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


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

Forum rules

XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 - OCT 28, 10

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 30 of 32 [ 7802 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
Author Message

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
PS ty Clander.. and looking forward to the photos of the most popular MP soon...
I am a tad bit concerned about you and 411 and the 7 hills of Rome camping trip however... 411 adds up to 6..... add the 7......

You're welcome and :D



See, if you take AK ( 1 + 11) and add 1 mountain... 1+11=1 =......

just sayin'.... watch out for 411 +7 hills ..
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:05 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Solange305 wrote:
Well, if that is Charlie Wilkes, I will say he is the only decent looking one of the bunch.

The rest of them... well gawd damn, that's a whole lotta white, old and fugly going on there.... If we photoshop the Free Amanda signs and replace them with "Obama is a Muzlim nazi commi witch doctor" signs, I would swear you had posted pictures from the latest Tea Party rally!


Oh, I didn't label the photo accurately... CW is the one vaguely resembling a border terrier...


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:53 am   Post subject: Re: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

tom_ch wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
In fact, "how to destroy a hard-drive" is a reasonably regular meme on techy websites because those wearing the tin-foil hats know precisely that it is actually extremely hard to erase a hard-drive and people go to great lengths to discuss how to do it comprehensively. Simply whacking it with a 12v powersupply guarantees absolutely nothing.

Whacking it with an 8lb. sledgehammer generally would do the trick, however.

Alas, this is rather more obvious.

Personally (and professionally), I fail to see why destroying the controller would screw up the hardware, and in fact replacing the controller seemed to solve the problem with two of the three disks (according to clander's translation). Of course, perhaps a badly designed controller would allow this, but it would have to be really badly designed.

Tom



And in fact, for people who are on the less techy side, the 8lb sledgehammer / chucking it in acid is actually usually the method by which people who write articles about how to truly erase a hard drive actually end up. The point of this is not as banal as it sounds - the reason they end up here is precisely because zapping a hard-drive with electricity or even using an over-writing program to fill the disk with 0's, frequently doesn't work. And that goes to the point that unless it's extremely unlucky, I also doubt that there isn't data that could be recovered on the platters. I personally would support sending the disc back to Toshiba

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

If no-one looks, no-one finds. The purpose of curiosity.

Assuming it wasn't (accidentally) zapped by the user beforehand, there may be some more mediocre drivel (read: outstanding student efforts) to find on it that may confirm or corroborate something, perhaps.

On the other side of the coin, blog updates seem to have dried up by around mid-October, as if there were more important things that needed doing.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:54 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Quote:
"I am intrigued as to the last sentence. As to reasons that remain a puzzle, few women are afflicted." — capealadin [XIX.29] (23-Oct-2010)



I think it may involve an artefact of classification (assault and violence versus lying and cheating) which make men more visible. Alternatively, perhaps there is a spectrum of emotional intelligence (oxytocin, anyone?), and men are already near the end of the spectrum, and have less distance to travel before dropping off the scale, whereas women, always mysterious and unfathomable, might have more of a “buffer”, so to speak, before their choices appear on the police radar.

Volume 2 of Windfall’s thesis may be able to shed some light on this. ;)


Certainly, the anecdotal evidence is that there is, to some degree, the capability of a streak of viciousness in everyone. Women and girls tend, generally, to be less physical when they go about it.

As Sabrina taunted her cousin at the pub the night before the murder:

Quote:
‘si vende, si vende,
lei per due coccole si vende....
pure la madre le dice che si vende’


‘She sells herself, she sells herself
For a cuddle, she sells herself…
And your mother says so too.’


Sarah was really upset about it “enough, according to [Stefania] De Luca, to be unable to hold back the tears”.

– “Night before murder Sabrina and Sarah arguing over Ivano [ Libero ] 23 October 2010


Which is understandable, in a fifteen-year-old girl.


But when the viciousness does turn physical, there seem to be no bounds.

There are 3,000 Italian news items on the Scazzi case at the moment, too many for me to provide a digest for. And that's just in GoogleNews.

Barbara Palombelli (politician’s wife and la giornalista scrittrice di fumetti noir e macabri = “journalist-author of macabre noir graphic-novels”), seems to be getting in on the act too. – “Sabrina Misseri in prison: a best-seller with Barbara Palombelli” [ Corsera Magazine ] (21 October 2010).
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Quote:
"Many people have a hobby. Like collecting. Everyone have their vocational topic. My uncle collects stamps. My father collects books. My sister collects decoration paper. A friend of mine collects computer systems. Amanda collects demented middle-aged males vowed to self destruction."

— Yummi [XIX.28] (20-Oct-2010)


The last part of that, salmon do exactly that in the spawning runs up around Seattle. Happens all the time. Also, women catch the biggest fish. Pheromones, apparently. Poor fish. :) They can't help it.


As to the first part:

I collect stamps. !

I collect books. !!

I collect decoration paper. !!!

I collect computer systems. !!!!

Must be something in the air.


The really annoying thing about the Toshiba laptop keyboard is that it has only one CTRL key, on the left-hand side, which makes navigating spreadsheets a cumbersome two-handed affair.


In the Scientific American issue I referred to earlier, there is also an article about how children like, and need, touch, to be able to understand things.

I can relate to that. In learning to play the piano, there comes a point when you “touch” an emotion and a story, with the phrasing of the melody, the speed of the rhythym, and the mood of the musical key that the piece is written in, all these things coming together in the dance between notes and mind. Much like a car becomes an extension of the driver. After that point, it becomes a matter of joyousness exploration, like a bird that has discovered flying.

In a similar way, languages are like different houses: same or similar layout, purpose and function, but a huge amount of individual freedom and ways of doing things, classifying things, talking about things. Sometimes they borrow things from each other as well, and even inherit some valuable items.

Legal systems are probably not that much different to languages, perhaps slightly simpler and maybe better organised in some places.

I've often wondered why the paunch-crowd often give off an air of having stopped climbing the learning curve, as if they have given up on self-development and are waiting for things to wind down. All that effort in churning out posts (which could have been more useful and informative) is much less than the three years's effort needed to get a competent law degree and start accumulating the experience to actually help somebody.

Like Caesar saying, "It's all Greek to me" (or in the German version, "That's all Chinese to me", Das ist chinesisch fuer mich.), they've given up before they have even started.


Found an interesting quote yesterday, while reading on the train home:

Quote:
"studying Chinese and Chinese characters is quite difficult, but difficulty can incite curiosity, and even promote one's interest in studying. The Himalayas are difficult to climb, but the number of athletes wanting to scale them keeps growing,..."

— Yin Binyong and John S Rohsenow, Modern Chinese Characters (1994) [Sinolingua 1997] p ii, Foreword by Zhou Youguang
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Hi everyone.

Thank you, Clander. I'm not remotely techie, but I feel I understand it now :). It's good to have this issue nailed down.

Welcome Mimi ^_^

OT, but regarding wiping hard drives (and judges): Some 10 years ago or a little more when a senior UK judge was done for paedophilia porn found on his computer, instructions on how to wipe your computer were circulated to all members of the judiciary. (why would they do that?)
Top Profile 

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: An OUT-OF-THIS WORLD Discussion   

The 411 wrote:
Just discovered this little tidbit about Rocco's book-- from the Seattle Times article.

snip....

Just like the Cook's masterpiece.... ROCCO'S BOOK WILL.....
snip....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... cation=rss


Hello 411,
Regarding that ridiculous book written by that ridiculous man about that convicted murderess, (and according to Kercher's lawyer Maresca), rocco grrrrrlanda portrays anita:

“…as a profound, smart girl who as such could not possibly have been guilty.” wtf)

Rocco is got rocks in his head.
Here in Dayton Ohio, and in the somewhat recent past a well respected lawyer, a highly regarded family man and handsome; was caught out as a pedophile. And in another story, a long standing and highly regarded pediatrician; caught out after years of damage as a pedophile. I can’t say as either of these guys was smart, but they were at least well educated.

Smart is as Smart does. And besides, anita knoxious does not appear to be very smart anyway.
Rocco is full of crocco.

Oh and 411, may I say how much I have always enjoyed and admired your entertaining and insightful postings. tt-)

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((


Last edited by DJLawless on Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

411... I saw this alien thing too...

Just discovered this little tidbit about Rocco's book-- from the Seattle Times article.

"Instead, the book focuses on Knox's personality, her childhood in Seattle, her hopes for post-prison life. The conversations range from mundane topics — movies and bike riding — to wider subjects — literature and religion — and even touch on the possibility of alien life in the universe."



I was gonna ask if anyone here had happened to obtain the book and could quote the full alien musing for us?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

This was in a book that i was reading last night, and I thought I'd copy here, because it really pinpoints the difference, between, if you will, us and them.

Everyone filters reality through perception. Some people do this in a very healthy manner, analyzing available information, weighing it objectively, and using it effectively. Others filter reality through their WANTS, NEEDS, DESIRE or FEARS. Their result is often a skewed version of reality, one that's WEAK, REACTIVE, HARD to TRUST, and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to work with well. Italics are mine.

Welcome Mimi.....

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I trust that all of them--from "friends" like Paxton and Seliber through the stepfather, sister, and natural parents--really need therapy before Knox can adjust whatsoever. I think this goes beyond a simple explanation of "chemical imbalance". Do all of these people suffer from exactly the same condition?
.


I don't think there is any problem with the Selibers, Bens, DJs, Fredricos or any of that lot really. If they meet someone like AK ( as cape described her earlier on ... easy lay, yet not looking like a streetwalker per se ) and they happily subscribe to 'friends with benefits' lifestyle, well.. that is how they view their relationships... One may chose words like shallow, demeaning, or potentially damaging, to describe it from their perspective, others say, 'whocairz'..... but at the end of the day... people make their own bed and lie in it.

The parents of AK and RS however have revealed their own set of skew whiff behaviours that have affected these kids but, saying that, they have made their own choices and I think none of it can be 'excused' because of the parenting.


We'll have to agree to disagree about the others in ones' support groups then. We don't know how Knox's Seattle clique related to her apart from friendship and support. We do have the documented evidence that at least one of them claims to have pointed a gun at someone and gets a thrill out of firing people in his employ. The term "douchebag" comes to mind instantly.

Friendship and support works two ways.

Needs are fulfilled in each of those in such a relationship and those include what could loosely be called "morality". I think it's a mistake to perceive Knox (or Sollecito and Guede) as primary manipulators of those in their social groups. We tend to "flock together" and it seems to work to the benefit of all those involved. I see no evidence at all that Knox (any more than Mignini in the groupies' fantasies) is an accomplished Svengali before all whom encounter must prostrate themselves in order to be accepted. I think she enjoys attention and comfort but so does just about anyone. It's the "morality" of excusing rock-throwing parties, underage binge drinking, rape "pranks", and other such activities that cannot have been primarily executed by Knox.

Apart from the attention, exactly why did some of those in the Seattle coterie travel to Italy to testify? What exactly were they validating in their own behaviour?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
Well, if that is Charlie Wilkes, I will say he is the only decent looking one of the bunch.

The rest of them... well gawd damn, that's a whole lotta white, old and fugly going on there.... If we photoshop the Free Amanda signs and replace them with "Obama is a Muzlim nazi commi witch doctor" signs, I would swear you had posted pictures from the latest Tea Party rally!


Oh, I didn't label the photo accurately... CW is the one vaguely resembling a border terrier...


By the way, that's one of a couple photographs forming the basis of Chris Halkides' continued claims that Hampikian is working hard on the case to free Knox. It appears that he has nothing to do with her case at all but got a free trip to Italy to have lunch with a few people. His primary focus has been the Innocence Project and working at his real job at Boise State University. He has been deeply involved with a real wrongful conviction case which I posted a couple months ago.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I don't think Hampikian went to Italy...it was in Seattle the three of them had lunch together.

And yes, Halkides claims that proves Hampikian's "on the defence team". It does not. All it demonstrates is that he was on the FOA team. Chris Mellas and Charlie Wilkes are the leaders of the FOA. The FOA is not the defence team, just like the FOA are not the Marriott team.

_________________
"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 Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Catnip wrote:
Quote:


‘She sells herself, she sells herself
For a cuddle, she sells herself…
And your mother says so too.’


Sarah was really upset about it “enough, according to [Stefania] De Luca, to be unable to hold back the tears”.

– “Night before murder Sabrina and Sarah arguing over Ivano [ Libero ] 23 October 2010


Which is understandable, in a fifteen-year-old girl.


Jesus Christ, a 22 year old woman taunting her 15 year old cousin like that... What a fucking bitch, if I was Sarah's mother I would be having the time of my life kicking her fat ass right about now....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I think, Stilicho, that it's possible Amanda manipulated Madelaine. Often, a pretty girl will choose a friend who is plainer. Especially one, like Amanda, who is insecure, I think. It doesn't appear that Amanda was hugely popular, and the couple of friends who went to trial, may just have enjoyed being in the *limelight* for a change. Pretty boring people, with pretty boring lives. Madelaine could have been living vicariously through Amanda. Doesn't mean that it would have stayed that way. Certainly Amanda is a manipulator of the first order, but she chooses her victims. Obviusly, it was a whole different ball of wax in Perugia. meredith wasn't manipulated, and was nicely distancing herself. People like Amanda don't handle rejection well. And I think that goes way back. Amanda wasn't special in Perugia. I doubt she was special in Seattle either, except for her little coterie.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
I don't think Hampikian went to Italy...it was in Seattle the three of them had lunch together.

And yes, Halkides claims that proves Hampikian's "on the defence team". It does not. All it demonstrates is that he was on the FOA team. Chris Mellas and Charlie Wilkes are the leaders of the FOA. The FOA is not the defence team, just like the FOA are not the Marriott team.



That photo has the boys at lunch in Italy according to Charlie. Also, note the coke light ( not diet) and the street signs.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Also.. this is not Seattle


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

H9 wrote:
Also.. this is not Seattle


Yeah, I think you're right...the buildings look Italian.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

A little smile. A poster, Pepys on Jref, says he/she is undecided. Fair enough. However, Pepys just mentioned in a very nice way ...saying, guys, let's not discuss the stomach thing. You could feel the air being sucked out of the room. :)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
H9 wrote:
Also.. this is not Seattle


Yeah, I think you're right...the buildings look Italian.



Both photos were taken in Italy. They may have also met in Seattle when Hampikian was here for the 62nd annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, which was held in Seattle. I think it was in February but I don't remember exactly. The 2011 meeting will be held in Chicago. Incidentally, the annual meeting attracts people from all over the world, not just American forensic scientists.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
Well, if that is Charlie Wilkes, I will say he is the only decent looking one of the bunch.

The rest of them... well gawd damn, that's a whole lotta white, old and fugly going on there.... If we photoshop the Free Amanda signs and replace them with "Obama is a Muzlim nazi commi witch doctor" signs, I would swear you had posted pictures from the latest Tea Party rally!


Oh, I didn't label the photo accurately... CW is the one vaguely resembling a border terrier...


By the way, that's one of a couple photographs forming the basis of Chris Halkides' continued claims that Hampikian is working hard on the case to free Knox. It appears that he has nothing to do with her case at all but got a free trip to Italy to have lunch with a few people. His primary focus has been the Innocence Project and working at his real job at Boise State University. He has been deeply involved with a real wrongful conviction case which I posted a couple months ago.


This is the correct interpretation. I don't know if he got a free trip or not, however.

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
H9 wrote:
Also.. this is not Seattle


Yeah, I think you're right...the buildings look Italian.



Both photos were taken in Italy. They may have also met in Seattle when Hampikian was here for the 62nd annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, which was held in Seattle. I think it was in February but I don't remember exactly. The 2011 meeting will be held in Chicago. Incidentally, the annual meeting attracts people from all over the world, not just American forensic scientists.


The last photo is taken in via Baglioni in Perugia. In that spot, they are about 150 meters far from the House of Justice, they are walking towards that direction.

*

Since there has been a talking about the bathamt print and a discussion, and piktor posted an interesting work on it, I too am going to propose here my litttle "analysis" with pictures of the bathmat print. I need maybe half an hour to finish it.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
Well, if that is Charlie Wilkes, I will say he is the only decent looking one of the bunch.

The rest of them... well gawd damn, that's a whole lotta white, old and fugly going on there.... If we photoshop the Free Amanda signs and replace them with "Obama is a Muzlim nazi commi witch doctor" signs, I would swear you had posted pictures from the latest Tea Party rally!


Oh, I didn't label the photo accurately... CW is the one vaguely resembling a border terrier...


By the way, that's one of a couple photographs forming the basis of Chris Halkides' continued claims that Hampikian is working hard on the case to free Knox. It appears that he has nothing to do with her case at all but got a free trip to Italy to have lunch with a few people. His primary focus has been the Innocence Project and working at his real job at Boise State University. He has been deeply involved with a real wrongful conviction case which I posted a couple months ago.


This is the correct interpretation. I don't know if he got a free trip or not, however.


I note, despite being in Italy, none of Amanda's lawyers or experts attended this lunch with Hampikian. That says volumes.

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Michael wrote:
I don't think Hampikian went to Italy...it was in Seattle the three of them had lunch together.

And yes, Halkides claims that proves Hampikian's "on the defence team". It does not. All it demonstrates is that he was on the FOA team. Chris Mellas and Charlie Wilkes are the leaders of the FOA. The FOA is not the defence team, just like the FOA are not the Marriott team.



That photo has the boys at lunch in Italy according to Charlie. Also, note the coke light ( not diet) and the street signs.



It's Italy. As well as the coke and the no entry sign, note the warning / prohibition sign on the gate which is more widely used in Italy:


Image

_________________
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 windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Quoting Catnip...
<< Volume 2 of Windfall’s thesis may be able to shed some light on this. ;) >>

Hey Catnip. Well, maybe. Still working on volume 1. I've got funding to go to NYC for a few days and dig up the trial records and as much tabloid coverage of the Ruth Snyder case as I can cram into four days' research, so that will help.

There's nothing to debate, really, about gender and crime. In the UK at least, roughly 80 per cent of serious recorded crime is committed by men (Marsh & Melville, Crime Justice and the Media, 2009: 76).

In terms of the psychopath/sociopath, that's a bit beyond me, but reading the report you quoted brought to mind Asperger's and autism, which is more prevalent in the male population too (a good friend of mine, whose son is autistic, has a habit of calling me auty boy - he reckons I am somewhere on the spectrum. In fact, he thinks most men are on the spectrum).

On the other hand, I know some time back there was speculation about Knox being Asperger-y, which did not ring true with me at all. It's too easy to swap symptoms and do from a distance diagnoses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 1 - Preamble: overview on Rinaldi-Boemia reports and attachment files
:



Three expert reports concerning footprints and shoeprints were produced overall during the investigation: the Ippolito-Mainieri, and the two Rinaldi-Boemia reports.
The “first Rinaldi-Boemia report” was commissioned on January 9. 2008, and was released to the prosecution office on April 9. 2008. Was introduced I the trial in May.

I made a mistake in recent posts, as I affirmed that this was about the bathmat print. In fact this first Rinaldi report was dealing mainly with bloody shoeprints. It was actually the second report dealing with the bloody shoeprint, after the first opinion given in the Ippolito-Mainieri report. The Ippolito.Mainieri was an “instant” report, an opinion released in real time on Nov 7. 2007 by two inspectors at the police station of Città di Castello, as we know this contained the opinion the bloody shoeprint “compatible” with Sollecito’s Nike shoe. The prosecution was not convinced by this assessment and two month later asked the forensic lab for a more detailed analysis:

“ L'incarico di consulenza veniva affidato al dr. Rinaldi e all'ispettore capo Boemia dal P.m. procedente in data 9.1.08. A quel tempo la Procura già disponeva di una consulenza (Ippolito-Mainieri datata 7.11.07) la quale era pervenuta ad un giudizio di attribuzione all'imputato Sollecito di una determinata impronta di scarpa, lasciata per deposizione di sostanza ematica”
(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 355)


The first Rinaldi-Boemia report overturned the Ippolito assessment and attributed the floor bloody shoeprint to Rudy Guede:

“Dando immediatamente conto dei risultati della indagine, la relazione Rìnaldì¬Boemia ha capovolto il punto d'arrivo della precedente consulenza Ippolito. Laddove nell'immediato avvio delle indagini la suola di scarpa del reperto 5 A era stata attribuita alle calzature di Sollecito (segnatarnente alla scarpa sinistra delle Nike modello" Air Force 1" mis. 9 utilizzate dall'imputato), la nuova consulenza ha concluso per la corrispondenza della impronta 5 A con il modello di scarpa "NlKE OUTBREAK 2" mis. 11 che è stato certamente in uso a Rudi Guede “

(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 357)


I made the above citations to clear doubts, that might be alleged by somebody, that the experts and laboratories involved are not the same who attributed the bloody shoeprint to Sollecito.
It is clear also from the documents that the prosecution was not satisfied by having just the first “instant” study by the flying squad in a provincial police station, and the attribution to Guede’s shoe was a result already contained in the study that had been ordered by the prosecution on January 9. 2007. Moreover, the previous attribution by Ippolito-Mainieri appeared wrong immediately to Rinaldi and Boemia in January, as they were appointed to the case:

“ … dalle prime rilevazioni era parso a Rinaldi e Boemia che la impronta della calzatura del Sollecito avesse dimensioni inferiori rispetto all'impronta lasciata sul pavimento, atteso che il diametro del cerchio era pari a mm 33 in luogo dei 36 mm del reperto 5/ A. Si era pertanto ipotizzato che la traccia non potesse essere stata lasciata dalle calzature Nike dello studente pugliese. Le indagini si erano allora orientate a utilizzare gli esiti degli accertamenti nel frattempo eseguiti presso l'abitazione del Guede, dove in Via del Canterino, in sede di sopralluogo erano state reperite sia la scatola vuota del modello di
scarpe "NlKE OUTBREAK 2" misura 11 “


(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 357)


*

The second Rinaldi-Boemia expert report deals with the Luminol prints, with a new set of shoeprints (altogether, by all reports we know that about thirty(!) shoeprints were found in the apartment) and with the bathmat print. This second report was commissioned on May 12. 2008, and issued by the prosecution on May 31. 08.

This report is constituted of more than one file. The number of files is precisely one of the issues in this debate. In fact the number of files is not clear in the Massei report, reading Masseis’ references it looks like the files could be three: the court cites the existence of an attachment dedicated to the bathmat, which is no title of the pdf we have, the court and refers to some picture numbers not corresponding to the “photographic attachment” we have:

“Varie impronte sul tappetino risultano impresse per deposizione di sostanza ematica, dove nel rilievo sono visibili diverse tracce di sangue (cfr. tav. 7 dell' allegato relativo al JI tappetino")”.

(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 362)

The sentencing report has indications of pictures “tab. 7” and “tab 8” that are not the photos 7 and 8 we have in the photographic attachment. And the above quote cites one “allegato relativo al JI tappetino”. The Massei report then also mentions a picture showing the “Robbins Grid” in tabs “16” and “17”, while pictures 16 and 17 in the photographic attachment do not show any grid. Moreover Massei’s report reports of a further in-depth metric analysis that was made in a second moment, after the first measurements and first findings of a compatibility with Sollecito:


“Premesso che già l'analisi della dimensione dell' alluce del Sollecito aveva portato i tecnici a concludere per la compatibilità tra l’impronta A del tappetino e il piede destro dell'imputato, ecco che il dr. Rinaldi e l'ispettore capo Boemia hanno eseguito un approfondimento metrico in relazione alle misure, con il risultato di vedere aumentata la loro sicurezza in ordine a tale tipo di identificazione.
Il metodo seguito è stato quello di sovrapporre a ciascuna impronta una griglia
centimetrata, la cd. "Griglia di L.M. Robbins" (tav. 16-17 all. cit.), griglia orientata in modo che l'asse verticale coincide con il profilo destro del piede mentre l'asse orizzontale è allineato all'altezza dell'apice dell'alluce (tav.16). L'operazione è in questo caso eseguita con riferimento all'impronta plantare del piede destro del Sollecito; la griglia centimetrata viene infine adoperata per misurare le impronte plantari anche di Amanda Knox e di Rudi Guede e per misurare, infine, l'impronta del tappetino costituente il termine di confronto)”.


(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 363)

Here again it appears the judges are speaking of an attachment which is not one of the two known files posted by Charlie Wilkens. But the existence of some further information, some further part of the report, it appears necessary in the next pages, as the court cites a number of measurements not contained in the files of the second Rinaldi report: 10 different measurements in millimetres are reported in relation to Guede’s footprint giving mentions of point numbers on a grid, not existing in any picture we have, mentions seven measurements belonging to Sollecito’s foot and further 10 measurements from the bathmat print. All those are not contained in the files we have, neither in pictures nor in the text.
My conclusion is there must be a file dedicated to the bathmat print, containing photographic material, which is not on the internet but was entered in the trial with the Rinaldi-Boemia report.


*

The last point of this preamble is short note on an error that was remarked by Charlie Wilkens and published on the Friend of Amanda site.
In one of the slides from Rinaldi’s files a wrong value is reported (66,7 instead of 57 or 55) in a picture showing Guede’s footprint.
I consider possible that this figure of 66,7 was mistakenly picked up because it was a value in the original set of measurements, in a file which possibly contained a bigger number of measurements in segments on a grid. This would mean it could be, for example, the value of segment E-F that was mistakenly written down instead of the length of segment A-B.
However, I think it is important to read the Rinaldi report and not just look at the pictures.
By reading the series of assessments by Rinaldi, we can see how this wrong value doesn’t affect any of his conclusions.
Nothing changes in Rinaldi’s conclusion if the mistake is “corrected”. In fact this difference in datum is never used in the report to draw any different conclusion, Rinaldi doesn’t rule out compatibility with Rudy on the measurement based on that datum. A mistake would be relevant only if is affecting a point that rules out compatibility of that measurement. But Rinaldi himself calls the measurement “compatible”, which implies if had been already considered in its correct value of about 55 mm. A correction ex post of a typographic error that probably originated in a draft copy, but unrelated to any conclusion, obviously can’t change Rinaldi’s finding.
Somebody suggested to use this error to discredit Rinaldi as an expert:

“However, if it turns out to be 55mm, then Rinaldi looks like an idiot and how much of what he has said can you believe. Since his measurements are wrong and he used the grid of Louise Robbins who was discredited.”

It is worth notice that, while the first Rinaldi-Boemia report was issued after four months of research, the second Rinaldi-Boemia report was issued after only 20 days and deals with about 30 footprints/shoeprints. About the L. Robbins grid seen as reason for discredit, it must be know, and taken in account in the assessment, that the L.Robbins grid was used also in the defensive report drawn bt prof. Vinci.

“La consulenza del Prof. Vinci quando poi passa ad effettuare le misurazioni ponendo a confronto i due termini in verifica (tappetino, orma del Sollecito) fa anch'essa applicazione della griglia di "Robbìns" con risultati però di non conciliabilità tra i termini a confronto.”
(Report of the Court of Assize, p. 363)

In fact Louise Robbins theories were discredited, but the use of a “Robbins grid” appears to not be the equivalent. Moreover, the Rinaldi study and the Vinci study use the same basic literature sources, among the main sources in Vinci’s reference list, there is a text co-authored by Rinaldi. While the mistake of reporting 66,7 mm in the text is not emendable – albeit not significant – if we look for reasons for discredit we can do more when we confront Rinaldi’s mistake with the Vinci’s theory of a “second toe mark” incorporated in the toe mark: we could issue a challenge, a search for whoever finds a reference for this occurrence in footprint literature.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 2 - Photographic overview of the bathmat. The shape of the bathmat footprint
:



The bathmat print shows important features of the toe, which became an issue of discussion. I want show in pictures what the shape of the print looks like for everybody to see what the issues are referred to.

This picture of the bathmat print shows an important area of the left side of the toe:



This is the digitalized image of the bathmat print with an enhanced contrast:



This picture is marked with lines drawn to show the roundish shape of the toe outline. Small spots of blood on the right are also marked. Some small dubious reddish areas are also indicated on the upper right.



Thanks to the data stored in digital photos we can highlight many features not immediately visible to the naked eye. Simply by variation of luminosity and contrast we can see immediately outstanding what the outline of the stain looks like. It is quite different from the shape suggested on the Friend of Amanda’s site. An important aspect is the area left of the toe, and the round shape of the upper part of the toe, showing the blood mark as incorporated and continuous to the toe mark:



With enhanced contrast we can show where the outline of the stain actually is, and how the footprint has a clear shape. A more contrasted picture:




The following , slightly contrasted, shows the central part of the bathmat. Notice that a) at leas one stain can be identified as a second foot print, in a different dilution of substance, definitely a more diluted blood solution b) Other marks are visible, apparently they could be even more diluted.
The bathmat has been observed under black light, but could be interesting to test it with Luminol to see if contours are visible of more latent prints. It must be understood that the mat had been rinsed by the murderer(s), and the stains are residual. But could be that we found more prints that look the same of the Luminol prints in the hallway? And c) there are further series of stains, two series of three faint prints in two areas, that may vaguely resemble fingers.
Lastly d) what we can notice as remarkable feature, is that the central print it appears to be of a smaller foot compared to the “A” print. If we interpret correctly the print in line with its proportions and size, we conclude the central print is from smaller foot.

Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi research on the bathmat print

part 3 – The outline of the print: a confrontation in pictures with the UACV prints of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.




This is the bathmat print





The first step is to draw an outline of the stain.





The method for comparison consists in overlapping the outline to the police prints of Guede and Sollecito.
The two UACV footprints, and the bathmat photos, are at the same scale.

Warning: given the method used to calculate the scale of the pictures, I cannot calculate in advance the precision of the result, and I must consider that an error is anyway intrinsic, which is difficult to estimate precisely. But my final assessment is that the error is anyway not significant in the context of the precision required given the features of the stains.
The method to calculate the scale of picture is manual measurement with a ruler on a high resolution screen. The samples used the are the segments that are known to be of a definite length in the original, albeit the original picture don’t contain an official metric reference (as a ruler). The direct metric equivalence was made on the horizontal segments in the pictures of the Rinaldi’s report. I have confidence the error is not able to affect the result given the tolerance expected because of the shape of the stain. However, we can consider that, first, an error in scale is intrinsic to the original pictures in Rinaldi’s report, both on the sample body prints and on the bathmat print. Also a difference between vertical and horizontal pixel length can affect the picture, depending on the screen.
Finally, the outlines are drawn manually. A careful observation will reveal that the outlines in pictures have minimal differences: this is because I drew them many times, trying to follow progressively a more precise shape over the pre-existing outlines. Some uncertain areas are indicated. It is possible to realize the differences between the outlines are minimal and their difference is only theoretical, the consequence of their complexity and their being produced manually, they can be considered identical on any practical purpose.
Both the prints of Guede and Sollecito and the outline have been slightly rotated for a few degrees to find the best overlap.



Overlap to Guede’s print. first try:



the outline is aligned on the left of the toe and with the left outline of the metatarsus, this is the first best overlap to Guede’s footprint. If we rotate the outline clockwise further, the right outline is no longer alligned to the shape, and the rest of the lines don't find any better match.
The picture shows the outline doesn’t fit. The toe of the bathmat print is not covered by Guede’s foot on its right side, and the second toe misses completely the blood mark and the latter is too “low” for the second toe. The attachment of the blood mark with the toe is unexplained, since it falls in an area not covered by the foot.
The more serious problem however is on the right, the margin of the bathmat stain is definitely placed off side from the foot. The plantar arch of the bathmat print has clearly a smaller curvature and the prints look very different here.



Overlap to Guede’s print, second try:



bathmat print aligned with the right margin of Guede’s print. The whole left side of the toe is not covered. The right margin of the toe falls in a clear area, and the second toe is even more far away from the mark that goes down even lower. There is an area uncovered on the left of the metatarsus. The plantar arches are slightly closer in this picture, since Guede’s footprint is placed a little more “down”, yet still they look very distant and the prints appear to have different plantar arches.



Overlap to Sollecito’s print:



The result is completely different. At a first glance, the metatarsus has the same shape. The left and right margin coincide with the bathmat print. The plantar arch fits almost perfectly, except in the lower portion, however here the shape of bathmat print shows there was an area of non-contact. The big toe covers the stain. The blood mark on the left – for which I left an ample, “comfortable” outline - is consistent with the toe. However there is a white area below the big toe. This area is the main argument for Giulia Bongiorno.
The compatibility with Sollecito’s foot can be assessed in this overlapping, albeit the intrinsic error.
It is also fairly evident that Guede’s footprint has a very different shape, and the correction of a millimetre error could hardly reduce the difference significantly.


Last edited by Yummi on Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:48 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 4 - The footprint in numbers from the Massei report




A - The bathmat print - - - - > measurement pts : millimetres

(in bold, the measurements showing differences between RS and RG)

Toe : 33x39
Metatarsus : 99x50
Plantar arch width : 39
Toe, distance pts 1-2 : 28
Metatarsus margin, pts 3-4 : 8
Plantar arch, widths 5-6-7: 99, 92 , 75
Plantar arch, distances 8-9 and 9-10: 40, 43



B - Sollecito’s footprint

(in blue the results compatible with the bathmat print found not compatible in Guede’s print; in black bold, the other results compatible with the bathmat print for which the comparison with Guede is missing )

Toe : 30x37 compatible (disputes, measurement denied by .. )
Metatarsus : 99x55 compatible
Plantar arch width: 40 compatible

Toe, distance pts 1-2 : 28
Metatarsus margin, pts 3-4 : 8
Plantar arch, widths 5-6-7: 99, 92 , 75
Plantar arch, distances [8-9] and [9-10]: 40, 42


Sollecito’s foot has an array of sizes in which 10 measurements out of 10 are compatible with the bathmat print. Lucky combination. Only one is disputed, with arguments rejected by all judges.



C - Guede’s footprint:

(in red, the results non compatible with the bathmat print found compatible in Sollecito’s)

Toe: 23x43 not compatible (disputed)
Metatarsus 57x98
Plantar arch width: 39
Toe, distance pts 1-2 : 20
Metatarsus margin, pts 3-4 : 12
Plantar arch, widths 5-6-7: [i]?[i]
Plantar arch, distances 8-9 and 9-10: 36, 37


Rudy’s foot shows an array of measurements in which 5 out of 7 known pieces of data are non compatible. Three measurements are missing in our information set (we could assume that possibly not all pieces of data were discussed in court). This means there are 4 measurements not compatible with the bathmat print in addition to the toe width.

We can realize the greatest amount of different measurements to rule out Rudy Guede comes from the plantar arch. The curvatures of the bathmat print is well outlined and the radius is too short for Guede’s foot. The very narrow curvature of Sollecito’s plantar arch is coincident with the bathmat print. The left and right margins are coincident, and the toe is compatible with the stain while Rudy’s second toe is not.

The other Rinaldi’s measurements:
Problems are not finished for Sollecito, because of the the utter similarity between Sollecito’s footprint and one of the corridor prints. This similarities include the length (not compatible with Amanda), the peculiar toe morphology, and the heel width

Hallway print 2 :

Corr. print heel: 58 Sollecito: 57 Guede : 51
length : 245 244 247 (not compatible with Knox)

Not compatible with Knox for various reasons, among them a total length of 245 mm, and a plantar length of 189 mm.
Not compatible with Guede in the heel: 58/59 mm is only compatible with Sollecito (57) and this is a peculiar datum characterizing Sollecitos’ foot.
The toe is surprisingly coincident with the UACV Sollecito’s print, it is 29/30 mm wide. only compatible with Sollecito.

All this research will require, as a further integration, a description of the defensive appeal arguments, and an assessment about their weakness.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Thank you Yummi. You wrote:

"It must be understood that the mat had been rinsed by the murderer(s), and the stains are residual."



How was it determined the mat had been rinsed? So it is likely they did see the blood and thought they could mask or erase evidence by just rinsing it?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
Well, if that is Charlie Wilkes, I will say he is the only decent looking one of the bunch.

The rest of them... well gawd damn, that's a whole lotta white, old and fugly going on there.... If we photoshop the Free Amanda signs and replace them with "Obama is a Muzlim nazi commi witch doctor" signs, I would swear you had posted pictures from the latest Tea Party rally!


Oh, I didn't label the photo accurately... CW is the one vaguely resembling a border terrier...


By the way, that's one of a couple photographs forming the basis of Chris Halkides' continued claims that Hampikian is working hard on the case to free Knox. It appears that he has nothing to do with her case at all but got a free trip to Italy to have lunch with a few people. His primary focus has been the Innocence Project and working at his real job at Boise State University. He has been deeply involved with a real wrongful conviction case which I posted a couple months ago.


This is the correct interpretation. I don't know if he got a free trip or not, however.


I'll concede on the free trip. That hardly matters anyhow. I had thought I was hallucinating when Michael first stated that wasn't Italy. Glad to know my spectacles have not been misplaced!

Here's a very recent news story about what Hampikian is really doing with his time: IDAHO DNA BACKLOG

Quote:
The families of Idaho Falls homicide victims Stephanie Eldredge and Angie Dodge have been working with the Innocence Project to bring awareness to the backlog. The resolution of both cases depends upon DNA evidence.


It was the Angie Dodge case that I posted earlier this year. Not only does there continue to be no news about Meredith's murder on the Innocence Project's website but Hampikian is typically on the side of both the victim and the reliability of DNA evidence in freeing those wrongfully convicted. Meredith's murder is a departure from his usual fare in that he sets himself apart from the family of the victim and the "open letter" suggests that DNA evidence is not particularly reliable.

Hampikian's continued silence on the Perugia case is puzzling if Chris Halkides is to be believed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Thank you Yummi. You wrote:

"It must be understood that the mat had been rinsed by the murderer(s), and the stains are residual."

How was it determined the mat had been rinsed? So it is likely they did see the blood and thought they could mask or erase evidence by just rinsing it?


Yes. Apparently they tried. My knowledge is through informal sources. The police thought the bathmat had been rinsed, because it was still moist.
Top Profile 

Offline christiana


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Posts: 80

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Thank you Yummi for the detailed post on the bathmat. It is very interesting. Thanks for including the references concerning Sollecito's shoerpint. It shows that the prosecution wanted to get the evidence correct.

My question was along the same lines as H9A's question:

Do you mean that the bathmat had been intentionally rinsed by the murderer(s) as to remove the blood or that it was unintentionally rinsed by the murderer(s) when cleaning their feet, etc. with water?

I had not noticed before the amount of stain in the middle of the mat (I guess the enhancement makes it more prominent).

ETA: I see that you answered H9A's question. Do you know if the whole mat was wet and how very wet it was?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Yummi research on the bathmat print

....

In fact Louise Robbins theories were discredited, but the use of a “Robbins grid” appears to not be the equivalent. Moreover, the Rinaldi study and the Vinci study use the same basic literature sources, among the main sources in Vinci’s reference list, there is a text co-authored by Rinaldi. While the mistake of reporting 66,7 mm in the text is not emendable – albeit not significant – if we look for reasons for discredit we can do more when we confront Rinaldi’s mistake with the Vinci’s theory of a “second toe mark” incorporated in the toe mark: we could issue a challenge, a search for whoever finds a reference for this occurrence in footprint literature.


How does this not surprise me either? One of the key arguments presented by the groupies is that some of the forensic tools were discredited. This is part of the smear campaign to illustrate the Italian forensics experts as medieval or incompetent. Yet not only is this particular tool not discredited but it was also employed by the defence expert and presented at the trial.

I expect to see the groupies drop this contention directly.


Last edited by stilicho on Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Sorry, I dont mean this to be a JREF by proxy -post (trust me, I can understand wholeheartedly why that's the last thing people would want), but I wanted to point out how I literally laughed out loud when someone over there said that this forum is 95 percent mudslinging, and others (the usual suspects) said even worse things to the same effect.

The more I read here, the more satisfaction I get in knowing that they have no clue what they are talking about. We have the Massei report translated here (does that count into the 95 percent mudslinging ratio?), Clander took his time out to translate the appeals, Yummi is amazing with his excellent analysis of the footprints (whether you agree with his analysis or not, its still great info), Nikki and others have brought us information on the Scazzi case that would be otherwise difficult for us foreigners to attain, I could go on and on,...

So what if we joke and use salty language, there is NO WHERE, I repeat, NO WHERE where you can find the amount of excellent info on the Kercher case than here at PMF. And the fact that others lurk here on a daily basis is a testament to that. I am SO proud to be part of this community, and thank you Skep and Michael for making PMF what it is, you guys should be damn proud of yourselves!


Last edited by Solange305 on Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:16 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: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Solange305 wrote:
Sorry, I dont mean this to be a JREF by proxy -post (trust me, I can understand wholeheartedly why that's the last thing people would want), but I wanted to point out how I literally laughed out loud when someone over there said that this forum is 95 percent mudslinging, and others (the usual suspects) said even worse things to the same effect.


The PMF is one of two standard resources (the other is TJMK) for information regarding the case. Without it, there would be nothing for those on other boards to discuss. They do not post current articles. They present (as Yummi just illustrated) incomplete, misleading, or poorly conceived advocacy positions. The one closest to providing any information at all is Frank's blog.

If people don't like some of the salty language or trivial personal attacks they can scroll easily past them. I've never had a problem locating the thread of any discussion I've tried with other posters. That's pretty rare on a public forum with basically one thread.

And I don't recall anyone slinging mud at me. rt-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Solange305 wrote:
(...) Yummi is amazing with her excellent analysis of the footprints (whether you agree with her analysis or not, its still great info), Nikki and others have brought us information on the Scazzi case that would be otherwise difficult for us foreigners to attain, I could go on and on,...


Yummi is a man nin-)
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I only sling mud at people who deserve to have mud slung at them. And maaaan, do they make easy targets...Girlander is just one in a long line of tragic individuals, but in some ways I find it easier to forgive him than people like LJ and MaryH8 (we know who you are Mary x ) who use this case in the way that they do. They continually distort the truth for their own ends - which remain unfathomable. PMF was here long before JREF. Way, way before. They're all come-latelys and have no committed interest in Amanda in my opinion. Witness the drop off in contributions to the thread. They treat it like a game. It's not a game to the posters at TJMK, or here at PMF. It really isn't. So I will sling mud if I want to, and swear if I want to (we're grown ups and we can cope) but only at people who don't give a damn about Meredith Kercher and her family. I think they're fair game. It may be beneath you Stilicho, but it makes some of us feel better to bite back at these tossers; I think they deserve it. Camping trip anyone?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

christiana wrote:
ETA: I see that you answered H9A's question. Do you know if the whole mat was wet and how very wet it was?


I am told the whole bathmat was apparently wet, but unfortunately I have no more information to state how "very wet" it was, aka if it appeared it was wet enough to state with certainity that it must have been washed short before. Some precise questions by the prosecution to witnesses should have been needed to state this, and I don't have enough information about these testimonies, so I don't know if a line of specific questions was put in the direction of ascertaining this point.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Great work on the footprints Yummi. Many thanks.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
I only sling mud at people who deserve to have mud slung at them. And maaaan, do they make easy targets...Girlander is just one in a long line of tragic individuals, but in some ways I find it easier to forgive him than people like LJ and MaryH8 (we know who you are Mary x ) who use this case in the way that they do. They continually distort the truth for their own ends - which remain unfathomable. PMF was here long before JREF. Way, way before. They're all come-latelys and have no committed interest in Amanda in my opinion. Witness the drop off in contributions to the thread. They treat it like a game. It's not a game to the posters at TJMK, or here at PMF. It really isn't. So I will sling mud if I want to, and swear if I want to (we're grown ups and we can cope) but only at people who don't give a damn about Meredith Kercher and her family. I think they're fair game. It may be beneath you Stilicho, but it makes some of us feel better to bite back at these tossers; I think they deserve it. Camping trip anyone?



Yeah I'll come with you. Hang on, I mean take me. No hang on, what I mean is put me in ecstatic relief. No that's not right, what I actually think is that it would be excellent if you would help me to erect my tent...

.... sorry.... it was all a dream. I've just woken up in a New York taxi cab. My wife is going to be highly irritated since the last time she knew I was in my study at home and not fantasising like some pasty toad faced inadequate.

Sigh. Creative thoughts. Such a trial...

:)

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

That bathmat bloody bare footprint.

Nice work Piktor and Yummi. A crisp demonstration that Raffaele's foot is a better match than Rudy's foot.

Still, there is always this element of artifact.....the specimen footprint imprints of Rudy and Raffaele were taken under controlled, somewhat simplified, conditions---inked feet stepping onto paper, in prison--- conditions not equivalent to impressing a bloody foot onto a bathmat. If I were Raffaele, and I were innocent, I'd certainly be disturbed by the Court accepting Rinaldi's conclusion that Raffaele's foot was consistent with the bathmat print, while Rudy's foot was ruled inconsistent. The "incompatibility" claim for Rudy's foot seems to strongly incriminate Raffaele.

So---again if I were Raffaele, and innocent---I'd want to see some testing done that would be closer to "real life" conditions. This means using a bathmat comparable to the cottage bathmat, one made by the same maunfacturer, made of the same material, with the same dimensions, etc. And instead of ink, using blood (or diluted blood).

Wouldn't it be a simple matter for the defense to find someone with foot highly similar to that of Rudy's foot, by, say, contacting a male modelling agency? Then, with that guy's foot and an identical bathmat, see whether a bloody footprint could be produced which matched the bloody print on the mat. Seems like a clear, simple procedure for Raffaele's defense. So,...I wonder why there is no reference to such an experiment in the summary of Raffaele's APPEAL document on Bruce's site.

The Rinaldi Report (courtesy of FriendsofAmanda):
Rinaldi1
Rinaldi2

///


Last edited by fine on Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Am I reading the fine print correctly?
I finally got around to getting a copy of Angel Face, and it seemed to me she was saying that the lay judges are randomly selected from the list of those available.
No questioning about their positions or ideas, just the first ones through the door?
If so, I am really impressed.

I'm off to be a California juror for the about four weeks.
Usually I am eliminated right off, for having both an education and life experiences.
The lawyers went through about 90 people to achieve 12 jurors and 4 alternates, and oddly, this time both sides accepted me.
There was an elaborate questionaire; there were seemingly endless examinations; there were really dubious claims by people who clearly simply did not want to be bothered by all this.
A day of this and I came home pretty disgusted.
I think justice would be better suited by the first 16 people, no excuses, no shaping juries, just play it as it lays.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
(...) Yummi is amazing with her excellent analysis of the footprints (whether you agree with her analysis or not, its still great info), Nikki and others have brought us information on the Scazzi case that would be otherwise difficult for us foreigners to attain, I could go on and on,...


Yummi is a man nin-)


I know Yummi, Im sorry! I knew you were, I halready have most everyone's gender down here, but I put "her" for some reason, and was just coming here to fix it hoping you hadn't seen it yet! Damn you;re fast, lol ninja! Sorry, I knew you were a he, I was typing too fast!

Please accept this completely innocent, non-blush inducing hug:

hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

fine wrote:
That bathmat bloody bare footprint.

....

So---again if I were Raffaele, and innocent---I'd want to see some testing done that would be closer to "real life" conditions. This means using a bathmat comparable to the cottage bathmat, one made by the same maunfacturer, made of the same material, with the same dimensions, etc. And instead of ink, using blood (or diluted blood).

Wouldn't it be a simple matter for the defense to find someone with foot highly similar to that of Rudy's foot, by, say, contacting a male modelling agency? Then, with that guy's foot and an identical bathmat, see whether a bloody footprint could be produced which matched the bloody print on the mat. Seems like a clear, simple procedure for Raffaele's defense. So,...I wonder why there is no reference to such an experiment in the summary of Raffaele's APPEAL document on Bruce's site.

....

///


You have it mostly right. If Sollecito's defence wanted to provide evidence, they'd seek permission to have their own client step in a solution and then onto an identical bathmat. Not Guede. This could be viewed as a stunt but--heck--if my client were facing 25 years in prison I'd sure want to do it.

I think we know why the defence doesn't want to do anything like that. It's because the print is a footprint and not a stain. The court already knows that neither Knox or Sollecito identified it as a print but depended on the forensics police to do so.

The bathmat remains yet another of the several big problems for the defence and they'd just rather it be swept--under the rug!

By the way, I'm with you in that I don't see the identity of the print as the one "gotcha" against Sollecito. The fact it is a print, though, shows that the small bathroom was used by the murderers to clean up. It's one element of a larger scenario that leads any judge or juror to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there was a clean up in the cottage after the murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Can't help but wonder how good of a "rinse" the mat had before the police found it. Thank you, Yummy and Clander.

(I must add that for some reason, I thought that Charles Wilkens was much younger than he appears. Like late 20's/early 30's, long hair and terminally stoned. This is a real disappointment. He could be Amanda's grandfather.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
They do not post current articles. They present (as Yummi just illustrated) incomplete, misleading, or poorly conceived advocacy positions.
[/quote]

I find it all rather incoherent.

I can see some surface attempt at going through the motions, like play-acting, or at a children's tea party. There is no in-depth or in-good-faith argument and discussion. And definitely none of the IRAC steps (Identify the issues; Research the relevant law; Apply the law; come to a Conclusion). They fall over before the first step.

And it is all undermined by the amateurish put-downs and backhanders, as if there were a competition in trying to imitate Oscar Wilde witticisms without quite succeeding.

I wonder what IgglePiggle and Upsy Daisy would make of it all.





"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace."
Oscar Wilde
[QuotationsPage]
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

fine wrote:
That bathmat bloody bare footprint.
....

Wouldn't it be a simple matter for the defense to find someone with foot highly similar to that of Rudy's foot, by, say, contacting a male modelling agency? Then, with that guy's foot and an identical bathmat, see whether a bloody footprint could be produced which matched the bloody print on the mat. ...


Hi Fine,

Interesting thought.

I don't quite follow. I'm not sure (yet) how it would work: I'd expect all feet to be different. Same with hands. How similar is "similar"? And by "Rudy", I expect you mean "not Raffaele"?

Say there was a Person, X, whose footprints are 90% identical to someone who was not Raffaele. Person X's print matches to (100%? 95%?) the bathmat print.
Conclusion: the bathmat print was (or could have been) produced by not-Raffaele (ignoring the other evidence placing Raffaele at the scene, and implicating him in the crime, for the moment).

But (in a case): where was Person X at the time of the murder? So the value of his footprint matching the bathmat print is - what, exactly?

And (in logic), bringing another person into the picture doesn't expedite a solution of who actually made the print: the print matches or doesn't match those of the people (inferred to be) present at the scene; if it doesn't match, that person didn't "make" it; if it does match, that person, in all likelihood, beyond reasonable doubt, did.

Are you proposing a test whereby it can be shown whether Rudy could have made the print? Won't this be an "open" test (i.e., never provable)? { Open answers are ones with mulitple solutions: If Rudy's foot can be shown, in certain circumstances (angle, pressure, wetness, haste, material, substance), to be able to make prints identical to the bathmat print, then, purely logically and hypothetically, in other circumstances, Raffaele's foot can be shown to make prints also identical to the bathmat print -- why? because what is being measured here is the plasticity of the print-making process, and if one foot can produce different prints under different circumstances, so then, logically speaking, can other feet as well. }

What is needed is a "closed" question, I think.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

lauowolf wrote:
the lay judges are randomly selected from the list of those available.
No questioning about their positions or ideas, just the first ones through the door?


The key phrase is: "list of those available".

There is a minumum education requirement.

Jury members in common-law jurisdictions just have to be old enough, literally off the street. That is why common-law juries are not trusted to do their assigned task: there are vetting procedures where potential jurors are rejected (up to a point), and verdicts can be overturned on appeal if they are manifestly erroneous (so the jury's "decision" is definitely not 100% sacrosanct). Plus, if the judge's instructions are inappropriate or off-kilter, the decision becomes void through no fault of the jury.

The board-of-commission structure that an Assize Court uses by-passes all these hurdles, plus the requirement to document the reasoning behind the decision adds a robustness where in a common-law jury there would be a certain amount of leeway for capriciousness and possibly punitiveness even if all the other parts of the process worked well.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:13 am   Post subject: Corrispondence to Clander..   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
PS ty Clander.. and looking forward to the photos of the most popular MP soon...
I am a tad bit concerned about you and 411 and the 7 hills of Rome camping trip however... 411 adds up to 6..... add the 7......

You're welcome and :D



See, if you take AK ( 1 + 11) and add 1 mountain... 1+11=1 =......

just sayin'.... watch out for 411 +7 hills ..


Hey, h9.....THIS JUST IN....

Apparently AK heard about my upcoming camping trip with Clander and now she wants to start up a correspondence with CLANDER!!! :shock:
_______________________________________________________________________

Fortunately, I was able to intercept a copy of the letter before she sent it to him.
_______________________________________________________________________
Ciao Clander:
You know, I love opera, too. After camping in the seven hills, I would love to go with you to see the Italian Opera. Did you know in my country we have Oprah, not opera. They are similar, because they are both shows that make you laugh sometimes, and make you cry sometimes.

In prison, I have translated librettos of major operas into Italian, German, French, Russian, Czech, and Hungarian. I am now working on some Chinese, Esperanto and Braille versions. The prison musica director calls me the "Fanciulla del West."

One day, when I get out, I am going to adopt some Chinese, Esperanto and Braille children.

Clander Take me with you to La Scala, one day, Clander. Take me with you!

Do you know I was chosen to have the the lead singing part in the Christmas play. Everyone says I have true voice of the angel. Everyone in prison says I am the next Joan Sutherland!

I think of those seven hills of your beautiful Roma. I love the drifting rays of lyrical sunshine in your city. I dream, too and we both sail into the sunset of the Tiber, yes, sadly while the mask of the assassin slowly fades into nothingness and our infinite embrace transcends all sadness and pain. I awake
Yes...
"Then I awake and look around me, at four grey wall surround me
and I realize that I was only dreaming.
For there's a guard and there's a sad old padre -
arm in arm we'll walk at daybreak.
Again I touch the green, green grass of home."


Sonosolaquandosonosola, solamente che non sono mai sola, perche` come lo sai...sono incarcerata.

Alla prossima,
La Tua Amanda
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:01 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Catnip wrote:
stilicho wrote:
They do not post current articles. They present (as Yummi just illustrated) incomplete, misleading, or poorly conceived advocacy positions.


I find it all rather incoherent.

I can see some surface attempt at going through the motions, like play-acting, or at a children's tea party. There is no in-depth or in-good-faith argument and discussion. And definitely none of the IRAC steps (Identify the issues; Research the relevant law; Apply the law; come to a Conclusion). They fall over before the first step.


It begins and ends with the position that none of those in the law enforcement system (with the possible exception of Volturno) did anything right. Nothing. Not a single part of the investigation, the interviews, the forensics, the prosecution, or the verdict is accepted as valid. From soup to nuts it's a gigantic frame-up exacerbated by some kind of culture or language gap (even though Sollecito is Italian).

That takes some kind of energy.

On the flip side there's the exoneration of everything Sollecito and Knox said and did. There is nothing found suspicious or worthy of anything more than giggle in any of their interviews, "diaries", or official statements. Not even the pernicious accusation of murder against an innocent man.

That's possibly excusable on the part of those with vested interests such as their families or their lawyers. But the others really ought to have a hard look at how and where their position is grounded.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Am I reading the fine print correctly?
I finally got around to getting a copy of Angel Face, and it seemed to me she was saying that the lay judges are randomly selected from the list of those available.
No questioning about their positions or ideas, just the first ones through the door?
If so, I am really impressed.

I'm off to be a California juror for the about four weeks.
Usually I am eliminated right off, for having both an education and life experiences.
The lawyers went through about 90 people to achieve 12 jurors and 4 alternates, and oddly, this time both sides accepted me.
There was an elaborate questionaire; there were seemingly endless examinations; there were really dubious claims by people who clearly simply did not want to be bothered by all this.
A day of this and I came home pretty disgusted.
I think justice would be better suited by the first 16 people, no excuses, no shaping juries, just play it as it lays.

Well, your post, and the ones above and below about the JREF/FOA mentality have much in common.

A couple of months ago, I posted about jury consultants, the kinds that Big Tobacco and the auto companies employ and that have generally been successful with juries.

In the US there are jury consulting firms who, for a princely sum of money, devise a handful of questions for the attorney to ask prospective jurors. They accomplish this by finding a community outside the real jury pool that has demographics as close as possible to the community from which the jurors will come. They then get a cross-section of persons to serve as jurors who are asked a whole bunch of questions. The case is then tried in front of these people (the law firm hiring the consultant takes its best trial lawyers to present the other side, which they do with maximum zeal and skill.) and then the jurors deliberate. The deliberations are taped and the votes recorded. Thereafter the jury consultant compares the way each juror voted with their answers to all the questions. They don't care about which side won. They focus first on those questions which were unique to the jurors who voted for their side. Most of the questions make no difference, but usually they find four, five or six questions whose response strongly correlate with voting one way. If the lawyer follows the plan, he or she knows which jurors to try to keep, and which ones to challenge.

This clearly is an effort to figure out how to identify the aberrational juror, the person who will draw a conclusion based, not on an objective weighing of the evidence, but on their preconceptions. Example. "The safety of their product is as important to manufacturers of X as profit ." The hope is to find some built-in bias that pre-disposes the potential juror in their favor, irrespective of the evidence.

So that is what this type of jury consultancy is looking for--people whose emotional needs, resentments, unfulfilled longings make them vulnerable to believing the unbelievable. They are looking for people like the FOA or the AK fans at JREF.

And yes, having selected more than a few juries myself, I would settle for the first 12 off the street, assuming some minimal questioning to ensure, for example, that the potential juror is not the defendant's mother.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:14 am   Post subject: Re: Corrispondence to Clander..   

The 411 wrote:
[***One day, when I get out, I am going to adopt some Chinese, Esperanto and Braille children.***

There's no shortage of amusing posts here. But I rarely laugh out loud. "Esparanto and Braille children" is truly hilarious, laugh out loud funny, secondo me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:58 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi -

Excellent work on the bath mat print! I'll be contacting you via PM about it later.

When examining and and then contemplating the prints I find I've now had a major shift in my conclusions.

Before, I was of the opinion that the print was 'probably' not Rudy's and 'probably' was Raffaele's. The change for me is that the 'probablys' are gone and are replaced by certainty.

The factor that has convinced me that that is certainly Raffaele's print are the toes...all the toes other then the big toe. This for me is decisive. Raffaele's foot is strange. In his reference print his second toe is hardly visible, while the third is prominent, the fourth is hardly visible and the fifth (little toe) is invisible. In contrast, all of Rudy's toes are very prominent and clearly displayed.

It is this factor that makes Raffaeles print strikingly in accord with the print on the mat, where Raffaele's reference print has only a very discreet presence of his smaller toes and on the bath mat print it likewise, has an almost invisibility of the smaller toes. It must also be noted that in real life there would have been two steps (no pun intended) intended, for that print to get on the mat. Firstly, Raffaele would have had to have stepped in blood and then he would have had to have then stepped on the mat. When stepping in blood, die to his stance, his smaller toes would have had minimal contact with the floor and so would have had very little blood on them to begin with. Then from walking to the mat, some of that minimal blood would have wore off and then once stepping on the mat his smaller toes again would have had minimal contact with the mat, leaving hardly a trace of their presence on the mat. When one then factors in that the blood on his foot may also have been diluted with water and there may have been rinsing of that mat and the material of the mat, we would expect to see what we do see...a footprint with the smaller toes invisible or near invisible.

It must also be considered that the first step would have been different in regard to the reference print. For the real stepping in blood only those toes that made contact with the floor would have have got blood on them and we've seen Raffaele's smaller toes make little to no contact with the floor (the only one that does in any way that could be called prominent is his third toe). However, for the taking of the reference print they'd have done it like they do when taking fingerprints...they'd have made sure every square millimetre of the sole of his foot including the toes, would have been well coated with ink. They would not have been so well coated with blood for the way it was applied would have been different...more natural.

The fact all the smaller toes are invisible or near invisible for me rules it being Rudy's out with certainty. That leaves only Raffaele or Amanda or someone 'other'. Amanda's print does not match it at all. For it to be someone other, they would have to share the exact same orthopaedic issue with Raffaele. This for me is beyond unlikely. That combined with the fact that the rest of Raffaele's print is also a reasonable match for the mat print now enables me to be certain that it is Raffaele's.

_________________
"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: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I'm going to digest yummi's wonderful input re : the footprints. i followed Piktor's. and now I'll do yummi's.

And, Solange, you're such an asset. I love your posts, your down to earth language, telling it like it is. You make me laugh. you're one smart lady.......

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

From the JREF:

LondonJohn wrote:
From a position of pseudoscientific confirmation bias

And, incidentally, it's perfectly proper to apply the term "pseudoscience" to this sort of footprint analysis. It's been widely discredited for use in trial evidence, in the same way as graphology and offender profiling are no longer deemed credible for use in trial (although I fully agree that they can be of use in directing investigations).

To further add to the sheer ridiculousness of trying to make a positive identification of this particular footprint, it was made on a high-tuft towelling bathmat of varying texture and height. One can, for example, clearly see that the arch area of the print has been distorted by the texture of the mat. I would suggest with some confidence that it's impossible to match this print to anybody other than a generic adult male with reasonably large feet. In my opinion, any analysis which attempts to show anything different is incorrect.



JREF

Perhaps London John could provide some cites to prove his claim that barefoot footprints are not admissible in common law trials, as a rule, rather then simply asserting it as fact.

This is from the guy who claims that even if they did it, they've been wrongfully convicted. In his world, wrongful convictions are also applicable to people who actually committed them. Whether actual justice in it's broad concept has been achieved or not is not something that seems important to him. He comes from a mind set where technicalities are of the most import.

Technicalities are supposed to lead to the achievement of justice, it is justice that is the goal, not the other way around. A murderer walking free or an innocent person serving a sentence for a crime they didn't commit may be technically correct, but it isn't justice. 'Correct' isn't always 'right'.

But on the print on the mat, what it proves is that it was made by someone with the same size feet as Raffaele, with a similar foot profile and most importantly of all....with the same orthopaedic issue as Raffaele. This combined with further evidence of Raffaele being at the crime scene the night of the murder and nobody ELSE other then Amanda and Rudy, neither of which share that issue, effectively makes it certain that the print on the mat is indeed Raffaele's.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:40 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

From JREF:

London John wrote:
I agree with you, but there's more at issue than a mere "technicality". It's actually a bedrock of modern justice - someone MUST be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. My heightened interest in this case started when I began to believe that they were wrongly convicted - not when I began to believe that they might actually be non-culpable. And I'd still have been interested in commenting on my belief in a wrongful conviction, even if I was still unsure as to whether Knox and/or Sollecito were actually involved in the crime.


JREF

And while LJ's getting those cites, perhaps LJ could define for us all EXACTLY what is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he keeps banging on about and just how it is an absolute rather then subjective. Does what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean to him, mean the same to Alice or to Sam or to Fred or to Peter? Does it mean anything beyond 'you are sure'?


London John wrote:
Using pejorative terms such as "groupies" is not likely to endear you to many people.


JREF


What, like the term "guilters" you mean?

_________________
"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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The closer to the date of appeal, the more fearful I become.

No doubt the official court will come to the decision as I see it, but they are wiser and privy to much more nuance than I. Still, it's possible (improbable) the courts will conclude the evidence does not warrant a verdict of guilt.

I'm braced for the possibility.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Bravo, Yummi. Thank you!

Quote:
Yummi is a man nin-)


Yummi is THE man sun-)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Emerald wrote:
The closer to the date of appeal, the more fearful I become.

No doubt the official court will come to the decision as I see it, but they are wiser and privy to much more nuance than I. Still, it's possible (improbable) the courts will conclude the evidence does not warrant a verdict of guilt.

I'm braced for the possibility.


One can never say never, I suppose, but I think it's unlikely. I'd be very surprised indeed if the conviction was overturned. Remember that the proseution is also appealing.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The closer to the date of appeal, the more fearful I ecome.
No doubt the official court will come to the decision as I see it, but they are wiser and privy to much more nuance than I. Still, it's possible (improbable) the courts will conclude the evidence does not warrant a verdict of guilt.
I'm braced for the possibility.

One can never say never, I suppose, but I think it's unlikely. I'd be very surprised indeed if the conviction was overturned. Remember that the proseution is also appealing.


Me too

In sharing both the views expressed above, I am comforted somewhat when I consider that the 50% or even 33% overturn rates that are often cited may in effect be somewhat misleading.

Although I accept the fact of 33 or 50; but these percentages are for *all* convictions.

Some of which were not only not unanimous, but may have been as 'un unanimous' as requiring the Judge to cast a second vote to break a tie decision in order to declare guilt.

So, I submit that the *unanimous* convictions are overturned at Appeal much less frequently than percentages commonly stated, even in the TJMK Article which is the best I have seen anywhere.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _what_we_/
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Girls helping the police

Another pseduscientific photo analysis.

Would you like to compare two pictures ?



Sabrina Misseri



Amanda Knox


Last edited by Yummi on Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:46 pm, 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: Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I only sling mud at people who deserve to have mud slung at them. And maaaan, do they make easy targets...Girlander is just one in a long line of tragic individuals, but in some ways I find it easier to forgive him than people like LJ and MaryH8 (we know who you are Mary x ) who use this case in the way that they do. They continually distort the truth for their own ends - which remain unfathomable. PMF was here long before JREF. Way, way before. They're all come-latelys and have no committed interest in Amanda in my opinion. Witness the drop off in contributions to the thread. They treat it like a game. It's not a game to the posters at TJMK, or here at PMF. It really isn't. So I will sling mud if I want to, and swear if I want to (we're grown ups and we can cope) but only at people who don't give a damn about Meredith Kercher and her family. I think they're fair game. It may be beneath you Stilicho, but it makes some of us feel better to bite back at these tossers; I think they deserve it. Camping trip anyone?



Yeah I'll come with you. Hang on, I mean take me. No hang on, what I mean is put me in ecstatic relief. No that's not right, what I actually think is that it would be excellent if you would help me to erect my tent...

.... sorry.... it was all a dream. I've just woken up in a New York taxi cab. My wife is going to be highly irritated since the last time she knew I was in my study at home and not fantasising like some pasty toad faced inadequate.

:D

Sigh. Creative thoughts. Such a trial...



:D

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The closer to the date of appeal, the more fearful I ecome.
No doubt the official court will come to the decision as I see it, but they are wiser and privy to much more nuance than I. Still, it's possible (improbable) the courts will conclude the evidence does not warrant a verdict of guilt.
I'm braced for the possibility.

One can never say never, I suppose, but I think it's unlikely. I'd be very surprised indeed if the conviction was overturned. Remember that the proseution is also appealing.


Me too

In sharing both the views expressed above, I am comforted somewhat when I consider that the 50% or even 33% overturn rates that are often cited may in effect be somewhat misleading.

Although I accept the fact of 33 or 50; but these percentages are for *all* convictions.

Some of which were not only not unanimous, but may have been as 'un unanimous' as requiring the Judge to cast a second vote to break a tie decision in order to declare guilt.

So, I submit that the *unanimous* convictions are overturned at Appeal much less frequently than percentages commonly stated, even in the TJMK Article which is the best I have seen anywhere.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _what_we_/


The verdicts will not be overturned. The evidence is overwhelming.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
The verdicts will not be overturned. The evidence is overwhelming.


Hi Bard:

If sometimes, like I do, you possibly feel at times, some of what you say here is not really given its full due by others, and possibly feel a bit 'neglected and/or unappreciated'.....

Forget those thoughts.......you are an example for all of us.

Your words above about the verdict were reproduced in their entirety and commented on by a "distinguished" old timer from the other board, no less than the loudest and longest blowhard in chief, ultra egomaniac, Google De Gook self proclaimed expert scientist, .... L.J himself,

The recognition from him was...within minutes of you posting them here.

Talk about hanging on your every word and awaiting your next with bated breath....

Wow !!

Take solace my friend, Bard; what *you* say travels far and wide, and fast
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
Girls helping the police

Another pseduscientific photo analysis.

Would you like to compare two pictures ?



Sabrina Misseri



Amanda Knox




Those pics tell a thousand words don't they. What a fantastic spot.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
From JREF:

London John wrote:
I agree with you, but there's more at issue than a mere "technicality". It's actually a bedrock of modern justice - someone MUST be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. My heightened interest in this case started when I began to believe that they were wrongly convicted - not when I began to believe that they might actually be non-culpable. And I'd still have been interested in commenting on my belief in a wrongful conviction, even if I was still unsure as to whether Knox and/or Sollecito were actually involved in the crime.


JREF

And while LJ's getting those cites, perhaps LJ could define for us all EXACTLY what is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he keeps banging on about and just how it is an absolute rather then subjective. Does what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean to him, mean the same to Alice or to Sam or to Fred or to Peter? Does it mean anything beyond 'you are sure'?


London John wrote:
Using pejorative terms such as "groupies" is not likely to endear you to many people.


JREF


What, like the term "guilters" you mean?



You're doing it again :) HE'S A LOON!!!!! :D

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
From JREF:

London John wrote:
I agree with you, but there's more at issue than a mere "technicality". It's actually a bedrock of modern justice - someone MUST be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. My heightened interest in this case started when I began to believe that they were wrongly convicted - not when I began to believe that they might actually be non-culpable. And I'd still have been interested in commenting on my belief in a wrongful conviction, even if I was still unsure as to whether Knox and/or Sollecito were actually involved in the crime.


JREF

And while LJ's getting those cites, perhaps LJ could define for us all EXACTLY what is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he keeps banging on about and just how it is an absolute rather then subjective. Does what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean to him, mean the same to Alice or to Sam or to Fred or to Peter? Does it mean anything beyond 'you are sure'?


London John wrote:
Using pejorative terms such as "groupies" is not likely to endear you to many people.


JREF


What, like the term "guilters" you mean?



You're doing it again :) HE'S A LOON!!!!! :D


So, is it fair to conclude that, besides not making a whole lot of sense, London John actually misrepresented himself as a "firm guilter" when he made his big splash here on PMF?
:o

It must be getting lonely over there in the echo chamber. Loony John needs to get outside for some fresh air.

ETA: I must confess to holding a strong anti-Loony John bias. His offensive and insensitive post about the book by Meredith's father, combined with his misleading self-presentation and capped off by his Dr Knowalski complex and overall windbagginess make him one of the most repellant creatures I have come across in a loooonnnnggg time.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Girls helping the police

Another pseduscientific photo analysis.

Would you like to compare two pictures ?

Sabrina Misseri


Amanda Knox


Those pics tell a thousand words don't they. What a fantastic spot.


The stills don't tell the whole picture, either. I know I was baffled by the short clips of Knox entering the courtroom during her trial. The still photos don't capture the air of insouciance Knox exhibited. It's startling. As with her testimony, her alibi email, her "memorial", and her stammering whatever-that-was in front of the judge during Guede's trial, I find it difficult to believe that this person took the entire proceedings seriously at all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
From the JREF:

LondonJohn wrote:
From a position of pseudoscientific confirmation bias

I would suggest with some confidence that it's impossible to match this print to anybody other than a generic adult male with reasonably large feet. In my opinion, any analysis which attempts to show anything different is incorrect.


JREF

Perhaps London John could provide some cites to prove his claim that barefoot footprints are not admissible in common law trials, as a rule, rather then simply asserting it as fact.

This is from the guy who claims that even if they did it, they've been wrongfully convicted. In his world, wrongful convictions are also applicable to people who actually committed them. Whether actual justice in it's broad concept has been achieved or not is not something that seems important to him. He comes from a mind set where technicalities are of the most import.


LooneyJohn doesn't get it and probably never will.

As soon as you agree (which he does) that the print on the bathmat is from a bare foot, then you have trouble when reconciling that to the high probability that Guede wore shoes the entire time he was in the cottage. After all, the groupies themselves have gone to great lengths to argue that it was Guede's shoeprint and not Sollecito's inside Meredith's room behind a locked door.

So whose bare "generic adult male" footprint in Meredith's blood is that in the small bathroom?

If it is Guede's then how did he get blood on his bare feet when it is provably true that he wore shoes during the execution of the crime? This is not some idle detail requiring no further explanation than wild-eyed speculation. It's a serious question that requires--drum roll, please--evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Isn't it odd that the groupies accept the doubtful point-of-entry (when Knox herself told her father that the killer entered through the front door), the doubtful use of two knives by one assailant while immobilising the victim with a third and fourth arm, the doubtful alibis (phone calls that were never made, dinners eaten hours after they actually were), and the doubtful burglary (confirmed by Sollecito in his 112 calls), all without the slightest hint of embarrassment, yet they rail on endlessly about "bedrocks of justice"?

As a sidenote, I think most of us take the term "guilters" almost as a badge of honour. If accepting the verdict of a court after a lengthy and proper trial, where a mountain of unassailable evidence was expertly presented against a pair of remorseless killers, makes me a "guilter", then sign me up. Nobody I know who's spent more than a couple hours looking at the case thinks anything different either. I have yet to meet a single person who thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent. I am sure they exist somewhere in the world but I must spend too much of my time talking to sane people.

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

OT: I should have gambled at the beginning of the MLB playoffs. I always like to cheer for the underdogs and, before the divisional series began, I chose the Rangers and Giants because none of the media experts thought either of them would even clinch a wild card. My fearless prediction is Giants in seven but that Cliff Lee will extend his postseason dominance by allowing fewer than two runs in each of his starts for Texas.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
From JREF:

London John wrote:
I agree with you, but there's more at issue than a mere "technicality". It's actually a bedrock of modern justice - someone MUST be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. My heightened interest in this case started when I began to believe that they were wrongly convicted - not when I began to believe that they might actually be non-culpable. And I'd still have been interested in commenting on my belief in a wrongful conviction, even if I was still unsure as to whether Knox and/or Sollecito were actually involved in the crime.


JREF

And while LJ's getting those cites, perhaps LJ could define for us all EXACTLY what is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he keeps banging on about and just how it is an absolute rather then subjective. Does what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean to him, mean the same to Alice or to Sam or to Fred or to Peter? Does it mean anything beyond 'you are sure'?


London John wrote:
Using pejorative terms such as "groupies" is not likely to endear you to many people.


JREF


What, like the term "guilters" you mean?



You're doing it again :) HE'S A LOON!!!!! :D


So, is it fair to conclude that, besides not making a whole lot of sense, London John actually misrepresented himself as a "firm guilter" when he made his big splash here on PMF?
:o

It must be getting lonely over there in the echo chamber. Loony John needs to get outside for some fresh air.

ETA: I must confess to holding a strong anti-Loony John bias. His offensive and insensitive post about the book by Meredith's father, combined with his misleading self-presentation and capped off by his Dr Knowalski complex and overall windbagginess make him one of the most repellant creatures I have come across in a loooonnnnggg time.


cl-)

I couldn't agree with you more. I think he's a lunatic.
Top Profile 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
The verdicts will not be overturned. The evidence is overwhelming.


Hi Bard:

If sometimes, like I do, you possibly feel at times, some of what you say here is not really given its full due by others, and possibly feel a bit 'neglected and/or unappreciated'.....

Forget those thoughts.......you are an example for all of us.

Your words above about the verdict were reproduced in their entirety and commented on by a "distinguished" old timer from the other board, no less than the loudest and longest blowhard in chief, ultra egomaniac, Google De Gook self proclaimed expert scientist, .... L.J himself,

The recognition from him was...within minutes of you posting them here.

Talk about hanging on your every word and awaiting your next with bated breath....

Wow !!

Take solace my friend, Bard; what *you* say travels far and wide, and fast


I'll second that! Bard, I think of you as the "heart" of this place.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stilicho wrote:

Quote:
As a sidenote, I think most of us take the term "guilters" almost as a badge of honour. If accepting the verdict of a court after a lengthy and proper trial, where a mountain of unassailable evidence was expertly presented against a pair of remorseless killers, makes me a "guilter", then sign me up. Nobody I know who's spent more than a couple hours looking at the case thinks anything different either. I have yet to meet a single person who thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent. I am sure they exist somewhere in the world but I must spend too much of my time talking to sane people.


I take the term as indicative of the elementary school mentality of many of those who have hitched their hopes and dreams to this cause. In elementary school, kids engage in name-calling as a primitive way of shaming and outcasting those who threaten their worldview. Most of them outgrow this habit once they learn the rudiments of reason and compassion. The main reason I deactivated my facebook account is that I think facebook encourages adults to behave like elementary school children.

I talk to a lot of ordinary folks in Seattle. Though I don't mention this case, it often comes up because people know I have followed it and formed views. In most cases, these people have looked past the spin and come to the conclusion, all by themselves, that the Italian first instance court reached its verdict for substantiated reasons. When I say ordinary folks, I am talking about those I frequent. They run the gamut from small business owners to lawyers, judges, law enforcement investigators and university professors. The only exception is someone whose daughter went to Seattle Prep. This woman, who is one of my dear friends, knows nothing about the case. She wants desperately to believe that a Seattle Prep education provides protection for life, like a vaccine, against this sort of horror. After all, she paid through the nose for that education.

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

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The only exception is someone whose daughter went to Seattle Prep. This woman, who is one of my dear friends, knows nothing about the case. She wants desperately to believe that a Seattle Prep education provides protection for life, like a vaccine, against this sort of horror. After all, she paid through the nose for that education.

By the way, and I know this has probably been answered numerous times, but it might be a difficult thing to search for.. How did Mrs. Mellas afford to send her daughter to Seattle Prep? Was Amanda on scholarship? Did Curt finally step up to the plate? Just wonderin'....

I know that sometimes "scholarship kids" have a hard time of it. They are teased or treated differently by the other kids. I knew a girl who went to Hotchkiss in CT on scholarship. She seemed to have this love-hate relationship with it -- loved the school, but hated that she was identified as a "poor" kid who only got in "on scholarship."
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

FB causes page started by FOA... Meredith spelled correctly.. it's a shame they can't spell November


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
The verdicts will not be overturned. The evidence is overwhelming.


Hi Bard:

If sometimes, like I do, you possibly feel at times, some of what you say here is not really given its full due by others, and possibly feel a bit 'neglected and/or unappreciated'.....

Forget those thoughts.......you are an example for all of us.

Your words above about the verdict were reproduced in their entirety and commented on by a "distinguished" old timer from the other board, no less than the loudest and longest blowhard in chief, ultra egomaniac, Google De Gook self proclaimed expert scientist, .... L.J himself,

The recognition from him was...within minutes of you posting them here.

Talk about hanging on your every word and awaiting your next with bated breath....

Wow !!

Take solace my friend, Bard; what *you* say travels far and wide, and fast


YESSSSS!!!! tThis is PRICELESS!!! I did it on purpose, as a test. It worked!!! I knew they'd love that on JREF!!! HAHAHA...

I was going for some Machine-esque reassurance. I remember him saying those exact words just before the verdict when I was feeling like Emerald. And he was right! I just knew Johnnie Boy would like it....

Hi John! MMwwwwaaaah! Put that tiger down!!! :o

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

WE NEED A ROFL EMOTICON!!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:06 pm   Post subject: Serial Killer Groupies   

An interesting analysis by Katherine Ramsland: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/crim ... ies/4.html

Some people define serial killer groupies (SKGs) in narrow terms, such as women who fall in love with those killers who have been caught and are awaiting trial or are in prison. Other definitions include anyone, male or female, who shows some obsession with serial killers, to the point of extreme emotional attachment. It's not always clear whether the phrase "serial killer groupie," refers to people who just love the idea of a serial killer and would be aroused by any sort of contact, or more strictly to those who have become attached to a specific killer.






Last edited by norbertc on Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
WE NEED A ROFL EMOTICON!!!!


Animals say everything better.........


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

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I think some people are also attracted to the celebrity of it. Lets face it, they would never receive so much as a letter in return if they obsessed over a famous actor or actress, but someone who is famous for being a murderer, will take just about anyone who gives them attention and let them in their lives... Its an easy way to get close to someone "famous"...

Also, I think the only reason that its been mostly only women who are attracted to serial killers (or killers in general) is that for the most part most killers have been men. Now that there are more female murderers in the news, there is no shortage of desperate men writing them and proposing marriage. If you look at Casey Anthony, you can go online and read every letter she has gotten (thanks to the Florida Sunshine Law), and many of them are from adoring men. Same with Foxy Knoxy (or Not-So-Foxy in my opinion, when she is sportin' that hideous looking herpes sore)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
WE NEED A ROFL EMOTICON!!!!


Since you got me started......... :mrgreen:

More here:
http://www.juliesfusedglass.com/Kokapelli.html


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


Last edited by stint7 on Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: Serial Killer Groupies   

norbertc wrote:
An interesting analysis by Katherine Ramsland: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/crim ... ies/4.html

Some people define serial killer groupies (SKGs) in narrow terms, such as women who fall in love with those killers who have been caught and are awaiting trial or are in prison. Other definitions include anyone, male or female, who shows some obsession with serial killers, to the point of extreme emotional attachment. It's not always clear whether the phrase "serial killer groupie," refers to people who just love the idea of a serial killer and would be aroused by any sort of contact, or more strictly to those who have become attached to a specific killer.







It is obvious that Amanda Knox has attracted a number of groupies and that they appear to share certain rather disturbing characteristics, not the least of which is the preponderance -- at least among those groupies who have sought out the limelight in one way or another -- of middle-aged white males. Some of them seek to justify this attachment by evoking a "daughter of the same age," others might see in AK the daughter they did not father or the girl who was unattainable on the outside but with whom they think they might have a chance now that she is on the inside. A captive audience, so to speak. This puts Girlanda's pursuit in an even more unsavory light, though in his case he has an easy "alibi": he can always say he was motivated by his desire to safeguard US-Italian relations.

If I remember correctly, Girlanda initially got in trouble for claiming in public that AK said she got a fair trial. What happened after that? Did AK's parents and entourage know that he was a regular visitor? Was there any kind of quid pro quo? At what point, if any, did Girlanda announce his intention of writing a book that would be sympathetic? What contacts, if any, has Girlanda had with locals who have a vested interest in AK's image? AK's parents have said they knew nothing of this book, and yet Curt Knox was very quick to deny that AK ever said (to Girlanda, right? or some other politician?) her trial was fair. How did he know that? I doubt this book would ever have seen the light of day without the tacit (and deniable) consent of "people close to the entourage". Just sayin'.

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

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

capealadin wrote:
I'm going to digest yummi's wonderful input re : the footprints. i followed Piktor's. and now I'll do yummi's.

And, Solange, you're such an asset. I love your posts, your down to earth language, telling it like it is. You make me laugh. you're one smart lady.......


The feeling is mutual Capealadin, thank you so much! hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that AK's parent know EXACTLY what has been going on here and have encouraged it. It's impossible that AK would not have told them she has been getting close and cuddly with an Italian politician. I think she knows EXACTLY what she's doing. And so do her parents. Last roll of the dice, huh Amanda?

_________________
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
The verdicts will not be overturned. The evidence is overwhelming.


Hi Bard:

If sometimes, like I do, you possibly feel at times, some of what you say here is not really given its full due by others, and possibly feel a bit 'neglected and/or unappreciated'.....

Forget those thoughts.......you are an example for all of us.

Your words above about the verdict were reproduced in their entirety and commented on by a "distinguished" old timer from the other board, no less than the loudest and longest blowhard in chief, ultra egomaniac, Google De Gook self proclaimed expert scientist, .... L.J himself,

The recognition from him was...within minutes of you posting them here.

Talk about hanging on your every word and awaiting your next with bated breath....

Wow !!

Take solace my friend, Bard; what *you* say travels far and wide, and fast


YESSSSS!!!! tThis is PRICELESS!!! I did it on purpose, as a test. It worked!!! I knew they'd love that on JREF!!! HAHAHA...

I was going for some Machine-esque reassurance. I remember him saying those exact words just before the verdict when I was feeling like Emerald. And he was right! I just knew Johnnie Boy would like it....

Hi John! MMwwwwaaaah! Put that tiger down!!! :o


Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:

"There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."

Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi, who presided over Guede's appeal, also believe that Knox and Sollecito murdered Meredith, so that's a total of 21 judges who think that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
The verdicts will not be overturned. The evidence is overwhelming.


Hi Bard:

If sometimes, like I do, you possibly feel at times, some of what you say here is not really given its full due by others, and possibly feel a bit 'neglected and/or unappreciated'.....

Forget those thoughts.......you are an example for all of us.

Your words above about the verdict were reproduced in their entirety and commented on by a "distinguished" old timer from the other board, no less than the loudest and longest blowhard in chief, ultra egomaniac, Google De Gook self proclaimed expert scientist, .... L.J himself,

The recognition from him was...within minutes of you posting them here.

Talk about hanging on your every word and awaiting your next with bated breath....

Wow !!

Take solace my friend, Bard; what *you* say travels far and wide, and fast


YESSSSS!!!! tThis is PRICELESS!!! I did it on purpose, as a test. It worked!!! I knew they'd love that on JREF!!! HAHAHA...

I was going for some Machine-esque reassurance. I remember him saying those exact words just before the verdict when I was feeling like Emerald. And he was right! I just knew Johnnie Boy would like it....

Hi John! MMwwwwaaaah! Put that tiger down!!! :o


Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:

"There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."

Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi, who presided over Guede's appeal, also believe that Knox and Sollecito murdered Meredith, so that's a total of 21 judges who think that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder.


So, let's see...that is 21 professionally qualified Italian judges. With years of practice between them. And they ALL believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty?

I think you have this all wrong Machine. It is not so. There is a conspiracy between all 21 of them. They all want to have sex with Amanda, who is like Helen of Troy. They all decided to lock her up on the off-chance they might get an 'endless hug' (nudge nudge). Oh, except some were women. They must be lesbian judge conspirators. That's it. The female judges are all gay. The men all want to have sex with Amanda and they all hate Americans. Which is why they...locked up Raffaele...who is....Italian. He LOOKS American tho! And anyway, they are not 'proper' judges. Not like American judges for example...or the FBI. Now they ARE professional and never get things wrong...

This is what it is like listening to FOA.... It just washes over you in the end...

Has anyone got any tent pegs?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stint, thank you for the ROFL gifs! What we really need too is an emoticon for laughing ending up with crying, because that's how some of these FOA make me feel...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I see that certain folks are already starting to say that they have doubts about Sabrina's guilt, based on "what they read", and are worried she is being railroaded the way Amanda was. Although I understand the presumption of innocence, what they are saying is a bit different. I we should not assume that we know everything going on in this case. It's not exactly unheard of for the police to keep certain information secret throughout the course of an investigation, I personally would think it's silly to assume that they made her a suspect and informed the media just because they love to torture innocent girls in their 20's. I think certain people, no matter what, just refuse to accept that a young woman would be capable of murder. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, and welcome to the real world...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

In regards to the Sabrina/Sarah case, this reminds me of the last episode of Prime Suspect, The Final Act, which I just recently watched. The murder victim is found to be pregnant and it turns out that the victim's friend, the daughter of the man who impregnated her, is the murderer. Eerily similar, the only difference is that they are friends instead of cousins.

The Bard - I loved what you said about the appeal - it was very a la machine - very reassuring, but I have to say it is really true. It seems inconceivable to me that the appeal would overturn the verdict. How do those people think that Guede ran out of the cottage with bloody shoes and then magically appeared in the bathroom with bloody barefeet? How did the bloody footprint show up in the bathroom without tracks leading there if there wasn't a clean up? Why would a murderer lock the bedroom door but not the cottage door? Why would the murderer steal the phones only to throw them away? And not steal the computer?

I know nothing about Italian law, but I can't imagine any change in the sentence excepting a few years off in the final judgement due to Italian leniency.

As for myself, I wear the term "guilter" as a badge of honor. The people who believe in the course of the trial and the judgement of the jurors who saw and heard the evidence are the voice of sanity over the deceptive shrillness of the murderesses supporters!
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Solange305 wrote:
I see that certain folks are already starting to say that they have doubts about Sabrina's guilt, based on "what they read", and are worried she is being railroaded the way Amanda was. Although I understand the presumption of innocence, what they are saying is a bit different. I we should not assume that we know everything going on in this case. It's not exactly unheard of for the police to keep certain information secret throughout the course of an investigation, I personally would think it's silly to assume that they made her a suspect and informed the media just because they love to torture innocent girls in their 20's. I think certain people, no matter what, just refuse to accept that a young woman would be capable of murder. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, and welcome to the real world...


I am one of those who thinks we should let the courts decide. I don't automatically understand the person on the front page of the paper to be guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. She may be being railroaded. We don't know.

What we do know from the Italian system, through Knox's and Sollecito's trial, is that she will get a fair chance to defend herself against the charges. The one big distinction I see is that Knox and Sollecito had everything and the kitchen sink thrown at the prosecution case. The best lawyers. The best experts. And they still lost unanimously.

I certainly hope that Sabrina obtains fair representation and that everything is done to honour her rights as a suspect.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: OT: OJ's Appeal Denied   

[Apologies if this has already been posted..]

OJ Simpson appeal denied by Nevada Supreme Court

"The Nevada Supreme Court refused Friday to overturn O.J. Simpson's armed robbery and kidnapping convictions, rejecting a claim that prospective jurors were dismissed because they were black.

Simpson attorney Yale Galanter planned to take Simpson's appeal to federal court after his 2008 conviction in the gunpoint heist in a Las Vegas hotel room was upheld.

"This is but the first step in a very long line of appeals that Mr. Simpson has before him," Galanter said.

Galanter was trying to reach Simpson in prison but had not yet spoken to the former NFL hall-of-famer, actor and advertising pitchman.

"I'm extremely disappointed," added Malcolm LaVergne, another Simpson lawyer. "I thought we had a very strong appeal."

The court said all eight separate issues raised in the appeal - some alleging misconduct by prosecutors and the judge - were without merit.

"We felt that we were on solid legal ground and that Judge Glass made appropriate decisions during the trial," Clark County District Attorney David Roger said.

Separately, the court ordered the conviction of Simpson's co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart to be reversed and a new trial held. Stewart's lawyers successfully contended that Simpson's notoriety had hurt Stewart's ability to get a fair trial.

"This is no disrespect to O.J., but O.J. kind of made his own bed over the years," said attorney Brent Bryson, who represents Stewart. "My guy was kind of taken along for the ride."


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/22/1 ... z13KNhWiV2
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:46 am   Post subject: Channeling Anita...   

TomM wrote:
The 411 wrote:
[***One day, when I get out, I am going to adopt some Chinese, Esperanto and Braille children.***

There's no shortage of amusing posts here. But I rarely laugh out loud. "Esparanto and Braille children" is truly hilarious, laugh out loud funny, secondo me.


Hi, Tom:
I'm so glad that AK's letter gave you a chuckle. :D

You know, I wasn't setting out to be funny--I simply tried to channel Anita, and the words just effortlessly sort of typed themselves on the screen.

The AK spirit and energy took over my typing fingers and infused every cell of my body. A creepy, heavy, nauseating feeling, let me tell you-- but it was a sacrifice I was willing to do for PMF.

At once, I started shaking and then hitting myself, all while doing one-note air guitar, and gazing adoringly in the mirror at my porcelain-skinned beauty for hours.

After that, I just wanted to shag anything in trousers--even some pecker head with feathery trousers I heard chirping outside my window.

Mamma Mia! It was absurd.

But, after it was over, and I pressed the "send post button"--- I really just wanted to get on with my life.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
From JREF:

London John wrote:
I agree with you, but there's more at issue than a mere "technicality". It's actually a bedrock of modern justice - someone MUST be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. My heightened interest in this case started when I began to believe that they were wrongly convicted - not when I began to believe that they might actually be non-culpable. And I'd still have been interested in commenting on my belief in a wrongful conviction, even if I was still unsure as to whether Knox and/or Sollecito were actually involved in the crime.


JREF

And while LJ's getting those cites, perhaps LJ could define for us all EXACTLY what is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he keeps banging on about and just how it is an absolute rather then subjective. Does what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean to him, mean the same to Alice or to Sam or to Fred or to Peter? Does it mean anything beyond 'you are sure'?


London John wrote:
Using pejorative terms such as "groupies" is not likely to endear you to many people.


JREF


What, like the term "guilters" you mean?


Don't hold your breath on getting those cites Michael, linking to a photo of his arse is sure to get him a ban.

All you need to know about LJ is contained in his screen name, he registered here using the London tag to try to give him some sort of provenance and giving the impression he was actualy English and not the alleged dodgy American publisher we suspect he is. He started with a lie and hasn't changed with his switch to other sites. He is just one of those middle aged one hand typists who spend their sleepless nights imagining romantic interludes with Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

bedelia wrote:
The Bard - I loved what you said about the appeal - it was very a la machine - very reassuring, but I have to say it is really true. It seems inconceivable to me that the appeal would overturn the verdict. How do those people think that Guede ran out of the cottage with bloody shoes and then magically appeared in the bathroom with bloody barefeet? How did the bloody footprint show up in the bathroom without tracks leading there if there wasn't a clean up? Why would a murderer lock the bedroom door but not the cottage door? Why would the murderer steal the phones only to throw them away? And not steal the computer?

I know nothing about Italian law, but I can't imagine any change in the sentence excepting a few years off in the final judgement due to Italian leniency.

(...)



The appeal trial is in the hand of eight judges. So it is theoretically possible they decide RS and AK are not guilty. But I don't think it's likely to have in a room eight normal people from Perugia who decide to believe the defense points.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

DLW wrote:
‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047


Can anyone translate this article? It sounds interesting.

411, is there a full moon where you live???!!! You are even more bonkers than normal at the moment!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Brogan wrote:
Michael wrote:
From JREF:

London John wrote:
I agree with you, but there's more at issue than a mere "technicality". It's actually a bedrock of modern justice - someone MUST be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. My heightened interest in this case started when I began to believe that they were wrongly convicted - not when I began to believe that they might actually be non-culpable. And I'd still have been interested in commenting on my belief in a wrongful conviction, even if I was still unsure as to whether Knox and/or Sollecito were actually involved in the crime.


JREF

And while LJ's getting those cites, perhaps LJ could define for us all EXACTLY what is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he keeps banging on about and just how it is an absolute rather then subjective. Does what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean to him, mean the same to Alice or to Sam or to Fred or to Peter? Does it mean anything beyond 'you are sure'?


London John wrote:
Using pejorative terms such as "groupies" is not likely to endear you to many people.


JREF


What, like the term "guilters" you mean?


Don't hold your breath on getting those cites Michael, linking to a photo of his arse is sure to get him a ban.

All you need to know about LJ is contained in his screen name, he registered here using the London tag to try to give him some sort of provenance and giving the impression he was actualy English and not the alleged dodgy American publisher we suspect he is. He started with a lie and hasn't changed with his switch to other sites. He is just one of those middle aged one hand typists who spend their sleepless nights imagining romantic interludes with Amanda.


My signature line at the JREF contains a typical LooneyJohn quote: "I don't need to cite."

It pretty much sums up his entire posting career over there and now it's immortalised for all to see.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:

I am one of those who thinks we should let the courts decide. I don't automatically understand the person on the front page of the paper to be guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. She may be being railroaded. We don't know.

What we do know from the Italian system, through Knox's and Sollecito's trial, is that she will get a fair chance to defend herself against the charges. The one big distinction I see is that Knox and Sollecito had everything and the kitchen sink thrown at the prosecution case. The best lawyers. The best experts. And they still lost unanimously.

I certainly hope that Sabrina obtains fair representation and that everything is done to honour her rights as a suspect.


So do you think I am "one of those" who thinks the public should just condemn anyone who they think is guilty? That is not at all what I said. What I said is that we do not know whether or not she is guilty, so how can we accuse the police of railroading an innocent person? We have no idea what they know. I don't see anything in my comment where I said I know for a fact that Sabrina is guilty, and let's hang her with no trial or anything..

And I also dont see why the media portrayal is mentioned in a way that makes it seem like it only happens in Italy. If you look at Casey Anthony, from the beginning we knew a ton of information from the press on why the cops suspected her. I don;t see any difference with the media in the US and the media in Italy in that respect. Yet it seems like Knox supporters are only bothered when the media in Italy is doing it. I think back to the Craiglist killer, did we all not pretty much realized that there was a good chance he was guilty before his trial (which I think never even happened, since he killed himself). We knew this because of the media showing the tape of him at the hotel where he met the girl he killed (amongst other things). I don;t think there is anything wrong with the public having opinions on guilt or innocence, as long as we realize that it is only a personal opinion, and should not be acted upon. And it has nothing to do with the "presumption of innocence" that everyone is promised in the court of law. Presumption of innocence does not mean that I must let you babysit my son if you are still only accused of child molestation, and not convicted. I can still be wary of you and think you might be guilty. It just means that you have a "presumption of innocence" in the court system, as it should be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: OT: OJ's Appeal Denied   

The 411 wrote:
[Apologies if this has already been posted..]

OJ Simpson appeal denied by Nevada Supreme Court

"The Nevada Supreme Court refused Friday to overturn O.J. Simpson's armed robbery and kidnapping convictions, rejecting a claim that prospective jurors were dismissed because they were black.

Simpson attorney Yale Galanter planned to take Simpson's appeal to federal court after his 2008 conviction in the gunpoint heist in a Las Vegas hotel room was upheld.

"This is but the first step in a very long line of appeals that Mr. Simpson has before him," Galanter said.

Galanter was trying to reach Simpson in prison but had not yet spoken to the former NFL hall-of-famer, actor and advertising pitchman.

"I'm extremely disappointed," added Malcolm LaVergne, another Simpson lawyer. "I thought we had a very strong appeal."

The court said all eight separate issues raised in the appeal - some alleging misconduct by prosecutors and the judge - were without merit.

"We felt that we were on solid legal ground and that Judge Glass made appropriate decisions during the trial," Clark County District Attorney David Roger said.

Separately, the court ordered the conviction of Simpson's co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart to be reversed and a new trial held. Stewart's lawyers successfully contended that Simpson's notoriety had hurt Stewart's ability to get a fair trial.

"This is no disrespect to O.J., but O.J. kind of made his own bed over the years," said attorney Brent Bryson, who represents Stewart. "My guy was kind of taken along for the ride."


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/22/1 ... z13KNhWiV2


Before he got locked up, OJ and his kids lived 10 minutes away from me in Miami. I used to drive by his house on the way to college every day. I used to run into him EVERYWHERE, it was weird.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Solange, OJ lived 1 minute away from me in Brentwood. And I knew him. It's another story.

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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Solange305 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I am one of those who thinks we should let the courts decide. I don't automatically understand the person on the front page of the paper to be guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. She may be being railroaded. We don't know.

What we do know from the Italian system, through Knox's and Sollecito's trial, is that she will get a fair chance to defend herself against the charges. The one big distinction I see is that Knox and Sollecito had everything and the kitchen sink thrown at the prosecution case. The best lawyers. The best experts. And they still lost unanimously.

I certainly hope that Sabrina obtains fair representation and that everything is done to honour her rights as a suspect.


So do you think I am "one of those" who thinks the public should just condemn anyone who they think is guilty? That is not at all what I said. What I said is that we do not know whether or not she is guilty, so how can we accuse the police of railroading an innocent person? We have no idea what they know. I don't see anything in my comment where I said I know for a fact that Sabrina is guilty, and let's hang her with no trial or anything..

And I also dont see why the media portrayal is mentioned in a way that makes it seem like it only happens in Italy. If you look at Casey Anthony, from the beginning we knew a ton of information from the press on why the cops suspected her. I don;t see any difference with the media in the US and the media in Italy in that respect. Yet it seems like Knox supporters are only bothered when the media in Italy is doing it. I think back to the Craiglist killer, did we all not pretty much realized that there was a good chance he was guilty before his trial (which I think never even happened, since he killed himself). We knew this because of the media showing the tape of him at the hotel where he met the girl he killed (amongst other things). I don;t think there is anything wrong with the public having opinions on guilt or innocence, as long as we realize that it is only a personal opinion, and should not be acted upon. And it has nothing to do with the "presumption of innocence" that everyone is promised in the court of law. Presumption of innocence does not mean that I must let you babysit my son if you are still only accused of child molestation, and not convicted. I can still be wary of you and think you might be guilty. It just means that you have a "presumption of innocence" in the court system, as it should be.


I didn't think I was saying anything that extreme or disagreeable.

I generally don't read or hear that much about murder cases before they make it to trial. I'd never even heard of Knox or Sollecito before I joined this board and after the verdict.

I suppose the OJ case is a close contender. I was surprised that he was found not guilty from what I knew at the time but less so now because it's apparent the prosecution truly bungled the case. I don't know if I could have known just how badly they did so until after the verdict.

The point about the media is well taken and I don't think I suggested otherwise. We're not privy to the actual details of the investigation into Sarah's murder but only what the media tells us about it. I don't read Italian so I couldn't begin to judge it on fairness.

In the case of Meredith's murder and the investigation, the people protesting media influence are absolutely single-minded. The most frequent argument is that news reports tend to argue for or against guilt before the trial is conducted and that this kind of publicity means that nobody can be found to serve as a judge or juror without having decided ahead of time.

That's a poor argument and studies I've read (don't ask for cites--there are libraries and journals full of them) don't demonstrate that courts or juries are unable to focus on the evidence in court if they're exposed to it beforehand. I don't even think that justice is necessarily served by media blackouts of court proceedings, such as those in Canada surrounding both the Homolka-Bernardo and Robert Pickton murder trials. Secret trials certainly didn't guarantee defendants' rights in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. Most of us would think it's rather the opposite.

I'm not sure whether that addresses your points directly enough but I'd be glad to explain anything where I've been too vague.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:29 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
DLW wrote:
‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047


Can anyone translate this article? It sounds interesting.

I don't claim this is either literate of literal, but here's what I got out of it.

“They try to influence the Court, but they risk a boomerang effect.”
Francesco Paolo Maresca, the Kercher family’s lawyer, spoke to the Corriere on the eve of the new proceeding.

by LEONARDO N. MOLINELLI

TORONTO - "Meredith’s family has taught the world the dignity of silence." With these words, lawyer Francesco Poalo Maresca, lawyer of Meredith Kercher’s family, traces the outlines of a proceeding that went beyond the usual standard legal battles, coming from the courtroom to land on TV and the media, as well. Lawyer Maresca, have there been changes [in strategy] in the period between the decision at first trial and the appeal?

"No, the defenders have asked to renew, before the Court of Appeal, the entire scientific investigative activity following the defense’s line of the first trial in which they have contested all the investigations."

The contentions were taken apart in the ruling, though.

"Yes, so much so that the ruling of first trial is based on these laboratory tests, is deemed fully reliable because they were made in the presence of the parties without anyone objecting."

So what is the objective of the defense?

"They request special review of all the basic reports: the bra hook where the DNA of Sollecito was, the bath mat where the footprint of Sollecito was. They aim to demonstrate their total non-involvement and blame everything on Rudy Guede.

Rudy Guede as the only murderer?

"They say they were at Sollecito's house after smoking hashish, making love and waking in the morning."

How would they [DNA traces] end up at the crime scene?

"They would have been there just by coincidence, as against the results of the investigation. They say that the DNA on the bra is not Sollecito’s, and it could have come from other parts of the house, the footprint on the bath mat is not his (Sollecito’s) that the DNA on the knife is not that of Knox and so forth. "

What was established in the first trial?

"The dynamics would have been an attempt to approach sex gone bad, with a series of knife wounds progressive and growing, from intimidation and threats, and three more with much more serious injuries, one fatal, on the neck. We believe, and the sentence takes note of the fact, that this should not be seen as a premeditated crime, but an impulse. They probably tried to play a sex game, she (Meredith, ed) refused, they threatened, they wounded her, the blood came out, they lost their heads. She (Amanda, ed) knew that if they called the ambulance or the police, they would have to justify why they had done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:42 am   Post subject: US-Italian relations   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This puts Girlanda's pursuit in an even more unsavory light, though in his case he has an easy "alibi": he can always say he was motivated by his desire to safeguard US-Italian relations.


That would be a really laughable "alibi".
Girlanda has no bearing whatsoever on the "safeguard of US-Italian relations".

ETA:
But thanks for that comment Skep.
I never even imagined that Girlanda could possibly come up with such a ridiculous motivation.


Last edited by Clander on Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:46 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Girlander is just one in a long line of tragic individuals


For the record, Girlander is in no way related to Clander.

The 411 wrote:
Apparently AK heard about my upcoming camping trip with Clander and now she wants to start up a correspondence with CLANDER!!!


I'd rather exchange a few emails with my next door neighbor's dog.
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 Oct 25, 2010 6:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

TomM wrote:
The Bard wrote:
DLW wrote:
‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047


Can anyone translate this article? It sounds interesting.

I don't claim this is either literate of literal, but here's what I got out of it.

....

What was established in the first trial?

"The dynamics would have been an attempt to approach sex gone bad, with a series of knife wounds progressive and growing, from intimidation and threats, and three more with much more serious injuries, one fatal, on the neck. We believe, and the sentence takes note of the fact, that this should not be seen as a premeditated crime, but an impulse. They probably tried to play a sex game, she (Meredith, ed) refused, they threatened, they wounded her, the blood came out, they lost their heads. She (Amanda, ed) knew that if they called the ambulance or the police, they would have to justify why they had done.


The last line is a pretty good summary of the findings of the court. I'd still substitute "rape prank" for "sex game" to come more in line with what many of us think they set out to do.

It's interesting that Maresca (or possibly the reporter) doesn't talk much about the pieces of the investigation leading to its narrowing focus on Knox and Sollecito. If the central argument of the appeals are that the forensics are flawed and therefore the pair are innocent then that's ignoring an awful lot of evidence placing them somewhere other than where they said they were that night.

Challenging the science is certainly an important element of any appeal but what are they going to do about the mass of circumstantial evidence (blaming Patrick, staged burglary, shifting and incompatible alibis, "misremembering" details about phone calls and dinner, the locked door, Knox's lamp, etc) that shows they were involved? Confusion and smoking pot just doesn't cut it.
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 Oct 25, 2010 7:24 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I'm posting this link from JREF to illustrate something.

This isn't the first time that one of Knox's groupies decided to split their defence of the pair of little darlings into a fresh thread (usually under the Science & Technology heading) in the hopes of bolstering their case about the "un-science" of the Italian justice system.

Read the response. This is actually what a "normal" sceptic--the most common people I encounter on the JREF--observes about the bathmat print evidence. And it's precisely what we'd discussed here above.

It actually mattered less to the court (and to any uninvolved observer) that this was undeniably Sollecito's bare footprint than that it was someone's bare print and likely either the one on the left or the one on the right. In other words, it was not the victim's (as Giraffe107 deduced without even knowing anything about the case) but it was almost surely either Guede's or Sollecito's.

So the same deduction is then used by the court (or any sane person) to rule out Guede--because you'd just established that he was wearing shoes when the murder was committed. Moreover, as Giraffe107 and a few others skillfully noted, there is insufficient information contained in the cropped photograph. Where is the "blood trail"?

The regular JREF'rs asking that on Dan O's poll are asking exactly the same question that I would or that anyone would. Where is the blood leading up to that print? Well--as Dan O is equally skillful at avoiding--it was cleaned up!

My point is both in defence of "normal" JREF'rs (and it truly is the majority) and yet another spanking for Dan O and his oblique methods at looking for a group hug over his "science".

The question remains, Dan O: Where is the "blood trail"? Where is it? Show it in context with your bathmat print hocus-pocus. All the regular JREF'rs want to see it so maybe you need to post at the end of the thread that it's a trick question and you're just looking for validation of your idiotic defence of the indefensible.

sp-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:55 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I guess JREF is like crack cocaine.
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 Oct 25, 2010 8:26 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

mortytoad wrote:
I guess JREF is like crack cocaine.


It actually is more or less my "home" forum, mortytoad. I don't post on the Knox thread over there.

The key difference in the link I posted is that it is not from the Knox thread. It's an attempt to flare out into the Science and Technology section. Kestrel did this once before too.

It's distinct from a lot of the JREF postings because it will now attract the non-groupie regulars. Dan O is doing this to validate a preconceived "theory" of his and it's failing in every regard.

I thought it might be interesting to some to see how true sceptics react to the groupies' "sciencey" blitherings.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Interesting that Girlanda ( not to be confused with Clander) used a photo of Amanda taken by Madison. Also the fundraiser poster was using the same. Any word on Madison's internship and connection with Girlanda? Maybe she is eating truffles that were meant for Amanda at this very moment...


Have anyone seen the book and the cover photo attribution wording?



Image


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Deleted attached fundraiser photo and hotlinked it from the gallery using 'rimg' switch


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:17 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I've just had a thought: since Rudy isn't an Italian citizen, does he get deported after his sentence is finished?

_________________
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: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Since they're using pseudo quotation to promote the Support the Killer evening, here's a little Julius Caeser for the middle-aged lolling tongue brigade; "Men freely believe that which they desire"

_________________
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 DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:24 am   Post subject: Re: Channeling Anita...   

The 411 wrote:
TomM wrote:
The 411 wrote:
[***One day, when I get out, I am going to adopt some Chinese, Esperanto and Braille children.***

There's no shortage of amusing posts here. But I rarely laugh out loud. "Esparanto and Braille children" is truly hilarious, laugh out loud funny, secondo me.


Hi, Tom:
I'm so glad that AK's letter gave you a chuckle. :D

You know, I wasn't setting out to be funny--I simply tried to channel Anita, and the words just effortlessly sort of typed themselves on the screen.

The AK spirit and energy took over my typing fingers and infused every cell of my body. A creepy, heavy, nauseating feeling, let me tell you-- but it was a sacrifice I was willing to do for PMF.

At once, I started shaking and then hitting myself, all while doing one-note air guitar, and gazing adoringly in the mirror at my porcelain-skinned beauty for hours.

After that, I just wanted to shag anything in trousers--even some pecker head with feathery trousers I heard chirping outside my window.

Mamma Mia! It was absurd.

But, after it was over, and I pressed the "send post button"--- I really just wanted to get on with my life.


The 411:

STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD. DO IT NOW.

OMG, my first cup of coffee, I read your post. I am laughing out loud. Once again 411: tt-)

And you too Bard, you're the greatest!!! tt-)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:45 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

(( OT OT ))


Italian seaside town planning miniskirt ban
A seaside city in Italy is planning to ban miniskirts and other revealing clothing to improve what the mayor calls standards of public decency.


BBC NEWS

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:48 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Since they're using pseudo quotation to promote the Support the Killer evening, here's a little Julius Caeser for the middle-aged lolling tongue brigade; "Men freely believe that which they desire"


Another connection between the Knox groupies and 9/11 "truthers". Appropriating Justinian is bad but not quite as bad as the creators of a 9/11 conspiracy film using the images of the black American athletes on the podium at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics or (mis)using the words of Martin Luther King, Jr to endorse a cause that includes a lot of racists.

Source: http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

I wonder what Justinian would have thought of someone falsely accusing her employer of murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Since they're using pseudo quotation to promote the Support the Killer evening, here's a little Julius Caeser for the middle-aged lolling tongue brigade; "Men freely believe that which they desire"


Another connection between the Knox groupies and 9/11 "truthers". Appropriating Justinian is bad but not quite as bad as the creators of a 9/11 conspiracy film using the images of the black American athletes on the podium at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics or (mis)using the words of Martin Luther King, Jr to endorse a cause that includes a lot of racists.

Source: http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

I wonder what Justinian would have thought of someone falsely accusing her employer of murder.



The Groupies would dismiss your claims, of course, because as Euripides had already sussed by the 5th Century BC, "talk sense to a fool and he'll call you foolish." :)

_________________
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 bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Thanks, Tom for the translation above. It really is a shame that this article will not appear in the US. :( I ike it so much that the Italian system cares for the victims; they have their own legal representative to keep them informed and to speak for them even during the trial. Briliant, really.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:49 am   Post subject: Seattleite in Satellite?   

Murder is not a laughing matter: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... 64171#this

Seattleite Amanda Knox is not going to serve her impending life sentence in an Italian prison. She will serve it in a satellite orbiting the Earth.

"This has come about because Amanda has complained about the lack of air conditioning in the Italian jails and that she gets "very sticky" in the summer when locked up during the trial. The thought of 40 or 50 summers on Earth is unbearable to her" said an Italian government spokesperson.

"She will find it a lot cooler in space. There are no real fluctuations in temperature up there. The temperature in space is approximately 2.725 Kelvin. That means the temperature is generally just shy of three degrees above absolute zero, the temperature at which molecules themselves stop moving. That's almost -270 degrees Celsius, or -455 Fahrenheit. We will make sure she has a woolly hat and a pair of gloves"

The Sun newspaper are particularly delighted because they can use the headline "Seattleite in Satellite".



Top Profile E-mail 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

bedelia wrote:

I know nothing about Italian law, but I can't imagine any change in the sentence excepting a few years off in the final judgement due to Italian leniency.

As for myself, I wear the term "guilter" as a badge of honor. The people who believe in the course of the trial and the judgement of the jurors who saw and heard the evidence are the voice of sanity over the deceptive shrillness of the murderesses supporters!


Anything can happen during the appeal process. It goes where it goes. Personally, I'm hoping their sentences are doubled. If they decide to tell the truth and at least display some remorse, we can talk. (Am not holding my breath.)

Concerning the term guilter, I owe you a word of thanks. All along I had been seeing the word quilter ... as in a person who makes quilts.



"How dare they call me a quilter!", I told my wife in anger.

But guilter is fine. I have no problem being called a guilter, even though it's not really a word found in any English dictionary.

As long as the FOA is able to violate the laws of physics to explain Knox's and Sollecito's movements, why not invent a new language too?

.


Last edited by norbertc on Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline namwera51


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

[quote="stilicho"][quote="Michael"]From the JREF:



(((((As soon as you agree (which he does) that the print on the bathmat is from a bare foot, then you have trouble when reconciling that to the high probability that Guede wore shoes the entire time he was in the cottage. After all, the groupies themselves have gone to great lengths to argue that it was Guede's shoeprint and not Sollecito's inside Meredith's room behind a locked door.

So whose bare "generic adult male" footprint in Meredith's blood is that in the small bathroom?

If it is Guede's then how did he get blood on his bare feet when it is provably true that he wore shoes during the execution of the crime? This is not some idle detail requiring no further explanation than wild-eyed speculation. It's a serious question that requires--drum roll, please--evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.)))))


I think that this is a critical point! there is a shod bloody footprint and a bare one. Occam's razor would argue this is plain evidence of multiple aggressors.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

namwera51 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
From the JREF:



(((((As soon as you agree (which he does) that the print on the bathmat is from a bare foot, then you have trouble when reconciling that to the high probability that Guede wore shoes the entire time he was in the cottage. After all, the groupies themselves have gone to great lengths to argue that it was Guede's shoeprint and not Sollecito's inside Meredith's room behind a locked door.

So whose bare "generic adult male" footprint in Meredith's blood is that in the small bathroom?

If it is Guede's then how did he get blood on his bare feet when it is provably true that he wore shoes during the execution of the crime? This is not some idle detail requiring no further explanation than wild-eyed speculation. It's a serious question that requires--drum roll, please--evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.)))))


I think that this is a critical point! there is a shod bloody footprint and a bare one. Occam's razor would argue this is plain evidence of multiple aggressors.



From my recent sojourn on JREF, the best they've come up with (and please don't drink any coffee while reading this or you may need a new keyboard and monitor) is as follows:

Rudy walks into the bathroom in his shoes to wash his trousers down. He wants to keep his trousers ON but he takes his shoes OFF. He runs his trouser leg errr leg under the bidet taps which causes bloody water to run down his foot which then evenly coat the underside of his foot in uniformity with a blood water mix.

If the mat is where you see it in the pictures, he then exhibits contortionistic skills which could have seen him gainfully employed in a circus and manages, somehow, to swivel his right foot back with a more-than 90 degree twist (see pic - bidet is at bottom of pic) so that it ends up where you see it. Since this clearly would have broken his fucking knee (scuse me) we can deduce, Watson, that in fact the bathmat must have not been in the position you see it now (oh no - that would be foolish), with the footprint looking utterly misleadingly like it is heading straight into the shower cubicle, but in fact the mat must have been spun 90 degrees around and that in stepping back from the bidet to the very back edge of the mat, Rudy was merely doing some calf stretches as well as tidying up his murder. Since he is capable of wielding two knives at once while restraining both someone's arms and scaling up 15 foot sheer walls leaving no trace of the climb nor disturb any glass, this is exactly the sort of thing we should expect of him.

Anita then incorporates a 90 degree kickflip into her bathmat scooting or fancies a workout so shuffles on it in a width-ways rather than length-ways fashion but suffers amnesia about this after the fact and places it back in the position we all know so well because she is a tidy person. Although, not to the extent that she has a tidy-up, clearly.

See? Simples. Silly guilters.


Image

_________________
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 DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

norbertc wrote:
bedelia wrote:

I know nothing about Italian law, but I can't imagine any change in the sentence excepting a few years off in the final judgement due to Italian leniency.

As for myself, I wear the term "guilter" as a badge of honor. The people who believe in the course of the trial and the judgement of the jurors who saw and heard the evidence are the voice of sanity over the deceptive shrillness of the murderesses supporters!


Anything can happen during the appeal process. It goes where it goes. Personally, I'm hoping their sentences are doubled. If they decide to tell the truth and at least display some remorse, we can talk. (Am not holding my breath.)

Concerning the term guilter, I owe you a word of thanks. All along I had been seeing the word quilter ... as in a person who makes quilts.



"How dare they call me a quilter!", I told my wife in anger.

But guilter is fine. I have no problem being called a guilter, even though it's not really a word found in any English dictionary.

As long as the FOA is able to violate the laws of physics to explain Knox's and Sollecito's movements, why not invent a new language too?

.


Hello norbertc, thank you for the clarification. It has been an ongoing concern for me too, I flunked home ec many years ago. Cooking and sewing both. The only classes I ever flunked in my life. So I have been a guilter quilter too.

That quilter man in the picture is probably a guilter too. But at least he can sew.

Thanks again. Now I can go have a beer in peace. th-)

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

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I've just had a thought: since Rudy isn't an Italian citizen, does he get deported after his sentence is finished?


If he had not already been the holder of a "residence permit" (permesso di soggiorno), I would have answered YES.
But since he did have a residence permit, it will be up to the discretion of the Ministry of Internal Affairs when he is released from prison. It depends on so many factors that it is impossible to say at this point.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yet another Knox spin off JREF Thread just started

DanO, a prolific poster of notoriety (mostly unfavorable) from that old (nearly dead now, RIP) Continuation Discussion of Amanda Knox JREF Thread, shamelessly exploits (without any reference of course) the outstanding work on footprints that our Yummi so explicitly displayed here.

DanO now starts a new footprint "poll" thread on JREF.

Possible arising from boredom and 'lonesomeness' because now nearly no one is left on the old thread to continue the previous week long contemplation of their own and each other's big toes

As several previously unrecognized but very astute fellow JREF members point out so very clearly, DanO's "poll" is just another exercise in futility and a waste of time.

See it here (if really bored):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6478225


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:34 pm   Post subject: Sauce for the goose   

Yummi wrote:
Yummi research on the bathmat print

Part 1 -
... I think it is important to read the Rinaldi report and not just look at the pictures. ....Rinaldi himself calls the measurement “compatible”, which implies if had been already considered in its correct value of about 55 mm. A correction ex post of a typographic error that probably originated in a draft copy, but unrelated to any conclusion, obviously can’t change Rinaldi’s finding.
Somebody suggested to use this error to discredit Rinaldi as an expert:

“However, if it turns out to be 55mm, then Rinaldi looks like an idiot and how much of what he has said can you believe. Since his measurements are wrong ....”
...



Given an error, the reasoning (that thereby concludes that the report must therefore be discarded in toto without any due consideration or analysis being applied), must, to be fair, have the same reasoning applied to itself when the "error" turns out to be an inconsequential typographical one:

Because of this error-result in the reasoning, the entire (JREF-thread) logic comes tumbling down and the conclusions and assertions of that thread must be completely jettisoned, written-off and consigned to the scrap-heap.

There is no other choice except to abandon the specious position. It has been scientifically proven to be invalid.



Alternatively, if wearing counterfeit sunglasses makes you feel like a liar and a cheat on the inside, which in turn increases the lying and cheating you do to others, I predict that it will not be a surprise to see the posts zombify themselves and resurrect an identical argument almost immediately. There is no attempt at persuasion; no attempt at improving the position for the three convicts. Following someone who is doing nothing constructive to help is an act of faith (which is ironic for any atheists involved). How misplaced that faith is will come as a deep shock when the scales fall from the eyes. I detect a shame in wanting to learn, which ironically converts itself into a shameless display of naked ignorance.

As for the snake-oil merchants offering false hopes in order to make a quick dollar and maybe some pretend warm-and-fuzzies, it would be wiser to leave the spruiking of product to the professionals.


It really does come down to appearances (and the self-worth and self-image driving off from them).
sun-)


"Being behind the wheel doesn't make you a good driver, or even let you automatically pass your driving test exam, no matter how many beep beep noises you make." -- motto outside the entrance to Toad Hall.
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
I'm posting this link from JREF to illustrate something.

This isn't the first time that one of Knox's groupies decided to split their defence of the pair of little darlings into a fresh thread (usually under the Science & Technology heading) in the hopes of bolstering their case about the "un-science" of the Italian justice system.

Read the response. This is actually what a "normal" sceptic--the most common people I encounter on the JREF--observes about the bathmat print evidence. And it's precisely what we'd discussed here above.

It actually mattered less to the court (and to any uninvolved observer) that this was undeniably Sollecito's bare footprint than that it was someone's bare print and likely either the one on the left or the one on the right. In other words, it was not the victim's (as Giraffe107 deduced without even knowing anything about the case) but it was almost surely either Guede's or Sollecito's.

So the same deduction is then used by the court (or any sane person) to rule out Guede--because you'd just established that he was wearing shoes when the murder was committed. Moreover, as Giraffe107 and a few others skillfully noted, there is insufficient information contained in the cropped photograph. Where is the "blood trail"?

The regular JREF'rs asking that on Dan O's poll are asking exactly the same question that I would or that anyone would. Where is the blood leading up to that print? Well--as Dan O is equally skillful at avoiding--it was cleaned up!

My point is both in defence of "normal" JREF'rs (and it truly is the majority) and yet another spanking for Dan O and his oblique methods at looking for a group hug over his "science".

The question remains, Dan O: Where is the "blood trail"? Where is it? Show it in context with your bathmat print hocus-pocus. All the regular JREF'rs want to see it so maybe you need to post at the end of the thread that it's a trick question and you're just looking for validation of your idiotic defence of the indefensible.

sp-))

Exactly. I recently got into it over there w/Dan O, and asked how did Guede go from running out of the house in his shoes, to making a print in his bare feet in the bathroom? Did he run out of the house first, then come back in? Or make the print first, then run out in shoes?

Dan O's answer was pretty funny. He concocted a whole story about how Guede did the whole "rinsing his pants/making a footprint" in the bathroom routine, went back into Meredith's room, sat down on her bed, touched a lot of stuff, leisurely put his shoes on, walked around in her blood, and then (suddenly realizing he forgot a souffle at home, I suppose), RAN out of the house.

John London even got into the game and posted some similar rubbish. It was fascinating how they defended the ridiculous theory.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

norbertc wrote:

"How dare they call me a quilter!".



LOL. I'm not only a guilter but I'm also a quitter quilter as I started a quilt and then had to quit!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

namwera51 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
From the JREF:



(((((As soon as you agree (which he does) that the print on the bathmat is from a bare foot, then you have trouble when reconciling that to the high probability that Guede wore shoes the entire time he was in the cottage. After all, the groupies themselves have gone to great lengths to argue that it was Guede's shoeprint and not Sollecito's inside Meredith's room behind a locked door.

So whose bare "generic adult male" footprint in Meredith's blood is that in the small bathroom?

If it is Guede's then how did he get blood on his bare feet when it is provably true that he wore shoes during the execution of the crime? This is not some idle detail requiring no further explanation than wild-eyed speculation. It's a serious question that requires--drum roll, please--evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.)))))


I think that this is a critical point! there is a shod bloody footprint and a bare one. Occam's razor would argue this is plain evidence of multiple aggressors.


Esattamente!

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

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Yummi wrote:
bedelia wrote:
The Bard - I loved what you said about the appeal - it was very a la machine - very reassuring, but I have to say it is really true. It seems inconceivable to me that the appeal would overturn the verdict. How do those people think that Guede ran out of the cottage with bloody shoes and then magically appeared in the bathroom with bloody barefeet? How did the bloody footprint show up in the bathroom without tracks leading there if there wasn't a clean up? Why would a murderer lock the bedroom door but not the cottage door? Why would the murderer steal the phones only to throw them away? And not steal the computer?

I know nothing about Italian law, but I can't imagine any change in the sentence excepting a few years off in the final judgement due to Italian leniency.

(...)



The appeal trial is in the hand of eight judges. So it is theoretically possible they decide RS and AK are not guilty. But I don't think it's likely to have in a room eight normal people from Perugia who decide to believe the defense points.


Hi Yummi - I'm a little confused. When you say the appeal trial is in the hand of eight judges, is that what they call the jury here? The Italian "jury" is made up of a number of lay judges and the professional judge(s). So this is how they come up with the number of 19 judges have already decided? They are actually talking about the jurors/lay judges in addition to the professional judges? Also, we know there were two professional judges and 6 lay judges in the first trial. Is this the same for the appeal?

Thanks in advance!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Quote:
Interesting that Girlanda ( not to be confused with Clander) used a photo of Amanda taken by Madison. Also the fundraiser poster was using the same. Any word on Madison's internship and connection with Girlanda? Maybe she is eating truffles that were meant for Amanda at this very moment...

Have anyone seen the book and the cover photo attribution wording?



It is also interesting that the fundraiser coincided with the release of the book, the book that features on its cover the approved head shot photo. Notice that this photo has been enhanced to bring out the blue in the blue eyes; this is especially noticeable in the fundraiser poster which, as I noted a couple of weeks ago, I happened to see in the window of a West Seattle copy shop.

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

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:

I didn't think I was saying anything that extreme or disagreeable.




Thanks for clearing that up. Im glad that isnt what you meant, because I agree with you that everyone deserves a fair trial.

The second paragraph in my comment wasn't in response to anything you said directly, I wasn't contradicting you, I was just posting what was on my mind relative to the first comment I made, in regards to certain people not liking the media coverage in the Knox case and Scazzi case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I thought 411 was starting another thread as well...... I can't seem to find the exact location.. I think it is by invitation only..

or maybe it was a special bracelet shown at the tent flap gets you in...


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


Last edited by H9 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

bedelia wrote:
Hi Yummi - I'm a little confused. When you say the appeal trial is in the hand of eight judges, is that what they call the jury here? The Italian "jury" is made up of a number of lay judges and the professional judge(s). So this is how they come up with the number of 19 judges have already decided? They are actually talking about the jurors/lay judges in addition to the professional judges? Also, we know there were two professional judges and 6 lay judges in the first trial. Is this the same for the appeal?

Thanks in advance!


Maybe somebody made a calculation mistake. The panel of 8 judges makes the job of what they call jury in the USA, but makes also more, has bigger discretional powers compared to a US jury - that's why they are called judges and not jurors. But has also lessr discretional choice on other aspect: their procedure and decision must be "by the book" more than for any US jury.

The total number raises to 20, i think, directly ruling on AK and RS (they include 6 lay judges, 2 Assise judges, 2 pre-trial judges, 1 re-examination judge, plus 9 cassazione judges who ruled only on specific parts of the evidence). But in fact the total number could be extended to include 28 judges, including the lates judges (2 prof + 6 lay) who ruled on Rudy Guede's guilt expressing a convincement he did not commit the crime alone (these judges however placed the time of death between 22:00 and 22:30). The next trial will rise this total number to 36 judges who will express themselves on the case.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

If the Internet name 'michellesings' means anything to anyone else, you may be interested in this ever so deep, meaningful, informative gem of wisdom she just posted on another board
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*"there is such a thing as healthy *skeptism.
There is so much overwhelming reason for this "healthy skeptism" that it's freakish."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the type of reasoning that caused a 25 year FBI veteran to go off on a completely ill advised charlatan carnival barker like crusade (charade), that eventually cost him his latest job, as well as directly causing self described family financial hardships, I stand in awe of 'michellesings's influence if not her reasoning.

PS: *
Capitalization of sentence start and spelling of skeptism (sp) probably intentional to show affinity with Amanda's style of honors student writing skills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188989&page=8


Last edited by stint7 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

DLW wrote:
‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047


On page 3 of the interview, Maresca calls Bremner (wrong spelling in the article) an "avvocatuccia". A small-time lawyer (but I do not think that "small-time lawyer" is as offensive as "avvocatuccia").
Is this the first time that Maresca makes an offensive remark about Bremner?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
If the Internet name 'michellesings' means anything to anyone else, you may be interested in this ever so deep, meaningful, informative gem of wisdom she just posted on another board
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*"there is such a thing as healthy *skeptism.
There is so much overwhelming reason for this "healthy skeptism" that it's freakish."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the type of reasoning that caused a 25 year FBI veteran to go off on a completely ill advised charlatan carnival barker like crusade (charade), that eventually cost him his latest job, as well as directly causing self described family financial hardships, I stand in awe of 'michellesings's influence if not her reasoning.

PS: *
Capitalization of sentence start and spelling of skeptism (sp) probably intentional to show affinity with Amanda's style of honors student writing skills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188989&page=8


I seem to recall a certain personal blog with a couple of entries focused mainly on Amanda, Amanda and Amanda, plus a cryptic story about Disney tickets and a cry for help in overcoming an addiction to the internet and posting.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
If the Internet name 'michellesings' means anything to anyone else, you may be interested in this ever so deep, meaningful, informative gem of wisdom she just posted on another board
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*"there is such a thing as healthy *skeptism.
There is so much overwhelming reason for this "healthy skeptism" that it's freakish."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the type of reasoning that caused a 25 year FBI veteran to go off on a completely ill advised charlatan carnival barker like crusade (charade), that eventually cost him his latest job, as well as directly causing self described family financial hardships, I stand in awe of 'michellesings's influence if not her reasoning.

PS: *
Capitalization of sentence start and spelling of skeptism (sp) probably intentional to show affinity with Amanda's style of honors student writing skills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188989&page=8


Wheaton's Law and Skeptism



Maybe Michelle is a part of this group?? I know that The NoMoores are California based but Edda let it slip in one interview she thought Stevie NoMoore was coming to the UK ( I am assuming SA quickly put a stop to these plans however...)

http://nottingham.skepticsinthepub.org/ ... -Skeptism-

This follows on from Octobers speaker, Rebecca Watson's talk and the fall out from Phil Plait's now infamous ' Don't be a Dick' talk at TAM 8 and wondered what people are thinking? Are we rude, snobby, know it alls or is this piece of skeptic fluff which we can safely ignore.


Last edited by H9 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

bedelia wrote:
norbertc wrote:

"How dare they call me a quilter!".



LOL. I'm not only a guilter but I'm also a quitter quilter as I started a quilt and then had to quit!


OT OT OT still: Hello bedelia,
Let me see now, would that make you a quitter quilter, or a quilter quitter, as in a quitter quilter guilter, or a guilter quilter quitter? It does roll off the tongue, much like Skeptical Everlastingly Bystander, or was that Skeptical She Who Must Be Obeyed Bystander (as in Skeptical S.W.M.B.O. Bystander) or was it Galactic?

I don't know bedelia. But I do know that I have never quilted at all. is)

So tell me bedelia, what do you think: Is it better to have quilted and quit, than to have never..... huh-)
oh heck board please excuse me; I really should go get that beer now. drin-)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

DJLawless wrote:
bedelia wrote:
norbertc wrote:

"How dare they call me a quilter!".



LOL. I'm not only a guilter but I'm also a quitter quilter as I started a quilt and then had to quit!


OT OT OT still: Hello bedelia,
Let me see now, would that make you a quitter quilter, or a quilter quitter, as in a quitter quilter guilter, or a guilter quilter quitter? It does roll off the tongue, much like Skeptical Everlastingly Bystander, or was that Skeptical She Who Must Be Obeyed Bystander (as in Skeptical S.W.M.B.O. Bystander) or was it Galactic?

I don't know bedelia. But I do know that I have never quilted at all. is)

So tell me bedelia, what do you think: Is it better to have quilted and quit, than to have never..... huh-)
oh heck board please excuse me; I really should go get that beer now. drin-)


I'm thinking of hosting a guilting bee here in Seattle. The resulting wet blanket will be draped (or festooned, if you prefer), Cristo style, over the Space Needle.

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

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Quote:
Interesting that Girlanda ( not to be confused with Clander) used a photo of Amanda taken by Madison. Also the fundraiser poster was using the same. Any word on Madison's internship and connection with Girlanda? Maybe she is eating truffles that were meant for Amanda at this very moment...

Have anyone seen the book and the cover photo attribution wording?



It is also interesting that the fundraiser coincided with the release of the book, the book that features on its cover the approved head shot photo. Notice that this photo has been enhanced to bring out the blue in the blue eyes; this is especially noticeable in the fundraiser poster which, as I noted a couple of weeks ago, I happened to see in the window of a West Seattle copy shop.


____________________-

Notice they've whitened the skin tone, too.

Now Amanda looks like a porcelain doll!

Image

///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

From an article in People.com :

‘In 2007 she captured global attention as the Hiccup Girl, a 15-year-old who spent nearly six weeks searching for a remedy for her non-stop bout of hiccups – a journey documented by multiple visits to NBC's Today. Now, Jennifer Anne Mee, 19, is making headlines once again, this time for being charged with first-degree murder.
Mee was arrested and charged Sunday, according to jail booking information from the Pinellas County Sherriff's Office.
Arrested with Mee were Laron Raiford, 20, and Lamont Newton, 22, after they were accused of fatally shooting a man with a .38-caliber revolver during an armed robbery attempt in St. Petersburg, Fla., Saturday night, reports CNN.
The victim, Shannon Griffin, 22, received three gunshot wounds to the chest and one gunshot wound to the shoulder. Griffin was pronounced dead at the scene, reports the St. Petersburg Times.
"Jennifer Mee lured the victim to the address ... and Laron Raiford and Lamont Newton robbed him at gunpoint and took miscellaneous items from his person," St. Petersburg Police Sgt. T.A. Skinner said in a statement. "All three suspects admitted to their involvement and were charged with 1st degree felony murder."
Mee's mother, Rachel Robidoux, gave a tearful interview on a Tampa radio show Monday morning, describing her daughter as a "lovable, sweet little girl who wouldn't hurt a fly."
"I don't think she knew what was going to happen because that's not Jennifer," Robidoux said. "She's not out to hurt anyone."

Lets say they used knives instead of a gun. It wasn’t a robbery but a sex prank. And none of them confessed (sometimes it only takes one-the least guilty) and you have the makings of the Meredith Kercher case.

Thanks to TomM for the translation of the Maresca article. He’s always worth reading. The no spin zone.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

DJLawless wrote:

I really should go get that beer now. drin-)


Are we going to have to pull you out of a gutter you guilter?
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:46 pm   Post subject: SADLY..It's...All About "Mee" (again)   

DLW wrote:
From an article in People.com :

‘In 2007 she captured global attention as the Hiccup Girl, a 15-year-old who spent nearly six weeks searching for a remedy for her non-stop bout of hiccups – a journey documented by multiple visits to NBC's Today. Now, Jennifer Anne Mee, 19, is making headlines once again, this time for being charged with first-degree murder.
Mee was arrested and charged Sunday, according to jail booking information from the Pinellas County Sherriff's Office.
Arrested with Mee were Laron Raiford, 20, and Lamont Newton, 22, after they were accused of fatally shooting a man with a .38-caliber revolver during an armed robbery attempt in St. Petersburg, Fla., Saturday night, reports CNN.
The victim, Shannon Griffin, 22, received three gunshot wounds to the chest and one gunshot wound to the shoulder. Griffin was pronounced dead at the scene, reports the St. Petersburg Times.
"Jennifer Mee lured the victim to the address ... and Laron Raiford and Lamont Newton robbed him at gunpoint and took miscellaneous items from his person," St. Petersburg Police Sgt. T.A. Skinner said in a statement. "All three suspects admitted to their involvement and were charged with 1st degree felony murder."
Mee's mother, Rachel Robidoux, gave a tearful interview on a Tampa radio show Monday morning, describing her daughter as a "lovable, sweet little girl who wouldn't hurt a fly."
"I don't think she knew what was going to happen because that's not Jennifer," Robidoux said. "She's not out to hurt anyone."

Lets say they used knives instead of a gun. It wasn’t a robbery but a sex prank. And none of them confessed (sometimes it only takes one-the least guilty) and you have the makings of the Meredith Kercher case.



Oh, God--this is deadly serious, tragic and horrifying.

And in life, we know that the truth is often stranger than fiction.

Here we have another NARCISSISTIC killer ("capturing global attention") but one who is actually named MEE?

It's deja`-vu all over again with that too familiar narcissistic refrain:
"It's all about MEE... but, enough about mee, what do you think about MEE. "
n-((
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

bedelia wrote:
norbertc wrote:

"How dare they call me a quilter!".



LOL. I'm not only a guilter but I'm also a quitter quilter as I started a quilt and then had to quit!


I think I see. Not one to quibble, I guess you may be quite the quilting quitter, but are not a quiescent guilter. Well, I'm not even a quixotic quilter, but am proud to be a guilter.


Last edited by norbertc on Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

fine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Quote:
Interesting that Girlanda ( not to be confused with Clander) used a photo of Amanda taken by Madison. Also the fundraiser poster was using the same. Any word on Madison's internship and connection with Girlanda? Maybe she is eating truffles that were meant for Amanda at this very moment...

Have anyone seen the book and the cover photo attribution wording?



It is also interesting that the fundraiser coincided with the release of the book, the book that features on its cover the approved head shot photo. Notice that this photo has been enhanced to bring out the blue in the blue eyes; this is especially noticeable in the fundraiser poster which, as I noted a couple of weeks ago, I happened to see in the window of a West Seattle copy shop.


____________________-

Notice they've whitened the skin tone, too.

Now Amanda looks like a porcelain doll!

(PICTURE)

///



It just looks overexposed to me.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:14 pm   Post subject: QUOTES 4 QUILTERS?   

DJLawless wrote:
oh heck board please excuse me; I really should go get that beer now. drin-)


Your understandable and pressing need to imbibe suddenly reminded of a WC Fields quote:
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once--she drove me to drink--'tis the one thing I'm indebted to her for."


NO BLONDE JOKES, PLEASE! pro-) --unless they're about AK, often described as a "blonde." NOW THAT'S REALLY A JOKE!!

But more relevant to this case:

This quote is for that Randy Offensive Aging Rocco (ROAR!!!!!!!!!!):

"I do not spoil women...I don't send them flowers and gifts...I am saving these gestures until I am an unpleasant old man who must resort to bribery to win a woman's synthetic affections. -)

Mua-)

"SYNTHETIC AFFECTIONS: The Real Amanda Knox Story." Sound like a good book title?
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stint7 wrote:
If the Internet name 'michellesings' means anything to anyone else, you may be interested in this ever so deep, meaningful, informative gem of wisdom she just posted on another board
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*"there is such a thing as healthy *skeptism.
There is so much overwhelming reason for this "healthy skeptism" that it's freakish."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the type of reasoning that caused a 25 year FBI veteran to go off on a completely ill advised charlatan carnival barker like crusade (charade), that eventually cost him his latest job, as well as directly causing self described family financial hardships, I stand in awe of 'michellesings's influence if not her reasoning.

PS: *
Capitalization of sentence start and spelling of skeptism (sp) probably intentional to show affinity with Amanda's style of honors student writing skills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188989&page=8


I seem to recall a certain personal blog with a couple of entries focused mainly on Amanda, Amanda and Amanda, plus a cryptic story about Disney tickets and a cry for help in overcoming an addiction to the internet and posting.


Michelle Moore's stupidity knows no bounds. She's claiming on her Twitter site that Knox and Sollecito were framed:

"Amanda Knox and Rafaelle were completely framed, and I'm no conspiracy theorist!"

Here are some more of her vacuous comments:

"Barbie Nadeau is tabloid"

"Tomorrow is the day when my husband is most likely gets fired for having integrity. I like him."

"Wants to know why so many people outside the US hate us, yet it's the country that the MOST people try to get in... :("

"to clarify what upsets me- "Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero"!"

"really upset about this! Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero"

"We need to get a high profile journalist to Italy that won't be put in jail and the extradited. I'm tired of Italy only hearing lies"

http://twitter.com/michellesings
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Clander wrote:
DLW wrote:
‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047


On page 3 of the interview, Maresca calls Bremner (wrong spelling in the article) an "avvocatuccia". A small-time lawyer (but I do not think that "small-time lawyer" is as offensive as "avvocatuccia").
Is this the first time that Maresca makes an offensive remark about Bremner?

Uffa! I missed the fact that there are four pages. I rendered "avvocatuccia". as "hack." Anyway, here is a quick and dirty paraphrase of the entire article:

“They try to influence the Court, but they risk a boomerang effect.”
Francesco Paolo Maresca, the Kercher family’s lawyer, spoke to the Corriere on the eve of the new proceeding.

by LEONARDO N. MOLINELLI

TORONTO - "Meredith’s family has taught the world the dignity of silence." With these words, lawyer Francesco Poalo Maresca, lawyer of Meredith Kercher’s family, traces the outlines of a proceeding that went beyond the usual standard legal battles, coming from the courtroom to land on TV and the media, as well. Lawyer Maresca, have there been changes [in strategy] in the period between the decision at first trial and the appeal?

"No, the defenders have asked to renew, before the Court of Appeal, the entire scientific investigative activity following the defense’s line of the first trial in which they have contested all the investigations."

The contentions were taken apart in the ruling, though.

"Yes, so much so that the ruling of first trial is based on these laboratory tests, is deemed fully reliable because they were made in the presence of the parties without anyone objecting."

So what is the objective of the defense?

"They request special review of all the basic reports: the bra hook where the DNA of Sollecito was, the bath mat where the footprint of Sollecito was. They aim to demonstrate their total non-involvement and blame everything on Rudy Guede.

Rudy Guede as the only murderer?

"They say they were at Sollecito's house after smoking hashish, making love and waking in the morning."

How would they [DNA traces] end up at the crime scene?

"They would have been there just by coincidence, as against the results of the investigation. They say that the DNA on the bra is not Sollecito’s, and it could have come from other parts of the house, the footprint on the bath mat is not his (Sollecito’s) that the DNA on the knife is not that of Knox and so forth. "

What was established in the first trial?

"The dynamics would have been an attempt to approach sex gone bad, with a series of knife wounds progressive and growing, from intimidation and threats, and three more with much more serious injuries, one fatal, on the neck. We believe, and the sentence takes note of the fact, that this should not be seen as a premeditated crime, but an impulse. They probably tried to play a sex game, she (Meredith, ed) refused, they threatened, they wounded her, the blood came out, they lost their heads. She (Amanda, ed) knew that if they called the ambulance or the police, they would have to justify why they had done.

Almost a fit.

"There is no planning, no premeditation. We must consider their situation, fear of being discovered, fear of noises. She screamled like a beast in pain, the simulation of a robbery to mislead the investigation. "

In North America, they attack the Italian judicial system, accusing it of plotting against Amanda. What impression does this make on the proceeding?

"The investigations have been done very well, the scientific investigators and the police did good work. There was one flaw, it is accepted, this hook that was found after 40 days. But it has been shown that it could not be contaminated by a whole series of technical assessments. You have to think that 368 specimens were collected and especially, if I'm not mistaken, we had a huge commitment because we have done the trial in about a year (January to December 2009, note) that was a fast processing time for Italians. Rudy Guede was tried in the fast track to less than a year after the fact and the others two in two years, but with a trial which involved 170 witnesses and expert witnesses. "

A “model” proceeding for an Italian time table that came to be accused of negligence.

"The accusations came because they have totally different criteria and jurors and courts that are dedicated to a single process: start and stop that process even for 3-4 months at a time and do nothing. In our system, the Court of Assizes makes the process on merit and at the same time the courts make it another twenty, thirty or forty. "

Can systemic difference explain the charges?

"They were amazed because there was not a hearing every day. We have emphasized that the hearings on Friday, Saturday and Monday of every week in Italy is a crazy commitment. We have all had threats to family life because we have not seen ...».

The line of the defense of this case is reminiscent of the Cogne case, the victim ignored by the media and accused, on the other hand, plays a starring role?

"As a theory of interpretation I would say that is correct and I must say that the family of Meredith has taught the elegance of silence throughout the world. Because while the families of Knox and Sollecito organized foundations, associations, sought money, did interviews, asked for political support, they kept quiet in spite of offers, including economic, of all types. They saw the process in three or four most important moments and that's it. "

It's amazing the number of online sites that deal with the case.

"The process has had a huge resonance. We ended the hearings very late in the evening and seemed to leave the stage. A huge part of what followed was almost like a sports bar. "

Why did we reach this point?

"Because they are taken over by this craziness, as is happening now in the case of Avetrana. Journalists from around the world, a British victim, an accused American girl, an accused Englishman, an Ivorian. The English middle class victim, an Italian from Puglia with local support of a certain type, the death by murder, sexual and violent. The story of two lovers, her strong, and him dominated. The last days of hearings with the verdict there were 250 journalists from around the world. "

Kercher's family lives with this pressure?

"We have always been in constant contact and they have followed the process with the typical English approach: with emotion and strong feeling, a bit miffed about all this hoopla. I have insisted many times, because in some broadcasts because there were always the others and never us, and they succeeded only after jumping through hoops to make them participate by satellite on Porta a Porta and all. "

Why this interest in Amanda Knox?

"Surely it has set in motion friendships and a sort of knowledge. There was a movement from the beginning, social media, political, local and huge then, because I do not know the basis on which some all over the U.S. have talked about this case. The first summer after we had finished, Mr. Tacopina (one of the defenders of Michael Jackson, ed) who came to see the file without understanding it at all. Then another former FBI agent came and then that hack Bremner ['avvocatuccia "Brennan (sic)] who gossiped about everything and more. They shot off their mouths. American judges have written to Italian colleagues to say that this girl was good, beautiful and good. "

If they do not understand why.

"The original source did not know to tell them. I can think there was something that was self-enforcing and then a little bit of strong nationalism, a little for their long detention pending a final ruling has led to this. "

Do you think all these pressures will affect the appeals process?

"No, because the Court of Assizes has done an excellent job, absolutely perfect. They definitely try to influence, then I believe it has a boomerang effect because they make themselves unpleasant and they burn all approval.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stint7 wrote:
If the Internet name 'michellesings' means anything to anyone else, you may be interested in this ever so deep, meaningful, informative gem of wisdom she just posted on another board
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*"there is such a thing as healthy *skeptism.
There is so much overwhelming reason for this "healthy skeptism" that it's freakish."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the type of reasoning that caused a 25 year FBI veteran to go off on a completely ill advised charlatan carnival barker like crusade (charade), that eventually cost him his latest job, as well as directly causing self described family financial hardships, I stand in awe of 'michellesings's influence if not her reasoning.

PS: *
Capitalization of sentence start and spelling of skeptism (sp) probably intentional to show affinity with Amanda's style of honors student writing skills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188989&page=8


I seem to recall a certain personal blog with a couple of entries focused mainly on Amanda, Amanda and Amanda, plus a cryptic story about Disney tickets and a cry for help in overcoming an addiction to the internet and posting.


Michelle Moore's stupidity knows no bounds. She's claiming on her Twitter site that Knox and Sollecito were framed:

"Amanda Knox and Rafaelle were completely framed, and I'm no conspiracy theorist!"

Here are some more of her vacuous comments:

"Barbie Nadeau is tabloid"

"Tomorrow is the day when my husband is most likely gets fired for having integrity. I like him."

"Wants to know why so many people outside the US hate us, yet it's the country that the MOST people try to get in... :("

"to clarify what upsets me- "Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero"!"

"really upset about this! Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero"

"We need to get a high profile journalist to Italy that won't be put in jail and the extradited. I'm tired of Italy only hearing lies"

http://twitter.com/michellesings


She sounds full of Christian charity....what a nice lady. I wish I believed in God. It would make me a better person.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

It's not been furry enough round here recently.

Random Gorilla Love...just because (we're not JREF!!! YAY!!!)


_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
namwera51 wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
From the JREF:

(((((As soon as you agree (which he does) that the print on the bathmat is from a bare foot, then you have trouble when reconciling that to the high probability that Guede wore shoes the entire time he was in the cottage. After all, the groupies themselves have gone to great lengths to argue that it was Guede's shoeprint and not Sollecito's inside Meredith's room behind a locked door.

So whose bare "generic adult male" footprint in Meredith's blood is that in the small bathroom?

If it is Guede's then how did he get blood on his bare feet when it is provably true that he wore shoes during the execution of the crime? This is not some idle detail requiring no further explanation than wild-eyed speculation. It's a serious question that requires--drum roll, please--evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.)))))


I think that this is a critical point! there is a shod bloody footprint and a bare one. Occam's razor would argue this is plain evidence of multiple aggressors.



From my recent sojourn on JREF, the best they've come up with (and please don't drink any coffee while reading this or you may need a new keyboard and monitor) is as follows:

Rudy walks into the bathroom in his shoes to wash his trousers down. He wants to keep his trousers ON but he takes his shoes OFF. He runs his trouser leg errr leg under the bidet taps which causes bloody water to run down his foot which then evenly coat the underside of his foot in uniformity with a blood water mix.

If the mat is where you see it in the pictures, he then exhibits contortionistic skills which could have seen him gainfully employed in a circus and manages, somehow, to swivel his right foot back with a more-than 90 degree twist (see pic - bidet is at bottom of pic) so that it ends up where you see it. Since this clearly would have broken his fucking knee (scuse me) we can deduce, Watson, that in fact the bathmat must have not been in the position you see it now (oh no - that would be foolish), with the footprint looking utterly misleadingly like it is heading straight into the shower cubicle, but in fact the mat must have been spun 90 degrees around and that in stepping back from the bidet to the very back edge of the mat, Rudy was merely doing some calf stretches as well as tidying up his murder. Since he is capable of wielding two knives at once while restraining both someone's arms and scaling up 15 foot sheer walls leaving no trace of the climb nor disturb any glass, this is exactly the sort of thing we should expect of him.

Anita then incorporates a 90 degree kickflip into her bathmat scooting or fancies a workout so shuffles on it in a width-ways rather than length-ways fashion but suffers amnesia about this after the fact and places it back in the position we all know so well because she is a tidy person. Although, not to the extent that she has a tidy-up, clearly.

See? Simples. Silly guilters.


They ought to publish these "theories". Actually, if Knox is looking for any partners in her creative writing career, there's a whole basket full of them with the most outlandish plot devices possible.

They must have had to build a special prison with a special cell for Guede (or perhaps all Ivorians who play basketball) to account for all his contortionist moves. Perhaps something like the big cube they built in one of the X-Men movies for the bad guy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

TomM wrote:
Clander wrote:
DLW wrote:
‘Francesco Paolo Maresca, advocate family Kercher, speaks to the Courier on the eve of the new process.'

‘The family of Meredith has taught the world the dignity of silence '.

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=103047


On page 3 of the interview, Maresca calls Bremner (wrong spelling in the article) an "avvocatuccia". A small-time lawyer (but I do not think that "small-time lawyer" is as offensive as "avvocatuccia").
Is this the first time that Maresca makes an offensive remark about Bremner?

Uffa! I missed the fact that there are four pages. I rendered "avvocatuccia". as "hack." Anyway, here is a quick and dirty paraphrase of the entire article:

“They try to influence the Court, but they risk a boomerang effect.”
Francesco Paolo Maresca, the Kercher family’s lawyer, spoke to the Corriere on the eve of the new proceeding.

by LEONARDO N. MOLINELLI

TORONTO - "Meredith’s family has taught the world the dignity of silence." With these words, lawyer Francesco Poalo Maresca, lawyer of Meredith Kercher’s family, traces the outlines of a proceeding that went beyond the usual standard legal battles, coming from the courtroom to land on TV and the media, as well. Lawyer Maresca, have there been changes [in strategy] in the period between the decision at first trial and the appeal?

"No, the defenders have asked to renew, before the Court of Appeal, the entire scientific investigative activity following the defense’s line of the first trial in which they have contested all the investigations."

The contentions were taken apart in the ruling, though.

"Yes, so much so that the ruling of first trial is based on these laboratory tests, is deemed fully reliable because they were made in the presence of the parties without anyone objecting."

So what is the objective of the defense?

"They request special review of all the basic reports: the bra hook where the DNA of Sollecito was, the bath mat where the footprint of Sollecito was. They aim to demonstrate their total non-involvement and blame everything on Rudy Guede.

Rudy Guede as the only murderer?

"They say they were at Sollecito's house after smoking hashish, making love and waking in the morning."

How would they [DNA traces] end up at the crime scene?

"They would have been there just by coincidence, as against the results of the investigation. They say that the DNA on the bra is not Sollecito’s, and it could have come from other parts of the house, the footprint on the bath mat is not his (Sollecito’s) that the DNA on the knife is not that of Knox and so forth. "

What was established in the first trial?

"The dynamics would have been an attempt to approach sex gone bad, with a series of knife wounds progressive and growing, from intimidation and threats, and three more with much more serious injuries, one fatal, on the neck. We believe, and the sentence takes note of the fact, that this should not be seen as a premeditated crime, but an impulse. They probably tried to play a sex game, she (Meredith, ed) refused, they threatened, they wounded her, the blood came out, they lost their heads. She (Amanda, ed) knew that if they called the ambulance or the police, they would have to justify why they had done.

Almost a fit.

"There is no planning, no premeditation. We must consider their situation, fear of being discovered, fear of noises. She screamled like a beast in pain, the simulation of a robbery to mislead the investigation. "

In North America, they attack the Italian judicial system, accusing it of plotting against Amanda. What impression does this make on the proceeding?

"The investigations have been done very well, the scientific investigators and the police did good work. There was one flaw, it is accepted, this hook that was found after 40 days. But it has been shown that it could not be contaminated by a whole series of technical assessments. You have to think that 368 specimens were collected and especially, if I'm not mistaken, we had a huge commitment because we have done the trial in about a year (January to December 2009, note) that was a fast processing time for Italians. Rudy Guede was tried in the fast track to less than a year after the fact and the others two in two years, but with a trial which involved 170 witnesses and expert witnesses. "

A “model” proceeding for an Italian time table that came to be accused of negligence.

"The accusations came because they have totally different criteria and jurors and courts that are dedicated to a single process: start and stop that process even for 3-4 months at a time and do nothing. In our system, the Court of Assizes makes the process on merit and at the same time the courts make it another twenty, thirty or forty. "

Can systemic difference explain the charges?

"They were amazed because there was not a hearing every day. We have emphasized that the hearings on Friday, Saturday and Monday of every week in Italy is a crazy commitment. We have all had threats to family life because we have not seen ...».

The line of the defense of this case is reminiscent of the Cogne case, the victim ignored by the media and accused, on the other hand, plays a starring role?

"As a theory of interpretation I would say that is correct and I must say that the family of Meredith has taught the elegance of silence throughout the world. Because while the families of Knox and Sollecito organized foundations, associations, sought money, did interviews, asked for political support, they kept quiet in spite of offers, including economic, of all types. They saw the process in three or four most important moments and that's it. "

It's amazing the number of online sites that deal with the case.

"The process has had a huge resonance. We ended the hearings very late in the evening and seemed to leave the stage. A huge part of what followed was almost like a sports bar. "

Why did we reach this point?

"Because they are taken over by this craziness, as is happening now in the case of Avetrana. Journalists from around the world, a British victim, an accused American girl, an accused Englishman, an Ivorian. The English middle class victim, an Italian from Puglia with local support of a certain type, the death by murder, sexual and violent. The story of two lovers, her strong, and him dominated. The last days of hearings with the verdict there were 250 journalists from around the world. "

Kercher's family lives with this pressure?

"We have always been in constant contact and they have followed the process with the typical English approach: with emotion and strong feeling, a bit miffed about all this hoopla. I have insisted many times, because in some broadcasts because there were always the others and never us, and they succeeded only after jumping through hoops to make them participate by satellite on Porta a Porta and all. "

Why this interest in Amanda Knox?

"Surely it has set in motion friendships and a sort of knowledge. There was a movement from the beginning, social media, political, local and huge then, because I do not know the basis on which some all over the U.S. have talked about this case. The first summer after we had finished, Mr. Tacopina (one of the defenders of Michael Jackson, ed) who came to see the file without understanding it at all. Then another former FBI agent came and then that hack Bremner ['avvocatuccia "Brennan (sic)] who gossiped about everything and more. They shot off their mouths. American judges have written to Italian colleagues to say that this girl was good, beautiful and good. "

If they do not understand why.

"The original source did not know to tell them. I can think there was something that was self-enforcing and then a little bit of strong nationalism, a little for their long detention pending a final ruling has led to this. "

Do you think all these pressures will affect the appeals process?

"No, because the Court of Assizes has done an excellent job, absolutely perfect. They definitely try to influence, then I believe it has a boomerang effect because they make themselves unpleasant and they burn all approval.

Tom, excellent summary translation of an excellent interview by Maresca!

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Sarah Scazzi's case news: testing of specimens have been performed today in Rome at the presence of Sabrina and Michele Misseri's defense counsel/experts. They have chosen to be present differently from Knox and Sollecito's counsel at the time-.Either Sabrina's defense team is "incompetent" for not attending the testing procedure, as not being there enables defense to scream incompetence without supplying detailed justifications, or they truly believe in their client's innocence.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I seem to recall a certain personal blog with a couple of entries focused mainly on Amanda, Amanda and Amanda, plus a cryptic story about Disney tickets and a cry for help in overcoming an addiction to the internet and posting.


Actually, although I also recall that trite almost childish "lets all raise our hands and sing Kum Ba Yah" piece of juvenile like literary embarrassment from Michelle Celestial Easterly Moore, AKA 'michellesings'.... it seems to have now also disappeared?

Or more accurately, has it been redacted, removed, deleted, erased, and/or expunged, like so many of the other simpleton stuff on MySpace, Facebook, etcccc from Manders herself, Chris and the myriad of other handlers, 'hangers on', and other on again off again groupies of lesser notoriety ??.

Anyone know the present latest fervent cause supported 'forever' by Manders's former
(short time) mail forwarder; kelly13 ?
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
stint7 wrote:
If the Internet name 'michellesings' means anything to anyone else, you may be interested in this ever so deep, meaningful, informative gem of wisdom she just posted on another board
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*"there is such a thing as healthy *skeptism.
There is so much overwhelming reason for this "healthy skeptism" that it's freakish."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the type of reasoning that caused a 25 year FBI veteran to go off on a completely ill advised charlatan carnival barker like crusade (charade), that eventually cost him his latest job, as well as directly causing self described family financial hardships, I stand in awe of 'michellesings's influence if not her reasoning.

PS: *
Capitalization of sentence start and spelling of skeptism (sp) probably intentional to show affinity with Amanda's style of honors student writing skills.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188989&page=8

TRypical uneducated, red-nick rant.Pathetic

I seem to recall a certain personal blog with a couple of entries focused mainly on Amanda, Amanda and Amanda, plus a cryptic story about Disney tickets and a cry for help in overcoming an addiction to the internet and posting.


Michelle Moore's stupidity knows no bounds. She's claiming on her Twitter site that Knox and Sollecito were framed:

"Amanda Knox and Rafaelle were completely framed, and I'm no conspiracy theorist!"

Here are some more of her vacuous comments:

"Barbie Nadeau is tabloid"

"Tomorrow is the day when my husband is most likely gets fired for having integrity. I like him."

"Wants to know why so many people outside the US hate us, yet it's the country that the MOST people try to get in... :("

"to clarify what upsets me- "Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero"!"

"really upset about this! Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero"

"We need to get a high profile journalist to Italy that won't be put in jail and the extradited. I'm tired of Italy only hearing lies"

http://twitter.com/michellesings


She sounds full of Christian charity....what a nice lady. I wish I believed in God. It would make me a better person.

Typical uneducated redneck ramblings. Pathetic.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Good afternoon to everyone.

By way of yet another introduction I'm back on this board after a third self-imposed lay-off during the last year. I've suffered login travails based on incompetence on my part and also email address changes, but I hope I won't insult anyone with some simple questions. I have read the sentencing report, a tragic labour of love by gracious, talented individuals and I've followed the board as a lurker for the last few months.

Some Alibi wrote extensively about the 'buggers' that the defence has to deal with in (alibis, cellphone records, computer records, admissable statements etc, in order to start to change opinion within the court as to the innocence or otherwise of the lovely couple. The defence seems to be ready to attack the forensic evidence despite the fact that they failed the first time around with the finest array of talent at their disposal. Am I imaging the the gulf between the two sides i that vast and the defence is barking up the wrong tree or have I missed something ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

sorry, some of the typing was awful.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Hi All, I meant to post this article before I went away and just realised I didn't. Is an opinion share by many in Italy regarding Girlanda's shennanigans.
Enjoy! :lol:

Here it goes:

THE HON. ITALO-AMERICAN FAN OF AMANDA KNOX.

An Ansa agency some days ago, in the full horror of the death of young Sarah Scazzi, still present us again in rose-coloured the heroin Amanda Knox; this time directly sponsored by one of our members of parliament who has even dedicated a book to her that - unbelievable but true - will be presented with great pomp on the 26 of this month at the House of Representatives! They are hopelessly disappointing, we veterans to the presentation preview of the book “STUPRO? PROCESSI PERVERSI” by the criminologist Vincenzo Mastronardi, as part of our activities to support the association Prisoners of Silence; in particular for the case of our fellow citizen Carlo Parlanti, innocent prisoner held at Avenal prison in Ventura County, California. We demand to know if deputy Girlanda, president also of the association Italy-USA, has ever heard of Carlo Parlanti... if by no other way, at least by reading the Italian press, or perhaps, because of our national interests, in some political exchanges at the Farnesina [Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs] whose minister Frattini and his predecessors have dossiers and folders of our national interests devoted to our detainees held abroad.

At the time of writing this, Katia Anedda, president of the well known Prisoners of Silence association is traveling at her own expense to Avenal, to bring the necessary support to Parlanti and to deal with the immeasurable judicial bureaucracy in Ventura County, therefore she will not be able to attend on the 26 to this huge “Italiota” crap ((Jools: Italiota is merging the words Italian and idiota)) at the Chamber of Deputies.

The timing of the Appeal for Amanda Knox is rapidly approaching and her road to freedom is paved with pamper gossip and powerful political support in Italy and the USA; however, the hell of OUR detainees abroad -- especially those who are innocent -- is artfully ignored since is not instrumental for the yuppitarian xenophilia of many of our rampant politicians and news agencies of new generation… or because - as stated dejectedly by Katia - "Is far easier to care for a killer who makes sweet little eyes, who’s treated with kid gloves in our prisons, rather than an Italian INNOCENT man who is going through HELL in America,” adding, desperately, the plead: "MY SELF ON OCTOBER 26, I WILL BE IN THE U.S. unfortunately. I’LL PROPOSE THAT THERE IS A BIG TURNOUT OF PEOPLE AT THIS PRESENTATION TO ASK THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT IF HE IS AWARE OF THE PARLANTI CASE AND - IF SO - IF HE IS NOT ASHAME TO BRING TO PUBLIC ATTENTION THE CASE OF A SURELY PERJURER FOREIGN WOMAN RATHER THAN AN INNOCENT FELLOW CITIZEN.”

Of course, hon. Girlanda, everyone is free to write whatever books they want but the insult is to present THIS your book in the Chamber since it goes against the State. By supporting in such manner the cause of Amanda, Girlanda puts in doubt the efficiency of our Judicial system and the Laws of the same State that he represents, the same Parliament in which he forms part of it and which he LEGISLATES also through his votes in the Chamber: the application of ITALIAN Justice!

It astonish me greatly that it was allowed to the hon. member of the PDL [People of Freedom-party] to present his book in Parliament... even if, besides, the inconsistency of having in Government the reactionary anti-Italian Vendeans of Padania speaks volumes…
Accustomed as we are – since the Prodi’s L'Unione [The Union] in the previous to last government, to see them actually coming out to the street, some times, the Government against itself... I think that 150 years of Italian unification, besides celebrations and feasts, commemorations and rhetoric, have served very little to create a national conscience!

While, Knox can count on the powerful help of a whole American continent; our fellow citizens who are detained abroad do not find support not even in their own country! An even bigger insult, please allow me, is that the official web site of our "public servant" - as Grillo would addressed him - Rocco Girlanda, in the section ITALY-USA foundation, waves only an American flag (must be that the tri-colour was knock-off by the conspiracy smell of the “leghisti’ ((Jools: Northen-League members)) covering up a public insult by protesters of Terzigno, after those of the sacred Po?).

The disgust par excellence, is that the honorable mister does not even spend a euro to present a preview of his literary masterpiece with big advertising return, but helps himself to the authoritative parliamentary structure that, honestly it does not seem quite in line with the content of the literary work presented, as just mentioned, since the little mermaid Knox was judged by the LAWS passed by this Parliament and convicted by the magistrates and the entire judicial system of this State, even if it is widely ridiculed and slapped around by the Yankees who are willing to do anything to get back home one of their own citizen (and in this, one must recognize that Americans are far superior to us "Italioti" in the all-out defense of one of their national citizens!). The news of Amanda's book has already provoked a hornet's nest, the book on Knox should not even be printed, complains someone responsible of a non-profit organization. It 's simply shameful that a promoter of the ‘made in Italy’ in terms of culture in the U.S. strives for these things. It should be taken as a slap in the face, in the meantime, our "news agencies" whom are always keeping the spotlights on Knox as if she was the princess “Cartolina” ["Postcard" princess] of Monaco, the star of a reality-show, starting from describing her new look, her amorous flirts with Raffaele Sollecito (on him there is NEVER a line written on; unfortunately he is Italian!), the “sad” looks the impaled saint on the cross [meaning Knox] gives him in court, the forecast of Agony Aunt letters on the future of this amorous flirt, the all out gossip in which no one realized that they have treacherously ERASED the poor victim Meredith Kercher, like is also happening to the young girl Sarah Scazzi from Avetrana... The substantial difference is that in spite of the Yankees being a relatively young nation with a mixture of vulgar Europeans fugitives that arrived as pioneers on the lands of the Native Americans, contrary to WE that from our shores spread around Civilization, Democracy and the Law everywhere in Europe and Beyond, THEY ARE A COUNTRY; WE ARE REDUCED TO A MERE POPULATION OF IMBECILES!

On the news note by ANSA, I have read the most banal statements by the "poor Amanda" trumpeted as if it were the cultural heavy weight of MY PRISONS by Silvio Pellico! Mind-blowing! ... At some point, maybe was a Freudian slip by this ignorant and "sexual mystic" liar, asks VERBATIM "GITF ME MY FREEDOM!” which makes for a lot to think about: usually an innocent person says RETURN TO ME the Freedom ... or, am I wrong?

The basic problem is to review the contents of our collaboration agreements with the U.S., whether we are allies, as history teaches us, or if we are just A COLONY (the largest aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean!). The North Atlantic Treaty, re-reading it, does not provide absolute European and Italiota collaboration in the “exporting of Democracy” in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and so on... Yet the Yankees appraised and flatter us only when we provide them cannon fodder! As for the rest, in Knox’s case was even mobilized the U.S. Senate, Ophra Winters, [sic] the most famous and powerful anchor-woman ... at the right time of the appeal process there will be distributing for Amanda on international screens a Hollywoodian movie about “heroine” Amanda VICTIM of our justice system...

Why do the italionzoli greedy politicians dribble-crawl at the feet of the yankees? Do you know, really, that those responsible for the Cermis massacre have made it to a great military career? Did you know that NOTHING has been done against the murderer of our Nicola Calipari? You do know, true, that the only detainee who was released from an American prison was the TERRORIST BARALDINI? Meditate, Gleba! Like any respectable historical novel (Manzoni docet) every human story unfolds on the horizon of well-defined geo-political reality!

Speaking about the yankees is a clear reference to the pettiness and the servility of our leaders who would sell their mother at the bilderberg hesco imperialist market! Highlighting their sluggishness it lines up the consistency of the U.S. to defend all their citizens, blindly! ... This is the litmus test of the fact that our politicians do not have a minimum of shame and national pride!

Dear Italians, if you want to shudder, before you FINALLY vote think about the Cause of our countrymen forgotten abroad and enjoy this enlightening exchange between our Dr Agnesina Pozzi (an expert medical consultant in Parlanti’s case, abundantly cited with honors in the book of the criminologist Mastronardi) and the secretary’s office of hon. Girlanda. Judge for yourselves!

**POZZI WROTE: I had a look at the web site of the Italian-USA foundation and I believe that one shouldn’t suck up to powerful friends putting Italy in second place, which in the foundation web site is not even “cited” with its own flag, but what do I know… stars on the white and green stripes… may just be right to recall the Italian colors!! The serious fact is that it is publicizing the book on the poor ”victim of Italian justice” Amanda Knox while shamefully keeping silent about the ITALIAN victims of American justice, as for example Carlo Parlanti, Chico Forti and many others unknown and abandoned in maximum security prisons. For the Parlanti case, there is move by the famous criminologist, Professor Mastronardi, who is written a book about this case of American wronged justice. STUPRO? PROCESSI PERVERSI (Pub. Armando Editore) but on the foundation web site NOT A HINT! It is shameful! Amanda Knox is treated very well, is under the spotlights; the press does not longer feature her case in the current events column… and our INNOCENT citizens, scattered in maximum security prisons… where are they? At least in ITALY you should want to remember them and mention them and maybe… point out to your “friends” that they’re many cases in America that are the product of wronged justice, omissions, moral corruption, fraudulent evidence, etc, etc?

If this foundation is all about arse-licking… best wishes to you. You will not see me among your supporters.
Cordially.
Dott. Agnesina Pozzi**

**THE REPLY From: info@italiausa.org
To: Pozzi. Agnese@libero.it

We thank you for your message, but unfortunately we cannot follow up messages of persons with evident mental and behavioral problems for which allows us to suggest a psychotherapy course at a specialize facility.

Thank you for contacting the Italy-USA Foundation.**

Let’s leave Agnesina Pozzi conclude with her counter reply to the “honorable secretary’s office”, this page denounces. TO YOUR SELF THE OPINION AND PROBABLY A MORE APPROPRIATE ACTION OF PROTEST:

**Evidently the problems of psychopathology do not apply only to the one who writes to you… wherefore every one sees what it knows; therefore I return the invitation to turn to a specialist… but a real good one. It does not seem normal in an Italy-USA foundation to omit Italy from the logo... and this says a lot about the broadly set-up of your exchange "policies" that should be equivalent, guaranteeing EQUAL DIGNITY to our Nation and its problems. But I see you close your eyes to a problem (obvious to everyone who visits your site in a way disenchanted, DISINTERESTED and free) and needing to be INCLINED at all cost you requesting other than a psychiatrist (and may I add a gastroenterologist), and another specialist: a Proctologist!
Enjoy yourselves with this your very own expressions, truly, politically incorrect!
Not at all cordially.
Dott. Agnesina Pozzi (medical doctor)**

http://blog.libero.it/lavocedimegaride/9421772.html
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:

Anyone know the present latest fervent cause supported 'forever' by Manders's former
(short time) mail forwarder; kelly13 ?



They still keep his letter of support on the website:

http://www.amandadefensefund.org/Family ... _UGND.html
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Jools wrote:
Hi All, I meant to post this article before I went away and just realised I didn't. Is an opinion share by many in Italy regarding Girlanda's shennanigans.
Enjoy! :lol:

Here it goes:

THE HON. ITALO-AMERICAN FAN OF AMANDA KNOX.

An Ansa agency some days ago, in the full horror of the death of young Sarah Scazzi, still present us again in rose-coloured the heroin Amanda Knox; this time directly sponsored by one of our members of parliament who has even dedicated a book to her that - unbelievable but true - will be presented with great pomp on the 26 of this month at the House of Representatives! They are hopelessly disappointing, we veterans to the presentation preview of the book “STUPRO? PROCESSI PERVERSI” by the criminologist Vincenzo Mastronardi, as part of our activities to support the association Prisoners of Silence; in particular for the case of our fellow citizen Carlo Parlanti, innocent prisoner held at Avenal prison in Ventura County, California. We demand to know if deputy Girlanda, president also of the association Italy-USA, has ever heard of Carlo Parlanti... if by no other way, at least by reading the Italian press, or perhaps, because of our national interests, in some political exchanges at the Farnesina [Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs] whose minister Frattini and his predecessors have dossiers and folders of our national interests devoted to our detainees held abroad.

At the time of writing this, Katia Anedda, president of the well known Prisoners of Silence association is traveling at her own expense to Avenal, to bring the necessary support to Parlanti and to deal with the immeasurable judicial bureaucracy in Ventura County, therefore she will not be able to attend on the 26 to this huge “Italiota” crap ((Jools: Italiota is merging the words Italian and idiota)) at the Chamber of Deputies.

The timing of the Appeal for Amanda Knox is rapidly approaching and her road to freedom is paved with pamper gossip and powerful political support in Italy and the USA; however, the hell of OUR detainees abroad -- especially those who are innocent -- is artfully ignored since is not instrumental for the yuppitarian xenophilia of many of our rampant politicians and news agencies of new generation… or because - as stated dejectedly by Katia - "Is far easier to care for a killer who makes sweet little eyes, who’s treated with kid gloves in our prisons, rather than an Italian INNOCENT man who is going through HELL in America,” adding, desperately, the plead: "MY SELF ON OCTOBER 26, I WILL BE IN THE U.S. unfortunately. I’LL PROPOSE THAT THERE IS A BIG TURNOUT OF PEOPLE AT THIS PRESENTATION TO ASK THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT IF HE IS AWARE OF THE PARLANTI CASE AND - IF SO - IF HE IS NOT ASHAME TO BRING TO PUBLIC ATTENTION THE CASE OF A SURELY PERJURER FOREIGN WOMAN RATHER THAN AN INNOCENT FELLOW CITIZEN.”

Of course, hon. Girlanda, everyone is free to write whatever books they want but the insult is to present THIS your book in the Chamber since it goes against the State. By supporting in such manner the cause of Amanda, Girlanda puts in doubt the efficiency of our Judicial system and the Laws of the same State that he represents, the same Parliament in which he forms part of it and which he LEGISLATES also through his votes in the Chamber: the application of ITALIAN Justice!

It astonish me greatly that it was allowed to the hon. member of the PDL [People of Freedom-party] to present his book in Parliament... even if, besides, the inconsistency of having in Government the reactionary anti-Italian Vendeans of Padania speaks volumes…
Accustomed as we are – since the Prodi’s L'Unione [The Union] in the previous to last government, to see them actually coming out to the street, some times, the Government against itself... I think that 150 years of Italian unification, besides celebrations and feasts, commemorations and rhetoric, have served very little to create a national conscience!

While, Knox can count on the powerful help of a whole American continent; our fellow citizens who are detained abroad do not find support not even in their own country! An even bigger insult, please allow me, is that the official web site of our "public servant" - as Grillo would addressed him - Rocco Girlanda, in the section ITALY-USA foundation, waves only an American flag (must be that the tri-colour was knock-off by the conspiracy smell of the “leghisti’ ((Jools: Northen-League members)) covering up a public insult by protesters of Terzigno, after those of the sacred Po?).

The disgust par excellence, is that the honorable mister does not even spend a euro to present a preview of his literary masterpiece with big advertising return, but helps himself to the authoritative parliamentary structure that, honestly it does not seem quite in line with the content of the literary work presented, as just mentioned, since the little mermaid Knox was judged by the LAWS passed by this Parliament and convicted by the magistrates and the entire judicial system of this State, even if it is widely ridiculed and slapped around by the Yankees who are willing to do anything to get back home one of their own citizen (and in this, one must recognize that Americans are far superior to us "Italioti" in the all-out defense of one of their national citizens!). The news of Amanda's book has already provoked a hornet's nest, the book on Knox should not even be printed, complains someone responsible of a non-profit organization. It 's simply shameful that a promoter of the ‘made in Italy’ in terms of culture in the U.S. strives for these things. It should be taken as a slap in the face, in the meantime, our "news agencies" whom are always keeping the spotlights on Knox as if she was the princess “Cartolina” ["Postcard" princess] of Monaco, the star of a reality-show, starting from describing her new look, her amorous flirts with Raffaele Sollecito (on him there is NEVER a line written on; unfortunately he is Italian!), the “sad” looks the impaled saint on the cross [meaning Knox] gives him in court, the forecast of Agony Aunt letters on the future of this amorous flirt, the all out gossip in which no one realized that they have treacherously ERASED the poor victim Meredith Kercher, like is also happening to the young girl Sarah Scazzi from Avetrana... The substantial difference is that in spite of the Yankees being a relatively young nation with a mixture of vulgar Europeans fugitives that arrived as pioneers on the lands of the Native Americans, contrary to WE that from our shores spread around Civilization, Democracy and the Law everywhere in Europe and Beyond, THEY ARE A COUNTRY; WE ARE REDUCED TO A MERE POPULATION OF IMBECILES!

On the news note by ANSA, I have read the most banal statements by the "poor Amanda" trumpeted as if it were the cultural heavy weight of MY PRISONS by Silvio Pellico! Mind-blowing! ... At some point, maybe was a Freudian slip by this ignorant and "sexual mystic" liar, asks VERBATIM "GITF ME MY FREEDOM!” which makes for a lot to think about: usually an innocent person says RETURN TO ME the Freedom ... or, am I wrong?

The basic problem is to review the contents of our collaboration agreements with the U.S., whether we are allies, as history teaches us, or if we are just A COLONY (the largest aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean!). The North Atlantic Treaty, re-reading it, does not provide absolute European and Italiota collaboration in the “exporting of Democracy” in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and so on... Yet the Yankees appraised and flatter us only when we provide them cannon fodder! As for the rest, in Knox’s case was even mobilized the U.S. Senate, Ophra Winters, [sic] the most famous and powerful anchor-woman ... at the right time of the appeal process there will be distributing for Amanda on international screens a Hollywoodian movie about “heroine” Amanda VICTIM of our justice system...

Why do the italionzoli greedy politicians dribble-crawl at the feet of the yankees? Do you know, really, that those responsible for the Cermis massacre have made it to a great military career? Did you know that NOTHING has been done against the murderer of our Nicola Calipari? You do know, true, that the only detainee who was released from an American prison was the TERRORIST BARALDINI? Meditate, Gleba! Like any respectable historical novel (Manzoni docet) every human story unfolds on the horizon of well-defined geo-political reality!

Speaking about the yankees is a clear reference to the pettiness and the servility of our leaders who would sell their mother at the bilderberg hesco imperialist market! Highlighting their sluggishness it lines up the consistency of the U.S. to defend all their citizens, blindly! ... This is the litmus test of the fact that our politicians do not have a minimum of shame and national pride!

Dear Italians, if you want to shudder, before you FINALLY vote think about the Cause of our countrymen forgotten abroad and enjoy this enlightening exchange between our Dr Agnesina Pozzi (an expert medical consultant in Parlanti’s case, abundantly cited with honors in the book of the criminologist Mastronardi) and the secretary’s office of hon. Girlanda. Judge for yourselves!

**POZZI WROTE: I had a look at the web site of the Italian-USA foundation and I believe that one shouldn’t suck up to powerful friends putting Italy in second place, which in the foundation web site is not even “cited” with its own flag, but what do I know… stars on the white and green stripes… may just be right to recall the Italian colors!! The serious fact is that it is publicizing the book on the poor ”victim of Italian justice” Amanda Knox while shamefully keeping silent about the ITALIAN victims of American justice, as for example Carlo Parlanti, Chico Forti and many others unknown and abandoned in maximum security prisons. For the Parlanti case, there is move by the famous criminologist, Professor Mastronardi, who is written a book about this case of American wronged justice. STUPRO? PROCESSI PERVERSI (Pub. Armando Editore) but on the foundation web site NOT A HINT! It is shameful! Amanda Knox is treated very well, is under the spotlights; the press does not longer feature her case in the current events column… and our INNOCENT citizens, scattered in maximum security prisons… where are they? At least in ITALY you should want to remember them and mention them and maybe… point out to your “friends” that they’re many cases in America that are the product of wronged justice, omissions, moral corruption, fraudulent evidence, etc, etc?

If this foundation is all about arse-licking… best wishes to you. You will not see me among your supporters.
Cordially.
Dott. Agnesina Pozzi**

**THE REPLY From: info@italiausa.org
To: Pozzi. Agnese@libero.it

We thank you for your message, but unfortunately we cannot follow up messages of persons with evident mental and behavioral problems for which allows us to suggest a psychotherapy course at a specialize facility.

Thank you for contacting the Italy-USA Foundation.**

Let’s leave Agnesina Pozzi conclude with her counter reply to the “honorable secretary’s office”, this page denounces. TO YOUR SELF THE OPINION AND PROBABLY A MORE APPROPRIATE ACTION OF PROTEST:

**Evidently the problems of psychopathology do not apply only to the one who writes to you… wherefore every one sees what it knows; therefore I return the invitation to turn to a specialist… but a real good one. It does not seem normal in an Italy-USA foundation to omit Italy from the logo... and this says a lot about the broadly set-up of your exchange "policies" that should be equivalent, guaranteeing EQUAL DIGNITY to our Nation and its problems. But I see you close your eyes to a problem (obvious to everyone who visits your site in a way disenchanted, DISINTERESTED and free) and needing to be INCLINED at all cost you requesting other than a psychiatrist (and may I add a gastroenterologist), and another specialist: a Proctologist!
Enjoy yourselves with this your very own expressions, truly, politically incorrect!
Not at all cordially.
Dott. Agnesina Pozzi (medical doctor)**

http://blog.libero.it/lavocedimegaride/9421772.html




What a nearly great article that is. If only the author hadn't confused the fate of Defendant A (a US woman in an Italian jail) with completely unconnected Defendant B (an Italian in a US jail). How deeply irritating to see this irrelevancy perpetuated. A and B have nothing to do with each other! FFS!

The rest of the article is spot on.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
Good afternoon to everyone.

By way of yet another introduction I'm back on this board after a third self-imposed lay-off during the last year. I've suffered login travails based on incompetence on my part and also email address changes, but I hope I won't insult anyone with some simple questions. I have read the sentencing report, a tragic labour of love by gracious, talented individuals and I've followed the board as a lurker for the last few months.

Some Alibi wrote extensively about the 'buggers' that the defence has to deal with in (alibis, cellphone records, computer records, admissable statements etc, in order to start to change opinion within the court as to the innocence or otherwise of the lovely couple. The defence seems to be ready to attack the forensic evidence despite the fact that they failed the first time around with the finest array of talent at their disposal. Am I imaging the the gulf between the two sides i that vast and the defence is barking up the wrong tree or have I missed something ?



Hey Smacker

No, they're not barking up the wrong tree, they are following the line of most promising appeal. That's the appropriate course of action - the DNA evidence is borderline or is low count and the defence ALWAYS makes most hay on this stuff.

The big thing that no-one's getting in their heads in the FOA camp is the sheer totality of weight of evidence on so many fronts. It's not just the knife or the bra-strap which stand the greatest chance of noise being introduced but the staged break-in, the multiple collapsing alibis, the cell-phone data, the computer data. The case is an avalanche. You have to have evangelical faith not to see it...

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

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SA,

you have talked repeatedly about the buggers and the defence's failure to overturn them (and I believe you), so if they can't deal with the buggers why do they keep banging on about the forensics ? Weak point or not, if that's the best they can do is it just because that's the best they can come up with ?

I suppose on the defence side you can only defend what you're given which is why you lot don't take defeat personally.
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 Oct 25, 2010 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Hayden Panettiere Hits "The Amanda Knox Story" Set
Posted October 25th, 2010


GOSSIP CENTER

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


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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
SA,

you have talked repeatedly about the buggers and the defence's failure to overturn them (and I believe you), so if they can't deal with the buggers why do they keep banging on about the forensics ? Weak point or not, if that's the best they can do is it just because that's the best they can come up with ?

I suppose on the defence side you can only defend what you're given which is why you lot don't take defeat personally.


SA has repeatedly pointed out that Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp and his visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat are damning pieces of evidence.

Maresca pointed out that all the tests are indisputable:

“All tests are not disputable, since all attorneys and their consultants were notified on the time and date of these non-repetitive tests”.

Italian lawyer Cesare Beccaria explained why the results are perfectly valid:

"And in fact no one from the defenses showed up. By law, if they are notified and don’t appear for the testing, the results are perfectly valid. Defense attorneys chose not to be present, although notified and invited, because that was seemingly part of their defense strategy."
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Hi, Smacker. May I ask what you mean by * You Lot*?? Thanks.

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

Offline mortytoad


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 335

Location: Seattle, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

"Come to know Amanda's tree"

What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Machine,

I understand all the forensic points you make; I agree with all the forensic points you make. Is the point you are making that the defence are so desperate that the forensics are all they have to dispute ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:13 pm   Post subject: The Trial of a Tom's Cat   

Yummi wrote:
Girls helping the police

Another pseduscientific photo analysis.

Would you like to compare two pictures ?



Sabrina Misseri



Amanda Knox


Chilling....really chilling, Yummi. That one photo of AK speaks volumes, doesn't it?

But, now, we " pseudoscientific types" would like to know:

Is there any association between nail-biting and consciousness of guilt?
According to this article, THERE might be.

I've never been a nail-biter myself, but I must admit I do associate with some former Ungual Masticators.

Here's some information from that article:

"A study has proven that nail biting has both psychological and medical effects.
It can be a major cause of the many health problems a person is facing. Food poisoning, to stomach worms tu-)) to even cancer can be caused due to this habit. Psychologically, it is a symptom of a disturbed state of mind, under confidence, fear or nervousness. Many detectives even say that nail biting can be a sign of guilt and can be enough reason to doubt a person's intentions."]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Stop-Nail-Bit ... id=4523669

Here on PMF we know that two examples do not a rule make.

And that's why I'm providing PMF readers with a THIRD
piece of photographic evidence of a fingernail-biting individual displaying what I consider to be clear "consciousness of guilt."


At the risk of embarrassing TomM...

I'm going to post a photo I've just acquired-- a mugshot of TomM's kitty (which we know is also his avatar), just minutes before the penitent puss broke down and CONFESSED.....to..what else? You've guessed it: One count of CAT BURGLARY. Look at him madly chewing away at his nails!



The end of the TAIL is that Attorney Tom had his kitty (also his klient) plead guilty, and in doing so, he was able to help him get a deFURRed sentence.


Here's TomM's kitty doing hard time in the pokey. I think he's adjusting well to prison life, but a card or LITTER might help raise his spirits...
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

capealadin.............

Hi, Smacker. May I ask what you mean by * You Lot*?? Thanks.

Apologies; easy to misinterpret and badly written on my side........."You lot" was a reference to SA's collective legal profession, not the posters on here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Smacker, I believe all they have is to attack the forensics. The defence always attack the forensics, claiming contamination. The best they can do is create doubt. I'm SURE they don't want to go down the path of lies, changing alibis, * can't remembers*. Now, why aren't they attacking the staged break in ? That one's the Black Hole. That sucks Amanda and Raff in, with no way out.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
SA,

you have talked repeatedly about the buggers and the defence's failure to overturn them (and I believe you), so if they can't deal with the buggers why do they keep banging on about the forensics ? Weak point or not, if that's the best they can do is it just because that's the best they can come up with ?

I suppose on the defence side you can only defend what you're given which is why you lot don't take defeat personally.



Yes, they should try and grasp the best they can. And no, you're right "us lot" of defence counsel can't hope to acquit even the majority of our clients because the majority of our clients give us a platter of crap to work with. I never worry about these cases. What I do worry about is the relatively fewer but life affirming cases where you can see police / prosecutors ganging up / over-egging / fixing cases against defendants.

For clarity, I am on record as saying that is utterly out of the question here. The only regret I have about this case is Mignini's frankly odd and imho plainly daft interest in alleged satanic cases. What a silly thing to introduce (early but then comprehensively abandoned) into an otherwise bullet-clad evidential set. His wider team saved him from this. Like most perceptive people, he has accuracy and he has foibles. This one was foolish. The good news is that the evidence against the three is anything but and the over-reliance by the FOA on this early muse on his part is evidence of people trying to steer away from the actual facts...

_________________
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 Oct 25, 2010 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

No, they're not barking up the wrong tree, they are following the line of most promising appeal. That's the appropriate course of action - the DNA evidence is borderline or is low count and the defence ALWAYS makes most hay on this stuff.

The big thing that no-one's getting in their heads in the FOA camp is the sheer totality of weight of evidence on so many fronts. It's not just the knife or the bra-strap which stand the greatest chance of noise being introduced but the staged break-in, the multiple collapsing alibis, the cell-phone data, the computer data. The case is an avalanche. You have to have evangelical faith not to see it...


I see this case as a series of little arrows pointing to culpability. All the prosecution's little arrows pointing to the defendants.

One little arrow will not convict.

With the totality of evidence, facts, testimonies, expert opinions, the prosecutors have erected a massive edifice that the defence will try to bring down on appeal- meekly buttressed by ethereal dialectic volleys.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
For clarity, I am on record as saying that is utterly out of the question here. The only regret I have about this case is Mignini's frankly odd and imho plainly daft interest in alleged satanic cases. What a silly thing to introduce (early but then comprehensively abandoned) into an otherwise bullet-clad evidential set. His wider team saved him from this. Like most perceptive people, he has accuracy and he has foibles. This one was foolish. The good news is that the evidence against the three is anything but and the over-reliance by the FOA on this early muse on his part is evidence of people trying to steer away from the actual facts...


Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual. I haven't seen any evidence that he has an interest in satanic cases.
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

piktor wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

No, they're not barking up the wrong tree, they are following the line of most promising appeal. That's the appropriate course of action - the DNA evidence is borderline or is low count and the defence ALWAYS makes most hay on this stuff.

The big thing that no-one's getting in their heads in the FOA camp is the sheer totality of weight of evidence on so many fronts. It's not just the knife or the bra-strap which stand the greatest chance of noise being introduced but the staged break-in, the multiple collapsing alibis, the cell-phone data, the computer data. The case is an avalanche. You have to have evangelical faith not to see it...


I see this case as a series of little arrows pointing to culpability. All the prosecution's little arrows pointing to the defendants.

One little arrow will not convict.

With the totality of evidence, facts, testimonies, expert opinions, the prosecutors have erected a massive edifice that the defence will try to bring down on appeal- meekly buttressed by ethereal dialectic volleys.


I wouldn't class the double DNA knife, Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp and his visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat as little arrows.
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
Machine,

I understand all the forensic points you make; I agree with all the forensic points you make. Is the point you are making that the defence are so desperate that the forensics are all they have to dispute ?


The defence lawyers have to contest all the evidence that the judges and jury found compelling. The point I was making is that I can't see how they can contest the DNA and forensic evidence. There was an independent review of the DNA and forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni's investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. Furthermore, by Italian law, the results are perfectly valid and indisputable because no-one from the defence teams turned up for the non-repetitive tests.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
smacker wrote:
SA,

you have talked repeatedly about the buggers and the defence's failure to overturn them (and I believe you), so if they can't deal with the buggers why do they keep banging on about the forensics ? Weak point or not, if that's the best they can do is it just because that's the best they can come up with ?

I suppose on the defence side you can only defend what you're given which is why you lot don't take defeat personally.


For clarity, I am on record as saying that is utterly out of the question here. The only regret I have about this case is Mignini's frankly odd and imho plainly daft interest in alleged satanic cases. What a silly thing to introduce (early but then comprehensively abandoned) into an otherwise bullet-clad evidential set. His wider team saved him from this. Like most perceptive people, he has accuracy and he has foibles. This one was foolish.


I agree that I'd have preferred Mignini not be involved with this case or at least to keep the silly stuff out of the motive.

The more that comes up about the forensics, the more certain I am in the outcome of both the upcoming appeals, too. I know that's a typical "last straw" defence here in Canada.

No amount of legal help can now undo the damage done by the words and actions of Knox (especially) and Sollecito in the time frame surrounding the murder. They did almost unassailable damage to their cases by continuing to try to distract and confuse the investigators long after the murder. It continued after they were jailed and decided to jot down their thoughts and share incriminating information over the phone with their relatives. And, for Knox, it went right past that to the stammering and incomprehensible presentations in front of one judge and then in the courtroom.

As I've said before, Knox was absolutely a dream suspect for the investigators. I know a few police officers and they love nothing more than a cocksure witness/suspect who can't stop yammering. I know a few lawyers, too, and they've had a few clients who would do themselves a lot of good by just stuffing a sock in it.

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

SCRIPT FOR THE UPCOMING 'LIFETIME' SPECIAL:

Some time in the early hours of 06 NOV 2007.
In a square room in the Questura.

AK: Blah-blah-blah-blah. Blah-bbl-dee-blah. Blah. *sigh* Aaaaand--blah-de-blah-blah-blah.

Cop: Slow down! I'm writing as fast as I can!

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

I wonder if Hayden can get that incoherent drawl of Knox's down. She might need a linguistics coach.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

footprint and bra clasp are compelling; double dna knife also after a low count acceptance in a US court (don't yell at me about this being an Italian court please, but it did hurt the FOAKers). Mixed DNA also a big problem and as the Machine pointed out, since the defence didn't turn up for the testing they have no grounds for complaint.

Was there ever anything other than observation that the beautiful blonde didn't smell right the morning poor Meredith was discovered. I don't recall that as appearing in the sentencing report or anything else either.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
The more that comes up about the forensics, the more certain I am in the outcome of both the upcoming appeals, too. I know that's a typical "last straw" defence here in Canada.

No amount of legal help can now undo the damage done by the words and actions of Knox (especially) and Sollecito in the time frame surrounding the murder. They did almost unassailable damage to their cases by continuing to try to distract and confuse the investigators long after the murder. It continued after they were jailed and decided to jot down their thoughts and share incriminating information over the phone with their relatives. And, for Knox, it went right past that to the stammering and incomprehensible presentations in front of one judge and then in the courtroom.

As I've said before, Knox was absolutely a dream suspect for the investigators. I know a few police officers and they love nothing more than a cocksure witness/suspect who can't stop yammering. I know a few lawyers, too, and they've had a few clients who would do themselves a lot of good by just stuffing a sock in it.


Knox and Sollecito both gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. This will always be considered a clear indication of guilt. Their credibility has been completely shot to pieces.

Knox implicated herself further by voluntarily admitting that she was involved in Meredith's murder and repeatedly making false and malicious accusations against an innocent man.


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Smacker, There wasn't a beautiful blonde involved. There was, however, a beautiful victim.

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

(...)
For clarity, I am on record as saying that is utterly out of the question here. The only regret I have about this case is Mignini's frankly odd and imho plainly daft interest in alleged satanic cases. What a silly thing to introduce (early but then comprehensively abandoned) into an otherwise bullet-clad evidential set. His wider team saved him from this. Like most perceptive people, he has accuracy and he has foibles. This one was foolish. The good news is that the evidence against the three is anything but and the over-reliance by the FOA on this early muse on his part is evidence of people trying to steer away from the actual facts...


No jury/judges panel in Italy will ever consider Amanda Knox's defence claiming "false memory" on her false testimony, think her account of facts is remotely credible and her inconsistencies (open/closed Filomena's door, Meredith's door, her unnoticed computer, mops, trip tu budrio, unnoticed stains, etc....) are casual, believe Sollecito's lack of memory and refuse to speak, consider their isolated Luminol prints in those positions were produced in a misterious way in a mysterious solution of metallic ione salts, that Knox dropped her blood on the faucet some other day without notice it, that the metal hook of the bra was contaminated by cells from the external door handle, that Raffaele and Amanda have their alibi contradicted by phone records and computer records by chance, that the break in looks staged only by coincidence , that Stefanoni contaminated the knife in the laboratory, that the autopsy report is the outcome report of a sigle aggressor, that Rudywalked barefoot and cleaned the floor ... and so on ....


Last edited by Yummi on Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

sorry; inappropriately beautiful sarcasm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
Was there ever anything other than observation that the beautiful blonde didn't smell right the morning poor Meredith was discovered. I don't recall that as appearing in the sentencing report or anything else either.


Hi Smacker:

Not sure I am on right track to answer your question, since I do not have reference to "beautiful blonde" that you cite.

All I have read would concur that the 'observation' about smell did not make it to Court, but others here may be better read.

The below from Angel Face describes the origin of the 'observation', but nothing about 'beautiful blonde'.

In Angel Face, writing about the events at the cottage when Police arrived the morning after, Barbie says:

Italo Carmignani, a longtime journalist for the Messaggero Newspaper who knew all the Police on the scene by name sauntered away from gaggle of reporters on the roof to go to crime scene.
The Police confided to him several observations that never got to Court.
For example, Police said Amanda's body odor contradicted her claim that she had just showered; she smelled like sex.

Angel Face: p.55-6

Hope this helps.

ETA : Thanks, Cape...got 'blondie' now


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


Last edited by stint7 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
For clarity, I am on record as saying that is utterly out of the question here. The only regret I have about this case is Mignini's frankly odd and imho plainly daft interest in alleged satanic cases. What a silly thing to introduce (early but then comprehensively abandoned) into an otherwise bullet-clad evidential set. His wider team saved him from this. Like most perceptive people, he has accuracy and he has foibles. This one was foolish. The good news is that the evidence against the three is anything but and the over-reliance by the FOA on this early muse on his part is evidence of people trying to steer away from the actual facts...


Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual. I haven't seen any evidence that he has an interest in satanic cases.


Well, if I had been the first person to enter the crime scene and had seen the bloody hand smears on the wall some meters away from the victim, I would have thought:

-one person was panicing after the stabbing
or
-this was a ritual murder

Of course, as all of the evidence was emerging, it could be ruled out, that this crime had a ritual motive and that indeed someone was panicing and even trying to "help" the poor victim, but I think in the very beginning of the investigation a ritual motivated murder couldn`t be ruled out totally.
Anyways, even I haven`t found a credible source so far claiming, that Mignini thought initially, that this murder was part of a satanic ritual.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stint: Yep.

_________________
"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: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
piktor wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

No, they're not barking up the wrong tree, they are following the line of most promising appeal. That's the appropriate course of action - the DNA evidence is borderline or is low count and the defence ALWAYS makes most hay on this stuff.

The big thing that no-one's getting in their heads in the FOA camp is the sheer totality of weight of evidence on so many fronts. It's not just the knife or the bra-strap which stand the greatest chance of noise being introduced but the staged break-in, the multiple collapsing alibis, the cell-phone data, the computer data. The case is an avalanche. You have to have evangelical faith not to see it...


I see this case as a series of little arrows pointing to culpability. All the prosecution's little arrows pointing to the defendants.

One little arrow will not convict.

With the totality of evidence, facts, testimonies, expert opinions, the prosecutors have erected a massive edifice that the defence will try to bring down on appeal- meekly buttressed by ethereal dialectic volleys.


I wouldn't class the double DNA knife, Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp and his visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat as little arrows.


Whatever you call the facts and evidence, for me the biggest hurdle for the defence is the defendants themselves. These defendants have zero credibility in the middle of a murder trial.

The defence can only use the blatant lies and dumb explanations uttered by their clients in the appeal. Ergo, the defence has nothing to defend their clients with.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stint,

sorry, done plenty of apologising; hopefully one last bit; I was being sarcastic when I referred to Amanda as the beautiful blonde but followed other notes of sarcacsm as regards the description of AK on this thread.....blonde, beautiful etc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
Stint,

sorry, done plenty of apologising; hopefully one last bit; I was being sarcastic when I referred to Amanda as the beautiful blonde but followed other notes of sarcacsm as regards the description of AK on this thread.....blonde, beautiful etc.



Hi smacker and welcome to PMF. I understood your sarcasm. Sometimes it takes a little time for people to get to know one another. Don't worry about it.

_________________
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 Oct 26, 2010 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
Stint,
sorry, done plenty of apologising; hopefully one last bit; I was being sarcastic when I referred to Amanda as the beautiful blonde but followed other notes of sarcacsm as regards the description of AK on this thread.....blonde, beautiful etc.


Understand, Smacker

Thanks for taking time to help me catch drift.

Most of us here are probably a bit touchy about anything that in any way smacks (no pun) of any unnecessary references to the saintliness or virginal appearances, or even above average attractiveness of la_)

She stands unanimously convicted of the horrific senseless murder of a wonderful, innocent young lady.

The convicted murderess has inordinately more admirers and flatterers and complimenters plastered throught cyberspace and media than any such a unanimously convicted felon would ever deserve.
We here do not wish to add one 'iota' to that questionably motivated, unwarranted and undeserved acclaim

Not meant as lecture, or soap box, just an explanation of why the sarcasm did not register to me.

Best regards and hope your time here is enjoyable and informative.


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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

00Sneider wrote:

Well, if I had been the first person to enter the crime scene and had seen the bloody hand smears on the wall some meters away from the victim, I would have thought:

-one person was panicing after the stabbing
or
-this was a ritual murder

Of course, as all of the evidence was emerging, it could be ruled out, that this crime had a ritual motive and that indeed someone was panicing and even trying to "help" the poor victim, but I think in the very beginning of the investigation a ritual motivated murder couldn`t be ruled out totally.
Anyways, even I haven`t found a credible source so far claiming, that Mignini thought initially, that this murder was part of a satanic ritual.


This if for SomeAlibi, too.
Mignini never addressed anything satanic. From the very beginning, Mignini only addressed the sexual context as the motive for the crime.
The word "rite" was used by Mignini referring to Halloween (the Halloween ritual). Then, he suggested the idea the murder could be originated by an idea inspired by halloween atmosphere, that brought some "ritualistic" flavour to a sex game. He pointed out, in support of this interpretation, Sollecito's personal cult for a peculiar manga charachter (Meo Ponte), the main charachter in stories focused on the theme of ritualistic sacrifice with rape/killing of women.
Maybe Mignini was totally wrong in his latter guess. Maybe, to see a ritualistic nouance the sex game goes beyond necessity, and maybe does not fit to the personalities of the two accused. Maybe. But who cares, that's a point of no importance. Mignini's first interpretation was one explanation just like any other, by a man trying to make sense of an irrational chaotic event he is dealing with.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
stilicho wrote:
The more that comes up about the forensics, the more certain I am in the outcome of both the upcoming appeals, too. I know that's a typical "last straw" defence here in Canada.

No amount of legal help can now undo the damage done by the words and actions of Knox (especially) and Sollecito in the time frame surrounding the murder. They did almost unassailable damage to their cases by continuing to try to distract and confuse the investigators long after the murder. It continued after they were jailed and decided to jot down their thoughts and share incriminating information over the phone with their relatives. And, for Knox, it went right past that to the stammering and incomprehensible presentations in front of one judge and then in the courtroom.

As I've said before, Knox was absolutely a dream suspect for the investigators. I know a few police officers and they love nothing more than a cocksure witness/suspect who can't stop yammering. I know a few lawyers, too, and they've had a few clients who would do themselves a lot of good by just stuffing a sock in it.


Knox and Sollecito both gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. This will always be considered a clear indication of guilt. Their credibility has been completely shot to pieces.

Knox implicated herself further by voluntarily admitting that she was involved in Meredith's murder and repeatedly making false and malicious accusations against an innocent man.


She also wrote extensively about cavorting about in the cottage after the murder and before the police arrived. I don't think anyone in the courtroom had any different interpretation on that then I did. Not to mention that everyone agrees that Knox spoke to three people before the police were called and each of them told her to call the cops: her mother, Sollecito, Filomena.

That's three people who undeniably knew the police needed to be involved and none of them had even (allegedly) seen the crimescene. This speaks again to the credibility of the witness who saw no need to phone the police.

Even if the bathmat print and the double-DNA knife are excluded, there's plenty to confirm the verdict of the lower court.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stint,

I've read here for ages because I couldn't get my posting act together and have built a very healthy respect for how things get done here. I'm also English and despite living on the East Coast near DC I still have a healthy amount of sarcastic something, sometimes called wit, sometimes in the correct circumstances. Having watched the tossers from JREF turn up here and get sent packing with a flea in their ear I also understand that you might be sensitive to new comers but maybe I needed a flea in my ear to wake up.

Cheers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: The Trial of a Tom's Cat   

The 411 wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Girls helping the police

Another pseduscientific photo analysis.

Would you like to compare two pictures ?



Sabrina Misseri



Amanda Knox


Chilling....really chilling, Yummi. That one photo of AK speaks volumes, doesn't it?

But, now, we " pseudoscientific types" would like to know:

Is there any association between nail-biting and consciousness of guilt?
According to this article, THERE might be.

I've never been a nail-biter myself, but I must admit I do associate with some former Ungual Masticators.

Here's some information from that article:

"A study has proven that nail biting has both psychological and medical effects.
It can be a major cause of the many health problems a person is facing. Food poisoning, to stomach worms tu-)) to even cancer can be caused due to this habit. Psychologically, it is a symptom of a disturbed state of mind, under confidence, fear or nervousness. Many detectives even say that nail biting can be a sign of guilt and can be enough reason to doubt a person's intentions."]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Stop-Nail-Bit ... id=4523669

Here on PMF we know that two examples do not a rule make.

And that's why I'm providing PMF readers with a THIRD
piece of photographic evidence of a fingernail-biting individual displaying what I consider to be clear "consciousness of guilt."


At the risk of embarrassing TomM...

I'm going to post a photo I've just acquired-- a mugshot of TomM's kitty (which we know is also his avatar), just minutes before the penitent puss broke down and CONFESSED.....to..what else? You've guessed it: One count of CAT BURGLARY. Look at him madly chewing away at his nails!



The end of the TAIL is that Attorney Tom had his kitty (also his klient) plead guilty, and in doing so, he was able to help him get a deFURRed sentence.


Here's TomM's kitty doing hard time in the pokey. I think he's adjusting well to prison life, but a card or LITTER might help raise his spirits...

Well, that's mostly true. :^) I thought we might have a shot at suppressing the confession, but then I realized he would not be a success in the courtroom. Staying awake through the trial would be a big problem. Plus, during his waking moments he wouldn't be able to stay in his chair, and he'd prolly end up in the jury box in search of affection. The jurors might like it, but a mistrial would result; he would be sanctioned and he doesn't have any money. They'd prolly make me pay. He is a nice cat, but not that nice.

Cards or litter are nice, but he would really like some Feline Greenies<tm> Dental Treats.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
For clarity, I am on record as saying that is utterly out of the question here. The only regret I have about this case is Mignini's frankly odd and imho plainly daft interest in alleged satanic cases. What a silly thing to introduce (early but then comprehensively abandoned) into an otherwise bullet-clad evidential set. His wider team saved him from this. Like most perceptive people, he has accuracy and he has foibles. This one was foolish. The good news is that the evidence against the three is anything but and the over-reliance by the FOA on this early muse on his part is evidence of people trying to steer away from the actual facts...


Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual. I haven't seen any evidence that he has an interest in satanic cases.



He claimed it was part of a ritual according to Il Tempo reporting the committal hearings, but as Yummi corrects me, he didn't claim it was Satanic, merely some sort of Hallowe'en orientated ritual. The Independent translated at the time: the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Hallowe’en." Mignini theorised that it was a sexual and sacrificial rite ... In the intention of the organisers, the rite should have occurred 24 hours earlier” – on Hallowe’en itself – “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organised by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day. The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints.”

Fortunately for Amanda and Raffaele, the trial court of course didn't agree with the premeditation theory.

Barbie Nadeau also reports that a serious disagreement in the prosecution team nearly split it when Mignini wanted the ritualistic part incorporated in the animated film used in the trial. According to her version, the rest of the team finally persuaded him not to include it.

I know sometimes people wonder why I point out issues with Rudy; with Patrick's arrest; with this. I call it how I see it. It shows that we're keeping it real and have balance.

_________________
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 TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:13 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
She sounds full of Christian charity....what a nice lady. I wish I believed in God. It would make me a better person.

That is one of the many advantages in the European culture. One's non-belief can be openly expressed without fear of retribution. When my wife and I were in language school in Florence, some friends of a family that we lived with invited us to dinner at their place. The hostess asked about my last name, which is Polish, and then asked if I were Catholic. I told her that my family was and that I had been an alter boy, but I didn't go to church. She replied, "Sei ateo." [You are an atheist.] I relied, "Si" because the distciton between "atheist" and "agnostic" didn't seem important. There was no change in the warmth or attitude of any one at that table towards me.

In my own country, I have never been at a dinner where such a conversation was thinkable.


Last edited by TomM on Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:26 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:15 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... urder.html

First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder

The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes, shot in Rome


Not blonde!


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:00 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html
First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder
The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes


She looks nothing like her. The only similarity is the IQ and crass insensitivity. "It's a great story" gushes Hayden...she is "honoured". She would love to have met Knox, but she understands why she can't (well done love). It's a long article. Meredith gets a full name mention in the headline (I guess every murder needs a victim, right?) but thereafter she gets one prurient mention - "Kercher" who was found "semi-naked with her throat slashed". Don't hold back now Daily Mail. Knox 'knows about' the film. You betcha. I suspect she is a little aroused by the prospect. So everyone's happy. Hayden, the little ingenue, doesn't "think anyone will have a problem with it". Oh reallllly? How so, young woman with curious made-up name? "Because of the way it's written"

Ah so! Miss P has spoken! (Stop with the Hollywood Chinese Confucius act. Ed)

So there we have it folks! Hayden has told us not to worry. It's kinda kewl. So let's just shut up and buy the popcorn. Nothing means anything anymore.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html
First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder
The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes


She looks nothing like her. The only similarity is the IQ and crass insensitivity. "It's a great story" gushes Hayden...she is "honoured". She would love to have met Knox, but she understands why she can't (well done love). It's a long article. Meredith gets a full name mention in the headline (I guess every murder needs a victim, right?) but thereafter she gets one prurient mention - "Kercher" who was found "semi-naked with her throat slashed". Don't hold back now Daily Mail. Knox 'knows about' the film. You betcha. I suspect she is a little aroused by the prospect. So everyone's happy. Hayden, the little ingenue, doesn't "think anyone will have a problem with it". Oh reallllly? How so, young woman with curious made-up name? "Because of the way it's written"

Ah so! Miss P has spoken! (Stop with the Hollywood Chinese Confucius act. Ed)

So there we have it folks! Hayden has told us not to worry. It's kinda kewl. So let's just shut up and buy the popcorn. Nothing means anything anymore.


Hey Bard, is there actually any news in the UK? All the sidebars are about people either I've never heard of or don't care about. A lot of *ahem* plastic-looking "appliances" going on there too.

It's kind of like a small-town newspaper--real gossipy--except that instead of someone baking pies for the curling bonspiel it's people spending waaaaay too much money on things offering very little tangible return. Do the stories operate on a serialised basis? Is there character development?

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

On a related note, I've tried as hard as I can to find out anything about the Columbus OH "benefit" and there's nothing on it anywhere. There are announcements on obscure boards about the upcoming event (before it happened) but nothing about the event itself.

Maybe the whole thing was in Heather Coy's imagination.
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 Oct 26, 2010 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

From the JREF:

Withnail1969 wrote:
I am sorry but I do not understand what you are talking about. The entire crime scene should have been done, dusted, tagged, bagged, filmed, Luminoled, whatever, in 48 hours as per UK (i.e. professional) police standards.

So by 03/11/07 the cleaners would have been in and the cottage would have been back to normal. By 3rd November there was no 'defence' as yet. What are you even talking about?


JREF

This is complete nonsense written by the totally ignorant. No, they should not! British police work in such a way because they have a very short time with the crime scene before it has to be cleaned and handed back to the owner, along with all the contents the police didn't deem important in the first two or three days. This comes with it's own problems. Such a short time window which has to be rushed can lead to the missing of evidence, it can also lead to things being bodged.

In Italy things are different, police retain the right to seal the crime scene along with ALL the contents for a year or longer. The crime scene is used to STORE the evidence. They have the luxury then of being able to return and collect more evidence as the ongoing investigation highlights its importance, or you make more tests or reconstructions as the need arises due to an investigation that can change as more evidence manifests.

Moreover, to return to the crime scene to collect more evidence, this always has to be arranged with the defence (if there are formal suspects) and this can take weeks to arrange. This is an extra safeguard built into the system for the defendant, a safeguard that does not exist in the British system. It is also another reason why the Italians have to retain the crime scene for a long period of time. Likewise, the defence teams also have the opportunity to visit the crime scene with their experts so that they can make their own tests and reconstructions. This is a benefit to the defendant, a safeguard, which again does not exist in the UK/US system.

You need to quit with this attitude "the British do it so, therefore that's the right way and the only right way!" and get over your superiority complex. The Italians do it a different way and 'different' doesn't mean 'wrong'. And in some ways, I'd say it's even 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:52 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

On this aspect of time and this is quite an important point. It is actually in the interests of the defence to delay the whole process as much as possible. This includes dragging their feet when it comes to arranging visits and tests, it includes requesting further tests and bombarding the system with lots of requests. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the longer things drag out, one never knows what may emerge that may help ones client (if course that's also a double edged sword, but once the investigation stage is over not so as the prosecution cannot present anything new). The second reason is that the courts MAY RUN OUT OF TIME. If that happens, then the case against the accused has to be dropped. There is a time limit. This is what happened with Berlesconi...in the end the case against him was dropped due to all the delaying tactics making the courts run out of time.

This is part of the reason why the defence in this case waited until the last minute of the trial to request some new tests, like on the stain on the pillow. One must also view the many requests for new tests in the appeal in a similar light. It is not only that they may throw up something new that may contradict the earlier tests and help their clients, it is also a tactic to draw out proceedings for as long as possible.

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


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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html
First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder
The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes


She looks nothing like her. The only similarity is the IQ and crass insensitivity. "It's a great story" gushes Hayden...she is "honoured". She would love to have met Knox, but she understands why she can't (well done love). It's a long article. Meredith gets a full name mention in the headline (I guess every murder needs a victim, right?) but thereafter she gets one prurient mention - "Kercher" who was found "semi-naked with her throat slashed". Don't hold back now Daily Mail. Knox 'knows about' the film. You betcha. I suspect she is a little aroused by the prospect. So everyone's happy. Hayden, the little ingenue, doesn't "think anyone will have a problem with it". Oh reallllly? How so, young woman with curious made-up name? "Because of the way it's written"

Ah so! Miss P has spoken! (Stop with the Hollywood Chinese Confucius act. Ed)

So there we have it folks! Hayden has told us not to worry. It's kinda kewl. So let's just shut up and buy the popcorn. Nothing means anything anymore.


I think there's a resemblance. Maybe not good enough for Hollywood, but good enough for a cable TV channel watched by bored -erm - homemakers of either gender, students and shut-ins.

I also wonder whether there is an (understandable) temptation to misinterpret Panettiere. I am not convinced that she feels "honoured" to be playing the role of Knox because of any sense of admiration for Knox herself. I imagine Charlize Theron might have felt honoured (in some sense) to have been chosen for the role of Aileen Wuornos, and it does not follow that she was a big fan of the *real* Lee. It might have more to do with the fact that it has been such a high profile and newsworthy case. Panettiere probably sees it as a chance at a serious dramatic role, and in that sense a step up from the fantasy genre of "Heroes". Sarah Gellar tried for years to be taken seriously after stepping beyond Buffy. Never happened.

Panettiere will, I imagine, have been briefed about what to say and what not to say, too, by the production company, the publicists, her agent. Personally, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the project. I agree that the Daily Mail coverage is predictably crass and insensitive. I wish the press would adopt a term like "semi clothed" rather than "semi naked". I wish they would drop the "sex game gone wrong" tag. Unfortunately, it is what it is. The papers think its readers want to hear about semi-naked murdered women and group sex, preferably with implications of lesbianism on the side. Like the film-makers, it's about how they can exploit the story to wring out every last penny. It's all downhill from here.
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 Oct 26, 2010 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

From JREF:

London John wrote:
Better tell that to the Perugia police then, because they seemed to be under the impression that the house was sealed as a crime scene at least up until mid-December 2007.


JREF

If you actually knew half as much about this case as you think you do, you'd know that the crime scene was actually sealed until early 2009 when it was unsealed and returned to the owner on the order of Judge Massei.

_________________
"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 Oct 26, 2010 9:37 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Bard wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html
First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder
The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes


She looks nothing like her. The only similarity is the IQ and crass insensitivity. "It's a great story" gushes Hayden...she is "honoured". She would love to have met Knox, but she understands why she can't (well done love). It's a long article. Meredith gets a full name mention in the headline (I guess every murder needs a victim, right?) but thereafter she gets one prurient mention - "Kercher" who was found "semi-naked with her throat slashed". Don't hold back now Daily Mail. Knox 'knows about' the film. You betcha. I suspect she is a little aroused by the prospect. So everyone's happy. Hayden, the little ingenue, doesn't "think anyone will have a problem with it". Oh reallllly? How so, young woman with curious made-up name? "Because of the way it's written"

Ah so! Miss P has spoken! (Stop with the Hollywood Chinese Confucius act. Ed)

So there we have it folks! Hayden has told us not to worry. It's kinda kewl. So let's just shut up and buy the popcorn. Nothing means anything anymore.


Hey Bard, is there actually any news in the UK? All the sidebars are about people either I've never heard of or don't care about. A lot of *ahem* plastic-looking "appliances" going on there too.

It's kind of like a small-town newspaper--real gossipy--except that instead of someone baking pies for the curling bonspiel it's people spending waaaaay too much money on things offering very little tangible return. Do the stories operate on a serialised basis? Is there character development?



Well, that is the 'showbiz' section, not the news section...so you won't see links to 'news'.

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


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

windfall wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html
First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder
The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes



I think there's a resemblance. Maybe not good enough for Hollywood, but good enough for a cable TV channel watched by bored -erm - homemakers of either gender, students and shut-ins.

I also wonder whether there is an (understandable) temptation to misinterpret Panettiere. I am not convinced that she feels "honoured" to be playing the role of Knox because of any sense of admiration for Knox herself. I imagine Charlize Theron might have felt honoured (in some sense) to have been chosen for the role of Aileen Wuornos, and it does not follow that she was a big fan of the *real* Lee. It might have more to do with the fact that it has been such a high profile and newsworthy case. Panettiere probably sees it as a chance at a serious dramatic role, and in that sense a step up from the fantasy genre of "Heroes". Sarah Gellar tried for years to be taken seriously after stepping beyond Buffy. Never happened.

Panettiere will, I imagine, have been briefed about what to say and what not to say, too, by the production company, the publicists, her agent. Personally, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the project. I agree that the Daily Mail coverage is predictably crass and insensitive. I wish the press would adopt a term like "semi clothed" rather than "semi naked". I wish they would drop the "sex game gone wrong" tag. Unfortunately, it is what it is. The papers think its readers want to hear about semi-naked murdered women and group sex, preferably with implications of lesbianism on the side. Like the film-makers, it's about how they can exploit the story to wring out every last penny. It's all downhill from here.



I agree, she looks enough like Amanda. If you want to criticize 'look alikes' look at Rudy's actor and we shall see, with RS's and Meredith's later.

Hayden did not audition for the role. She was chosen because
1. she would do it for the money
2. looks are similar enough for a tv movie role as windfall says
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

use the comments section folks...

there are some already :)



Why make a film that will give this knox girl more and more attention.

She loves it already! weird girl



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... z13SNbuS4N




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... urder.html
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I assumed the pic at the bottom was of the actor playing Patrick, caption says Guede.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

windfall wrote:
I assumed the pic at the bottom was of the actor playing Patrick, caption says Guede.



Yeah, so did I at first glance, no doubt because we're so used to that picture of Patrick. But I guess the beard and the bag (back from his travels?) make it Guede?

_________________
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 windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:12 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
windfall wrote:
I assumed the pic at the bottom was of the actor playing Patrick, caption says Guede.



Yeah, so did I at first glance, no doubt because we're so used to that picture of Patrick. But I guess the beard and the bag (back from his travels?) make it Guede?


I think you might be right, SA. I also wonder if the actor's height makes it more likely he is playing Guede.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
windfall wrote:
I assumed the pic at the bottom was of the actor playing Patrick, caption says Guede.



Yeah, so did I at first glance, no doubt because we're so used to that picture of Patrick. But I guess the beard and the bag (back from his travels?) make it Guede?


Yes, this must be Guede, because the cops around him wear german uniforms. Hence this probably is the moment, when he was arrested at Mainz or Koblenz.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:21 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

00Sneider wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
windfall wrote:
I assumed the pic at the bottom was of the actor playing Patrick, caption says Guede.



Yeah, so did I at first glance, no doubt because we're so used to that picture of Patrick. But I guess the beard and the bag (back from his travels?) make it Guede?


Yes, this must be Guede, because the cops around him wear german uniforms. Hence this probably is the moment, when he was arrested at Mainz or Koblenz.


Ha! Well spotted.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Love the kitty, TomM.

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

This is more what Rudy looked like at that time:







I have to say, in that last pic, that's a rather motley looking crew around him isn't it? :)

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
This is more what Rudy looked like at that time:







I have to say, in that last pic, that's a rather motley looking crew around him isn't it? :)



Flippin eck, it is as well. Can't be Motley Crue though - not enough peroxide big hair - looks more like the Deftones to me :)


SA

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Ok ok, I'm feeling the love for Hayden already! I found her comments slightly offensive, but others don't. I think she would have been permitted to say something slightly more intelligent personally! I have never seen her act but someone here suggests she gives good cheerleader. Sounds woefully underqualified for the role of scheming manipulative sex murderer, but let's see. I won't watch it. I would not be able to stop myself imagining Mr and Mrs Kercher at home in Croydon wondering at what point their heartbreak became a "great story".

_________________
Top Profile 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:38 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Ok ok, I'm feeling the love for Hayden already! I found her comments slightly offensive, but others don't. I think she would have been permitted to say something slightly more intelligent personally! I have never seen her act but someone here suggests she gives good cheerleader. Sounds woefully underqualified for the role of scheming manipulative sex murderer, but let's see. I won't watch it. I would not be able to stop myself imagining Mr and Mrs Kercher at home in Croydon wondering at what point their heartbreak became a "great story".


Hayden Panettiere's comments are utterly repugnant.

How can the sexual assault, torture and brutal murder of Meredith be a "great story"?

I don't know if this is still the case, but the film was going to portray Amanda Knox as an innocent victim who has been wrongly convicted.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Oh Hayden tells us no-one will have a problem with it. They'll be careful to leave questions unanswered, I'm sure, cos that will make it an even greater story, right, you know, at the end we, like, don't even KNOW who the killer was. Kewl.

I just looked for a clip of Hayden acting on You Tube. Not much except her parading around semi-clad as far as I can see! She knows how to work it, so I guess that makes playing Amanda quite a natural one for her. Party animal too apparently, and drug-taker. Perfect. I'm sure she'll be knockout.

The whole thing is sick.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The bloke back left could easily fit into any line-up as a would be assassin, and the blokes in uniform appear to have escaped from the Monty Python set whilst they were filming the Spanish Inquisition (without the uniforms of course).
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 Oct 26, 2010 12:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Hayden Panettiere starts shooting scenes as Amanda Knox
Hayden Panettiere was spotted in Rome yesterday while filming her latest role of US killer Amanda Knox, who was found guilty of murdering British student Meredith Kercher.


METRO


(Nothing new except a new picture)

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


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

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
Oh Hayden tells us no-one will have a problem with it. They'll be careful to leave questions unanswered, I'm sure, cos that will make it an even greater story, right, you know, at the end we, like, don't even KNOW who the killer was. Kewl.


I don't believe for a second that the two films won't take sides. I've been reliably informed that the film with Hayden Panettiere is a pro-Knox film. This explains why Curt Knox and Edda Mellas haven't complained about it. Journalists who have refused to toe the official FOA party line have been bullied and threatened with legal action.

By pretending not to take sides a la Candace Dempsey, the filmmakers are hoping that the film will be regarded as an objective and an authoritative account of what happened. The ultimate aim of the film is to persuade audiences that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

If the Colin Firth film is based on Barbie Nadeau's book, then surely it will take the opposite view.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Ok ok, I'm feeling the love for Hayden already! I found her comments slightly offensive, but others don't. I think she would have been permitted to say something slightly more intelligent personally! I have never seen her act but someone here suggests she gives good cheerleader. Sounds woefully underqualified for the role of scheming manipulative sex murderer, but let's see. I won't watch it. I would not be able to stop myself imagining Mr and Mrs Kercher at home in Croydon wondering at what point their heartbreak became a "great story".


Hayden Panettiere's comments are utterly repugnant.

How can the sexual assault, torture and brutal murder of Meredith be a "great story"?

I don't know if this is still the case, but the film was going to portray Amanda Knox as an innocent victim who has been wrongly convicted.



I think some posters were concerned it might, but I don't recall anything that actually substantiated that it was going to portray Amanda as innocent? Panettiere started using this line quite a while ago now: "the way the script is written is very well done, in a way that I don’t think anyone is going to have a problem with." . So I expect this to be done "mysteriously", probably with cutting between Amanda and Raffaele getting stoned in the flat and a first person view of someone going into the flat / attacking poor Meredith where one never gets to see "who" did it. It's going to be crass and it's going to be crap but I don't think they're going to go for the innocent line. You can bet your house that they'll have plenty of stuff shot that way just in case she gets a miracle acquittal and they can edit it that way before it's shown though...

_________________
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 namwera51


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
smacker wrote:
Was there ever anything other than observation that the beautiful blonde didn't smell right the morning poor Meredith was discovered. I don't recall that as appearing in the sentencing report or anything else either.


Hi Smacker:

Not sure I am on right track to answer your question, since I do not have reference to "beautiful blonde" that you cite.

All I have read would concur that the 'observation' about smell did not make it to Court, but others here may be better read.

The below from Angel Face describes the origin of the 'observation', but nothing about 'beautiful blonde'.

In Angel Face, writing about the events at the cottage when Police arrived the morning after, Barbie says:

Italo Carmignani, a longtime journalist for the Messaggero Newspaper who knew all the Police on the scene by name sauntered away from gaggle of reporters on the roof to go to crime scene.
The Police confided to him several observations that never got to Court.
For example, Police said Amanda's body odor contradicted her claim that she had just showered; she smelled like sex.

Angel Face: p.55-6

Hope this helps.

ETA : Thanks, Cape...got 'blondie' now



How does someone have sex after murdering someone and cleaning it up? wtf)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I thought I read somewhere here that there that at times of extreme stress the body was capable of producing odours that made little sense given the circumstances. I'd also have thought there'd have been little time to have enough sex for the odours to be so noticeable. If there was enough time, I can only wonder that the entire murdering event acted as a stimulant.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

namwera51 wrote:


How does someone have sex after murdering someone and cleaning it up? wtf)


Hi nam:

Just curious... did anyone in the rather lengthy direct quote I provided to answer a direct question ever say anything about when the sex took place.

Raffie himself bragged endlessly that they had sex 3-4 times a day, and another poster offered an explanation for their very incriminating 'morning after' alibis (and/or lack thereof) that they probably had sex several times during the night.

Therefore; who said (or cares) anything about when she had the sex that the Polizia said to a reporter that she stank from.

The Poliza only mentioned the smell because like so much of what she was babbling to them about, the smell directly contradicted what she just told them about showering.

Feel free to help me understand why the when seems so paramount to you


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

FIRST PICS! Hayden Panettiere as Amanda Knox

MARIE CLAIRE

(Nothing new, but has a rather creepy picture of Amanda I've not seen before)

_________________
"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 Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I'm amused that photos of Hayden in a brown wig are still more blonde than we've ever seen Knox(ious) appear.

I doubt Hayden's fans are fans of her acting skills. She's a beacon of feminine empowerment.

I would sooner have a root canal than ever have to read or see anything about her again.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

namwera51 wrote:
stint7 wrote:
smacker wrote:
Was there ever anything other than observation that the beautiful blonde didn't smell right the morning poor Meredith was discovered. I don't recall that as appearing in the sentencing report or anything else either.


Hi Smacker:

Not sure I am on right track to answer your question, since I do not have reference to "beautiful blonde" that you cite.

All I have read would concur that the 'observation' about smell did not make it to Court, but others here may be better read.

The below from Angel Face describes the origin of the 'observation', but nothing about 'beautiful blonde'.

In Angel Face, writing about the events at the cottage when Police arrived the morning after, Barbie says:

Italo Carmignani, a longtime journalist for the Messaggero Newspaper who knew all the Police on the scene by name sauntered away from gaggle of reporters on the roof to go to crime scene.
The Police confided to him several observations that never got to Court.
For example, Police said Amanda's body odor contradicted her claim that she had just showered; she smelled like sex.

Angel Face: p.55-6

Hope this helps.

ETA : Thanks, Cape...got 'blondie' now



How does someone have sex after murdering someone and cleaning it up? wtf)


Easily if said someone is mentally disturbed.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

I am wondering where our man on the ground in Rome is... I want to see photos of the others.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

It is a rather creepy photo, Michael. Does anyone else look at photos of a murderer, and wonder if there was something in the eyes, that could have foretold that something was seriously off kilter? The eyes supposedly being the window of the soul.

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:39 pm   Post subject: Uniform Uniforms?   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html

First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder

The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes, shot in Rome


Not blonde!


Wait--
What's with the GREEN uniforms of the actors playing Italian officers hauling in Lumumba?
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
I thought I read somewhere here that there that at times of extreme stress the body was capable of producing odours that made little sense given the circumstances. I'd also have thought there'd have been little time to have enough sex for the odours to be so noticeable. If there was enough time, I can only wonder that the entire murdering event acted as a stimulant.


Hi again Smacker

Hope my lack of understanding of your particular 'Washington,DC type' of sarcasm does not again hinder my comprehension of what you are saying.

1) Please see above explanation of when sex took place is; subsequent poster originated, and deemed by original poster (me) to be irrelevant, (despite now echo from yourself).

2) Certainly agree that nervous sweat *in time* could also induce odors.

3) Please bear with me however, if I find your distinction between nervous, exertion or time allowed to remain on body in relation to origins of sweat odors another topic for discussion elsewhere.

4) The 'observation' about body odor that you requested, and I dutifully and innocently provided to you was solely to show that Amanda's alibi did not convince Polizia standing close to her that she had just showered.
Most others just looking at the picture, and without benefit of olfactory availability readily doubt the recent shower....which again is the point of this entire submission by me

5) See my introductory disclaimer about your reference to "murder as a stimulant"

PS:
The JREF Forum discusses for days and scores of pages the difference between lies and "internalized false admissions", 'imperfect recall', "misremembering", blah, blah.

An independent observer pointed out just days ago to them that such "quibbly dibble de doo" nonsense is the reason they have expended 27,000+ Posts and are still on square 1, and now without hardly any participation from other than the hard core blowhard egomaniac regurgitators.

Bottom line:
They said she stank and certainly did not look like she had just taken the shower she was probably therefore lying to them about.
[b]When or why
the stink originated is a consideration best saved or moved for JREF type 'circular activities'[/b]
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

They are germans and they have rudy
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: Uniform Uniforms?   

The 411 wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html

First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder

The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes, shot in Rome


Not blonde!


Wait--
What's with the GREEN uniforms of the actors playing Italian officers hauling in Lumumba?



They're not pretend Italians, they're pretend Germans.

_________________
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 Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

This is completely OT OT OT OT, but I wanted to recommend this to you guys. Rachel Maddow aired this last night, it's a documentary called The Assassination of Dr. Tiller, I found it very interesting and disturbing at the same time.,..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp ... 0#39838140
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Bard wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html
First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder
The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes


She looks nothing like her. The only similarity is the IQ and crass insensitivity. "It's a great story" gushes Hayden...she is "honoured". She would love to have met Knox, but she understands why she can't (well done love). It's a long article. Meredith gets a full name mention in the headline (I guess every murder needs a victim, right?) but thereafter she gets one prurient mention - "Kercher" who was found "semi-naked with her throat slashed". Don't hold back now Daily Mail. Knox 'knows about' the film. You betcha. I suspect she is a little aroused by the prospect. So everyone's happy. Hayden, the little ingenue, doesn't "think anyone will have a problem with it". Oh reallllly? How so, young woman with curious made-up name? "Because of the way it's written"

Ah so! Miss P has spoken! (Stop with the Hollywood Chinese Confucius act. Ed)

So there we have it folks! Hayden has told us not to worry. It's kinda kewl. So let's just shut up and buy the popcorn. Nothing means anything anymore.


Hey Bard, is there actually any news in the UK? All the sidebars are about people either I've never heard of or don't care about. A lot of *ahem* plastic-looking "appliances" going on there too.

It's kind of like a small-town newspaper--real gossipy--except that instead of someone baking pies for the curling bonspiel it's people spending waaaaay too much money on things offering very little tangible return. Do the stories operate on a serialised basis? Is there character development?

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

On a related note, I've tried as hard as I can to find out anything about the Columbus OH "benefit" and there's nothing on it anywhere. There are announcements on obscure boards about the upcoming event (before it happened) but nothing about the event itself.

Maybe the whole thing was in Heather Coy's imagination.


There is no reason to think that a groundswell of support for AK exists in Columbus or any other city in Ohio. Even in Seattle, AK's hometown, there is less genuine support than one might think. Most of the support, aside from the genuine sentiments expressed by immediate family and their close friends, has been manufactured by David Marriott and fed to the local media and political class. Marriott is well connected in this way. He is a graduate of the UW with a degree in communications. The media establishment in Seattle is well-stocked with people of his generation who have been around forever. Mike James, head of the Seattle-Perugia sister city organization, is a former local newsman, for KING 5, the NBC affiliate. Lori Matsukawa and Jean Enerson, two dinosaurs, worked with him and continue to work for KING. Linda Byron has been around forever. In other words, these people take their cues from one another. They may have different motives, but taking the innocence line is not inconsistent with these motives. The problem has been translating that self-interested support into genuine grassroots support. That is sorely lacking, though these same media types pretend otherwise, or simply don't notice. Their narcissistic gaze, when it lights upon an object, merely reflects back on themselves. They don't see difference or dissonance.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

After AK serves her term and is released, will she be deported? She has said she would like to stay in Italy even after all this, but surely she is in LaLa Land...

I know The 411 has been channeling AK as of late, but after seeing this video, I think this is AK's message to the US fan club.... explains why she is favouring Rocco.

Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
This is more what Rudy looked like at that time:




I have to say, in that last pic, that's a rather motley looking crew around him isn't it? :)


I've got the perfect guy to play Carlo Dalla Vedova:



Lionel Hutz imagining a world without lawyers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...by David Marriott and fed to the local media and political class. Marriott is well connected in this way. In other words, these people take their cues from one another......

Although I know Skep is well aware, some may not know about this media close connection of Marriott that he self aggrandizes on his web page:

"Marriott is a former Emmy-winning television news reporter for Seattle’s CBS affiliate, KIRO-TV."

http://www.gsminc.com/marriott.htm


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
This is more what Rudy looked like at that time:




I have to say, in that last pic, that's a rather motley looking crew around him isn't it? :)


I've got the perfect guy to play Carlo Dalla Vedova:



Lionel Hutz imagining a world without lawyers.



OI! em)

_________________
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 Oct 26, 2010 2:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
smacker wrote:
I thought I read somewhere here that there that at times of extreme stress the body was capable of producing odours that made little sense given the circumstances. I'd also have thought there'd have been little time to have enough sex for the odours to be so noticeable. If there was enough time, I can only wonder that the entire murdering event acted as a stimulant.


Hi again Smacker

Hope my lack of understanding of your particular 'Washington,DC type' of sarcasm does not again hinder my comprehension of what you are saying.

1) Please see above explanation of when sex took place is; subsequent poster originated, and deemed by original poster (me) to be irrelevant, (despite now echo from yourself).

2) Certainly agree that nervous sweat *in time* could also induce odors.

3) Please bear with me however, if I find your distinction between nervous, exertion or time allowed to remain on body in relation to origins of sweat odors another topic for discussion elsewhere.

4) The 'observation' about body odor that you requested, and I dutifully and innocently provided to you was solely to show that Amanda's alibi did not convince Polizia standing close to her that she had just showered.
Most others just looking at the picture, and without benefit of olfactory availability readily doubt the recent shower....which again is the point of this entire submission by me

5) See my introductory disclaimer about your reference to "murder as a stimulant"

PS:
The JREF Forum discusses for days and scores of pages the difference between lies and "internalized false admissions", 'imperfect recall', "misremembering", blah, blah.

An independent observer pointed out just days ago to them that such "quibbly dibble de doo" nonsense is the reason they have expended 27,000+ Posts and are still on square 1, and now without hardly any participation from other than the hard core blowhard egomaniac regurgitators.

Bottom line:
They said she stank and certainly did not look like she had just taken the shower she was probably therefore lying to them about.
[b]When or why
the stink originated is a consideration best saved or moved for JREF type 'circular activities'[/b]



A woman who has not showered after having sex retains the very strong and distinctive odor of semen for quite some time. I think the point being made by the officers who stood close to her and noticed this very distinctive smell is that it contradicted her claim that she had "just" taken a shower. The smell of stress, which varies from one person to the next depending on pheromones and surface bacteria on the skin, has a quite different smell that would not be mistaken for the smell of semen. I'm sure AK was quite stressed and that she exuded that odor too. It is different from sweat of exertion, which in turn is different from the smell of semen. At what point did AK become stressed? She said she was not alarmed by the open door, the blood, etc. RS stated that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door, and said he was quoting AK on that point. So this would not have stressed them out, though contradictorily they have alleged otherwise. AK called her mother, and then steadfastly refused to remember this call in spite of proof to the contrary. It all gets quite messy at this point.
I would be stressed too, just at the thought of having floated so many contradictory ideas in such a short span of time. Smelling like semen was the least of AK's problems by then. Maybe the cops were wrong. So what? They did not include it in their testimony, probably because it could not be demonstrated. It tallies with my own belief that AK did not go home to take a shower that morning and probably did not take one at the cottage. But I can't prove that and neither could the investigators. End of story, I think.

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Uniform Uniforms?   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The 411 wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323765/Hayden-Panettiere-Amanda-Knox-movie-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html

First look: Hayden Panettiere as 'Foxy Knoxy' in movie about Meredith Kercher's murder

The actress wore a brown wig and casual clothes for the scenes, shot in Rome


Not blonde!


Wait--
What's with the GREEN uniforms of the actors playing Italian officers hauling in Lumumba?




They're not pretend Italians, they're pretend Germans.

Yup, thanks, I've just read ahead.

Who's the casting director on this film ?

I'm seriously afraid that he/she might have gotten Rudy and Patrick mixed up....

Well, as Janet Huff would point out, they're both Afro-American, you know... so it's understandable.....sheeeeeez...:roll:
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stint,

you seem to have decided to try and pick an argument with me; I'm not here for an argument so save your breath. I am also not from Washington DC but London. I just happen to live close to Washington DC. Some american friends of mine do understand sarcasm though.

Sorry if I haven't asked questions in your preferred way, i'll try and do better next time. It's worth taking into account that Skeptical Bystander understood the sarcasm straight away.
Top Profile E-mail 

Online The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2309

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The media establishment in Seattle is well-stocked with people of his generation who have been around forever. Mike James, head of the Seattle-Perugia sister city organization, is a former local newsman, for KING 5, the NBC affiliate. Lori Matsukawa and Jean Enerson, two dinosaurs, worked with him and continue to work for KING. Linda Byron has been around forever. In other words, these people take their cues from one another. They may have different motives, but taking the innocence line is not inconsistent with these motives. The problem has been translating that self-interested support into genuine grassroots support. That is sorely lacking, though these same media types pretend otherwise, or simply don't notice. Their narcissistic gaze, when it lights upon an object, merely reflects back on themselves. They don't see difference or dissonance.


It doesn't take much research to realise that Steve Moore is a charlatan and not an expert on the case. He consistently gets basic facts wrong and makes up completely fictitious stories. Any competent journalist who had read the Massei report would have challenged Steve Moore over his many false claims. However, Monique Ming Laven and Linda Byron unquestioningly accepted these false claims despite the fact they both said they had read the Massei report.

They must have known that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck and yet they never challenged Moore over his repeated claims that the knife didn't match the wounds. It seems quite clear that Steve Moore was telling Monique Ming Laven and Linda Byron exactly what they wanted to hear and that they were quite happy to brush any inconvenient facts under the carpet.

Linda Byron and Monique Ming Laven both give the impression that they are open-minded and objective about the case. They were both sent my piece about Steve Moore's false claims and I was looking forward to reading their responses to it. They still haven't responded.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

smacker wrote:
Stint,

you seem to have decided to try and pick an argument with me; I'm not here for an argument so save your breath. I am also not from Washington DC but London. I just happen to live close to Washington DC. Some american friends of mine do understand sarcasm though.

Sorry if I haven't asked questions in your preferred way, i'll try and do better next time. It's worth taking into account that Skeptical Bystander understood the sarcasm straight away.


No antagonism intended, and apologies if so perceived Smacker.

Please give my 'preferred question methods' and my non affinity with each individual's attempts at sarcasm the low level of concern they deserve.

May I revert to my original 'meeting' with you here....
Welcome, and I hope you find your time here enjoyable and informative.

PS:
Skeptical Bystander understands a lot of things, and expresses herself about them, much better than I.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stint7 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...by David Marriott and fed to the local media and political class. Marriott is well connected in this way. In other words, these people take their cues from one another......

Although I know Skep is well aware, many may know about this media close connection of Marriott that he self aggrandizes on his web page:

"Marriott is a former Emmy-winning television news reporter for Seattle’s CBS affiliate, KIRO-TV."

http://www.gsminc.com/marriott.htm


This I did not know and obviously missed the one and only time I checked out the Marriott web page.

Gee. Color me surprised.

Thanks for that FYI, Stint. No wonder they're root root rooting for the home team. Pathetic.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Michael wrote:
From the JREF:

Withnail1969 wrote:
I am sorry but I do not understand what you are talking about. The entire crime scene should have been done, dusted, tagged, bagged, filmed, Luminoled, whatever, in 48 hours as per UK (i.e. professional) police standards.

So by 03/11/07 the cleaners would have been in and the cottage would have been back to normal. By 3rd November there was no 'defence' as yet. What are you even talking about?


JREF

This is complete nonsense written by the totally ignorant. No, they should not! British police work in such a way because they have a very short time with the crime scene before it has to be cleaned and handed back to the owner, along with all the contents the police didn't deem important in the first two or three days. This comes with it's own problems. Such a short time window which has to be rushed can lead to the missing of evidence, it can also lead to things being bodged.


I'd have to call shenanigans on this anyhow, Michael. Are you telling me that a terrorist lab, a backyard where a serial killer buries his victims, or a drug-smuggling boat has to be entirely investigated and returned to the owner within two days? I don't believe it. If this were true then a smart terrorist cell would own the property under one "wing" and have the rest operate clandestinely while renting from the "innocent" owner. Once caught, conceal and misdirect for a mere 48 hours and the other "wing" of the operation secures the property automatically.

Something's wrong with that story and I don't believe it for a minute.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The only okay thing, about ghirlanda's book coming out, is that Steve Moore is now hoist on his own petard. And, I imagine Girlanda will be a nine day wonder as well.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
From the JREF:

Withnail1969 wrote:
I am sorry but I do not understand what you are talking about. The entire crime scene should have been done, dusted, tagged, bagged, filmed, Luminoled, whatever, in 48 hours as per UK (i.e. professional) police standards.

So by 03/11/07 the cleaners would have been in and the cottage would have been back to normal. By 3rd November there was no 'defence' as yet. What are you even talking about?


JREF

This is complete nonsense written by the totally ignorant. No, they should not! British police work in such a way because they have a very short time with the crime scene before it has to be cleaned and handed back to the owner, along with all the contents the police didn't deem important in the first two or three days. This comes with it's own problems. Such a short time window which has to be rushed can lead to the missing of evidence, it can also lead to things being bodged.


I'd have to call shenanigans on this anyhow, Michael. Are you telling me that a terrorist lab, a backyard where a serial killer buries his victims, or a drug-smuggling boat has to be entirely investigated and returned to the owner within two days? I don't believe it. If this were true then a smart terrorist cell would own the property under one "wing" and have the rest operate clandestinely while renting from the "innocent" owner. Once caught, conceal and misdirect for a mere 48 hours and the other "wing" of the operation secures the property automatically.

Something's wrong with that story and I don't believe it for a minute.



It's a correct statement of a general approach to bag and tag quickly and efficiently, but no a crime scene can and will be sealed as required.

_________________
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 bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

At least there is a positive side to these early movies, in that they act as spoilers to the production of a really big money Hollywood film. At least for 5 years or more. I see Lloyd-Webber as the real potential threat to decency.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

Stint,

No problem; I'm not remotely offended and happy to move on. I've seen twits from the JREF and Foakers torn to pieces here for wasting time and I understand that as someone who's not posted much I might be seen as another trouble maker. I'm neither of the above and have taken time to post against that lot after reading news articles from Seattle.

The real problem is that as usual it's a few that wreck things for everyone else, and until I become known here and my writing style becomes understood, I may well be under the microscope. C'est la vie, as they say in Tooting, SW17.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

The Bard wrote:
I just looked for a clip of Hayden acting on You Tube. Not much except her parading around semi-clad as far as I can see! She knows how to work it, so I guess that makes playing Amanda quite a natural one for her. Party animal too apparently, and drug-taker. Perfect. I'm sure she'll be knockout.

Ahem, I think that should be "semi-naked," Bard.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
From the JREF:

JREF

This is complete nonsense written by the totally ignorant. No, they should not! British police work in such a way because they have a very short time with the crime scene before it has to be cleaned and handed back to the owner, along with all the contents the police didn't deem important in the first two or three days. This comes with it's own problems. Such a short time window which has to be rushed can lead to the missing of evidence, it can also lead to things being bodged.


I'd have to call shenanigans on this anyhow, Michael. Are you telling me that a terrorist lab, a backyard where a serial killer buries his victims, or a drug-smuggling boat has to be entirely investigated and returned to the owner within two days? I don't believe it. If this were true then a smart terrorist cell would own the property under one "wing" and have the rest operate clandestinely while renting from the "innocent" owner. Once caught, conceal and misdirect for a mere 48 hours and the other "wing" of the operation secures the property automatically.

Something's wrong with that story and I don't believe it for a minute.


It's a correct statement of a general approach to bag and tag quickly and efficiently, but no a crime scene can and will be sealed as required.


I'm sure they tried to do everything efficiently in Italy too.

I wonder if there's legal recourse for the property owner to claim damages from Knox and Sollecito.
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 Oct 26, 2010 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUGUST 19 -   

stilicho wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
From the JREF:

JREF

This is complete nonsense written by the totally ignorant. No, they should not! British police work in such a way because they have a very short time with the crime scene before it has to be cleaned and handed back to the owner, along with all the contents the police didn't deem important in the first two or three days. This comes with it's own problems. Such a short time window which has to be rushed can lead to the missing of evidence, it can also lead to things being bodged.


I'd have to call shenanigans on this anyhow, Michael. Are you telling me that a terrorist lab, a backyard where a serial killer buries his victims, or a drug-smuggling boat has to be entirely investigated and returned to the owner within two days? I don't believe it. If this were true then a smart terrorist cell would own the property under one "wing" and have the rest operate clandestinely while renting from the "innocent" owner. Once caught, conceal and misdirect for a mere 48 hours and the other "wing" of the operation secures the property automatically.

Something's wrong with that story and I don't believe it for a minute.


It's a correct statement of a general approach to bag and tag quickly and efficiently, but no a crime scene can and will be sealed as required.


I'm sure they tried to do everything efficiently in Italy too.

I wonder if there's legal recourse for the property owner to claim damages from Knox and Sollecito.



Of course. The house owner was one of the damaged parties in the trial who filed suit and was awarded damages by Massei.

_________________
"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 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 30 of 32 [ 7802 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], The Machine and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,732 Views