a narcissistic idiot ( lJ, Mary H etc) probably he is not even passive and useless like RoseMontag. This said, doesn't mean that he/she can has an intellectual stature to give a contribution to human thought. But some rope, with tranquillity, just to see if we could see something of a way of thinking .... I'm a curious guy. Anyway, these were just random thoughts.
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:25 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. pprisons are not a holiday camp for murderers.


My sentiments exactly. And I have the feeling that future reports out of camp -- no, prison, I mean-- will speak of how Amanda is always the first to helpfully volunteer for seemingly everything and behaving like a model prisoner. If there's an Albanian ex-prostitute in need of an English lesson, she's there. If there's an Italian ex-drug pusher who needs a one-chord guitar lesson, why, by jiminy, Amanda will be there again, because that's just the kind of person she is. She's so caring; she's so helpful; she's so willing to give so much of her all-American-apple-pie-girl-next-door self to the common prison folk. And she is really into the Beatles, who taught us that all we need is love. So-- see -- all this means she never really belonged there in prison to begin with. And, don't look now, but she's also ditched the smiling crazy-eyed Manson groupie look in favor of a more sombre, serious look. Well, then, she's reformed, by gawd she has. She has that magical IT factor in her which puts her above the rest of us. And, anyway, she only ever committed one murder-- not that she ever did -- la, la, la, la, fingers in ears -- do that, mind you. Twenty-six years? No, no. Give that girl an early release, a victory parade in Seattle and send her on the talk-show circuit.

Oh, for the days of striped convict uniforms and caps and shackles and rock piles to be broken up and guards with vicious dogs ready to track down fleeing prisoners.

Excuse me... I'm getting positively misty-eyed now. My monocle has begun to fog up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Speculative punt; So when did this shopping get done? (Raffaele's bathroom; makeup / tampax / soap in shopping bag / two bathtowels)



Attachment:
Two towels tampax shopping bag soap inside.JPG


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

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Yep, you walk down the "high-street" whistling a happy tune of "Just taking this mop to the evaporation centre". Then you change the mop head and dispose of the old one. Then you parade a vigorously but easily cleaned bucket with the original handle with its distinctive torn sticker back up to the cottage and put it back in the cupboard with its replacement head.
THEN YOU TALK ABOUT IT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN because you know that it is totally clean of DNA and how could people in a murder possibly be doing something as hugely visible as walking around with a mop??? It's a stone cold double bluff which works really pretty nicely! What a great alibi you managed to pull out of the desperate necessity!



Huzzah! pp-(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
I disagree on Skep and Michael's decision of sending away moodstream so early. I have to say that, on the other hand, by principle I would never interfer with the decision of a moderator. This because I probably would never be available to do the sacrifice for job they are doing, my position in the forum is confortable as I don't have any commitment and I don't feel the obligation of spending time to monitor things 24h. I don't know if I were a moderator, what would be the effect of moodstream's presence in augmenting the degree of stress in my work and on my nerves.

However, taking in account just my personal likes as a reader of PMF, i do not subscribe with the choice of not giving rope. I also think the assessment should be done case by case. Moodstream is a peculiar case in the group of FOA because he has aspects of personalities and modus operandi that can be dealt with consrtucively for some time. One interesting thing about Moodstreams is that he seems to be willing to provide a lot of insights of his mental processes and seems to have aspect of intellectual honesty, as a real "believer".

One disappointing limit of moodstream's participation, instead, seemed to me, was not the opposing view but the poor quality of his/her knowledge and analysis of facts. I develop the impression there is something unconsiously ideologic or biased by moodstream in this, about a refusal of having to deal with the cumbersome amount of pieces of information to process. There is really a lot of his "ideology" in - for example - refusing to take in consideration evidence because unable to "trust" the authorities (on a reasoning not totally dissimilar from RoseMontague). But there is also a more interactive mode in his/her expressing thir actual motivation.

Whatever, the idea is just to give "more rope" to this commenters if they want to engage on a topic. The case of moodstream is that he is also an interlocutor *per se* who comes out expressing ideologies and thoughts, not the usual buffoon blogger (Chris, etc) a meaningless provocator (Phanuel) or a liar ( .. ) or sclerotized conspiracy theorist (like Wilkens) a narcissistic idiot ( lJ, Mary H etc) probably he is not even passive and useless like RoseMontag. This said, doesn't mean that he/she can has an intellectual stature to give a contribution to human thought. But some rope, with tranquillity, just to see if we could see something of a way of thinking .... I'm a curious guy. Anyway, these were just random thoughts.

Maybe there needs to be an age disclosure by members posting so that we know how to interact. That is what I sensed in donnie, moodstream and now with Katody - the arrogance of youth.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Viv wrote:
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:


Ah, thank you.
I for one couldn't be more pleased to learn that the photographer of the person in my avatar is named Whacker.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
That is what I sensed in donnie, moodstream and now with Katody - the arrogance of youth.


And the naivete. What can you do anyway? Youth exists.
Top Profile 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:


Whatever, the idea is just to give "more rope" to this commenters if they want to engage on a topic. The case of moodstream is that he is also an interlocutor *per se* who comes out expressing ideologies and thoughts, not the usual buffoon blogger (Chris, etc) a meaningless provocator (Phanuel) or a liar ( .. ) or sclerotized conspiracy theorist (like Wilkens) a narcissistic idiot ( lJ, Mary H etc) probably he is not even passive and useless like RoseMontag. This said, doesn't mean that he/she can has an intellectual stature to give a contribution to human thought. But some rope, with tranquillity, just to see if we could see something of a way of thinking .... I'm a curious guy. Anyway, these were just random thoughts.


Well said, Yummi.
I think your psychological profiles of these people are right on the mark.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I am still here :) Big thanks to all translators and everybody that worked on the translation of the report. Great work and good to see the translation made some headlines. Most of it we discussed on this board so not much new. The one thing that still shocked me was the pillow. The pillow explained so clearly what happened to poor Meredith. My mind really blocked the details of the sexual assault, and I actually hoped it was all staged but the pillow tells a different story. It even shows that they continued it after the stabbing. My mind still blocks that. I can't believe it. I guess that is how it works when you are a FOA member. I just don't want that to be real so somebody make up something and make it go away.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
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.

I'm sure that the Knox/Mellas crowd are all salivating at the day precious Amanda is released. Doesn't matter if it's 10, 15, 20, more years hence, but probably they're counting on 10-15 (which unfortunately is probably not all that unrealistic, if she maintains as a 'model prisoner').

Then the big payoffs begin. The books. The movie deals. The Oprah show. The whole lovely (and well-paying) talk show circuit.

I'm sure there's more than a few Knox/Mellas members/cronies salivating over the prospect, as over the impending "expected" death of a rich uncle. Payday!

Such a lovely bunch, aren't they? So happy to make money out of the murder of an innocent young girl.

It's excruciatingly stomach-turning, is what it is.

I see it as our obligation to try to make sure it never happens.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
***As for the speculations about lying: You are of course entitled to believe that they lied (deliberately presented falsehoods to deceive). But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.

I gather that you are saying you don't think they lied because they didn't know that what they were saying wasn't true, and they had no intent to deceive. You tacitly concede that they asserted as fact things that were not true. Putting aside the fact that your position is at least a speculative (giving your view way more credit that it deserves) as the view that they were lying, if you are correct in what you say, no one should have any reason to believe much of anything they say.


Last edited by TomM on Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:47 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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Katody wrote:
But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.


Bullshit.

Quote:
[Raffaele and Amanda] had dinner together, but quite late, perhaps 23:00 pm.


[Massei, p. 66 -- Amanda's own words]

Quote:
In the course of her witness examination she indicated that they had dinner around 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm; then she put the time further out, at about 23:00 pm.


[Massei, p. 78]

That's two examples that prove they were lying. Remember carefully, Katody: You're trying to say Meredith was dead by 21:30 but Raffaele and Amanda both know their alibi had to cover a range of times a couple hours after that.

Put simply, neither Raffaele nor Amanda trust you that Meredith died before 22:30. Your opinion is worthless because all the evidence, including the words of the accused, have shown that you've blundered.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Don't forget Raf's admittance of lying to the police. "What I told you earlier was a load of bullocks/rubbish", or something like that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:

Awwww....Emerald! I missed your post, and lots of others too. They're coming thick and fast suddenly!

hugz-)


As for the tap thing, don't worry. Tonight I did that thing where you put your casserole in the oven for ten minutes, then think 'Ooo I will put some fresh herbs in!' then potter out to get some, feeling all Jamie Oliver, come back in, get casserole out of the oven WITH OVEN GLOVES, and promptly take the lid off it with your BARE HANDS, leading to quite a lot of sweary type words and nasty smell of burning flesh. The synapses are just dying off slowly. It's nothing to worry about...


Yes to everything.

Well done on the analysis everyone. Easier to comprehend this way with well thought/written short posts.

wor-))
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

John 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.


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.

Bingo! I think we've finally figured out the mop story. Yeah!
mul-)

I also like Pataz's story on why the lovebirds were found back at the cottage -- because they'd forgotten (damn!) to do one important thing, such as close Filomena's door.

I don't think they really intended to be there until after Filomena arrived there. Soon after, perhaps, but they wanted her to discover the closed door and call the police.

But then, who knows. Maybe we expect too much when we expect the behavior of psychopaths to make sense.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

mortytoad wrote:
Don't forget Raf's admittance of lying to the police. "What I told you earlier was a load of bullocks/rubbish", or something like that.


Yes, and Knox conveniently "forgets" the first call to her mother (middle of the night Seattle time).
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Katody wrote:
But as you cannot give any proof of lying I am as entitled to my opinion that they didn't lie. Until we see a proof any talk about lying is speculation.


Bullshit.

Quote:
[Raffaele and Amanda] had dinner together, but quite late, perhaps 23:00 pm.


[Massei, p. 66 -- Amanda's own words]

Quote:
In the course of her witness examination she indicated that they had dinner around 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm; then she put the time further out, at about 23:00 pm.


[Massei, p. 78]

That's two examples that prove they were lying. Remember carefully, Katody: You're trying to say Meredith was dead by 21:30 but Raffaele and Amanda both know their alibi had to cover a range of times a couple hours after that.

Put simply, neither Raffaele nor Amanda trust you that Meredith died before 22:30. Your opinion is worthless because all the evidence, including the words of the accused, have shown that you've blundered.



The proof has been offered, many times over. You are entitled to your beliefs but they are demonstrably counterfactual. There is no room for discussion if you fail to acknowledge these basic facts. I am back to suggesting what I did a week ago: thanks for stopping by. You will be much happier posting elsewhere, where counterfactuals are acceptable.

Now, perhaps, with that mindless distraction put aside, we can deal with something much more intriguing: SA's hypothesis about the mop!
Bye, Katody.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bedelia wrote:
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.


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.


I would like to point out the problem with letting the context override the assessment of individual elements, however:

Which of the horizontal lines is longer?
Attachment:
lines.JPG


Of course, we all know that the horizontal lines are the same length.

Here's another one: concentric circles that appear to spiral inward, but in reality are actually just complete circles:
http://www.thirdeyehealth.com/images/op ... ons-18.gif

Particularly in a murder case, we have to be careful that the overall context of "innocent or guilty" doesn't influence our assessment of elements; determination of guilt comes when you step back and look at the overall picture, -knowing- what you know about individual elements; it doesn't come at the start or the middle, influencing your view of later elements. Like the two lines, first we have to assess an element to find out what that particular piece says about a particular action or possibility. For instance, a point that I disagree on is I think F's bedroom window (with the staged break-in) is more difficult to see then L's at the other side of the house. Setting aside all other elements of that bedroom scene, I think there is sufficient reasonable doubt that someone was visible breaking into that window. Even though there is ample evidence for a staged scene, its irrelevant to determining whether or not someone would be seen breaking into that window.

Yes, there is a point of too much reduction, and some context is required-a simple nail on a wall isn't much; an undisturbed nail on a wall that someone supposedly climbed is devastating. In weighing the evidence, I think what is important is that the context that is applied is 'locally' relevant.

Each piece plays its part in a song-a single note, a simple tune on their own, or multiple pieces to make segments of harmonies or melodies. A richer song on the "break-in" starts to develop when you add in the improbability of reaching up under the half broken glass to open the latch, and glass sitting on top of clothes, and (as far as I can tell) no sign of blood, DNA, or fibers on the window sill. And none of the other evidence is discordant to the notion of a staged scene- such as the case would be if there was a witness who saw someone break into the window that night.

Its similar with the full picture- almost nothing discordant, even though there may be gaps or parts that don't have full orchestration (i.e. did the three arrived together, what were their actions).

Its such a strong "score", that as someone else said- you could question bits of it, but there's so much that remains. Essentially, the defenses are questioning measures and notes in a concerto. And Knox & Sollecito's own words are two of the voices (an alto and a tenor?) throughout the score...

I wonder if Amanda would appreciate the music reference...

Pat


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
Yummi wrote:
I disagree on Skep and Michael's decision of sending away moodstream so early. I have to say that, on the other hand, by principle I would never interfer with the decision of a moderator. This because I probably would never be available to do the sacrifice for job they are doing, my position in the forum is confortable as I don't have any commitment and I don't feel the obligation of spending time to monitor things 24h. I don't know if I were a moderator, what would be the effect of moodstream's presence in augmenting the degree of stress in my work and on my nerves.

However, taking in account just my personal likes as a reader of PMF, i do not subscribe with the choice of not giving rope. I also think the assessment should be done case by case. Moodstream is a peculiar case in the group of FOA because he has aspects of personalities and modus operandi that can be dealt with consrtucively for some time. One interesting thing about Moodstreams is that he seems to be willing to provide a lot of insights of his mental processes and seems to have aspect of intellectual honesty, as a real "believer".

One disappointing limit of moodstream's participation, instead, seemed to me, was not the opposing view but the poor quality of his/her knowledge and analysis of facts. I develop the impression there is something unconsiously ideologic or biased by moodstream in this, about a refusal of having to deal with the cumbersome amount of pieces of information to process. There is really a lot of his "ideology" in - for example - refusing to take in consideration evidence because unable to "trust" the authorities (on a reasoning not totally dissimilar from RoseMontague). But there is also a more interactive mode in his/her expressing thir actual motivation.

Whatever, the idea is just to give "more rope" to this commenters if they want to engage on a topic. The case of moodstream is that he is also an interlocutor *per se* who comes out expressing ideologies and thoughts, not the usual buffoon blogger (Chris, etc) a meaningless provocator (Phanuel) or a liar ( .. ) or sclerotized conspiracy theorist (like Wilkens) a narcissistic idiot ( lJ, Mary H etc) probably he is not even passive and useless like RoseMontag. This said, doesn't mean that he/she can has an intellectual stature to give a contribution to human thought. But some rope, with tranquillity, just to see if we could see something of a way of thinking .... I'm a curious guy. Anyway, these were just random thoughts.

Maybe there needs to be an age disclosure by members posting so that we know how to interact. That is what I sensed in donnie, moodstream and now with Katody - the arrogance of youth.



I don't think we really disagree, Yummi. For me, the main problem with the posters you mention, moodstream included, is a certain lack of maturity and intellectual honesty that makes discussion frustrating. The same points must be repeated over and over again, and are twisted or ignored. Etc.

As for moodstream, his/her arrogant post asking if I had read the document I translated (which I did not translate, as you know; I was the proofreader) contained an error due to either carelessness or a desire to deceive that he/she then tried to pass off as a typo. This is simply not interesting or stimulating as discussion.

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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
That is what I sensed in donnie, moodstream and now with Katody - the arrogance of youth.


And the naivete. What can you do anyway? Youth exists.

I am fully willing to mentor and foster as long as my nose isn't rubbed in the "cult of celebrity". The coming generations are schooled by media that says they should have already arrived when they haven't gone anywhere yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

i.e. the personality of one Amanda Knox vs. that of one Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thus the reason it is for me an inflaming topic. This murder has made petulance beyond boring.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:21 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

There will be time to explain something to Katody. About the illustration of points in this case in which it is not reasonable to assume that a person is not conscious that information she/he is giving is false.
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:27 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
There will be time to explain something to Katody. About the illustration of points in this case in which it is not reasonable to assume that a person is not conscious that information she/he is giving is false.

Lead away.
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The young knights need a straw man to practice fact jousting on.

Good onya, macport!
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

There was (is?) a whole tribe of drug addicts looking at Filomena’s window, isn’t there? Not only from across the carpark, but also from inside the cottage yard. Could one of them testify as to what they saw or didn’t see that night?



The Court Report often refers to page numbers of testimony transcripts, without, of course, needing to quote the entire transcript.

To some extent, it might be worthwhile collating the witness testimony as reported by the newspapers.

For example, Marco, one of the boys downstairs, mentioned several things that begin to shed light on other things (e.g., the gate was never locked).


Quote:

Also in the witness stand this morning was Marco Marzan, one of the students who was living the apartment beneath the one where the murder occurred. The young man referred to not having “ever known about any friction” between Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox “apart from a little diverbio* on one occasion” and of knowing Rudy Guede (the young Ivorian already convicted at first instance to 30 years for the murder) since both of them used to frequent the small basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Marzan then recounted that Guede on two occasions visited their place and that, the first time, he had fallen asleep on the toilet and then on the sofa. Speaking of the dwelling on via della Pergola, the lad mentioned that “it was easy to find syringes in the yard” left by some drug addict and that, in that yard, on one occasion he surprised “a drunk who was wandering around”. “It was easy to enter because the gate was never locked,” said Marzan.



– “Witness: ‘No scream on murder night’” (referring to Pasqualino Coletta, one of the tourist couple from Rome in the broken-down car, with friends) [ La Stampa ] 23 June 2009


* diverbio (literally, “two words”) = an argument, disagreement, squabble, altercation; in Australian English, “a spat” (as between cats), “a couple of words”.

Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
I also like Pataz's story on why the lovebirds were found back at the cottage -- because they'd forgotten (damn!) to do one important thing, such as close Filomena's door. I don't think they really intended to be there until after Filomena arrived there. Soon after, perhaps, but they wanted her to discover the closed door and call the police. But then, who knows. Maybe we expect too much when we expect the behavior of psychopaths to make sense.


Thanks.. you know, with all this talk about mops, who knows, it may have been the mop! Maybe they outsmarted themselves. (or didn't think through to the conclusions).

R&A clean up late at night. They put the mop head in a garbage bag (so no transfer of dna or other material) under their clothes, but don't want to chance being seen throwing it out anywhere in the middle of the night. (People would be more likely to notice someone stopping at a garbage bin in the middle of the night and throwing something out then just someone walking down the street).
The next morning Amanda stops into the shop early morning and purloins a replacement, and perhaps goes back to Raf's. On that trip or the one home, she grabs a garbage bag "for clothes" (the one with the mop head), and on the way back to her place, she throws the garbage bag out (a perfectly normal early morning domestic occurence). She has to get a replacement mop head on the mop, but gets worried about her fingerprints on the mop (or a complete lack of them if she wipes it off). She can't make up a story about cleaning in her house, so she makes one up at Raf's. She heads back to his place with the mop. They have breakfast, and call M's cell phone to see if anyone (police?) answer it. At some point they realize they have to get it back, since if they left it at R's his entire place would be searched. She call's F, relays the story to her. They take the mop back.
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport,

You'll need a rulebook, too.

About how not to change the meanings of words in mid-sentence.
And so on.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
The next morning Amanda stops into the shop early morning and purloins a replacement, ...


pataz1,

The mop-swap caper (replacing the mop-heads) is not one I would have thought of, because, I think, I must have a mental block, similar to max's, about giving the benefit of the doubt. That way allows manipulation.

-- Person goes into shop first thing in the morning
-- Person leaves shop without purchasing anything
= Honest conclusion: person did not find what they were after

Strength of honest conclusion: minimal, because based on an assumption.
The assumption is untested. But it is important because it, and nothing else, supports the conclusion.

Ergo, the assumption must be tested for robustness.

Enter SomeAlibi, stage left. :)


How many more mental blocks do I have?
Each one will prevent me from seeing the whole picture, thereby skewing the evaluation of pieces of evidence within an arbitrarily-defined context.

A proper defence requires the full picture and total context (or as near as).
Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
Macport,

You'll need a rulebook, too.

About how not to change the meanings of words in mid-sentence.
And so on.

Agreed!

The ABC's of Semantic Rules
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:13 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I personally couldn't give a continental flying *f**k about Katody's week away, nor do I think anyone cares less about the lovely toasted cheese, tomato and anchovy sandwich, on my homemade bread, that I just ate. But, good to know that Katody thinks the translation is *nice*. On to something important. Yes, yes, and yes, SA. The mop scenario fits in so many ways. NOT least, the over explaining and talking about the mop. And the feces, which they knew wasn't their's . Uggh. The explaining of the bathmat boogie, the drops of blood in the bathroom, etceterahhhhhhh. Any and everything that can be explained away, and as to the mop, INSERTED. How convenient. And, tsk, how annoying to be found guilty, after being so CLEVER!!!! The majority of guilty prisoners do very well in prison, (probably because they know they deserve to be there) and do well with the structure. I enjoyed the movie, oh no, wait, the STORY of the *Amanda the Good*, especially the delicate hands bit. Guffaw!!!!!!

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

In part I agree; an expanded context provided new assessments. Continuing with my prior perspective, there were also things we weren't assessing. The movements of the mop clouded the potential movements of a piece of it. I think we fell victim to -both- bits of Amanda's misdirection of the mop story. She emphasized it because she knows it won't reveal anything, but her emphasis also focused us on the movement of the full mop itself without thinking of its component parts.

On another note.. she took a garbage bag for her clothes.. but wait... she was going home to shower (and change?) because IIRC she didn't have clothes at raf's? so how did dirty laundry get to his place? did she wear his clothes at some point in time?

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
I personally couldn't give a continental flying *f**k about Katody's week away, nor do I think anyone cares less about the lovely toasted cheese, tomato and anchovy sandwich, on my homemade bread, that I just ate. But, good to know that Katody thinks the translation is *nice*. On to something important. Yes, yes, and yes, SA. The mop scenario fits in so many ways. NOT least, the over explaining and talking about the mop. And the feces, which they knew wasn't their's . Uggh. The explaining of the bathmat boogie, the drops of blood in the bathroom, etceterahhhhhhh. Any and everything that can be explained away, and as to the mop, INSERTED. How convenient. And, tsk, how annoying to be found guilty, after being so CLEVER!!!! The majority of guilty prisoners do very well in prison, (probably because they know they deserve to be there) and do well with the structure. I enjoyed the movie, oh no, wait, the STORY of the *Amanda the Good*, especially the delicate hands bit. Guffaw!!!!!!

Come on tells us what you really think huugh . . .


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


Last edited by Macport on Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I'd like to Mac, I really would!! But I might get banned, or at best suspended :)

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:55 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 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."

Earl Grey, welcome!

I find this most exciting, as last night about the time you were penning your arrival, I was eating dinner at the Olive Garden, sometimes thinking of Meredith, due to the Italian nature of the evening, and drinking the most heavenly Earl Grey tea! It was so fragrant and lovely. (I could hardly believe it was made by Tetley!)

Anyway, welcome EG!!!

And as the girl in the Perugia video that Pete posted today said on her sign:

Abbraccio gratis!!!

hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
In part I agree; an expanded context provided new assessments. Continuing with my prior perspective, there were also things we weren't assessing. The movements of the mop clouded the potential movements of a piece of it. I think we fell victim to -both- bits of Amanda's misdirection of the mop story. She emphasized it because she knows it won't reveal anything, but her emphasis also focused us on the movement of the full mop itself without thinking of its component parts.

On another note.. she took a garbage bag for her clothes.. but wait... she was going home to shower (and change?) because IIRC she didn't have clothes at raf's? so how did dirty laundry get to his place? did she wear his clothes at some point in time?

Pat


You know, Pat, I cannot for the life of me get this worked out in my head. She brought a garbage bag for her clothes. hmmmmm..... what clothes were these? And how did they get there to begin with if she wasn't wearing them? And what about that big canvas bag that she had over her shoulder - even the pic in my avatar - the morning the postal police showed up? Surely that bag is big enough to carry a change of clothing.

Was it SomeAlibi who asked upthread a bit when we thought she bought the supplies for Raff's? The towels, tampons and soap. I think it was after the police sealed off her place. She couldn't go back in for the necessities. Sure, she bought the soap, but it was still in the bag! I hear she could have used a shower that morning. (We need one of those smilies with fumes coming off, like Pig Pen from Charlie Brown.)

ETA: Petit hands, my a$$! She was a rock climber with rock climbing gear.


Last edited by jodyodyo on Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Earthling wrote:
I also like Pataz's story on why the lovebirds were found back at the cottage -- because they'd forgotten (damn!) to do one important thing, such as close Filomena's door. I don't think they really intended to be there until after Filomena arrived there. Soon after, perhaps, but they wanted her to discover the closed door and call the police. But then, who knows. Maybe we expect too much when we expect the behavior of psychopaths to make sense.


Thanks.. you know, with all this talk about mops, who knows, it may have been the mop! Maybe they outsmarted themselves. (or didn't think through to the conclusions).

R&A clean up late at night. They put the mop head in a garbage bag (so no transfer of dna or other material) under their clothes, but don't want to chance being seen throwing it out anywhere in the middle of the night. (People would be more likely to notice someone stopping at a garbage bin in the middle of the night and throwing something out then just someone walking down the street).
The next morning Amanda stops into the shop early morning and purloins a replacement, and perhaps goes back to Raf's. On that trip or the one home, she grabs a garbage bag "for clothes" (the one with the mop head), and on the way back to her place, she throws the garbage bag out (a perfectly normal early morning domestic occurence). She has to get a replacement mop head on the mop, but gets worried about her fingerprints on the mop (or a complete lack of them if she wipes it off). She can't make up a story about cleaning in her house, so she makes one up at Raf's. She heads back to his place with the mop. They have breakfast, and call M's cell phone to see if anyone (police?) answer it. At some point they realize they have to get it back, since if they left it at R's his entire place would be searched. She call's F, relays the story to her. They take the mop back.

I think that's brilliant. 'Nuff said.

My little band serenades you:
band-)

Okay, time for bed. I'm getting silly. br-))
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:46 am   Post subject: SomeAlibi's Summer   

It’s called summer (the mop, that is ).


Quote:

You say, OK, new house; you say, let’s revisit the question about the house-cleaning gear, you do it obviously to clean up your conscience and not for any practical reason, even if the floor does need a little wipe; anyway, having noticed that there aren’t any Vileda microfibre cloths left, of the microfibreclothmopforfloors kind, you go to the Sports Association place on Via Maîtres Championniers to get a fresh refill. Shuffling in flip-flops. Fact is, at first I don’t find them, the refills. And then I look around me. And I discover:

(A) – that floor-washing systems come in three types, that is (1) scrubbing brushes and cloth wipers (more or less traditional); (2) mops; (3) other, futuristic methods (like the microfibrefibrecloth from Vileda);

(B) that the attachment of the aforesaid implements to the handle is no longer done by screwing them on, like it used to be, but varies according to brand and model, in a mass of incomprehensible standards

(C) and even the buckets have various shapes, lip-spouts for drainage yes or no, one well two wells.


Having taken in this whole great unexpected ocean that you find yourself in front of, you start to figure it out, right there. You abandon the old system which, not being a mop but a big old rag, does not prefigure any dry-hand wringing, and, further, employs wringing by hand; or else it’s a case of sticking your head in the sand, pretending that there are no alternative systems available (consoled in your turn by the ex), going ahead placidly like that.


I opt, like a bunny, for the second. I grab its refill and head for the register. I arrive at the register. I stop. I feel like a Maronite Demochristian, whatever that means. I go back. Change, swap, try again. I pick up a mop, different, stronger, faster. And above all with a twin-partition bucket. It’s the central question I dwell on.

If it doesn’t have two compartments, one for water plus detergent, and another in which you wring the instrument you’re using for the dirt, you’ll end up in the fatal situation that the part of the house most distant from the sink will be washed with grey water. That’s not good. The two compartments are necessary. Yes, but I won’t use the bucket for anything else. Yes but don’t ask so many woolly (mop) questions.

We go back. Back to the floor-washing section. I pick up the refill again, I put it back, I check out the mop set again, bi-partite bucket, modular handle. Several minutes pass. Everything is: picking up, looking at, thinking about, grumbling and whinging, putting back down. More minutes go by. I’ve decided. I go to the register and pay.

I come out of the store, satisfied, proud, and shuffle off home with a niggling worry, like when you were naughty at the café at the beach and Mother leaves you behind.


– Matteo Bordone “E la chiamano estate: il mocio di Buridano” (And they call it Summer: Buridano’s mop) [ Freddy Nietzsche ] Blog, 17 July 2007. He writes for Rolling Stone, and Wired.

Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
One disappointing limit of moodstream's participation, instead, seemed to me, was not the opposing view but the poor quality of his/her knowledge and analysis of facts.


This, and an unflinching desire to attack and demean the moderators (not to mention The Machine) at every opportunity - even when moodstream was completely mistaken about the facts. A moderated board need not tolerate this kind of behavior.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
***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?

Yes, it is intimidating. My first thought on seeing it: "I wonder if that's what Harry Rag looks like." I meant to post this yesterday, but I forgot. Memory is the second thing to go.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Now, perhaps, with that mindless distraction put aside, we can deal with something much more intriguing: SA's hypothesis about the mop!
Bye, Katody.


ILE was all over the mop issue early on - they knew something was being covered up and Raffaele was at a loss for an explanation when he wrote in his diary:

"The questions the agents of the Squadra Mobile [asked] me have made me to remember that that day the water pipe under [my] sink was detached and [some]thing I find very suspicious - I've seen that it is not possible to so detach alone, at any rate, the fact is that it flooded half the house."
Top Profile 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

All this talk about "senior moments" and I see that it is time to come clean. I have to own up to having destroyed two electric kettles by burning them on the gas ring! Fortunately that was some time ago and our current kettle is in good nick.

What is of more concern to me is that my commanding officer appears to have the hots for MaryH, who seems to be responding to his advances! If I can only get him sectioned, it would not only be for his own good but for the good of the sergeant's card school.
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:32 am   Post subject: One window above another   

In terms of Bedelia and Pataz1 discussion on the whole puzzle and the pieces of the puzzles, that is, context and examining the pieces of evidence in toto, the natural tendency to examine a piece of evidence in isolation could prove useful in reverse, so to speak.

It can be used to deconstruct the elements of the story without the added burden of having to also keep the story consistent with the real world. Just like stagers might have done it.

That is, the stagers could have been using the exact same piecemeal-by-piecemeal logic.


For example –

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
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?



To expand on Filomena's window attracting the rock:


Does Laura’s room have bars on the window?

Image 1551 from the Gallery
Bars on window of Laura's room?




[ Cronaca Attualità ] Blog, 23 October 2009



The room for the fake break-in has a logical sense about it:

Physically impossible:
Laura's room has a door (good); it looks like it could be gotten into via the window, by standing on the rail, say (good) - except it has bars (not so good).

Story-wise impossible:
The kitchen window entry method, while the most natural way in (good), besides the front door, has no doors (not good) in the kitchen to block the view. Immediate raising of the alarm is required for "normalcy"-type behaviour. (Not good for the story).

Story-wise impossible:
Amanda's room as an entry method short-circuits the story narrative: no gradual build-up of surmise and suspicion is possible that way. (As above)

Logically impossible:
Meredith's room is the end of the story; it can't also be the beginning as well, as the locked door would hide the clues of broken glass and tossed clothes.

Luckily, out of the six ways into the cottage, Filomena's window had no bars, and her room has a door. It is a bit high off the ground, though, when you think about it (but who's thinking?).

Unluckily, not having bars on the window implies an assessment of low likelihood that that method of entry would be a preferred choice (low likelihood, per the landlady); contrariwise, the bars on the other window should produce the opposite assessment (high likelihood of a break-in that way; perhaps even actuality).


For a director not to patronise the audience, the bars on Laura's window would have to be removed; but then that means the rock goes through that window instead. And the point of calling Filomena first has to swap over to Laura (who happens to be how many hundreds of miles away?). Or maybe not, with Filomena playing the house-mother role, and also the closest geographically, she could still be first call.

No wonder the book and the film are so different in a lot of cases.

If they do make a film, they will have to handle the clues properly, to properly Agatha Christie-ise it. Otherwise, letting the audience see the actual real clues (like the cottage layout) may result in the "wrong" conclusion being drawn about who the goodies and baddies are (assuming that kind of film).


– – –
How's that? Two "that that"s in a row! Is that confusing? Not that that matters.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:49 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Pataz1 wrote:
I would like to point out the problem with letting the context override the assessment of individual elements, however:

Which of the horizontal lines is longer?


Yes, but you are completely missing the point.

_________________
"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 fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:20 am   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


___________________

Well, Fiona, I don't think we'll ever find a decisive answer, but here's a story that I find plausible.

First, just exactly what is the drain pipe/mop story ---as told by each lovebird---supposed to explain? For instance, we know that the bathmat-boggie story is supposed to explain Amanda's luminol bare footprints in the hallway and in her own bedroom. (Though, as an aside, the Innocentisti---for some reason---won't accept Amanda's story and prefer to believe that the luminol was triggered by turnip juice, or some other innocent fluid. Why won't they believe Amanda?)

OK, back to the drain pipe and the mop. I think that the lovebirds got around to cleaning the floor of Raffaele's apartment late in the morning after the murder, and in doing so "flooded" the apartment. And they knew that the cops could show up there at any time for inspection. So, in anticipation, they had staged the plumbing leak that morning to create an innocent explanation for this excessive wetness. And since they had disposed of Raffaele's mop, as possibly incriminating, they needed to pretend that they had used the cottage mop instead. Therefore, they pretended that Amanda had brought the mop from the cottage and then returned it to the cottage. In fact, the cottage mop went nowhere and it had not been used in the cleanup at the cottage or at Raffaele's flat.

As luck would have it, the cops didn't visit Raffaele's flat until November 6th, five days after the murder, when the flat had dried out---but still smelling of bleach---so the drain pipe/mop story wasn't needed after all. Still, since their interrogations from November 2nd, the lovebirds had been telling this story to the cops ....so the story endured, already set in concrete, and become a "living fossil" to perplex us all.






Odd?


///


Last edited by fine on Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:39 am, 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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Brooktrout wrote:
...I was wondering what you all think is

1.) The strongest evidence, the evidence which will be most difficult for the defense to even approach.
2.) The evidence, drawn from the motivations report, that strikes you as not completely convincing.

BT



Hi BrookTrout,

I was reading something this morning (1) that reminded me I forgot to add to my answer yesterday that, big picture, the strongest element is the one at the very beginning that led the investigators to focus on, out of all the people in Perugia, one small group:

The murder occurred at home, with no signs of forced entry.
Someone she knew and/or was close to, or comfortable being in the house with.

Immediate suspect, top of the list, is husband/boyfriend.
Boyfriend was questioned - cleared - strong alibi, he was out of town.

Second in the list is someone the victim may have met that night.
Reconstruct her movements.
Ask friends and acquaintances - what were you doing? where were you? what was Meredith doing?
Line of enquiry produces no result - she met no-one as far as anyone could tell.

Next in the list are friends.
More questions. Alibis not stacking up for some of the friends. Even more questions. Arrests.

All this was before the forensics had even started coming in.

So, the strongest things is this: starting on the same path, the appeal court will likely reach the same conclusion (unless something new turns up).

And the weakest thing (for the prosecution case) is: the likelihood of something new turning up that completely contradicts major points of evidence and testimony so far.
Such a thing is possible. We will have to wait and see.

The weakest thing (for the defence cases) is: each of the other defendants; and the lack of denting in the prosecution's case during the first trial. Anything is possible, though.

Realistically, at this stage so far, there could be some adjustment in the length of the sentencings. Perhaps.

We will have to wait and see how well the arguments go down.

And then, after that, appeals to the Supreme Court of Cassation.









(1) – "homicide can be a proprietary expression" — Brent Turvey and Wayne Petherick, Forensic Victimology: Examining violent crime victims in investigative and legal contexts (2009) [Elsevier 2009] p 310, in the context of domestic homicide, in ch 9 "Intimate Violence". A couple of pages earlier, they wrote: "In cases of intimate violence, barring mental disorder or defect, the motivation is almost exclusively about power, anger/revenge, profit, or some combination of these." (p 299).
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

fine wrote:
In fact, the cottage mop went nowhere and it had not been used in the cleanup at the cottage or at Raffaele's flat.


I would adjust to read:
"In fact, the cottage mop handle went nowhere and" the mop's lack of incriminating evidence...", per above posts, SomeAlibi, Pat, etc.

Good questions, re: lack of belief in Amanda's statements.
They all seem to be treating her as a commodity, one way or another.
Top Profile 

Offline Viv


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:28 am

Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earl Grey wrote:
Quote:
Ah, thank you.
I for one couldn't be more pleased to learn that the photographer of the person in my avatar is named Whacker.

Dear Earl Grey,
Arghs - have had a Moment of Stupid. I was picturing your sepia gent pointing his finger and crying "Aha!!" as he verbally wallops seven bells out of the idiots on that newspaper comments page, which is why the photographer's name amused me. Call me senile, but I didn't think of alt. definitions, wot might be seen as rather offensive. Apologies. I shouldn't be permitted to post past my bedtime...
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Macport,

You'll need a rulebook, too.

About how not to change the meanings of words in mid-sentence.
And so on.

Agreed!

The ABC's of Semantic Rules



I don't think they're going to read the course work. :)
They have trouble enough reading the posts.
But anything's possible.


Image


{ Sticks fingers in ears; sings la la la, la la la "My radiator is drooling. Oh yum! The naughty prosecutor making all those leaks. la la la, la la la" }
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

fine 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


___________________

Well, Fiona, I don't think we'll ever find a decisive answer, but here's a story that I find plausible.

First, just exactly what is the drain pipe/mop story ---as told by each lovebird---supposed to explain? For instance, we know that the bathmat-boggie story is supposed to explain Amanda's luminol bare footprints in the hallway and in her own bedroom. (Though, as an aside, the Innocentisti---for some reason---won't accept Amanda's story and prefer to believe that the luminol was triggered by turnip juice, or some other innocent fluid. Why won't they believe Amanda?)

OK, back to the drain pipe and the mop. I think that the lovebirds got around to cleaning the floor of Raffaele's apartment late in the morning after the murder, and in doing so "flooded" the apartment. And they knew that the cops could show up there at any time for inspection. So, in anticipation, they had staged the plumbing leak that morning to create an innocent explanation for this excessive wetness. And since they had disposed of Raffaele's mop, as possibly incriminating, they needed to pretend that they had used the cottage mop instead. Therefore, they pretended that Amanda had brought the mop from the cottage and then returned it to the cottage. In fact, the cottage mop went nowhere and it had not been used in the cleanup at the cottage or at Raffaele's flat.

As luck would have it, the cops didn't visit Raffaele's flat until November 6th, five days after the murder, when the flat had dried out---but still smelling of bleach---so the drain pipe/mop story wasn't needed after all. Still, since their interrogations from November 2nd, the lovebirds had been telling this story to the cops ....so the story endured, already set in concrete, and become a "living fossil" to perplex us all.





(PICTURE)
Odd?


///



This won't fly for me, fine. RS told his dad about the water spill the previous evening before 9 pm IIRC. So I thnk that must have happened. The idea that it was a "flood" is absurd: a whole basin full of water is a lot of water on a floor: but it is not unmanageable: you wipe it up with what you have to hand: and as SA showed they had plenty to hand. But even before I knew about the cloths under the sink, they had towels. I do not think anyone leaves a puddle on a tile floor, because it is slippry and dangerous. If it was washing up water even more so: and dirty as well. And there is the fact that initially, again IIRC, Amanda said that it was water from the pasta which was "spilled". I would not use the word "spilled" for a leaking pipe, so that bothers me as well. And I certainly don't think the smell of bleach could persist for days: it doesn't in my house. Does it in yours?

Even if I accept that they cleaned his floor that morning why would there be "excessive wetness"? Why would they expect the police to arrive before an ordinary level of wetness had dried up? How long does that take in your house? It takes about two posts in mine: though mine tend to be quite long posts, I admit :) Did they imagine that the police would be told of a body and they would rush away from the murder scene immediately to search RS's house? "The guilty that flee when no man pursues" does happen: but really? I don't think even they could be that paranoid: though they might have been.

For me that just has too many holes in it

You are right that the question is what is this story of the mop trying to achieve. As I have mentioned before, and SA reiterates, they mention the mop a lot. It has to be important. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) about being able to change the head. That helps a bit as to what might have happened. But it does not satisfy me as to why it happened. I can see they might have felt they had done well and that they wanted the police to find the lack of dna on the mop: but two things bother me with that. A new mop head would surely be too clean? And more importantly, if things had gone according to plan the police would not have been looking at a clean up anyway:cos they had a burglar to catch. I can see it as a sensible precaution to dispose of a mop if it had been used to clean up: I cannot see the utility in drawing attention to it. It struck me as so odd from the very beginning: I think it must have struck the police in the same way. If they had just put it in the cupboard and said nothing till they had to that makes more sense to me

Course they would not be thinking straight and it might have made sense to them in the way SA suggests: we cannot know. It just stinks
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:17 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SA - Moptastic!!! The theory may have been explored before, but I for one don't recall it. It's elegant and plausible and they nearly pulled it off. If ONLY they hadn't kept banging ON about it. The conflicting accounts of the amount of water are fascinating too. It's these minute details that get liars in the end, isn't it...

Bravo on an excellent bit of sleuthing, and full credit to your stunt mop.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:18 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Arrival time of Postal Police reloaded.

I accept the Sollecito defence's interpretation of the images as presented in the file "postale.pdf" discussed a number times.
The only thing unexplained: how the pedestrian carabinieri got there if the car is the first patrol car. But he may have got out of that car looking for the address like Battistelli earlier. On the other hand, the 13:22 time stamp strongly suggests that it is indeed the first carabinieri car.

Anyways, for the next discussion it is assumed that this is the first patrol car, the one the postals had to direct there through Amanda's phone, thereby establishing a time difference of about 10 minutes, i.e. about 10 minutes must be added to the camera time stamp to get the true time.

A few weeks ago it was suggested here that they called the carabinieri when they saw the postals on the street. At that time I rejected this because the street is not easily seen from the yard, let alone from the house, and the postal's car had no any indications that it is a police car, neither had the policemen themselves, being in plain clothes.

But now, reevaluating the CCTV images I see it possible.

Following the defence's reconstruction, Battistelli is directly at the gates at around 12:51, a place easily seen even from the house.
Raffaele's calls his sister at 12:50:39.

So it is not at all impossible, even by the defence's timeline, that they saw Battistelli.

The end of the carabinieri call is 13:32:56, that's sure from the phone records.
The pedestrian carabinieri appears at about 13:22:12 camera time.
Matching this to the end of the phone call gives a time difference of 10:44 which, I think, is the maximum.
If we match the end of the phone call to the camera time when the patrol car entered the yard (13:22:49) then we have a lesser time difference of 10:07.
It may even be slightly less.

Battistelli is seen coming off the driveway at camera time 12:41:25, that is true time 12:51:32 (using a dt=10:07). He was previously surely at the gates, checking the names on the mailboxes.

Raf's first call to the police is at 12:51:40.

Fiona (i guess) speculated on the short duration of Raffaele's call to his sister (only 39 seconds).
Now it seems possible that it was interrupted by seeing Battistelli at the gates as it seems to coincide with that call.


Last edited by bolint on Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona, I think they kept mentioning it because a) they considered it a quite brilliant move b) the thought it would make them appear innocent. I take your point about the 'newness' of the mop head. I wonder if the girls were asked if it chimed with their memories of it. Those mops do end up looking pretty skanky pretty quickly though...one reason I chose a different mop option for my floor!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

fine 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


___________________

Well, Fiona, I don't think we'll ever find a decisive answer, but here's a story that I find plausible.

First, just exactly what is the drain pipe/mop story ---as told by each lovebird---supposed to explain? For instance, we know that the bathmat-boggie story is supposed to explain Amanda's luminol bare footprints in the hallway and in her own bedroom. (Though, as an aside, the Innocentisti---for some reason---won't accept Amanda's story and prefer to believe that the luminol was triggered by turnip juice, or some other innocent fluid. Why won't they believe Amanda?)

....

Odd?

///


I don't find the inclusion of the mop and the broken pipe to be unusual at all. There was a broken pipe. There was a leak. There was a mop nearby when the Postal Police startled the young adults outside the cottage. I don't buy any of the mop-switch or mop-carrying stuff any more than I believe they had supper at 23:00 or that Raffaele had a call from his father on his land-line at that time.

The inclusion of these details was not the intention of Sollecito and Knox. They were asked about details and they supplied them where necessary. We unfortunately don't have (and will never see) the transcripts of those interviews leading up to the arrest.

Those are the formative portions of what became a set of incontrovertible lies.

Amanda and Raffaele didn't give anywhere near the consideration for what they would be asked once Meredith's body was discovered. They didn't even think of shaking some of the glass outside Filomena's window or actually stealing anything.

The mop story is just a reply to an obvious set of questions the police must have asked: How did you clean up the water at Raffaele's suite? When did you do it? When did the pipe break? How much water was on the floor? And so on. It's not really that tough to embellish a half-truth with other details that might sound reasonable.

The lies that really have to be taken seriously are the ones featured in the Massei Report because those were the ones that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they were involved in Meredith's death.

If they hadn't lied about the locked door, the time they woke up, the time they had dinner, the time the pipe broke, the time they watched Amelie, the phone call from Dr Sollecito, and other things they thought would deflect suspicion, they would have had a far better chance of sowing reasonable doubt in the minds of the court. Not to mention the minds of the investigators.

The mop is the least of their concerns.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
"Why would they expect the police to arrive before an ordinary level of wetness had dried up?"

This brings up Amanda's cryptic phrase on the use of the hair drier: "obviously to dry my hair"
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
"Why would they expect the police to arrive before an ordinary level of wetness had dried up?"

Bolint wrote:
"This brings up Amanda's cryptic phrase on the use of the hair drier: "obviously to dry my hair""


All this on-the-fly impromptu improvisation reminds me of McGyver, where he could escape with a piece of chewing gum and a string, or some washing soda and sugar-bleach.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:34 am   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


hi Catnip.

Yes, I had come across this one before.

There is clearly something going on in terms of the chivalrous instinct. A "middle-aged man" stereotype has circulated here, but we also have the Donnie type, the younger men who wish to ride to her rescue, colours streaming in the wind. It would be unfair to characterise it purely as a male phenomenon, however. What about the Bremners, Marys and Dempseys of this little world?

Knox's age and, more pertinently, her physical appearance, are surely key. If Knox looked more like a little Aileen Wuornos or Rose West, it would have been a different kettle of fish (nothing new there). Does anyone remember a British au pair accused of killing a child in her care in the US? Not sure if this one has come up before in discussion. Her name slips my addled memory.

I think there is certainly something to be analysed in Knox's photogenic-ness (photogenesis? photogenic qualities?). We can roll out the usual debates of beauty in the eye of the beholder, not my type/she's hot dialectics, but there is a reason why Barbie Nadeau called her book "angel face". I believe there is research about how the two-dimensionality of photography creates a certain effect, and that people can appear much more attractive in two dimensions than they do in three. I think, to the average viewer (and is there a gender factor to be taken into account?), Knox is photogenic. The idea of her being atttractive in two dimensions, not necessarily in three is possibly a neat metaphor for the range of responses to her in "real life". There certainly seems to have been a significant proportion of her acquaintances who found her an unattractive character. And, again, there are dimensions of "performance". I think the image used in the Sunday Times article (the recent image) is deployed very artfully.

We've also had debates (not always entirely kind ones) about photos people post of themselves, whether this is Candace Dempsey trying to look younger in her publicity shots, or the images Knox posted of herself on myspace, and what they might signify. One thing that strikes me about the Facebook generation is a growing hyper-sensitivity to this issue of the image one projects of oneself. I'm not a facebooker. All my students are. Two of my children are now (my three year old daughter has yet to discover the joys!). The sensitivity about self-image is very striking, I think. And this connects, of course, to celebrity culture, the Hello! generation, and all that. We have a Learning Network intranet system at our university where student names and emails appear on pages for modules, and students can post images of themselves there, and there is often quite a striking shortfall between the "image" and the "reality" there.

Thinking aloud. Again, none of this has any bearing on what matters - guilt and innocence - but it might have some relevance in attempts to understand the devotion of some innocentisti to the cause.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

This is my primary source collection on the Mop utterances:

Amanda Nov 2 questioning:
Quote:
"Verso le 11,30 di questa mattina, dopo essere tornata a casa per lavarmi e cambiarmi, ho preso il lavapavimenti situato dentro un ripostiglio e sono uscita per andare a casa del mio ragazzo e pulirgli la camera perché la sera precedente l'avevamo sporcata. Siamo rimasti a casa circa un'ora, il tempo di pulire la cucina e fare colazione
"



Amanda Nov 4 email:
Quote:
" i also needed to grab a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the
floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up."
...
"i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, ..."



Rosa Natalia Guman Fernandez de la Calle, cleaner woman at the trial in February on her cleaning session at Raffaele's place on Nov 5 afternoon (As reported by stewarthome2000):
Quote:
The last time she went was on Nov 5th and Raf and Amanda were there. She went under the sink to get the cleaning products and noticed a bucket with water in it and wet mop rags. She asked why the wet rags and the bucket, and he said they had a leak. She did say the bucket had water in it and it was clear.



Raffaele Nov 5 night questioning:
Quote:
"Ricordo che siamo andati subito in cucina, ci siamo seduti e abbiamo parlato per un po'. Forse abbiamo fatto colazione"



Amanda Nov 6 Memoir:
Quote:
" After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home."


Raffaele diary (this part dated Nov 7):
Quote:
"
Non mi ricordo praticamente a che ora ho mangiato, ma sicuramente ho mangiato e Amanda ha mangiato con me. Le domande degli agenti della squadra mobile mi hanno fatto ricordare che quel giorno il tubo dell’acqua sotto al lavello si era sganciato e la cosa mi insospettisce molto, visto che non e possibile che si stacchi da solo, comunque sta di fatto che mi ha allagato mezza casa.
(...)
Era pulita e mi aveva portato un mocio Vileda per aiutarmi ad asciugare per terra vicino al lavandino. La sera prima avevo messo solo delle pezze per terra e non bastavano. Dopo che ho pulito per terra e forse ho fatto colazione intorno alle 11,30-12 mi sono cambiato e siamo usciti.
(...)
Appena arrivati in casa ho riposto il mocio nell’ingresso e mi sono diretto nelle altre stanze per vedere che diavolo era successo. Quei momenti li ricordo bene perché ero agitato e allarmato. Mi sembra di aver visto che Amanda prendeva il secchio del mocio e lo portava in un’altra stanza"




Amanda at the trial June 12-13 (thoughtful's translation and transcript)


Quote:
- Yes. And did you eat dinner?

- Yes. But it was very late when we ate.

- Fish?

- Yes. Fish and a salad.

- And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?

- Yes. While Raffaele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from
underneath. He looked down, turned off the water and then looked underneath
and the pipe underneath "got loose" [in English, the lawyer translates
"broke" (si e rotto), the interpreter translates "slowed down"
(si e rallentato), weird] and water was coming out.

- Can you say what time this was?

- Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and
he was washing the dishes, well, I don't look at the clock much, but it was
around 10. And...he...um...well, he was washing the dishes and the water
was coming out and he was very "bummed", displeased, he told me he had just
had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So...

- So you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

- Then we smoked a joint together. What we did is, we said all right, let's
find some rags, but he didn't have a "mop", how do you say "mop"? [The
interpreter translates "lo spazzolone", the lawyer "il mocio"] he didn't
have one, and I said don't worry, I have one at home, I'll bring it tomorrow,
the leak is in the kitchen, it wasn't like it smelled bad or anything, we
could just forget about it for the night, and then think about it tomorrow.
So, we went into his room, and I think I...yes...I lay down on his bed,
and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and
then we smoked it together.

- Did you fall asleep together?

- Yes, first we made love, and then we fell asleep.


Last edited by bolint on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Black Dog


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:43 pm

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Talking of mops - is the mop in question the one that is still visible outside the cottage on google earth?
The Bard -Thanks for posting the Jeremy Paxman video. I would like to see him interview Edda Mellas rather than her husband, I think he would make mincemeat of her.
I can see Paxman in lawyers robes and I think he would make an fearless advocate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Talking of mops - is the mop in question the one that is still visible outside the cottage on google earth?"

No. That's another one.
Charlie Wilkes published this picture from the cottage, according to file name it was taken on Dec 18:
(Did the police not care about it until Dec 18?)

Attachment:
mop_in_closet_dec_18.jpg


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

When Amanda woke up that morning, she would have looked in the kitchen to check the water on the floor, and to see if the pipes were still leaking. So, there was no need to bring the mop to Raff's, because the water was almost gone.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
... there is a reason why Barbie Nadeau called her book "angel face". I believe there is research about how the two-dimensionality of photography creates a certain effect, and that people can appear much more attractive in two dimensions than they do in three. I think, to the average viewer (and is there a gender factor to be taken into account?), Knox is photogenic. ...



Surrounded by probably millions of angels and cherubs and seraphim, "Viso di un angelo" (angel face) takes on a descriptive, literally iconic, meaning, much like the phrase "peaches and cream" does in English Victorian novels (Hardy?).

A quick image scan in Google has the phrase attached to:

Rachel in Bladerunner (totally agree)
Farrah Fawcett in her poster days (can see the resemblance)
a teen modelling agency (non-nude)
a spectacularly beautiful eyelash-beauty company (design and art)
etc


The visual connotations resonate with the phrase:
e.g. Cimabue

SetteMuse

Raphael (the painter, not the turtle) would have done some, no doubt.
A competition, anyone?
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:25 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
windfall wrote:
... there is a reason why Barbie Nadeau called her book "angel face". I believe there is research about how the two-dimensionality of photography creates a certain effect, and that people can appear much more attractive in two dimensions than they do in three. I think, to the average viewer (and is there a gender factor to be taken into account?), Knox is photogenic. ...



Surrounded by probably millions of angels and cherubs and seraphim, "Viso di un angelo" (angel face) takes on a descriptive, literally iconic, meaning, much like the phrase "peaches and cream" does in English Victorian novels (Hardy?).

A quick image scan in Google has the phrase attached to:

Rachel in Bladerunner (totally agree)
Farrah Fawcett in her poster days (can see the resemblance)
a teen modelling agency (non-nude)
a spectacularly beautiful eyelash-beauty company (design and art)
etc


The visual connotations resonate with the phrase:
e.g. Cimabue
(PICTURE)
SetteMuse

Raphael (the painter, not the turtle) would have done some, no doubt.
A competition, anyone?


Nice one, Catnip.

I have not seen the Otto Preminger movie Angel Face, but I guess it's worth a look. From allmovie.com...

Jean Simmons' fascinating interpretation of an uncharacteristic role is the main drawing card of Otto Preminger's Angel Face. The daughter of Charles Treymayne (Herbert Marshall), who remarried a wealthy woman (Barbara O'Neil), Diane Treymayne's (Simmons) angelic countenance masks an unbridled psychotic who'll let nothing stand in the way of her happiness. Diane arranges for Catherine's death, making it look like an auto accident. Coveting family chauffeur Frank Jessup (Robert Mitchum), Diane steals Frank away from his sweetheart Mary (Mona Freeman) and forces him to become her spiritual accomplice in her stepmother's murder. And when Diane finally realizes that she'll never, ever, be able to hold Frank, she... well, enough said.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:02 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Now, perhaps, with that mindless distraction put aside, we can deal with something much more intriguing: SA's hypothesis about the mop!
Bye, Katody.


ILE was all over the mop issue early on - they knew something was being covered up and Raffaele was at a loss for an explanation when he wrote in his diary:

"The questions the agents of the Squadra Mobile [asked] me have made me to remember that that day the water pipe under [my] sink was detached and [some]thing I find very suspicious - I've seen that it is not possible to so detach alone, at any rate, the fact is that it flooded half the house."



I'd really like one of our Italian speakers to have a quick go at this passage again. It may be Raffy speak but I think we're losing something. In my mop-odyssey I did learn that the pipe was still connected hence a little split and therefore little leak. It was the police who disconnected it I believe and put it in the plastic bag? I think Raffaele is saying the police told him the pipe was detached and he's saying "no it wasn't". However the fact is it flooded half the house (c)Raffy_diary *while* he was doing the washing up (c)Amanda's testimony once she has been challenged in the meantime about why there was no water. A presto! It evaporated!

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
In part I agree; an expanded context provided new assessments. Continuing with my prior perspective, there were also things we weren't assessing. The movements of the mop clouded the potential movements of a piece of it. I think we fell victim to -both- bits of Amanda's misdirection of the mop story. She emphasized it because she knows it won't reveal anything, but her emphasis also focused us on the movement of the full mop itself without thinking of its component parts.

On another note.. she took a garbage bag for her clothes.. but wait... she was going home to shower (and change?) because IIRC she didn't have clothes at raf's? so how did dirty laundry get to his place? did she wear his clothes at some point in time?

Pat


You know, Pat, I cannot for the life of me get this worked out in my head. She brought a garbage bag for her clothes. hmmmmm..... what clothes were these? And how did they get there to begin with if she wasn't wearing them? And what about that big canvas bag that she had over her shoulder - even the pic in my avatar - the morning the postal police showed up? Surely that bag is big enough to carry a change of clothing.

Was it SomeAlibi who asked upthread a bit when we thought she bought the supplies for Raff's? The towels, tampons and soap. I think it was after the police sealed off her place. She couldn't go back in for the necessities. Sure, she bought the soap, but it was still in the bag! I hear she could have used a shower that morning. (We need one of those smilies with fumes coming off, like Pig Pen from Charlie Brown.)

ETA: Petit hands, my a$$! She was a rock climber with rock climbing gear.



Yeah it is distinctly a speculative punt. The tampax box I think is extremely likely purchased after she moved in; it's not consistent with a first week relationship - it's something that you have to do when you have no place else to stay i.e. post-dating the arrest. The soap is there though in the bag. Also unopened loo paper as the shot pans round.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

If you were washing up, the 'leak' would be dirty food laden water so I am sure they would have cleaned it up and rinsed cloths in the bathroom sink if they couldn't jam the plastic bend piece back on temporarily. There is no way they would have let the water sit under the sink or on the floor for a day. They probably put a bucket underneath as well.

As most have mentioned before.. too risky to be moving mops around at night so if anything was moved, I agree the mophead is most likely. If there was a mophead exchange, then RS's mop would be sporting a brand new mophead? Did the photo look like a new mop at RS's? It is hard to imagine a mop and bucket outside the house with AK and RS without some sort of thinking on their part unless they were interrupted by the police.

Can the luminol treatment show up anything like 'swirly mop washing up floor marks' in the hallway? So we are assuming? speculating? or 90% sure the mop, a mop, was used to clear up in the hall?
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Can the luminol treatment show up anything like 'swirly mop washing up floor marks' in the hallway? "

Attachment:
Luminolfoot.jpg


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Thanks, bolint, so the foot print is on the left? These marks more like up and down washing marks? It looks like 2 major blobs to me.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:24 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"Thanks, bolint, so the foot print is on the left?"

The whole is the partial footprint of the right foot. Top left is the toe.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The Bard wrote:
Fiona, I think they kept mentioning it because a) they considered it a quite brilliant move b) the thought it would make them appear innocent. I take your point about the 'newness' of the mop head. I wonder if the girls were asked if it chimed with their memories of it. Those mops do end up looking pretty skanky pretty quickly though...one reason I chose a different mop option for my floor!


Oh, Bard, you've piqued my domestic sensibilities! What do you prefer, do tell!
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:32 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

The parallel marks look too close together and regular to be made by the super mocio, I think.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:34 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Is the floor tile textured?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

H9 wrote:
Can the luminol treatment show up anything like 'swirly mop washing up floor marks' in the hallway? So we are assuming? speculating? or 90% sure the mop, a mop, was used to clear up in the hall?


No. Not unless one was using a luminol reactant along with the mop, such as bleach. The only other way it would is if you did a poor job at actually getting the blood up and instead simply spread it around (which is more of a problem if one is mopping up large concentrations of blood, say a puddle, rather then small traces like from a footprint). To show swirls under the luminol those swirls actually have to be made up of substances that react with luminol.

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Fiona, I think they kept mentioning it because a) they considered it a quite brilliant move b) the thought it would make them appear innocent. I take your point about the 'newness' of the mop head. I wonder if the girls were asked if it chimed with their memories of it. Those mops do end up looking pretty skanky pretty quickly though...one reason I chose a different mop option for my floor!


Oh, Bard, you've piqued my domestic sensibilities! What do you prefer, do tell!


She uses the 'Mungo Bunny Mop' ;)

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Is the floor tile textured?


No, it's smooth.

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


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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Luminol experiments
http://www.forensictv.net/Downloads/lum ... _et_al.pdf
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Now, perhaps, with that mindless distraction put aside, we can deal with something much more intriguing: SA's hypothesis about the mop!
Bye, Katody.


ILE was all over the mop issue early on - they knew something was being covered up and Raffaele was at a loss for an explanation when he wrote in his diary:

"The questions the agents of the Squadra Mobile [asked] me have made me to remember that that day the water pipe under [my] sink was detached and [some]thing I find very suspicious - I've seen that it is not possible to so detach alone, at any rate, the fact is that it flooded half the house."



I'd really like one of our Italian speakers to have a quick go at this passage again. It may be Raffy speak but I think we're losing something. In my mop-odyssey I did learn that the pipe was still connected hence a little split and therefore little leak. It was the police who disconnected it I believe and put it in the plastic bag? I think Raffaele is saying the police told him the pipe was detached and he's saying "no it wasn't". However the fact is it flooded half the house (c)Raffy_diary *while* he was doing the washing up (c)Amanda's testimony once she has been challenged in the meantime about why there was no water. A presto! It evaporated!

Hi Sa,
Here is my take:
'The questions from the officers of the flying squad have made me remember that, that day the water pipe under the sink was disengaged and the thing makes me very suspicious, because it is not possible that it detaches by itself, however, the fact is that it flooded half of my house.'
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

" ‘Model prisoner’ Amanda Knox prepares for appeal"

FirstPost (UK) 16 August 2010

She reads and writes letters in her 130 sq ft cell, from which she has a view of fields and two villages in the distance. In preparation for her November appeal, she spends hours reading through the Italian penal code and going over the 427-page review of the evidence in her murder trial, written up by Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani, the judges who sentenced her to 26 years for murder.


I can relate to the "spends hours reading through" part.

And "model" in more ways than one.

For Windfall: potential bookcover:

Top Profile 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

windfall wrote:
Knox's age and, more pertinently, her physical appearance, are surely key. If Knox looked more like a little Aileen Wuornos or Rose West, it would have been a different kettle of fish (nothing new there). Does anyone remember a British au pair accused of killing a child in her care in the US? Not sure if this one has come up before in discussion. Her name slips my addled memory.


Louise Woodward case

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip quoted:
"spends hours reading through the Italian penal code"

Second-guessing defense strategy?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
jodyodyo wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
In part I agree; an expanded context provided new assessments. Continuing with my prior perspective, there were also things we weren't assessing. The movements of the mop clouded the potential movements of a piece of it. I think we fell victim to -both- bits of Amanda's misdirection of the mop story. She emphasized it because she knows it won't reveal anything, but her emphasis also focused us on the movement of the full mop itself without thinking of its component parts.

On another note.. she took a garbage bag for her clothes.. but wait... she was going home to shower (and change?) because IIRC she didn't have clothes at raf's? so how did dirty laundry get to his place? did she wear his clothes at some point in time?

Pat


You know, Pat, I cannot for the life of me get this worked out in my head. She brought a garbage bag for her clothes. hmmmmm..... what clothes were these? And how did they get there to begin with if she wasn't wearing them? And what about that big canvas bag that she had over her shoulder - even the pic in my avatar - the morning the postal police showed up? Surely that bag is big enough to carry a change of clothing.

Was it SomeAlibi who asked upthread a bit when we thought she bought the supplies for Raff's? The towels, tampons and soap. I think it was after the police sealed off her place. She couldn't go back in for the necessities. Sure, she bought the soap, but it was still in the bag! I hear she could have used a shower that morning. (We need one of those smilies with fumes coming off, like Pig Pen from Charlie Brown.)

ETA: Petit hands, my a$$! She was a rock climber with rock climbing gear.



Yeah it is distinctly a speculative punt. The tampax box I think is extremely likely purchased after she moved in; it's not consistent with a first week relationship - it's something that you have to do when you have no place else to stay i.e. post-dating the arrest. The soap is there though in the bag. Also unopened loo paper as the shot pans round.


According to court testimony, RS was a virgin when he met Knox. It is unlikely, then, that he had overnight female guests other than AK. Unless the tampax belonged to the maid.:)

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Catnip quoted:
"spends hours reading through the Italian penal code"

Second-guessing defense strategy?



Her: I expect probably trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together; the Code is written like a computer program, with subroutines and callouts, so it would take a musician hours to puzzle it out.

Me: just for fun, as a hobby; and maybe one footnote :)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
" ‘Model prisoner’ Amanda Knox prepares for appeal"

FirstPost (UK) 16 August 2010

She reads and writes letters in her 130 sq ft cell, from which she has a view of fields and two villages in the distance. In preparation for her November appeal, she spends hours reading through the Italian penal code and going over the 427-page review of the evidence in her murder trial, written up by Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani, the judges who sentenced her to 26 years for murder.


I can relate to the "spends hours reading through" part.

And "model" in more ways than one.

For Windfall: potential bookcover:




Meet the new AK: Amanda The Penitent

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
" ‘Model prisoner’ Amanda Knox prepares for appeal"

In preparation for her November appeal, she spends hours reading through the Italian penal code and going over the 427-page review of the evidence in her murder trial, written up by Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani, the judges who sentenced her to 26 years for murder.



Your customary good Info, Cat...Thanks

My cynical side wonders if this above quote has been hastily and frantically added to the PR Scripted talking points by the PR Firm's "Quick Reaction Force".

This to smother much recent criticism that this is certainly what an *innocent* person should/would concentrate on rather than earlier reporters mentioning her enjoying roommate prepared crab and chocolate cakes, playing volley ball, doing yoga, strumming guitar (one chord), singing (one line) and 'feeding/fostering' her (obvious to all) narcissistic personality deficiency with attention in 'over 300 letters' (from groupies, perverts and convicted murderess prisoner worshipping wackos)
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I just realised -- in terms of coincidences and timing about the phones being found:

Meredith's UK phone was found second, and the other phone with Filomena's SIM card was found first, from which the Postals got the address for Via della Pergola.

If it had been the other way round, the Postals would have got there (much) later, or not at all, and Filomena would have been in the right position to call the carabinieri.

So close!

It takes a lot of bravery and daring to even try to pull that plan off, let alone think of it. Sheds another light on the personalities involved.


Edited to add: I've been thinking of psychology recently because of a book I got from the Co-op last week. The permutations of the possibilities and implications has been discussed here before, but it has only just sunk in how brazen that plan was.


Last edited by Catnip on Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

christiana wrote:
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


Thanks for providing the links Christiana.

The closet mop (posted by Bolint above) was taken by the police as evidence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySCwcZD5Dk.
Napoleoni stated that "on this mop nothing in particular was found." [Massei pg 98/105].

The outside mop and bucket (different from the closet ones) was "marked" with police tape and remained there at least until the judge/jury inspection of the cottage in April 2009. As we know it was reported in the Italian press that Raffaele and Amanda were found by Inspectors Battistelli and Marzi standing near the mop and bucket on the porch, but apparently this was not pursued by the prosecution in trial. I would assume because other evidence was deemed more important.

Attachment:
outside_mop_and_bucket.jpg
[cropped]


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

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
I just realised -- in terms of coincidences and timing about the phones being found:

Meredith's UK phone was found second, and the other phone with Filomena's SIM card was found first, from which the Postals got the address for Via della Pergola.

If it had been the other way round, the Postals would have got there (much) later, or not at all, and Filomena would have been in the right position to call the carabinieri.

So close!

It takes a lot of bravery and daring to even try to pull that plan off, let alone think of it. Sheds another light on the personalities involved.


Edited to add: I've been thinking of psychology recently because of a book I got from the Co-op last week. The permutations of the possibilities and implications has been discussed here before, but it has only just sunk in how brazen that plan was.

What is the books title?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I always wanted to know what Raffaele had said about that knife. Did he admit at all that it was his or belonged to the appartmant.

Now I found in the Nov 17 2007 la Repubblica (through his family lawyer Tiziano):
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica ... lo-in.html
Quote:
"Quel coltello così grande era già a casa mia, quando l' ho presa in affitto. Io quel coltello non l' ho mai usato. Lo utilizzava Amanda quando tagliava le cipolle"

"That big knife was already in my house when I rented it. I have never used that knife. Amanda used it for cutting onion."



The same article quotes him as also saying:
Quote:
"Quella notte, quando Amanda è tornata, io mi ricordo di averle toccato una mano. Era fredda, come succedeva quando tornava di notte dopo il lavoro al pub. Ma almeno per ora non ricordo altre cose. E se non ricordo, perché dovrei raccontare una bugia? La sera prima di quella in cui Meredith è morta Amanda mi aveva portato i trucchi per la festa di Halloween. Voleva andare in discoteca, ma io non ho più 15 anni e preferivo un pub tranquillo. Ma Amanda è americana, per lei Halloween è una notte molto importante"

That night, when Amanda returned I remember having touched her hand. It was cold, as it used to be when she came home at night after working in the pub. But, at least now, I can't recall anything else. And if I don't remember why should I tell a lie?"


Hmm. So what he remembers is not a lie.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Catnip wrote:
" ‘Model prisoner’ Amanda Knox prepares for appeal"

In preparation for her November appeal, she spends hours reading through the Italian penal code and going over the 427-page review of the evidence in her murder trial, written up by Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani, the judges who sentenced her to 26 years for murder.



Your customary good Info, Cat...Thanks

My cynical side wonders if this above quote has been hastily and frantically added to the PR Scripted talking points by the PR Firm's "Quick Reaction Force".

This to smother much recent criticism that this is certainly what an *innocent* person should/would concentrate on rather than earlier reporters mentioning her enjoying roommate prepared crab and chocolate cakes, playing volley ball, doing yoga, strumming guitar (one chord), singing (one line) and 'feeding/fostering' her (obvious to all) narcissistic personality deficiency with attention in 'over 300 letters' (from groupies, perverts and convicted murderess prisoner worshipping wackos)


Wasn't AK working on a translation of the Massei report according to Edda?

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
fine 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


___________________

Well, Fiona, I don't think we'll ever find a decisive answer, but here's a story that I find plausible.

First, just exactly what is the drain pipe/mop story ---as told by each lovebird---supposed to explain? For instance, we know that the bathmat-boggie story is supposed to explain Amanda's luminol bare footprints in the hallway and in her own bedroom. (Though, as an aside, the Innocentisti---for some reason---won't accept Amanda's story and prefer to believe that the luminol was triggered by turnip juice, or some other innocent fluid. Why won't they believe Amanda?)

OK, back to the drain pipe and the mop. I think that the lovebirds got around to cleaning the floor of Raffaele's apartment late in the morning after the murder, and in doing so "flooded" the apartment. And they knew that the cops could show up there at any time for inspection. So, in anticipation, they had staged the plumbing leak that morning to create an innocent explanation for this excessive wetness. And since they had disposed of Raffaele's mop, as possibly incriminating, they needed to pretend that they had used the cottage mop instead. Therefore, they pretended that Amanda had brought the mop from the cottage and then returned it to the cottage. In fact, the cottage mop went nowhere and it had not been used in the cleanup at the cottage or at Raffaele's flat.

As luck would have it, the cops didn't visit Raffaele's flat until November 6th, five days after the murder, when the flat had dried out---but still smelling of bleach---so the drain pipe/mop story wasn't needed after all. Still, since their interrogations from November 2nd, the lovebirds had been telling this story to the cops ....so the story endured, already set in concrete, and become a "living fossil" to perplex us all.





(PICTURE)
Odd?


///



This won't fly for me, fine. RS told his dad about the water spill the previous evening before 9 pm IIRC. So I thnk that must have happened. The idea that it was a "flood" is absurd: a whole basin full of water is a lot of water on a floor: but it is not unmanageable: you wipe it up with what you have to hand: and as SA showed they had plenty to hand. But even before I knew about the cloths under the sink, they had towels. I do not think anyone leaves a puddle on a tile floor, because it is slippry and dangerous. If it was washing up water even more so: and dirty as well. And there is the fact that initially, again IIRC, Amanda said that it was water from the pasta which was "spilled". I would not use the word "spilled" for a leaking pipe, so that bothers me as well. And I certainly don't think the smell of bleach could persist for days: it doesn't in my house. Does it in yours?

Even if I accept that they cleaned his floor that morning why would there be "excessive wetness"? Why would they expect the police to arrive before an ordinary level of wetness had dried up? How long does that take in your house? It takes about two posts in mine: though mine tend to be quite long posts, I admit :) Did they imagine that the police would be told of a body and they would rush away from the murder scene immediately to search RS's house? "The guilty that flee when no man pursues" does happen: but really? I don't think even they could be that paranoid: though they might have been.

For me that just has too many holes in it

You are right that the question is what is this story of the mop trying to achieve. As I have mentioned before, and SA reiterates, they mention the mop a lot. It has to be important. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) about being able to change the head. That helps a bit as to what might have happened. But it does not satisfy me as to why it happened. I can see they might have felt they had done well and that they wanted the police to find the lack of dna on the mop: but two things bother me with that. A new mop head would surely be too clean? And more importantly, if things had gone according to plan the police would not have been looking at a clean up anyway:cos they had a burglar to catch. I can see it as a sensible precaution to dispose of a mop if it had been used to clean up: I cannot see the utility in drawing attention to it. It struck me as so odd from the very beginning: I think it must have struck the police in the same way. If they had just put it in the cupboard and said nothing till they had to that makes more sense to me

Course they would not be thinking straight and it might have made sense to them in the way SA suggests: we cannot know. It just stinks



An interesting post about the perhaps lack of deviousness-gene there Catnip. Manufacturing alibis is an essential part of criminal theatre. Maybe it's all just rubbed off on me but this is what people like AK & RS *do* (staging break-in / mop) as with all their breathren. They have to - it was attempting to get them off murder.

Quick points - important; looking back, the idea that RS & AK were found outside the flat by the police with the clean-up mop seems to be a bit of case lore. It was reported by the press but importantly Brian S. and others retracted that from their publications on TJMK and elsewhere - it's apocrypha from press rumour as far as I can work out. In fact it was found back in the closet as Raffaele was at pains to point out. This makes sense or it would have been a big thing at the trial and it wasn't. I'm not sure about the 'external' mop -wouldn't that have just engendered a load more debate if it was relevant?

Second point - look at the picture of the mop above with its distinctive markings. You cannot replace the mop itself at any point because it has distinctive gaffer tape on the end and a torn label on the handle - you simply cannot fake this with a replacement.

I’ll try to amend here and to address a few muses / queries that have arisen;

The mop exists in two distinct states - a threat and then as an alibi.

i) The Threat

>Mop is used in cleanup at Cottage. (H9 - Good question but I think a multi-rag end mop won't leave marks practically distinguishable by luminol that would be any different from circular cleaning with rags / towels etc.)

>AK / RS deeply unsure about DNA state of mop. It is an extreme risk item. It doesn't matter how much you clean it at the house - the sheer multiplicity of surfaces of the rag-end mop is a big threat because *your* blood-stained bare footprints have been on the floor - you know your DNA may be mixed in that mop with Meredith's blood.

>But you simply cannot risk being seen by cars / pedestrians carrying such an item through the streets in the early hours of the 2nd. It is large, noticeable,incongruous, memorable. They are also going round the back of the outer walls of Perugia to throw the phones into the ravine, except they throw them into the back-garden because it's dark and it looks like the ravine (see googlemaps streetcar view).

>You cannot replace the mop itself at any point because it has distinctive gaffer tape on the end and a torn label on the handle - you simply cannot fake this with a replacement. (see image above) You are therefore left with a pressing urgent threat in the shape of the mop. Stilicho - at this point the mop is a BIG problem.

>However you know by examining it (you've just been using it at length) that the head is replaceable. The idea forms. You probably wet yourself with relief because it was almost unsolveable up to this point. You might even have had an argument about it.

>Still, you are confident the flat will remain undisturbed with the girls out of town early next morning.

>Therefore leave it and return to the flat. However you are massively stressed about the mop and the general threat. Play some music in the late-early hours and wait for shop to open. Be there at the *opening* you are so keen to get going and complete clean-up. Get replacement mop head.

Why not replace the mop-head at the cottage? I did think of this. The bag-for-clothes is interesting indeed. It could be possible but I think it runs into trouble thereafter as suggested for three principal reasons; i) To Fiona's question, every forger or set-up artist has to fake an introduced element to look like it belongs. Anyone who has watched a little CSI or any TV cop show knows this. No-one would put a new mop-head on a mop and look at it and then go "that looks convincing". You would immediately recognise that it needed to be dirtied up to look the part. Therefore, to do it at the cottage or the flat? If at the cottage then ii) what surface am I supposed to dirty the new head up on? What start adding water to the scene of the crime now thirteen hours later when people WILL be turning up here sooner than later??? We can also suspect at this stage the old mop-head's pretty messed up and you are starting at the idea of possible DNA traces. Where are you going to put the old (soaking) head down? In a thin plastic bag? What if it drips as you carry it? iii) What happens if you get spotted carrying a bag (dripping or otherwise) to a dumpster in broad daylight? It's now morning and a lot more people are about.

ii) The Alibi

>At this point the thought occurs (if not the night before); if I can take it to Raffaele's where there was a real (minor) leak whose existence Raffaele told his father about on the phone (in total agreement with Fiona) the night before, then thank god I FINALLY have a legitimate reason to get it out here and I have a corroborated (Raffaele's father) reason for it. Independent corroboration is massively important to alibis. I can be seen with it and walk it back to ii) the place with all the bleach iii) I can dirty it up iv) dispose of the old head much more easily from a place that won't be connected with witnesses to the direct murder area and v) then it will give me an excuse to walk it back to the flat and place it back in the cottage.

Fiona - so why draw attention to the mop? Well because you have walked past / may have been seen by a number of people as you walked from and to the Cottage. Now you are confident that you have a "legitimate" reason in the bag for the trips but now consider the two scenarios; i) You either mention to police pro-actively that you were at the cottage with a mop which establishes your bona-fides that you are not possibly concerned with it (make them look innocent per Bard) or ii) Some way into the investigation, the police find that you have been seen with a mop on the street. If that came up a little later they would suddenly massively focus on that mop. A flatmate of a murdered girl is seen with a cleaning implement on the morning of the day of discovery of the body - it's generically notable / suspicious. Again it is a *classic* alibi point for a perpetrator of a crime to introduce themselves into an environment / fact set with a "clean" reason for touching the object / being seen with that person *before* anyone else finds out about it. The volunteering of it is thought to establish bona-fides. In fact police are highly attuned to this because it happens so much!

Thereafter you volunteer your interaction with the mop; you talk about it endlessly because how is it possible that two people who were involved in a murder would have been carrying a mop from a murder scene and returning it again and talking so freely and easily about it? It is the same mop - the girls will confirm the markings and clearly there is nothing wrong with it. From this point on you are mentioning it at every breath to those who will listen precisely not because it's part of the problem but because you think it is a very big part of the solution. It's a classic double bluff alibi.

Lastly remember the way they do is just their M.O. Consider the three alibis / appearances of innocence;

The Golden Shit - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele
The Break In with Nothing Stolen - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele
The Mop - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele

Seeing a pattern?

_________________
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 stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
For Windfall: potential bookcover:


The "penitent" bookcover quip and pic was great.

My vote for bookcover would be: (pics not posted for redundancy here, but available on request)

1) The yellow dress machine Gun

2) The black slacks provocative arm on knee Facebook with *her* words bragging about how "foxy" she is

3) The drunk and/or high party pic with one finger raised and surrounded by fawning *men* (also high/drunk/both)

4) At younger age building the snowman with boobs

5) Casting the flirty eyes to Raffie entering Court early in trial

6) The attempt to hand gesture alibi to circle of obviously unbelieving (gagging from her body odor) investigators

7) Photo shop : Raffie with hood and cleaver next to her with Machine Gun

8) Photo shop: Her leading the 'lucky' stranger into the train toilet (inside toilet visible enough to allow full "ambiance" of typical well used/abused train toilet to be 'savored' as her choice of 'love nest'.

9) Photo shop: Artist wearing PR Firm logo tee shirt re-brushing Machine Gun, Drunk Party, and lucky stranger pic into young soccer player pic and Madison's bead bedecked hippie accordion player pic

Did I miss any ??? ;)


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Now, perhaps, with that mindless distraction put aside, we can deal with something much more intriguing: SA's hypothesis about the mop!
Bye, Katody.


ILE was all over the mop issue early on - they knew something was being covered up and Raffaele was at a loss for an explanation when he wrote in his diary:

"The questions the agents of the Squadra Mobile [asked] me have made me to remember that that day the water pipe under [my] sink was detached and [some]thing I find very suspicious - I've seen that it is not possible to so detach alone, at any rate, the fact is that it flooded half the house."



I'd really like one of our Italian speakers to have a quick go at this passage again. It may be Raffy speak but I think we're losing something. In my mop-odyssey I did learn that the pipe was still connected hence a little split and therefore little leak. It was the police who disconnected it I believe and put it in the plastic bag? I think Raffaele is saying the police told him the pipe was detached and he's saying "no it wasn't". However the fact is it flooded half the house (c)Raffy_diary *while* he was doing the washing up (c)Amanda's testimony once she has been challenged in the meantime about why there was no water. A presto! It evaporated!

Hi Sa,
Here is my take:
'The questions from the officers of the flying squad have made me remember that, that day the water pipe under the sink was disengaged and the thing makes me very suspicious, because it is not possible that it detaches by itself, however, the fact is that it flooded half of my house.'


To me this sounds exactly like the kind of lie Raffaele will come up with during questioning, when backed into a corner.

Busted, every time.

This is why he had to stop talking and why he could not take the stand - even a determined 6-year-old could back him into a logical corner. I doubt Raffaele played chess because he cannot see more than one move ahead.

He writes like he thinks of himself as a reflective intellectual, but he's just a bumbling idiot; the perfect foil for ringleader Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Now, perhaps, with that mindless distraction put aside, we can deal with something much more intriguing: SA's hypothesis about the mop!
Bye, Katody.


ILE was all over the mop issue early on - they knew something was being covered up and Raffaele was at a loss for an explanation when he wrote in his diary:

"The questions the agents of the Squadra Mobile [asked] me have made me to remember that that day the water pipe under [my] sink was detached and [some]thing I find very suspicious - I've seen that it is not possible to so detach alone, at any rate, the fact is that it flooded half the house."



I'd really like one of our Italian speakers to have a quick go at this passage again. It may be Raffy speak but I think we're losing something. In my mop-odyssey I did learn that the pipe was still connected hence a little split and therefore little leak. It was the police who disconnected it I believe and put it in the plastic bag? I think Raffaele is saying the police told him the pipe was detached and he's saying "no it wasn't". However the fact is it flooded half the house (c)Raffy_diary *while* he was doing the washing up (c)Amanda's testimony once she has been challenged in the meantime about why there was no water. A presto! It evaporated!

Hi Sa,
Here is my take:
'The questions from the officers of the flying squad have made me remember that, that day the water pipe under the sink was disengaged and the thing makes me very suspicious, because it is not possible that it detaches by itself, however, the fact is that it flooded half of my house.'



Thanks Jools. Erm - does anyone understand what he's going on about *really*. Or is this proper Raff-trash?

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Fiona wrote:
fine 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


___________________

Well, Fiona, I don't think we'll ever find a decisive answer, but here's a story that I find plausible.

First, just exactly what is the drain pipe/mop story ---as told by each lovebird---supposed to explain? For instance, we know that the bathmat-boggie story is supposed to explain Amanda's luminol bare footprints in the hallway and in her own bedroom. (Though, as an aside, the Innocentisti---for some reason---won't accept Amanda's story and prefer to believe that the luminol was triggered by turnip juice, or some other innocent fluid. Why won't they believe Amanda?)

OK, back to the drain pipe and the mop. I think that the lovebirds got around to cleaning the floor of Raffaele's apartment late in the morning after the murder, and in doing so "flooded" the apartment. And they knew that the cops could show up there at any time for inspection. So, in anticipation, they had staged the plumbing leak that morning to create an innocent explanation for this excessive wetness. And since they had disposed of Raffaele's mop, as possibly incriminating, they needed to pretend that they had used the cottage mop instead. Therefore, they pretended that Amanda had brought the mop from the cottage and then returned it to the cottage. In fact, the cottage mop went nowhere and it had not been used in the cleanup at the cottage or at Raffaele's flat.

As luck would have it, the cops didn't visit Raffaele's flat until November 6th, five days after the murder, when the flat had dried out---but still smelling of bleach---so the drain pipe/mop story wasn't needed after all. Still, since their interrogations from November 2nd, the lovebirds had been telling this story to the cops ....so the story endured, already set in concrete, and become a "living fossil" to perplex us all.





(PICTURE)
Odd?


///



This won't fly for me, fine. RS told his dad about the water spill the previous evening before 9 pm IIRC. So I thnk that must have happened. The idea that it was a "flood" is absurd: a whole basin full of water is a lot of water on a floor: but it is not unmanageable: you wipe it up with what you have to hand: and as SA showed they had plenty to hand. But even before I knew about the cloths under the sink, they had towels. I do not think anyone leaves a puddle on a tile floor, because it is slippry and dangerous. If it was washing up water even more so: and dirty as well. And there is the fact that initially, again IIRC, Amanda said that it was water from the pasta which was "spilled". I would not use the word "spilled" for a leaking pipe, so that bothers me as well. And I certainly don't think the smell of bleach could persist for days: it doesn't in my house. Does it in yours?

Even if I accept that they cleaned his floor that morning why would there be "excessive wetness"? Why would they expect the police to arrive before an ordinary level of wetness had dried up? How long does that take in your house? It takes about two posts in mine: though mine tend to be quite long posts, I admit :) Did they imagine that the police would be told of a body and they would rush away from the murder scene immediately to search RS's house? "The guilty that flee when no man pursues" does happen: but really? I don't think even they could be that paranoid: though they might have been.

For me that just has too many holes in it

You are right that the question is what is this story of the mop trying to achieve. As I have mentioned before, and SA reiterates, they mention the mop a lot. It has to be important. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) about being able to change the head. That helps a bit as to what might have happened. But it does not satisfy me as to why it happened. I can see they might have felt they had done well and that they wanted the police to find the lack of dna on the mop: but two things bother me with that. A new mop head would surely be too clean? And more importantly, if things had gone according to plan the police would not have been looking at a clean up anyway:cos they had a burglar to catch. I can see it as a sensible precaution to dispose of a mop if it had been used to clean up: I cannot see the utility in drawing attention to it. It struck me as so odd from the very beginning: I think it must have struck the police in the same way. If they had just put it in the cupboard and said nothing till they had to that makes more sense to me

Course they would not be thinking straight and it might have made sense to them in the way SA suggests: we cannot know. It just stinks



An interesting post about the perhaps lack of deviousness-gene there Catnip. Manufacturing alibis is an essential part of criminal theatre. Maybe it's all just rubbed off on me but this is what people like AK & RS *do* (staging break-in / mop) as with all their breathren. They have to - it was attempting to get them off murder.

Quick points - important; looking back, the idea that RS & AK were found outside the flat by the police with the clean-up mop seems to be a bit of case lore. It was reported by the press but importantly Brian S. and others retracted that from their publications on TJMK and elsewhere - it's apocrypha from press rumour as far as I can work out. In fact it was found back in the closet as Raffaele was at pains to point out. This makes sense or it would have been a big thing at the trial and it wasn't. I'm not sure about the 'external' mop -wouldn't that have just engendered a load more debate if it was relevant?

Second point - look at the picture of the mop above with its distinctive markings. You cannot replace the mop itself at any point because it has distinctive gaffer tape on the end and a torn label on the handle - you simply cannot fake this with a replacement.

I’ll try to amend here and to address a few muses / queries that have arisen;

The mop exists in two distinct states - a threat and then as an alibi.

i) The Threat

>Mop is used in cleanup at Cottage. (H9 - Good question but I think a multi-rag end mop won't leave marks practically distinguishable by luminol that would be any different from circular cleaning with rags / towels etc.)

>AK / RS deeply unsure about DNA state of mop. It is an extreme risk item. It doesn't matter how much you clean it at the house - the sheer multiplicity of surfaces of the rag-end mop is a big threat because *your* blood-stained bare footprints have been on the floor - you know your DNA may be mixed in that mop with Meredith's blood.

>But you simply cannot risk being seen by cars / pedestrians carrying such an item through the streets in the early hours of the 2nd. It is large, noticeable,incongruous, memorable. They are also going round the back of the outer walls of Perugia to throw the phones into the ravine, except they throw them into the back-garden because it's dark and it looks like the ravine (see googlemaps streetcar view).

>You cannot replace the mop itself at any point because it has distinctive gaffer tape on the end and a torn label on the handle - you simply cannot fake this with a replacement. (see image above) You are therefore left with a pressing urgent threat in the shape of the mop. Stilicho - at this point the mop is a BIG problem.

>However you know by examining it (you've just been using it at length) that the head is replaceable. The idea forms. You probably wet yourself with relief because it was almost unsolveable up to this point. You might even have had an argument about it.

>Still, you are confident the flat will remain undisturbed with the girls out of town early next morning.

>Therefore leave it and return to the flat. However you are massively stressed about the mop and the general threat. Play some music in the late-early hours and wait for shop to open. Be there at the *opening* you are so keen to get going and complete clean-up. Get replacement mop head.

Why not replace the mop-head at the cottage? I did think of this. The bag-for-clothes is interesting indeed. It could be possible but I think it runs into trouble thereafter as suggested for three principal reasons; i) To Fiona's question, every forger or set-up artist has to fake an introduced element to look like it belongs. Anyone who has watched a little CSI or any TV cop show knows this. No-one would put a new mop-head on a mop and look at it and then go "that looks convincing". You would immediately recognise that it needed to be dirtied up to look the part. Therefore, to do it at the cottage or the flat? If at the cottage then ii) what surface am I supposed to dirty the new head up on? What start adding water to the scene of the crime now thirteen hours later when people WILL be turning up here sooner than later??? We can also suspect at this stage the old mop-head's pretty messed up and you are starting at the idea of possible DNA traces. Where are you going to put the old (soaking) head down? In a thin plastic bag? What if it drips as you carry it? iii) What happens if you get spotted carrying a bag (dripping or otherwise) to a dumpster in broad daylight? It's now morning and a lot more people are about.

ii) The Alibi

>At this point the thought occurs (if not the night before); if I can take it to Raffaele's where there was a real (minor) leak whose existence Raffaele told his father about on the phone (in total agreement with Fiona) the night before, then thank god I FINALLY have a legitimate reason to get it out here and I have a corroborated (Raffaele's father) reason for it. Independent corroboration is massively important to alibis. I can be seen with it and walk it back to ii) the place with all the bleach iii) I can dirty it up iv) dispose of the old head much more easily from a place that won't be connected with witnesses to the direct murder area and v) then it will give me an excuse to walk it back to the flat and place it back in the cottage.

Fiona - so why draw attention to the mop? Well because you have walked past / may have been seen by a number of people as you walked from and to the Cottage. Now you are confident that you have a "legitimate" reason in the bag for the trips but now consider the two scenarios; i) You either mention to police pro-actively that you were at the cottage with a mop which establishes your bona-fides that you are not possibly concerned with it (make them look innocent per Bard) or ii) Some way into the investigation, the police find that you have been seen with a mop on the street. If that came up a little later they would suddenly massively focus on that mop. A flatmate of a murdered girl is seen with a cleaning implement on the morning of the day of discovery of the body - it's generically notable / suspicious. Again it is a *classic* alibi point for a perpetrator of a crime to introduce themselves into an environment / fact set with a "clean" reason for touching the object / being seen with that person *before* anyone else finds out about it. The volunteering of it is thought to establish bona-fides. In fact police are highly attuned to this because it happens so much!

Thereafter you volunteer your interaction with the mop; you talk about it endlessly because how is it possible that two people who were involved in a murder would have been carrying a mop from a murder scene and returning it again and talking so freely and easily about it? It is the same mop - the girls will confirm the markings and clearly there is nothing wrong with it. From this point on you are mentioning it at every breath to those who will listen precisely not because it's part of the problem but because you think it is a very big part of the solution. It's a classic double bluff alibi.

Lastly remember the way they do is just their M.O. Consider the three alibis / appearances of innocence;

The Golden Shit - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele
The Break In with Nothing Stolen - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele
The Mop - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele

Seeing a pattern?



In addition to the above, the mop provides an additional "legitimate" reason for returning to the cottage. You don't like the preference for the cottage shower story? You don't like the need for a change of clothes story? Well, how about the mop story then?

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"The Golden Shit - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele"

I also think it was some kind of "captatio benevolentiae".
The toilet was not properly flushed that's true.
But I don't believe the shit was resting there for twelwe hours and then after one hour it slipped down. Very strange.
I think that Amanda saw it in it's final state and she wanted to score some police points. But it would have been strange if she had said that "When I went into the bathroom for the hair drier and looked deep into the toilet ...". So she invented the slipping feces story and sold it to the police.

In the first questioning Raffaele said that the toilet was clean (see Matteini).


Last edited by bolint on Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SA and contributors:

Really enjoying the admirable sleuthing and absolutely incisive and incriminating reporting of the mop revelations

mul-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
I always wanted to know what Raffaele had said about that knife. Did he admit at all that it was his or belonged to the appartmant.

Now I found in the Nov 17 2007 la Repubblica (through his family lawyer Tiziano):
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica ... lo-in.html
Quote:
"Quel coltello così grande era già a casa mia, quando l' ho presa in affitto. Io quel coltello non l' ho mai usato. Lo utilizzava Amanda quando tagliava le cipolle"

"That big knife was already in my house when I rented it. I have never used that knife. Amanda used it for cutting onion."



The same article quotes him as also saying:
Quote:
"Quella notte, quando Amanda è tornata, io mi ricordo di averle toccato una mano. Era fredda, come succedeva quando tornava di notte dopo il lavoro al pub. Ma almeno per ora non ricordo altre cose. E se non ricordo, perché dovrei raccontare una bugia? La sera prima di quella in cui Meredith è morta Amanda mi aveva portato i trucchi per la festa di Halloween. Voleva andare in discoteca, ma io non ho più 15 anni e preferivo un pub tranquillo. Ma Amanda è americana, per lei Halloween è una notte molto importante"

That night, when Amanda returned I remember having touched her hand. It was cold, as it used to be when she came home at night after working in the pub. But, at least now, I can't recall anything else. And if I don't remember why should I tell a lie?"


Hmm. So what he remembers is not a lie.


He also said this:

Quote:
Date: November 17, 2007

Raffaele Sollecito, 23, spent his first 10 days of prison searching for precise memories. Memories that are returning after the fog provoked by the hashish. He saw the television news on Thursday evening. And yesterday morning, when one of his lawyers, Tiziano Tedeschi, arrived at the prison, he asked him suddenly: "What do I have to do with that knife?" It was the knife which contained DNA traces of poor Meredith, and of Amanda, who is accused like Raffaele of homicide. "That huge knife was already at my house when I rented it. I never used that knife. Amanda used it when cutting onions." His own two pocket knives have also been confiscated; he has been carrying them since he was 13, and changed them to match his outfits. "But it's unbelievable," he said when he heard that the knife had been confiscated by the police, "that Amanda was going around with such a big kitchen knife, I simply can't believe it." A thousand words, in these difficult days, have been exchanged with his father, his father's new wife, his educators and his lawyers. Precise memories are beginning to return. "On that night, when Amanda came home, I remember having touched her hand. It was cold, like it was when she would come home at night after working at the pub. But for now I can't remember anything else. And if I can't remember, why should I tell a lie? The evening before Meredith died Amanda brought me make-up stuff for Halloween. She wanted to go to a disco, but I'm not 15 any more and I preferred a quiet pub. But Amanda is American, and for her Halloween is a really important night." Raffaele should have been going to Milan during those days. "Right after my degree, there would have been a party and a lunch with relatives and friends, and then in the evening, a romantic restaurant just for Amanda and me. Then, with my father, I would have left right away for Milan to enroll in a master's at Bocconi. My father inundated me with phone calls during those last days of freedom, sometimes even four a day. He wanted me to study and work on my (undergraduate) thesis. I had only written a draft. I was also calling home. One evening I asked for a recipe: I wanted to make a risotto for Amanda." Also childhood memories are becoming part of the defense. "I've always been scared of blood, since I was little. If I see blood I feel sick. I had barely spotted a trace of blood in the bathroom that morning and I had to step back. If I had gone into Meredith's room then I'd have died on the spot." The boy from Giovinazzo has destroyed Amanda's alibi, but he certainly doesn't forget the days spent with her. "She was my first real conquest. As a boy I was fat, everyone called me Cicciolone. I would look at myself in the mirror and I didn't like myself. I told myself there was only one thing to do: the gym, and more of the gym. I changed, and I felt better. When Amanda got together with me, I was very jealous. That's why I wanted her to sleep over at my place, so no one else could be looking at her. It was my first really important story." Even in a cell, Raffaele wants to be a good kid. "I asked for rags to clean up the bathroom. And even the bars. They're dusty."



RAFFAELE IN THE FIRST DAYS AFTER HIS ARREST, NOV 17, 2007

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
In addition to the above, the mop provides an additional "legitimate" reason for returning to the cottage. You don't like the preference for the cottage shower story? You don't like the need for a change of clothes story? Well, how about the mop story then?


Exactly. The more 'innocent' reasons given to go back to the cottage, the better.

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"The Golden Shit - brought to the police's attention by Amanda and Raffaele"

The toilet was not properly flushed that's true.
But I don't believe the shit was resting there for twelwe hours and then after one hour it slipped down. Very strange.
I think that Amanda saw it in it's final state and she wanted to score some police points. But it would have been strange if she had said that "When I went into tha bathroom for the hair drier and looked deep into the toilet ...". So she invented the slipping feces story and sold it to the police.
In the first questioning Raffaele said that the toilet was clean (see Matteini).


Heartily agree:

If Johnny Cochran's "glove don't fit, you must acquit" ......worked such wonders for OJ's defense....

....then Bolint's "stale shit don't slip" .......is certainly worth a few repetitions for AK's prosecutors


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
In addition to the above, the mop provides an additional "legitimate" reason for returning to the cottage. You don't like the preference for the cottage shower story? You don't like the need for a change of clothes story? Well, how about the mop story then?


Exactly. The more 'innocent' reasons given to go back to the cottage, the better.


Except that when they were questioned in detail about the circumstances (i.e. the leak and the mop) they were unable to provide compelling scenarios.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
In addition to the above, the mop provides an additional "legitimate" reason for returning to the cottage. You don't like the preference for the cottage shower story? You don't like the need for a change of clothes story? Well, how about the mop story then?


Exactly. The more 'innocent' reasons given to go back to the cottage, the better.


Except that when they were questioned in detail about the circumstances (i.e. the leak and the mop) they were unable to provide compelling scenarios.


Yes, but the only time we know that either of them were actually questioned about the mop was when Amanda was on the stand. All the stuff we've heard about the mop from them has only come from their diaries and Amanda's email home (and said testimony in court).

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fiona wrote:
A new mop head would surely be too clean? And more importantly, if things had gone according to plan the police would not have been looking at a clean up anyway:cos they had a burglar to catch. I can see it as a sensible precaution to dispose of a mop if it had been used to clean up: I cannot see the utility in drawing attention to it. It struck me as so odd from the very beginning: I think it must have struck the police in the same way. If they had just put it in the cupboard and said nothing till they had to that makes more sense to me


I was thinking about the cleanliness of a new mop head last night right before falling off to sleep; that also provides them a need to make up a story to clean something. Take it back to Rafs, get it wet, walk outside, run it around in the dirt, wash it out, repeat. Take it back home. This of course leaves them with a mop head that is potentially still wet/damp at 2 in the afternoon. To justify that, there's a story of cleaning up the spill at raf's.

So, there's several points they'd have to cover- Amanda's prints on the mop on top of other prints (a contradiction since she wasn't the cleanest of roommates and according to F skipped her last cleaning rotation) and a mop head that may still be wet.

I think the barefoot print on the bathmat and a lack of other bare footprints would have led police to quickly investigate if, how, and how much of a cleanup was done.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

To my eyes the mop bucket on the porch is distinctly different from the mop bucket in the closet of the cottage. The outside bucket is rectangular in shape and has cutout handles, whereas the closet bucket is oval-shaped with a wire carry handle. So I think it is quite possible that the outside bucket was on the porch when the Postal Police arrived which would have been of extreme concern to RS and AK - thus the over-explaining and tall tales of the Pergola Flood.

Attachment:
bucket_x2.jpg


I also have a hunch that the outside mop and bucket was not tested due to rapid decomposition of DNA by bacteria and mold in the wet environment.


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

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

One of the very first things which seems so unbelievable for me, is the statements, that Amanda would walked the streets with a mop.
This very Amanda whom I heard the others had problems with her cleaning habits.
This very Amanda sitting on the sofa whilst Raffaele is cooking and serving and afterwards washing the dishes!

I believe that the cleaning was done with something else (like a T-Shirt or a towel) because if you mop the floor, you spread a greater area than if you clean each part separately.

And then draw all the attention on that mop - well knowing that they could not find a microspopic piece of evidence on it.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
"Yes, but the only time we know that either of them were actually questioned about the mop was when Amanda was on the stand."

She talked about it in her Nov2 questioning and Raffaele on Nov 5.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=255&start=3000#p55423

Quote:
"Verso le 11,30 di questa mattina, dopo essere tornata a casa per lavarmi e cambiarmi, ho preso il lavapavimenti situato dentro un ripostiglio e sono uscita per andare a casa del mio ragazzo e pulirgli la camera perché la sera precedente l'avevamo sporcata. Siamo rimasti a casa circa un'ora, il tempo di pulire la cucina e fare colazione"

"At about 11:30 this morning, after I had gone to my house to wash myself and to change clothes, I took the mop that was in a cabinet and left to go to the house of my boyfriend and to clean his room (sic!) because the previous evening(sic) we had dirtied it. We were staying home for about an hour, the time to clean the kitchen and to have breakfast."



The same in Raffaele's Nov 5 questioning:
Quote:
"Ricordo che siamo andati subito in cucina, ci siamo seduti e abbiamo parlato per un po'. Forse abbiamo fatto colazione""

""I remember that we went immediately into the kitchen, there we sat down and were talking for a while. Perhaps we had breakfast""


Last edited by bolint on Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
In addition to the above, the mop provides an additional "legitimate" reason for returning to the cottage. You don't like the preference for the cottage shower story? You don't like the need for a change of clothes story? Well, how about the mop story then?


Exactly. The more 'innocent' reasons given to go back to the cottage, the better.


Except that when they were questioned in detail about the circumstances (i.e. the leak and the mop) they were unable to provide compelling scenarios.


Yes, but the only time we know that either of them were actually questioned about the mop was when Amanda was on the stand. All the stuff we've heard about the mop from them has only come from their diaries and Amanda's email home (and said testimony in court).


Raffaele, in his diary, indicates that it was questioning by the Flying Squad that uncovered inconsistencies in his leaky pipes story; that there was no way that so much water could have been on the floor unless the pipe had completely separated. There was some water leaking, but the question remains: how much? Enough to require a backup mop, as suggested by Amanda and Raffaele?

ILE was duly suspicious and Raffaele finally admitted that he was telling them a pack of lies, and they led him down the hall to a jail cell whilst Amanda turned cartwheels in the waiting room.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Rebel wrote:
To my eyes the mop bucket on the porch is distinctly different from the mop bucket in the closet of the cottage. The outside bucket is rectangular in shape and has cutout handles, whereas the closet bucket is oval-shaped with a wire carry handle. So I think it is quite possible that the outside bucket was on the porch when the Postal Police arrived which would have been of extreme concern to RS and AK - thus the over-explaining and tall tales of the Pergola Flood.


The mop and bucket sitting outside the cottage was not the mop that Amanda took to Raffaele's, that was consequently brought back to the cottage.

Raffaele explains in his dairy:

"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. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket and it carried it in to another room."
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
In addition to the above, the mop provides an additional "legitimate" reason for returning to the cottage. You don't like the preference for the cottage shower story? You don't like the need for a change of clothes story? Well, how about the mop story then?


Exactly. The more 'innocent' reasons given to go back to the cottage, the better.


Except that when they were questioned in detail about the circumstances (i.e. the leak and the mop) they were unable to provide compelling scenarios.


Yes, but the only time we know that either of them were actually questioned about the mop was when Amanda was on the stand. All the stuff we've heard about the mop from them has only come from their diaries and Amanda's email home (and said testimony in court).


Raffaele, in his diary, indicates that it was questioning by the Flying Squad that uncovered inconsistencies in his leaky pipes story; that there was no way that so much water could have been on the floor unless the pipe had completely separated. There was some water leaking, but the question remains: how much? Enough to require a backup mop, as suggested by Amanda and Raffaele?

ILE was duly suspicious and Raffaele finally admitted that he was telling them a pack of lies, and they led him down the hall to a jail cell whilst Amanda turned cartwheels in the waiting room.



Right and even if the pipe was disconnected (which it appears from reading back in PMF was the police not Raffaele) it doesn't matter anyway. Amanda said more than once in testimony that the leak happened while they were doing the washing up. How long does it take to turn off a running tap? Or plug back in the sink plug? Or even if it was half a sink full say clear it up with 11 cleaning cloths, towels and sponges? 5 of which could have been wrung out in a pot, pan or bucket?

I suppose in FOA land ALL of this is just more co-incidence. Again. You people have the most straw-restistent camel's back I have ever seen.


edit: deleted an urban myth.

_________________
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 Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
"The cleaning lady who spotted the bucket on the 5th of November at Raffaele's flat. When did she stop working for him? The 5th of November - he fired her that day!"

That's new for me. Not beacuse he was arrested next day?
Where is this news from?
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I read about her in the postings of StewartHome2000 back in the quandam days of the board. i.e. before I came along! But as to the fired I don't recall where I read that and it seems unlikely now - a court report by one Harry Rag says that she worked for him up to the 5th because of the arrest. So that's another little urban myth defused. I will edit above.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Fiona wrote:
A new mop head would surely be too clean? And more importantly, if things had gone according to plan the police would not have been looking at a clean up anyway:cos they had a burglar to catch. I can see it as a sensible precaution to dispose of a mop if it had been used to clean up: I cannot see the utility in drawing attention to it. It struck me as so odd from the very beginning: I think it must have struck the police in the same way. If they had just put it in the cupboard and said nothing till they had to that makes more sense to me


I was thinking about the cleanliness of a new mop head last night right before falling off to sleep; that also provides them a need to make up a story to clean something. Take it back to Rafs, get it wet, walk outside, run it around in the dirt, wash it out, repeat. Take it back home. This of course leaves them with a mop head that is potentially still wet/damp at 2 in the afternoon. To justify that, there's a story of cleaning up the spill at raf's.

So, there's several points they'd have to cover- Amanda's prints on the mop on top of other prints (a contradiction since she wasn't the cleanest of roommates and according to F skipped her last cleaning rotation) and a mop head that may still be wet.

I think the barefoot print on the bathmat and a lack of other bare footprints would have led police to quickly investigate if, how, and how much of a cleanup was done.

Pat



Right but since Doc Sollecito testified on the leak being mentioned on the call on the night of the 1st, to get your story to run you would have to add that Raffaele confessed all and got his father to provide an "alibi" by corroborating the story of the leak falsely. I think Papa knows / realises plenty because after all he will not "speak" on behalf of Amanda and "damns the day Raffaele met Amanda" which are VERY odd thing to say about two totally innocent people. But as to being in that early and deliberately providing an alibi to murder? I'm with Fiona on this one.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

A question I'd like everyone's personal view on;

The blood-soaked towels in Meredith's room; do they support Rudy's tale of trying to stem the blood? Or are they clean up? What do they tell us about the dynamic of the attack and what happened...or not?

_________________
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 bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I think Massei is completely right (p85) on the mop:
Quote:
"Fetching the mop to dry the floor also seems to be a scarcely credible action: at Raffaele Sollecito’s there was someone attending to the cleaning; it is therefore considered that everything needed to clean up some water was already there, such that on the morning of November 2, not much could have been left on the floor, as was also reported by Amanda Knox herself."


So either the mop transfer is a tale (why?), or it had to be done for some other reason.

But one thing is sure: the mop was used at night or in the morning.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
I think Massei is completely right (p85) on the mop:
Quote:
"Fetching the mop to dry the floor also seems to be a scarcely credible action: at Raffaele Sollecito’s there was someone attending to the cleaning; it is therefore considered that everything needed to clean up some water was already there, such that on the morning of November 2, not much could have been left on the floor, as was also reported by Amanda Knox herself."


So either the mop transfer is a tale (why?), or it had to be done for some other reason.

But one thing is sure: the mop was used at night or in the morning.


And another thing also seems to be certain: whatever the real reason, it will never be known for sure unless one or the other "comes clean", so to speak. The mop is neither the "red herring" that FOA types say it is or the "pièce à conviction" that some hoped it would be. This does not mean it isn't an important piece of evidence; it only means that Massei realizes that (1) the mop stories concocted by RS and AK are totally bogus, put forth to cover something and (2) since the mop did not yield any evidence that was able to talk over the two fabulators and speak the truth, it cannot be seen as a key piece of evidence.

This to me epitomizes the wisdom of Massei. He refuses to accept it as exonerating AK and RS (or as corroborating their innocent alibi), while also fully acknowledging that it is not a smoking gun with incriminating DNA on it.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Again it is a *classic* alibi point for a perpetrator of a crime to introduce themselves into an environment / fact set with a "clean" reason for touching the object / being seen with that person *before* anyone else finds out about it. The volunteering of it is thought to establish bona-fides. In fact police are highly attuned to this because it happens so much!



From the scott peterson book:
"Duerfeldt was also bothered by the fact that scott had washed his clothes and taken a shower before looking for his wife. It also appeared that he might have mopped the kitchen floor before calling laci’s mother. " "Although scott told officer evers that Laci was the one mopping when he left the house, his removal of the mops and dumping of the water suggested that scott himself might have been cleaning up after some suspicious activity. "

Also, IIRC in preston's book one of the (many) suspects was also suspected by neighbors of killing his wife because he had come home and done some activity (and maybe left) while his wife was dead in the bedroom.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bolint wrote:
I think Massei is completely right (p85) on the mop:
Quote:
"Fetching the mop to dry the floor also seems to be a scarcely credible action: at Raffaele Sollecito’s there was someone attending to the cleaning; it is therefore considered that everything needed to clean up some water was already there, such that on the morning of November 2, not much could have been left on the floor, as was also reported by Amanda Knox herself."


So either the mop transfer is a tale (why?), or it had to be done for some other reason.

But one thing is sure: the mop was used at night or in the morning.


And another thing also seems to be certain: whatever the real reason, it will never be known for sure unless one or the other "comes clean", so to speak. The mop is neither the "red herring" that FOA types say it is or the "pièce à conviction" that some hoped it would be. This does not mean it isn't an important piece of evidence; it only means that Massei realizes that (1) the mop stories concocted by RS and AK are totally bogus, put forth to cover something and (2) since the mop did not yield any evidence that was able to talk over the two fabulators and speak the truth, it cannot be seen as a key piece of evidence.

This to me epitomizes the wisdom of Massei. He refuses to accept it as exonerating AK and RS (or as corroborating their innocent alibi), while also fully acknowledging that it is not a smoking gun with incriminating DNA on it.


That's what I like about the report too. The mop is like the infamous washing machine:

Quote:
The following days, another entry was made to get the items that were in the washing machine located in the room adjacent to the bigger bathroom, the one with the feces.


and

Quote:
Three samples were taken from two very wet lilac towels found by the Flying Squad [Squadra Mobile] of Perugia inside the washing machine, but they gave no results, nor did a grey hairdryer confiscated by the Flying Squad.


[Massei; p. 101, 192]

It's important enough to merit inclusion but does not provide any deep clues of their guilt or innocence.

wm)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Windfall wrote:
"I think there is certainly something to be analysed in Knox's photogenic-ness (photogenesis? photogenic qualities?). We can roll out the usual debates of beauty in the eye of the beholder, not my type/she's hot dialectics, but there is a reason why Barbie Nadeau called her book "angel face". I believe there is research about how the two-dimensionality of photography creates a certain effect, and that people can appear much more attractive in two dimensions than they do in three. I think, to the average viewer (and is there a gender factor to be taken into account?), Knox is photogenic. The idea of her being atttractive in two dimensions, not necessarily in three is possibly a neat metaphor for the range of responses to her in "real life". There certainly seems to have been a significant proportion of her acquaintances who found her an unattractive character. And, again, there are dimensions of "performance"."

I'll leave aside the question of how appealing I find her photographs (not).
But the question of her effect in real life?
Hmmm.

First.
This is a person who had *no notion* that telling the police you have just taken a shower isn't a good idea if you actually stink.
At a point when it is important to you that you seem credible, and that your account of that morning's events be believed.
Which means, logically, that it never occurred to her that she smelled of sweat and stale sex.
If it had, surely she could have found five minutes at RS's to fix the problem.
But, with everything hanging on her self-presentation that morning, she was simply not capable of telling she needed a quick cleaning.
Speaks volumes about what it must have been like to share quarters with her.

Second.
Admittedly I haven't studied the video clips in depth, but my overall impression of her quality of movement is of clumsiness, a sort of over-grown, over-emphatic sprawl.
Athletic, perhaps even strong, from the soccer and rock-climbing, but to me reminiscent of a big untrained dog.
A female jock.
Contrast this with Meredith, who had that left-over grace kids bring away from studying dance, and seemed (from the video) to move easily through space.

Yeah, I think it is probably easier to have a crush on this kid from a picture than in person.

Oh, and why did Rudy and RS find her attractive in person?
Rudy, who had met both girls, after all, spoke about his attraction to Amanda, not Meredith.
Well, that's a whole other discussion, but in a nutshell?
Amanda's hygiene issues and general deportment were read, and correctly, as indicating her availability.
And Rudy and Raphael are both guys with problems in connecting with more self-assured and self-respecting women.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Macport


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:54 am

Posts: 710

Location: Western USA

Highscores: 12

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

lauowolf wrote:
she smelled of sweat and stale sex.


Mmmmm now thems is some enticing words y'all. Great post lauowolf. Now why won't those lustful boys think about these things?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Right but since Doc Sollecito testified on the leak being mentioned on the call on the night of the 1st, to get your story to run you would have to add that Raffaele confessed all and got his father to provide an "alibi" by corroborating the story of the leak falsely.


Opportunism.. they spilt some pasta water the night before... then incorporated it into the story the next day, but needed to make the water pool on the floor much bigger.

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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Something else which has something to say about the mop :)...Amanda is Burning:





(click on the little circle in the top right of the video player frame to maximise)

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I would like to discuss the pathologist testimony again. I tried to broach this topic last week but a flurry of trolls descended to interrupt the discussion.

Amanda's groupies continue to hammer away at this issue although none of them have the relevant medical knowledge. The reason I think this is important is that Amanda's own experts appear to state something quite different in their court testimony than her groupies do on her support sites.

In specific, look at this on p. 132 ff:

Quote:
He asserted that "knowing that Meredith's meal started at 18:30 pm, knowing that there were about 500 cc of stomach contents, and knowing from the autopsy that there was no pathology of the stomach...which could slow down digestion, and above all", as reported by Dr. Lalli, knowing that the duodenum was still empty "because the stomach had not even begun to empty itself" (page 19 of the transcripts), the time of death must lie between 21:30 pm (three hours after 18:30) and 22:30 pm (four hours after 18:30)...


Amanda's expert argues time of death between 9:30 and 10:30 pm yet her groupies argue an earlier time based on (presumably) the same interpretation of the stomach contents.

Maybe it's because of this found on p. 177:

Quote:
Professor Introna asserts that the violence suffered by Meredith, and which probably caused the cessation of the digestive process, began between 21:00 pm and 21:30 pm.


The defence experts appear to be arguing the precision of measuring the progress of the digestive process while the medical examiner and the plaintiff's experts argue the opposite:

Quote:
[Many] factors influence the gastric emptying times, such that any deduction of time of death based solely on this data is rather unconvincing (page 64 of the Lalli report).


[Massei; p. 177]

Virtually anything I've found on-line says that stomach contents are unreliable as a basis for establishing time of death. There's this from the Wikipedia article on forensic toxicology:

Quote:
Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court.


Does anyone have any medical experience who could offer a link for stomach contents and time of death that they consider both authoritative and--ahem--easy to digest?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

pataz1 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

Right but since Doc Sollecito testified on the leak being mentioned on the call on the night of the 1st, to get your story to run you would have to add that Raffaele confessed all and got his father to provide an "alibi" by corroborating the story of the leak falsely.


Opportunism.. they spilt some pasta water the night before... then incorporated it into the story the next day, but needed to make the water pool on the floor much bigger.

Pat


Daddy called at around 9 on the 1st and they told him about the spill before the murder. Either that is true as testified by Papa Doc or Raffaele has told him that he has to lie about the content of that conversation which means basically that he has told him he is guilty of murder and I don't believe that Pat. The policeman who took the pipe said it came away easily and Amanda mentioned there had been a problem before. I think it happened but in a minor way. The flood etc was a story which as we have seen had to migrate to while washing up just enough to be too much for 11 cloths and towels but so little more it did the evaporation voodoo in the next twelve or so hours. Has anyone informed James Randi??

_________________
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 Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:44 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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho wrote:
Does anyone have any medical experience who could offer a link for stomach contents and time of death that they consider both authoritative and--ahem--easy to digest?


Yes, here...I posted it yesterday: TIME SINCE DEATH

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Daddy called at around 9 on the 1st and they told him about the spill before the murder. Either that is true as testified by Papa Doc or Raffaele has told him that he has to lie about the content of that conversation which means basically that he has told him he is guilty of murder and I don't believe that Pat.


Doesn't amanda's mother testify that amanda told her much much more in the initial phone call then she possibly had time for? Also he doesn't necessarily have to lie- i had a bad example with my first point, but it could still be opportunism.

Pat


Last edited by pataz1 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi says:
"The policeman who took the pipe said it came away easily and Amanda mentioned there had been a problem before. I think it happened but in a minor way."

Oooo
Oooo
Waves hand.
I know this one.
Here's where my landlady cred comes in handy.

I had the same problem with a tenant's sink.
There's an initial leak in that U or J shaped pipe under the sink drain.
Either the pipe itself is broken and leaks, or the joint between that pipe and the drain, or that pipe and the part coming out of the wall is faulty.
You take out broken bit, and replace it, or else you keep the unbroken U or J pipe, and properly seal up the joints, and then no more leaks.
Or so you hope.

But if someone does a fast and sloppy job, you are left with functional pieces which still leak.
That is, the U or J shaped pipe is itself intact, but one or both of the joints is left loose.
This gives you an intermittent leak.
When the sink is actually draining and water is in the pipe, a certain amount will come out from the leaky joints.
It is NOT a flood, but if you ignore it and just keep running water through the drain you could get maybe a couple of cups of water in the process of doing a big lot of dishes.
At first it just accumulates under the sink, getting everything in there soggy.
Finally there is enough to have it come seeping out of the cabinet under the sink and spreading out onto the floor.
At this point it might seem as if there is a "flood" but it is instead only the result of a small steady flow of water that has saturated the sink area unseen, and therefore become evident after there is a fair amount of it.
At this point, though, it is still nothing that a sponge couldn't easily pick up.

You'd only get a big flood if the pipe itself fell off or had been removed.
And the officer says it was attached and he removed it.
But he took it off easily, which might mean it had been loose.
Which might mean that there had been an earlier problem with the sink, and the landlord had fixed it, but left the joint too loose.
(Which is easy to do - getting those things watertight is a pain in the neck.)

In any case, it is easy to have a small leak with no damaged pipes in evidence.
The only way to be sure would have been to have tested the drain in situ.
And also, it is an easy leak to fake, requiring only a couple of tugs on the drain pipe.
Which anyone who was knowledgeable about the earlier repair would know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling wrote:
I'm sure that the Knox/Mellas crowd are all salivating at the day precious Amanda is released. Doesn't matter if it's 10, 15, 20, more years hence, but probably they're counting on 10-15 (which unfortunately is probably not all that unrealistic, if she maintains as a 'model prisoner').

Then the big payoffs begin. The books. The movie deals. The Oprah show. The whole lovely (and well-paying) talk show circuit.

I'm sure there's more than a few Knox/Mellas members/cronies salivating over the prospect, as over the impending "expected" death of a rich uncle. Payday!

Such a lovely bunch, aren't they? So happy to make money out of the murder of an innocent young girl.

It's excruciatingly stomach-turning, is what it is.

I see it as our obligation to try to make sure it never happens.


Agreed. Stomach-turning is right. The whole sordid business reeks to high heaven. This is what first got my attention and brought me out of the woodwork when I otherwise would have been content to carry on drinking my tea in private and doing whatever else it is that I do. (Can't think of a single other example at the moment, however... Oh: that's right; I sometimes go for walks.)

I feel that justice and fair play demand that these people be held accountable for their actions. Amanda and the other two are in prison where they belong, but the light of public scrutiny should continue to shine on the doings of people who would stoop to profit from this horrible crime.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Does anyone have any medical experience who could offer a link for stomach contents and time of death that they consider both authoritative and--ahem--easy to digest?


Yes, here...I posted it yesterday: TIME SINCE DEATH


Hmm. So gastric contents are imprecise. Actually it appears the whole thing is pretty imprecise. I know why they'd use it but as a metric it's pretty weak. I cannot see at all how that science could be used to refute other evidence (eg the scream heard by witnesses; mobile phone usage; Curatolo).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Re: Some Alibi's quiz on whether the towels were used to stem the blood, or used as cleanup. I always believed that Rudi did use the towels to stem the blood. I believe that at that time, Amanda and Raff had already left. I think Rudi was in the bathroom when he heard a commotion,,, He rushed in, and things were already spinning out of control. Who did what, I don't know, although I'm sure that it was Raff who had his hand over Meredith's mouth, and no question, in my mind, that Amanda was in a rage. ( Reading about Amanda's so called passiveness, calls to mind, a classic passive-agressive personality). The one person out of the three who had no axe to grind, was Rudi. Amanda, for sure. Raff, sticking up for the love of his life, sure. It's possible that Rudi was at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Did Raff ask Rudi to help him undress Meredith, to make it look like a sexual attack? Was Rudi in shock, maybe fearful, and complied? And in undressing her, did his DNA, land up on Meredith? Well, his DNA was also found in her. Undressing someone, being sweaty, fear? that is possible, imo. The various marks could be attributed to rough undressing, positioning,,and, Meredith was having a relationship with Giacomo. Raff was very much there during the staging. But, when they left, Rudi may have felt some remorse, used the towels and covered Meredith with the duvet. And left.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:24 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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho wrote:
Hmm. So gastric contents are imprecise. Actually it appears the whole thing is pretty imprecise. I know why they'd use it but as a metric it's pretty weak. I cannot see at all how that science could be used to refute other evidence (eg the scream heard by witnesses; mobile phone usage; Curatolo).


And the same lecture also makes clear that for establishing TOD one should not rely on physical examinations of the body alone, but a range of other factors also. This is exactly what Massei did in his calculation of the TOD.

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
A question I'd like everyone's personal view on;

The blood-soaked towels in Meredith's room; do they support Rudy's tale of trying to stem the blood? Or are they clean up? What do they tell us about the dynamic of the attack and what happened...or not?


From a totally non forensics specialty guy, (with minimum claims to guru status about anything), some speculation:

1) Would the blood stains on the towels have a very different pattern ?
A) if they were used as compress devices to *stem* the flow of a wound (smaller stains soaked thru both sides)
B) if they were used to clean up, swabbing and wiping (shallower wider stains but only on one side)

2) Do we even have any close up high definition pics of these towels

3) Maybe not an appropriate "either or" restriction on towel use ?


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Was Rudi in shock, maybe fearful, and complied?


Oh Yeah, he sure was !!!!
Like that old favorite expression says...."Scared the shit out of him" fc-))


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin

Hey.
Rudy did things to Meredith that left his DNA from skin inside her.
She had injuries in her genital area from whatever he did.
That is solid evidence.
There is no way this happened in the process of pulling off clothing after the murder.
What Rudy testified to was a pile of crap, a guilty violent man trying to talk his way out of minimally rape and most likely murder.
All the being out of the room when it happened?
We only have Rudy's claim for that.
And Rudy says Meredith had consensual sex with him, so I think that shows how reliable his story is.

Anything any of these three says has zero value as evidence, unless it is clearly and plainly backed up by physical evidence.
They have every reason to lie about anything at all.
And have been shown to have done so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Re: Some Alibi's quiz on whether the towels were used to stem the blood, or used as cleanup. I always believed that Rudi did use the towels to stem the blood. I believe that at that time, Amanda and Raff had already left.


What did you base that on? There's no evidence anywhere that Rudy tarried while Knox and Sollecito fled. In fact, it's just the reverse. Remember that Guede didn't know anything at all about the staged scene because he wasn't there.

I agree with Massei's summary, especially p. 381, where it's clear that the majority of the staging was done soon after the attack and after Guede was gone.

It also makes sense because Guede didn't live there. Knox was the housemate and she would naturally come under suspicion almost immediately.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Earthling 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."
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."

Earl Grey, welcome!

I find this most exciting, as last night about the time you were penning your arrival, I was eating dinner at the Olive Garden, sometimes thinking of Meredith, due to the Italian nature of the evening, and drinking the most heavenly Earl Grey tea! It was so fragrant and lovely. (I could hardly believe it was made by Tetley!)

Anyway, welcome EG!!!

And as the girl in the Perugia video that Pete posted today said on her sign:

Abbraccio gratis!!!

hugz-)

Hello again, Earthling.
Many thanks for the nice welcome.

I think it's the Bergamot that makes tea so delightfully fragrant.

I do believe that tea is a great civilising influence. If gorillas and orang-utans could somehow be trained to sit down in comfortable chairs and drink it, I'm sure they would behave really really well and not make those unseemly guttural noises.


Last edited by Earl Grey on Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

It was something that I Imgined, in the best truth that I could remember :( You're right, of course, Wolf and Stil.

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

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Seriously now Capealadin...
"Well, his DNA was also found in her. Undressing someone, being sweaty, fear? that is possible, imo. The various marks could be attributed to rough undressing, positioning,,and, Meredith was having a relationship with Giacomo."

I cannot imagine any way in which Rudy's dna could have gotten where it was found simply by removing garments, however sweaty he might have been.
I can't tell your gender, but I wear women's clothing, often jeans, and so can speak as an expert: it just doesn't work that way getting it off.

And don't I remember one of the experts saying something about sweat being a poor source of DNA?
DNA doesn't go just flying about, it takes a little doing to leave behind an identifiable trace.
Remember the part about the elastic inside of a sock *not* having picked up dna from the wearer.

And normal, welcomed intercourse rarely produces injury.
As I recall, Giacomo was asked about their practices in detail, and had been out of town that day.
We don't have his answers, or at least I can't remember seeing them.
But if the injuries were in any way likely to have had an innocent explanation, do you really think the defense witnesses and lawyers wouldn't have been all over it?

Is there some reason for wanting Rudy to be an innocent?
He was there.
We have only his word for the notion that he tried to help Meredith.
And he *still* has not told a straight and coherent story of what happened, nor made clear what roles the other two played.
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho wrote:
What did you base that on? There's no evidence anywhere that Rudy tarried while Knox and Sollecito fled. In fact, it's just the reverse. Remember that Guede didn't know anything at all about the staged scene because he wasn't there.


While Raffaele and Amanda had headed off to the bathroom to clean up.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Hi, Lauo Wolf. I did seriously agree with you and Stil. It's not a question of not wanting to find Rudi guilty. He was, and is. I don't know his, or any of the other's level of culpability. All three are responsible for Meredith's death. Iirc, Rudi's dna was found on the towels? I will stand corrected if that is incorrect.

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
All this talk about "senior moments" and I see that it is time to come clean. I have to own up to having destroyed two electric kettles by burning them on the gas ring! Fortunately that was some time ago and our current kettle is in good nick.

What is of more concern to me is that my commanding officer appears to have the hots for MaryH, who seems to be responding to his advances! If I can only get him sectioned, it would not only be for his own good but for the good of the sergeant's card school.


That's unfortunate that you lost two whole kettles, Bilko. But life is like that sometimes. One day you have two kettles, the next day -- poof -- none. Ah -- or maybe you destroyed them on separate occasions. The first thing I thought of was that you destroyed them at the same time, but somehow, on reflection, that doesn't seem so likely, does it?

I note with interest the information you imparted about the commanding officer who has the hots for Mary H. I absolutely do not blame him. And now I have news for you. A certain surprised-looking monocle-wearer has also recently made his intentions known to Mary. Certain promises were made, which I am not at liberty to divulge. Be that as it may, he is operating under the assumption that Mary H. is not spoken for and will, he tells me, proceed under that assumption. The lady in question, whose charms, as you well know, are as obvious as they are irresistible, is much sought after. Well, may the best man win is the only other thing I have to say on the matter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Iirc, Rudi's dna was found on the towels? I will stand corrected if that is incorrect.

Hmmm
My memory, gotta run, can't check, is that the towels were wet and moldy and no useful dna was found.
But even if Rudy's dna had been found there, it could s likely have been that he gave his hands a quick scrub at some point.
Again, in the absence of physical, unambiguous evidence, I wouldn't believe any of these three if they told me the sun rose in the east.
But that's just me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

They are proven liars. And that has always been my stance. It is irrefutable. Now I'm off to have a much needed cup of Earl Grey....

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

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
A question I'd like everyone's personal view on;

The blood-soaked towels in Meredith's room; do they support Rudy's tale of trying to stem the blood? Or are they clean up? What do they tell us about the dynamic of the attack and what happened...or not?


From a totally non forensics specialty guy, (with minimum claims to guru status about anything), some speculation:

1) Would the blood stains on the towels have a very different pattern ?
A) if they were used as compress devices to *stem* the flow of a wound (smaller stains soaked thru both sides)
B) if they were used to clean up, swabbing and wiping (shallower wider stains but only on one side)

2) Do we even have any close up high definition pics of these towels

3) Maybe not an appropriate "either or" restriction on towel use ?


Does anyone know what "towel" SomeAlibi is talking about?

I think this is the one:

gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1593

It's impossible to deduct anything from this close-up image.

Guede offered this bit of information and he gains nothing other admitting his DNA, if police found any, is there for a merciful reason.

The only manner this information is useful against the other two is if Guede told where he left the towels and that is not where the police found them. If Guede said he left the towels on the victim's neck and they were found near the victim's feet: how did they get there? Someone had to have moved them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bilko


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

No, my Lordship ( Exactly how do you address an Earl?) The two kettles were some months apart, but not many. As for Mary, I think that you will find that you will both be disappointed:

"I would never take credit for being the only polite pro-Amanda poster. There is nothing impolite about PhanuelB, for example. He tends to stick to the facts, which is an admirable quality. The same with Chris Halkides - nothing impolite in his posts."

I don't know who they are, but they sound like a couple of gigolos to me! I hope that this doesn't mean disruption to the card school.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
No, my Lordship ( Exactly how do you address an Earl?) The two kettles were some months apart, but not many. As for Mary, I think that you will find that you will both be disappointed:

"I would never take credit for being the only polite pro-Amanda poster. There is nothing impolite about PhanuelB, for example. He tends to stick to the facts, which is an admirable quality. The same with Chris Halkides - nothing impolite in his posts."

I don't know who they are, but they sound like a couple of gigolos to me! I hope that this doesn't mean disruption to the card school.


I say, Bilko, if you must know, one addresses an Earl as Lord. And were Mary H to yield to his Lordship's advances and proposals (but not to his propositions, mind you), then she would have to be addressed as Lady!
However, I fear that you have rightly divined that dear Mary's heart belongs to two simply delightful chaps with whom she shares much in common! Very common! Why, I daresay they all deserve one another. Ménage à trois? But wait! Let's not forget LondonJohn. Have you not noticed that he may put everyone else to sleep, but not our Mary. Now that is true devotion!

_________________
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
They are proven liars. And that has always been my stance. It is irrefutable. Now I'm off to have a much needed cup of Earl Grey....


Grand. Absolutely grand, because, you know, my name happens to be...
Oh, sorry; I think you can anticipate what I was about to say.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

:)

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skep wrote:
I say, Bilko, if you must know, one addresses an Earl as Lord. And were Mary H to yield to his Lordship's advances and proposals (but not to his propositions, mind you), then she would have to be addressed as Lady!


Only after marriage...and that could only take place after permission from the Queen!

_________________
"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 christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
A question I'd like everyone's personal view on;

The blood-soaked towels in Meredith's room; do they support Rudy's tale of trying to stem the blood? Or are they clean up? What do they tell us about the dynamic of the attack and what happened...or not?


From a totally non forensics specialty guy, (with minimum claims to guru status about anything), some speculation:

1) Would the blood stains on the towels have a very different pattern ?
A) if they were used as compress devices to *stem* the flow of a wound (smaller stains soaked thru both sides)
B) if they were used to clean up, swabbing and wiping (shallower wider stains but only on one side)

2) Do we even have any close up high definition pics of these towels

3) Maybe not an appropriate "either or" restriction on towel use ?


Does anyone know what "towel" SomeAlibi is talking about?

I think this is the one:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/galler ... ge_id=1593

It's impossible to deduct anything from this close-up image.

Guede offered this bit of information and he gains nothing other admitting his DNA, if police found any, is there for a merciful reason.

The only manner this information is useful against the other two is if Guede told where he left the towels and that is not where the police found them. If Guede said he left the towels on the victim's neck and they were found near the victim's feet: how did they get there? Someone had to have moved them.


Charlie Wilkes had linked a document on JREF which is also linked here by thoughtful:

viewtopic.php?p=52171#p52171 (hope I did that okay).

There are three towels listed in the document:

1. Blood-soaked green towel found beneath the body;
2. Blood-soaked light-colored towel found next to the body;
3. Beige towel on mattress.

None of the towels yielded Rudy's DNA - Meredith's DNA was recovered from towel 2 and 3 - no profile was obtained from towel 1.

I don't know if there were any more towels recovered from Meredith's room or only the three listed. I guess the photo you linked is the towel next to Meredith's body but it also looks like it could perhaps be the top sheet from her bed (along with a light-colored towel).
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

So, who was it who mopped Raf's kitchen floor?

Amanda Nov 4 email
Quote:
after we had used the mop to clean
up the kitchen i told raffael about what i had seen in the house over
breakfast.



Raffaele diary (this part dated Nov 7):
Quote:
"Dopo che ho pulito per terra e forse ho fatto colazione intorno alle 11,30-12 mi sono cambiato e siamo usciti.


dopo che ho pulito per terra=after I had cleaned the floor

Amanda at the trial June 12-13 (thoughtful's translation and transcript)
Quote:
"When I got back to his house, I...he was in the bathroom, and I started to clean
up the floor in the kitchen, but it was by now almost dry, just a bit of water
left because it had evaporated"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bilko wrote:
No, my Lordship ( Exactly how do you address an Earl?) The two kettles were some months apart, but not many. As for Mary, I think that you will find that you will both be disappointed:

"I would never take credit for being the only polite pro-Amanda poster. There is nothing impolite about PhanuelB, for example. He tends to stick to the facts, which is an admirable quality. The same with Chris Halkides - nothing impolite in his posts."

I don't know who they are, but they sound like a couple of gigolos to me! I hope that this doesn't mean disruption to the card school.


Sir, I'm shocked. There'll be no Christmas pudding for you this year. I simply cannot allow you to say anything disparaging about Mary H ever again, or you'll have to answer to me. You're talking about a lady who is beloved and respected by thousands of her readers for her faultless pearls of wisdom and her devotion to logic, truth and impartiality.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earl Grey


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I say, Bilko, if you must know, one addresses an Earl as Lord. And were Mary H to yield to his Lordship's advances and proposals (but not to his propositions, mind you), then she would have to be addressed as Lady!
However, I fear that you have rightly divined that dear Mary's heart belongs to two simply delightful chaps with whom she shares much in common! Very common! Why, I daresay they all deserve one another. Ménage à trois? But wait! Let's not forget LondonJohn. Have you not noticed that he may put everyone else to sleep, but not our Mary. Now that is true devotion!


Yes-- yes -- oh, yes -- Lady Mary. It has such a ring to it. It certainly suits her.
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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Some thoughts on the towel issue.

I actually believe Rudy on this. I have three reasons for that.

(1) Judge Massei reasons (see the Report for that reasoning) that Raffaele had a knife to one side of the neck and Amanda the other, then the stabbings took place in rather quick succession. The reasoning of Massei here has a very logical path. Now, while Massei does not come out and say so right out, he exculpates Rudy to some extent here. In this scenario, Rudy is looking on as Raffaele and then Amanda 'use' their knives. This is not 'his' action, this is not something through any debate he has sanctioned...it just happens in front of him. What started off as one thing, has suddenly in front of his eyes become something else...how does he react to that? From his point of view, they had just been restraining and threatening the victim with knives...now, the two others have suddenly gone and stabbed her. How does he react to that? Now, according to Massei, Amanda and Raffaele go off to the bathroom to clean up (our precious angels have blood on them 'yuk'), leaving Rudy in the room to take in what has just taken place...what does he do?

(2) Rudy speaks of the towels and using them on Meredith. To be honest, with all that had gone before I don't think he'd have even noticed the towels during all that. If you're attacking someone, then someone stabs them....are you really going to notice a couple of towels lying about in order to incorporate in a false story later? Are you going to stand around and admire the furnishings? The fact is...there were towels in the room, so it wasn't a 'guess'. I think he used the towels, because he specifically looked around the room for something that may help undo what had just been done and for that reason he remembers them. And then through a combination of his realisation that it was futile and a fear for his own position (since what's just happened is still dawning on him at this point) he decides to get the hell out of there.

(3) It was not possible for the towels to be properly tested...they went mouldy during storage... because they were damp when bagged. So, his version in relation to the towels could not be disproved. Incidentally, his defence requested further testing on the towels in his appeal...the appeal court refused.

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

piktor wrote:
I think this is the one:
gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1593
It's impossible to deduct anything from this close-up image.



Thanks for digging up the pic, pik

Looks to me that I would agree with Christi's opinion about which of the 3 dna tested towels your pic shows. (Christi you did that perfectly)

In any event to address SA's quiz, I would certainly think the pattern on that particular towel is more indicative of receiving blood from being under or less likely against a wound rather than a pattern indicative of being used as a clean up floor wiper
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

On the subject of the appeals, I found this to be most illuminating:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael: We are in absolute agreement. Thank you.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

An interesting post about the perhaps lack of deviousness-gene there Catnip. Manufacturing alibis is an essential part of criminal theatre. Maybe it's all just rubbed off on me but this is what people like AK & RS *do* (staging break-in / mop) as with all their breathren. They have to - it was attempting to get them off murder.



On reflection, if someone has gone the whole way and murdered somone, breaking the rule against shoplifting will likely be an *extremely* small and trivial matter for them (assuming there is a conscience).

It reminds me of the fellow recently talking about how criminals self-select themselves, and he used the example of Rudy being nabbed on the train because he had no ticket.

I'll see if I can find the quote.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Well, I'm also after Lady Mary...However, should I be successful, I'll be sitting in a Seattle prison.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Amanda's groupies continue to hammer away at this issue although none of them have the relevant medical knowledge.


The groupies all they do is repeat what they read at Bruce’s site. For groupies what Bruce Fisher posts in his IIP blog is Bruce’s and that’s good enough. Clearly they don’t have a mind of their own to challenged or realized that most of what’s on that blog is a false distorted representation of the case file and as for the parts of factual information that he’s acquired which he could provide for his readers as such, he does it only by adding his own twisted interpretation of facts.

Bruce Fisher has manipulated information to suit his agenda, distorted the AK/RS Appeal documents. He twists and misinforms the witnesses’ testimonies including AK’s statements, even contradicts her own court testimony and RS’s various statements. He’s dedicated a whole page to criticizing Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni: “Sloppy Evidence Collection in the Bathroom shared by Amanda and Meredith” in which the criticisms he claims, reside only in his head!

BF writes, even displays some --manipulating facts-- pictures, where supposedly Dr. Stefanoni collected the evidence samples in the small bathroom and did a very “sloppy” job of it! Obviously this claim didn’t get anywhere in the first trial and considering he started this blog [injusticeinperugia] well after the verdict as well as after the Court’s motivations were available to the public in Italian, why is he posting this rubbish and why all the criticizing of Dr. Stefanoni, specially when she is not the forensic who’s collected the evidence samples in the small bathroom!
Bruce Fisher besides the spin he wants to give to his cause the least he could do is get the basic facts right!
bricks-)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Well, Jools, I think his *Basil from Fawlty Towers* spin around, after locking the door, ( his video) probably got him some *fans*. He WAS terribly earnest :) N.B. Bruce's initials don't only stand for *Bull Feather's*, they're also Basil Fawlty's. Love Basil, though.....

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Macport wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Edited to add: I've been thinking of psychology recently because of a book I got from the Co-op last week. ...

What is the books title?


Jennifer Brown and Elizabeth Campbell (eds), The Cambridge Book of Forensic Psychology (2010) [Cambridge University Press 2010]

108 contributors; 900 pages. It's a doorstop.

Very interesting, though.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Amanda's groupies continue to hammer away at this issue although none of them have the relevant medical knowledge.


The groupies all they do is repeat what they read at Bruce’s site. For groupies what Bruce Fisher posts in his IIP blog is Bruce’s and that’s good enough. Clearly they don’t have a mind of their own to challenged or realized that most of what’s on that blog is a false distorted representation of the case file and as for the parts of factual information that he’s acquired which he could provide for his readers as such, he does it only by adding his own twisted interpretation of facts.

Bruce Fisher has manipulated information to suit his agenda, distorted the AK/RS Appeal documents. He twists and misinforms the witnesses’ testimonies including AK’s statements, even contradicts her own court testimony and RS’s various statements. He’s dedicated a whole page to criticizing Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni: “Sloppy Evidence Collection in the Bathroom shared by Amanda and Meredith” in which the criticisms he claims, reside only in his head!

BF writes, even displays some --manipulating facts-- pictures, where supposedly Dr. Stefanoni collected the evidence samples in the small bathroom and did a very “sloppy” job of it! Obviously this claim didn’t get anywhere in the first trial and considering he started this blog [injusticeinperugia] well after the verdict as well as after the Court’s motivations were available to the public in Italian, why is he posting this rubbish and why all the criticizing of Dr. Stefanoni, specially when she is not the forensic who’s collected the evidence samples in the small bathroom!
Bruce Fisher besides the spin he wants to give to his cause the least he could do is get the basic facts right!
bricks-)


But if he actually got the facts right it would be more difficult to spin, spin, spin. He's a regular whirling dervish -- though without any of the related spiritual qualities.

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Well, Jools, I think his *Basil from Fawlty Towers* spin around, after locking the door, ( his video) probably got him some *fans*. He WAS terribly earnest :) N.B. Bruce's initials don't only stand for *Bull Feather's*, they're also Basil Fawlty's. Love Basil, though.....

Oh no! I love Fawlty Towers and you just ruined it for me! tou-)
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
A question I'd like everyone's personal view on;

The blood-soaked towels in Meredith's room; do they support Rudy's tale of trying to stem the blood? Or are they clean up? What do they tell us about the dynamic of the attack and what happened...or not?

Iirc, I saw a photo of the towels somewhere, and I have the impression of quite a lot of blood. I think most of the cleaning occurred in the hallway and the bathroom and would have involved the blood they tracked out on their feet, and well as what was was placed on other surfaces from their hands or from dripping or contact with clothing. I don't think that cleanup would involve that much blood. I would think that they would deep six all of the cleanup things, along with any of their own bloody clothing, rather than toss it in the room with the corpse and risk leaving some of their own dna there.

I also agree with Michael's reasoning, above.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
A question I'd like everyone's personal view on;

The blood-soaked towels in Meredith's room; do they support Rudy's tale of trying to stem the blood? Or are they clean up? What do they tell us about the dynamic of the attack and what happened...or not?

Iirc, I saw a photo of the towels somewhere, and I have the impression of quite a lot of blood. I think most of the cleaning occurred in the hallway and the bathroom and would have involved the blood they tracked out on their feet, and well as what was was placed on other surfaces from their hands or from dripping or contact with clothing. I don't think that cleanup would involve that much blood. I would think that they would deep six all of the cleanup things, along with any of their own bloody clothing, rather than toss it in the room with the corpse and risk leaving some of their own dna there.

I also agree with Michael's reasoning, above.



This supports the idea that perhaps Rudy really did grab those towels and do what he claims, which could be why the clean-up crew decided not to dispose of them. They figured that if anyone's DNA was on the towels, besides the victim's, it would be Rudy's.

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

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Another element I would add to Michael's well-put reasoning is the fact that Rudy himself had been stabbed in the stomach in an altercation in town sometime before 11/1 which may have induced him to feel some sympathy for Meredith.


Last edited by Rebel on Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Some thoughts on the towel issue.

I actually believe Rudy on this. I have three reasons for that.

(1) Judge Massei reasons (see the Report for that reasoning) that Raffaele had a knife to one side of the neck and Amanda the other, then the stabbings took place in rather quick succession. The reasoning of Massei here has a very logical path. Now, while Massei does not come out and say so right out, he exculpates Rudy to some extent here. In this scenario, Rudy is looking on as Raffaele and then Amanda 'use' their knives. This is not 'his' action, this is not something through any debate he has sanctioned...it just happens in front of him. What started off as one thing, has suddenly in front of his eyes become something else...how does he react to that? From his point of view, they had just been restraining and threatening the victim with knives...now, the two others have suddenly gone and stabbed her. How does he react to that? Now, according to Massei, Amanda and Raffaele go off to the bathroom to clean up (our precious angels have blood on them 'yuk'), leaving Rudy in the room to take in what has just taken place...what does he do?

(2) Rudy speaks of the towels and using them on Meredith. To be honest, with all that had gone before I don't think he'd have even noticed the towels during all that. If you're attacking someone, then someone stabs them....are you really going to notice a couple of towels lying about in order to incorporate in a false story later? Are you going to stand around and admire the furnishings? The fact is...there were towels in the room, so it wasn't a 'guess'. I think he used the towels, because he specifically looked around the room for something that may help undo what had just been done and for that reason he remembers them. And then through a combination of his realisation that it was futile and a fear for his own position (since what's just happened is still dawning on him at this point) he decides to get the hell out of there.

(3) It was not possible for the towels to be properly tested...they went mouldy during storage... because they were damp when bagged. So, his version in relation to the towels could not be disproved. Incidentally, his defence requested further testing on the towels in his appeal...the appeal court refused.

How does he react to that?
If I remember correctly RG's DNA was found on the back of the bra while RS's DNA was found on the metal clasp/hooks.
This can indicate that while RG was holding one side of the bra pulling the material/cloth RS was holding the other side by the metal hooks to cut it off. And the bra was cut off after the stabbing so that's how he reacted. :(
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:50 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Michael wrote:
Some thoughts on the towel issue.

I actually believe Rudy on this. I have three reasons for that.

(1) Judge Massei reasons (see the Report for that reasoning) that Raffaele had a knife to one side of the neck and Amanda the other, then the stabbings took place in rather quick succession. The reasoning of Massei here has a very logical path. Now, while Massei does not come out and say so right out, he exculpates Rudy to some extent here. In this scenario, Rudy is looking on as Raffaele and then Amanda 'use' their knives. This is not 'his' action, this is not something through any debate he has sanctioned...it just happens in front of him. What started off as one thing, has suddenly in front of his eyes become something else...how does he react to that? From his point of view, they had just been restraining and threatening the victim with knives...now, the two others have suddenly gone and stabbed her. How does he react to that? Now, according to Massei, Amanda and Raffaele go off to the bathroom to clean up (our precious angels have blood on them 'yuk'), leaving Rudy in the room to take in what has just taken place...what does he do?

(2) Rudy speaks of the towels and using them on Meredith. To be honest, with all that had gone before I don't think he'd have even noticed the towels during all that. If you're attacking someone, then someone stabs them....are you really going to notice a couple of towels lying about in order to incorporate in a false story later? Are you going to stand around and admire the furnishings? The fact is...there were towels in the room, so it wasn't a 'guess'. I think he used the towels, because he specifically looked around the room for something that may help undo what had just been done and for that reason he remembers them. And then through a combination of his realisation that it was futile and a fear for his own position (since what's just happened is still dawning on him at this point) he decides to get the hell out of there.

(3) It was not possible for the towels to be properly tested...they went mouldy during storage... because they were damp when bagged. So, his version in relation to the towels could not be disproved. Incidentally, his defence requested further testing on the towels in his appeal...the appeal court refused.

How does he react to that?
If I remember correctly RG's DNA was found on the back of the bra while RS's DNA was found on the metal clasp/hooks.
This can indicate that while RG was holding one side of the bra pulling the material/cloth RS was holding the other side by the metal hooks to cut it off. And the bra was cut off after the stabbing so that's how he reacted. :(


Is it possible that Meredith grabbed the towels before she passed out just after the three rat bastards locked her in the room with a fatal wound?.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:58 am   Post subject: T.O.D.   

stilicho wrote:
I would like to discuss the pathologist testimony again....


.... stomach contents and time of death that they consider both authoritative and--ahem--easy to digest?










http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2929541


"The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court."


Here are some specifics on digestion:

"The digestive system and gut contents of a victim can provide important clues to the time of death of a victim. Chewed food will firstly pass through the esophagus and then down into the stomach within seconds of the initial swallowing.

After 3 hours, the food then leaves the stomach and heads toward the small intestines. 6 hours after eating a meal, the food will have traveled half way through the small intestines and begin moving through the large intestine.

Where the victim's small intestine is empty, it suggests that the victim ate his or her last meal approximately 8 hours before death. The digestive process usually takes a bit more than a day, but it can be affected by sickness, liquid intake, fear or drug intake.

Pathologists also briefly note that correct level of food digestion corresponds to its location in the digestive system. In the rare case that a clever murderer wishes to delude investigators by attempting to bring forward the time of the victim's last meal (giving them an explanation for where they were at the victim's time of death), he/she may manually feed processed food (resembling that of chewed food) into the victim's stomach. If this is so, the food collected in the stomach will be much less digested than normal, since the periodic motion of the stomach stops after death.

The food may indeed appear slightly broken down, due to the presence of the stomach acids, but any abnormalities are otherwise detectable. In older people or in those affected by the effects mentioned earlier (sickness, fear, drug/liquid intake), the efficiency of food digestion alters and it is left to pathologists to determine if the extent of the undigested food is great enough to suggest the mentioned scenario..."
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/002 ... _death.htm

From another PubMed abstract:
"Factors accelerating or delaying gastric emptying include
fear and apprehension..."
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: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:

If I remember correctly RG's DNA was found on the back of the bra while RS's DNA was found on the metal clasp/hooks.
This can indicate that while RG was holding one side of the bra pulling the material/cloth RS was holding the other side by the metal hooks to cut it off. And the bra was cut off after the stabbing so that's how he reacted. :(


The handprint on the pillow was also done after the stabbing.

I don't understand the purpose of the pillow yet.

Pillow and towels could go together, before/during/after the stabbing.

Being soaked with blood does not mean the intention must have been to assist and render aid (it could mean that, but does not necessarily mean that).

What rules out the towels being placed (at least initially) as an intended head rest?

If there had been another pillow, would it have been placed under the head, to match the one under the hips?

Alternatively, if the towels were intended to be used to soak up the blood, it does not follow that the intention was to help the victim (by applying pressure to the wound, for example).

The handprint is a fixed point in the sequence of events.
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: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

A bit of a digression on the why question.

The need to understand is great.

The judicial system needs to assign punishment and safety in proportion to culpability. The mental health profession needs to administer treatment and perhaps even prevent murders. The investigation teams need to apprehend offenders.

Everyone needs to understand what is going on in order to be able to deal with it.

One way to understand is to classify the different ways and means, causes and effects, into a pattern of some sort.

If the professionals are having difficulty understanding, what hope the rest of us?

It seems to be, at base, a desire/anger component combined with a choice to carry it out.

Cases will probably have to be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all.

For example, someone with low inhibitions takes drugs that lowers their inhibitions even further; someone with a fantasy indulges the fantasy; someone who is pliable follows the instructions of the someone who stands as the wiser-instructor figure to them; someone who doesn’t like their mother reacts against a mother-figure; someone who doesn’t care how far the session has gone would not necessarily stop going that little bit further; and so on.

Overall, I think it all boils down to: people do things because they want to (there is a reason), or because there is nothing stopping them (there is no reason not to).

Sounds a lot like posting.



Louis Schlesinger surveys the different ways murderous behaviour can be classified. There are recognisable echoes of personality types in there. Probably it will turn out that murder is just the extreme edge of the physical contact spectrum: a pinch a punch, a tickle a slap, a stick a stone, a small scratch a fatal wound.

Legal purposes
  • action which is purposeful, reckless, or carried out with extreme indifference
    • degree of intention classification
      • high degree of planning / heinous / shocking
      • spontaneously as the result of an argument
      • intoxicated individual causes an accident in which someone dies


Psychological purposes
  • Bromberg classification (1961)
    • normal
      • husband finds wife with lover
      • extreme humiliation in predisposed individual
    • psychopathic
      • sex murderers, thrill murderers, rapists who kill, substance abusers who kill
      • unstable, unpredictable, without conscience
      • unpremeditated, impulsive
  • Tanay classification (1969)
    • goal-directed: purposeful
    • psychotic: direct response to delusions
    • dissociative: altered state
  • Halleck classification (1971)
    • adaptive: some logical reason (e.g., money, eliminate witness)
    • maladaptive: illogical (e.g., psychosis, intoxication, extreme internal conflicts)
  • Salfati classification (2000)
    • instrumental (with a logical purpose)
    • expressive (as a result of emotional factors)
  • Revitch and Schlesinger global classification
    • result of primary disorder
      • epilepsy, brain tumours, brain injury, drugs
      • “The most common substance associated with violence is alcohol. Other substances, such as phencyclidine, psychedelics, amphetamines, cocaine and steroids, have all precipitated sudden violence and murder.” (p529)
    • external, social, environmental factors (social norms and value systems, cults, group pressure)
    • situational (“70% of all homicides” – p530): essentially reactions to external stress includes domestic murders
    • impulsive: lifestyle characterised by lack of direction
      • “These individuals are passive and easily led…Their offences are almost always poorly structured and only partially premeditated…frequently have been raised in dysfunctional families…murder as just another in a series of antisocial acts” (p530)
        • result of emotionally charged inner conflicts
          • acute: sudden, unprovoked; sudden release of deep emotional conflict and tension
            • “Often the perpetrator of the assault cannot give a logical explanation for the murder; in many cases, the victim – in some symbolic way – ignited the underlying conflicts which overwhelmed the offender’s controls.” (p530)
          • chronic: incubation, violent act, relief (e.g., stalking homicide)
          • compulsive: “The need to commit the act is compelling, and there is a high likelihood of repetition…eroticized…ritualistic” (p531)



Investigative purposes
  • sexual murder classification
    • sexual conflicts
    • cover up a sex crime
    • eroticized aggression
    • “and sex-related homicides in which the specific motivational dynamics remain unclear” (p532)
  • serial murder classification: e.g., in medical settings, contract killers, sexually-motivated
  • mass murder classification: e.g., family annihilator, pseudo-commando, disgruntled employee/student, bomber, mentally ill person who is angry for various reasons
  • spree killing classification: “relatively rare and are hardly studied but seem to involve anger – or the need for revenge for some supposed wrong” (p533)


Source
Summarised from: Louis B Schlesinger, "[4.8] Murder: legal, psychological and investigative approaches", in Jennifer Brown and Elizabeth Campbell (eds), The Cambridge Book of Forensic Psychology (2010) [Cambridge University Press 2010] pp 527-534

ETC: name typo in reference.


Last edited by Catnip on Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:58 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:

Quote:
Overall, I think it all boils down to: people do things because they want to (there is a reason), or because there is nothing stopping them (there is no reason not to).

Sounds a lot like posting.



co-) :lol: :lol:

pig-)

P.S. No reason for the pig. I just noticed the emoticon for the first time and couldn't resist.

_________________
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: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:17 am   Post subject: Summer news   

A nice touch:

La Nazione reports the Giornale dell'Umbria reports that Amanda's cell summer, the third in that series, is spent playing the guitar, reading books in Italian, writing. The Radicali*, who visited her in prison last Sunday, thought Amanda looked thin. She wore a pair of trousers with "Seattle" written on them.

"On the walls of her cell, which she shares with another American sentenced for drugs, Amanda has stuck up adhesive stars and stripes."

"Stars-and-stripes cell: Third prison summer for Amanda"
Nazione 17 August 2010

? Radicali: a liberationist political movement: [Radicali]; they did a August holidays prison-inspection blitz [Summer in Prison] between 13-15 August, to show solidarity with the "pentitential community".
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: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:05 am   Post subject: Numbers   

The Radicali are saying:

Quote:
Mai in passato i detenuti ristretti nelle nostre carceri sono stati così tanti (68.206)

"Never in the past have there been so many detainees locked up in our prisons (68,206)"

-- "Ferragosto 2010 in carcere" (Summer holidays in prison, 2010), [link]


New South Wales has over 10,000 people in prison (1), and the state's population is upward of 6.7 million (2), which makes it 1 in 677 people in prison here.

Italy's population of about 60 million or so (3) makes it 1 in 880 people in prison.

At New South Wales rates, that would be 88,627 people in prison for Italy, if I did my sums right.

Or put it another way, Italy has 7 times the prisoners that New South Wales has, but 10 times the population.

Someone's doing something right, and they're complaining?

Alternatively, the difference is there are more people out on bail and house arrest in Italy than here, and prison rates in both places are equal when adjusted for this.


Numbers and statistics are often recommended for insomnia, for some reason.
p-((( All that sheep counting.



(1) - "Tough bail laws to stay despite jail population", [SMH] 31 March 2010
(2) - "At 30 June 2005, the estimated resident population of NSW was 6.77 million people." , Australian Bureau of Statistics, [link]
(3) - "Italy Population has surpassed 60 million as per the 2009 estimates. It is the forth largest populated country of Europe and ranks twenty third in the world chart." Maps of World [link], plus [Wikipedia]
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Catnip wrote:
***Overall, I think it all boils down to: people do things because they want to (there is a reason), or because there is nothing stopping them (there is no reason not to).***

Sometimes it is because they can. Here, young people, separated from the families that raised them and from institutions and friends that would otherwise influence their behavior, each came to be the sole effective influence on the other. Neither acted as a conscience for the other. I don't know about RS, but AK doesn't strike me as having much of a capacity for self-observation. Self-centered? Definitely. But self-observant? Not so much.

It reminds me of the Milgram experiment at Yale which had its roots in understanding why otherwise moral people followed the orders of the Nazi's. Subjects were told that they would be paired with another person, one would be a teacher and the other a learner--which, to be determined by draw. In fact, the subject would always be the teacher and the learner was an actor who would always inform the subject that he had a heart condition. The teacher was to teach a list of words, and if the answer was wrong, electric shock was to be applied. The subject was administered the first level of shock to demonstrate the effect. Voltage was to increase 15 volts with each correct answer, up to a maximum for 450 volts. In fact, the wires were not connected to a person, but activated tape-recorded screams and cries that intensified as the voltage increased. Before the experiment, Milgram's colleagues thought that no more than 2% of subjects would apply the full 450 volts. In fact, nearly two out three did so.

Then there is Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment at Stanford University in which a group of students judged to be among the more mentally healthy played the roles of prisoners and guards. This got so out of control that the experiment was terminated after 6 days.

Here are some Wikipedia URLs if you wish more details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:55 am   Post subject: Re: Numbers   

Catnip wrote:
The Radicali are saying:

Quote:
Mai in passato i detenuti ristretti nelle nostre carceri sono stati così tanti (68.206)

"Never in the past have there been so many detainees locked up in our prisons (68,206)"

-- "Ferragosto 2010 in carcere" (Summer holidays in prison, 2010), [link]


New South Wales has over 10,000 people in prison (1), and the state's population is upward of 6.7 million (2), which makes it 1 in 677 people in prison here.

Italy's population of about 60 million or so (3) makes it 1 in 880 people in prison.

At New South Wales rates, that would be 88,627 people in prison for Italy, if I did my sums right.

Or put it another way, Italy has 7 times the prisoners that New South Wales has, but 10 times the population.

Someone's doing something right, and they're complaining?

Alternatively, the difference is there are more people out on bail and house arrest in Italy than here, and prison rates in both places are equal when adjusted for this.


Numbers and statistics are often recommended for insomnia, for some reason.
p-((( All that sheep counting.



(1) - "Tough bail laws to stay despite jail population", [SMH] 31 March 2010
(2) - "At 30 June 2005, the estimated resident population of NSW was 6.77 million people." , Australian Bureau of Statistics, [link]
(3) - "Italy Population has surpassed 60 million as per the 2009 estimates. It is the forth largest populated country of Europe and ranks twenty third in the world chart." Maps of World [link], plus [Wikipedia]

Well, I will have you know the the good ol' US of A is number one in the incarceration department. We have the world's very highest incarceration rate at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000. With less than 5% of the world's population we have 23.4% of the world's prisoners.

To any FOAs that might have taken my paragraph above seriously, it was said ironically. I agree with you, Catnip, that Italy is doing something right in the justice department, and I might add, in the slow food department, the wine department, the movie department, the conjoined twins surgery department, the what a lovely country and what a civilized people departments. There's more, but I don't want the Chamber of Commerce to accuse me of being paid to post by the Italian Consulate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:20 am   Post subject: Re: Numbers   

TomM wrote:
Catnip wrote:
The Radicali are saying:

Quote:
Mai in passato i detenuti ristretti nelle nostre carceri sono stati così tanti (68.206)

"Never in the past have there been so many detainees locked up in our prisons (68,206)"

-- "Ferragosto 2010 in carcere" (Summer holidays in prison, 2010), [link]


New South Wales has over 10,000 people in prison (1), and the state's population is upward of 6.7 million (2), which makes it 1 in 677 people in prison here.

Italy's population of about 60 million or so (3) makes it 1 in 880 people in prison.

At New South Wales rates, that would be 88,627 people in prison for Italy, if I did my sums right.

Or put it another way, Italy has 7 times the prisoners that New South Wales has, but 10 times the population.

Someone's doing something right, and they're complaining?

Alternatively, the difference is there are more people out on bail and house arrest in Italy than here, and prison rates in both places are equal when adjusted for this.


Numbers and statistics are often recommended for insomnia, for some reason.
p-((( All that sheep counting.



(1) - "Tough bail laws to stay despite jail population", [SMH] 31 March 2010
(2) - "At 30 June 2005, the estimated resident population of NSW was 6.77 million people." , Australian Bureau of Statistics, [link]
(3) - "Italy Population has surpassed 60 million as per the 2009 estimates. It is the forth largest populated country of Europe and ranks twenty third in the world chart." Maps of World [link], plus [Wikipedia]

Well, I will have you know the the good ol' US of A is number one in the incarceration department. We have the world's very highest incarceration rate at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000. With less than 5% of the world's population we have 23.4% of the world's prisoners.

To any FOAs that might have taken my paragraph above seriously, it was said ironically. I agree with you, Catnip, that Italy is doing something right in the justice department, and I might add, in the slow food department, the wine department, the movie department, the conjoined twins surgery department, the what a lovely country and what a civilized people departments. There's more, but I don't want the Chamber of Commerce to accuse me of being paid to post by the Italian Consulate.


Watch out, Tom. That kind of talk can get you expelled or expatriated or ejected or whatever. You may have to take up exile somewhere, like that third-world backwater known as Italy. That country didn't even really invent pasta, turns out. They stole it from the Chinese! Anyway, if you wish to remain a citizen of good standing in the USA (if you are one!), then I suggest a prominent display of patriotism, something like adhesive stars and stripes.:)

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

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I am well past displays of patriotism. I would have said that I am not in the least bit patriotic, but when someone a week or so ago posted sometlhing about something being an American characteristic, my critical senses were engaged.

But I will confess. No big disclosure since is it all public record. In 1970 I was convicted in Federal court for refusing induction into the armed services. So I have seen that bug bear and have made a life notwithstanding. Oddly, the present seems an even less hospitable time for dissent than those turbulent years. Maybe because now everyone not in the seats of privilege is just holding on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
I am well past displays of patriotism. I would have said that I am not in the least bit patriotic, but when someone a week or so ago posted sometlhing about something being an American characteristic, my critical senses were engaged.

But I will confess. No big disclosure since is it all public record. In 1970 I was convicted in Federal court for refusing induction into the armed services. So I have seen that bug bear and have made a life notwithstanding. Oddly, the present seems an even less hospitable time for dissent than those turbulent years. Maybe because now everyone not in the seats of privilege is just holding on.



And those in the seats of privilege are holding on extra tight!

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"So have the police said what went 'wrong' when they tried to look for evidence on the computers and the hard disks were damaged?"

They haven't said anything publicly and from their silence I guess that they indeed screwed them up. :D

Amanda's laptop is not much interesting from the point of view of the crime, but Meredith's computer is.
If Meredith used her computer, it would yield a stricter interval for the time of death and would allow more precise scenarios.
If she did not use it, then this would somewhat support those scenarios that she was distracted by something else soon after she arrived home.


I could not find anything in The Massei Report if there was any internet traffic from the cottage on that night.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:46 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"So have the police said what went 'wrong' when they tried to look for evidence on the computers and the hard disks were damaged?"

They haven't said anything publicly and from their silence I guess that they indeed screwed them up. :D

Amanda's laptop is not much interesting from the point of view of the crime, but Meredith's computer is.
If Meredith used her computer, it would yield a stricter interval for the time of death and would allow more precise scenarios.
If she did not use it, then this would somewhat support those scenarios that she was distracted by something else soon after she arrived home.


I could not find anything in The Massei Report if there was any internet traffic from the cottage on that night.



No, nothing in Massei about that. Meredith said to Robin she was tired and we have no information on the frequency of her computer use so I don't think we could draw any conclusions even if we knew she did or didn't use it personally speaking.

_________________
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 bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:05 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Quote:
"No, nothing in Massei about that. Meredith said to Robin she was tired and we have no information on the frequency of her computer use so I don't think we could draw any conclusions even if we knew she did or didn't use it personally speaking"


I still think that this information (including her earlier computer and internet usage) should be evaluated.
As no claim of receiving email or other interaction is known from Meredith that evening, it is probably safe to say that she did not use the internet that night.
And I find this a bit undermining Massei's reconstruction. In it she was not sleeping.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:40 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

I am just wondering how you can fry 3 in the same investigation?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Amanda's groupies continue to hammer away at this issue although none of them have the relevant medical knowledge.


The groupies all they do is repeat what they read at Bruce’s site. For groupies what Bruce Fisher posts in his IIP blog is Bruce’s and that’s good enough. Clearly they don’t have a mind of their own to challenged or realized that most of what’s on that blog is a false distorted representation of the case file and as for the parts of factual information that he’s acquired which he could provide for his readers as such, he does it only by adding his own twisted interpretation of facts.


I know that TM and Pete are always looking for fresh articles. I wonder if DriveByDoc or nicki or someone knows a pathologist who might be willing to explain how time of death works and how it's presented in court, judged upon, and so forth. That's an article I'd really like to read.

I don't want to read advocacy positions or even necessarily the experts who appeared in court on behalf of either the accused or the prosecution and the plaintiffs.

I understand the piece that Michael kindly posted but really it's the first Google entry under "stomach contents forensic pathology".

Do you understand why I want something readable but also explanatory as to the various time of death determination techniques?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: T.O.D.   

The 411 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I would like to discuss the pathologist testimony again....


.... stomach contents and time of death that they consider both authoritative and--ahem--easy to digest?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2929541

"The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court."


This is definitely closer to what I am looking for. I admire all the work NIH has done and find it reliable as a shield against "para-medical" woo.

Now are there medical professionals here who are able to relate this to Meredith's time of death and the forensic pathology leading to the known uncertainty of using stomach contents?

Thanks for digging this up! I owe you one. drin-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:07 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

TomM wrote:
I am well past displays of patriotism. I would have said that I am not in the least bit patriotic, but when someone a week or so ago posted sometlhing about something being an American characteristic, my critical senses were engaged.

But I will confess. No big disclosure since is it all public record. In 1970 I was convicted in Federal court for refusing induction into the armed services. So I have seen that bug bear and have made a life notwithstanding. Oddly, the present seems an even less hospitable time for dissent than those turbulent years. Maybe because now everyone not in the seats of privilege is just holding on.


Boy, I hope that wasn't me who said that about Americans.

My relationship with Americans (including a few cousins) is that they are probably the least jingoistic people I have known. Most of them I know are inclusive rather than exclusive. The power of the US isn't its military but its institutions based on ideals that appeal to individuals everywhere.

It's hard to imagine a political entity that can easily accommodate both Dick Cheney and Kurt Vonnegut. But there you go.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:16 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
I am just wondering how you can fry 3 in the same investigation?


I could do that on my own. It's very possible these were computers not in the best repair to begin with but we'd need more information on that. It's also possible that the "frying" wouldn't have prevented further examination if there was supposed to be something important to retrieve.

If you're ever interested in seeing how easy it is to wreck your hardware, just try doing some repairs on your own machine. But don't blame me!

rt-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:23 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

"I am just wondering how you can fry 3 in the same investigation?"

A little "abuse of power" and there you are. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Michael wrote:
Some thoughts on the towel issue.

I actually believe Rudy on this. I have three reasons for that.

(1) Judge Massei reasons (see the Report for that reasoning) that Raffaele had a knife to one side of the neck and Amanda the other, then the stabbings took place in rather quick succession. The reasoning of Massei here has a very logical path. Now, while Massei does not come out and say so right out, he exculpates Rudy to some extent here. In this scenario, Rudy is looking on as Raffaele and then Amanda 'use' their knives. This is not 'his' action, this is not something through any debate he has sanctioned...it just happens in front of him. What started off as one thing, has suddenly in front of his eyes become something else...how does he react to that? From his point of view, they had just been restraining and threatening the victim with knives...now, the two others have suddenly gone and stabbed her. How does he react to that? Now, according to Massei, Amanda and Raffaele go off to the bathroom to clean up (our precious angels have blood on them 'yuk'), leaving Rudy in the room to take in what has just taken place...what does he do?

(2) Rudy speaks of the towels and using them on Meredith. To be honest, with all that had gone before I don't think he'd have even noticed the towels during all that. If you're attacking someone, then someone stabs them....are you really going to notice a couple of towels lying about in order to incorporate in a false story later? Are you going to stand around and admire the furnishings? The fact is...there were towels in the room, so it wasn't a 'guess'. I think he used the towels, because he specifically looked around the room for something that may help undo what had just been done and for that reason he remembers them. And then through a combination of his realisation that it was futile and a fear for his own position (since what's just happened is still dawning on him at this point) he decides to get the hell out of there.

(3) It was not possible for the towels to be properly tested...they went mouldy during storage... because they were damp when bagged. So, his version in relation to the towels could not be disproved. Incidentally, his defence requested further testing on the towels in his appeal...the appeal court refused.

How does he react to that?
If I remember correctly RG's DNA was found on the back of the bra while RS's DNA was found on the metal clasp/hooks.
This can indicate that while RG was holding one side of the bra pulling the material/cloth RS was holding the other side by the metal hooks to cut it off. And the bra was cut off after the stabbing so that's how he reacted. :(



Yes, but Rudy's DNA could have gotten on the bra before the stabbing. Indeed, I think that it was Meredith's resistance when they got to trying to take off the bra that led to the anger that caused the first stab.

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


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

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:44 am   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

A quick hello to all and welcome to our new arrivals. Really (no - seriously really) behind in reading here, a mixture of family and work commitments, hope to catch up soon. There is a high output of posting these days which will no doubt make for interesting reading whenever I get there. Thanks for all your efforts.

I noticed Bilko’s ugly face in a flying avatar scan and am personally pleased to see him posting here again; (unless of course he said in a post that “Hammerite’s mother wears army boots”, which is true but we just don’t want everyone to know). :) Hi Bilko.

H
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
Stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Amanda's groupies continue to hammer away at this issue although none of them have the relevant medical knowledge.


The groupies all they do is repeat what they read at Bruce’s site. For groupies what Bruce Fisher posts in his IIP blog is Bruce’s and that’s good enough. Clearly they don’t have a mind of their own to challenged or realized that most of what’s on that blog is a false distorted representation of the case file and as for the parts of factual information that he’s acquired which he could provide for his readers as such, he does it only by adding his own twisted interpretation of facts.


I know that TM and Pete are always looking for fresh articles. I wonder if DriveByDoc or nicki or someone knows a pathologist who might be willing to explain how time of death works and how it's presented in court, judged upon, and so forth. That's an article I'd really like to read.

I don't want to read advocacy positions or even necessarily the experts who appeared in court on behalf of either the accused or the prosecution and the plaintiffs.

I understand the piece that Michael kindly posted but really it's the first Google entry under "stomach contents forensic pathology".

Do you understand why I want something readable but also explanatory as to the various time of death determination techniques?

Hi Stil,
don't know how much this may clear your doubts, however when attempting to determine TOD-which is mostly approximate, forensics evaluate:
-frigor, livor and rigor mortis-subjected to environmental conditions
-stomach content, which only indicates that TOD cannot have taken place before a certain time, since even if digestion time usually spans between 3-4 hours time, presence of undigested food has been found after 7-8 after last meal. So let's say Mr X has been seen having dinner at 7 pm, the body was found at 100 am, and the stomach was empty, one can state with good approximation that the murder took place around 11 pm. Unfortunately situations are not aways so clear-cut.

Study of insects colonizing cadavers has recently been very useful in order to help with more accurate TOD-see Prof Introna's work re Calliphora Vomitaria-Incidentally, Prof Introna was defense consultant.

Sorry about not been able to be more exahustive but I have very limited Internet access where I am right now.
Will be happy to answer your PM in the next few days, should you be interested in pursuing the matter further
Best, Nicki

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JULY 22 -   

1) Does anyone know in what part of the house on Garibaldi Sollecito's apartment was located? I am looking at my shots (not all posted) and seem to be seeing six apartments, three on each floor, back and front. Is there a floor plan anywhere?

2) How did Popovic let herself in through the front door? Was the front door always open, or did she have a key, or did she buzz her way in? My shots show a solid door with a security system, and a notice (apartment to let).

3) Are there any shots of the house of Elisabetta Lana in Via Sperandio? I photographed the only two houses with their gardens outside the city gate on the north (downhill) side of Via Sperandio, and for two years believed maybe I got it wrong and never posted, but the report suggests one of those was the house. (I dont recall seeing any houses on Sperandio further down the hill to the east where the city gate which was closed at night near chez Guede was/is.)

4) Was Sollecito using his car to enter and exit the walled city at the top end of Garibaldi or the bottom? When I was there all of the top end was closed and being deeply excavated, and this had been going on for many months. It was possible to walk it on a walkway, but the two gates at the top are 300-400 meters from Sollecito's.

Peter Quennell

Added: If I do have a shot of the Lana garden, it does look rather like a wilderness where, for example, cellphones might be disappeared without trace..
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 13 of 14 [ 3396 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


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

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

  

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


28,914,487 Views