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: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:26 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:26 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21,10 - JAN 22, 11

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 14 [ 3425 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:04 pm   Post subject: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21,10 - JAN 22, 11   

XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21, 10 - JAN 22, 11






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievment of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 - DEC 21, 10

Michael (Co-Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)

_________________
"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 Dec 21, 2010 12:25 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

Hello everyone. Please welcome Clander to the PMF staff. He will be serving as a board Administrator. He will not be serving as a Moderator, rather his role will be as a technical Admin only, although of course he will also continue to be a poster. He will be helping out should I have any technical problems on the board, a technical emergency pops up or if something happens to me or my computer leaving the site with no techy. I'm also sure he'd be willing to help board members should any of you have technical problems or queries.

It is also quite fitting that Clander is Italian. Now the three primary countries at the centre of the case...Italy, United States (a Seattleite no less) and Great Britain are represented in the PMF administration staff.


Welcome Clander!!! :) :) :)

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Some scientists have had a broader education than others, or even broader interests. I remember chatting with a physical chemist about aluminium being ingested via food cooked in aluminium pans, and how when iron is ingested in the same way, it's a good thing. He said, aluminium would just take iron's place in the body. (:~?)....which doesn't happen. It was a though he couldn't see the difference when inside a body, (and it didn't even make sense valency-wise.)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:26 pm   Post subject: Eclipse   

The eclipse, three-quarters of the way through when the Moon rose over Sydney:


Attachment:
solstice_eclipse.JPG


View from the highest point I could find on the walk home.


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Three Cheers for Clander!
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Three Cheers for Clander!


Double from me.

Regarding the KIRITV piece on Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project, someone should write to them that Hampikian is not acting as Director of the IIP and had no influence whatsoever on the decision to independently review the DNA evidence. In fact, any American taxpayers on this board should write a real letter (not an email) to Boise State University asking that Hampikian's directorship be reviewed for conflict of interest.

Chris Halkides has always maintained the the IIP (a taxpayer-supported institution) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox case. Was he lying?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:38 pm   Post subject: Cockatoors and Galahs   

Congrats, Clander!



And to everyone feeling the cold and wet:

warm thoughts are beaming through to you from the other side on the summer solstice.


Lunchtime today in Martin Place.

Attachment:
s1.JPG


Attachment:
s2.JPG


And partly as a thank you to Brian S, for all his work on the Micheli report, and other things besides. (It was one of his requests for assistance that got me started on the translation work in earnest. co-) )

Here's to'ee! drin-)


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: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Three Cheers for Clander!


Double from me.

Regarding the KIRITV piece on Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project, someone should write to them that Hampikian is not acting as Director of the IIP and had no influence whatsoever on the decision to independently review the DNA evidence. In fact, any American taxpayers on this board should write a real letter (not an email) to Boise State University asking that Hampikian's directorship be reviewed for conflict of interest.

Chris Halkides has always maintained the the IIP (a taxpayer-supported institution) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox case. Was he lying?



Also, I always thought those sort of organisations weren't supposed to get involved in a case until after the process was complete and conviction sealed anyway. Do people actually on trial over in the United States have the benefit of being defended by the innocent project?

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thanks for posting the eclipse photo, Catnip. I don't feel like I've missed out now. :)
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

NEW, IMPROVED!!!
SAINT KNOX of Capanne


Attachment:
lap it up, suckers.!.jpg


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I was lucky enough to witness the complete eclipse.

Outstanding!
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The complex intricacy of the case has reached proverbial status now.


The jungle drums* are saying:

Quote:
Umbria is rich in mysteries in the tail-end of 2010, besides trying "to follow the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito case etc", there is the news that the partial remains (two limbs) of an unidentified person have been found on Mount Tezio near Perugia. There aren't any reports of missing persons, and it is hoped that fingerprints might help to identify the man. Wild boars (actually cinghiali, technically a cross between boars and pigs) are thought to have disturbed the remains.

-- [Tam Tam] 21 December 2010



*reaching the ears of even 'The-Ghost-Who-Walks, in the deepest recesses of the jungle.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

hugz-)

Welcome Clander!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

woo hoo...The Phantom
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... ws_Reports

A bomb was found on an underground train in Rome.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Welcome Clander and H9, and thank you for volunteering your work here!
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:46 pm   Post subject: (DNA is...) nothing to sneeze at...   

MICHAEL WROTE:
I love this quote from Hampikian:

Hampikian maintains there would have been more DNA if she was involved. "People maybe don't realize how easy DNA can be transferred by one person to another to another I mean that's why you get a cold," Hampikian said.

If then that's the case and DNA was spread around so easily, then one wonders why none of Amanda's DNA was in Meredith's room since she had lived there for two months, or why more of Raffaele's DNA wasn't found in the cottage or why more of Meredith's DNA wasn't found at Raffaele's apartment or why Raffaele's DNA wasn't found on his own knife in his own kitchen. There'd be 'everybody's' DNA 'everywhere' if Hampikian's model is correct.

Instead, we have Meredith's DNA that miraculously scored a bullseye on the knife blade and Raffaele's DNA that scored a bullseye on the bra clasp. Now, what are the odds of that?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:

ExactaMungo ! bu-) (to use a Tara-ism!)

Futhermore, in "Hamper's example, he ignores the fact that DNA just doesn't fly through the air, and doesn't transmit with CASUAL CONTACT. Rhinoviruses (the common cold viruses) don't attach themselves easily via the air, either ..i.e, coughing and sneezing DO NOT transmit cold and flu viruses very well.


You could be stuck in a tiny elevator (a lift) with Some Alibi --and his man flu for hours eee-) yet never catch his bug.

However, if you shake Mr. Alibi's hand (notice hand on hand pressure /contact) or grab the door handle that SA opened ...and then rub your own nose an hour later--the next day,you, too, could be a Walking Mucous Factory.

That said, I wouldn't go around rejecting SA's or anyone's proffered hand. huff-)) Just wash your hands afterward with warm water and soap.

I hope Earthling and SA (and Michael) are all feeling much better now.
But, I've wiped down my monitor screen with soap and water, just in case... co-)

ALSO:
The common cold (rhinoviruses) genetic information is stored in [u]RNA, not DNA[/u]

They belong to the Picornaviridae family, which is in Class IV of the Baltimore classification, that is, the viruses with positive-sense single-stranded RNA.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_rhinovir ... z18ksmjZDf
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

There is a mention of TrueJustice.org with video in this article:

Quote:
Mobilisation in support of Amanda Knox’s plea for freedom is growing online and in the United States in particular. The web site “Amanda Defense Fund” was set up by members of her family and it hopes to convince the public of her innocence. The site has photos of a smiling Knox and also letters from friends and family all claiming the student could never have committed such a crime.

"Injustice in perugia" is also campaigning for Knox’s freedom. On this web site a former member of the FBI, and specialist in violent crimes says the enquiry was sloppy and Italian police officers relied more on their instincts than on material evidence: he thinks this proves the accused’s innocence.

And supporters are also using Facebook. Numerous groups like these ones, containing several thousand members are campaigning for Amanda Knox’s freedom.

Despite this strong mobilization, some doubt the young American’s innocence. This is the case for the founders of "true justice.org", a site set up in honour of the victim Meredith Kercher, they are reminding web users that everything in the files points towards Knox’s guilt.


FRANCE 24 WEB NEWS

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

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Tara wrote:
There is a mention of TrueJustice.org with video in this article:

Quote:
Mobilisation in support of Amanda Knox’s plea for freedom is growing online and in the United States in particular. The web site “Amanda Defense Fund” was set up by members of her family and it hopes to convince the public of her innocence. The site has photos of a smiling Knox and also letters from friends and family all claiming the student could never have committed such a crime.

"Injustice in perugia" is also campaigning for Knox’s freedom. On this web site a former member of the FBI, and specialist in violent crimes says the enquiry was sloppy and Italian police officers relied more on their instincts than on material evidence: he thinks this proves the accused’s innocence.

And supporters are also using Facebook. Numerous groups like these ones, containing several thousand members are campaigning for Amanda Knox’s freedom.

Despite this strong mobilization, some doubt the young American’s innocence. This is the case for the founders of "true justice.org", a site set up in honour of the victim Meredith Kercher, they are reminding web users that everything in the files points towards Knox’s guilt.


FRANCE 24 WEB NEWS


Rather than organising a campaign for AK's freedom I think they'd be better off spending all the money raised on defence lawyers who can unpick the mountain of evidence.......

Oh, they have hired the best defence lawyers available, and they have failed to unpick the evidence. Shouldn't they also pay their forensic expert the $50k they owe him, and have him unpick the forensic issues at hand ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ViaDellaPergola has posted a new version of their video about the double DNA knife on TJMK:

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

Frank Sfarzo won't be able to go crying to YouTube about getting it removed from the website this time.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:23 pm   Post subject: OT: IRON MAN   

bucketoftea wrote:
Some scientists have had a broader education than others, or even broader interests. I remember chatting with a physical chemist about aluminium being ingested via food cooked in aluminium pans, and how when iron is ingested in the same way, it's a good thing. He said, aluminium would just take iron's place in the body. (:~?)....which doesn't happen. It was a though he couldn't see the difference when inside a body, (and it didn't even make sense valency-wise.)


Buck 'o Tea:
Just wanted to jump in here and say that "extra iron" is not a good thing. UNLESS you've been been diagnosed with some kind of iron-deficiency(with the blood work to show it), you SHOULD NOT rely on non-dietary sources of iron to INCREASE iron intake.

In fact, TOO MUCH iron is definitely a BAD THING.

For starters...
From WebMD
"As the level of iron goes up in your bloodstream, so apparently does your risk for heart attack and stroke. A new study by Japanese researchers shows that high-level iron injections can cause almost immediate constriction of blood vessels. In fact, the scientists believe the iron damage could be the first step in a cascade of events leading to the thickening and hardening of the arteries known as atherosclerosis.

"Our study shows that we should recognize iron as a risk factor," says Hidehiro Matsuoka, MD, PhD, lead researcher and chief of the Kurume University School of Medicine's hypertension program. The cardiologist presented his findings Wednesday at the 54th Annual Fall Conference of the American Heart Association's Council for High Blood Pressure Research."

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

You'll notice that multivitamins for men over 50 usually
DO NOT CONTAIN any IRON,
for this very reason.

There are other health problems caused by exceeding the recommended daily iron intake.(e.g.even "a bit of excess iron" can inhibit zinc absorption, which is important for the immune system). Bottom line: don't supplement with iron without consulting with your doctor FIRST.

That said, unless you have a particular medical condition, I don't think cast iron cookware will cause an iron overload problem .

Speaking of cookware. I wonder how Thoughtful's high-cholesterol (but yummy-sounding "experimental" casserole) turned out? tou-)
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Three Cheers for Clander!


Double from me.

Regarding the KIRITV piece on Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project, someone should write to them that Hampikian is not acting as Director of the IIP and had no influence whatsoever on the decision to independently review the DNA evidence. In fact, any American taxpayers on this board should write a real letter (not an email) to Boise State University asking that Hampikian's directorship be reviewed for conflict of interest.

Chris Halkides has always maintained the the IIP (a taxpayer-supported institution) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox case. Was he lying?



Also, I always thought those sort of organisations weren't supposed to get involved in a case until after the process was complete and conviction sealed anyway. Do people actually on trial over in the United States have the benefit of being defended by the innocent project?


This is actually a serious issue. Someone is lying somewhere.

Set aside the issue of whether Knox is guilty or innocent. Who is paying Dr Hampikian? If it is the Knox family then he should not be dragging the Innocence Project into this. It is an ongoing criminal case. If it is the Innocence Project then Hampikian needs to explain the source of his trip to Italy and various media appearances that are nothing more than advocacy statements on behalf of a convicted sex killer.

This is really a job for the media (KIVITV, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau) to sort out. At the base of it, unwitting American taxpayers are financing an advocacy position for a vicious sex killer, because donations are tax deductible. This means a portion of every dollar (even every square cm of web site space) spent by Hampikian in the name of The Innocence Project is coming straight out the pockets of all Americans, including all those who are not at all convinced of anything Hampikian says.

Does that articulate my position a bit better? We need screenshots of the Idaho Innocence Project web site to prove that they are using public funds to promote Hampikian's personal agenda on behalf of the Knox family.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline odeed


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:49 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I always thought that it was disingenuous for Hampikian to use the "Innocence Project" tag when he can be hired separately http://www.crimescience.com/

ETA: I was searching for articles "hampikian" "innocence project" and "knox", to see which articles Hampikian uses "Innocence Project" to propagate PR for Knox, and I notice this webcache http://tinyurl.com/2b3ubjr which has subsequently been changed to http://news.boisestate.edu/update/2010/ ... pikian-14/

Quote:
Greg Hampikian
Posted By Erin Ryan | Dec 15th, 2010 - 3:07 pm | Posted In: Faculty & Staff in Action

Greg Hampikian, a professor of biology and criminal justice and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, was featured in a Columbus Ledger-Enquirer story about DNA testing of old evidence from a serial murder case in Georgia.

Hampikian is the DNA expert for the defense in the case against Carlton Gary, who was convicted 33 years ago. Read the full article here.

Also working as a DNA expert for the defense team in the murder case against American exchange student Amanda Knox in the Italian court system, Hampikian was featured in Time in a story leading up to a major Dec. 18 ruling.

Knox has been a client of the the Idaho Innocence Project since June 2009, and Hampikian went to Perugia to work with the defense team this summer. His DNA report on the case, co-written with Elizabeth A. Johnson, points out problems with the DNA evidence. The report also formed the basis of a petition signed by 10 other internationally recognized DNA experts. A judge will decide if new forensic evidence will be allowed into court, essentially re-opening the case for additional investigation.


Bois State is Hampikian university.


Last edited by odeed on Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:21 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tu-))

Douglas Preston on Fox News Insider.

FOX NEWS INSIDER

There are no words for these lies. Well, there are, but nothing suitable for the board!

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hello Everyone,

Am working, and in need of a break, this time translating contract for a water company, not favourite work.

Anyway, can't get my head around much, thanks for kind comments.

Bard, that insomnia stuff interests me, as I often wonder if I am one, an insomniac, but, I do sleep, a real insomniac is someone who never sleeps, isn't it?
I'm not sure.
That pop star, trying to think of her name, married to the King Crimson guitarist, I'd better look it up as it's not coming to me...got it, Toyah Wilcox, she had it for real, not sleeping at all. Me I am a terrible owl/Dracula (going to bed just before it gets light, but not a true Drac as am still messing about when the sun has already risen), but, I do sleep, feels better though when getting to bed on time, and up early, daytime sleep is not good because of the noise.

On the back pain, the only thing I know about is what helped me with unexplainable pain (head) and that was acupuncture, I managed to get it paid for otherwise it's so expensive. It was the only thing that helped me, immediately.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: OT: IRON MAN   

The 411 wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Some scientists have had a broader education than others, or even broader interests. I remember chatting with a physical chemist about aluminium being ingested via food cooked in aluminium pans, and how when iron is ingested in the same way, it's a good thing. He said, aluminium would just take iron's place in the body. (:~?)....which doesn't happen. It was a though he couldn't see the difference when inside a body, (and it didn't even make sense valency-wise.)


Buck 'o Tea:
Just wanted to jump in here and say that "extra iron" is not a good thing. UNLESS you've been been diagnosed with some kind of iron-deficiency(with the blood work to show it), you SHOULD NOT rely on non-dietary sources of iron to INCREASE iron intake.

In fact, TOO MUCH iron is definitely a BAD THING.

For starters...
From WebMD
"As the level of iron goes up in your bloodstream, so apparently does your risk for heart attack and stroke. A new study by Japanese researchers shows that high-level iron injections can cause almost immediate constriction of blood vessels. In fact, the scientists believe the iron damage could be the first step in a cascade of events leading to the thickening and hardening of the arteries known as atherosclerosis.

"Our study shows that we should recognize iron as a risk factor," says Hidehiro Matsuoka, MD, PhD, lead researcher and chief of the Kurume University School of Medicine's hypertension program. The cardiologist presented his findings Wednesday at the 54th Annual Fall Conference of the American Heart Association's Council for High Blood Pressure Research."

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

You'll notice that multivitamins for men over 50 usually
DO NOT CONTAIN any IRON,
for this very reason.

There are other health problems caused by exceeding the recommended daily iron intake.(e.g.even "a bit of excess iron" can inhibit zinc absorption, which is important for the immune system). Bottom line: don't supplement with iron without consulting with your doctor FIRST.

That said, unless you have a particular medical condition, I don't think cast iron cookware will cause an iron overload problem .

Speaking of cookware. I wonder how Thoughtful's high-cholesterol (but yummy-sounding "experimental" casserole) turned out? tou-)



Indeed you are right about too much iron. Your frying pan will not cause you to suffer. Patients suffering with too much iron are usuallly those who have a condition that requires regular transfusions.

ETA serious too much iron coming from the transfused blood; not dietary at all.


Last edited by bucketoftea on Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:23 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 Dec 21, 2010 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Three Cheers for Clander!


Double from me.

Regarding the KIRITV piece on Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project, someone should write to them that Hampikian is not acting as Director of the IIP and had no influence whatsoever on the decision to independently review the DNA evidence. In fact, any American taxpayers on this board should write a real letter (not an email) to Boise State University asking that Hampikian's directorship be reviewed for conflict of interest.

Chris Halkides has always maintained the the IIP (a taxpayer-supported institution) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox case. Was he lying?



Also, I always thought those sort of organisations weren't supposed to get involved in a case until after the process was complete and conviction sealed anyway. Do people actually on trial over in the United States have the benefit of being defended by the innocent project?


This is actually a serious issue. Someone is lying somewhere.

Set aside the issue of whether Knox is guilty or innocent. Who is paying Dr Hampikian? If it is the Knox family then he should not be dragging the Innocence Project into this. It is an ongoing criminal case. If it is the Innocence Project then Hampikian needs to explain the source of his trip to Italy and various media appearances that are nothing more than advocacy statements on behalf of a convicted sex killer.

This is really a job for the media (KIVITV, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau) to sort out. At the base of it, unwitting American taxpayers are financing an advocacy position for a vicious sex killer, because donations are tax deductible. This means a portion of every dollar (even every square cm of web site space) spent by Hampikian in the name of The Innocence Project is coming straight out the pockets of all Americans, including all those who are not at all convinced of anything Hampikian says.

Does that articulate my position a bit better? We need screenshots of the Idaho Innocence Project web site to prove that they are using public funds to promote Hampikian's personal agenda on behalf of the Knox family.


As you say.

In addition, isn't the IP's purpose to bring to light proof of innocence or disprove evidence that led to conviction? Well that's not what Hampikian is bringing to the table here. All he's bringing is an opinion that certain evidence isn't 'strong enough', an opinion that is actually quite debatable. He argues contamination on the knife yet brings forward no evidence to support said contamination, only opinion. Does the IP normally defend individuals on such a wishy-washy basis? Would that be accepted as a valid defence by the IP in US courts? Does the IP also have the remit to interfere in trials in foreign sovereign nations?

And on whether the Idaho IP is involved or not, perhaps the best thing would be to publish an open letter requesting official clarification from them on the matter.

_________________
"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 Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you everyone.

In particular, I would like to thank Michael and Skep for the trust they have placed in me.
It will be my pleasure and honor to serve as the board's "technical Admin".

I am currently on vacation so I plan on using the next 3 weeks to simply study the board from a technical point of view (for example, after the MSNbot-"bandwidth-lover" that caused the board to go down two months ago, I am curious to see how the other spiders are behaving).
As soon as I get back to Rome, Michael and I will start upgrading a few things.

I have only one request for now:
should you notice that the board becomes "sluggish", please let me know (I'll also need to know the date, the exact time and the time zone in which you are in).

Thanks,
Clander
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Congratulations, Clander. I knew you'd step up to the plate!

About 411's query:
Quote:
Speaking of cookware. I wonder how Thoughtful's high-cholesterol (but yummy-sounding "experimental" casserole) turned out?


Well, it was a recipe of Gregory Cuilleron, a budding French chef (with a wonderful name for a chef) who won a nationwide cooking competition last year...and has only one hand. But although the casserole was filling and tasty, I wouldn't make it again. His recipes seem to be a bit heavy, and they use some babyish ingredients, like last night's macaroni, or mixing foie gras with cornflakes, or making chocolate-pear crumble with those "petit beurre" biscuits that kids eat after school. I'm not too convinced. He's very cute though (as google will confirm).
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I need a favor (I am still trying to find the best translation for "figuriamoci quando").
There are quite a few posters here than can read Italian.

Could you please translate into English the following three random sentences:

1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.
(okay, this last sentence is not so "random") :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Welcome Clander! Thanks to you for volunteering! :)

=====

I just posted this to the ABC News site article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=12438004

With your subtitle, "Butcher Knife, Bra Clasp Are the Only Physical Evidence Linking Knox to Murder," ABC News has gotten this story completely wrong.

There was blood evidence all over that cottage linking Knox to the murder. Her DNA was mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in at least five places: within three blood spots in the bathroom (sink, bidet, cotton bud box), and in two luminol-enhanced (i.e. bloody) footprints of Knox's right foot.

One of those footprints in blood (probably cleaned up) was in the other roommate's room. Why were bloody footprints of Knox, containing DNA of both Knox and the victim, located in the room where the "burglar" broke in? Why was there NO DNA of Rudy (the supposed "burglar") in that room at all? No hair, fibre, fingerprints or DNA of Rudy at all? No scraping marks on the wall or the windowsill? Glass fragments on TOP of the rifled clothing? Nothing stolen?

Because the break-in was faked by Knox as she traipsed around the apartment in bare feet drenched in Meredith's blood. There is no other rational explanation for those luminol footprints with both her and Meredith's DNA in them. In the other roommate's room? Why would Knox's and Meredith's DNA be in there at all, much less combined, much less on top of a bloody footprint? It boggles the mind the unlikelihood of that, if Knox was NOT involved in the murder.

Clearly, there is much other physical evidence, including DNA evidence, linking Knox to the murder. Please get the story right. I'd like to publicly ask you to retract and remove this title from the article. It is a lie, pure and simple. I had expected more of ABC News, frankly.
Top Profile 

Offline odeed


Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:49 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Idaho Innocence Project http://innocenceproject.boisestate.edu/

"...We are currently working on Amanda Knox’s appeal in Italy. For other examples of our work see the links below."

So the Idaho Innocence Project has resources to spend on a case in Italy?

Was there anything useful contributed by Hampikian to the case or the appeals in Italy?


Last edited by odeed on Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

IMO

Most people have moved on, because they believe justice was done with the guilty verdict.

The 'support' seems to have increased, but it really hasn't. Once again, it's the perception the US media wants to impart.

John Kercher's poignant articles were a blip when they should have been an explosion.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Earthling wrote:
Welcome Clander! Thanks to you for volunteering! :)

=====

I just posted this to the ABC News site article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=12438004

With your subtitle, "Butcher Knife, Bra Clasp Are the Only Physical Evidence Linking Knox to Murder," ABC News has gotten this story completely wrong.

There was blood evidence all over that cottage linking Knox to the murder. Her DNA was mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in at least five places: within three blood spots in the bathroom (sink, bidet, cotton bud box), and in two luminol-enhanced (i.e. bloody) footprints of Knox's right foot.

One of those footprints in blood (probably cleaned up) was in the other roommate's room. Why were bloody footprints of Knox, containing DNA of both Knox and the victim, located in the room where the "burglar" broke in? Why was there NO DNA of Rudy (the supposed "burglar") in that room at all? No hair, fibre, fingerprints or DNA of Rudy at all? No scraping marks on the wall or the windowsill? Glass fragments on TOP of the rifled clothing? Nothing stolen?

Because the break-in was faked by Knox as she traipsed around the apartment in bare feet drenched in Meredith's blood. There is no other rational explanation for those luminol footprints with both her and Meredith's DNA in them. In the other roommate's room? Why would Knox's and Meredith's DNA be in there at all, much less combined, much less on top of a bloody footprint? It boggles the mind the unlikelihood of that, if Knox was NOT involved in the murder.

Clearly, there is much other physical evidence, including DNA evidence, linking Knox to the murder. Please get the story right. I'd like to publicly ask you to retract and remove this title from the article. It is a lie, pure and simple. I had expected more of ABC News, frankly.


Elizabeth Vargas is a useless journalist. She's ignorant of the basic facts of the case, she always fawns over Edda Mellas and she only interviews people who think Amanda Knox is innocent.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Body Language & Non-Verbal Communication in Court

Extract from proposed courtroom set-up (videoconferencing between courtroom and penitentiary- otherwise known as Telehearing, pleading by/through videoconference)

The set-up of this piece of furniture with a 57 and 52-inch screen and cameras is critical: all participants must have a good view of the screen. In addition, it is necessary for everyone in physical attendance to have a clear view of all of the participants in their different positions (for example, no obstructions of hands so that it’s possible to see all non-verbal communication those intended for the lawyers, involves a shift further to the rear).


One can say, you can't judge a book by its cover, like, one can't deduce anything by the way a person looks or acts, however, it seems in legal practice, appearance as part of posture/demeanour, acting/behaviour, as they all link up, is in fact taken very seriously.

Therefore, a judge does not just listen, but in trying to ascertain what is what based on evidence and the entirety of what is envisioned to be the real version of events, judges are definitely waiting with very observant eyes to try to work out, of course, if a person is lying or telling the truth.

It's not like they can operate according to clinical scientific means alone, it's through/in human terms that they are trying to get to the truth, and they have to make their minds up on lots of different angles, a great deal of which is based on the ability to accurately interpret the matters at hand according to circumspection.

Where physical evidence may be defined as direct, all of the other pointers, such as a person giving different versions of an event, or acting in certain ways that do not fit together (like Sollecito suddenly changing his behaviour then coming up with things that were shown to be untrue and at the same time throwing Knox overboard immediately by buttoning up- at that point the police KNEW he had things to hide), for having said things that turned out not to be true, all of that adds up to the totality and that is AS vital as the direct evidence when trying to get to the real version of what happened. This is the greatest difference, as I see it, in the concepts that underpin the various legal systems. In Italy, it's the attempt to get to the fullest real/real life/realistic version of what happened that determines how the system in present day use is set up, that's why, so much is included, whereas in America and UK, I think that many guilty people can get away with things simply because precious details about a criminal cannot be revealed, and many more rules like this. The indirect is the circumlocutory nature of the proceedings.

Like: where Knox said & wrote what she did, and in what she wrote it is as much as 'clear as day' that she was not coerced, and by writing & telling (revealing) so many details, this very part/element shows it was in no way anything forced. There was otherwise - if it had ever been a matter of someone twisting her arm up her back - no reason at all to elaborate and make up so many sideliner details.
It was as much as a short story.

Observing body language
[Middle English, from Latin circumspectus, past participle of circumspicere, to take heed : circum-, circum- + specere, to look; see spek- in Indo-European roots


3. A roundabout expression.

[Middle English circumlocucioun, from Latin circumlocti, circumloctin-, from circumloctus, past participle of circumloqu : circum-, circum- + loqu, to speak; see tolkw- in Indo-European roots.]

The expression in law is the totality of ALL evidence, definite physical elements like DNA or blood but all of the bits and what they add up to in order to get to the complete picture.

Common sense, logical thinking are elements that are included in the bit where the judges definitely do have their eyes open and are observing what everything adds up to, including how a person reacts in court.

Apparently humans have some antennae that can detect when someone else is lying, now think about judges, who spend every single day summing people up, is it really so easy to put on an act for them, I reckon they know every trick in the book.
They are looking out for things that people are entirely unaware of.

The lawyers may smile too, but in reality, I can't see Knox's lawyers having ideas of sending their kids off with Knox to a house party.

I think I finally understand the mentality behind the camera shots in court with Knox's family, they were expecting to have the judge pose after letting her go, Edda on the judges lap or something!
Say cheese!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I've recently been doing some reasearch into the formation of "New Labour", the party remodelled by Tony Blair et al. This may seem totally off-topic, but some of the things I was reading really struck a chord and I thought it worth noting them here. The Blairites had to win over the rather conservative UK media and so they ran a very successful PR campaign. The following are some of their tactics:

- Establishing "celebrity" status for the key people (eg Blair, in their case).
- Establishing themselves as the primary source of news about the party, so journalists come to them rather than looking for the real primary sources.
- Achieving this by being very quick off the mark with any breaking news and packaging it very helpfully for journalists (who are assumed to be essentially lazy). Also trying to make every development sound newsworthy.
- Using their position as a primary source to put a suitable spin on the news before journalists get hold of it, rather than having to do damage-limitation afterwards.
- Controlling access to their celebrities: giving greater access for journalists who are prepared to promise favourable coverage; freezing out those who are not.
- Creating a very active group of people who stamped on anyone who voiced criticism (including the alleged use of some dirty tricks and smears)

Now, where else have I seen these tactics in use.....?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
Quote:
1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.


Personally, I agree with "imagine when" in all three of these cases, because the first clause of the sentence contains a time-related condition: "If it's such-and-such when..." or "If it's already such-and-such..."

But you don't always say "figuriamoci quando", do you? Couldn't you say for
instance "Sono molto stanca, ho lavorato tutta la notte. Figuriamoci se posso aiutarti adesso."

Here's an example that came up when I put "figuriamoci se" into google:
"Già odio la settimana enigmistica, figuramoci se pure con le ragazze devo risolvere misteri per capire se gli piaccio o meno."

[Teehee - this was definitely not written by Catnip - he's a settimana enigmistica fan, eh Catnip?]

In these situations, you don't have another time-related contrasting clause to make a "when" work out.

I see Amanda's statements as summarizing to something more like the following:

"I have always had difficulty expressing myself. Imagine [?] I'm the least talented person in this room for expressing myself".

There's no time-component to justify "when". It would be more "if".
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Earthling wrote:
Welcome Clander! Thanks to you for volunteering! :)

=====

I just posted this to the ABC News site article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=12438004

With your subtitle, "Butcher Knife, Bra Clasp Are the Only Physical Evidence Linking Knox to Murder," ABC News has gotten this story completely wrong.

There was blood evidence all over that cottage linking Knox to the murder. Her DNA was mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in at least five places: within three blood spots in the bathroom (sink, bidet, cotton bud box), and in two luminol-enhanced (i.e. bloody) footprints of Knox's right foot.

One of those footprints in blood (probably cleaned up) was in the other roommate's room. Why were bloody footprints of Knox, containing DNA of both Knox and the victim, located in the room where the "burglar" broke in? Why was there NO DNA of Rudy (the supposed "burglar") in that room at all? No hair, fibre, fingerprints or DNA of Rudy at all? No scraping marks on the wall or the windowsill? Glass fragments on TOP of the rifled clothing? Nothing stolen?

Because the break-in was faked by Knox as she traipsed around the apartment in bare feet drenched in Meredith's blood. There is no other rational explanation for those luminol footprints with both her and Meredith's DNA in them. In the other roommate's room? Why would Knox's and Meredith's DNA be in there at all, much less combined, much less on top of a bloody footprint? It boggles the mind the unlikelihood of that, if Knox was NOT involved in the murder.

Clearly, there is much other physical evidence, including DNA evidence, linking Knox to the murder. Please get the story right. I'd like to publicly ask you to retract and remove this title from the article. It is a lie, pure and simple. I had expected more of ABC News, frankly.


Thank you for posting this. Well done. I really enjoyed my little read over there.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Congratulations, Clander. I knew you'd step up to the plate!

About 411's query:
Quote:
Speaking of cookware. I wonder how Thoughtful's high-cholesterol (but yummy-sounding "experimental" casserole) turned out?


Well, it was a recipe of Gregory Cuilleron, a budding French chef (with a wonderful name for a chef) who won a nationwide cooking competition last year...and has only one hand. But although the casserole was filling and tasty, I wouldn't make it again. His recipes seem to be a bit heavy, and they use some babyish ingredients, like last night's macaroni, or mixing foie gras with cornflakes, or making chocolate-pear crumble with those "petit beurre" biscuits that kids eat after school. I'm not too convinced. He's very cute though (as google will confirm).


Beurk!!! C'est un véritable délit contre l'humanité! (Dans le sens moderne du terme "délit"; en ancien français le mot veut dire "plaisir" et c'est tout le contraire).

_________________
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: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Welcome Clander! Thanks to you for volunteering! :)

=====

I just posted this to the ABC News site article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=12438004

With your subtitle, "Butcher Knife, Bra Clasp Are the Only Physical Evidence Linking Knox to Murder," ABC News has gotten this story completely wrong.

There was blood evidence all over that cottage linking Knox to the murder. Her DNA was mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in at least five places: within three blood spots in the bathroom (sink, bidet, cotton bud box), and in two luminol-enhanced (i.e. bloody) footprints of Knox's right foot.

One of those footprints in blood (probably cleaned up) was in the other roommate's room. Why were bloody footprints of Knox, containing DNA of both Knox and the victim, located in the room where the "burglar" broke in? Why was there NO DNA of Rudy (the supposed "burglar") in that room at all? No hair, fibre, fingerprints or DNA of Rudy at all? No scraping marks on the wall or the windowsill? Glass fragments on TOP of the rifled clothing? Nothing stolen?

Because the break-in was faked by Knox as she traipsed around the apartment in bare feet drenched in Meredith's blood. There is no other rational explanation for those luminol footprints with both her and Meredith's DNA in them. In the other roommate's room? Why would Knox's and Meredith's DNA be in there at all, much less combined, much less on top of a bloody footprint? It boggles the mind the unlikelihood of that, if Knox was NOT involved in the murder.

Clearly, there is much other physical evidence, including DNA evidence, linking Knox to the murder. Please get the story right. I'd like to publicly ask you to retract and remove this title from the article. It is a lie, pure and simple. I had expected more of ABC News, frankly.


Elizabeth Vargas is a useless journalist. She's ignorant of the basic facts of the case, she always fawns over Edda Mellas and she only interviews people who think Amanda Knox is innocent.



This is because she is in the running for the coveted exclusive with Amanda Knox. Only the big networks like ABC can afford to shell out enough money for the top prize. Vargas plays it the way she does, along with helper Nikki Battisti for this reason and this reason alone. It is about business and nothing else. Expect another 20/20 segment soon, during the appeals, devoted to promoting the "innocentisti" slant on the case.

The sad truth is that the Knox/Mellas family, at great expense (in the form of unpaid bills for now) engaged the services of Marriott to basically buy off the US media. And this is precisely what he has done, working the channels he knows so well. I really doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they fought for freedom of speech, by the way. And for those who believe (as one poster in the comments section of the Telegraph apparently does) that there is money behind the "colpevolisti" movement (or even that such a movement exists), I would reply that I have certainly seen no signs of it in terms of media coverage, which is where the money would be apparent. There is no movement and no money, just people like the Kerchers who respect the process and are interested in the truth. It is a pretty lonely place to be. There is no limousine service and no make-up person to prep you for your next television interview. In fact, there are no television interviews. No free trips back and forth to NY and Italy, no hotel stays comped. No Hollywood producers are hanging around. Every once in awhile something nice happens, like a scholarship being set up in the name of Meredith. But even small acts of comfort such as this immediately get sullied by the big money folks and their "grassroots" soldiers. And the few intrepid journalists who are only interested in reporting the truth are denied access; worse, they become the subject of vicious gossip fabricated by..... guess who? It's called a vicious circle.

Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?

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

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Clander wrote:
Quote:
1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.


Personally, I agree with "imagine when" in all three of these cases, because the first clause of the sentence contains a time-related condition: "If it's such-and-such when..." or "If it's already such-and-such..."

But you don't always say "figuriamoci quando", do you? Couldn't you say for
instance "Sono molto stanca, ho lavorato tutta la notte. Figuriamoci se posso aiutarti adesso."

Here's an example that came up when I put "figuriamoci se" into google:
"Già odio la settimana enigmistica, figuramoci se pure con le ragazze devo risolvere misteri per capire se gli piaccio o meno."

[Teehee - this was definitely not written by Catnip - he's a settimana enigmistica fan, eh Catnip?]

In these situations, you don't have another time-related contrasting clause to make a "when" work out.

I see Amanda's statements as summarizing to something more like the following:

"I have always had difficulty expressing myself. Imagine [?] I'm the least talented person in this room for expressing myself".

There's no time-component to justify "when". It would be more "if".


not an expert at all, I don't even speak English properly, but what about
"I have always had difficulty expressing myself, never mind when I need to speak in a language that's not mine"
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Wow. That's scary.
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Machine, what a psycho Doug Preston is, what the heck is that about??? What right does he have to do that? I would report him for internet harassment or stalking, let him deal with the authorities (and we all know how much he loves cops and prosecutors)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))



This is not an opinion board, where anyone can come and make irresponsible statements or engage in intellectual trickery and masturbation. There are plenty of places for that on the Internet and out in the real world. This is a community that was set up for the pursuit of spin-free truth and I absolutely abhor argument for the sake of argument when the subject -- the brutal murder of a living, breathing and vibrant human being like Meredith Kercher -- is so serious. If it were just a matter of pulverizing opponents for fun, as in a parlor game, I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker. I have a master's degree in philosophy, where arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are routine. But enough about me, really! However, people who come here to start fights are trolls and they will be banned immediately. No tolerance whatsoever. Disputes arise here as a result of inquiry and are resolved in good faith. This practice is very different from what goes on at JREF and I am fully willing to assume responsibility for the censorship that maintaining it requires.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

teacher wrote:
Wow. That's scary.


You haven't seen the rest of his e-mail. It's quite obscene.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Welcome Clander! Thanks to you for volunteering! :)

=====

I just posted this to the ABC News site article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=12438004

With your subtitle, "Butcher Knife, Bra Clasp Are the Only Physical Evidence Linking Knox to Murder," ABC News has gotten this story completely wrong.

There was blood evidence all over that cottage linking Knox to the murder. Her DNA was mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in at least five places: within three blood spots in the bathroom (sink, bidet, cotton bud box), and in two luminol-enhanced (i.e. bloody) footprints of Knox's right foot.

One of those footprints in blood (probably cleaned up) was in the other roommate's room. Why were bloody footprints of Knox, containing DNA of both Knox and the victim, located in the room where the "burglar" broke in? Why was there NO DNA of Rudy (the supposed "burglar") in that room at all? No hair, fibre, fingerprints or DNA of Rudy at all? No scraping marks on the wall or the windowsill? Glass fragments on TOP of the rifled clothing? Nothing stolen?

Because the break-in was faked by Knox as she traipsed around the apartment in bare feet drenched in Meredith's blood. There is no other rational explanation for those luminol footprints with both her and Meredith's DNA in them. In the other roommate's room? Why would Knox's and Meredith's DNA be in there at all, much less combined, much less on top of a bloody footprint? It boggles the mind the unlikelihood of that, if Knox was NOT involved in the murder.

Clearly, there is much other physical evidence, including DNA evidence, linking Knox to the murder. Please get the story right. I'd like to publicly ask you to retract and remove this title from the article. It is a lie, pure and simple. I had expected more of ABC News, frankly.


Elizabeth Vargas is a useless journalist. She's ignorant of the basic facts of the case, she always fawns over Edda Mellas and she only interviews people who think Amanda Knox is innocent.



This is because she is in the running for the coveted exclusive with Amanda Knox. Only the big networks like ABC can afford to shell out enough money for the top prize. Vargas plays it the way she does, along with helper Nikki Battisti for this reason and this reason alone. It is about business and nothing else. Expect another 20/20 segment soon, during the appeals, devoted to promoting the "innocentisti" slant on the case.

The sad truth is that the Knox/Mellas family, at great expense (in the form of unpaid bills for now) engaged the services of Marriott to basically buy off the US media. And this is precisely what he has done, working the channels he knows so well. I really doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they fought for freedom of speech, by the way. And for those who believe (as one poster in the comments section of the Telegraph apparently does) that there is money behind the "colpevolisti" movement (or even that such a movement exists), I would reply that I have certainly seen no signs of it in terms of media coverage, which is where the money would be apparent. There is no movement and no money, just people like the Kerchers who respect the process and are interested in the truth. It is a pretty lonely place to be. There is no limousine service and no make-up person to prep you for your next television interview. In fact, there are no television interviews. No free trips back and forth to NY and Italy, no hotel stays comped. No Hollywood producers are hanging around. Every once in awhile something nice happens, like a scholarship being set up in the name of Meredith. But even small acts of comfort such as this immediately get sullied by the big money folks and their "grassroots" soldiers. And the few intrepid journalists who are only interested in reporting the truth are denied access; worse, they become the subject of vicious gossip fabricated by..... guess who? It's called a vicious circle.

Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


It wasn't me, Skepperoni! What's myface? Is that like spacebook?

Has anyone else ever noticed that the family-friendly media (CBS, ABC, KOMO, et al) seem to always/only have photos of their media darling that appear photoshopped/airbrushed? Perfect flawless skin, even tones. Other photos, or even the same photos, in other non-biased media show different. Could it be the lighting? Or are the blemishes and "imperfections" glossed over like the evidence?

Just an observation. Gotta make sure the product is picture-perfect.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander: Here are my submissions, below your Italian sentences:

Clander wrote:
I need a favor (I am still trying to find the best translation for "figuriamoci quando").
There are quite a few posters here than can read Italian.

Could you please translate into English the following three random sentences:

1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

"If they don't pay when you're right, you can (just) imagine when you're wrong!!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.
"It's already beautiful as is, I can't even imagine (what it will look like) when it's done. "

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.
(okay, this last sentence is not so "random") :D

"I already have great difficulty in expressing myself in my own (native) language, so try to imagine me having to express myself in a language that's not my own."


Clander, th-) for taking on PMF techy responsibilities...
One question...
Do you make house calls, too? b-((
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
teacher wrote:
Wow. That's scary.


You haven't seen the rest of his e-mail. It's quite obscene.



I think Preston will stop at nothing to get revenge against the man who "humiliated" him. It is quite simple, quite primitive and yes, quite scary.

I don't really understand why anyone would hack my facebook account though. Incidentally, this was not the first attempt from that particular location in Pennsylvania. My account is generally not activated anyway, and I am not a regular user of facebook. Attempts have also been made to hack my email account. This is a little more worrisome, but at the same time I don't have anything to hide and my real name is out there thanks to "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name). I'm sure that efforts have been made to obtain a copy of my criminal record, but I don't have one (not even a moving violation) so that would be disappointing. Rumors have been started about me, some of them quite amusing. Whatever, huh? Message to all the hackers out there: anything you want to know about me, just ask.

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

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Three Cheers for Clander!


Double from me.

Regarding the KIRITV piece on Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project, someone should write to them that Hampikian is not acting as Director of the IIP and had no influence whatsoever on the decision to independently review the DNA evidence. In fact, any American taxpayers on this board should write a real letter (not an email) to Boise State University asking that Hampikian's directorship be reviewed for conflict of interest.

Chris Halkides has always maintained the the IIP (a taxpayer-supported institution) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox case. Was he lying?



Also, I always thought those sort of organisations weren't supposed to get involved in a case until after the process was complete and conviction sealed anyway. Do people actually on trial over in the United States have the benefit of being defended by the innocent project?


This is actually a serious issue. Someone is lying somewhere.

Set aside the issue of whether Knox is guilty or innocent. Who is paying Dr Hampikian? If it is the Knox family then he should not be dragging the Innocence Project into this. It is an ongoing criminal case. If it is the Innocence Project then Hampikian needs to explain the source of his trip to Italy and various media appearances that are nothing more than advocacy statements on behalf of a convicted sex killer.

This is really a job for the media (KIVITV, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau) to sort out. At the base of it, unwitting American taxpayers are financing an advocacy position for a vicious sex killer, because donations are tax deductible. This means a portion of every dollar (even every square cm of web site space) spent by Hampikian in the name of The Innocence Project is coming straight out the pockets of all Americans, including all those who are not at all convinced of anything Hampikian says.

Does that articulate my position a bit better? We need screenshots of the Idaho Innocence Project web site to prove that they are using public funds to promote Hampikian's personal agenda on behalf of the Knox family.


As you say.

In addition, isn't the IP's purpose to bring to light proof of innocence or disprove evidence that led to conviction? Well that's not what Hampikian is bringing to the table here. All he's bringing is an opinion that certain evidence isn't 'strong enough', an opinion that is actually quite debatable. He argues contamination on the knife yet brings forward no evidence to support said contamination, only opinion. Does the IP normally defend individuals on such a wishy-washy basis? Would that be accepted as a valid defence by the IP in US courts? Does the IP also have the remit to interfere in trials in foreign sovereign nations?

And on whether the Idaho IP is involved or not, perhaps the best thing would be to publish an open letter requesting official clarification from them on the matter.



I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Double from me.

Regarding the KIRITV piece on Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project, someone should write to them that Hampikian is not acting as Director of the IIP and had no influence whatsoever on the decision to independently review the DNA evidence. In fact, any American taxpayers on this board should write a real letter (not an email) to Boise State University asking that Hampikian's directorship be reviewed for conflict of interest.

Chris Halkides has always maintained the the IIP (a taxpayer-supported institution) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Knox case. Was he lying?



Also, I always thought those sort of organisations weren't supposed to get involved in a case until after the process was complete and conviction sealed anyway. Do people actually on trial over in the United States have the benefit of being defended by the innocent project?


This is actually a serious issue. Someone is lying somewhere.

Set aside the issue of whether Knox is guilty or innocent. Who is paying Dr Hampikian? If it is the Knox family then he should not be dragging the Innocence Project into this. It is an ongoing criminal case. If it is the Innocence Project then Hampikian needs to explain the source of his trip to Italy and various media appearances that are nothing more than advocacy statements on behalf of a convicted sex killer.

This is really a job for the media (KIVITV, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau) to sort out. At the base of it, unwitting American taxpayers are financing an advocacy position for a vicious sex killer, because donations are tax deductible. This means a portion of every dollar (even every square cm of web site space) spent by Hampikian in the name of The Innocence Project is coming straight out the pockets of all Americans, including all those who are not at all convinced of anything Hampikian says.

Does that articulate my position a bit better? We need screenshots of the Idaho Innocence Project web site to prove that they are using public funds to promote Hampikian's personal agenda on behalf of the Knox family.


As you say.

In addition, isn't the IP's purpose to bring to light proof of innocence or disprove evidence that led to conviction? Well that's not what Hampikian is bringing to the table here. All he's bringing is an opinion that certain evidence isn't 'strong enough', an opinion that is actually quite debatable. He argues contamination on the knife yet brings forward no evidence to support said contamination, only opinion. Does the IP normally defend individuals on such a wishy-washy basis? Would that be accepted as a valid defence by the IP in US courts? Does the IP also have the remit to interfere in trials in foreign sovereign nations?

And on whether the Idaho IP is involved or not, perhaps the best thing would be to publish an open letter requesting official clarification from them on the matter.


The Knox conviction is not even remotely similar to the vast majority of the cases championed by The Innocence Project. In all cases, the appeal route has been exhausted for those wrongfully convicted. In the majority of the cases, new DNA techniques have been used to reverse the decisions of the courts. In many cases, including two featured at the Idaho Innocence Project site, the family of the victims themselves have supported the re-opening of investigations and the examination of new forensic evidence.

An open letter is one thing. However, the media have to be advised that Hampikian is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, he is a director at the IIP, but the IIP doesn't issue blanket (idiotic) statements about DNA being "really small". The Knox family, however, has made a bit of a career out of calling DNA "really small". Which cheque is Hampikian cashing when he utters such drivel?

What he must do is to decouple the Innocence Project from his personal paid appearances as a hack for the Knox family. Otherwise, truly innocent taxpayers are being ridden by the Melloxes to help finance grandstanding tours for their personal lackeys.

This is all about money.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


Raffaele Sollecito confirmed it was Meredith's DNA on the blade of the double DNA knife:

“The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand."
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."


This is why I don't think people should post their kid's photos here. Why would Preston pay money to find out who someone is if he doesn't intend to do anything? Clearly he was stupid enough to tamper with evidence in a foreign country!
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."


By golly, Machine. We loves you!

Preston. Twat.

He reminds me very much of another chap (who coincidentally writes fantasy fiction) called Derek Armstrong, a Canadian, who ghost wrote a lousy book that was 2xmommykiller of Bolingbrook, Drew Peterson's side of the story, then hawked himself around as a case expert. Doesn't want to chat with Illinois State Police. Think Dampseat, I suppose; but more (strike "more") talent for self-promotion
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Welcome Clander! Thanks to you for volunteering! :)

=====

I just posted this to the ABC News site article:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=12438004

With your subtitle, "Butcher Knife, Bra Clasp Are the Only Physical Evidence Linking Knox to Murder," ABC News has gotten this story completely wrong.

There was blood evidence all over that cottage linking Knox to the murder. Her DNA was mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in at least five places: within three blood spots in the bathroom (sink, bidet, cotton bud box), and in two luminol-enhanced (i.e. bloody) footprints of Knox's right foot.

One of those footprints in blood (probably cleaned up) was in the other roommate's room. Why were bloody footprints of Knox, containing DNA of both Knox and the victim, located in the room where the "burglar" broke in? Why was there NO DNA of Rudy (the supposed "burglar") in that room at all? No hair, fibre, fingerprints or DNA of Rudy at all? No scraping marks on the wall or the windowsill? Glass fragments on TOP of the rifled clothing? Nothing stolen?

Because the break-in was faked by Knox as she traipsed around the apartment in bare feet drenched in Meredith's blood. There is no other rational explanation for those luminol footprints with both her and Meredith's DNA in them. In the other roommate's room? Why would Knox's and Meredith's DNA be in there at all, much less combined, much less on top of a bloody footprint? It boggles the mind the unlikelihood of that, if Knox was NOT involved in the murder.

Clearly, there is much other physical evidence, including DNA evidence, linking Knox to the murder. Please get the story right. I'd like to publicly ask you to retract and remove this title from the article. It is a lie, pure and simple. I had expected more of ABC News, frankly.


Elizabeth Vargas is a useless journalist. She's ignorant of the basic facts of the case, she always fawns over Edda Mellas and she only interviews people who think Amanda Knox is innocent.



This is because she is in the running for the coveted exclusive with Amanda Knox. Only the big networks like ABC can afford to shell out enough money for the top prize. Vargas plays it the way she does, along with helper Nikki Battisti for this reason and this reason alone. It is about business and nothing else. Expect another 20/20 segment soon, during the appeals, devoted to promoting the "innocentisti" slant on the case.

The sad truth is that the Knox/Mellas family, at great expense (in the form of unpaid bills for now), engaged the services of Marriott to basically buy off the US media. And this is precisely what he has done, working the channels he knows so well. I really doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they fought for freedom of speech, by the way. And for those who believe (as one poster in the comments section of the Telegraph apparently does) that there is money behind the "colpevolisti" movement (or even that such a movement exists), I would reply that I have certainly seen no signs of it in terms of media coverage, which is where the money would be apparent. There is no movement and no money, just people like the Kerchers who respect the process and are interested in the truth. It is a pretty lonely place to be. There is no limousine service and no make-up person to prep you for your next television interview. In fact, there are no television interviews. No free trips back and forth to NY and Italy, no hotel stays comped. No Hollywood producers are hanging around. Every once in awhile something nice happens, like a scholarship being set up in the name of Meredith. But even small acts of comfort such as this immediately get sullied by the big money folks and their "grassroots" soldiers. And the few intrepid journalists who are only interested in reporting the truth are denied access; worse, they become the subject of vicious gossip fabricated by..... guess who? It's called a vicious circle.

Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?



Agree, Skep and the only change I would make to your post is that I would shout it in all CAPS!! Skep, Machine, SA and all who are being threatened - know that you are worrying the people who are frantically working to mislead the public in order to free the murderers. Desperate times are motivating the hopeless.

Great video on the knife evidence at TJMK. Well done!
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you to Clander for volunteering! :)
The Machine wrote:

Elizabeth Vargas is a useless journalist. She's ignorant of the basic facts of the case, she always fawns over Edda Mellas and she only interviews people who think Amanda Knox is innocent.


I sent a complaint to ABC about the blatant lies and the support for the murderer. It's one thing to want a scoop, but Elizabeth Vargas is selling her soul for it. Truly sickening to listen to.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Stilicho, I agree with you, it is sadly all about the money. Makes me ill.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bedelia wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."


This is why I don't think people should post their kid's photos here. Why would Preston pay money to find out who someone is if he doesn't intend to do anything? Clearly he was stupid enough to tamper with evidence in a foreign country!


I think he is rather naive more than anything, but also ruthless when it comes to his own interests and ego. His problem is that he listened to only one source, Spezi, and has hooked his wagon to that star ever since.

If anything happens to The Machine, we will have our number one suspect at the ready. So I guess you're right. Preston is stupid and naive.

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."


By golly, Machine. We loves you!

Preston. Twat.

He reminds me very much of another chap (who coincidentally writes fantasy fiction) called Derek Armstrong, a Canadian, who ghost wrote a lousy book that was 2xmommykiller of Bolingbrook, Drew Peterson's side of the story, then hawked himself around as a case expert. Doesn't want to chat with Illinois State Police. Think Dampseat, I suppose; but more (strike "more") talent for self-promotion


There are many odd parallels when I think of it....like Peterson's defense stiffing an expert witness a $50,000 bill when they didn't get the right answer.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:

Quote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


FWIW, I agree with you. The knife is and always has been problematic, and there was ample evidence to convict without it. But there is was, the knife, and once it had been apprehended, I suppose it was normal to try and see what was on it. I am not a scientist, but I have always wondered what the chances are of finding the victim's DNA (even low quantity) on a knife chosen at random from the home of a person of interest that the victim had never visited?

What I am trying to say, in my unscientific way, is that it seems to me that the supporters of AK want to argue that innocent transfer of DNA is highly possible and therefore likely (a logical mistake in and of itself) while a guilty one is not possible or likely. I don't get the reasoning. It seems to go like this: if RS's DNA is on the bra strap, it can only be for an innocent reason because he is innocent. Same for AK. And so on. Isn't that circular reasoning?

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bedelia wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."


This is why I don't think people should post their kid's photos here. Why would Preston pay money to find out who someone is if he doesn't intend to do anything? Clearly he was stupid enough to tamper with evidence in a foreign country!


I think he is rather naive more than anything, but also ruthless when it comes to his own interests and ego. His problem is that he listened to only one source, Spezi, and has hooked his wagon to that star ever since.

If anything happens to The Machine, we will have our number one suspect at the ready. So I guess you're right. Preston is stupid and naive.


Funny you should say stupid and naive....that was the distinct impression I had of him from a video. He looked and acted like a big kid, I thought. He said something, and it showed all over his face that he was thinking "That went down well, I think I'll push it some more" and then he said some big FAT lie. I wonder if we have it here...it was ages ago, on US TV (where else?) where his filmed opinions were part of a bigger programme, I think.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Bucket wrote:

Quote:
Funny you should say stupid and naive....that was the distinct impression I had of him from a video. He looked and acted like a big kid, I thought. He said something, and it showed all over his face that he was thinking "That went down well, I think I'll push it some more" and then he said some big FAT lie. I wonder if we have it here...it was ages ago, on US TV (where else?) where his filmed opinions were part of a bigger programme, I think.


You may be thinking of his live appearance on Anderson Cooper just a day before the verdict. Barbie Nadeau was a remote guest on the same program and I think Lisa Bloom was the other guest. Doug Preston was not very impressive, to say the least, and made the huge mistake of running with it when Cooper gave him the chance to talk about his own encounter with Mignini. Preston actually said that evidence against Knox had been fabricated! He looked as if he had just farted when he said that.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
bedelia wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Someone in Pennsylvania tried to hack my facebook account the other day. Should I be worried?


Doug Preston claimed he had paid a hacker to find out who I was:

"You weren't very careful about your postings and last emails. I hired an expensive hacker, and now I know who you are, where you live, and what you do. The information below cost me a pretty penny, but it was worth it."


This is why I don't think people should post their kid's photos here. Why would Preston pay money to find out who someone is if he doesn't intend to do anything? Clearly he was stupid enough to tamper with evidence in a foreign country!


I think he is rather naive more than anything, but also ruthless when it comes to his own interests and ego. His problem is that he listened to only one source, Spezi, and has hooked his wagon to that star ever since.

If anything happens to The Machine, we will have our number one suspect at the ready. So I guess you're right. Preston is stupid and naive.


Funny you should say stupid and naive....that was the distinct impression I had of him from a video. He looked and acted like a big kid, I thought. He said something, and it showed all over his face that he was thinking "That went down well, I think I'll push it some more" and then he said some big FAT lie. I wonder if we have it here...it was ages ago, on US TV (where else?) where his filmed opinions were part of a bigger programme, I think.


Here he is, wearing another gorgeous blouse. He's sssssooooooo butch. The man is very thin skinned for a supposed creative. I always thought that true artists didn't give a damn what anyone thinks. Don't worry Machine. We have top lawyer on Team Meredith. He won't get far. Besides, sending threatening emails to people and cyber stalking them would not do his credibility much good. He def has a castration complex doesn't he. It's keeps him awake at night, and haunts his days...

Interestingly his 'companion' here describes them as being like an old married couple. I could not agree more!


_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

if somebody reading/posting from/at jref forum where they are discussing MK telephones, I wonder if they know AK/RS phones.
do you know what type of telephones they had?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Greggy wrote:

Quote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


FWIW, I agree with you. The knife is and always has been problematic, and there was ample evidence to convict without it. But there is was, the knife, and once it had been apprehended, I suppose it was normal to try and see what was on it. I am not a scientist, but I have always wondered what the chances are of finding the victim's DNA (even low quantity) on a knife chosen at random from the home of a person of interest that the victim had never visited?

What I am trying to say, in my unscientific way, is that it seems to me that the supporters of AK want to argue that innocent transfer of DNA is highly possible and therefore likely (a logical mistake in and of itself) while a guilty one is not possible or likely. I don't get the reasoning. It seems to go like this: if RS's DNA is on the bra strap, it can only be for an innocent reason because he is innocent. Same for AK. And so on. Isn't that circular reasoning?


Greggy isn't arguing transfer or contamination to exclude the knife (which you probably know).

The bra strap DNA may be retested although there's no real reason to do so.

The groupies' main rhetorical tactic is that the print and DNA evidence indicating Guede's involvement should create doubt that Knox and Sollecito were. It actually did and that's why the cops kept going back to the cottage to pick up more things to test.

It's a really good thing for the groupies that none of them are criminals (that we know of) because they would always underestimate the efficacy of police detective work (even sloppy Italian ones).

Sound familiar?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Preston sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Greggy wrote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


Raffaele Sollecito confirmed it was Meredith's DNA on the blade of the double DNA knife:

“The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand."



I think it's also important to realise that unlike in the US/UK systems where if shown to be weak or questionable a judge will throw an item of evidence out and not allow the jury to consider it (or maybe not even hear it in the first place) in the Italian system all is allowed to be considered but may be given a lesser weight (and also considered in light of the context of the rest of the evidence. This is because Italian judges are considered to be bright enough to do this and also because of the way an Italian court works which is collegial, rather then adversarial ...it's a debate, which includes contributions from multiple parties (not simply prosecution V defence), the judges can themselves cross examine the experts (whereas juries in adversarial cases can't), the judges can call in further experts to testify or appoint neutral experts to perform further tests and reviews. This allows them to arrive at a full understanding of what weight each individual evidence should be given.

For these reasons I would think that it probably would not be sage to allow the knife as evidence in a UK/US court. However, I do feel it right to be admitted in an Italian court. The thing I am not totally certain of is how much weight it should be given in a verdict. I am minded that even though there are question marks over it, it is lent strength by the context. That context is that Meredith was murdered with a knife and no other murder weapon has been found, DNA was found on the blade when none other of Meredith's DNA was found in Raffaele's apartment (work this out...Meredith's DNA was found on the blade yet none of Amanda's DNA was found in Meredith's room, yet she'd been sharing a cottage with Meredith for two months) and the knife had never been to the cottage, the fact it's a match for the fatal wound, no contamination or breaking of the chain of evidence has been evidenced and of course we have Raffaele's lie about pricking Meredith.

Unless the science makes it clear cut, evidence should not be judged on the science alone but also the context for that particular piece of evidence. In this case, the context makes up for some of the uncertainty regarding the knife.

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Corrina wrote:
Preston sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.



Without the good looks!


Vote for Pedro!

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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:

(Re Meredith’s DNA profile on Double DNA knife)

‘The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate.’

I know very little about this test. But Frank had mentioned awhile ago that at some point after the amplification process was completed a duplicate sample was run on this with the same DNA results.This would not be a parallel duplicate run of the base DNA sample, as there was not enough sample. However after the amplification was completed, there was a duplicate gel that was run on this sample.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Greggy wrote:

Quote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


FWIW, I agree with you. The knife is and always has been problematic, and there was ample evidence to convict without it. But there is was, the knife, and once it had been apprehended, I suppose it was normal to try and see what was on it. I am not a scientist, but I have always wondered what the chances are of finding the victim's DNA (even low quantity) on a knife chosen at random from the home of a person of interest that the victim had never visited?

What I am trying to say, in my unscientific way, is that it seems to me that the supporters of AK want to argue that innocent transfer of DNA is highly possible and therefore likely (a logical mistake in and of itself) while a guilty one is not possible or likely. I don't get the reasoning. It seems to go like this: if RS's DNA is on the bra strap, it can only be for an innocent reason because he is innocent. Same for AK. And so on. Isn't that circular reasoning?


Greggy isn't arguing transfer or contamination to exclude the knife (which you probably know).

The bra strap DNA may be retested although there's no real reason to do so.

The groupies' main rhetorical tactic is that the print and DNA evidence indicating Guede's involvement should create doubt that Knox and Sollecito were. It actually did and that's why the cops kept going back to the cottage to pick up more things to test.

It's a really good thing for the groupies that none of them are criminals (that we know of) because they would always underestimate the efficacy of police detective work (even sloppy Italian ones).

Sound familiar?



Yes, but the evidence against Guede is not as strong as they like to make out. Not only do they exaggerate the amount (he left a ton of evidence...his DNA is 'all over the room'...blah blah), but most of his DNA is actually weaker then Raffaele's and as weak as Meredith's DNA on the knife blade. The DNA of Rudy on Meredith's handbag, sports top sleeve and found in her private area isn't even a profile, it isn't even LCN...it's simply his haplotype shared by thousands of males. Moreover, the handbag and top wasn't retrieved until after six weeks just like the clasp.

Even Charlie Wilkes understands this, hence why he rarely refers to these elements specifically, instead emphasisng Rudy's hand print on the pillow, which is the only really 'strong' evidence of Rudy in the room. Even his much lauded bloody shoe prints were never actually matched to his shoes, they simply match his size and a trainer model he used to own, but one no doubt also owned by thousands. Most of the groupies don't seem yo understand this though. The few like Charlie who do will often (only when referring to Guede) break their own rule and expand the crime scene outside of Meredith's room (at all other times the First Commandment is 'Thou shalt only consider Meredith's room to be the crime scene') to list Guede's shoe print evidence in the corridor and his faeces and DNA in the large bathroom. None of this evidence by the way, disproves Rudy's version of events. Some will go even further and invent a past history of crime for Rudy to strengthen their case. The fact is, which none of them will admit, is that the evidence against Rudy is not as strong as they like to make out it is, not any piece in isolation. It's when it's all brought together in context it makes a strong case against him and that's how it should be evaluated. This is the method they refuse to apply to Amanda and Raffaele, instead attacking each piece of evidence in isolation and out of context and if that's not enough, inventing ridiculous and implausible stories to explain each item away. This in essence, is the intellectual double standard and dishonesty with which they approach the case.

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


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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Preston sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.



Without the good looks!


Vote for Pedro!


Girls only want boyfriends with really great skills.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.

_________________
"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 Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Greggy wrote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


Raffaele Sollecito confirmed it was Meredith's DNA on the blade of the double DNA knife:

“The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand."



That is what I adore about justice and this case. Ak47 and Knife-boy are smarmy gifts that just keep keep on giving. When confronted with the blade DNA evidence, Knife-boy could have easily said nothing and shook his head or said "I don't believe your results". But no, he had to make up an instant lie and confirm the evidence at the same time. I may be stodgy about not accepting this one piece of DNA evidence based on principle but it is clear to me that the first Jury made the right decision about their guilt, and I will be surprised if this Appellate Jury does anything more than slightly reduce their sentences.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Corrina wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Corrina wrote:
Preston sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.



Without the good looks!


Vote for Pedro!


Girls only want boyfriends with really great skills.



Just draw a picture of the girl you want to take out... and give it to her for like a gift or something.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Greggy wrote:
I suggest that Dr. Hampikian is heavily basing his contamination opinion on the extremely tiny amount of Kercher DNA calculated to have been originally in the knife blade crevice. I have seen no estimation presented of this amount but suspect it to be at the outer limits of current quantitative PCR technology in the fentogram (10e-15) range. Results in that range are often reported as contamination and are most often of the PCR scientists performing the assay themselves. But, in terms of all or none qualitative evidence, if the blade DNA evidence remains accepted in testimony, then the evidence is highly damaging to knife-boy because it puts Miss Kercher at the end of a knife he owns either in his apartment or somewhere else. He is directly linked by the bra clasp DNA evidence to the clean-up but not to the murder because he could have handled and removed the bra after the murder because the blood pattern was dried. Testimony during the trial estimated that the knife-boy's DNA on the bra clasp was in the low nanogram range (10e-9) which is a million times more than the knife crevice DNA. This is a high amount result and will be nearly impossible to overcome with a contamination defense.

I am still torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA results. One side of my brain, the young enthusiastic scientist I once was, says accept the evidence and use it. Dr. Stef 's lab team showed ingenuity and innovation developing a new PCR protocol that detected Miss Kercher's DNA at extremely low amounts. You can't fake a PCR result; don't let these murderers get away. The other side of my brain, the seasoned older scientist I have become, says Whoa, slow down Boy. You have to use established procedures in criminal trials; someone's life is at issue. Some of you have referred to the PCR protocol that Dr. Stef's lab group used as the Low Copy Number (LCN) PCR protocol, which has been accepted in some court cases. From my reading of the trial testimony, it reads like they did not use the LCN protocol, but developed a new PCR protocol with different steps and cycles to obtain the single result. The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. There has been no validation of this new PCR protocol comparing it to the old protocols looking for potentially spurious results. There has been no Quality Assurance oversight and sign-off of the blade DNA result because it would fail such a review. So I am torn on the validity of the knife crevice DNA result and think that the fog it added to this murder case was unnecessary when all the other DNA results are so strong and recently re-affirmed by the court as indisputable.


Raffaele Sollecito confirmed it was Meredith's DNA on the blade of the double DNA knife:

“The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand."



That is what I adore about justice and this case. Ak47 and Knife-boy are smarmy gifts that just keep keep on giving. When confronted with the blade DNA evidence, Knife-boy could have easily said nothing and shook his head or said "I don't believe your results". But no, he had to make up an instant lie and confirm the evidence at the same time. I may be stodgy about not accepting this one piece of DNA evidence based on principle but it is clear to me that the first Jury made the right decision about their guilt, and I will be surprised if this Appellate Jury does anything more than slightly reduce their sentences.


Just to refresh -- what a weak link "knife boy" is:

1. He still maintains that Amanda Knox was not with him that night - he maintains he was alone at his computer for the main part of the evening. To this day he doesn't support her alibi. Forensically there has been found to have been no interaction between he and his PC during the hours in question.

2. When he heard that DNA evidence of both Knox and Meredith Kercher had been found on the knife found in his kitchen drawer he relates that "he accidentally pricked Meredith Kercher with the knife when cooking". It is known and Knox confirmed that Meredith Kercher never once visited his apartment. Also - the DNA of Meredith Kercher was found some distance from the tip of the knife in an indentation. It's a ridiculous story.

3. When he heard that Rudy Guede had been picked up he expressed in writing his concern that "the ivorian" he terms him "may invent strange things" ... In trial both he and his lawyer have asserted strongly that both he and Guede are complete strangers -- never met him once -- never encountered him -- never heard of him. Why would he be worried that someone he had never met, never even knew "would invent strange things".

These few glaring deficiencies - actually separate to the trial evidence against Sollecito.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skep wrote:
Quote:
Beurk!


Or, one might call it "un crime de lèse-foie-gras". Yes, I'm afraid I'd better be looking for some other cooking role model than cute Gregory.


Last edited by thoughtful on Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker.


He he. You wrestle too right? Do you beat Wally at wrestling?! Oh and rent Rocket Science before any other intended movie. You'll see.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maria


Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

British boffins discovered the science behind DNA testing and it's possibilities, I believe it was Leicester University. There was a murder case where they tested every male person in the area and the murderer was caught when someone admitted that a baker had had someone else sit his blood test. It's a book called the blooding if anyone is interested. Amazing that it was not Oxford, Cambridge, Havard etc... No offence to Leicester but a huge kudos!

Edited to add my point is that what Michael says is true, Europe are at the forefront of this sort of science.


Last edited by Maria on Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))



This is not an opinion board, where anyone can come and make irresponsible statements or engage in intellectual trickery and masturbation. There are plenty of places for that on the Internet and out in the real world. This is a community that was set up for the pursuit of spin-free truth and I absolutely abhor argument for the sake of argument when the subject -- the brutal murder of a living, breathing and vibrant human being like Meredith Kercher -- is so serious. If it were just a matter of pulverizing opponents for fun, as in a parlor game, I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker. I have a master's degree in philosophy, where arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are routine. But enough about me, really! However, people who come here to start fights are trolls and they will be banned immediately. No tolerance whatsoever. Disputes arise here as a result of inquiry and are resolved in good faith. This practice is very different from what goes on at JREF and I am fully willing to assume responsibility for the censorship that maintaining it requires.



Greetings to Mary, who divides her time between non-stop posting on JREF and reading this board. I just wanted to address your grievance more fully. Kompomisto, like so many before him, is an emissary from Bruce Fisher, who was banned from this board. If you doubt this, you can check out the link provided to Kompo's "rationalist" inquiry blog. He links to the AK Defense Fund and IIP, Bruce's hobby. By now, the views of IIP and the Defense Fund are well known. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high school PE teacher to realize that debate between Bruce's people -- who have an agenda and a cause -- and the people on PMF -- the number one board for no-spin information on this case -- does not go anywhere at all. It's all about squabbles, pot shots and just plain infantile bad behavior, which is not very pretty to watch when those engaging in it are adults. If you doubt me, then take a step back (if you can) and observe the level of discussion on your own JREF thread. It is breathtaking in its ugliness. And I credit you at least in part for that monumental achievement.

Thanks for keeping an eye on what we do here. I like to think that one of the reasons it works so well is that people like you, Mary, are not encouraged to post.

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

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
I think it's also important to realise that unlike in the US/UK systems where if shown to be weak or questionable a judge will throw an item of evidence out and not allow the jury to consider it (or maybe not even hear it in the first place) in the Italian system all is allowed to be considered but may be given a lesser weight (and also considered in light of the context of the rest of the evidence. This is because Italian judges are considered to be bright enough to do this and also because of the way an Italian court works which is collegial, rather then adversarial ...it's a debate, which includes contributions from multiple parties (not simply prosecution V defence), the judges can themselves cross examine the experts (whereas juries in adversarial cases can't), the judges can call in further experts to testify or appoint neutral experts to perform further tests and reviews. This allows them to arrive at a full understanding of what weight each individual evidence should be given.

For these reasons I would think that it probably would not be sage to allow the knife as evidence in a UK/US court. However, I do feel it right to be admitted in an Italian court. The thing I am not totally certain of is how much weight it should be given in a verdict. I am minded that even though there are question marks over it, it is lent strength by the context. That context is that Meredith was murdered with a knife and no other murder weapon has been found, DNA was found on the blade when none other of Meredith's DNA was found in Raffaele's apartment (work this out...Meredith's DNA was found on the blade yet none of Amanda's DNA was found in Meredith's room, yet she'd been sharing a cottage with Meredith for two months) and the knife had never been to the cottage, the fact it's a match for the fatal wound, no contamination or breaking of the chain of evidence has been evidenced and of course we have Raffaele's lie about pricking Meredith. ...


Glad you are chatting on this. Very timely. Garofano was clearly somewhat puzzled, though praising too.

Pete

Added: Oh! Now Greggy squelched you. Okay, have at him Michael.


Last edited by Fast Pete on Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))



This is not an opinion board, where anyone can come and make irresponsible statements or engage in intellectual trickery and masturbation. There are plenty of places for that on the Internet and out in the real world. This is a community that was set up for the pursuit of spin-free truth and I absolutely abhor argument for the sake of argument when the subject -- the brutal murder of a living, breathing and vibrant human being like Meredith Kercher -- is so serious. If it were just a matter of pulverizing opponents for fun, as in a parlor game, I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker. I have a master's degree in philosophy, where arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are routine. But enough about me, really! However, people who come here to start fights are trolls and they will be banned immediately. No tolerance whatsoever. Disputes arise here as a result of inquiry and are resolved in good faith. This practice is very different from what goes on at JREF and I am fully willing to assume responsibility for the censorship that maintaining it requires.



Greetings to Mary, who divides her time between non-stop posting on JREF and reading this board. I just wanted to address your grievance more fully. Kompomisto, like so many before him, is an emissary from Bruce Fisher, who was banned from this board. If you doubt this, you can check out the link provided to Kompo's "rationalist" inquiry blog. He links to the AK Defense Fund and IIP, Bruce's hobby. By now, the views of IIP and the Defense Fund are well known. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high school PE teacher to realize that debate between Bruce's people -- who have an agenda and a cause -- and the people on PMF -- the number one board for no-spin information on this case -- does not go anywhere at all. It's all about squabbles, pot shots and just plain infantile bad behavior, which is not very pretty to watch when those engaging in it are adults. If you doubt me, then take a step back (if you can) and observe the level of discussion on your own JREF thread. It is breathtaking in its ugliness. And I credit you at least in part for that monumental achievement.

Thanks for keeping an eye on what we do here. I like to think that one of the reasons it works so well is that people like you, Mary, are not encouraged to post.


Don't worry about it Skep - Mary H8 has a mental health problem. She doesn't count.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))



This is not an opinion board, where anyone can come and make irresponsible statements or engage in intellectual trickery and masturbation. There are plenty of places for that on the Internet and out in the real world. This is a community that was set up for the pursuit of spin-free truth and I absolutely abhor argument for the sake of argument when the subject -- the brutal murder of a living, breathing and vibrant human being like Meredith Kercher -- is so serious. If it were just a matter of pulverizing opponents for fun, as in a parlor game, I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker. I have a master's degree in philosophy, where arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are routine. But enough about me, really! However, people who come here to start fights are trolls and they will be banned immediately. No tolerance whatsoever. Disputes arise here as a result of inquiry and are resolved in good faith. This practice is very different from what goes on at JREF and I am fully willing to assume responsibility for the censorship that maintaining it requires.



Greetings to Mary, who divides her time between non-stop posting on JREF and reading this board. I just wanted to address your grievance more fully. Kompomisto, like so many before him, is an emissary from Bruce Fisher, who was banned from this board. If you doubt this, you can check out the link provided to Kompo's "rationalist" inquiry blog. He links to the AK Defense Fund and IIP, Bruce's hobby. By now, the views of IIP and the Defense Fund are well known. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high school PE teacher to realize that debate between Bruce's people -- who have an agenda and a cause -- and the people on PMF -- the number one board for no-spin information on this case -- does not go anywhere at all. It's all about squabbles, pot shots and just plain infantile bad behavior, which is not very pretty to watch when those engaging in it are adults. If you doubt me, then take a step back (if you can) and observe the level of discussion on your own JREF thread. It is breathtaking in its ugliness. And I credit you at least in part for that monumental achievement.

Thanks for keeping an eye on what we do here. I like to think that one of the reasons it works so well is that people like you, Mary, are not encouraged to post.


Don't worry about it Skep - Mary H8 has a mental health problem. She doesn't count.


Lucky for her that some kind people - her family - have taken her in so she has a roof over her head.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))



This is not an opinion board, where anyone can come and make irresponsible statements or engage in intellectual trickery and masturbation. There are plenty of places for that on the Internet and out in the real world. This is a community that was set up for the pursuit of spin-free truth and I absolutely abhor argument for the sake of argument when the subject -- the brutal murder of a living, breathing and vibrant human being like Meredith Kercher -- is so serious. If it were just a matter of pulverizing opponents for fun, as in a parlor game, I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker. I have a master's degree in philosophy, where arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are routine. But enough about me, really! However, people who come here to start fights are trolls and they will be banned immediately. No tolerance whatsoever. Disputes arise here as a result of inquiry and are resolved in good faith. This practice is very different from what goes on at JREF and I am fully willing to assume responsibility for the censorship that maintaining it requires.



Greetings to Mary, who divides her time between non-stop posting on JREF and reading this board. I just wanted to address your grievance more fully. Kompomisto, like so many before him, is an emissary from Bruce Fisher, who was banned from this board. If you doubt this, you can check out the link provided to Kompo's "rationalist" inquiry blog. He links to the AK Defense Fund and IIP, Bruce's hobby. By now, the views of IIP and the Defense Fund are well known. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high school PE teacher to realize that debate between Bruce's people -- who have an agenda and a cause -- and the people on PMF -- the number one board for no-spin information on this case -- does not go anywhere at all. It's all about squabbles, pot shots and just plain infantile bad behavior, which is not very pretty to watch when those engaging in it are adults. If you doubt me, then take a step back (if you can) and observe the level of discussion on your own JREF thread. It is breathtaking in its ugliness. And I credit you at least in part for that monumental achievement.

Thanks for keeping an eye on what we do here. I like to think that one of the reasons it works so well is that people like you, Mary, are not encouraged to post.


Don't worry about it Skep - Mary H8 has a mental health problem. She doesn't count.


Lucky for her that some kind people - her family - have taken her in so she has a roof over her head.


Yes indeed. Mind you, I think I'd be depressed if my arse was that fat...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   


_________________
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Clander wrote:
Quote:
1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.


Personally, I agree with "imagine when" in all three of these cases, because the first clause of the sentence contains a time-related condition: "If it's such-and-such when..." or "If it's already such-and-such..."

But you don't always say "figuriamoci quando", do you? Couldn't you say for
instance "Sono molto stanca, ho lavorato tutta la notte. Figuriamoci se posso aiutarti adesso."

Here's an example that came up when I put "figuriamoci se" into google:
"Già odio la settimana enigmistica, figuramoci se pure con le ragazze devo risolvere misteri per capire se gli piaccio o meno."

[Teehee - this was definitely not written by Catnip - he's a settimana enigmistica fan, eh Catnip?]

In these situations, you don't have another time-related contrasting clause to make a "when" work out.

I see Amanda's statements as summarizing to something more like the following:

"I have always had difficulty expressing myself. Imagine [?] I'm the least talented person in this room for expressing myself".

There's no time-component to justify "when". It would be more "if".


"I have always had difficulty expressing myself. Imagine [?] I'm the least talented person in this room for expressing myself".

How about:

"I have always had difficulty expressing myself. Consider me the least talented person in this room for expressing myself".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Bard! Thsi is hilarious!!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:

"I object!", says legal eagle.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This is not an opinion board, where anyone can come and make irresponsible statements or engage in intellectual trickery and masturbation. There are plenty of places for that on the Internet and out in the real world. This is a community that was set up for the pursuit of spin-free truth and I absolutely abhor argument for the sake of argument when the subject -- the brutal murder of a living, breathing and vibrant human being like Meredith Kercher -- is so serious. If it were just a matter of pulverizing opponents for fun, as in a parlor game, I would probably be able to kick just about anyone's ass. Ask my husband. I was once the number one female high school debater in my state (back then they made the distinction so the boys wouldn't feel bad) and the number one expository speaker. I have a master's degree in philosophy, where arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are routine. But enough about me, really! However, people who come here to start fights are trolls and they will be banned immediately. No tolerance whatsoever. Disputes arise here as a result of inquiry and are resolved in good faith. This practice is very different from what goes on at JREF and I am fully willing to assume responsibility for the censorship that maintaining it requires.



Greetings to Mary, who divides her time between non-stop posting on JREF and reading this board. I just wanted to address your grievance more fully. Kompomisto, like so many before him, is an emissary from Bruce Fisher, who was banned from this board. If you doubt this, you can check out the link provided to Kompo's "rationalist" inquiry blog. He links to the AK Defense Fund and IIP, Bruce's hobby. By now, the views of IIP and the Defense Fund are well known. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high school PE teacher to realize that debate between Bruce's people -- who have an agenda and a cause -- and the people on PMF -- the number one board for no-spin information on this case -- does not go anywhere at all. It's all about squabbles, pot shots and just plain infantile bad behavior, which is not very pretty to watch when those engaging in it are adults. If you doubt me, then take a step back (if you can) and observe the level of discussion on your own JREF thread. It is breathtaking in its ugliness. And I credit you at least in part for that monumental achievement.

Thanks for keeping an eye on what we do here. I like to think that one of the reasons it works so well is that people like you, Mary, are not encouraged to post.


Re: Kompo's "rationalist" inquiry blog

I downloaded and read the approximately 100 pages of the Less Wrong threads cultivated by Komposto. Indeed, as befits a ruthless merciless rationalist, he chose his name in Esperanto. No, I am not kidding.

The progression of the threads is very similar in tone to the JREF "All Because Of A Cartwheel" thread so nobody is missing much. There are several basic mistakes made in the evidence collected, presented, cross-examined, and judged upon but let's leave that alone for now.

The process is what absolutely astonishes me, especially for a forum dedicated to rationality and associated with something called the "Future of Humanity Institute" at Oxford. The tools made available to those participating were TJMK, FOA, and the Wikipedia page on Meredith's murder. Part of Komposto's rationale is that TJMK is "batshit crazy", the Wikipedia page is editable by anyone, and that this leaves the FOA site as the most likely bearer of correct information.

It's about a third of the way in to the "test" page (there's another convenient "you be the jury" page and an unrelated "who cares?" entry by one of Komposto's rational critics) that someone finally starts to pick apart the reasoning whereby looking at two websites and a Wikipedia page is probably not the best possible way to discover the truth about anything and certainly not about a murder. If we construct it as Komposto would:

P {Reading a couple web sites and a wiki page | Becoming informed} < P {Reading a couple web sites and a wiki page | Not becoming informed}

Less Wrong has its redeeming features. There was an attempt at a long and thorough debunking of Komposto's claims under a 4th entry entitled: "Debunking komponisto on Amanda Knox (long)". Unfortunately, that poster too got some things wrong and the first half of the comments on his post were something about not having enough "karma points" to properly post to Less Wrong.

It was a little like putting my hand in the blender but I figured someone had to see for themselves what the purveyors of the "Future Of Humanity" were up to. And now you all know too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Stilicho wrote:

Quote:
The process is what absolutely astonishes me, especially for a forum dedicated to rationality and associated with something called the "Future of Humanity Institute" at Oxford. The tools made available to those participating were TJMK, FOA, and the Wikipedia page on Meredith's murder. Part of Komposto's rationale is that TJMK is "batshit crazy", the Wikipedia page is editable by anyone, and that this leaves the FOA site as the most likely bearer of correct information.


Had I not seen this for myself I would think you were joking. I must say I found the "project" he announced here -- that of studying a couple of documents in Italian (a language he doesn't appear to master) in order to determine whether or not the current judges and jury members are able to reason correctly, or something like that -- to be downright nutty on the face of it. Holy batshit!

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

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.


I can certainly understand proceeding with caution when scientific processes are in their infancy, particularly when a person's freedom is at stake. Keeping in mind that I know very little about the science of DNA analysis, I'd really like to understand how your discomfort with LCN analysis applies to this case.

Is it really possible that allele drop-out, allele drop-in, peak imbalances, or arbitrary peak rfu designations are going to result in a profile that just happens to be a very good match for the murder victim? In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Maybe it's just me being dense.
But here is the problem I have understanding the whole US PR circus.
Okay, there is someone like the Vargas lady, happily passing along the Marriot handouts and talking points.
And from just the standpoint of, say, laziness, that makes sort of sense.
And the Innocent Abroad storyline is more man-bites-dog than the reverse.
("Italian Jurors Convict Guilty As All Get-Out Murderess" isn't, on the face of it, such a hot story.)
But, if as seems likely, Amanda just keeps being convicted, doesn't that effect the saleability of that future exclusive interview?
Let alone complicate the process of paying for it?
Which brings us back to the fundamental futility of the PR campaign in the US - that no matter how skillfully they manipulate public opinion here, it has no effect on what happens in the Italian courtroom.
And threatening Skep or The Machine, similarly doesn't effect the quality of the argument, or the underlying truth of the matter.
It's just loopy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Stilicho wrote:

Quote:
The process is what absolutely astonishes me, especially for a forum dedicated to rationality and associated with something called the "Future of Humanity Institute" at Oxford. The tools made available to those participating were TJMK, FOA, and the Wikipedia page on Meredith's murder. Part of Komposto's rationale is that TJMK is "batshit crazy", the Wikipedia page is editable by anyone, and that this leaves the FOA site as the most likely bearer of correct information.


Had I not seen this for myself I would think you were joking. I must say I found the "project" he announced here -- that of studying a couple of documents in Italian (a language he doesn't appear to master) in order to determine whether or not the current judges and jury members are able to reason correctly, or something like that -- to be downright nutty on the face of it. Holy batshit!


His claim of studying the documents to determine whether or not the judges and jury members are able to reason correctly was completely backward. The only way he could
Quote:
determine in advance whether or not the judges and jury members are able to reason correctly
is if he had some knowledge of their past reasoning.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
I need a favor (I am still trying to find the best translation for "figuriamoci quando").
There are quite a few posters here than can read Italian.

Could you please translate into English the following three random sentences:

1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.
(okay, this last sentence is not so "random") :D

Welcome Clander and th-) for helping admin this board!

Here FWIW my trans of above sentences:

1) If they don’t pay when you get it right, just imagine if you get it wrong!

2) It’s already beautiful as it is… so imagine when it'll be finished.

3) I have already major difficulties at expressing myself in my own language, let’s figure if when I have to express it in a language that is not mine.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?


Exactly! That's why the divide in this case is between those who can use reason and logic with emotional intelligence and those who try to use mathematical and scientific theorems to come out with black & white results. That's why they "believe" she is innocent but we "know" she is guilty. The truth resonates in people who have the emotional intelligence to live in reality.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

On the ABC news thing that Earthling mentioned earlier today, I just went to the site to read the comments and noticed that in the line above the box for entering comments is a line that says something to the effect "know more about the case, contact our editors here" . "here" is a link that takes you to a page where you can comment in up to 500 characters. You do have to give your name, email address, state and zip code. I did and wrote the following:

"This article says there were only two items of physical evidence linking Knox to the crime. That is wrong as a reading of the judge's 427 page decision would make clear. There were numerous blood spots having the dna of the both the victim and Knox in the bathroom and one in Filomena's bedroom, and luminol revealed two bloody foot prints consistent with Knox's right foot in the hallway that were not successfully cleaned up."
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

lauowolf wrote:
Maybe it's just me being dense.
But here is the problem I have understanding the whole US PR circus.
Okay, there is someone like the Vargas lady, happily passing along the Marriot handouts and talking points.
And from just the standpoint of, say, laziness, that makes sort of sense.
And the Innocent Abroad storyline is more man-bites-dog than the reverse.
("Italian Jurors Convict Guilty As All Get-Out Murderess" isn't, on the face of it, such a hot story.)
But, if as seems likely, Amanda just keeps being convicted, doesn't that effect the saleability of that future exclusive interview?
Let alone complicate the process of paying for it?
Which brings us back to the fundamental futility of the PR campaign in the US - that no matter how skillfully they manipulate public opinion here, it has no effect on what happens in the Italian courtroom.
And threatening Skep or The Machine, similarly doesn't effect the quality of the argument, or the underlying truth of the matter.
It's just loopy.


If you're dense, I'm dense because I have formed the same impression. The exercise on AK's side is pointless since it won't impact anything in Italy, and the pot in the US is ever dwindling as convitvion is followed by another conviction.

Either the Mellarseoxes truly don't understand the enormity of the problem confronting their daughter or they are going to cynically milk the dregs for all their worth.

One more thought......

Curt goes for a job interview once all this is over, and the interviewer says "Curt, are you the father of Amanda Knox ? You know, the girl that was convicted of murder ? Your family kicked up all that fuss over a horrible murder and you supported a daughter who was guilty as shit ? Sorry, we need good honest people working for XXXX; thank you and goodbye".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
Clander wrote:
I need a favor (I am still trying to find the best translation for "figuriamoci quando").
There are quite a few posters here than can read Italian.

Could you please translate into English the following three random sentences:

1) Se non pagano quando hai ragione figuriamoci quando hai torto!

2) E' già bellissima così...figuriamoci quando sarà completa.

3) Ho già delle grosse difficoltà ad esprimermi nelle mia propria lingua, figuriamoci quando mi devo esprimere in una lingua che non è la mia.
(okay, this last sentence is not so "random") :D

Welcome Clander and th-) for helping admin this board!

Here FWIW my trans of above sentences:

1) If they don’t pay when you get it right, just imagine if you get it wrong!

2) It’s already beautiful as it is… so imagine when it'll be finished.

3) I have already major difficulties at expressing myself in my own language, let’s figure if when I have to express it in a language that is not mine.


In the example using "imagine when" there is an embedded, implied clause, namely "what it will look like": It's already beautiful as it is, so imagine what it will look like when it is finished. That works in English. But the only way to make AK's sentence work with when in English is to actually supply the implied clause and add a "that". For this reason, "imagine when" does not work.

You can well imagine, when I speak to this court, that I am the weakest person, etc. And it only works if we also imagine a logical connector to the previous sentences, in the form of a word like "so".

In example 3 above, we could not translate it into English with when and have it be correct or meaningful. I don't think it would be translated into English as "let's figure"; it would be translated as just imagine or you can just imagine [what it is like] when I have to do so in a language that is not my own. But notice the extent to which the first part of the sentence had to be rewritten and the second half had to be filled in with words not actually said in order for this to make sense. Just sayin'.

_________________
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
Maybe it's just me being dense.
But here is the problem I have understanding the whole US PR circus.
Okay, there is someone like the Vargas lady, happily passing along the Marriot handouts and talking points.
And from just the standpoint of, say, laziness, that makes sort of sense.
And the Innocent Abroad storyline is more man-bites-dog than the reverse.
("Italian Jurors Convict Guilty As All Get-Out Murderess" isn't, on the face of it, such a hot story.)
But, if as seems likely, Amanda just keeps being convicted, doesn't that effect the saleability of that future exclusive interview?
Let alone complicate the process of paying for it?
Which brings us back to the fundamental futility of the PR campaign in the US - that no matter how skillfully they manipulate public opinion here, it has no effect on what happens in the Italian courtroom.
And threatening Skep or The Machine, similarly doesn't effect the quality of the argument, or the underlying truth of the matter.
It's just loopy.


If you're dense, I'm dense because I have formed the same impression. The exercise on AK's side is pointless since it won't impact anything in Italy, and the pot in the US is ever dwindling as convitvion is followed by another conviction.

Either the Mellarseoxes truly don't understand the enormity of the problem confronting their daughter or they are going to cynically milk the dregs for all their worth.

One more thought......

Curt goes for a job interview once all this is over, and the interviewer says "Curt, are you the father of Amanda Knox ? You know, the girl that was convicted of murder ? Your family kicked up all that fuss over a horrible murder and you supported a daughter who was guilty as shit ? Sorry, we need good honest people working for XXXX; thank you and goodbye".


I see a couple of things going on with ABC and Vargas. They are taking a risk in the hope of a big payoff, the jackpot in fact, if AK is acquitted. If she is not, which is more likely, then they can milk the story for what it is worth without having to win the big jackpot of a live interview and without ever saying we were wrong. In addition, they don't care to reflect on what they are doing and whether it is right or wrong. They don't care. It doesn't matter to them.

As for Curt finding work, he has already had to confront this issue. You would be surprised at how little people in business care about this sort of thing. When they want to hire someone for a job or are recruiting for an employer, they look at credentials. I know of one person who did not make the connection between Amanda Knox and Curt Knox until the connection was pointed out.

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

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Gripping analysis by TomM of what the appeal scope says to his practiced eyes.

http://tinyurl.com/29tuw8p


Last edited by Fast Pete on Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Gripping analysis by TomM of what the appeal scope says to his practiced eyes.

http://tinyurl.com/2a4s5ly



Really excellent job! I bet Ted Simon would agree with every word, though he would never have the nerve to say so on television.:)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
Gripping analysis by TomM of what the appeal scope says to his practiced eyes.

http://tinyurl.com/2a4s5ly



Really excellent job! I bet Ted Simon would agree with every word, though he would never have the nerve to say so on television.:)


I enjoyed getting the perspective of what the Supertanker is trying to spin as the differences between US and Italian law, and having it converted into the reality, which is Italian law.

Did that make sense ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
smacker wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
Maybe it's just me being dense.
But here is the problem I have understanding the whole US PR circus.
Okay, there is someone like the Vargas lady, happily passing along the Marriot handouts and talking points.
And from just the standpoint of, say, laziness, that makes sort of sense.
And the Innocent Abroad storyline is more man-bites-dog than the reverse.
("Italian Jurors Convict Guilty As All Get-Out Murderess" isn't, on the face of it, such a hot story.)
But, if as seems likely, Amanda just keeps being convicted, doesn't that effect the saleability of that future exclusive interview?
Let alone complicate the process of paying for it?
Which brings us back to the fundamental futility of the PR campaign in the US - that no matter how skillfully they manipulate public opinion here, it has no effect on what happens in the Italian courtroom.
And threatening Skep or The Machine, similarly doesn't effect the quality of the argument, or the underlying truth of the matter.
It's just loopy.


If you're dense, I'm dense because I have formed the same impression. The exercise on AK's side is pointless since it won't impact anything in Italy, and the pot in the US is ever dwindling as convitvion is followed by another conviction.

Either the Mellarseoxes truly don't understand the enormity of the problem confronting their daughter or they are going to cynically milk the dregs for all their worth.

One more thought......

Curt goes for a job interview once all this is over, and the interviewer says "Curt, are you the father of Amanda Knox ? You know, the girl that was convicted of murder ? Your family kicked up all that fuss over a horrible murder and you supported a daughter who was guilty as shit ? Sorry, we need good honest people working for XXXX; thank you and goodbye".


I see a couple of things going on with ABC and Vargas. They are taking a risk in the hope of a big payoff, the jackpot in fact, if AK is acquitted. If she is not, which is more likely, then they can milk the story for what it is worth without having to win the big jackpot of a live interview and without ever saying we were wrong. In addition, they don't care to reflect on what they are doing and whether it is right or wrong. They don't care. It doesn't matter to them.

As for Curt finding work, he has already had to confront this issue. You would be surprised at how little people in business care about this sort of thing. When they want to hire someone for a job or are recruiting for an employer, they look at credentials. I know of one person who did not make the connection between Amanda Knox and Curt Knox until the connection was pointed out.


I suspect it will be more relevant that he has taken off all this time with the extended "family emergency."
Makes a big hole in the resume.
At that point the difficult explanations begin.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Excellent piece by Tom on TJMK. Tom writes beautifully, and it is always easy to follow his calm logic. What he says makes perfect sense. I too think it is strange that the family are so excited about the review: it is only good news in a short term PR sense. Once the tests confirm Meredith's DNA on the knife the surely it is game over? How could Meredith's DNA, and flesh be on Raffaele's knife? We know his explanation was ridiculous. And the defence can't prove contamination. How would DNA have got there? At what stage? The DNA was caught in a scratch on the blade, not just on the surface, as one might expect with casual cross-contamination by someone who had been at the lab picking up something of Meredith's and then the knife. The fact that the DNA was caught in a scratch suggests it was deposited with a degree of force or pressure, surely?

Since the results have been confirmed by several experts now I don't see this evidence being overturned. I think it is a prelude to a confirmation of contested evidence. If I was a member of the Italian judiciary I would want to counter all the slander and xenophobic accusations of incompetence once and for all. How many accusations of planting evidence can they take before - on a human, rather than professional level - they have had enough?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I know the Knoxes arent my favorite people, but I honestly hope that Curt can find someone to hire him who will look past this. How else is he going to support and raise the other two girls? I would not hold it against any employer at all who hired him, as long as he is qualified and they chose to look past the rest, i think that is fine.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
I know the Knoxes arent my favorite people, but I honestly hope that Curt can find someone to hire him who will look past this. How else is he going to support and raise the other two girls? I would not hold it against any employer at all who hired him, as long as he is qualified and they chose to look past the rest, i think that is fine.


I agree Solange. Cassandra and the girls have had a really raw deal. I hope Curt can sort a job out too. Those kids deserve to have the rest of their childhood untroubled by anything once this is all over. If the verdict is confirmed I wonder how they will look back on the whole thing? At least they know their Dad will stand by them whatever they do. That is a positive thing to take away for them. Even though I hate what Curt does I do think he has shown strength and courage at times too. He did not chose to be put in this position, and I suppose he did not know he would feel so sure of Amanda's innocence. Being charitable, he has protected his family in the only way he knows how : total denial. I am guessing if he wavers for a second the whole family collapses in grief, and he can't face that. They are keeping the horror at bay. I think people will go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves psychologically.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

In Amanda's closing statement (Dec '09), she referred to "the masque of an assassin". In the opening statement (Nov '10), Amanda made several references to a victim's face showing visible terror; putting her sisters faces in the place of the mortified Meredith's.

Subliminal? I don't think so.

IMO, Amanda WANTS to tell the truth, but has dug herself so deep into a hole, she can't. Eventually, Amanda will be released from prison. Those whose project has been the sport of proclaiming her innocence will have disappeared. Family will still be there. Still paying of the debt incurred, trying to hang onto the home refinanced.

The court got it right. Amanda's reaching out with her statements is to her Family.
Top Profile 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Without question the P.R team are going to be applauded by the knox/mellas clan for this review of the knife and bra clasp believing the pressure applied by the countless interviews, articles and T.V and radio appearances has gotten through to the italian judicial system. I believe like most that its simply the judge finding closure with this issue of testing/contamination.


But the Knox/Mellas clan might have a point. there is no getting away from the fact that this is also a small victory for recruitment, donations and more expert `experts` to do the circuit and applying more pressure.


More pressure needs to be applied to Rafaelle who is clearly the weakest in explaining himself and weakest overall. Attention needs to turn solely on him and to marginalise him.


When Dick Tracy wanted to get to Big Boy Caprice....he went after Mumbles.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
In Amanda's closing statement (Dec '09), she referred to "the masque of an assassin". In the opening statement (Nov '10), Amanda made several references to a victim's face showing visible terror; putting her sisters faces in the place of the mortified Meredith's.

Subliminal? I don't think so.

IMO, Amanda WANTS to tell the truth, but has dug herself so deep into a hole, she can't. Eventually, Amanda will be released from prison. Those whose project has been the sport of proclaiming her innocence will have disappeared. Family will still be there. Still paying of the debt incurred, trying to hang onto the home refinanced.

The court got it right. Amanda's reaching out with her statements is to her Family.

Yeah I mean to say, just the other day I read about this:

Seventeen years ago, Trevell Coleman shot a man.
Last week, "trying to get right with God," the rapper known as G-Dep walked into a New York City police station and confessed to the cold case.
http://www.newser.com/story/107901/rapp ... -died.html


And this is a guy who was involved in plenty of crime, yet he couldn't live with himself.
That awful twisted face Amanda Knox pulled the other day, it made me think it was the effect of everything she is hiding.
I mean, personally I've never found Knox attractive, because she's a Plain Jane, I do understand why some consider her attractive, however, that photo and a few others of her have nothing to do with ordinary looks, ugly or beautiful, that look is just insane.

I'm sure she's suffering terribly even though she's still laughing, but that was once good about her, has now been overtaken and is being overtaken by the demons she's allowed to overtake her life and the lives of those who run like lemmings to do her bidding.

Just being in prison, especially with the types these people are locked away with, like these insanely wicked people who've stepped up somehow trying to gain favour for themselves because they know there's no way out for themselves, these child killers people who'd shoot someone dead as soon as look at them.

Then there's Knox with her cell-pal. If Knox wasn't bad enough, now she has to communicate with a person who went across a line, one (a person) maybe even worse than what Knox's was at first, because that woman devised an entire plan to murder her rich husband, a man who'd taken care of her, she obviously had everything she needed, but she wanted the lot, even if it meant killing her husband. Perhaps it is worse, the bit where a person gets someone else to do the actual killing, I think that's even worse behaviour.

In her cell, Knox knows who the other person is, and the other person knows who Knox is.
How do they deal with it, without admitting anything?
Very hard indeed.

Then you have Mr Odd, Sollecito. What is it about him? What's the extra added ingredient that created the formula he used to ruin his life, the lives of his family members, to take Meredith's life?

In his case, I think it's his maligned sense of entitlement that positioned and positions him.
To me, he looks like he has that all about him, in court, just like Knox has a chilling air about her, that always leads me to imagining her going potty. I have no trouble whatsoever imagining Knox going into frenzy mode in anger, because everything in her life is about her being centre stage. In a way this is what connects her to Sollecito, he is different, slightly, but though he doesn't appear to need to be the centre of attention, he does however definitely think he has more rights, that he is better than others. Although riding on his father's account, as someone important in society, he in fact was not, because he had not achieved anything, yet, now it is not likely that he ever will. Riding on his daddy's account, being a player in society, yet, having a negative attitude, perhaps because of his love of stimulants, which are the uppers like coke and speed, and then in combination with the mild hallucinatory substances. He was to be part of society and not at any low level, but he made some very negative comments about the establishment. He looks different now, he's getting his three meals a day at set times, but when he was arrested, his jaw was like someone coming down from speed, the grating of teeth, his clenched jaw, is an image that sticks in my mind because it made me think that this is exactly how his face was when he was strangling Meredith. That's not thought, that's just what I picked up, just by seeing those images.
The reason I picked up on this case, was because it immediately MADE me look up, when I saw Knox and Sollecito stood there cuddling like that, it looked so wrong, it did not meet up/fit with the news being told. What I got from it was that they were not in fact kissing and cuddling to kiss and cuddle but to hide from the situation and that is why they did that, that's why they behaved that way, trying to compose themselves that way, but because it was unreal, and was not about comforting one another, it was what it was, and that is, something perverse. That's why it appeared to be so sexualised and that's why people immediately picked up on the pair of them.
The way they walked round and round the house, they wanted to be gone but had to be there, they were not people engaged in reacting to the news, they already had the news, because they both created it.
That's why everything they did in the aftermath came across as insane. They did everything in order to not have to interact, when they did interact, they immediately overdid things, solving the case, over-helpfulness, the first sign an experienced police officer will pick up on. Why? Because that's what they are trained to do. If they could not pick up on the abnormalities, the unusual behaviour, they'd never work anything out.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.


I can certainly understand proceeding with caution when scientific processes are in their infancy, particularly when a person's freedom is at stake. Keeping in mind that I know very little about the science of DNA analysis, I'd really like to understand how your discomfort with LCN analysis applies to this case.

Is it really possible that allele drop-out, allele drop-in, peak imbalances, or arbitrary peak rfu designations are going to result in a profile that just happens to be a very good match for the murder victim? In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?


I have to apologize for being a bit overbearing earlier today about this tiny piece of evidence, which has negligible bearing on the overall verdicts in this case. If LCN analyses are acceptable at their current state of development to UK and Italian courts, so be it and the matter is closed. I know that the current STR assay kit giants (Promega and Applied BioSystems/Life Technologies) are actively developing, perfecting, and validating LCN assay kits for the forensic DNA market because they are recruiting heavy STR assay users with databases to become beta testers of the kits. As a competitive advantage, Applied BioSystems will be developing the rigorous analysis software needed side-by-side with the new LCN assay kits. So many of the points I made earlier will be moot within a year or so. Criminals everywhere will have more to fear. But the one issue, I can not concede in this case or any other is that a key scientific interpretation was made from only a single determination. Scientific evidence has to be held to a higher standard and the reproducibility of any result is critically important. I will not mention this matter again and hope that a grassroots movement doesn't arise here seeking to ban me from the forum for being a huge boor today. I promise to reform.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

yuppi du wrote:
Without question the P.R team are going to be applauded by the knox/mellas clan for this review of the knife and bra clasp believing the pressure applied by the countless interviews, articles and T.V and radio appearances has gotten through to the italian judicial system. I believe like most that its simply the judge finding closure with this issue of testing/contamination.


But the Knox/Mellas clan might have a point. there is no getting away from the fact that this is also a small victory for recruitment, donations and more expert `experts` to do the circuit and applying more pressure.
More pressure needs to be applied to Rafaelle who is clearly the weakest in explaining himself and weakest overall. Attention needs to turn solely on him and to marginalise him.


When Dick Tracy wanted to get to Big Boy Caprice....he went after Mumbles.


Luckily, they can be assured of a gullible audience. There's a sucker born every minute.

_________________
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.


I can certainly understand proceeding with caution when scientific processes are in their infancy, particularly when a person's freedom is at stake. Keeping in mind that I know very little about the science of DNA analysis, I'd really like to understand how your discomfort with LCN analysis applies to this case.

Is it really possible that allele drop-out, allele drop-in, peak imbalances, or arbitrary peak rfu designations are going to result in a profile that just happens to be a very good match for the murder victim? In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?


I have to apologize for being a bit overbearing earlier today about this tiny piece of evidence, which has negligible bearing on the overall verdicts in this case. If LCN analyses are acceptable at their current state of development to UK and Italian courts, so be it and the matter is closed. I know that the current STR assay kit giants (Promega and Applied BioSystems/Life Technologies) are actively developing, perfecting, and validating LCN assay kits for the forensic DNA market because they are recruiting heavy STR assay users with databases to become beta testers of the kits. As a competitive advantage, Applied BioSystems will be developing the rigorous analysis software needed side-by-side with the new LCN assay kits. So many of the points I made earlier will be moot within a year or so. Criminals everywhere will have more to fear. But the one issue, I can not concede in this case or any other is that a key scientific interpretation was made from only a single determination. Scientific evidence has to be held to a higher standard and the reproducibility of any result is critically important. I will not mention this matter again and hope that a grassroots movement doesn't arise here seeking to ban me from the forum for being a huge boor today. I promise to reform.


We love ya, Greggy, and your point is well taken.

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

Offline Rebel


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am

Posts: 129

Location: Bellingham WA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:07 am   Post subject: The Controversial DNA Trace   

Has anyone considered the possibility that one of Meredith's cellphones transferred a minute trace of her DNA to the side of Raffaele's kitchen knife - the controversial DNA trace found by Dr. Stefanoni? This would follow from the assumption that Amanda used her handbag both as a vehicle to carry the kitchen knife to and from the cottage as well as to transport Meredith's cellphones from the cottage to the Lanas' garden. The knife was not necessarily bleached after the murder - it just looked and smelled clean.

As far as I am concerned it was a draw between the prosecution and defense witnesses as to whether one or two knives were used to kill Meredith. But in any case, I think Amanda is AT LEAST as culpable as Rudi for not trying to save Meredith's life, so her sentence for murder should stand just as it has for Rudi. Is that fair enough?
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
We love ya, Greggy, and your point is well taken.


Me, too, Greggy.

hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
I will not mention this matter again and hope that a grassroots movement doesn't arise here seeking to ban me from the forum for being a huge boor today. I promise to reform.


No need to reform IMHO.

Your perspective on things scientific is vital to understanding and acknowledging both the strengths and the weaknesses of any of the elements of the case against Knox and Sollecito. If the piece of evidence is relatively weak then we need to understand how and why that is so. I could see you being a convincing expert for both the prosecution and the defence and, maybe to me alone, that is worth its weight in gold.

The same goes for both TomM and SomeAlibi (and even thoughtful) who I could envision as convincing advocates for either side. What I gain from this is that there are certain elements that are almost impossible to defend and this explains why they are absent from the appeals. There are other elements that require no further analysis and these too were predictable after reading what you and some of the others with the professional experience had to say.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.


I can certainly understand proceeding with caution when scientific processes are in their infancy, particularly when a person's freedom is at stake. Keeping in mind that I know very little about the science of DNA analysis, I'd really like to understand how your discomfort with LCN analysis applies to this case.

Is it really possible that allele drop-out, allele drop-in, peak imbalances, or arbitrary peak rfu designations are going to result in a profile that just happens to be a very good match for the murder victim? In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?


I have to apologize for being a bit overbearing earlier today about this tiny piece of evidence, which has negligible bearing on the overall verdicts in this case. If LCN analyses are acceptable at their current state of development to UK and Italian courts, so be it and the matter is closed. I know that the current STR assay kit giants (Promega and Applied BioSystems/Life Technologies) are actively developing, perfecting, and validating LCN assay kits for the forensic DNA market because they are recruiting heavy STR assay users with databases to become beta testers of the kits. As a competitive advantage, Applied BioSystems will be developing the rigorous analysis software needed side-by-side with the new LCN assay kits. So many of the points I made earlier will be moot within a year or so. Criminals everywhere will have more to fear. But the one issue, I can not concede in this case or any other is that a key scientific interpretation was made from only a single determination. Scientific evidence has to be held to a higher standard and the reproducibility of any result is critically important. I will not mention this matter again and hope that a grassroots movement doesn't arise here seeking to ban me from the forum for being a huge boor today. I promise to reform.



You weren't being one and you don't need to. I found your post stimulating and balanced. The day we lose the balance and even-handedness, we can close the board down and go and set up a thread on JREF. I nominate "The Amanada Knox Repetition Thread".

_________________
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 Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:17 am   Post subject: Re: The Controversial DNA Trace   

Rebel wrote:
Has anyone considered the possibility that one of Meredith's cellphones transferred a minute trace of her DNA to the side of Raffaele's kitchen knife - the controversial DNA trace found by Dr. Stefanoni? This would follow from the assumption that Amanda used her handbag both as a vehicle to carry the kitchen knife to and from the cottage as well as to transport Meredith's cellphones from the cottage to the Lanas' garden. The knife was not necessarily bleached after the murder - it just looked and smelled clean.

As far as I am concerned it was a draw between the prosecution and defense witnesses as to whether one or two knives were used to kill Meredith. But in any case, I think Amanda is AT LEAST as culpable as Rudi for not trying to save Meredith's life, so her sentence for murder should stand just as it has for Rudi. Is that fair enough?


Your scenario is as plausible as the theory that an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA floated on a mote of dust and landed on the hooks of Meredith's bra clasp.

The only reason why Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the knife is because it was lodged into a microscopic groove. The knife had clearly been cleaned. Dr. Stefanoni testified that there were peculiar diagonal scrapes on the knife blade which suggested that the knife had been vigorously cleaned. Armando Finzi stated that he had been struck by the "powerful smell of bleach" when he entered Sollecito's apartment. The double DNA knife caused the deep puncture on Meredith's neck. Sollecito knew that Meredith had been stabbed with the knife which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Good morning.

Thanks to Tom M and Greggy. Really appreciate it.

Will I be banned at jref for saying "aide de frotage"?
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: The Controversial DNA Trace   

The Machine wrote:
Rebel wrote:
Has anyone considered the possibility that one of Meredith's cellphones transferred a minute trace of her DNA to the side of Raffaele's kitchen knife - the controversial DNA trace found by Dr. Stefanoni? This would follow from the assumption that Amanda used her handbag both as a vehicle to carry the kitchen knife to and from the cottage as well as to transport Meredith's cellphones from the cottage to the Lanas' garden. The knife was not necessarily bleached after the murder - it just looked and smelled clean.

As far as I am concerned it was a draw between the prosecution and defense witnesses as to whether one or two knives were used to kill Meredith. But in any case, I think Amanda is AT LEAST as culpable as Rudi for not trying to save Meredith's life, so her sentence for murder should stand just as it has for Rudi. Is that fair enough?


Your scenario is as plausible as the theory that an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA floated on a mote of dust and landed on the hooks of Meredith's bra clasp.

The only reason why Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the knife is because it was lodged into a microscopic groove. The knife had clearly been cleaned. Dr. Stefanoni testified that there were peculiar diagonal scrapes on the knife blade which suggested that the knife had been vigorously cleaned. Armando Finzi stated that he had been struck by the "powerful smell of bleach" when he entered Sollecito's apartment. The double DNA knife caused the deep puncture on Meredith's neck. Sollecito knew that Meredith had been stabbed with the knife which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.


It's right in the Massei Report too:

Massei p 106 wrote:
Armando Finzi, chief inspector of the Flying Squad of Perugia, said that on the morning of November 6 he was ordered by Dr. Profazio to perform a search of the house of Raffaele Sollecito in Corso Garibaldi (number 110). Before entering the house, they all put on gloves and shoes covers. There was also the deputy chief of police Chiacchiera, Passeri, Ranauro, Camarda, Rossi and Sisani. In the house there was a strong smell of bleach. He remembered the terms following the first action that he reported at the time: "I was with my back to the door; there was the dishware drawer; I opened it. I opened the top cutlery drawer ... we had clean gloves on, new. The first thing I saw was a big knife. Let me state beforehand that it was extremely clean‛.


This is simply a summary of the extensive testimony in court.

As for Meredith's DNA transferring from the cellphones to the knife, nobody anywhere argued that, and certainly not the defence teams who wouldn't have wanted to postulate anything remotely close to that. Chris Halkides wrote on his blog on 09 MAY 2010 that Meredith's DNA on the knife was "almost certain to have arisen from contamination". He's now got the independent review that (admittedly) he predicted would be necessary to clarify the source and the identity of the DNA. I expect that, as a good scientist, he will accept the results of the independent review.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Good morning.

Thanks to Tom M and Greggy. Really appreciate it.

Will I be banned at jref for saying "aide de frotage"?


Almost certainly. But what a way to go out :D

Confusions confusions. Who is the aide de frotage*? KL to LolJo? LolJo to KL? So many questions... that I never want answered in my lifetime...


*For our purposes, it's a type of loofah**, Mary. Figuriamoci*** you use them in a "shower".
** This is not actually true, but if misstatement of the facts is good enough for Edda and Steve in national media, it's good enough for you.
*** Sorry, I'm not so good at expressing myself in speech, which is why I write stuff down which I'm real good at. Unfortunately when I read it all out it's still garbage****
**** See statements of Amanda 2007-2010. Hey! Shit happens!

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Was dreaming about a Word Doc I'm working on, and it had turned into a whirling, unreadable thing, just like the page was the globe, spread out that way terrible, it's a relief to wake up and find the actual job isn't half as bad.

Using Chrome Google I discovered it really is a million times faster but yesterday was thinking that Google makes the Microsoft go really slowly in order to force people to stop using it and start using their Chrome thing.

The spell check tool was just underlining the word Google trying to change it to Goggle, odd, it's own name not in the checker.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:

And this is a guy who was involved in plenty of crime, yet he couldn't live with himself.
That awful twisted face Amanda Knox pulled the other day, it made me think it was the effect of everything she is hiding.
I mean, personally I've never found Knox attractive, because she's a Plain Jane, I do understand why some consider her attractive, however, that photo and a few others of her have nothing to do with ordinary looks, ugly or beautiful, that look is just insane.

I'm sure she's suffering terribly even though she's still laughing, but that was once good about her, has now been overtaken and is being overtaken by the demons she's allowed to overtake her life and the lives of those who run like lemmings to do her bidding.

Just being in prison, especially with the types these people are locked away with, like these insanely wicked people who've stepped up somehow trying to gain favour for themselves because they know there's no way out for themselves, these child killers people who'd shoot someone dead as soon as look at them.

Then there's Knox with her cell-pal. If Knox was'nt bad enough, now she has to communicate with a person who went across a line, one maybe even worse than what Knox's was at first, because that woman devised an entire plan to murder her rich husband, a man who'd taken care of her, she obviously had everything she needed, but she wanted the lot, even if it meant killing her husband. Perhaps it is worse, the bit where a person gets someone else to do the actual killing, I think that's even worse behaviour.

In her cell, Knox knows who the other person is, and the other person knows who Knox is.
How do they deal with it, without admitting anything?
Very hard indeed.



Yeah, I wondered when the Mirror reported that she burst into tears at the announcement of the independent review whether this was really joy at a break or whether she'd mentally prepared to be crushed and instead the agony was deferred to another day. I note Edda went off-message the other day and said she was "a little better" . So she wasn't upbeat about proving her innocence before that, then ?
Top Profile 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bedelia wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Stilicho wrote:

Quote:
The process is what absolutely astonishes me, especially for a forum dedicated to rationality and associated with something called the "Future of Humanity Institute" at Oxford. The tools made available to those participating were TJMK, FOA, and the Wikipedia page on Meredith's murder. Part of Komposto's rationale is that TJMK is "batshit crazy", the Wikipedia page is editable by anyone, and that this leaves the FOA site as the most likely bearer of correct information.


Had I not seen this for myself I would think you were joking. I must say I found the "project" he announced here -- that of studying a couple of documents in Italian (a language he doesn't appear to master) in order to determine whether or not the current judges and jury members are able to reason correctly, or something like that -- to be downright nutty on the face of it. Holy batshit!


His claim of studying the documents to determine whether or not the judges and jury members are able to reason correctly was completely backward. The only way he could
Quote:
determine in advance whether or not the judges and jury members are able to reason correctly
is if he had some knowledge of their past reasoning.



and speak Italian may be? if the situation were reversed, no US person A would think a non English speaker B can really judge the reasoning of a third person C by his/her writings in English
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Good morning.

Thanks to Tom M and Greggy. Really appreciate it.

Will I be banned at jref for saying "aide de frotage"?


Almost certainly. But what a way to go out :D

Confusions confusions. Who is the aide de frotage*? KL to LolJo? LolJo to KL? So many questions... that I never want answered in my lifetime...


*For our purposes, it's a type of loofah**, Mary. Figuriamoci*** you use them in a "shower".
** This is not actually true, but if misstatement of the facts is good enough for Edda and Steve in national media, it's good enough for you.
*** Sorry, I'm not so good at expressing myself in speech, which is why I write stuff down which I'm real good at. Unfortunately when I read it all out it's still garbage****
**** See statements of Amanda 2007-2010. Hey! Shit happens!


Hey, SA. I was provoked. If aide de frotage doesn't do it, calling them perverts prolly will.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Mot du jour: aide de frotage. This in response to the tortured howls from the Frotage Crew that poor Amanda is being HELD by the ARMS on the way into court!!! Noooooo!!! Call Amnesty International!!! Convicted murderer abuse. Girl held by arms!!!! This puts Guantanamo into perpective, you have to agree. They think she looks unhappy too. It's clearly giving them all a huge amount to think about. Makes a change from discussing the actual mechanics of the murder I guess, and Meredith's intestines.

Ugghhh. I know some don't approve of the BFQ, but it's got to be better than that bunch of reptilian wierdos' unrelenting coldness. *Shudder*

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.



It isn't pride. It is simply pointing out that a country that hasn't invented and developed a technology and not having had experience of using it for years, will be naturally suspicious of it. This can be said to be the general case in the States. Just look what Hampikian is saying...'It's very small...therefore I believe it was just innocent transference'. What he's actually saying is 'It's LCN DNA and all LCN DNA is a result of innocent transference.'

You say your suspicions of it are rooted in the lack of a general universal method of testing and reading those results, that currently it's sort of ad-hoc. Well, Dr Stefanoni's innovative technique is not that unusual in it's being 'different' then and should be considered no worse then any other LCN test, in principle. I think what's important is that the scientist in question explains their results and why they believe them to be valid and that other experts can also examine them and put in their input, as has been done (and will be done again) in this case. And the court will also be able to consider it within its context and I believe the context can help mitigate some of it's lingering question marks.

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Mot du jour: aide de frotage. This in response to the tortured howls from the Frotage Crew that poor Amanda is being HELD by the ARMS on the way into court!!! Noooooo!!! Call Amnesty International!!! Convicted murderer abuse. Girl held by arms!!!! This puts Guantanamo into perpective, you have to agree. They think she looks unhappy too. It's clearly giving them all a huge amount to think about. Makes a change from discussing the actual mechanics of the murder I guess, and Meredith's intestines.

Ugghhh. I know some don't approve of the BFQ, but it's got to be better than that bunch of reptilian wierdos' unrelenting coldness. *Shudder*


Worse. She was being gripped tightly to pose before a camera against her will. Humiliation is unwholesomely interesting to some. wh-)
Top Profile 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service publish guidelines on the use of LCN DNA testing, which are quite interesting:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... sting.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service publish guidelines on the use of LCN DNA testing, which are quite interesting:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... sting.html


LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries:

"LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Underhill wrote:
In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service publish guidelines on the use of LCN DNA testing, which are quite interesting:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... sting.html


LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries:

"LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland."



Just putting the full two paragraphs TM was quoting from:


Quote:
LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland. Other countries including Belgium, Sweden, United States, Australia, Canada, Cayman Islands and Bermuda have requested this type of analysis from the FSS, who provided statements and scientists to attend Court.

Appendix B lists the internal validation and peer review process LCN has undergone within the FSS. Various methods are being developed to profile and interpret small quantities of DNA. The FSS process is accepted by the international, operational forensic community, some of whom are developing other ways to address these issues.

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


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Greggy wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.


I can certainly understand proceeding with caution when scientific processes are in their infancy, particularly when a person's freedom is at stake. Keeping in mind that I know very little about the science of DNA analysis, I'd really like to understand how your discomfort with LCN analysis applies to this case.

Is it really possible that allele drop-out, allele drop-in, peak imbalances, or arbitrary peak rfu designations are going to result in a profile that just happens to be a very good match for the murder victim? In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?


I have to apologize for being a bit overbearing earlier today about this tiny piece of evidence, which has negligible bearing on the overall verdicts in this case. If LCN analyses are acceptable at their current state of development to UK and Italian courts, so be it and the matter is closed. I know that the current STR assay kit giants (Promega and Applied BioSystems/Life Technologies) are actively developing, perfecting, and validating LCN assay kits for the forensic DNA market because they are recruiting heavy STR assay users with databases to become beta testers of the kits. As a competitive advantage, Applied BioSystems will be developing the rigorous analysis software needed side-by-side with the new LCN assay kits. So many of the points I made earlier will be moot within a year or so. Criminals everywhere will have more to fear. But the one issue, I can not concede in this case or any other is that a key scientific interpretation was made from only a single determination. Scientific evidence has to be held to a higher standard and the reproducibility of any result is critically important. I will not mention this matter again and hope that a grassroots movement doesn't arise here seeking to ban me from the forum for being a huge boor today. I promise to reform.



You weren't being one and you don't need to. I found your post stimulating and balanced. The day we lose the balance and even-handedness, we can close the board down and go and set up a thread on JREF. I nominate "The Amanada Knox Repetition Thread".



Yes, "just imagine"! :)

---
Agree with SA and others: Greggy, you're definitely not a boor, but a bore* (for knowledge and wisdom).

*Bores in Australia supply the water during times of drought (i.e., they're artesian wells); the bores at a party who yak the legs off an ox are called galahs, here. We don't have boors.... oh, wait, wasn't there a chap up north in Qld, name began with a K or similar, who fits the bill?

Seriously, the lack of official ISO certification was a ground of attack against the competency of the tests (and the testers); the lack of following the manufacturer's guidelines in a low-copy number situation was also a ground of attack - however, my understanding is that that attack was based on a misapprehension, namely confusing two things:

-- (i) the manufacturer's unwillingness to stand by (at that point in time) results obtained based on quantities below an arbitrarily-determined threshold (X) with its (then) associated confidence level (P(x) = 99.9%, say), at which noise and signal are "indistinguishable" (by some assigned standard of measurement),

with
-- (ii) real noise, from which no signal could ever logically or physically be recovered no matter what anyone did, now or in the future.

Situation (i) can produce usable results as any or all of its three limbs are driven to greater senstivity (down to a minimum of one cell) and/or increasing confidence levels (99.99%, 99.999%, etc). Since nothing is ever 100% certain, even a "plain" match, one above the manufacturer's recommended threshold, is open to question, technically (and, in fact, this is the space I expect the Innocence Project will end up occupying in future years, after they sort out all the current mistrial rigmarole).

The ISO certification attack was countered (certification was granted with no change in procedures); if the LCN attack can also be logically countered in a parallel way (methodology gains acceptance at some point in the future), then meaning attaches to the results now. The new experts may shed some light on this, perhaps.

Of course, the obvious test for the non-repeatable LCN, as a procedure, is to do it again, on some other knife (or spoon or anything) -- (a) picked at random (b) totally clean and out of the box (c) picked from any other crime scene -- and see if either Meredith's DNA match comes up again, or, there's a match to someone else related to that other crime (and who).

I'm rather curious, if the concept of contamination was admitted into the discussion, why the absence of detection of Stefanoni's own DNA, or that of other police officers, or the cleaning lady, or in fact anyone who is not Meredith, is not being considered as an evidentiary item in its own right in the legal debate. Perhaps the new experts can help to clarify that, as well.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
teacher wrote:
Wow. That's scary.


You haven't seen the rest of his e-mail. It's quite obscene.



I think Preston will stop at nothing to get revenge against the man who "humiliated" him. It is quite simple, quite primitive and yes, quite scary.

I don't really understand why anyone would hack my facebook account though. Incidentally, this was not the first attempt from that particular location in Pennsylvania. My account is generally not activated anyway, and I am not a regular user of facebook. Attempts have also been made to hack my email account. This is a little more worrisome, but at the same time I don't have anything to hide and my real name is out there thanks to "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name). I'm sure that efforts have been made to obtain a copy of my criminal record, but I don't have one (not even a moving violation) so that would be disappointing. Rumors have been started about me, some of them quite amusing. Whatever, huh? Message to all the hackers out there: anything you want to know about me, just ask.



Skep

I am out of my depth in US law, and the law of Pennsylvania(!) but a little digging around (Christmas week and it's Skep) appears to show some very simple anti-hacking provisions in Penn law that, on the face of it, appears to make such hacking attempts a third degree felony. Clearly there could be all sorts of issues I am unfamiliar with, but if you have seen hacking attempts at both your facebook and your email account, you should contact the police in Penn and make a complaint. Might give some FOA a hell of a scare or (deservedly) worse. There's no place for this on any side and to any person in this debate.

This was the result of a ten minute dig around. I don't think we've got a Penn lawyer on board but TomM may steer me straight on this. Apologies for possibly making my US brethren twitch citationally speaking.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7611. Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7614. Unlawful duplication
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7615. Computer trespass

Here's the base statute (simple read) available on the general 'net.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... urrentness

_________________
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
{quoting the CPS}
... have requested this type of analysis from the FSS, who provided statements and scientists to attend Court.

Appendix B lists the internal validation and peer review process LCN has undergone within the FSS. Various methods are being developed to profile and interpret small quantities of DNA. The FSS process is accepted by the international, operational forensic community, some of whom are developing other ways to address these issues.


I just read in the New Scientist yesterday or the day before that the Forensic Science Service (FSS) is closing down, and forensics is going to go privatised. Bit of a shock, that. But not as much as tripling uni fees.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Knox's propaganda machinery (no relation to the Machine) is something that perhaps Reich Fuhrer Marriot learned from his God, which may very well be Joseph Goebbels.

He was 'well' into film too.
All of team Knox would have not been short of employment if it had been 1939 and they all lived in Germany.

Weird people come in all shapes n sizes. The idea that Hitler and his, all used to sit about discussing stuff and that they were into vegetarianism, I think I must be dreaming this up.
That drug speed though has done a lot of damage, look at the knobchops Hitler, didn't he take daily fixes of it?

Anyhow, let's be real, we are not living in 1939 even though those supporting Knox seem like the types who got tarred and feathered and their heads shaved when the war ended... but who are they being traitors towards? I think the human race itself.

I don't share the wet-eyed sentiments expressed for Mr Knox, there's no excuse for denying facts, no excuse for setting out to undermine a process of justice/to character assassinate people then actually accuse others of doing that very thing, which Mr Knox did, then engaging in a media mayhem war.

What IS unacceptable is a parent who will not support a child but instead helps them to be deceitful and then shares in the deceit, to make two wrongs into a right. That's not supporting a child at all.

I wish I could help them, but they refuse.

Only thing I know is, the Lord helps those that help themselves.

Meaning, don't blame me, said God, use your own mind and be responsible for your own actions, use the mind you have been given.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:02 pm, edited 1 time 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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Excellent piece by Tom on TJMK. Tom writes beautifully, and it is always easy to follow his calm logic. What he says makes perfect sense. I too think it is strange that the family are so excited about the review: it is only good news in a short term PR sense. Once the tests confirm Meredith's DNA on the knife the surely it is game over? How could Meredith's DNA, and flesh be on Raffaele's knife? We know his explanation was ridiculous. And the defence can't prove contamination. How would DNA have got there? At what stage? The DNA was caught in a scratch on the blade, not just on the surface, as one might expect with casual cross-contamination by someone who had been at the lab picking up something of Meredith's and then the knife. The fact that the DNA was caught in a scratch suggests it was deposited with a degree of force or pressure, surely?

Since the results have been confirmed by several experts now I don't see this evidence being overturned. I think it is a prelude to a confirmation of contested evidence. If I was a member of the Italian judiciary I would want to counter all the slander and xenophobic accusations of incompetence once and for all. How many accusations of planting evidence can they take before - on a human, rather than professional level - they have had enough?


Bard,

I think we've all been taken by surprise by the Knox family's capacity to surprise, and their reaction to the dna review was another surprise. I thought about Edda's reaction, and to extend her a little latitude she was probably interviewed very shortly after the decision was announced. A guess suggests the was little time between announcement of the decision, lawyers translating and delivering to Edda, and microphone thrust under nose. She was always going to be positive, even if you didn't understand what it meant, and once she'd done the first interview, there was no going back.

I'm not sure this is even a small pr victory; after all, any US media outlet has distorted the impact considerably and the worst ones have lied blatantly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
I'm not sure this is even a small pr victory; after all, any US media outlet has distorted the impact considerably and the worst ones have lied blatantly.


Surely, in the world of PR, this is pretty much the definition of a victory. ("This" being the media lying on your behalf.)
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
I know the Knoxes arent my favorite people, but I honestly hope that Curt can find someone to hire him who will look past this. How else is he going to support and raise the other two girls? I would not hold it against any employer at all who hired him, as long as he is qualified and they chose to look past the rest, i think that is fine.


I agree Solange. Cassandra and the girls have had a really raw deal. I hope Curt can sort a job out too. Those kids deserve to have the rest of their childhood untroubled by anything once this is all over. If the verdict is confirmed I wonder how they will look back on the whole thing? At least they know their Dad will stand by them whatever they do. That is a positive thing to take away for them. Even though I hate what Curt does I do think he has shown strength and courage at times too. He did not chose to be put in this position, and I suppose he did not know he would feel so sure of Amanda's innocence. Being charitable, he has protected his family in the only way he knows how : total denial. I am guessing if he wavers for a second the whole family collapses in grief, and he can't face that. They are keeping the horror at bay. I think people will go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves psychologically.


Bard and Solange,

I agree that Curt needs to get a job to support the girls but he has also been responsible for digging a huge hole and he's kept on digging. There's fighting for a cause, and there's fighting for a lost cause. No-one in their right mind should have concluded after a guilty verdict that they should keep bashing away because of an Italian witch hunt, but that's what Curt has done. No-one in their right mind should perpetuate the lies Curt has. he's not stupid and should have taken a decison that he would pull the case against his daughter apart, piece by piece, and understand what the hell the Italians were going on about. He'd have shown some dignity where John and Arline are concerned and offered at the very least his condolences, and he'd have drawn back his position and attempted some kind of normal life fall back position whilst trying to support his imprisoned daughter.

He's done none of that, and now it's too late. As Skep said earlier, he has a huge hole in his resume and that is going to take a mighty amount of explaining to do. His 'celebrity' status is on the downward slope and all of a sudden the phone's going to stop ringing and a large amount of reality is going to set in.
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
teacher wrote:
Wow. That's scary.


You haven't seen the rest of his e-mail. It's quite obscene.



I think Preston will stop at nothing to get revenge against the man who "humiliated" him. It is quite simple, quite primitive and yes, quite scary.

I don't really understand why anyone would hack my facebook account though. Incidentally, this was not the first attempt from that particular location in Pennsylvania. My account is generally not activated anyway, and I am not a regular user of facebook. Attempts have also been made to hack my email account. This is a little more worrisome, but at the same time I don't have anything to hide and my real name is out there thanks to "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name). I'm sure that efforts have been made to obtain a copy of my criminal record, but I don't have one (not even a moving violation) so that would be disappointing. Rumors have been started about me, some of them quite amusing. Whatever, huh? Message to all the hackers out there: anything you want to know about me, just ask.



Skep

I am out of my depth in US law, and the law of Pennsylvania(!) but a little digging around (Christmas week and it's Skep) appears to show some very simple anti-hacking provisions in Penn law that, on the face of it, appears to make such hacking attempts a third degree felony. Clearly there could be all sorts of issues I am unfamiliar with, but if you have seen hacking attempts at both your facebook and your email account, you should contact the police in Penn and make a complaint. Might give some FOA a hell of a scare or (deservedly) worse. There's no place for this on any side and to any person in this debate.

This was the result of a ten minute dig around. I don't think we've got a Penn lawyer on board but TomM may steer me straight on this. Apologies for possibly making my US brethren twitch citationally speaking.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7611. Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7614. Unlawful duplication
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7615. Computer trespass

Here's the base statute (simple read) available on the general 'net.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... urrentness



And it isn't only chargeable under the laws of Pennsylvania, but also the laws of the state in which the server housing the account resides. And because by its very nature the criminal act crossed state borders, if I'm not mistaken, that also makes it a Federal offence under Federal laws, not only state law.

_________________
"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 smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
smacker wrote:
I'm not sure this is even a small pr victory; after all, any US media outlet has distorted the impact considerably and the worst ones have lied blatantly.


Surely, in the world of PR, this is pretty much the definition of a victory. ("This" being the media lying on your behalf.)


Maybe I'm being naive here, but i thought PR companies tried to tell the truth now and then ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
zorba wrote:

And this is a guy who was involved in plenty of crime, yet he couldn't live with himself.
That awful twisted face Amanda Knox pulled the other day, it made me think it was the effect of everything she is hiding.

I mean, personally I've never found Knox attractive, because she's a Plain Jane, I do understand why some consider her attractive, however, that photo and a few others of her have nothing to do with ordinary looks, ugly or beautiful, that look is just insane.

I'm sure she's suffering terribly even though she's still laughing, but that was once good about her, has now been overtaken and is being overtaken by the demons she's allowed to overtake her life and the lives of those who run like lemmings to do her bidding.

Just being in prison, especially with the types these people are locked away with, like these insanely wicked people who've stepped up somehow trying to gain favour for themselves because they know there's no way out for themselves, these child killers, people who'd shoot someone dead as soon as look at them.

Then there's Knox with her cell-pal. If Knox wasn't bad enough, now she has to communicate with a person who went across a line, one maybe even worse than what Knox's was at first, because that woman devised an entire plan to murder her rich husband, a man who'd taken care of her, she obviously had everything she needed, but she wanted the lot, even if it meant killing her husband. Perhaps it is worse, the bit where a person gets someone else to do the actual killing, I think that's even worse behaviour.

In her cell, Knox knows who the other person is, and the other person knows who Knox is.
How do they deal with it, without admitting anything?
Very hard indeed.



Yeah, I wondered when the Mirror reported that she burst into tears at the announcement of the independent review whether this was really joy at a break or whether she'd mentally prepared to be crushed and instead the agony was deferred to another day. I note Edda went off-message the other day and said she was "a little better" . So she wasn't upbeat about proving her innocence before that, then ?



I think they've been very cruel towards Meredith's family, this about being prepared to say sorry or to offer compassion and condolences only after Knox has been declared innocent, is a wicked piece of blackmail.

All they needed to do (it's far too late now to be meaningful) was to say, Dear ... We are so sorry for what happened to your daughter. They could have even said that they did not think their daughter was responsible, and left it short like that, instead they have chosen to play games, ones that amount to a type of emotional blackmail.

I'm sure John actually will have realised that it is far better if Knox's family just shut up and do not offer anything rather than fake niceties, they should have offered condolences and basta, whether their daughter be guilty or be not guilty. That's where their thinking is all wrong.

Anyhow, perhaps it's better to just say, they can't help it for they are not in possession of enough common sense or intelligence with which to grasp these things.

It'd be a terrible thing but maybe the only way they'll ever get close to understanding what the Kercher's have had to endure is if some nutcase slices Knox up in jail.
Anyhow, they need not fear because Knox is being well-watched and nobody will harm her, unlike what Meredith suffered, Knox is under protection.

If anyone would be deserving of a letter from a not clubhouse fan-groupie, I think it must be Amanda Knox, someone needs to help her, her family are incapable of that. Underneath, she sure as hell does know what is what, and somewhere she has stuff she definitely would love to be able to talk about, something was and is definitely wrong inside her, and nobody knows about it, not even Mad Paxo, the sage came to her rescue, she doesn't know her onions, she's just a loyal friend who feels sorry for A. Knox.

What could be better than for Amanda to get it off her chest, I don't think she'd become likeable to people who do not like violence but still, there could be healing and I'm sure, for the Kercher family, their healing could be started if at least they did know about the particular brand of insanity that took Meredith away from them.

If one is in a deep hole and others attempt to pull you out but you do not try to help, by trying to get your feet into any part, then you may just end up pulling your helpers in too, then nobody will get out, or the one stuck may climb on the shoulders of the helper and leave the helper in the hole they were in. Is this what will become of Amanda's family? She can set THEM free.

Well, the masters, make the rules, for the wise men, and the fools, it's a all right ma, I'm only crying

The rules of the road have been lodged, it's just people's games, you have to dodge, it's all right ma

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:05 pm, edited 1 time 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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Machine wrote:
teacher wrote:
Wow. That's scary.


You haven't seen the rest of his e-mail. It's quite obscene.



I think Preston will stop at nothing to get revenge against the man who "humiliated" him. It is quite simple, quite primitive and yes, quite scary.

I don't really understand why anyone would hack my facebook account though. Incidentally, this was not the first attempt from that particular location in Pennsylvania. My account is generally not activated anyway, and I am not a regular user of facebook. Attempts have also been made to hack my email account. This is a little more worrisome, but at the same time I don't have anything to hide and my real name is out there thanks to "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name). I'm sure that efforts have been made to obtain a copy of my criminal record, but I don't have one (not even a moving violation) so that would be disappointing. Rumors have been started about me, some of them quite amusing. Whatever, huh? Message to all the hackers out there: anything you want to know about me, just ask.



Skep

I am out of my depth in US law, and the law of Pennsylvania(!) but a little digging around (Christmas week and it's Skep) appears to show some very simple anti-hacking provisions in Penn law that, on the face of it, appears to make such hacking attempts a third degree felony. Clearly there could be all sorts of issues I am unfamiliar with, but if you have seen hacking attempts at both your facebook and your email account, you should contact the police in Penn and make a complaint. Might give some FOA a hell of a scare or (deservedly) worse. There's no place for this on any side and to any person in this debate.

This was the result of a ten minute dig around. I don't think we've got a Penn lawyer on board but TomM may steer me straight on this. Apologies for possibly making my US brethren twitch citationally speaking.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7611. Unlawful use of computer and other computer crimes
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7614. Unlawful duplication
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7615. Computer trespass

Here's the base statute (simple read) available on the general 'net.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... urrentness



And it isn't only chargeable under the laws of Pennsylvania, but also the laws of the state in which the server housing the account resides. And because by its very nature the criminal act crossed state borders, if I'm not mistaken, that also makes it a Federal offence inder Federal laws, not only state law.


Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
... Anyhow, let's be real, we are not living in 1939 ...


Ah, but the times, they are a-rolling roung again! It's almost 1932 now. With the shift to the Right in the last 10 to 12 years, the proposals that some governments are putting up, to arrest people for offences they might commit, is a revival of an old fascist ideal, and would probably be illegal in Italy and Germany and so on if people there could beyond the current media spin and "anti-foreigner" rhetoric - even in Russia, too, ironically.

On the other hand, if people need to learn the lesson of being kind, then the only way they could is if they had the choice of being kind or not, and the result of the choice mattered. Ultra-nationalists face that choice. Even Preston does.

What's the point of choosing evil? It is fundamentally selfish. Does one choose the Baron Harkkonen path, or the Duke Atreides path?

Mentioning the meddling Sisterhood, with their non-PR PR (so subtle that the people believed their beliefs were their own when they weren't), is probably drifting off topic. But there is much truth in a grain of sand, in any case.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Michael wrote:
{quoting the CPS}
... have requested this type of analysis from the FSS, who provided statements and scientists to attend Court.

Appendix B lists the internal validation and peer review process LCN has undergone within the FSS. Various methods are being developed to profile and interpret small quantities of DNA. The FSS process is accepted by the international, operational forensic community, some of whom are developing other ways to address these issues.


I just read in the New Scientist yesterday or the day before that the Forensic Science Service (FSS) is closing down, and forensics is going to go privatised. Bit of a shock, that. But not as much as tripling uni fees.



Yeah, it's our CONDEMn government deciding that cutting the budget deficit is more important then anything else on God's green earth and so are closing or selling EVERYTHING. They want to make £81 billion worth of cuts in a year and they're are getting rid of the FFS, the FFS that was key to solving some of the most notorious cases in the UK in the last two decades because...it has over spent by a 'few million' (less then ten million). That's nothing to do with achieving the £81 billion cuts of course, a few million is a drop in the ocean (and for it, we get our moneys worth), it's all Tory ideology...Privatise! Privatise! Privatise! Right now they are destroying the little that's left of the country that Thatcher managed to miss, full steam ahead.

_________________
"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 Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Underhill wrote:
smacker wrote:
I'm not sure this is even a small pr victory; after all, any US media outlet has distorted the impact considerably and the worst ones have lied blatantly.


Surely, in the world of PR, this is pretty much the definition of a victory. ("This" being the media lying on your behalf.)


Maybe I'm being naive here, but i thought PR companies tried to tell the truth now and then ?


US PR people and I am sure European PR people have codes of ethics maintained by their professional associations.

Marriott seems to me to have been ignoring that code for two plus years and is very ripe for a complaint on the same lines as Judge Heavey was via the bar association.

Someone might like to took at that code (it is online) to see if we can at least post. He rarely surfaces himself directly (like Preston) but his thuggish bahavior is endemic behind the scenes.

Several people in the media who have encountered him remark on his thugishness and his severe lack of competence. Other than spending zillions and creating gigantic polarities it is hard to see where the PR has ever been a continuing plus. It was in the wrong country for one.

he has created a lot of collatoral damage too - sucking sock puppets in with false tales who then publish and get slammed in the comments under their posts and on PMF and TJMK.

Peter Quennell
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Smacker wrote:
Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.


It's a criminal offence to bounce a cheque in America? Wow!

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


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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Underhill wrote:
smacker wrote:
I'm not sure this is even a small pr victory; after all, any US media outlet has distorted the impact considerably and the worst ones have lied blatantly.


Surely, in the world of PR, this is pretty much the definition of a victory. ("This" being the media lying on your behalf.)


Maybe I'm being naive here, but i thought PR companies tried to tell the truth now and then ?


of course not. They *always* tell the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Smacker wrote:
Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.


It's a criminal offence to bounce a cheque in America? Wow!


Michael,

across state lines it becomes a federal offence. Within state the bank charges you for sending the dodgy cheque and then the payee gets nailed by the receiving bank for having a cheque bounce. It seems highly unfair on the payee since they don't get paid, and have to pay extra for someone else's, shall we say 'incompetence' although in the case I referred to there were multiple cross state line bounced cheques and they weren't all accidents.

She's not a nice woman. Incapable of telling the truth, but she hasn't murdered anyone.............yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Yeah, it's our CONDEMn government deciding that cutting the budget deficit is more important then anything else on God's green earth and so are closing or selling EVERYTHING. They want to make £81 billion worth of cuts in a year and they're are getting rid of the FFS, the FFS that was key to solving some of the most notorious cases in the UK in the last two decades because...it has over spent by a 'few million' (less then ten million). That's nothing to do with achieving the £81 billion cuts of course, a few million is a drop in the ocean (and for it, we get our moneys worth), it's all Tory ideology...Privatise! Privatise! Privatise! Right now they are destroying the little that's left of the country that Thatcher managed to miss, full steam ahead.


Hi Michael.

This is insane in terms of how growth really works. This is NOT the future of the mature economies.

Most of their economic structure is destroying capital, but instead of winding that down and putting their all into the high value potential areas they are cost cutting to the bone and throwing zillions into exactly the wrong parts of the economy.

A major part of the problem is in fact... economists (of which I am one but among other things!) To them the world looks like a nail and their only tool is a hammer. They dominate far too much in government and the UN system and central banks. Growth needs to be a gentle low-cost almost invisible operation in its first tender days and it actually has to involve a number of expertises and the people I would wheel out FIRST are not economists but those CPAa and similar who understand the concepts in these areas:

Economic value added, value based management, economic profit, free cash flow, and value migration. Google each of these terms and you will soon see what I mean.

The world now grows very slowly, about a trillion a year. Global GDP is around $50 trillion and believe it or not so is the net of the world's stock market valuation, a forward looking indicator. We cant do better than THAT?!?!

Actually we could, using those concepts and the various ones that come next. World growth could easily be doubled and we could grow ourselves out of almost all problems, terrorism and global warming and overpopulation included.

The correct science is slowly seeping in but piecemeal and NOT ONE government in the world fully comprehends. It drove us nuts in the UN (the direct reason why I quit). Sadly democracy dominated by opportunists and big biz is why things dont change the way they should

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

DLW wrote:
Greggy wrote:

(Re Meredith’s DNA profile on Double DNA knife)

‘The results were not done in duplicate whereas the PCR assay kits we all use clearly call for results to be performed at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate.’

I know very little about this test. But Frank had mentioned awhile ago that at some point after the amplification process was completed a duplicate sample was run on this with the same DNA results.This would not be a parallel duplicate run of the base DNA sample, as there was not enough sample. However after the amplification was completed, there was a duplicate gel that was run on this sample.


It does sound as though Stephanoni did everything she could with the material she had. No wonder her boss praised her. If the test is unrepeatable, it's not her fault. If the court finds that they can't accept it, well that's a different matter.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
zorba wrote:
... Anyhow, let's be real, we are not living in 1939 ...


Ah, but the times, they are a-rolling roung again! It's almost 1932 now. With the shift to the Right in the last 10 to 12 years, the proposals that some governments are putting up, to arrest people for offences they might commit, is a revival of an old fascist ideal, and would probably be illegal in Italy and Germany and so on if people there could beyond the current media spin and "anti-foreigner" rhetoric - even in Russia, too, ironically.

On the other hand, if people need to learn the lesson of being kind, then the only way they could is if they had the choice of being kind or not, and the result of the choice mattered. Ultra-nationalists face that choice. Even Preston does.

What's the point of choosing evil? It is fundamentally selfish. Does one choose the Baron Harkkonen path, or the Duke Atreides path?

Mentioning the meddling Sisterhood, with their non-PR PR (so subtle that the people believed their beliefs were their own when they weren't), is probably drifting off topic. But there is much truth in a grain of sand, in any case.


You are right Capniply (I won't say the word as it is in full and correct form, as cats are dead sensitive to it and they may hear me thinking the word, and jump somersaults on the roof outside, don't mind me).

That's painfully accurate what you remind us of now.

We as man/womankind, have been misusing things for so long, I mean scapegoating, it's between going on far longer than Jesus, it just goes on and on. The elements in play 300 years ago (or more) I'm not really sure they are different to what lives in the minds oif humans now. We have all types of technology, material benefits, but the mind, I'm sure if those supporting Knox were in a different situation, considering the point, where I see them as being unreasonable, I don't think they'd be the ones listening to Jesus when he said, you who have never sinned cast the first stone, I see exactly these types pushing to the front to make a show oif being the first one to ignore Jesus.

I fear it is not out of the question to mention the poor fellow at this time of year seeing as how everyone is using his so-called birthday to have s party, well, where Jesus was about non-vain love, of the unselfish variety, into the most far corners possible, total devotion to that concenpt and that then put into practice where he refused to abandon LOVE because knowing that to abandon/deny/renounce it would mean there is no hope for civilization because as an individual his personal path had led him to devotion towards the surrender to love, where in rhe embodiment of love, the path was to prove the all-powerful nature of real love, and then this Christmas DEAL, is in fact, in my eyes, all about remembering how, we all can free ourselves of suffering, no matter how much pain we are in, by surrender to all the ways of love, where it is not a selfish endeavour like having devotion only to own blood, but a greater picture showing how we are all connected, and that brother and sisterhood, the realisation of it, is embodied yet again, in remembering, at Christmas, how one person refused to deny love even if it meant being murdered. The lesson, the message is that we are all worthy and we can all make it, and that we can all be that love.
Then Christmas is something that is not about belief but is about the gift, bestowed not only upon the good but upon all people, that we can turn around and learn how to love.

Poor Jesus, they turned his message into a circus show, he could walk on water, interpreting it thus, it's no wonder many turned to Islam.

Jesus came walking on the Waters of Jordan and overcame the world. Meaning he overcame the ways of the world that pull people down, meaning the abandonment/attachment to selfishness, the element that connects to all the rest of the bad things in this life, and then a person never finds peace or satisfaction, seeking love instead in others when the love is something buried and located deep in the own heart. Where Jesus walked on those waters he did not sink but overcame the self and through that the world where the Ways of the World are false identity and the identification with exterior things, meaning learning from childhood that all material things form what you are. To be mistaken in life, by adhering to all of those illusions is not a unique process and therefore was called the ways of the world and still is called that, to be mistaken is what most of us do because the world is geared towards the promotion of identification with those things. In those things there are no loyalties, and there is no real love, their is possession, there is pleasure, there is relative giving of love, mostly based on the sense of belonging attached to family. This is the point that Knox's family are stuck. So asking on the waters and not sinking, is not a thing that was meant literally, it was just a poetic way of expression absolutely usual thousands of years ago. Another part of that is the notion of being born, and at that moment starting to lose touch with the true spirit identity, and this birthing is then, adherent to karmic reality, where based on what a soul has lived through it gets to drink from the cup of forgetfulness at birth and then maybe having been in light, nevertheless is forced to forget about what the truth of existence is, and what the purpose of an individual path is, thus stumbling over all kinds of h8nerances/blocjks until learning through correct thought and actions and choices to rise above those wrong ways and learning how to hold onto that all-powerful love.

"How can men see light if they have never been enlightened, but Tommy doesn't know what day it is, he doesn't know who Jesus is or what praying is...

So men with greed, jealousy and selfishness in mind, how could they ever grasp what such a human being as Jesus meant if they themselves had never ever gotten anywhere near real love, that's why they misinterpreted his life and made it into a religion, Jesus walked on water and did magic.

When in truth Jesus was a scientist, basing love on the theories attached to simple logic, like Kindness is the Only Way, for a good world, knowing that what we are is not in essence physical but instead spirit, something that far exceeds physicality, because as humans there are things we cannot see, like atoms and DNA but they are real. Knowing how the essence is beyond physicality the acceptance that physical life involves suffering, is then put into perspective.
Yet no person is able to know how this earth truly came to be, and what may come to be.
In that idea, I would rather try to be one of the lovers, and to accept my own mistakes and ask for forgiveness.

In the way I see Jesus, this acceptance of the fact that all of us can make terrible mistakes but that real love can only forgive, and forgive after the doer of wrong learns how to forgive the self, then no matter go much suffering there is, I believe in this light of understanding and chose love, and hope too to shed the false skins of not-love to get to the heart.

The goal as I perceive it is to gain sight on earth, it's within the physical realm that it's hardest to see, the goal then is to see so much that the waters of forgetfulness cease to hold power over destiny.

Song line for the New Born

Come here now and rest your head
I will lay you in your bed
I will give you
All my love
Beautiful tiny turtledove

Listen sweet one to the bird
Isn't it the sweetest thing you've ever heard
Father son and mother moon
A gentle breeze in the afternoon

I will know all of your fears
I will hold you through the tears
I will give you
All my love
Beautiful tiny turtledove

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Michael wrote:
Smacker wrote:
Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.


It's a criminal offence to bounce a cheque in America? Wow!


Michael,

across state lines it becomes a federal offence. Within state the bank charges you for sending the dodgy cheque and then the payee gets nailed by the receiving bank for having a cheque bounce. It seems highly unfair on the payee since they don't get paid, and have to pay extra for someone else's, shall we say 'incompetence' although in the case I referred to there were multiple cross state line bounced cheques and they weren't all accidents.

She's not a nice woman. Incapable of telling the truth, but she hasn't murdered anyone.............yet.



I thought the Americans had Judge Judy to deal with all that sort of thing.

Of course, there's a fine line between bouncing cheques and wilfully committing fraud with them.

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


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

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Underhill wrote:
smacker wrote:
I'm not sure this is even a small pr victory; after all, any US media outlet has distorted the impact considerably and the worst ones have lied blatantly.


Surely, in the world of PR, this is pretty much the definition of a victory. ("This" being the media lying on your behalf.)


Maybe I'm being naive here, but i thought PR companies tried to tell the truth now and then ?


I was thinking back to a post I made somewhere up the page about New Labour.

One of the top priorities of a PR campaign is to establish your own machinery as the primary source for news, so that the media come to you for the news, rather than going to the real primary sources. It sounds like the Knox team have achieved this with great success. Having got to this position, the PR machine then makes sure it puts its own spin on the news before handing it out to the media. Theoretically, this shouldn't mean lying but, once you've really got the media eating out of your hand, I should think it's quite a temptation to push things that little bit further....
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
smacker wrote:
Michael wrote:
Smacker wrote:
Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.


It's a criminal offence to bounce a cheque in America? Wow!


Michael,

across state lines it becomes a federal offence. Within state the bank charges you for sending the dodgy cheque and then the payee gets nailed by the receiving bank for having a cheque bounce. It seems highly unfair on the payee since they don't get paid, and have to pay extra for someone else's, shall we say 'incompetence' although in the case I referred to there were multiple cross state line bounced cheques and they weren't all accidents.

She's not a nice woman. Incapable of telling the truth, but she hasn't murdered anyone.............yet.



I thought the Americans had Judge Judy to deal with all that sort of thing.

Of course, there's a fine line between bouncing cheques and wilfully committing fraud with them.


Michael,

The fine line exists for the first bouncing cheque and disappears after that (IMO). Anyone can make a mistake once, but twice is either stupidity or deliberate. As for Judge Judy, I seem to manage one case from her per year by accident. Good TV and you need a thick skin to be tried by her. At least your case gets a quick decision.

The issue concerning the soon to be ex-wife is a particularly large problem. As well as bouncing from her own bank account, she's also done it via an account she jointly holds with her father. She needs a custodial term to get a grip on life's realities.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lisareik


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:42 pm

Posts: 62

Location: Israel

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
teacher wrote:
Wow. That's scary.


You haven't seen the rest of his e-mail. It's quite obscene.



Have you considered filing a police complaint?
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Michael wrote:
Yeah, it's our CONDEMn government deciding that cutting the budget deficit is more important then anything else on God's green earth and so are closing or selling EVERYTHING. They want to make £81 billion worth of cuts in a year and they're are getting rid of the FFS, the FFS that was key to solving some of the most notorious cases in the UK in the last two decades because...it has over spent by a 'few million' (less then ten million). That's nothing to do with achieving the £81 billion cuts of course, a few million is a drop in the ocean (and for it, we get our moneys worth), it's all Tory ideology...Privatise! Privatise! Privatise! Right now they are destroying the little that's left of the country that Thatcher managed to miss, full steam ahead.


Hi Michael.

This is insane in terms of how growth really works. This is NOT the future of the mature economies.

Most of their economic structure is destroying capital, but instead of winding that down and putting their all into the high value potential areas they are cost cutting to the bone and throwing zillions into exactly the wrong parts of the economy.

A major part of the problem is in fact... economists (of which I am one but among other things!) To them the world looks like a nail and their only tool is a hammer. They dominate far too much in government and the UN system and central banks. Growth needs to be a gentle low-cost almost invisible operation in its first tender days and it actually has to involve a number of expertises and the people I would wheel out FIRST are not economists but those CPAa and similar who understand the concepts in these areas:

Economic value added, value based management, economic profit, free cash flow, and value migration. Google each of these terms and you will soon see what I mean.

The world now grows very slowly, about a trillion a year. Global GDP is around $50 trillion and believe it or not so is the net of the world's stock market valuation, a forward looking indicator. We cant do better than THAT?!?!

Actually we could, using those concepts and the various ones that come next. World growth could easily be doubled and we could grow ourselves out of almost all problems, terrorism and global warming and overpopulation included.

The correct science is slowly seeping in but piecemeal and NOT ONE government in the world fully comprehends. It drove us nuts in the UN (the direct reason why I quit). Sadly democracy dominated by opportunists and big biz is why things dont change the way they should

Peter Quennell


Hmm.

I think a hammer is the wrong analogy though, more a bloody great big axe they are running around with, hacking and chopping at everything that moves while investing in absolutely nothing.

This is the insanity of the cutting. We're building two wacking great state of the art aircraft carriers (government can't cancel those because of contracts, or they would have) at three and a half billion quid and these are due in two or three years. But to cut money the government aren't going to give them any planes until 2020, they've cut the Sea Harriers. So until 2020, these aircraft carriers are going to be sailing around looking all smart and scary, but with no planes. Now I ask you, what the bloody hell use are aircraft carriers without aircraft?

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html


Last edited by Jools on Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:21 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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Smacker wrote:
As for Judge Judy, I seem to manage one case from her per year by accident. Good TV and you need a thick skin to be tried by her. At least your case gets a quick decision.


Actually, I wonder what Judge Judy would make of Amanda, if Amanda was in front of her talking...well, how she talks.


Smacker wrote:
The issue concerning the soon to be ex-wife is a particularly large problem. As well as bouncing from her own bank account, she's also done it via an account she jointly holds with her father. She needs a custodial term to get a grip on life's realities.


That's not a nice thing to do ro anyone. Even worse to do it to one's own parent.

_________________
"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 MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
I think they've been very cruel towards Meredith's family, this about being prepared to say sorry or to offer compassion and condolences only after Knox has been declared innocent, is a wicked piece of blackmail.

All they needed to do (it's far too late now to be meaningful) was to say, Dear ... We are so sorry for what happened to your daughter. They could have even said that they did not think their daughter was responsible, and left it short like that, instead they have chosen to play games, ones that amount to a type of emotional blackmail.

I'm sure John actually will have realised that it is far better if Knox's family just shut up and do not offer anything rather than fake niceties, they should have offered condolences and basta, whether their daughter be guilty or be not guilty. That's where their thinking is all wrong.

Anyhow, perhaps it's better to just say, they can't help it for they are not in possession of enough common sense or intelligence with which to grasp these things.

It'd be a terrible thing but maybe the only way they'll ever get close to understanding what the Kercher's have had to endure is if some nutcase slices Knox up in jail.
Anyhow, they need not fear because Knox is being well-watched and nobody will harm her, unlike what Meredith suffered, Knox is under protection.

If anyone would be deserving of a letter from a not clubhouse fan-groupie, I think it must be Amanda Knox, someone needs to help her, her family are incapable of that. Underneath, she sure as hell does know what is what, and somewhere she has stuff she definitely would love to be able to talk about, something was and is definitely wrong inside her, and nobody knows about it, not even Mad Paxo, the sage came to her rescue, she doesn't know her onions, she's just a loyal friend who feels sorry for A. Knox.

What could be better than for Amanda to get it off her chest, I don't think she'd become likeable to people who do not like violence but still, there could be healing and I'm sure, for the Kercher family, their healing could be started if at least they did know about the particular brand of insanity that took Meredith away from them.

If one is in a deep hole and others attempt to pull you out but you do not try to help, by trying to get your feet into any part, then you may just end up pulling your helpers in too, then nobody will get out, or the one stuck may climb on the shoulders of the helper and leave the helper in the hole they were in. Is this what will become of Amanda's family? She can set THEM free.



I hardly dare type the suggestion and don't know if it would be allowed but sometimes victims' families only get answers by making contact with the perpetrators themselves.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html


Michael Krom wasn't one of Meredith's lecturers. Here's his profile:

http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/essi/people/krom/

I'd like to see him specifically address all the evidence in the Massei report. The fact he claims that there is zero evidence against Knox suggests that he has been reading the FOA sites.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:28 pm, edited 1 time 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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Smacker wrote:
As for Judge Judy, I seem to manage one case from her per year by accident. Good TV and you need a thick skin to be tried by her. At least your case gets a quick decision.


Actually, I wonder what Judge Judy would make of Amanda, if Amanda was in front of her talking...well, how she talks.


Smacker wrote:
The issue concerning the soon to be ex-wife is a particularly large problem. As well as bouncing from her own bank account, she's also done it via an account she jointly holds with her father. She needs a custodial term to get a grip on life's realities.


That's not a nice thing to do ro anyone. Even worse to do it to one's own parent.


I'm not sure where the parent's head sits as regards the bouncing cheque, but he has blindly followed his daughter's lies throughout the impending divorce and child custody and visitation issues in court. She has been to court 5 times, and lost 5 times (sound familiar?). They are both regular church goers, and the lies that have been told under oath defy belief.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I believe it. You wouldn't expect the same from a judge, either, but guess what.....
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

What a mess, Smacker. Divorce always sucks, but some are more grisly than others. Good luck .
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I believe it. You wouldn't expect the same from a judge, either, but guess what.....


You wonder how the disconnect occurs; we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step. Whilst he won't be sat on the naughty step when he's 17 he will still be telling the truth. What happens when they're 18 and have a bit more freedom ? OK, so they can get into far more trouble, they make ridiculous decisions (of course, I never did) and therefore explanations can be more creative but still the fibbing, lying thing resurfaces and by that stage the crap they're in can be considerably deeper. The other stupid thing is most of the lies are far too easy to spot.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think they've been very cruel towards Meredith's family, this about being prepared to say sorry or to offer compassion and condolences only after Knox has been declared innocent, is a wicked piece of blackmail.

All they needed to do (it's far too late now to be meaningful) was to say, Dear ... We are so sorry for what happened to your daughter. They could have even said that they did not think their daughter was responsible, and left it short like that, instead they have chosen to play games, ones that amount to a type of emotional blackmail.

I'm sure John actually will have realised that it is far better if Knox's family just shut up and do not offer anything rather than fake niceties, they should have offered condolences and basta, whether their daughter be guilty or be not guilty. That's where their thinking is all wrong.

Anyhow, perhaps it's better to just say, they can't help it for they are not in possession of enough common sense or intelligence with which to grasp these things.

It'd be a terrible thing but maybe the only way they'll ever get close to understanding what the Kercher's have had to endure is if some nutcase slices Knox up in jail.
Anyhow, they need not fear because Knox is being well-watched and nobody will harm her, unlike what Meredith suffered, Knox is under protection.

If anyone would be deserving of a letter from a not clubhouse fan-groupie, I think it must be Amanda Knox, someone needs to help her, her family are incapable of that. Underneath, she sure as hell does know what is what, and somewhere she has stuff she definitely would love to be able to talk about, something was and is definitely wrong inside her, and nobody knows about it, not even Mad Paxo, the sage came to her rescue, she doesn't know her onions, she's just a loyal friend who feels sorry for A. Knox.

What could be better than for Amanda to get it off her chest, I don't think she'd become likeable to people who do not like violence but still, there could be healing and I'm sure, for the Kercher family, their healing could be started if at least they did know about the particular brand of insanity that took Meredith away from them.

If one is in a deep hole and others attempt to pull you out but you do not try to help, by trying to get your feet into any part, then you may just end up pulling your helpers in too, then nobody will get out, or the one stuck may climb on the shoulders of the helper and leave the helper in the hole they were in. Is this what will become of Amanda's family? She can set THEM free.



I hardly dare type the suggestion and don't know if it would be allowed but sometimes victims' families only get answers by making contact with the perpetrators themselves.


Yes have heard of that Mike.

How one can manage to undergo it, that beats me, certainly many couldn't manage it, because they'd be unable to contain themselves.
Where violence begets violence it means it works like a chain reaction, and that in turn must mean that even if as person is not violent, the injustice felt at the violence inspires violence in them.

I guess this is the key to the neverending state of sorry world affairs, after all peoples are fighting battles for and over disputes that took place, for instance, 800 years ago.

The people who inspire me, are in fact the Kercher family members, who seem by all accounts, to be such beautiful, kind people.

Maybe what you outline has to do with the perpetrator having a connection, the last connection, to that lost loved one.
I think I would not be able to have such a confrontation, even the idea of anyone having killed, and that person being anywhere near me, I find as creepy as creepy gets.

At the moment getting anything from these perpetrators is out of the question because they admit to nothing at all.

At which point. let's say after a number of years, from now onward, will for instance, Knox say to herself, that what she has to keep bottled up, is more important to her to unbotttle, even over and above family considerations. Of course, if she admits guilt, her family may say the prison sent her nuts, however, I think they will go nuts when she does admit guilt, and Knox must realise this now, has already realised it some time ago.

She will know it is all wrong but she is still willing to try anything to get out of prison, and must be thinking, she'll just have to deal with the problems in her mind, she did already say something to Sollecito (in her coded jargon - speak) about having to get on with the best of a bad situation.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Marriot's hero or inspiration?


Quoted: Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany. In that position, he perfected the Big Lie technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Quote:
we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step.


We have an 8 year old and he lies shamelessly. He will stand there and openly deny that he did what you just saw him do two seconds ago with your own eyes. He seems to think he can negate reality. It's really strange. And we don't really know how to deal with it. We try "we saw you do it", he denies it and says we're wrong, if we insist he's capable of saying we're lying, or having a screaming fit. It looks almost as though his whole ego is going to be shattered if he admits to the completely obvious and not even very important thing. It's a bit worrying. We show him clearly that we're not taken in for a moment, but we have not succeeded in changing his behavior. No threats or punishment work. He accepts it all and goes on denying.

Funnily enough, it doesn't take much effort to persuade him to apologize. He'll say "Ok, I didn't do it, but I'll apologize if you want me to", and he'll apologize to whoever is concerned quite sweetly. You can see that it actually gives him some relief to do that. But he'll still deny having done it. This even for the most trivial things.

Very occasionally, a long and humorous speech telling him that you understand exactly why he did what he did and showing tremendous amounts of sympathy will get him to admit to whatever it is, but that's only when he's completely sure that all disapproval is absent. In the face of even the slightest hint of disapproval, he lies.

What does a parent do??
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Corriere dell'Umbria http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=29:

Google Translation:
Quote:
The defense makes the accounts of the imprisonment of their patronage. Thanks to the benefits of the Ivorian law could go free at 28 years.

PERUGIA 22.12.2010 Sentencing Rudy Guede has now been finally judged, but still hopes to be able to prove his innocence

"We will carry out the mandate entrusted to us by our client, Rudy Hermann Guede. Lawyer Valter Biscotti lawyer Nicodemo Gentile made a visit to their client, in the narrow prison Mammagialla of Viterbo and Rudy has repeated them to be "in the cell from innocent."

"We are sure - they explain criminal unison - if there is anything we can do, both at the European Court of Human Rights, a road a bit 'hard for the truth, but also in terms of revision (as required by Italian law court in the case of new events that occur after the sentence became final, ed), if the arrival of new facts. " The Court of Cassation (First Section) has been rendered and is final. If there will be news Rudy will have to remain in jail, for a total of 16 years. But three years and one month the Ivorian former basketball player has already discounted them (he was arrested on 20 November 2007, in Germany, Koblenz) and thus are missing less than 13. A deal in his pocket - as regards the period that will actually spend in prison - but you can discover details that escape a first, cursory analysis. "The law provides that every four years deprivation of liberty, the State a bonus.

In practice, therefore - said Biscuits, arguing his statements - if Rudy, as he has done to date, will behave like a model prisoner, he will serve 16 years instead of 12. To this figure should remove the 3 already spent in jail, such as custody and are expected and so it falls to 9 years. So our client has served the sentence that was imposed in the autumn of 2017. " The law is meeting the prisoners behave well in prison.

So when a prisoner has served half the sentence that was imposed, it can access a range of benefits including the most important and most coveted by those who are behind bars, is the institution of parole. It means, in a nutshell, the prisoner, who behave well, out of prison during the day and went to work and get back in the cell in the evening until the following morning. This is because the law, you know, points to the rehabilitation of prisoners into society. I mean - explain the lawyer and the lawyer Biscuits Gentile - having seen their already discounted more than three years, three and a half years (half of 2014, roughly) Guede could return, at least, semi-freedom. And in that year, Rudy was born in 1986, was 28 years and could start a new life

Elio Clero Bertoldi



ORIGINAL ITALIAN:
Quote:
Il delitto di Perugia - “R udy fuori dal carcere già tra 4 anni”.

La difesa fa i conti della detenzione del proprio patrocinato. Grazie ai benefici di legge l’ivoriano potrebbe tornare libero a 28 anni.

PERUGIA22.12.2010indietroCondanna Rudy Guede è ormai stato condannato con sentenza definitiva ma spera ancora di poter dimostrare la sua innocenza

“Porteremo avanti il mandato che ci è stato affidato dal nostro cliente, Rudy Hermann Guede”. L’avvocato Valter Biscotti e l’avvocato Nicodemo Gentile hanno fatto visita al loro assistito, ristretto nel carcere di Mammagialla di Viterbo e Rudy ha loro ripetuto di essere “in cella da innocente”. “Noi stiamo verificando - spiegano i due penalisti all’unisono - se c’è qualcosa che possiamo fare, sia a livello di Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo, una strada un po’ difficile per la verità, ma anche a livello di revisione (previsto dalla normativa giudiziaria italiana, nel caso di fatti nuovi, che si registrassero dopo che la sentenza è passata in giudicato, ndr), nel caso che arrivassero fatti nuovi”. La sentenza della corte di cassazione (prima sezione) è stata pronunciata ed è definitiva. Se non ci saranno novità Rudy dovrà restare in cella, complessivamente per 16 anni. Però 3 anni e un mese l’ex cestista ivoriano li ha già scontati (era stato arrestato il 20 novembre del 2007, in Germania, a Coblenza) e dunque ne mancano poco meno di 13. A fare i conti in tasca - per quel che riguarda il periodo che dovrà trascorrere effettivamente in carcere - però si scoprono particolari che sfuggono ad una prima, frettolosa analisi. “La legge prevede che ogni quattro anni trascorsi nella privazione della libertà, lo Stato ne abbuona uno. In pratica, quindi - sottolinea Biscotti, argomentando le sue affermazioni - se Rudy, come ha fatto sino ad oggi, si comporterà da detenuto modello, invece di 16 anni ne sconterà 12. A questa cifra bisogna togliere i 3 già trascorsi in cella, come detenzione preventiva e scontati e così si scende a 9 anni. Dunque il nostro cliente avrà scontato la pena che gli è stata inflitta nell'autunno del 2017”. Ma non basta: c’è di più. La legge infatti viene incontro ai detenuti che si comportano bene in carcere. Per cui quando un recluso ha scontato metà della pena che gli è stata irrogata, può accedere a tutta una serie di benefici tra i quali il più importante e il più agognato, da chi sta dietro le sbarre, è l’istituto della semilibertà. Significa, in soldoni, che il detenuto, che si comporti bene, esce dal carcere durante il giorno e va a lavorare e rientra in cella di sera fino al mattino successivo. E questo perché la legge, si sa, punta al reinserimento del detenuto nella società civile. Insomma - spiegano l'avvocato Biscotti e l’avvocato Gentile - avendo il loro assistito scontato già più di tre anni, fra tre anni e mezzo (a metà del 2014, grosso modo) Guede potrebbe tornare, quanto meno, alla semilibertà. E in quell’anno, Rudy che è nato nel 1986, avrebbe 28 anni e potrebbe ricominciare una nuova vita

Elio Clero Bertoldi

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
smacker wrote:
Quote:
we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step.


We have an 8 year old and he lies shamelessly. He will stand there and openly deny that he did what you just saw him do two seconds ago with your own eyes. He seems to think he can negate reality. It's really strange. And we don't really know how to deal with it. We try "we saw you do it", he denies it and says we're wrong, if we insist he's capable of saying we're lying, or having a screaming fit. It looks almost as though his whole ego is going to be shattered if he admits to the completely obvious and not even very important thing. It's a bit worrying. We show him clearly that we're not taken in for a moment, but we have not succeeded in changing his behavior. No threats or punishment work. He accepts it all and goes on denying.

Funnily enough, it doesn't take much effort to persuade him to apologize. He'll say "Ok, I didn't do it, but I'll apologize if you want me to", and he'll apologize to whoever is concerned quite sweetly. You can see that it actually gives him some relief to do that. But he'll still deny having done it. This even for the most trivial things.

Very occasionally, a long and humorous speech telling him that you understand exactly why he did what he did and showing tremendous amounts of sympathy will get him to admit to whatever it is, but that's only when he's completely sure that all disapproval is absent. In the face of even the slightest hint of disapproval, he lies.

What does a parent do??


The day will come when one of his peers or a teacher will catch him in a lie and he will be unable to persist in the implausible denial. For lots of kids, this public embarrassment usually serves as an effective wake-up call. The real challenge for parents is to refrain from coming to the child's rescue in this situation.
In the meantime, the next time he says "I didn't do that," you can reply by saying, "okay fine, just don't do it again" and leave it at that. Sometimes little or no discussion is best, especially when the person you are talking to has staked out an untenable position from which they refuse to budge. In other words, let him know you know he is lying but don't make a big deal out of it.
Does this make sense?
I ask because the more I hear about parent/child issues, the more difficult and irrational it all seems. I know a lovely, smart woman who is raising bilingual children (French-English). She is bilingual and her husband is French. Her daughter, who is eleven, is going through a "crise d'adolescence" and treats her with a mixture of contempt and apathy. Her daughter insists on answering in English when she speaks French to her, usually monosyllables. She criticizes everything her mother does and says. She is rude to her mother's friends. It is painful to be around. I ask myself how this wonderful, intelligent woman ended up with this sullen pre-teen; I can tell she is wondering the same thing.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html



This is just so bad, can things get worse.

You try so hard but you just don't understand, do you, Mr Jones

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
Marriot's hero or inspiration?


Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany. In that position, he perfected the Big Lie technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses


I've made the comparison between David Marriott and Goebbels before. Marriott is doing exactly the same thing as Goebbels was doing in the 1930s and 1940s: whipping up hysteria and racial hatred. You can seen the effects of Marriott's PR campaign in the racist and xenophobic comments made by Knox's groupies on the Internet. Many of them use terms like "Third World" or "medieval" to describe the Italian legal system. They seem to think that the American legal system is far superior to any other. They appear to be completely ignorant of the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I believe it. You wouldn't expect the same from a judge, either, but guess what.....


You wonder how the disconnect occurs; we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step. Whilst he won't be sat on the naughty step when he's 17 he will still be telling the truth. What happens when they're 18 and have a bit more freedom ? OK, so they can get into far more trouble, they make ridiculous decisions (of course, I never did) and therefore explanations can be more creative but still the fibbing, lying thing resurfaces and by that stage the crap they're in can be considerably deeper. The other stupid thing is most of the lies are far too easy to spot.


I know some people that for some inner reason or another lie continuously ALL THE TIME! I can't quite figure out why really... sometimes it seems to just see what kind of 'rise' they can get out of people and their reaction to the lie, other times it just seems to be for the heck of it.
Now, nobody EVER believes anything they say... and it has cost them many friends and a couple of jobs. It can be over the most trivial thing (like a golf score), but they will still tell the biggest 'fib' you ever heard nw) .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
smacker wrote:
Quote:
we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step.


We have an 8 year old and he lies shamelessly. He will stand there and openly deny that he did what you just saw him do two seconds ago with your own eyes. He seems to think he can negate reality. It's really strange. And we don't really know how to deal with it. We try "we saw you do it", he denies it and says we're wrong, if we insist he's capable of saying we're lying, or having a screaming fit. It looks almost as though his whole ego is going to be shattered if he admits to the completely obvious and not even very important thing. It's a bit worrying. We show him clearly that we're not taken in for a moment, but we have not succeeded in changing his behavior. No threats or punishment work. He accepts it all and goes on denying.

Funnily enough, it doesn't take much effort to persuade him to apologize. He'll say "Ok, I didn't do it, but I'll apologize if you want me to", and he'll apologize to whoever is concerned quite sweetly. You can see that it actually gives him some relief to do that. But he'll still deny having done it. This even for the most trivial things.

Very occasionally, a long and humorous speech telling him that you understand exactly why he did what he did and showing tremendous amounts of sympathy will get him to admit to whatever it is, but that's only when he's completely sure that all disapproval is absent. In the face of even the slightest hint of disapproval, he lies.

What does a parent do??


The day will come when one of his peers or a teacher will catch him in a lie and he will be unable to persist in the implausible denial. For lots of kids, this public embarrassment usually serves as an effective wake-up call. The real challenge for parents is to refrain from coming to the child's rescue in this situation.
In the meantime, the next time he says "I didn't do that," you can reply by saying, "okay fine, just don't do it again" and leave it at that. Sometimes little or no discussion is best, especially when the person you are talking to has staked out an untenable position from which they refuse to budge. In other words, let him know you know he is lying but don't make a big deal out of it.
Does this make sense?
I ask because the more I hear about parent/child issues, the more difficult and irrational it all seems. I know a lovely, smart woman who is raising bilingual children (French-English). She is bilingual and her husband is French. Her daughter, who is eleven, is going through a "crise d'adolescence" and treats her with a mixture of contempt and apathy. Her daughter insists on answering in English when she speaks French to her, usually monosyllables. She criticizes everything her mother does and says. She is rude to her mother's friends. It is painful to be around. I ask myself how this wonderful, intelligent woman ended up with this sullen pre-teen; I can tell she is wondering the same thing.



LOL! Sounds like business as usual, then. It's painful, but pretty normal. They are discovering themselves, and part of their means of defining themselves is to reject who you are. It's possible she is angry or conflicted about something else entirely (like adolescence itself with its desperate social anxieties and lack of patience...I don't think many would like to relive those years),and takes it out on Mum. My wholly adult elder daughter still sneers at me from time to time.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html


Unbelievable. Another kick in the teeth to Meredith's family. The fan club has no sense of decency whatsoever. I can't believe this is one of Meredith's former teachers.

I really don't know how much more of this I can watch or take. Might be best to stop following it now, regardless of what happens in the appeals. It is all way too disturbing.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html



This is just so bad, can things get worse.

You try so hard but you just don't understand, do you, Mr Jones


I smell another potential happy camper. Do they have truffles in Leeds?
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
zorba wrote:
Marriot's hero or inspiration?


Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany. In that position, he perfected the Big Lie technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses


I've made the comparison between David Marriott and Goebbels before. Marriott is doing exactly the same thing as Goebbels was doing in the 1930s and 1940s: whipping up hysteria and racial hatred. You can seen the effects of Marriott's PR campaign in the racist and xenophobic comments made by Knox's groupies on the Internet. Many of them use terms like "Third World" or "medieval" to describe the Italian legal system. They seem to think that the American legal system is far superior to any other. They appear to be completely ignorant of the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.


The Machine, I fear you give this type way too much credit. They aren't ignorant of the abuse of those prisoners; worse, they feel it is justified. It is rather chilling to have discussed this with people you know, or people you *thought* you knew and the way they can rationalize it. Anything goes, so long as it's America doing it. Scary, yes and oh so very sad.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

dgfred wrote:
smacker wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
I believe it. You wouldn't expect the same from a judge, either, but guess what.....


You wonder how the disconnect occurs; we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step. Whilst he won't be sat on the naughty step when he's 17 he will still be telling the truth. What happens when they're 18 and have a bit more freedom ? OK, so they can get into far more trouble, they make ridiculous decisions (of course, I never did) and therefore explanations can be more creative but still the fibbing, lying thing resurfaces and by that stage the crap they're in can be considerably deeper. The other stupid thing is most of the lies are far too easy to spot.


I know some people that for some inner reason or another lie continuously ALL THE TIME! I can't quite figure out why really... sometimes it seems to just see what kind of 'rise' they can get out of people and their reaction to the lie, other times it just seems to be for the heck of it.
Now, nobody EVER believes anything they say... and it has cost them many friends and a couple of jobs. It can be over the most trivial thing (like a golf score), but they will still tell the biggest 'fib' you ever heard nw) .


Cripes. I used to work with one. Deeply weird in other ways, too. (there really does seem to be a frotage theme today) He would even lie about what time it was for absolutely no reason. Yes, lying is taking the piss. I think that's why I don't enjoy magic (shhhh don't tell my brother...I've tried to hide it from his little sleight-of-hand adept soul)
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Corrina wrote:
Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html


Unbelievable. Another kick in the teeth to Meredith's family. The fan club has no sense of decency whatsoever. I can't believe this is one of Meredith's former teachers.

I really don't know how much more of this I can watch or take. Might be best to stop following it now, regardless of what happens in the appeals. It is all way too disturbing.


Do you suppose he will suffer a backlash? I hope so. rt-))
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:56 pm   Post subject: Rare?   

The Machine wrote:
Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html


Michael Krom wasn't one of Meredith's lecturers. Here's his profile:

http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/essi/people/krom/

I'd like to see him specifically address all the evidence in the Massei report. The fact he claims that there is zero evidence against Knox suggests that he has been reading the FOA sites.



What kind of argument is this "anthropological objection????????"
“Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. "

Why does a so-called "serious scientist" use this as the first argument to try to "prove" AK is innocent?

Statistically "rare" DOES NOT MEAN something couldn't-- and doesn't-- happen.

It does happen.

To paraphrase Mandi : "(Rare) shit happens."

To the victims of those two UK female rape-killers, and their families, I'm sure the fact that the type of violence committed was a "rare type" didn't make it any less real for them.

What about the statistic that indicate most murder victims KNOW their killer very well? THAT IMPLICATES AK!!! Lock her up!

He might as well use the "anthropological objection" to exclude Rudy, too!!!

I can't think of a single case of someone from the Ivory Coast participating in a rape/kill in Italy. It just doesn't happen. Ergo, it couldn't and DIDN'T happen.

FREE RUEDE!! pro-)
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

That awful policewoman who supposedly physically assaulted Amanda by grabbing her arms hard and making her pose for a picture? This video shows she was just pausing for a second to let the guy in front of her get by:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvid ... court.html

LJ himself posted this video, yet he still insinuates that it shows that Knox was made to pose. As someone so artfully posted over there:

"They will believe anything they choose to about police behaviour in this case."

Indeed! What was that about not reading too much into photographs and facial expressions? Double standards much?
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
smacker wrote:
Quote:
we have a 7 year old boy and even the hint of a 'fib' or lie results in a trip to the naughty step.


We have an 8 year old and he lies shamelessly. He will stand there and openly deny that he did what you just saw him do two seconds ago with your own eyes. He seems to think he can negate reality. It's really strange. And we don't really know how to deal with it. We try "we saw you do it", he denies it and says we're wrong, if we insist he's capable of saying we're lying, or having a screaming fit. It looks almost as though his whole ego is going to be shattered if he admits to the completely obvious and not even very important thing. It's a bit worrying. We show him clearly that we're not taken in for a moment, but we have not succeeded in changing his behavior. No threats or punishment work. He accepts it all and goes on denying.

Funnily enough, it doesn't take much effort to persuade him to apologize. He'll say "Ok, I didn't do it, but I'll apologize if you want me to", and he'll apologize to whoever is concerned quite sweetly. You can see that it actually gives him some relief to do that. But he'll still deny having done it. This even for the most trivial things.

Very occasionally, a long and humorous speech telling him that you understand exactly why he did what he did and showing tremendous amounts of sympathy will get him to admit to whatever it is, but that's only when he's completely sure that all disapproval is absent. In the face of even the slightest hint of disapproval, he lies.

What does a parent do??


The day will come when one of his peers or a teacher will catch him in a lie and he will be unable to persist in the implausible denial. For lots of kids, this public embarrassment usually serves as an effective wake-up call. The real challenge for parents is to refrain from coming to the child's rescue in this situation.
In the meantime, the next time he says "I didn't do that," you can reply by saying, "okay fine, just don't do it again" and leave it at that. Sometimes little or no discussion is best, especially when the person you are talking to has staked out an untenable position from which they refuse to budge. In other words, let him know you know he is lying but don't make a big deal out of it.
Does this make sense?
I ask because the more I hear about parent/child issues, the more difficult and irrational it all seems. I know a lovely, smart woman who is raising bilingual children (French-English). She is bilingual and her husband is French. Her daughter, who is eleven, is going through a "crise d'adolescence" and treats her with a mixture of contempt and apathy. Her daughter insists on answering in English when she speaks French to her, usually monosyllables. She criticizes everything her mother does and says. She is rude to her mother's friends. It is painful to be around. I ask myself how this wonderful, intelligent woman ended up with this sullen pre-teen; I can tell she is wondering the same thing.


This is a great topic; OT but relevant if you get me.

We have zero tolerance; the lad's school has the same tolerance level because if they don't then the problem they have is multiplied by the amount of pupils in the class.

I also believe the other issue is how you interact with the child. Were I to refer to the soon to be (not my) ex-wife of my earlier posts then ex-wife has continually indulged the child. Because the parents were separated the mother had the opportunity to deliver her own footprint and the child (female) missed the guiding hand of the male parent, or what could be perceived as the less gentle hand. I'm a firm believer in this......you're welcome to disagree if you think this a little Victorian.

Above all, consistency within parents because the same message gets home (I think, ask me in 10 years) but to come back to topic, it's an easy camp to sit in when you think about AK and behavioural issues.

Still doesn't explain murder, however.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Uh, how many times have we seen on JREF someone post the words "what lies did they tell?" and "what different statements? they have always maintained they were home!". Yet here is Rose saying:

Quote:
I agree with you on most of this. It can't be denied that Raffaele lied. I also believe that part of breaking Amanda down included the police saying Raffaele had dropped her alibi.


It can't be denied that he lied? Sure it can, if you are delusional enough! br-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Breaking News: Credit where it's due. LJ thanks Jools for translation work.

@thoughtful : pathologically lying kids - yep, been there. It's totally baffling I agree. He still does it sometimes. All I can say is that when he gets older he WILL begin to get it. There have been times when YB has put his (possibly accurate) POV about something and I have had to tell him that in the light of his previous record on honesty I find it hard to back him up. That bites.

Sport seems to have largely sorted it out however. The Dads down at the Rugby club don't take any nonsense, and the boys absolutely toe the line. Suggest getting him to join a male dominated sports club. Whilst soft-hearted Mamma is not looking the men kinda sort the boys out. It usually only takes one catch and the boys get it 100%. I know, I know. But I think young boy cubs need big lions to cuff them occasionally (metaphorically speaking) and they verrrry quickly learn how the world works...I think it is something about being part of a pack of boys that makes truthfulness more about honour and bravery than about losing face.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Rare?   

The 411 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Jools wrote:
From OGGI the article headline reads:

*46 Parla un professore di Meredith: «Liberate Amanda e Raffaele», 
di Alessandro Penna
http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

"Page 46 Meredith’s teacher speaks: “Free Amanda and Raffaele”. By Alessandro Penna.”

I doubt very much he was one of Meredith’s teachers as stated by the headline in Oggi’s article, I’m sure is a complete fabrication by the weekly gossip magazine and its typical sensationalist spinning. an-)) br-))

And this is from Umbria Journal:

*LEEDS TEACHER: "JUSTICE BUT NOT WITH INNOCENTS JAILED"*

Meredith Kercher “should have justice, but not at the expense of keeping two innocent persons in jail” quoted, as told in an interview with the weekly magazine OGGI, by a chemistry teacher from Leeds University where the English student murdered in Perugia studied, Michael Krom explains he’s is come to be an ardent follower of the case, having thoroughly studied it and become an “innocentista” regarding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. “The thing that I’m most anxious - the teacher tells OGGI- is that Meredith Kercher gets justice. Condemning two innocent people breaks two lives but it also creates a third victim: the memory of Meredith." In the opinion of professor Krom there are no evidence to catch the two former sweethearts. “Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.

There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. Circumstances different from those of Perugia, it was of women subjugated by psychopathic husbands that had childhoods full of violence and deprivation and the evidence against them were overwhelming. What is there against Knox? What is it of hers in the crime house? Nothing, zero… And Raffaeles’s position is even more absurd. Just a fragment of DNA on the hook ‘gets’ him. Here we are in my expertise field. And I say: in the case of the hook suspicions of contamination are enormous. It was recovered a month and a half after the murder. It was found in a different place from the original. As for the knife alleged as the murder weapon, the DNA traces are too low, too scarce to give reliable results in tests. It’s one of the first things I teach my students; when the traces are too low testing is not even done. On site we all agree: Raf (this is how he calls him -Ed.-) is collateral damage -concludes Krom- in a war that does not concern him.”
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediacente ... centi.html


Michael Krom wasn't one of Meredith's lecturers. Here's his profile:

http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/essi/people/krom/

I'd like to see him specifically address all the evidence in the Massei report. The fact he claims that there is zero evidence against Knox suggests that he has been reading the FOA sites.



What kind of argument is this "anthropological objection????????"
“Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. "

Why does a so-called "serious scientist" use this as the first argument to try to "prove" AK is innocent?

Statistically "rare" DOES NOT MEAN something couldn't-- and doesn't-- happen.

It does happen.

To paraphrase Mandi : "(Rare) shit happens."

To the victims of those two UK female rape-killers, and their families, I'm sure the fact that the type of violence committed was a "rare type" didn't make it any less real for them.

What about the statistic that indicate most murder victims KNOW their killer very well? THAT IMPLICATES AK!!! Lock her up!

He might as well use the "anthropological objection" to exclude Rudy, too!!!

I can't think of a single case of someone from the Ivory Coast participating in a rape/kill in Italy. It just doesn't happen. Ergo, it couldn't and DIDN'T happen.

FREE RUEDE!! pro-)


He's not a serious scientist, he's a lecturer and God knows that profession has its fair share of odd beasts.
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

By the way Greggy, I love when I read people here picking apart some of the prosecutor's evidence. That is what makes us different than other boards, we are able to admit to things that may not match our conclusions. I wish the other side would do that more, i would have a lot more respect for them.

I don;t know a thing about science, but what you say makes sense. I would personally not convict these two on the knife alone. Like someone mentioned, it is part of the big picture, something you can take into consideration but always being mindful of the weak aspects of it. Honestly, if it wasnt for Raffaele's pricking lie, I would be more willing to ignore the knife, but I think the lie made the knife evidence a bit more valuable.

I have some problems with the prosecution's case. I am very confused about the TOD to be honest, although I still do not buy everything Klowe and LoJo say about it, I think the TOD is a good argument for innocence. I guess the difference between myself and them is that i have faith in the courts, I think if there is truth to what they say, the courts will make the right decision. It is also difficult for me to square the TOD argument and their supposed innocence with the evidence that proves their involvement. It is a very confusing case to me. I am very glad about the ruling the other day, I think it's very important for courts to be transparent and to back up their case as much as possible. Like some have said, if the results come back for the prosecution side, I think public support for Knox and Sollecito will be virtually nonexistent, they will no longer be able to claim that they were treated unfairly or that evil Mignini is to blame.

If for any reason they win the appeals, I will be ok with it simply because I trust the courts knew what they were doing. I may still feel they are guilty, but I strongly believe in the notion of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and unfortunately sometimes guilty people have to go free, that is the price we have to pay. Even if that price is justice for Meredith, unfortunately. I know it is unfair if that happens, but let's not fret about because we just dont know yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

p.s Skep - your friend's daughter is probably just hitting puberty a bit younger than most. It sounds not dissimilar to the stories I hear from other mothers. I am having stroppy teenager thing at the moment and have to remind myself not to take it personally, and it is just another normal phase, like toddler tantrums. I saw a spectacular toddler tantrum yesterday: it was a taking off wellies and throwing them, full on two-year-old tantrum. As an outsider it is so easy to smile and think "Just wait for it to pass, he's not in control, just wait...", but when it's your kid it is so hard. I try and maintain the same perspective with the teen thing, but it isn't easy and she is getting it early, poor woman. It's nothing whatever to do with her as a parent, other than being a good one, who the child feels safe to rage against without fear of rejection. She's still a baby underneath, at eleven, and probably a bit scared about all these emotions she's feeling. They are not even like emotions you have as an adult, with some experience to draw on. They're just there and fiercely important. She will blossom, no doubt, into a critical thinker, or an activist DV...! I'd love a stroppy daughter. I would send her on marches and sit ins, or direct her passion towards poetry...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Breaking News: Credit where it's due. LJ thanks Jools for translation work.

@thoughtful : pathologically lying kids - yep, been there. It's totally baffling I agree. He still does it sometimes. All I can say is that when he gets older he WILL begin to get it. There have been times when YB has put his (possibly accurate) POV about something and I have had to tell him that in the light of his previous record on honesty I find it hard to back him up. That bites.

Sport seems to have largely sorted it out however. The Dads down at the Rugby club don't take any nonsense, and the boys absolutely toe the line. Suggest getting him to join a male dominated sports club. Whilst soft-hearted Mamma is not looking the men kinda sort the boys out. It usually only takes one catch and the boys get it 100%. I know, I know. But I think young boy cubs need big lions to cuff them occasionally (metaphorically speaking) and they verrrry quickly learn how the world works...I think it is something about being part of a pack of boys that makes truthfulness more about honour and bravery than about losing face.


Bard,

I have 3 daughters in England; 19, 17 and 15 in January.

The 19 year old cannot but lie. Doesn't matter what the topic is. She spent 2 months with us in the US during summer, and we have/had what I might have termed an excellent dialogue. Except it involved 10 months of lying. Having 'outed' her in July followed by a 'truthful' declaration I finally lost patience with her in September and yelled at her when I caught her out again. We are now picking up the pieces.

Great line on the rugby front. Boys find something they want to get stuck into (easier for boys, sportswise than girls) and if they have the competitive gene they will accept the Ts and Cs about how they are accepted in the rugby club. Don't behave, don't play.

I'm a sports guy and that's easy to understand.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Breaking News: Credit where it's due. LJ thanks Jools for translation work.

@thoughtful : pathologically lying kids - yep, been there. It's totally baffling I agree. He still does it sometimes. All I can say is that when he gets older he WILL begin to get it. There have been times when YB has put his (possibly accurate) POV about something and I have had to tell him that in the light of his previous record on honesty I find it hard to back him up. That bites.

Sport seems to have largely sorted it out however. The Dads down at the Rugby club don't take any nonsense, and the boys absolutely toe the line. Suggest getting him to join a male dominated sports club. Whilst soft-hearted Mamma is not looking the men kinda sort the boys out. It usually only takes one catch and the boys get it 100%. I know, I know. But I think young boy cubs need big lions to cuff them occasionally (metaphorically speaking) and they verrrry quickly learn how the world works...I think it is something about being part of a pack of boys that makes truthfulness more about honour and bravery than about losing face.


Bard,

I have 3 daughters in England; 19, 17 and 15 in January.

The 19 year old cannot but lie. Doesn't matter what the topic is. She spent 2 months with us in the US during summer, and we have/had what I might have termed an excellent dialogue. Except it involved 10 months of lying. Having 'outed' her in July followed by a 'truthful' declaration I finally lost patience with her in September and yelled at her when I caught her out again. We are now picking up the pieces.

Great line on the rugby front. Boys find something they want to get stuck into (easier for boys, sportswise than girls) and if they have the competitive gene they will accept the Ts and Cs about how they are accepted in the rugby club. Don't behave, don't play.

I'm a sports guy and that's easy to understand.


It's never easy, however caring the parent. There just isn't a handbook since every kid is different. You can only do your best. Happily the Dads down at Rugby all share the same standards and are a wonderful mixture of soft-as-butter and ruffty-tuffty gruff, so the tough line they take is tempered with genuine affection for the boys they have been coaching from the age of seven. The biggest and toughest is the softest in many ways, having coached them from little boys. They would never let him down. They love him and he loves them. It's gifted teaching and leadership in action. This for a team of lads who rarely win a match, bless 'em. But coach never fails to encourage and demand the best of them. I think I am going to cry now!!!! When men are good, they're brilliant.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 512

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
Knox's propaganda machinery (no relation to the Machine) is something that perhaps Reich Fuhrer Marriot learned from his God, which may very well be Joseph Goebbels.

He was 'well' into film too.
All of team Knox would have not been short of employment if it had been 1939 and they all lived in Germany.

Weird people come in all shapes n sizes. The idea that Hitler and his, all used to sit about discussing stuff and that they were into vegetarianism, I think I must be dreaming this up.
That drug speed though has done a lot of damage, look at the knobchops Hitler, didn't he take daily fixes of it?

Anyhow, let's be real, we are not living in 1939 even though those supporting Knox seem like the types who got tarred and feathered and their heads shaved when the war ended... but who are they being traitors towards? I think the human race itself.

I don't share the wet-eyed sentiments expressed for Mr Knox, there's no excuse for denying facts, no excuse for setting out to undermine a process of justice/to character assassinate people then actually accuse others of doing that very thing, which Mr Knox did, then engaging in a media mayhem war.

What IS unacceptable is a parent who will not support a child but instead helps them to be deceitful and then shares in the deceit, to make two wrongs into a right. That's not supporting a child at all.

I wish I could help them, but they refuse.

Only thing I know is, the Lord helps those that help themselves.

Meaning, don't blame me, said God, use your own mind and be responsible for your own actions, use the mind you have been given.

zorba, I love you. Are you married?

Just kidding. Just KIDDING!!! eee-) :)

But truly, this one and your last one about the way Raff thinks and the way Amanda must interact with her cellmate show so much insight into people.

Thanks for your contributions!!! dm-) tt-) da-))
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
smacker wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Breaking News: Credit where it's due. LJ thanks Jools for translation work.

@thoughtful : pathologically lying kids - yep, been there. It's totally baffling I agree. He still does it sometimes. All I can say is that when he gets older he WILL begin to get it. There have been times when YB has put his (possibly accurate) POV about something and I have had to tell him that in the light of his previous record on honesty I find it hard to back him up. That bites.

Sport seems to have largely sorted it out however. The Dads down at the Rugby club don't take any nonsense, and the boys absolutely toe the line. Suggest getting him to join a male dominated sports club. Whilst soft-hearted Mamma is not looking the men kinda sort the boys out. It usually only takes one catch and the boys get it 100%. I know, I know. But I think young boy cubs need big lions to cuff them occasionally (metaphorically speaking) and they verrrry quickly learn how the world works...I think it is something about being part of a pack of boys that makes truthfulness more about honour and bravery than about losing face.


Bard,

I have 3 daughters in England; 19, 17 and 15 in January.

The 19 year old cannot but lie. Doesn't matter what the topic is. She spent 2 months with us in the US during summer, and we have/had what I might have termed an excellent dialogue. Except it involved 10 months of lying. Having 'outed' her in July followed by a 'truthful' declaration I finally lost patience with her in September and yelled at her when I caught her out again. We are now picking up the pieces.

Great line on the rugby front. Boys find something they want to get stuck into (easier for boys, sportswise than girls) and if they have the competitive gene they will accept the Ts and Cs about how they are accepted in the rugby club. Don't behave, don't play.

I'm a sports guy and that's easy to understand.


It's never easy, however caring the parent. There just isn't a handbook since every kid is different. You can only do your best. Happily the Dads down at Rugby all share the same standards and are a wonderful mixture of soft-as-butter and ruffty-tuffty gruff, so the tough line they take is tempered with genuine affection for the boys they have been coaching from the age of seven. The biggest and toughest is the softest in many ways, having coached them from little boys. They would never let him down. They love him and he loves them. It's gifted teaching and leadership in action. This for a team of lads who rarely win a match, bless 'em. But coach never fails to encourage and demand the best of them. I think I am going to cry now!!!! When men are good, they're brilliant.


and when we're not brilliant ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
The Bard wrote:
smacker wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Breaking News: Credit where it's due. LJ thanks Jools for translation work.

@thoughtful : pathologically lying kids - yep, been there. It's totally baffling I agree. He still does it sometimes. All I can say is that when he gets older he WILL begin to get it. There have been times when YB has put his (possibly accurate) POV about something and I have had to tell him that in the light of his previous record on honesty I find it hard to back him up. That bites.

Sport seems to have largely sorted it out however. The Dads down at the Rugby club don't take any nonsense, and the boys absolutely toe the line. Suggest getting him to join a male dominated sports club. Whilst soft-hearted Mamma is not looking the men kinda sort the boys out. It usually only takes one catch and the boys get it 100%. I know, I know. But I think young boy cubs need big lions to cuff them occasionally (metaphorically speaking) and they verrrry quickly learn how the world works...I think it is something about being part of a pack of boys that makes truthfulness more about honour and bravery than about losing face.


Bard,

I have 3 daughters in England; 19, 17 and 15 in January.

The 19 year old cannot but lie. Doesn't matter what the topic is. She spent 2 months with us in the US during summer, and we have/had what I might have termed an excellent dialogue. Except it involved 10 months of lying. Having 'outed' her in July followed by a 'truthful' declaration I finally lost patience with her in September and yelled at her when I caught her out again. We are now picking up the pieces.

Great line on the rugby front. Boys find something they want to get stuck into (easier for boys, sportswise than girls) and if they have the competitive gene they will accept the Ts and Cs about how they are accepted in the rugby club. Don't behave, don't play.

I'm a sports guy and that's easy to understand.


It's never easy, however caring the parent. There just isn't a handbook since every kid is different. You can only do your best. Happily the Dads down at Rugby all share the same standards and are a wonderful mixture of soft-as-butter and ruffty-tuffty gruff, so the tough line they take is tempered with genuine affection for the boys they have been coaching from the age of seven. The biggest and toughest is the softest in many ways, having coached them from little boys. They would never let him down. They love him and he loves them. It's gifted teaching and leadership in action. This for a team of lads who rarely win a match, bless 'em. But coach never fails to encourage and demand the best of them. I think I am going to cry now!!!! When men are good, they're brilliant.


and when we're not brilliant ?


Ahh, well there is always a way of finding the best in people smacker. It's a mindset. One has to focus on all the things that are done well, not the things that could be done better!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Michael wrote:
Administrator Note:

Hello everyone. Please welcome Clander to the PMF staff. He will be serving as a board Administrator. He will not be serving as a Moderator, rather his role will be as a technical Admin only, although of course he will also continue to be a poster. He will be helping out should I have any technical problems on the board, a technical emergency pops up or if something happens to me or my computer leaving the site with no techy. I'm also sure he'd be willing to help board members should any of you have technical problems or queries.

It is also quite fitting that Clander is Italian. Now the three primary countries at the centre of the case...Italy, United States (a Seattleite no less) and Great Britain are represented in the PMF administration staff.


Welcome Clander!!! :) :) :)


I welcome our new Clander overlord.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: Rare?   

The 411 wrote:
Quote:
There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years.


What kind of argument is this "anthropological objection????????"
“Let's start with Amanda – he adds -.There is let’s say an anthropological objection. The cases of women participating in a rape and then kill are very rare. In the UK there have been two in 50 years. "

Why does a so-called "serious scientist" use this as the first argument to try to "prove" AK is innocent?


Here is a sample article about hazing:

HAZING

Hazing is such a huge problem in colleges and universities, whether sports teams or clubs, that entire programmes have been shut down as a consequence. The real problem with hazing is that it is one of the last bastions of unbridled discrimination and sexual assault remaining in our society. Adults do not generally discuss it. Coaches excuse it. Young people who threaten to expose it are ostracised or worse.

Knox is not as unlikely a candidate to participate in a ritual involving degradation and sexual overtones as the professor would have you believe. I just wonder if she will ever tell us exactly whose idea it was to bring the kitchen knife from Sollecito's apartment.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Don't get me started on teenagers. I have a daughter still stuck in adolescence who will turn 41 next week. When she was 19 my wife (her step mom) told me "She will be a totally different person when she is 30." Didn't happen. She is now on her fourth marriage, her previous three plus one failed long-term live-in relationship were, according to her, "bad luck" to which she made no contribution at all.

She has two children, girls aged 5 and 2, that are very sweet and charming when their mother is not around. Right now these children don't experience much in the way of limits, and there is no activity of theirs in which their mother is not involved. When they misbehave their mother laughs about it. I am hoping not to be around when these girls hit adolescence and the lack of limits collides with the maternal desire to be the center of her children's lives.

I am beginning to understand why some grandparents move far away. If I could make a living there, I would move to Italy. Seriously.
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
smacker wrote:
The Bard wrote:
smacker wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Breaking News: Credit where it's due. LJ thanks Jools for translation work.

@thoughtful : pathologically lying kids - yep, been there. It's totally baffling I agree. He still does it sometimes. All I can say is that when he gets older he WILL begin to get it. There have been times when YB has put his (possibly accurate) POV about something and I have had to tell him that in the light of his previous record on honesty I find it hard to back him up. That bites.

Sport seems to have largely sorted it out however. The Dads down at the Rugby club don't take any nonsense, and the boys absolutely toe the line. Suggest getting him to join a male dominated sports club. Whilst soft-hearted Mamma is not looking the men kinda sort the boys out. It usually only takes one catch and the boys get it 100%. I know, I know. But I think young boy cubs need big lions to cuff them occasionally (metaphorically speaking) and they verrrry quickly learn how the world works...I think it is something about being part of a pack of boys that makes truthfulness more about honour and bravery than about losing face.


Bard,

I have 3 daughters in England; 19, 17 and 15 in January.

The 19 year old cannot but lie. Doesn't matter what the topic is. She spent 2 months with us in the US during summer, and we have/had what I might have termed an excellent dialogue. Except it involved 10 months of lying. Having 'outed' her in July followed by a 'truthful' declaration I finally lost patience with her in September and yelled at her when I caught her out again. We are now picking up the pieces.

Great line on the rugby front. Boys find something they want to get stuck into (easier for boys, sportswise than girls) and if they have the competitive gene they will accept the Ts and Cs about how they are accepted in the rugby club. Don't behave, don't play.

I'm a sports guy and that's easy to understand.


It's never easy, however caring the parent. There just isn't a handbook since every kid is different. You can only do your best. Happily the Dads down at Rugby all share the same standards and are a wonderful mixture of soft-as-butter and ruffty-tuffty gruff, so the tough line they take is tempered with genuine affection for the boys they have been coaching from the age of seven. The biggest and toughest is the softest in many ways, having coached them from little boys. They would never let him down. They love him and he loves them. It's gifted teaching and leadership in action. This for a team of lads who rarely win a match, bless 'em. But coach never fails to encourage and demand the best of them. I think I am going to cry now!!!! When men are good, they're brilliant.


and when we're not brilliant ?


Ahh, well there is always a way of finding the best in people smacker. It's a mindset. One has to focus on all the things that are done well, not the things that could be done better!


Mrs Smacker has just witnessed (rubber) frog throwing. She thinks we're hooligans. Well, there's a shock. He's not bad, but I'm quite accurate.
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
Don't get me started on teenagers. I have a daughter still stuck in adolescence who will turn 41 next week. When she was 19 my wife (her step mom) told me "She will be a totally different person when she is 30." Didn't happen. She is now on her fourth marriage, her previous three plus one failed long-term live-in relationship were, according to her, "bad luck" to which she made no contribution at all.

She has two children, girls aged 5 and 2, that are very sweet and charming when their mother is not around. Right now these children don't experience much in the way of limits, and there is no activity of theirs in which their mother is not involved. When they misbehave their mother laughs about it. I am hoping not to be around when these girls hit adolescence and the lack of limits collides with the maternal desire to be the center of her children's lives.

I am beginning to understand why some grandparents move far away. If I could make a living there, I would move to Italy. Seriously.


TomM,

thanks for your observations on the latest stuff from Italy. I particularly enjoyed the comparisons between US law and how benevolently the Italian judicial system works. Given how the AKers consider most things beyond America to be unfair your perspective is vital. Hopefully the clan can read and absorb......New Year's resoltions can still be made.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))


I was sorry and surprised to see you banned. I saw no reason for it and feel it was solely due to LashL who early on expressed her belief in AK's innocence and the existence of the Perugia Railroad. :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
Uh, how many times have we seen on JREF someone post the words "what lies did they tell?" and "what different statements? they have always maintained they were home!". Yet here is Rose saying:

Quote:
I agree with you on most of this. It can't be denied that Raffaele lied. I also believe that part of breaking Amanda down included the police saying Raffaele had dropped her alibi.


It can't be denied that he lied? Sure it can, if you are delusional enough! br-))


Good grief. Have any of them even yet taken the fifteen minutes to put Knox's 04 NOV 2007 email next to the 06 NOV 2007 "memorial" and compare them? Each of those statements were entirely uncoerced. Knox had no worries about her tummy growling either.

Those two statements bear almost no resemblance to one another. Call it evasion, lying, distracting, or anything you want.

I am still on the side of Pacelli, who asked Knox whether she and Sollecito planned ahead of time to accuse Patrick of murdering Meredith. We know that Sollecito was not at all surprised, in his prison diary, at the news that Knox had claimed her boss raped and killed Meredith.

Why did it take two to three hours to process this statement (approx. 23:00 - 01:45)? That's a pretty average turnaround time for taking a brief statement and ensuring that it was ready for signature. We can compare that with the 05:45 statement, which was signed after Knox asked to speak with the PM at 03:00.

Put simply, there was no "breaking down". Knox was provided the opportunity at her trial--one of several opportunities she had--to identify the policewoman who "clipped" her and to describe the exact sequence of events during the interview. She chose, instead, to discuss her homework being done by the elevator.

They might as well be asking why there was no taped interview. The cops scarcely had the time to ready the room for questioning when Knox abruptly accused Patrick of murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
By the way Greggy, I love when I read people here picking apart some of the prosecutor's evidence. That is what makes us different than other boards, we are able to admit to things that may not match our conclusions. I wish the other side would do that more, i would have a lot more respect for them.

I don;t know a thing about science, but what you say makes sense. I would personally not convict these two on the knife alone. Like someone mentioned, it is part of the big picture, something you can take into consideration but always being mindful of the weak aspects of it. Honestly, if it wasnt for Raffaele's pricking lie, I would be more willing to ignore the knife, but I think the lie made the knife evidence a bit more valuable.

I have some problems with the prosecution's case. I am very confused about the TOD to be honest, although I still do not buy everything Klowe and LoJo say about it, I think the TOD is a good argument for innocence. I guess the difference between myself and them is that i have faith in the courts, I think if there is truth to what they say, the courts will make the right decision. It is also difficult for me to square the TOD argument and their supposed innocence with the evidence that proves their involvement. It is a very confusing case to me. I am very glad about the ruling the other day, I think it's very important for courts to be transparent and to back up their case as much as possible. Like some have said, if the results come back for the prosecution side, I think public support for Knox and Sollecito will be virtually nonexistent, they will no longer be able to claim that they were treated unfairly or that evil Mignini is to blame.

If for any reason they win the appeals, I will be ok with it simply because I trust the courts knew what they were doing. I may still feel they are guilty, but I strongly believe in the notion of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and unfortunately sometimes guilty people have to go free, that is the price we have to pay. Even if that price is justice for Meredith, unfortunately. I know it is unfair if that happens, but let's not fret about because we just dont know yet.


Nice post Solange 8-) . I feel/think the same way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Mot du jour: aide de frotage. This in response to the tortured howls from the Frotage Crew that poor Amanda is being HELD by the ARMS on the way into court!!! Noooooo!!! Call Amnesty International!!! Convicted murderer abuse. Girl held by arms!!!! This puts Guantanamo into perpective, you have to agree. They think she looks unhappy too. It's clearly giving them all a huge amount to think about. Makes a change from discussing the actual mechanics of the murder I guess, and Meredith's intestines.

Ugghhh. I know some don't approve of the BFQ, but it's got to be better than that bunch of reptilian wierdos' unrelenting coldness. *Shudder*


Their extended tour through the intestine was sickening. My image was a bunch of ghouls standing around a dead body picking thru the guts, laughing.:mad:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Good grief. Have any of them even yet taken the fifteen minutes to put Knox's 04 NOV 2007 email next to the 06 NOV 2007 "memorial" and compare them? Each of those statements were entirely uncoerced. Knox had no worries about her tummy growling either.

Those two statements bear almost no resemblance to one another. Call it evasion, lying, distracting, or anything you want.


I agree that Amanda Knox's email on 4 November 2007 and her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007 bear almost no resemblance to each. However, I think it's worth noting that she claimed on three separate occasions that she met Diya Lumumba in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder:

"Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work. I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately, therefore I went out telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. I wish to state first that in the afternoon I had smoked a joint with Raffaele, therefore I felt confused because I do not usually make use of narcotics nor harder drugs. I met Patrick soon after at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana and we went home." (Amanda Knox, 1.45am witness statement).

"I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7." (Amanda Knox, 5.45am witness statement).

"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note to the police).

Antonio Curatolo corroborated Amanda Knox's repeated claim that she was at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder. I wonder whether she bumped into Rudy Guede by chance in Piazza Grimana at around 8.30pm and arranged to meet him again later.
Top Profile 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Smacker wrote:
Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.


It's a criminal offence to bounce a cheque in America? Wow!


It's called fraud good for up to 2 years, if it's for more than $150 then it's felony fraud good for up to 5 years.*

*IANAL and these facts are from a 20 year old memory. It also varies from state to state.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
Antonio Curatolo corroborated Amanda Knox's repeated claim that she was at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder. I wonder whether she bumped into Rudy Guede by chance in Piazza Grimana at around 8.30pm and arranged to meet him again later.

Guede plays basketball -- were people still playing basketball there in October. Did Guede play basketball there? Maybe Knox went there to find Guede. Maybe she watched him playing basketball. Curatolo would know this.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Antonio Curatolo corroborated Amanda Knox's repeated claim that she was at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder. I wonder whether she bumped into Rudy Guede by chance in Piazza Grimana at around 8.30pm and arranged to meet him again later.

Guede plays basketball -- were people still playing basketball there in October. Did Guede play basketball there? Maybe Knox went there to find Guede. Maybe she watched him playing basketball. Curatolo would know this.


Amanda Knox had seen Rudy Guede playing basketball:

She had seen Rudy Guede on various occasions: "there was the time, below the house, there was a time, I  think, at my job and then I saw that he played basketball, but that's how it was" (page 167). (The Massei report, page 76).

It seems that Guede had met Knox at the basketball court previously:

"From there, like all the times, I met Amanda and The guys at the court. With Amanda, it was by chance on the street, and it was always “hi” and “bye.” I never got tight with her, and vice versa." (Rudy Guede's prison diary, page 16).
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I believe they met, either on purpose (for more/harder drugs) or by accident. Then proceeded from there... to party more/harder or to jump in on the prank being persuaded by the girl he 'fancied'.
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

selective memory or what ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 583

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tsit wrote:
Michael wrote:
Smacker wrote:
Michael,

you are correct; any criminal act that crosses state borders is a criminal offence. A very good friend of min's soon to be ex-wife bounced cheques across state borders and is now in considerable doo-doo. An arrest warrant was issued.


It's a criminal offence to bounce a cheque in America? Wow!


It's called fraud good for up to 2 years, if it's for more than $150 then it's felony fraud good for up to 5 years.*

*IANAL and these facts are from a 20 year old memory. It also varies from state to state.

An inadvertent bounced check won't get you in trouble. Here in California, if the payee of the check sends you a letter with the correct statutory language demanding the check be made good and you fail to do so within 30 days, you can be held liable in small claims court for three times the face amount of the check up to $1,500 plus costs. If you paid a bunch of bills thinking a large deposit had been credited to your account, and the checks were presented before the deposit was credited, you would have a lot of making up to do, but you would not be prosecuted for a crime.

Writing a string of bad checks is fraud under the circumstance that you know full well the funds are insufficient or non-existent.


Last edited by TomM on Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:35 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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Interesting observation from 'the Other Board'

In responding to one of the chronically clueless clods, who is still high fiving everyone about the great victory from Appeal about 'new trial', etcc.

One of the usually more reasonable and rational heads says:

"The tide is turning in the media and among the public, but it is going to take a hell of a lot of pressure to get these innocent people out of prison. Hellman is not interested in getting at the truth. He is interested in protecting the reputation of the Italian judiciary. But his calculation of how best to do that may depend on the volume and tone of the message he gets from the media."

Although I do not accept his estimation of the power of the media, that was the first I had heard any of the FOAKer crew express the very real possibility that Judge Hellman is primarily just removing doubt about 2 pieces of forensic evidence and claims of 'mistakes' by witnesses.
None of what he is re-examining would definitely be a 'game changer' anyway due to all the other evidence he accepts, and also after the Supreme Court in confirming Guede's guilt specifically cited Guede's 'accomplices'.


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


Last edited by stint7 on Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Greggy wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'll just add, Hampikian's complaint about the DNA on the knife blade is seems to amount to "it's really small". In other words, it's LCN. Well, we already know US courts do not readily accept LCN DNA evidence (although there has been recent precedent) but it is accepted by UK and Italian courts. This is because the US is behind the curve. The British are the pioneers of developing forensic DNA and it was Britain that developed the LCN method and began using it in British courts who have now been using it for years and after a recent review it was revalidated. Essentially, Hampikian's argument is 'you can't use it because it's LCN'. Sorry Hampikian, you're behind the times...yes you can.


I wither in the bright gaze of your pride for your nation's scientists. They have done an excellent job developing the Low Copy Number (LCN) approach. It is still early times for LCN evidence but its day will come soon. I will feel more comfortable when validated STR assay kits specifically for LCN analyses are commercially developed and supplied to scientists rather than having them use home-brew assays and protocols to obtain results. I will feel more comfortable when computer software becomes available that can rigorously interpret LCN results which can suffer from increased contamination, allele drop-out, the scarier allele drop-in, significant peak imbalances, and arbitrary peak relative fluorescent unit (rfu) designations as positive or negative by the scientists performing the assays. Those are some of the reasons why the USA courts are still wary of LCN evidence. Given the current high variability of LCN assays and as a disciple of the scientific method, I will feel considerably more comfortable when I can at least see duplicate results to confirm an interpretation. I expect the technical deficiencies to be solved within a year or so.


I can certainly understand proceeding with caution when scientific processes are in their infancy, particularly when a person's freedom is at stake. Keeping in mind that I know very little about the science of DNA analysis, I'd really like to understand how your discomfort with LCN analysis applies to this case.

Is it really possible that allele drop-out, allele drop-in, peak imbalances, or arbitrary peak rfu designations are going to result in a profile that just happens to be a very good match for the murder victim? In other words, if LCN assays were highly variable, wouldn't it be more likely that we would see a profile that doesn't match anyone connected with a specific case rather than a profile that happens to match the most important person in that case?


I have to apologize for being a bit overbearing earlier today about this tiny piece of evidence, which has negligible bearing on the overall verdicts in this case. If LCN analyses are acceptable at their current state of development to UK and Italian courts, so be it and the matter is closed. I know that the current STR assay kit giants (Promega and Applied BioSystems/Life Technologies) are actively developing, perfecting, and validating LCN assay kits for the forensic DNA market because they are recruiting heavy STR assay users with databases to become beta testers of the kits. As a competitive advantage, Applied BioSystems will be developing the rigorous analysis software needed side-by-side with the new LCN assay kits. So many of the points I made earlier will be moot within a year or so. Criminals everywhere will have more to fear. But the one issue, I can not concede in this case or any other is that a key scientific interpretation was made from only a single determination. Scientific evidence has to be held to a higher standard and the reproducibility of any result is critically important. I will not mention this matter again and hope that a grassroots movement doesn't arise here seeking to ban me from the forum for being a huge boor today. I promise to reform.


Greggy, I'm sorry if my post came across as hostile to your position. That wasn't my purpose and I certainly do not think your informative posts were overbearing or boorish. What I was hoping to do was to clarify things for myself and perhaps others who are not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to DNA analysis. It just seems to me that any inaccuracies in the art of LCN analysis are irrelevant when it comes to the identification of Meredith's profile on the blade of the large knife. However, my lack of DNA expertise might be blinding me to the real concerns.

Regarding your "single determination" point above, I wholeheartedly concur. That is the only thing that raises a concern for me here. However, I only think that would be relevant in this case if the unrepeatable test pointed to a suspect rather than the victim.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:
Interesting observation from 'the Other Board'

In responding to one of the chronically clueless clods, who is still high fiving everyone about the great victory from Appeal about 'new trial', etcc.

One of the more reasonable and rational heads says:

"The tide is turning in the media and among the public, but it is going to take a hell of a lot of pressure to get these innocent people out of prison. Hellman is not interested in getting at the truth. He is interested in protecting the reputation of the Italian judiciary. But his calculation of how best to do that may depend on the volume and tone of the message he gets from the media."

Although I do not accept his estimation of the power of the media, that was the first I had heard any of the FOAKer crew express the very real possibility that Judge Hellman is primarily just removing doubt about 2 pieces of forensic evidence and claims of 'mistakes' by witnesses.


None of what he is re-examining would definitely be a 'game changer' anyway due to all the other evidence he accepts, and also after the Supreme Court in confirming Guede's guilt specifically cited Guede's 'accomplices'.


Stint,

They still haven't worked out that trying to bring pressure from another continent won't work, but at least their thinking might be about to change.
Perhaps this 'seachange' of thinking might help them to look at the evidence instead of listening to the US Media and their mates.

Clod...........excellent choice of word. A bit like bottom.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:
Interesting observation from 'the Other Board'

In responding to one of the chronically clueless clods, who is still high fiving everyone about the great victory from Appeal about 'new trial', etcc.

One of the more reasonable and rational heads says:

"The tide is turning in the media and among the public, but it is going to take a hell of a lot of pressure to get these innocent people out of prison. Hellman is not interested in getting at the truth. He is interested in protecting the reputation of the Italian judiciary. But his calculation of how best to do that may depend on the volume and tone of the message he gets from the media."

Although I do not accept his estimation of the power of the media, that was the first I had heard any of the FOAKer crew express the very real possibility that Judge Hellman is primarily just removing doubt about 2 pieces of forensic evidence and claims of 'mistakes' by witnesses.
None of what he is re-examining would definitely be a 'game changer' anyway due to all the other evidence he accepts, and also after the Supreme Court in confirming Guede's guilt specifically cited Guede's 'accomplices'.




Hellman has ruled on what he thinks needs to be re-examined for the basis of a finding of a trial de novo (note distinction) and has reserved on others. The assertion that "Hellman is not interested in getting at the truth. He is interested in protecting the reputation of the Italian judiciary" is such baseless conjecture, all FOAkers and PMFers should laugh it out of court. Oh yeah? Based on what evidence? How supported? How do you know he's not rampant pro-defence? How do you know he's not rampant pro-prosecution? How do you know he's not even-handed? See? Utterly baseless prejudice that is so farcical it's untrue.

The conjecture that media pressure could change his supposed, unproven, baseless anti-defence view is top drawer FOA. It's mantra. It's religion. Anyone with a brain who reads this MUST realise that the baseless assertions against Judge Hellman PROVE the lack of intellectual process in certain FOA is utterly damning. They should note acutely the idea that in such circumstances that media-manipulation is the way to change his "prejudiced mind". WHO COMES UP WITH THIS SHIT? Do they not actually note Amanda's Italian lawyers asking this is NOT done?

Who is this moron? I haven't looked. Ok, I'm going to go and look god save me.

_________________
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 Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:

Ahh, well there is always a way of finding the best in people smacker. It's a mindset. One has to focus on all the things that are done well, not the things that could be done better!


We're the top of the food chain. Gotta help each other.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:25 pm   Post subject: Praise for PMF   

Slightly off topic:

I just want to (once again) say thanks to all the wonderful contributors here.

I barely have enough time to keep up with all the posts let alone respond to them, but it seems to me that PMF has been firing on all cylinders lately. From the fantastic rapid-response translation and subsequent subtitled video of Amanda's soliloquy by Thoughtful and Clander to the clear sighted legal analysis by TomM and SA, this has been the go-to place to get information about this case.

On top of that we have the helpful news digests, translations, and fruitful trufflings by folks like Catnip, Yummi and Jools along with the insightful analysis and the top notch humor from everyone. This really makes PMF a pleasure to read. Finally, we have the seemingly tireless moderators and admins who keep things running smoothly with a very high signal to noise ratio. I can't tell you all how grateful I am for your unwavering dedication.

You all rock!
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:28 pm   Post subject: MAMMA MIA!!! BFQ times 17!!!!   

Sorry for the OT BFQ, but I'll justify it on the basis that the Board discussion topic was motherhood and the problems in trying to raise little ones...
And that's why I found this story from Germany an irresistable, must-post item!!

Dog in Germany gives birth to 17 puppies

MAMMA MIA!!! :shock:

Best news of all...

ALL THE PUPPIES SURVIVED!!!

Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-)
Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-)



I suppose since the puppies are German, I should have made that
"Ja, Ja, Ja, Ja, "....etc tou-)

Isn't PMF poster Ann...from Berlin????????? She may have to go on special assignment for PMF...what do you guys think???


HERE'S THE STORY!!

"Nine Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies from a litter of 17, look out of their box in Nauen, 50 kilometers outside Berlin on Monday, Dec. 20, 2010. On Sept 28, and 29, 4 years old Ridgeback "Etana" had 17 puppies. All of them survived.

BERLIN - A dog in Germany has given birth to 17 puppies, leaving their owner thrilled but fatigued after having to feed them with a bottle for several weeks because their mother couldn't cope with the demand.

Owner Ramona Wegemann said Monday she barely slept for more than a couple of minutes without interruption during about four weeks in an "exhausting" struggle to make sure all of the purebred Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies would survive.

She said when she was "finished feeding the last puppy, the first was hungry again."

Wegemann's dog Etana gave birth to eight female and nine male puppies on Sept. 28 in Ebereschenhof, which is near Berlin.

At least five times a day, Wegemann gave the dogs a bottle with special milk because their mother's nipples could have never coped with the demand, and when the puppies were not hungry, they wanted to be entertained, :D she said.

Wegemann said when dogs give birth to so many puppies several of them die within the first week. "But all of our puppies survived. This is incredible and wonderful," the 32-year-old added.

It was the second time that Etana gave birth. She gave birth to eight puppies in her first pregnancy, not uncommon for the dog's breed, Wegemann said.

"The birth of the puppies was very special. All puppies were born naturally, no cesarean was necessary," she added. It took Etana a full 26 hours to give birth to all of the puppies - and Wegemann was as baffled as amazed.

But caring for 17 puppies turned out to be a full-time job: Wegemann put her work as an independent animal psychiatrist on a hold and her husband took as much vacation as he could.

Their lives have been turned upside down by the puppies, and their living room is now occupied by a giant box that houses the puppies.

But even Wegemann still struggles to recognize them: The females puppies are called Bahati, Binta, Bahya, Bashima, Batouuli, Binki, Bora, Bisa and the male ones are Baakir, Banjoku, Belay, Bruk, Bundu, Bayo, Bukekayo, Biton and Bulus.

Wegemann gave them all African names because the Rhodesian Ridgeback is an African hunting dog. Wegeman and her husband now plan to give most of the puppies away.

A price of E800 ($1,050) per puppy would only cover the expenses for the veterinary, vaccinations, food and the mandatory paperwork, Wegemann said. She hopes to get about E1,000 ($1,315) per dog, but said they would only give them to families with children, not breeders.

Four of the puppies have been sold, two more are already paid for and will leave their siblings shortly."
*********************************************************************************************
What's also noteworthy about this story, I think : the owner of the mother dog has a job... as an "ANIMAL PSYCHIATRIST" nw)

What do the pets do when the go to an animal psychiatrist??? ...lie on her couch (no problem there!) and tell about their puppyhoods (or, if feline, tell her about their NINE LIVES????!!!) :lol:


http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/20/164154 ... th-to.html
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

When is the next court date?
Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

teacher wrote:
When is the next court date?
Thanks.


Best I can gather............

1/15...Amanda/Raffie: next Appeal date

2/15... Curt/Edda: slander

2/24...Sollecito: releasing video to TV

5/17...Amanda:slander
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you, stint!
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:47 pm   Post subject: OT: "Send In the Clowns" --to Germany's airports   

To Bard and other Clown-phobic people who are stuck at home because of the snowy weather...it could be worse...You could be stuck at the Frankfurt Airport this week... eee-)



Snowbound German Airport Sends in the Clowns


"With travellers frazzled by hundreds of flight cancellations, Germany's busiest airport (FRANKFURT) has hired clowns to help them and their children pass the hours, a spokeswoman said Monday.

"Four clowns are performing in the terminal halls," the spokeswoman for Frankfurt's international airport told AFP.

"We came up with the idea for the kids, who are finding the delays particularly trying."

The clowns, outfitted in brightly coloured costumes and some parading on stilts, started working over the weekend, when heavy snowfall led to hundreds of flights being scrapped amid chaos in the European air traffic network. b-((

Fights broke out at the airport among stressed-out holiday travellers late Friday, according to press reports, leading police to send in reinforcements.
em) pro-) stup-) nin-) st-)) stup-) s-(( m-))

More than 1,000 stranded passengers had to spend the night from Sunday to Monday at the airport, where camp beds were set up in the terminals.

On Sunday about half of Frankfurt's scheduled 1,329 flights were grounded, mainly because other airports around Europe were closed due to extreme winter weather.

Over 340 flights were axed by the early afternoon on Monday."

For Frankfurt travelers...
THERE'S... SNOW TURNING BACK NOW!



Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tsit wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
From JREF:

Quote:
Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.


Sorry, you no longer have the right to complain Mary. I was banned from JREF for NO reason, and many other "guilters" have been suspended or warned not to report posts anymore (even though the posts they are reporting are definitely breaking the rules). When JREF reinstates me or gives a GOOD reason for banning me (or any reason, for that matter, as I still have received nothing), then you can complain about censorship. Until then, b-))


I was sorry and surprised to see you banned. I saw no reason for it and feel it was solely due to LashL who early on expressed her belief in AK's innocence and the existence of the Perugia Railroad. :(


They are banning all of those concerned for justice for Meredith. They just recently banned Fulcanelli. When the're done, all that'll be left is the trolls. Clearly, their aspiration is a world full of trolls and so let them flush their site down the toilet as a consequence and lie in the bed they aspire to. Since it's self inflicted, I feel little sympathy for the JREF, but I do feel sorry for the multitude of honest intelligent posters that have avoided the thread at all costs, yet received some degree of discolour due to it now (among various other subjects having effectivly become an advocacy site for Knox). That can only have been an executive decision. And no, I don't think think they give a stuff about Knox...but they do care about traffic. A Knox page will give you that (that's why they won't send it to conspiracy theory limbo Stilicho).

But let's face it, a monkey could moderate there anyway...there's a list...do this and that if and when in accord to what we've scribbled on this bit of paper (JREF rules). Thinking's all laid on. Piece of piss. No thought required...any dimwit (or just our mates) apply. As for trolls...they are all good, we want them here, that's what the JREF is all about...so just ignore them...it's an easy job.

They are short of Moderators...they need volunteers.

In fact, it might be a good way of making the point...were many people to offer in an application to be a JREF Moderator at the same time..Mwaaahahahah :)

PS: I reckon Mungo could do an excellent job!!!
And PPPS: Forget LashL...she's already shown her metal. We don't know who she is, but we know what she is.

And honestly, as much as I think Amanda is guilty, I think many have exploited her and her case to advance their own. The JREF is one of those. It makes them pond scum really.

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

teacher wrote:
When is the next court date?
Thanks.



15th January.

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Antonio Curatolo corroborated Amanda Knox's repeated claim that she was at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder. I wonder whether she bumped into Rudy Guede by chance in Piazza Grimana at around 8.30pm and arranged to meet him again later.

Guede plays basketball -- were people still playing basketball there in October. Did Guede play basketball there? Maybe Knox went there to find Guede. Maybe she watched him playing basketball. Curatolo would know this.


Amanda Knox had seen Rudy Guede playing basketball:

She had seen Rudy Guede on various occasions: "there was the time, below the house, there was a time, I  think, at my job and then I saw that he played basketball, but that's how it was" (page 167). (The Massei report, page 76).

It seems that Guede had met Knox at the basketball court previously:

"From there, like all the times, I met Amanda and The guys at the court. With Amanda, it was by chance on the street, and it was always “hi” and “bye.” I never got tight with her, and vice versa." (Rudy Guede's prison diary, page 16).



New Video (first clip)

The basketball court is cold and inhospitable but not that badly lit in early November. Amanda met Rudy when she went to work that night and arranged to meet him round there later. I'm convinced Rudy went off to score elsewhere to facilitate their later party. I think she said "I'm looking for X" and he said "ok - I know ____ I'll see what shit he's got - meet you back here at ____"

Under normal circumstances, as my videos show, unless you want to get pasted against the wall of the road down to the cottage which has no pavement, you would go from the college to the cottage via the route and stairs that go round the basketball court and as such Rudy and all the guys had a good opportunity to interact with anyone going past them on the top route or also down the stairs to the cottage. Ciao bella and all that. That's why he said "like all the times, met Amanda and the guys at the court". It's also the natural hangout on the benches from the University at every break and lunchtime. Remember you come out of the university building and you can either sit on the steps or sit on the benches in the area next to the basketball court directly outside the university building. If you do, again, all the boys playing basketball are "Ciao bella".






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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:23 pm   Post subject: Holidays   

Many thanks for the efforts of the regulars here to pursue justice and truth for Meredith Kercher. I particularly appreciated Machine's recent DNA knife DNA post at TJMK.

We're taking off for the holidays, but just wanted to say:

  • The more shrill the FOA clamor gets, the better. If they turned quiet and reasonable, I'd start to get concerned.
  • The appeals court owns the case now. I trust them to make an honest call. Who knows? Maybe they have information I don't.
  • I believe that Mr. Kercher will be satisfied with the court's decision.

There's evil in the world, but there's also much love and beauty. Life goes on.

Iris (Jardin des Plantes, Spring 2010):



Cheers,
Norbert


Last edited by norbertc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange wrote:
I don;t know a thing about science, but what you say makes sense. I would personally not convict these two on the knife alone. Like someone mentioned, it is part of the big picture, something you can take into consideration but always being mindful of the weak aspects of it. Honestly, if it wasnt for Raffaele's pricking lie, I would be more willing to ignore the knife, but I think the lie made the knife evidence a bit more valuable.


Well, they weren't convicted on the knife alone, or due to it being central to the case.

LOOK...this is my objection to this whole knife furore. In the past there have been many cases where guilt has been 'proven' by one single piece of evidence or if you're lucky two. In short, for many people, the whole case against them has stood on that one piece...a piece that at some later point may or may not be demonstrated to have been false.

This is not one of those cases. Amanda and Raffaele were convicted on a slew of evidence...not one single piece alone or even two, such as a bra clasp or a knife. Were that so, I would have concerns. Understand, people have been convicted for less, for example ONLY on something like the clasp and the knife and not just in 'other' countries either. They weren't convicted by a clasp or a knife, but a whole rounded case against them. The evidence and clues against them are hardly sparse. Others are sitting on Death Row in the face of less evidence. Scott Peterson anyone?

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Solange wrote:
I don;t know a thing about science, but what you say makes sense. I would personally not convict these two on the knife alone. Like someone mentioned, it is part of the big picture, something you can take into consideration but always being mindful of the weak aspects of it. Honestly, if it wasnt for Raffaele's pricking lie, I would be more willing to ignore the knife, but I think the lie made the knife evidence a bit more valuable.


Well, they weren't convicted on the knife alone, or due to it being central mto the case.

LOOK...this is my objection to this whole knife furore. In the past there have been many cases where guilt has been 'proven' by one single piece of evidence or if you're lucky two. In short, for may people, the whole case against them has stood on that one piece...a piece that at some later point may or may not be demonstrated to have been false.

This is not one of those cases. Amanda and Raffaele were convicted on a slew of evidence...not one single piece, such as a bra clasp or a knife. Were that so, I would have concerns. Understand, people have been convicted for less, for example ONLY on something like the clasp and the knife and not just in 'other' countries either. They weren't convicted by a clasp or a knife, but a whole rounded case against them. The evidence and clues against them are hardly sparse. Ithers are sitting on Dearth Row in the face of less evidence. Scott Peterson anyone?



This is why it'll never fly. I've tried to "hint" at the collective nature of evidence in the process of a jury's consideration. Here, in this case, I've described it as an avalanche. It really is. You only have to see how *many* fronts the FOA deny on which NOTHING WENT WRONG EVER. The number is ridiculous compared to the vast majority of cases I can think of. Not just "a couple more" but several and serious.

_________________
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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Red is an Indian
A Valentine heart,
The trimmings on
A circus cart.
Red is a lipstick
Red is a shout
Red is a signal
That says, “Watch,
I'm OUT!”


Attachment:
the lady preston dreams of lace and nutcrackers.jpg


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


Last edited by piktor on Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I don't know if I'm managed to impress on everyone yet what an utterly fixed route Corso Garibaldi (Raffaele's place, incoporating the side horseshoe of Rudy's place) is to the University, is to the basketball court, is to the cottage. There's literally no logical connection between those four locations that doesn't incorporate a direct route - NO alternative. You look on the map and it looks like it's a city with lots of options. When you go there and see and hopefully if you watch all the videos, you'll really get that first hand sense, it's like a interlocking series of connections with no alternative. There's 160,000 people in Perugia and countless streets, roads and alleys. Where these relationships between where the four people in this case lived, hung out and the crime took place is a TINY TINY TINY proportion of that city. It's no exaggeration to say it's a road down to a basketball court & university building with the cottage immediately to their top left. That's *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.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Welcome, Clander. We're all so lucky to have you aboard.

Hope you're feeling better, Michael.

The other side of lying:

When our middle son was 16, he had a curfew of 12.00. At 11.45 pm, He called us. The conversation went like this " Oh, Hi, so, I'm with my friends, and we're like going to go to this UNDERGROUND RAVE PARTY, ( at this point, my husband put the phone on speaker), and the we'll probably stay at a hotel". Oh, RIGHT!! We were going to say, " Have a good time, stay in touch".. wtf)

Husband: " You will get home RIGHT NOW!!!"

We put the phone down, looked at ea ch other, and at the same time said : "WHAT AN IDIOT".

The aftermath: At 12.00. we heard a car door slam, a clumping up the stairs. Husband stood on the landing, and said " You're grounded". " Why, said son, " I'm home on time". " Yes, said hubby, ( who's an attorney) But you had to have broken the speed limit, you told us you were in Hollywood, and you couldn't have made it in time, and you are grounded. Now, give me the keys". The keys came flying through the door, son's door slammed.

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
Welcome, Clander. We're all so lucky to have you aboard.

Hope you're feeling better, Michael.

The other side of lying:

When our middle son was 16, he had a curfew of 12.00. At 11.45 pm, He called us. The conversation went like this " Oh, Hi, so, I'm with my friends, and we're like going to go to this UNDERGROUND RAVE PARTY, ( at this point, my husband put the phone on speaker), and the we'll probably stay at a hotel". Oh, RIGHT!! We were going to say, " Have a good time, stay in touch".. wtf)

Husband: " You will get home RIGHT NOW!!!"

We put the phone down, looked at ea ch other, and at the same time said : "WHAT AN IDIOT".

The aftermath: At 12.00. we heard a car door slam, a clumping up the stairs. Husband stood on the landing, and said " You're grounded". " Why, said son, " I'm home on time". " Yes, said hubby, ( who's an attorney) But you had to have broken the speed limit, you told us you were in Hollywood, and you couldn't have made it in time, and you are grounded. Now, give me the keys". The keys came flying through the door, son's door slammed.



Good story and appropriately busted :)

To put the other side... I suspect very nearly none of us agreed with our parent's strictures at the time of say mid to late teens. Now, those of us looking back can say "well they were right about that" but we can also quote a crap load of "well that was overprotective, we dodged it, nothing went wrong and with my adult brain I also know there was nothing wrong in dodging an overly protective rubbish rule."

The teen spectrum of lying goes from totally wrong to totally reasonable in my book. From because they've done something terrible to trying to live a normal life when their parents are restrictive and complete and utter arseholes who crush their personalities due to petty personal beliefs which the right thinking world utterly rejects. That's a pretty wide spectrum :) . And so what I'm saying is, if your life is being oppressed by narrow-minded people, there's plenty of reason to lie about what you are doing and it's not wrong.

The difference in Amanda's case is that there is no belief system or morality, humanist or religious, that excuses lying about what she's done according to the court of first instance.

I'm not much one for taking any parallels from normal life compared to that because there *is* no comparison.

_________________
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: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Solange wrote:
I don;t know a thing about science, but what you say makes sense. I would personally not convict these two on the knife alone. Like someone mentioned, it is part of the big picture, something you can take into consideration but always being mindful of the weak aspects of it. Honestly, if it wasnt for Raffaele's pricking lie, I would be more willing to ignore the knife, but I think the lie made the knife evidence a bit more valuable.


Well, they weren't convicted on the knife alone, or due to it being central mto the case.

LOOK...this is my objection to this whole knife furore. In the past there have been many cases where guilt has been 'proven' by one single piece of evidence or if you're lucky two. In short, for may people, the whole case against them has stood on that one piece...a piece that at some later point may or may not be demonstrated to have been false.

This is not one of those cases. Amanda and Raffaele were convicted on a slew of evidence...not one single piece, such as a bra clasp or a knife. Were that so, I would have concerns. Understand, people have been convicted for less, for example ONLY on something like the clasp and the knife and not just in 'other' countries either. They weren't convicted by a clasp or a knife, but a whole rounded case against them. The evidence and clues against them are hardly sparse. Ithers are sitting on Dearth Row in the face of less evidence. Scott Peterson anyone?

Absolutely. The only dna evidence in that case was from Laci Peterson's skeletal remains and that only proved that she was dead. Zero evidence of when, where, or how she died. No crime scene was ever identified. Numerous witnesses told police that they saw Laci walking her dog the day after the authorities believed she had disppeared.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tsit wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Mot du jour: aide de frotage. This in response to the tortured howls from the Frotage Crew that poor Amanda is being HELD by the ARMS on the way into court!!! Noooooo!!! Call Amnesty International!!! Convicted murderer abuse. Girl held by arms!!!! This puts Guantanamo into perpective, you have to agree. They think she looks unhappy too. It's clearly giving them all a huge amount to think about. Makes a change from discussing the actual mechanics of the murder I guess, and Meredith's intestines.

Ugghhh. I know some don't approve of the BFQ, but it's got to be better than that bunch of reptilian wierdos' unrelenting coldness. *Shudder*


Their extended tour through the intestine was sickening. My image was a bunch of ghouls standing around a dead body picking thru the guts, laughing.:mad:


Prison guards (they aren't police) daring to lead Amanda by the arm that's considered... inappropriate...unsavoury, indeed worthy of screams. Meanwhile, dissecting 'the dead girl' is all good, provided it helps Amanda.

Why is dissecting Meredith or attacking her family and appointees suddenly okay??? Why do all those claiming to give a damn about justice, truth, and 'all that jazz' ...make a straight line for Amanda and ignore the victim? Something else is going on. This is a simple question that has never been answered. "She's innocent" just doesn't cut it...there's plenty of innocent people in jail in America (and elsewhere in the world)...what's wrong with all of those people?


Were it Amanda dead on that floor, how loudly would Curt, Edda and the infected be screaming??? Pretty damn loud I reckon and it wouldn't have stopped now.

John Kercher speaks for the first time in almost three years (the man who even in rare previous Kercher press conferences couldn't bring himself to speak a word...and when he finally spoke, what did he get? Basic respect? Compassion?). Their response amounts to, effectively...shut the fuck up! You don't know what you're talking about as you've been deluded by 'them'...the Italians, you have no right to a view or say, let the Knox train pass!'

How can anyone not be offended by this?

But that's okay Edda, you don't need to give a shit, your daughter's still alive, you "still have a chance with her"...it's just a pity that someone else's doesn't because of your daughter. But never mind, it's all water under the bridge. Let's let it slide, because she'll never do it again and after all, we have a black man in jail for it, he'll do. You may be able to forgive and forget Edda, but being her mother that job is exclusive to you, not everyone else.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I notice, Some Alibi, in the second video, as the camera pans towards the steps, there seems to be AFF sprayed on a facing window. Wasn't AF written on the wall, in Meredith's room? Or am I seeing things?

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Troon wrote:
It's not a site -- it's just hijacked parts of JREF ... they thrive there because it's a field of kooks. Plenty of traffic automatically. If they created an independent FOA forum it wouldn't thrive (no interest).


It's more than that...it's the leading thread on the JREf, it's bumped top, FRONT PAGE. As such, it represents the values and spirit of the site (this is why I continue to be a 'party pooper' about what goes on in the chat box in PMF. The front page and the leading thread represents a site and all it stands for. Either the JREF don't understand this BASIC reality...or they advocate it. The only plus points I have seen deserving of the JREF are refugees such as Stilicho and Fiona. How does a site fuck up so badly...to attract such quality posters and then drive them away...at least drive them away from that thread?

Anyway, that's enough of the JREF and I'm sure most are bored with it. When PMF (and Haloscan and True Crime Weblog) began, we'd never heard of it. Why would we have, they had nothing to do with the case.

And here's the shocker...they still don't!

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
I notice, Some Alibi, in the second video, as the camera pans towards the steps, there seems to be AFF sprayed on a facing window. Wasn't AF written on the wall, in Meredith's room? Or am I seeing things?



Wasn't written on the wall no, it was what Rudy said Meredith was trying to say as an aspirated "Raf" - "Af". Complete horse crap to me. I think that graffiti says A2F?

_________________
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 Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Today was Guede's turn to make it to the front page of CU:

RUDY WILL BE ALREADY FREE IN 2014

The Perugia murder – “Rudy out of prison already in 4 years.”

The defence team makes calculations on the imprisonment of their defendant. Thanks to the benefits in the law the Ivorian could be free when he is 28.

Rudy Guede sentence by now has the final verdict, but he still hopes to be able to prove his innocence

"We will go ahead with the task entrusted to us by our client, Rudy Hermann Guede.’ Lawyer Valter Biscotti and lawyer Nicodemo Gentile paid a visit to their client, incarcerated in the Mammagialla prison in Viterbo and Rudy has repeated to them that he is a “jailed innocent.” "We are checking - the criminal lawyers explain in unison - if there is anything we can do, both at the level of European Court of Human Rights, a slight difficult road for the truth, but also in terms of revision (as provided by Italian law in case new facts were recorded after the sentence became final, ed), if new facts were to come.”

The sentence by the Court of Cassation (First Section) has been rendered and is final. If there is nothing new, Rudy will have to remain in jail for a total of 16 years. But the Ivorian former basketball player has already served 3 years and one month (he was arrested on 20 November 2007, in Koblenz, Germany) therefore, there are less than 13 left. Let’s do a calculation of his deal – with regards to the period that he will actually spend in prison - you can discover details that at first escape, a quick analysis. “The law provides that for every four years deprivation of liberty, the State grants a bonus of one. In practice, therefore - underlines Biscotti, stating his argument - if Rudy, as he has done up to date, will behave like a model prisoner, he will serve 12 years instead of 16. To this figure you should deduct the 3 years already spent in jail in preventive custody and so it falls to 9 years. However, our client would have served the sentence that was imposed in the autumn of 2017."

But doesn’t stop: there's more. The law meets halfway those prisoners that behave well in prison. So when a prisoner has served half the sentence that was imposed, it can access a range of benefits including the most important and most coveted by those who are behind bars, which is the institution of semi-freedom. It means, in a nutshell, the prisoner, that behave well, gets out of prison during the day and goes to work and returns back to the jail cell in the evening until the following morning. This is because the law, as is known, aims at the rehabilitation of prisoners into society. In short - explain Biscotti and Gentile - having seen their client already served more than three years, in three and a half years time (roughly in 2014) Guede could return, at least, to semi-freedom. And in that year, Rudy who was born in 1986, will be 28 years old and could start a new life.

Elio Clero Bertoldi
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=29
:cry:


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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you so much everyone who shared their stories about difficult preteens, teens, ex-teens still stuck in teen mentality etc. The different ways in which kids lie and the reasons they lie are so varied and often so mysterious. I do think this subject is relevant here, since the responses touched on lots of questions that have been debated here regarding Amanda; the single mother parenting, the seemingly meaningless, too-frequent lying, the inability to admit anything even now, preferring the long prison sentence.

What strikes me about my little boy is this mental construct; he would rather deny the obvious, undergo punishment, and also be aware that everyone around him knows the truth, than admit it. I'm not a single mom and neither of us tolerates this behavior, yet it just goes on. Very often I take the attitude Skep suggests and just say "Just don't do it again". But he does do it, again and again (nine times of of ten, the misdeed consists in a swift kick or swipe at his twin).

I'm sure he'll never murder anyone (he's very sweet and tender down inside) but if he did commit some crime someday, I can't help thinking he might well behave like Amanda. Deny, deny, deny, no matter what, even against what might seem to be his own interest. Because the protecting of some inner thing that would be shattered by admission is a deeper form of self-interest than just freedom, something like that. It isn't a consequence of bringing up, I'm pretty sure, since we simply don't tolerate it or let it go; it's something in his mental makeup, and I believe it's something similar in hers. I'm not talking about anything that made it possible for her to commit a crime, just the thing that won't let her admit anything.

Bard - I will definitely consider a rugby or football team when he's bigger! He already plays football at school and it does him a world of good.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Twin boys? Wow, double the trouble, double the fun :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Thank you so much everyone who shared their stories about difficult preteens, teens, ex-teens still stuck in teen mentality etc. The different ways in which kids lie and the reasons they lie are so varied and often so mysterious. I do think this subject is relevant here, since the responses touched on lots of questions that have been debated here regarding Amanda; the single mother parenting, the seemingly meaningless, too-frequent lying, the inability to admit anything even now, preferring the long prison sentence.

What strikes me about my little boy is this mental construct; he would rather deny the obvious, undergo punishment, and also be aware that everyone around him knows the truth, than admit it. I'm not a single mom and neither of us tolerates this behavior, yet it just goes on. Very often I take the attitude Skep suggests and just say "Just don't do it again". But he does do it, again and again (nine times of of ten, the misdeed consists in a swift kick or swipe at his twin).

I'm sure he'll never murder anyone (he's very sweet and tender down inside) but if he did commit some crime someday, I can't help thinking he might well behave like Amanda. Deny, deny, deny, no matter what, even against what might seem to be his own interest. Because the protecting of some inner thing that would be shattered by admission is a deeper form of self-interest than just freedom, something like that. It isn't a consequence of bringing up, I'm pretty sure, since we simply don't tolerate it or let it go; it's something in his mental makeup, and I believe it's something similar in hers. I'm not talking about anything that made it possible for her to commit a crime, just the thing that won't let her admit anything.

Bard - I will definitely consider a rugby or football team when he's bigger! He already plays football at school and it does him a world of good.



Right, but the difference between us being little boys or girls and 20 year old adults is that we have progressed beyond all recognition from small children to fully formed responsible human beings. And I absolutely do not accept that the childish response to say to our parents, "I didn't do nothing" is a natural progression to the adult personality that denies sexually aggravated murder. It's not appropriate that Amanda should claim the childishness she exhibits in her "explanations". That's what rings so wrong to so many of us. The very sense of childish inability and "figure me the worst" is the absolute bellwether of why she is talking so much crap.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: Praise for PMF   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Slightly off topic:

I just want to (once again) say thanks to all the wonderful contributors here.

I barely have enough time to keep up with all the posts let alone respond to them, but it seems to me that PMF has been firing on all cylinders lately. From the fantastic rapid-response translation and subsequent subtitled video of Amanda's soliloquy by Thoughtful and Clander to the clear sighted legal analysis by TomM and SA, this has been the go-to place to get information about this case.

On top of that we have the helpful news digests, translations, and fruitful trufflings by folks like Catnip, Yummi and Jools along with the insightful analysis and the top notch humor from everyone. This really makes PMF a pleasure to read. Finally, we have the seemingly tireless moderators and admins who keep things running smoothly with a very high signal to noise ratio. I can't tell you all how grateful I am for your unwavering dedication.

You all rock!



And your avatar is simply awesome!

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clowns in the Airport!

Sounds like the plot to one of those teen scream horror movies.




Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

3.06 here. Sigh...

But:

411 - Puppies YAY! Clown BOO! I feel an urge to punch that one in fact. *ugghh*

Piktor!!!! I love your latest piece of Prest-a-digitation ( did you see what I did there...). I think Doug would be delighted if he was that thin. Nice choice of frock too. But remind me who the bird is? The toikey?

SA - another great set of videos. I can't tell you how useful I find them. It seems that AK and RS would have been extremely noticeable on that basketball court that night. It is very well lit. And certainly the night you were there it was uninhabited. They would have been easy to spot. The darkness of the cottage from there surprised me however. I suppose the breakdown truck had lights on so they could see what was happening. I thought there was a street light near the gate though. Struck by how badly lit and scruffy some parts of Perugia are, overall. Not sure I would fancy wandering around at night there.

thoughtful - your little boy sounds like a fascinating character, and your theory intrigues me. I will look into it! He's eight? I wonder if it is partly about competitiveness - admission is like 'losing' - I am always bewildered by the strength of some boys aversion to losing. Perhaps that emotion has got tangled up in there somewhere. Another reason sport is good - learning how to lose is one of the best lessons YB has learned!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
Today was Guede's turn to make it to the front page of CU:

RUDY WILL BE ALREADY FREE IN 2014

The Perugia murder – “Rudy out of prison already in 4 years.”

The defence team makes calculations on the imprisonment of their defendant. Thanks to the benefits in the law the Ivorian could be free when he is 28.

....

In short - explain Biscotti and Gentile - having seen their client already served more than three years, in three and a half years time (roughly in 2014) Guede could return, at least, to semi-freedom. And in that year, Rudy who was born in 1986, will be 28 years old and could start a new life.


Of all the news lately, I find this to be the saddest, to the point of being repulsive. I am all for rehabilitation and according freed convicts the tools they require to cope. However, this type of callous crime needs payment in full. This was not simply a random event. Guede knew the victim and the man downstairs who was dating her at the time. He deprived a number of people the joy (and even the pain) of life, relationships, accomplishments, birthdays, all kinds of events both happy and sad.

I don't think seven or eight years of imprisonment is enough.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:07 am   Post subject: JREF   

JREF - Kevin Lowe:

"There's a joke about a boy given a roomful of horse manure for Christmas who joyously exclaims "With all this manure there's got to be a horse in here somewhere!". The pro-guilt faction at this stage looks to me like the same boy after his room has been almost completely cleaned, pointing to the last few clumps of manure left in the corners and saying "Maybe we haven't found the horse yet, but as long as there's any manure left at all I'm not giving up my belief that there's a horse in my room!"."

I'd like to say in response -- the JREF faction looks like the same boy in the room - he has a horse - he's flogging it hopefully.

It's dead.
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tsit wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
I was sorry and surprised to see you banned. I saw no reason for it and feel it was solely due to LashL who early on expressed her belief in AK's innocence and the existence of the Perugia Railroad. :(



Thanks Tsit, I appreciate that. Although Im angry about it, I know it's for the best because it is really old just arguing the same stuff with them over and over. its like the movie groundhog day, like damn, this again all over again today? Didnt I relive this yesterday?

I noticed over there Malkmus (who I happen to like, although I dont agree with him) is saying that we can't compare this case to Scott Peterson. I don't quite understand his reasoning for that, but I would also like to point out how we also cannot compare this case to the Nolfork 4 and Duke Lacrosse case, even though they try to all the time over there.

In the Norfolk 4, all there was were coerced confessions. No DNA, no witnesses, nothing. If all we had on AK and RS were their statements, we might be able to compare the two, but we also have witnesses, DNA, lies, etc.

With the Duke Lacrosse case, unless Im mistaken, all there was was the word of the woman. There was no DNA or other evidence to support the rape.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

dgfred wrote:
Nice post Solange 8-) . I feel/think the same way.


Thanks Dgfred!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: JREF   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
JREF - Kevin Lowe:

"There's a joke about a boy given a roomful of horse manure for Christmas who joyously exclaims "With all this manure there's got to be a horse in here somewhere!". The pro-guilt faction at this stage looks to me like the same boy after his room has been almost completely cleaned, pointing to the last few clumps of manure left in the corners and saying "Maybe we haven't found the horse yet, but as long as there's any manure left at all I'm not giving up my belief that there's a horse in my room!"."

I'd like to say in response -- the JREF faction looks like the same boy in the room - he has a horse - he's flogging it hopefully.

It's dead.


It's called "winning the internet" and it's pretty easy to do. Not unsurprisingly, the courts in Italy have not accepted any of Dr Library Card's arguments. The time of death determination remains unchanged. The several spots where Meredith's and Knox's DNA were found together have not been re-examined. The staged burglary is still what it always was. The broken alibis and conflicting stories add to the evidence against Knox and Sollecito. The bathmat print, Luminol revelations, witnesses, and so on.

Kevin_Lowe has impressed his buddies on the internet and yet nobody in the real world is listening to him. The real world must seem strange and confusing to him because it's not at all how he says it must be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Stilicho, I could not agree more. The fast track option is meant to save time and money, but I was under the impression that it was also meant to be a shortened tariff because it brought closure or comfort to the victim/their family. Rudy has not done this and continues to lie. The ordeal for the Kerchers will go on and on for years if Rudy takes this to another stage in the EU courts. Eight years for what he did is scandalous. This is one way I do feel negative towards the Italian justice system. For justice to be done and the balance to be restored the punishment must fit the crime. This does not.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

One of the morons at JREF is still going on about how Knox was doing "yoga" not cartwheels. Years later, and 10,000 pages of posts, and they still can't get that right? Oh and supposedly she did not eat pizza the night of the memorial. And yet none of the other groupies ever disputed it, hmmmm..

By the way, hi LJ! Hope we've given you enough material for the day, I'll work harder tomorrow, promise!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I’m not sure if I follow Biscotti’s math, he‘s juggling too may numbers around.. With the 16 yrs. Rudy would get out in 2023. Provided he stays the role model prisoner his lawyer claims he is. Then his sentence would be reduced to 12 yrs.(¼ off), which would take him to 2019. Not 2017 as the article says. Also following his logic, after his initial arrest then Rudy theoretically would be eligible for work release after 8 yrs. (½ of 16), which would make him 29 not 28 per the article in 2015. That’s 5 yrs from now. All of this depends heavily on whatever panel overlooks these incentives. They can also add yrs. for harming staff, other prisoners, or other serious infractions. I don’t know what all criteria they use for good behavior. To me, following the rules, getting religion and education, isn’t enough. If Rudy had a stiffer sentence, then there could be bonus’s. 16 yrs is not enough to work with, for what he did.

TomM, you wrote an excellent article over at TJMK. As are other posters. Appreciate sharing your viewpoints, very informative.
SomeAlibi, your video’s are invaluable. Far, far superior than road maps. The lovebirds could have practically fallen out of bed, and been that much closer to the basketball court. Which I take can double as a hang out or meeting place. Unless the lighting is much better (which you said), I’d probably wipe out on the stairs leading down to the cottage.
Clander, your skills will be very helpful to the forum.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
Today was Guede's turn to make it to the front page of CU:

RUDY WILL BE ALREADY FREE IN 2014

The Perugia murder – “Rudy out of prison already in 4 years.”

The defence team makes calculations on the imprisonment of their defendant. Thanks to the benefits in the law the Ivorian could be free when he is 28.

....

In short - explain Biscotti and Gentile - having seen their client already served more than three years, in three and a half years time (roughly in 2014) Guede could return, at least, to semi-freedom. And in that year, Rudy who was born in 1986, will be 28 years old and could start a new life.


Of all the news lately, I find this to be the saddest, to the point of being repulsive. I am all for rehabilitation and according freed convicts the tools they require to cope. However, this type of callous crime needs payment in full.


I totally agree stilicho. I was stunned by this news. I might feel differently if Rudy had come clean and expressed genuine remorse for his crimes, but without that qualifier eight years is not enough.

A while back someone (I think it was you) posted a link about a young man who had participated in the murder of (I think) a girl in her teens. If I remember correctly, before or during the trial he saw the light, apologized for the horrible act, and made amends with the victim's parents. He went on to participate in public speaking engagements with the girl's mother talking about the remorse he felt and cautioning others to steer clear of the mistakes he made. It was a very moving testimonial to the power of genuine remorse and forgiveness.

When SA mentioned that he had written to Rudy, I couldn't help but think it would have been useful to share this young man's story as a concrete example that he could follow to redeem himself.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:42 am   Post subject: Re: JREF   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
JREF - Kevin Lowe:

"There's a joke about a boy given a roomful of horse manure for Christmas who joyously exclaims "With all this manure there's got to be a horse in here somewhere!". The pro-guilt faction at this stage looks to me like the same boy after his room has been almost completely cleaned, pointing to the last few clumps of manure left in the corners and saying "Maybe we haven't found the horse yet, but as long as there's any manure left at all I'm not giving up my belief that there's a horse in my room!"."

I'd like to say in response -- the JREF faction looks like the same boy in the room - he has a horse - he's flogging it hopefully.

It's dead.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with K-lo on one point, what's left after one removes the knife and bra clasp is still a malodorous pile of manure left behind by the defendants. The conflicting alibis, the staged burglary, and the evasive maneuverings of the pair stink to high heaven and the judges and jury will be unable to ignore the stench.
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 14 [ 3425 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,448,294 Views