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


Last visit was: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:46 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:46 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 12 of 14 [ 3425 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Catnip wrote:

Quote from Independent article:

"For some reason, the police and prosecutor knew a black man was involved, and it was they who, using prolonged interview techniques, got Amanda to falsely implicate Patrick Lumumba."


The Independent is supposedly a respectable newspaper. No wonder comments are disabled on this ridiculous article. People actually buy this newspaper? Why?


Comments are allowed.
Top Profile 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Catnip wrote:

Quote from Independent article:

"For some reason, the police and prosecutor knew a black man was involved, and it was they who, using prolonged interview techniques, got Amanda to falsely implicate Patrick Lumumba."


The Independent is supposedly a respectable newspaper. No wonder comments are disabled on this ridiculous article. People actually buy this newspaper? Why?


Comments are allowed.


I am again surprised that UK leading newspapers (before it was the Guardian) lose face by reporting such nonsense, evidently contradicted by Amanda herself during the trial. The morality and professionalism attached to this work are going down dramatically just like in the rest of society. They do not even check basic facts against hard evidence which can be easily found (journalism 101, first day of class).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Not only comments are allowed but pro-knox activists have taken the ball pro actively.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

With all respect to the Independent but RG never identified RS. At least, not officially. I remember the official statement by his lawyer was that if RS got convicted then he must have the 'bushy haired' Italian stranger that RG saw. Also he did never see AK directly. He heard her voice and saw her silhouette through the closed shutters. He didn't see her at the door. Amazing guy.
Top Profile 

Offline equinox


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 pm

Posts: 140

Location: WA, USA

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

max wrote:
With all respect to the Independent but RG never identified RS. At least, not officially. I remember the official statement by his lawyer was that if RS got convicted then he must have the 'bushy haired' Italian stranger that RG saw. Also he did never see AK directly. He heard her voice and saw her silhouette through the closed shutters. He didn't see her at the door. Amazing guy.


Here is the link to the Sunday Times Online where I got my quote.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 629353.ece

Where is the truth to be found?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
Oew, Paws,

that price there, is in no way accurate.

27 keys
27x1000. One thousand being one kilo.
27,000 grams

At 100 euros per gram, it would amount to a total of Two million, seven hundred thousand euros. 2,700,000 but 100 per gram is grossly overpriced, cocaine prices have been greatly reduced, so much so that I think in Britain some people may need no anaesthesia at the dentist, as they've self-jobbied it already.

At 20 million per 27 kilo of cocaine, the stuff would have to cost more than 700 euros or 937 dollars a gram.
At those prices even the Pope would start dealing the gunk.

It's late, I may not be thinking straight.

If it truly was pure and they cut it down a whole lot, it of course earns more, still, I don't know that they can cut it down quite that much.


I had to look twice:

Quote:
Oltre all’arresto dei 22 trafficanti, l’azione della Guardia di Finanza ha portato al sequestro di 27 chili di cocaina pura (del valore di 20 milioni di euro) e di 48 chili di marijuana (600 mila euro di valore).

-- [NewNotizie], 29 September 2010


27kg pure cocaine = 20m euro.

There were some reports from middle of last year I think where cocaine was found cut with it whitewash/lime, so the temptation to widen the proft margin is there.

The temptation is strong (plus also, it is always good to have a man on the inside): last month, in an anti-mafia operation where 200 million euro worth of assets were frozen and 77 arrests made, a 57-year-old carabineri colonel, Luigi Verde, chief logistics officer of the Trentino Alto Adige carabinieri Legion, was arrested at work. Customs (la Guardia di Finanza) nailed him. It was an Italy-wide operation. In his house, a service residence at headquarters, explosives and battle-grade weapons were found. His role, at this stage in the investigations, seems to have been crucial in the transportation of stupefying substances (and weapons). The Muto and Chirillo clans of the ‘ndrangheta are involved.

-- [ NewNotizie], 02 December 2010

Edited: corrected URL tag.


Last edited by Catnip on Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

equinox wrote:

Here is the link to the Sunday Times Online where I got my quote.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 629353.ece

Where is the truth to be found?


Rudy kept silent when he was brought to the stand (for all of two minutes, I think) in Amanda and Raffaele's first-instance trial.

That suggests he may know the answer to your question.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

equinox wrote:
max wrote:
With all respect to the Independent but RG never identified RS. At least, not officially. I remember the official statement by his lawyer was that if RS got convicted then he must have the 'bushy haired' Italian stranger that RG saw. Also he did never see AK directly. He heard her voice and saw her silhouette through the closed shutters. He didn't see her at the door. Amazing guy.


Here is the link to the Sunday Times Online where I got my quote.
[dailymotion]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3629353.ece[/dailymotion]

Where is the truth to be found?

Good question. I don't know. His lawyers never admitted to it and RG didn't take the opportunity to set the record straight during his appeal. He only added that he saw AK's silhouette running away. This story at truejustice is also a good read how Biscotti tries to avoid the subject of RG identifying RS and does not want to admit to it. It is all a lawyers game. JMO.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... her_two_3/

Quote:
Mr Vespa asks Biscotti if their trial strategy is that of proving Rudy’s innocence, or if it would be convenient to them to also demonstrate the culpability of Amanda and Raffaele.

Guede’s lawyer Biscotti responds: “We don’t want to prove their guiltiness. But since there is no other individual whose evidence in the house is proved, we must make a logical inference”.

The host reminds Biscotti that they have explicitly accused Raffaele and Amanda during Guede’s trial. Biscotti responds: “Well, the logical inference tells us that Amanda and Sollecito are the guilty ones”.

Mr Vespa asks “Therefore the person that ran into Rudy (whom he did not fully identify) would be Sollecito?”.

And Biscotti responds “In our opinion, since we were not there and could not have seen it, by linking all the circumstances that emerged from the investigation of the prosecutor and those that emerged from the preliminary hearing, this leads to the conclusion that whoever killed Meredith could not have been other than the other two defendants”.
Top Profile 

Offline bobc


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Popper wrote:
The Machine wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Catnip wrote:

Quote from Independent article:

"For some reason, the police and prosecutor knew a black man was involved, and it was they who, using prolonged interview techniques, got Amanda to falsely implicate Patrick Lumumba."


The Independent is supposedly a respectable newspaper. No wonder comments are disabled on this ridiculous article. People actually buy this newspaper? Why?


Comments are allowed.


I am again surprised that UK leading newspapers (before it was the Guardian) lose face by reporting such nonsense, evidently contradicted by Amanda herself during the trial. The morality and professionalism attached to this work are going down dramatically just like in the rest of society. They do not even check basic facts against hard evidence which can be easily found (journalism 101, first day of class).

Newspapers have been fighting commercial pressures for years I think. They find that publishing these "opinion pieces" generates traffic to the website, so ....

I see many references to what proper journalists should do, and to what they are taught, but IME I have never seen these principles applied in practice. The media have always seemed to veer towards sensationalism, bias and opinion (some papers even completely fabricating stories), with facts and balance a rather distance second place. Their operating principles are more along the lines of trade lore like "if it bleeds, it leads". Even checking with lawyers doesn't seem to prevent frequent libellous stories being published. Checking the facts seems to be the last thing they think of.

Of news stories which I have personal knowledge of, I have seen that about 50% of the details are wrong. I have to assume that the same quality applies to all the other stories I see.

Mr Anderson seems to have swallowed the FOAK talking points hook line and sinker. He claims some authority in the area of forensics, then makes a lot of basic errors about the case. It often seems when experts stray from their field, they are no more expert than the layman, and worse project a false air of authority.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Bobc said

Mr Anderson seems to have swallowed the FOAK talking points hook line and sinker. He claims some authority in the area of forensics, then makes a lot of basic errors about the case. It often seems when experts stray from their field, they are no more expert than the layman, and worse project a false air of authority.

Maddening, isn't it? Especially as they should really know better. That makes me doubt them in their own field, as well. If one becomes advanced in any field
they *should* have found a respect for the complexities they must be ignorant of in other fields.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
I totally accept your expertise in the law. For me, the appeals will fail. The staged break-in, the mixed blood, the locked door, the lies, the demeanour, the can't remebers, are just too strong. I also believe, that Rudi is going to speak. This is an awful situation for Raff. He is being tried, in tandem, with Amanda. And, like it or not, she comes off as a most unsympathetic defendant. There is no question, she is the Kingpin...Queen pin , in this murder. Without her, this would not have happened. IMO. Is he responsible? Absolutely. Is Rudi? The same. But, Amanda is the catalist. Whether one wants to speak about reasonable doubt, ( which is not the case here) Amanda is a most unlikeable person. Hands down.

I have the utmost belief, that any jury, will see that justice is done. Btw, does anyone else find her eyes truly evil? I do, in almost every picture. They give me the willies. eee-)


Cape,

someone did an AK collage on here recently and it contained photos over her from the time the trial started until that most recent, monstrous effort........I think you know the one I mean. I've not seen a single photo that I find either flattering or remotely attractive, and I found just about every single photo of her to have a motive behind it........intent to gain sympathy etc. I've never understood what she thought she was trying to achieve by grinning inanely in court, nor her dress sense. Perhaps she was trying to prove that in her head there could only be one outcome, not guilty, and therefore the smiling, the T shirts were all part of a ruse to put across a confidant, relaxed demeanour because 'guilty' was not on the menu.

Maybe she overlooked a couple of details.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bobc wrote:
Newspapers have been fighting commercial pressures for years I think. They find that publishing these "opinion pieces" generates traffic to the website, so ....




that makes Anderson a species of troll.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Bobc said

Mr Anderson seems to have swallowed the FOAK talking points hook line and sinker. He claims some authority in the area of forensics, then makes a lot of basic errors about the case. It often seems when experts stray from their field, they are no more expert than the layman, and worse project a false air of authority.

Maddening, isn't it? Especially as they should really know better. That makes me doubt them in their own field, as well. If one becomes advanced in any field
they *should* have found a respect for the complexities they must be ignorant of in other fields.



Perhaps, to be fair, it was some innocent looking email, from a friend maybe, that popped up one day when nothing else was happening, and the non-journalist in Anderson, being trustful by nature, swallowed it, like a drug-mule swallows condoms-full of cocaine.

Or perhaps there is a distribution centre, it would only take one person, who, innocently, says, "Oh, you need something to write about for next week's edition? How about this, then?" - SNAP goes the trap.

There has to be a reason these propaganda pieces are getting through, and with such superb timing.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Zorba,

Here's another one for your maths homework:

10 quintali di purissima cocaina = si dovrebbe aggirare attorno ai 250 milioni di euro
(10 quintals of the purest cocaine = around 250 million euro)

-- NewNotizie, 15 November 2010

The stuff was found in a shipping container, and was destined as part of the ‘Ndrangheta money-laundering operations.


I can't remember how much a quintal weighs in the old measure; half a hundredweight, maybe?
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
zorba wrote:
Oew, Paws,

that price there, is in no way accurate.

27 keys
27x1000. One thousand being one kilo.
27,000 grams

At 100 euros per gram, it would amount to a total of Two million, seven hundred thousand euros. 2,700,000 but 100 per gram is grossly overpriced, cocaine prices have been greatly reduced, so much so that I think in Britain some people may need no anaesthesia at the dentist, as they've self-jobbied it already.

At 20 million per 27 kilo of cocaine, the stuff would have to cost more than 700 euros or 937 dollars a gram.
At those prices even the Pope would start dealing the gunk.

It's late, I may not be thinking straight.

If it truly was pure and they cut it down a whole lot, it of course earns more, still, I don't know that they can cut it down quite that much.


I had to look twice:

Quote:
Oltre all’arresto dei 22 trafficanti, l’azione della Guardia di Finanza ha portato al sequestro di 27 chili di cocaina pura (del valore di 20 milioni di euro) e di 48 chili di marijuana (600 mila euro di valore).

-- [NewNotizie], 29 September 2010


27kg pure cocaine = 20m euro.

There were some reports from middle of last year I think where cocaine was found cut with it whitewash/lime, so the temptation to widen the proft margin is there.

The temptation is strong (plus also, it is always good to have a man on the inside): last month, in an anti-mafia operation where 200 million euro worth of assets were frozen and 77 arrests made, a 57-year-old carabineri colonel, Luigi Verde, chief logistics officer of the Trentino Alto Adige carabinieri Legion, was arrested at work. Customs (la Guardia di Finanza) nailed him. It was an Italy-wide operation. In his house, a service residence at headquarters, explosives and battle-grade weapons were found. His role, at this stage in the investigations, seems to have been crucial in the transportation of stupefying substances (and weapons). The Muto and Chirillo clans of the ‘ndrangheta are involved.

-- [ NewNotizie], 02 December 2010

Edited: corrected URL tag.


Hello again Paws, here we are again on the route to further exploration along the North Pole regions of typical inaccurate suggestions from the police forces concerning drug prices, --- way out man, far out, far up, far down.

Selling a kilo of weed at 3000 euroskis, would be a very good price, but in reality, the way cops calculate things, they base their calculations on price per gram, that is not the way things go for real.

48 kilos of weed at 3000 euros a kilo means, 144,000 euros.

To the people with the bulk, the first owners, the value is nowhere near those figures. To be anything like real it'd mean the first owners (importers) would have to sit down somewhere selling it gram for gram which they do not do.

Weed isn't easy to cut, and these days, in Europe, people know what is what and only idiots buy bad stuff, they might be landed with it once but won't go back for a second lot, adding seeds was one way of upping the weight but nobody wants weed with seeds these days not since so much weed started to be grown at home, and then professionally, meaning, result; top quality.

Hash can be adulterated with all kinds of crap.
In Italy they had plenty of smoke last time I was there but it was indeed (hash) not all of the best quality, henna is the classic material use to cut hash, especially the sativa cannabis strains, like Lebanese and Moroccan. Powders indeed can be cut with lots of different (even dangerous/unhealthy) substances, baby milk, tablets, any old crap.

Anyway, whatever it was (I think they used something powdery) the deadly trio used that night, it seemed to have messed them up, meaning it was effective.

Debates can be had about just how much a person ought to be pardoned for committing serious violence when under the influence of certain things. My idea/opinion, is that it is better they lied so much, otherwise if they'd played it differently and leaned on the bit about drugs, they could have admitted things and blamed it on the drugs, meaning they'd have had the opportunity of getting away with the murder, to a far greater degree than through the use of the paths they chose up until now.

This means, as clever as they thought they were, they were not at all.
The reasons for their strategies arise from different basics, there's the trying to get away with it all completely, there's the idea of not being willing to admit to it, this model being a result of the burden of shame being way too great, etc, on them and their families, so that's why they didn't consider, properly, admitting things and having the lawyers put it all down to diminished responsibility as a result of being under the influence of drugs.

Sollecito could easily have had Bongiorno say he'd always been depressive, had great problems dealing with the loss of his mother, had been using cocaine for some time and was suffering from identity crisis living alone away from home. His dear sister (<<< this is how they could have put it all) had tried to replace mama but could not be there all the time as she had a busy job protecting the populace from criminals. Mr Sollecito had a good upbringing but influenced by the American girl who seemed to live only for pleasure, and under the influence of drugs, he woke up to find himself entangled in something entirely out of character for him.

Knox could have played at suffering from culture shock and being contact deficient/disturbed (inability to communicate with others), but they all chose to lie to their back teeth in other ways, selfishly and full of fake pride not willing to give an inch, finally, sealing, actually, their own tombstones, even if they get let off, I don't believe they'll deal with themselves, not when they remain unable to share the truth of the nightmare they designed.

Or, imagine that they do get off with it all (more chance of Osama becoming a Christian) and back home start to tell someone, would Mad Pax be the first to have her illusions shattered?
If they get off they can't be re-tried. Or could they?

In Britain the Double Jeopardy laws have been amended:
Quote: The Criminal Procedure Act 2010 means that from today people who have been acquitted of a criminal offence could now face a re-trial if important new evidence emerges about their possible involvement in the case.

So maybe they'd still need to keep the lip buttoned up.

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

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Zorba,

Your most recent posts have been an A-Z of drugs and drug dealing at Wholesale and Retail levels......mesmerising.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline moyalua


Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Oh no that idiot CD Host is now throwing his weight around in the comments section on the article in The Independent. I can't take it. Shame on The Independent. I am deeply disappointed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Zorba,

Here's another one for your maths homework:

10 quintali di purissima cocaina = si dovrebbe aggirare attorno ai 250 milioni di euro
(10 quintals of the purest cocaine = around 250 million euro)

-- NewNotizie, 15 November 2010

The stuff was found in a shipping container, and was destined as part of the ‘Ndrangheta money-laundering operations.


I can't remember how much a quintal weighs in the old measure; half a hundredweight, maybe?



I say old bean, that's rather a lot!!!
The maths has given my calculator a headache, it will suffice to say those two cops could not have smuggled that in under their fine hats!

There's enough slabs there to build a chalet.

Sollecito would have been better off in the Carabinieri with his sister.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Zorba,

Your most recent posts have been an A-Z of drugs and drug dealing at Wholesale and Retail levels......mesmerising.



How the other half live.
Blame it on Paws, the undercover, oversized puddy cat agent.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jackie wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think certain individuals like to embellish their actual credentials, like to make themselves important, like to boost their importance, by way of pretending to have expert knowledge of things that bear no relation at all really to what it is they studied, it is as if they are trying to squeeze extras out of what they achieved.


That's no way to talk about my fave Aussie school inspector/ self-proclaimed 'trained rational thinker'!


My sincere apologies

Sorry, if you have to stay after school.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Here's something that could put a visit to the pizzeria during the vigil in a different light:

A 45-year-old Albanian pizza cook, H.J., was dealing cocaine at a pizzeria in Terni (just down the road from Perugia) without the owner knowing.

Two young Terneans, both without prior records, F.L., 32, and D.S., 28, were checked as they were coming out the rear of the pizzeria, and they had 5 grams of cocaine.
[NewNotizie], 19 August 2010.

Not saying that the vigil-pizza episode actually was a drop, but the eager willingness to appear "quirky", and possibly "lovebirdy", merits an explanation that will keep them out of certain units when rehabilitation evaluation time comes around if the appropriateness of various treatment options is on the agenda.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

http://livingnorthofsouth.com/new-twist ... al/284134/

NEW TWIST IN AMANDA KNOX APPEAL

January 16th, 2011 Charles Holmes
Top Profile 

Offline DJLawless


Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:47 am

Posts: 140

Location: Ohio USA

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
Amanda had limited funds for her foreign exchange expedition. We, as the general public, know she was blowing through that very quickly in a short amount of time. Italian LE is not stupid. Neither is the US public.

Considering Amanda's banking habits, and the fact she has nothing tangible to show for it, it's a good indication she was spending the $$$ for recreation. Either that or Ste. la_) was secretly supporting a Feed the Children charity.

Forensic study comparing phone records with those of Amanda's banking habits will tell quite a story.

Knox/Mellas PR has disappeared for a reason.


Hello Emerald!

Hillarious, Emerald; you have a wonderfully expressive way with words.... c-))
LOL LOL

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Here's something that could put a visit to the pizzeria during the vigil in a different light:

A 45-year-old Albanian pizza cook, H.J., was dealing cocaine at a pizzeria in Terni (just down the road from Perugia) without the owner knowing.

Two young Terneans, both without prior records, F.L., 32, and D.S., 28, were checked as they were coming out the rear of the pizzeria, and they had 5 grams of cocaine.
[NewNotizie], 19 August 2010.

Not saying that the vigil-pizza episode actually was a drop, but the eager willingness to appear "quirky", and possibly "lovebirdy", merits an explanation that will keep them out of certain units when rehabilitation evaluation time comes around if the appropriateness of various treatment options is on the agenda.



Alibi: they thought it was salt for the salad

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
Btw, does anyone else find her eyes truly evil? I do, in almost every picture. They give me the willies. eee-)


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


Hi Fiona

I thought we were illustrating why/how Amanda's eyes gave Cape the willies ;)
Top Profile 

Offline bobc


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


I may have a low EQ, but I can never see the "evil looks" others claim, I doubt there is any such thing. I have the same problem with people who claim body language or other behaviour can be analysed to determine whether people are lying or not. Even apparently objective tests like polygraph need careful subjective assessment. AFAIK there really is no foolproof method of identifying deception, let alone truth or malice.

I have seen reports which have studied professionals who should be familiar with deceptive behaviour, police, laywers, judges, but none of them actually show the ability to identify deception reliably. I know some people like the Statement Analysis, but it sounds to me, on first hearing, very much like psuedo-science, and I would take it with a large pinch of salt.

I would test very badly by SA I think. I have a terrible memory, and would have to frequently say "I don't remember". When I don't know, I say "I don't know", rather than attempt a plausible guess. I also put things in neutral terms. All of which indicate deception apparently. I think that for SA to be credible it would at least need to calibrate the style of the author/speaker with statements that are known to be true, before attempting to analyse other statements.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bobc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


I may have a low EQ, but I can never see the "evil looks" others claim, I doubt there is any such thing. I have the same problem with people who claim body language or other behaviour can be analysed to determine whether people are lying or not. Even apparently objective tests like polygraph need careful subjective assessment. AFAIK there really is no foolproof method of identifying deception, let alone truth or malice.

I have seen reports which have studied professionals who should be familiar with deceptive behaviour, police, laywers, judges, but none of them actually show the ability to identify deception reliably. I know some people like the Statement Analysis, but it sounds to me, on first hearing, very much like psuedo-science, and I would take it with a large pinch of salt.

I would test very badly by SA I think. I have a terrible memory, and would have to frequently say "I don't remember". When I don't know, I say "I don't know", rather than attempt a plausible guess. I also put things in neutral terms. All of which indicate deception apparently. I think that for SA to be credible it would at least need to calibrate the style of the author/speaker with statements that are known to be true, before attempting to analyse other statements.



Eh? What have I done?

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

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
pataz1 has a very interesting site if you haven't checked recently

http://aklwei.wordpress.com/


http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/ ... o-appeals/

the wordles are clever


Thanks.. I'm still around, trying to keep up.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bobc


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Eh? What have I done?


Heh, SA = Statement Analysis.

But while you're here, how well do you think you are spotting deception in your line of business? Do you find you get mostly proved right or wrong?

Not being challenging, just wondering.
Top Profile 

Offline lolatengo


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:39 pm

Posts: 20

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Frank has a new piece up in which he claims that Mignini got his favourite journalists to do the story on the link between Knox and the cocaine dealer. The best part is that he reveals himself to be a defender of Berlusconi at the end! He claims that the potential prosecution of Berlusconi is based on the same moralizing that has landed Amanda in jail. There's nothing I like more than seeing someone reveal their true colours in all their glory.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

He seems to be somewhat obsessed with sex, to me
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Cottage

‘.. Meredith has been here. In one of the back rooms, the smallest, has remained an English girl of 21 years.
Can not leave. It can not ever go away Never really.'

Lolatengo thanks for the heads up on Franks post. He isn’t able to throw much cold water on this tie between Amanda and a cocaine dealer. All they say is Amanda tested low for drugs. When was that test done? This story has legs.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Isnt the money in the accounts fairly well documented?
The maximum ATM withdrawl for the accounts of AK and RS would be interesting. Was this maximum met on Nov 1 for their accounts? Would there be a need to return to the cottage and get cash, or Merediths money for dope?

I'm curious as Rudy always mentioned money as the "seed" for the argument. I could imagine dope deals and specifically cash being the focus, probably more believable than sex orgys and some out of control drunk drugged sex party. jmo.
Money..... there's a better motive. There was talk early on about banking withdrawls and related money issues.

Rudy could have been the dope peddlar that night, maybe Meredith did let him in if he said he was there to meet AK. Meredith had met Rudy at least once, maybe more times. There's no reason she would be afraid of him.As Masseis report mentions Rudy approach to women was noted.

Rudy had made a particular friendship with Marco Marzan and with him, ‚because playing basketball together every day we had developed this friendship, and then he was present also sometimes at the guys’ house".
Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there;>>> Rudy was talking to both of them>> and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.


If I understand Massei, he puts AK and RS in front of Curatolo 9:30-10 until around 11 or midnight, "STEPS AWAY", Tow truck driver, Nara and other hearing the scream they claim is associated 1 or 2hrs after her sleep, we have the cell phone in the garden/bushes at 00:13, and the 00:58 pc activity on RS pc, etc.etc.

in short......there doesn't seem time to have a sex orgy and party that leads up to anything. The murder would be more like Rudy said, very fleeting and fast, within in a couple minutes or half his Ipod song.

Will Rudy ever be drilled for questions again?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bobc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


I may have a low EQ, but I can never see the "evil looks" others claim, I doubt there is any such thing. I have the same problem with people who claim body language or other behaviour can be analysed to determine whether people are lying or not. Even apparently objective tests like polygraph need careful subjective assessment. AFAIK there really is no foolproof method of identifying deception, let alone truth or malice.

I have seen reports which have studied professionals who should be familiar with deceptive behaviour, police, laywers, judges, but none of them actually show the ability to identify deception reliably. I know some people like the Statement Analysis, but it sounds to me, on first hearing, very much like psuedo-science, and I would take it with a large pinch of salt.

I would test very badly by SA I think. I have a terrible memory, and would have to frequently say "I don't remember". When I don't know, I say "I don't know", rather than attempt a plausible guess. I also put things in neutral terms. All of which indicate deception apparently. I think that for SA to be credible it would at least need to calibrate the style of the author/speaker with statements that are known to be true, before attempting to analyse other statements.


Although I agree with Cape and Stint that sometimes her eyes do seem evil, it could just be our minds playing tricks on us based on what we know about her.

You want to know how I know what you say is true, about how police (in particular) should be familiar with deceptive behavior, but don't always get it right?

My ex husband became abusive and controlling after our son was born, so I left him and moved my son and I back in with my parents. One time he parked outside of my job, and after I got in my car and got on the freeway, he followed me and swerved in front of me and slammed on the brakes to get me to stop. I got scared of what he would do so I pulled over at a busy gas station to talk to him. He was so mad I had left him and kept slamming his hand on my hood saying he would kill me. I didnt take him seriously.

I was staying in this room attached to my parents house, that had an entrance that led to the backyard, and to get in the main house you have to cross a patio. I rarely locked the door to my room, since we had two dogs and our neighborhood is pretty safe. Anyway, Im really making this a long story, so Ill cut to the chase, I went out with a guy friend, and while I was gone my ex snuck into my backyard, into my room, and hid in my shower waiting for me.

After I got home and went to bed, he popped out and attacked me, and choked me. After a lot of crying and pleading, I convinced him I loved him and that I would get back together with him, and he left. Right after he left, I woke up my parents and we called the cops.

It later turns out that cop who came and interviewed me, told everyone that he thought I was lying about my ex breaking in, he says that he thought that I made that up, and had actually let my ex in, but was afraid my mom would be mad at me for doing so. The reason he thought this, supposedly, is that I looked over at my mom when I said that he had been hiding in my room. That was somehow proof to him that I was lying about it. I was super pissed when I found that out, how are you going to disbelieve what a victim is telling you based on something stupid like me turning to look at my mom when I said something???? Anyway, it went to trial and my ex got convicted of attacking me, but not of breaking and entering, the jury claimed that they believed me but they couldnt prove it. Whatever, I know it's true, but in reality, what Ive learned is, cops, lawyers, etc. think they can tell when people are lying, but they really have no idea....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Isnt the money in the accounts fairly well documented?
The maximum ATM withdrawl for the accounts of AK and RS would be interesting. Was this maximum met on Nov 1 for their accounts? Would there be a need to return to the cottage and get cash, or Merediths money for dope?

I'm curious as Rudy always mentioned money as the "seed" for the argument. I could imagine dope deals and specifically cash being the focus, probably more believable than sex orgys and some out of control drunk drugged sex party. jmo.
Money..... there's a better motive. There was talk early on about banking withdrawls and related money issues.

Rudy could have been the dope peddlar that night, maybe Meredith did let him in if he said he was there to meet AK. Meredith had met Rudy at least once, maybe more times. There's no reason she would be afraid of him.As Masseis report mentions Rudy approach to women was noted.

Rudy had made a particular friendship with Marco Marzan and with him, ‚because playing basketball together every day we had developed this friendship, and then he was present also sometimes at the guys’ house".
Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there;>>> Rudy was talking to both of them>> and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.


If I understand Massei, he puts AK and RS in front of Curatolo 9:30-10 until around 11 or midnight, "STEPS AWAY", Tow truck driver, Nara and other hearing the scream they claim is associated 1 or 2hrs after her sleep, we have the cell phone in the garden/bushes at 00:13, and the 00:58 pc activity on RS pc, etc.etc.

in short......there doesn't seem time to have a sex orgy and party that leads up to anything. The murder would be more like Rudy said, very fleeting and fast, within in a couple minutes or half his Ipod song.

Will Rudy ever be drilled for questions again?


Neither Mignini nor Massei claimed that there was an orgy or drunken sex party.

There was no human interaction on Sollecito's computer from 9.10pm to 5.32am.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
bobc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


I may have a low EQ, but I can never see the "evil looks" others claim, I doubt there is any such thing. I have the same problem with people who claim body language or other behaviour can be analysed to determine whether people are lying or not. Even apparently objective tests like polygraph need careful subjective assessment. AFAIK there really is no foolproof method of identifying deception, let alone truth or malice.

I have seen reports which have studied professionals who should be familiar with deceptive behaviour, police, laywers, judges, but none of them actually show the ability to identify deception reliably. I know some people like the Statement Analysis, but it sounds to me, on first hearing, very much like psuedo-science, and I would take it with a large pinch of salt.

I would test very badly by SA I think. I have a terrible memory, and would have to frequently say "I don't remember". When I don't know, I say "I don't know", rather than attempt a plausible guess. I also put things in neutral terms. All of which indicate deception apparently. I think that for SA to be credible it would at least need to calibrate the style of the author/speaker with statements that are known to be true, before attempting to analyse other statements.


Although I agree with Cape and Stint that sometimes her eyes do seem evil, it could just be our minds playing tricks on us based on what we know about her.

You want to know how I know what you say is true, about how police (in particular) should be familiar with deceptive behavior, but don't always get it right?

My ex husband became abusive and controlling after our son was born, so I left him and moved my son and I back in with my parents. One time he parked outside of my job, and after I got in my car and got on the freeway, he followed me and swerved in front of me and slammed on the brakes to get me to stop. I got scared of what he would do so I pulled over at a busy gas station to talk to him. He was so mad I had left him and kept slamming his hand on my hood saying he would kill me. I didnt take him seriously.

I was staying in this room attached to my parents house, that had an entrance that led to the backyard, and to get in the main house you have to cross a patio. I rarely locked the door to my room, since we had two dogs and our neighborhood is pretty safe. Anyway, Im really making this a long story, so Ill cut to the chase, I went out with a guy friend, and while I was gone my ex snuck into my backyard, into my room, and hid in my shower waiting for me.

After I got home and went to bed, he popped out and attacked me, and choked me. After a lot of crying and pleading, I convinced him I loved him and that I would get back together with him, and he left. Right after he left, I woke up my parents and we called the cops.

It later turns out that cop who came and interviewed me, told everyone that he thought I was lying about my ex breaking in, he says that he thought that I made that up, and had actually let my ex in, but was afraid my mom would be mad at me for doing so. The reason he thought this, supposedly, is that I looked over at my mom when I said that he had been hiding in my room. That was somehow proof to him that I was lying about it. I was super pissed when I found that out, how are you going to disbelieve what a victim is telling you based on something stupid like me turning to look at my mom when I said something???? Anyway, it went to trial and my ex got convicted of attacking me, but not of breaking and entering, the jury claimed that they believed me but they couldnt prove it. Whatever, I know it's true, but in reality, what Ive learned is, cops, lawyers, etc. think they can tell when people are lying, but they really have no idea....


Solange - that's a terrible story. You must have been terrified. cu-))

Well done for seeing it through to trial and making sure that the violence did not go unpunished. I hope your son never witnessed any aggression. Your actions probably saved him from that horror. Brave girl!

As for seeing evil eyes, I find this more of an interesting exercise, rather than attaching any major significance to it. We are probably programmed to spot people that 'aren't quite right' at a deeply subconscious level - not quite right in looks, behaviour or actions I mean. A protective mechanism. People suggest it is a herd health thing too, as can be seen in bullying. More primitive than medieval?

Often people say they can see 'evil' in the eyes of murderers. I find that interesting as it is not always apparent to me. I am not sure I am fully ok with the idea of evil, full stop. Does anyone remember the series of 'black eyes' or 'dead eyes' photos that were posted here, a couple of years ago? It was interesting as the suggestion was that there was a blackness or deadness in the eyes of these murderers, which was actually quite compelling when you saw them all lined up en masse. Sometimes I can see it - the Crossbow Cannibal seems lifeless behind the eyes for example, in recent pictures. If there is a deadness internally/emotionally it is not so much of a jump to think that that would show through the eyes. Not a basis to judge guilt, but I find it interesting. Eyes give away so much of our emotions to each other. I don't find it so odd a thing to idly contemplate.

It's when you start burning people at the stake for having dead eyes it becomes medieval!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
I'm curious as Rudy always mentioned money as the "seed" for the argument. I could imagine dope deals and specifically cash being the focus, probably more believable than sex orgys and some out of control drunk drugged sex party. jmo.
Money..... there's a better motive. There was talk early on about banking withdrawls and related money issues.


Some ideas:

could it be that Amanda and Raff have been asking Meredith to borrow them the money? And maybe the quarrel started because Meredith refused and said something like she would not give a Cent just to buy drugs..??
Could be, but how comes Rudy into the scenario with his sexually assaults??



could it be that Amanda had carried the kitchen knife the night before (the Halloween-night) and then just put it into the cottage drawer.


I once read on JREF that when the police collected that kitchen-knife from Raff's flat, it was clean and shiny on top in the drawer. The posters idea was that it would be very unlikely and stupid if this has been the murder weapon.
But I think this is a bit like the mop-talk. They had intensely cleaned that knife and posed it 'on purpose' on top in the drawer. That must have been a complete shock, when the DNA was found - hence that silly stummering about pricking Meredith while cooking.

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

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I think you could take 500 pictures of Knox (and, let's face it, they're out there), and she'd look like an evil psycho killer in as many as she would look like a very normal young woman.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
Whatever the truth of this drugs case and its connection (if any) with AK, we do not have enough information. Just as we do not with the allegations against Curatolo.

We are bound to be interested in both of these reports because they are new information and both have the potential to affect the case. It is a mistake to jump to any conclusion about either of them, however

I take Michael's point that this information was probably in the case file used in trial. This serves to reinforce what we have always known but sometimes lose sight of: that there is a great deal we do not know, no matter how diligent we are in seekng information.

What do we actually know? Unless I am missing something we appear to have learned that in 2003 Curatolo may have sold some heroin twice a week to a named person for a period of three months. That this was known at that time to the police, as a result of what seems to have been quite a big police operation: and that no charges apppear to have been laid against Curatolo for a period of many years. We know that Curatolo has now become involved in some kind of court process with respect to those charges. We know that this information has now been made public just before a crucial part of the appeal is due to start. We do not know how it has come to light. We do not know what criminal proceedings are under way. We do not know what stage they are at. I contend that we can make nothing of any of this on the basis of what we know. It is certainly very curious and it will be interesting to find out what is going on. But it is a mistake to pre-empt the implications of it because the reports we have are worthless so far.

Similarly we seem to have learned that some people were dealing cocaine in Perugia and have been charged with possession with intent to supply. There seem to be three such people and one of them has been tried and convicted and has received a prison sentence. Two others are similarly charged but have not yet come to trial. I do not even understand the plea of one of them, because it seems there is a suggestion that the case against him should be postponed for some reason. We seem to have learned that the police investigation of these people arose or was informed by the inclusion of one of those people in AK's contact list on her phone. Presumably that is the same one who is described as a "presumptive lover". We do not know if her contact with him was drug related at all. If they had a relationship it is perfectly possible that it was separate from this person's alleged drug dealing. Or it may be that AK did indeed buy cocaine from this person and that her drug use was much heavier than we have known. What we do know is that, as with Curatolo, details are being witheld in a way that seems to be unusual in Italy: in contrast with the murder case, this drugs case is being reported under what appear to be restrictions so that the accused are not named: indeed even the person convicted is not named.

It seems to me that there is a great deal more to find out about both of these developments and that it is likely the unknowns will make a very big difference to our perceptions.

Meantime we can note the information we do have and we can dig for more as we have always done.

But to use these very sketchy outlines as a means of drawing conclusions about any of the people involved is speculative at best.

It will be interesting if there is evidence that AK was a heavy user of cocaine: or even just bought a quantity of cocaine as a "treat" from time to time. It will be interesting if there is evidence that she bought shortly before the murder. It will be intereresting if these dealers are called to testify at the appeal ( though I have seen no suggestion of that and I wonder why not. If the defence can bring child killers why would the prosecution not bring dope dealers, if they have any information about drug misuse by any of the three convicted? )

For me I take it for what it is and I hope we will find out more soon. But we should be cautious, surely. Press reports are not always accurate and it looks to me as if these are particularly open to distortion for reasons Skep gave much earlier.


From one sketchy report of Knox’s connection with an accused drug dealer, we have an Amanda Knox here that is “one step away from becoming … a druggie prostitute”, possibly bisexual (“bonked by a Daniel and a Daniele”), “anybody’s” (if a guy sleeps around, is he defined in these terms - “one drink and he’s anybody’s”?), and I’m not sure what else besides. I am finding it hard to keep up. Can anyone say, “the accelerated velocity of terminological inexactitude”? That’s an Easy A reference.

I’m with Fiona on this one. I think it’s wise to be cautious about how much is read into the reports.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
I think you could take 500 pictures of Knox (and, let's face it, they're out there), and she'd look like an evil psycho killer in as many as she would look like a very normal young woman.


I don't know what a 'very normal young woman' looks like windfall. Could you enlighten me? And tell me what you mean by normal? And 'very' normal as opposed to regular normal?!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Touche, TB!! Make that normal. Average. Non-evil-psycho.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Whatever the truth of this drugs case and its connection (if any) with AK, we do not have enough information. Just as we do not with the allegations against Curatolo.

We are bound to be interested in both of these reports because they are new information and both have the potential to affect the case. It is a mistake to jump to any conclusion about either of them, however

I take Michael's point that this information was probably in the case file used in trial. This serves to reinforce what we have always known but sometimes lose sight of: that there is a great deal we do not know, no matter how diligent we are in seekng information.

What do we actually know? Unless I am missing something we appear to have learned that in 2003 Curatolo may have sold some heroin twice a week to a named person for a period of three months. That this was known at that time to the police, as a result of what seems to have been quite a big police operation: and that no charges apppear to have been laid against Curatolo for a period of many years. We know that Curatolo has now become involved in some kind of court process with respect to those charges. We know that this information has now been made public just before a crucial part of the appeal is due to start. We do not know how it has come to light. We do not know what criminal proceedings are under way. We do not know what stage they are at. I contend that we can make nothing of any of this on the basis of what we know. It is certainly very curious and it will be interesting to find out what is going on. But it is a mistake to pre-empt the implications of it because the reports we have are worthless so far.

Similarly we seem to have learned that some people were dealing cocaine in Perugia and have been charged with possession with intent to supply. There seem to be three such people and one of them has been tried and convicted and has received a prison sentence. Two others are similarly charged but have not yet come to trial. I do not even understand the plea of one of them, because it seems there is a suggestion that the case against him should be postponed for some reason. We seem to have learned that the police investigation of these people arose or was informed by the inclusion of one of those people in AK's contact list on her phone. Presumably that is the same one who is described as a "presumptive lover". We do not know if her contact with him was drug related at all. If they had a relationship it is perfectly possible that it was separate from this person's alleged drug dealing. Or it may be that AK did indeed buy cocaine from this person and that her drug use was much heavier than we have known. What we do know is that, as with Curatolo, details are being witheld in a way that seems to be unusual in Italy: in contrast with the murder case, this drugs case is being reported under what appear to be restrictions so that the accused are not named: indeed even the person convicted is not named.

It seems to me that there is a great deal more to find out about both of these developments and that it is likely the unknowns will make a very big difference to our perceptions.

Meantime we can note the information we do have and we can dig for more as we have always done.

But to use these very sketchy outlines as a means of drawing conclusions about any of the people involved is speculative at best.

It will be interesting if there is evidence that AK was a heavy user of cocaine: or even just bought a quantity of cocaine as a "treat" from time to time. It will be interesting if there is evidence that she bought shortly before the murder. It will be intereresting if these dealers are called to testify at the appeal ( though I have seen no suggestion of that and I wonder why not. If the defence can bring child killers why would the prosecution not bring dope dealers, if they have any information about drug misuse by any of the three convicted? )

For me I take it for what it is and I hope we will find out more soon. But we should be cautious, surely. Press reports are not always accurate and it looks to me as if these are particularly open to distortion for reasons Skep gave much earlier.


From one sketchy report of Knox’s connection with an accused drug dealer, we have an Amanda Knox here that is “one step away from becoming … a druggie prostitute”, possibly bisexual (“bonked by a Daniel and a Daniele”), “anybody’s” (if a guy sleeps around, is he defined in these terms - “one drink and he’s anybody’s”?), and I’m not sure what else besides. I am finding it hard to keep up. Can anyone say, “the accelerated velocity of terminological inexactitude”? That’s an Easy A reference.

I’m with Fiona on this one. I think it’s wise to be cautious about how much is read into the reports.



Be cautious? As opposed to what? Has someone here been incautious? Has anyone here jumped to any firm unsubstantiated conclusions?

It was a convicted drug dealer by the way, not merely an accused one.

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


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

You are correct, Michael. No one has jumped to "firm, unsubstantiated conclusions". Nevertheless speculation about what this might mean has been put forward and I do not think there is as yet sufficient reason to suppose that AK was a heavy cocaine user, nor that she was trading sex for drugs. No one has positively asserted either of these things but there has been talk along those lines and I think we should be careful to hedge our speculations with what we know and not what might be the case. That is just my point of view and PMF always allows exploration of any and all possibiites which arise. I do not want to change that. But by the same token it has always also allowed challenge to the speculation and in this case I find that there is a very thin factual basis to work with. That will hopefully change

I was careful to state that one was convicted, btw


Last edited by Fiona on Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Isnt the money in the accounts fairly well documented?
The maximum ATM withdrawl for the accounts of AK and RS would be interesting. Was this maximum met on Nov 1 for their accounts? Would there be a need to return to the cottage and get cash, or Merediths money for dope?

I'm curious as Rudy always mentioned money as the "seed" for the argument. I could imagine dope deals and specifically cash being the focus, probably more believable than sex orgys and some out of control drunk drugged sex party. jmo.
Money..... there's a better motive. There was talk early on about banking withdrawls and related money issues.

Rudy could have been the dope peddlar that night, maybe Meredith did let him in if he said he was there to meet AK. Meredith had met Rudy at least once, maybe more times. There's no reason she would be afraid of him.As Masseis report mentions Rudy approach to women was noted.

Rudy had made a particular friendship with Marco Marzan and with him, ‚because playing basketball together every day we had developed this friendship, and then he was present also sometimes at the guys’ house".
Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there;>>> Rudy was talking to both of them>> and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.


If I understand Massei, he puts AK and RS in front of Curatolo 9:30-10 until around 11 or midnight, "STEPS AWAY", Tow truck driver, Nara and other hearing the scream they claim is associated 1 or 2hrs after her sleep, we have the cell phone in the garden/bushes at 00:13, and the 00:58 pc activity on RS pc, etc.etc.

in short......there doesn't seem time to have a sex orgy and party that leads up to anything. The murder would be more like Rudy said, very fleeting and fast, within in a couple minutes or half his Ipod song.

Will Rudy ever be drilled for questions again?


Neither Mignini nor Massei claimed that there was an orgy or drunken sex party.

There was no human interaction on Sollecito's computer from 9.10pm to 5.32am.


The Defense claims it.

And this piece from Masseis report seems to accept it as possible.

Nonetheless, it is possible to infer from the technical report that the opening of the so-called window is something absolutely tied with launching the Quick Time application, which allows the playing of a film, independently of any confirmation of whether the playing then took place, and at what time.
And so, the certainty that is reached is limited to the fact that, at most, starting from 00:58 on 2 November a certain use of the computer was made, where however its usage in the preceding hours can only be ascertained by a crystal ball.
In conclusion, [the Court] takes note that around 1am on the night of 2-Nov-2007, Raffaele Sollecito could have found himself in front of the computer; in the opinion of the Court, the time thus mentioned is however after the hour of Meredith Kercher’s death and nothing prevents the holding that Amanda and Raffaele could have, at that hour, returned home again, after the murder [a cose fatte], to the apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
Touche, TB!! Make that normal. Average. Non-evil-psycho.


Oh windfall, you need to lighten up! :D People are just speculating about scenarios, just like they speculate about 'time of death' scenarios, and 'who did what' scenarios and 'was it premeditated?' scenarios and 'mop swap' scenarios. At least some of these have very sketchy details to work with, but it doesn't stop people speculating, nor are there any objections raised when they do.

Your sensitivity is to how women are portrayed and perceived, so you are sensitive to comments like these you cite, but to be honest it is no different similar speculative comments made about Raffaele. Animal porn and stuff? Him being a virgin (or not), etc etc. You are just not as sensitive to them in the same way. That is sexist in itself, surely? You object to AK comments but not RS comments??? I thought the Daniel/Daniela comment was a joke, not a serious suggestion! What is that word they are always using about SA? 'Confirmation Bias'???

I have no objection to people speculating, but I do have objections to journalists speculating about things in print and claiming them as fact. It seems much worse to me than people speculating on a forum with a fairly modest readership. At least here speculation is tested and explored and some members here have already challenged some of the claims you cite. Dismount Sir Knight! :)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bobc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


I may have a low EQ, but I can never see the "evil looks" others claim, I doubt there is any such thing. I have the same problem with people who claim body language or other behaviour can be analysed to determine whether people are lying or not. Even apparently objective tests like polygraph need careful subjective assessment. AFAIK there really is no foolproof method of identifying deception, let alone truth or malice.

I have seen reports which have studied professionals who should be familiar with deceptive behaviour, police, laywers, judges, but none of them actually show the ability to identify deception reliably. I know some people like the Statement Analysis, but it sounds to me, on first hearing, very much like psuedo-science, and I would take it with a large pinch of salt.

I would test very badly by SA I think. I have a terrible memory, and would have to frequently say "I don't remember". When I don't know, I say "I don't know", rather than attempt a plausible guess. I also put things in neutral terms. All of which indicate deception apparently. I think that for SA to be credible it would at least need to calibrate the style of the author/speaker with statements that are known to be true, before attempting to analyse other statements.


Knox has an odd way of expressing herself and it comes out in almost everything she says or writes. But we're not talking about the occasional lack of detail or expression of doubt. The main problem she had upon her arrest is that she had dramatically changed her story established in her 04 NOV 2007 email to the one she chose in her 06 NOV 2007 "memorial". The details are entirely different.

A simple example is her claim that she was clipped in the head at the Questura. She was asked directly during her court appearance about the incident:

Quote:
PM: If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.

AK: Okay.

PM: And who did all this, if you can.

AK: Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don't know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again --


That's not just a case of saying "don't know/can't remember" although Knox does that plenty too. She is asked directly to be more precise about who hit her and who suggested Patrick's name to her. After all, she's the one claiming she was hit and claiming that the cops told her to accuse Patrick of sexual assault and murder.

Does that help a bit more?


Last edited by stilicho on Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I'm happy to opinionate rather than speculate for a moment. :D

There was a bit of discussion earlier about passing judgement on someone having sex with multiple partners. I don't think it's judgemental to recognise it as

dangerous behaviour for women in ways that it's generally not for men. Psychologically, physically, and life-changing or even life-ending (because

prgenancy and childbirth is not without its risks). Promiscuity is also an indicator that someone's unravelling or indeed unravelled.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Whatever the truth of this drugs case and its connection (if any) with AK, we do not have enough information. Just as we do not with the allegations against Curatolo.

We are bound to be interested in both of these reports because they are new information and both have the potential to affect the case. It is a mistake to jump to any conclusion about either of them, however

I take Michael's point that this information was probably in the case file used in trial. This serves to reinforce what we have always known but sometimes lose sight of: that there is a great deal we do not know, no matter how diligent we are in seekng information.

What do we actually know? Unless I am missing something we appear to have learned that in 2003 Curatolo may have sold some heroin twice a week to a named person for a period of three months. That this was known at that time to the police, as a result of what seems to have been quite a big police operation: and that no charges apppear to have been laid against Curatolo for a period of many years. We know that Curatolo has now become involved in some kind of court process with respect to those charges. We know that this information has now been made public just before a crucial part of the appeal is due to start. We do not know how it has come to light. We do not know what criminal proceedings are under way. We do not know what stage they are at. I contend that we can make nothing of any of this on the basis of what we know. It is certainly very curious and it will be interesting to find out what is going on. But it is a mistake to pre-empt the implications of it because the reports we have are worthless so far.

Similarly we seem to have learned that some people were dealing cocaine in Perugia and have been charged with possession with intent to supply. There seem to be three such people and one of them has been tried and convicted and has received a prison sentence. Two others are similarly charged but have not yet come to trial. I do not even understand the plea of one of them, because it seems there is a suggestion that the case against him should be postponed for some reason. We seem to have learned that the police investigation of these people arose or was informed by the inclusion of one of those people in AK's contact list on her phone. Presumably that is the same one who is described as a "presumptive lover". We do not know if her contact with him was drug related at all. If they had a relationship it is perfectly possible that it was separate from this person's alleged drug dealing. Or it may be that AK did indeed buy cocaine from this person and that her drug use was much heavier than we have known. What we do know is that, as with Curatolo, details are being witheld in a way that seems to be unusual in Italy: in contrast with the murder case, this drugs case is being reported under what appear to be restrictions so that the accused are not named: indeed even the person convicted is not named.

It seems to me that there is a great deal more to find out about both of these developments and that it is likely the unknowns will make a very big difference to our perceptions.

Meantime we can note the information we do have and we can dig for more as we have always done.

But to use these very sketchy outlines as a means of drawing conclusions about any of the people involved is speculative at best.

It will be interesting if there is evidence that AK was a heavy user of cocaine: or even just bought a quantity of cocaine as a "treat" from time to time. It will be interesting if there is evidence that she bought shortly before the murder. It will be intereresting if these dealers are called to testify at the appeal ( though I have seen no suggestion of that and I wonder why not. If the defence can bring child killers why would the prosecution not bring dope dealers, if they have any information about drug misuse by any of the three convicted? )

For me I take it for what it is and I hope we will find out more soon. But we should be cautious, surely. Press reports are not always accurate and it looks to me as if these are particularly open to distortion for reasons Skep gave much earlier.


From one sketchy report of Knox’s connection with an accused drug dealer, we have an Amanda Knox here that is “one step away from becoming … a druggie prostitute”, possibly bisexual (“bonked by a Daniel and a Daniele”), “anybody’s” (if a guy sleeps around, is he defined in these terms - “one drink and he’s anybody’s”?), and I’m not sure what else besides. I am finding it hard to keep up. Can anyone say, “the accelerated velocity of terminological inexactitude”? That’s an Easy A reference.

I’m with Fiona on this one. I think it’s wise to be cautious about how much is read into the reports.


Windfall,

AK listed a Daniele as a partner she'd been with who might have made her HIV positive. I asumed the Daniele referred to was a bloke ? Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
windfall wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Whatever the truth of this drugs case and its connection (if any) with AK, we do not have enough information. Just as we do not with the allegations against Curatolo.

We are bound to be interested in both of these reports because they are new information and both have the potential to affect the case. It is a mistake to jump to any conclusion about either of them, however

I take Michael's point that this information was probably in the case file used in trial. This serves to reinforce what we have always known but sometimes lose sight of: that there is a great deal we do not know, no matter how diligent we are in seekng information.

What do we actually know? Unless I am missing something we appear to have learned that in 2003 Curatolo may have sold some heroin twice a week to a named person for a period of three months. That this was known at that time to the police, as a result of what seems to have been quite a big police operation: and that no charges apppear to have been laid against Curatolo for a period of many years. We know that Curatolo has now become involved in some kind of court process with respect to those charges. We know that this information has now been made public just before a crucial part of the appeal is due to start. We do not know how it has come to light. We do not know what criminal proceedings are under way. We do not know what stage they are at. I contend that we can make nothing of any of this on the basis of what we know. It is certainly very curious and it will be interesting to find out what is going on. But it is a mistake to pre-empt the implications of it because the reports we have are worthless so far.

Similarly we seem to have learned that some people were dealing cocaine in Perugia and have been charged with possession with intent to supply. There seem to be three such people and one of them has been tried and convicted and has received a prison sentence. Two others are similarly charged but have not yet come to trial. I do not even understand the plea of one of them, because it seems there is a suggestion that the case against him should be postponed for some reason. We seem to have learned that the police investigation of these people arose or was informed by the inclusion of one of those people in AK's contact list on her phone. Presumably that is the same one who is described as a "presumptive lover". We do not know if her contact with him was drug related at all. If they had a relationship it is perfectly possible that it was separate from this person's alleged drug dealing. Or it may be that AK did indeed buy cocaine from this person and that her drug use was much heavier than we have known. What we do know is that, as with Curatolo, details are being witheld in a way that seems to be unusual in Italy: in contrast with the murder case, this drugs case is being reported under what appear to be restrictions so that the accused are not named: indeed even the person convicted is not named.

It seems to me that there is a great deal more to find out about both of these developments and that it is likely the unknowns will make a very big difference to our perceptions.

Meantime we can note the information we do have and we can dig for more as we have always done.

But to use these very sketchy outlines as a means of drawing conclusions about any of the people involved is speculative at best.

It will be interesting if there is evidence that AK was a heavy user of cocaine: or even just bought a quantity of cocaine as a "treat" from time to time. It will be interesting if there is evidence that she bought shortly before the murder. It will be intereresting if these dealers are called to testify at the appeal ( though I have seen no suggestion of that and I wonder why not. If the defence can bring child killers why would the prosecution not bring dope dealers, if they have any information about drug misuse by any of the three convicted? )

For me I take it for what it is and I hope we will find out more soon. But we should be cautious, surely. Press reports are not always accurate and it looks to me as if these are particularly open to distortion for reasons Skep gave much earlier.


From one sketchy report of Knox’s connection with an accused drug dealer, we have an Amanda Knox here that is “one step away from becoming … a druggie prostitute”, possibly bisexual (“bonked by a Daniel and a Daniele”), “anybody’s” (if a guy sleeps around, is he defined in these terms - “one drink and he’s anybody’s”?), and I’m not sure what else besides. I am finding it hard to keep up. Can anyone say, “the accelerated velocity of terminological inexactitude”? That’s an Easy A reference.

I’m with Fiona on this one. I think it’s wise to be cautious about how much is read into the reports.


Windfall,

AK listed a Daniele as a partner she'd been with who might have made her HIV positive. I asumed the Daniele referred to was a bloke ? Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship ?


It's interesting to note that no-one EVER makes any reference to the feelings of the men included on Amanda's list of sexual partners. No-one ever says 'Imagine having your name associated with the convicted murderess Amanda Knox. Imagine people knowing you'd slept with her...' etc. I think it would be awful to have your sex life written about like this, your name on a 'list', andspeculation about whether you 'might have Aids' like happened to these men. Where is the voice of sympathy and protest about the violation of their privacy by the press? No-where!!!! It is rank hypocrisy and blatant sexism, that's what it is!!!

p.s IMAGINE your soon to be girlfriend finding out you came fourth on the list of AK's sexual partners. Who'd admit to sleeping with a murderer??? No chance of anonymity now...!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
You are correct, Michael. No one has jumped to "firm, unsubstantiated conclusions". Nevertheless speculation about what this might mean has been put forward and I do not think there is as yet sufficient reason to suppose that AK was a heavy cocaine user, nor that she was trading sex for drugs. No one has positively asserted either of these things but there has been talk along those lines and I think we should be careful to hedge our speculations with what we know and not what might be the case. That is just my point of view and PMF always allows exploration of any and all possibiites which arise. I do not want to change that. But by the same token it has always also allowed challenge to the speculation and in this case I find that there is a very thin factual basis to work with. That will hopefully change

I was careful to state that one was convicted, btw



I think in response to this, the Bard recently summed it up quite well in this post here:

viewtopic.php?p=74783#p74783


I will just add that Windall's criticism is not due to his being against speculation per se, or that there are any obvious flaws in recent speculations, but because 'what' people have been recently speculating about upsets his feminist sensibilities. In and of itself, that's not a good enough reason for people to be prevented from speculating.

_________________
"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: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
smacker wrote:
windfall wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Whatever the truth of this drugs case and its connection (if any) with AK, we do not have enough information. Just as we do not with the allegations against Curatolo.

We are bound to be interested in both of these reports because they are new information and both have the potential to affect the case. It is a mistake to jump to any conclusion about either of them, however

I take Michael's point that this information was probably in the case file used in trial. This serves to reinforce what we have always known but sometimes lose sight of: that there is a great deal we do not know, no matter how diligent we are in seekng information.

What do we actually know? Unless I am missing something we appear to have learned that in 2003 Curatolo may have sold some heroin twice a week to a named person for a period of three months. That this was known at that time to the police, as a result of what seems to have been quite a big police operation: and that no charges apppear to have been laid against Curatolo for a period of many years. We know that Curatolo has now become involved in some kind of court process with respect to those charges. We know that this information has now been made public just before a crucial part of the appeal is due to start. We do not know how it has come to light. We do not know what criminal proceedings are under way. We do not know what stage they are at. I contend that we can make nothing of any of this on the basis of what we know. It is certainly very curious and it will be interesting to find out what is going on. But it is a mistake to pre-empt the implications of it because the reports we have are worthless so far.

Similarly we seem to have learned that some people were dealing cocaine in Perugia and have been charged with possession with intent to supply. There seem to be three such people and one of them has been tried and convicted and has received a prison sentence. Two others are similarly charged but have not yet come to trial. I do not even understand the plea of one of them, because it seems there is a suggestion that the case against him should be postponed for some reason. We seem to have learned that the police investigation of these people arose or was informed by the inclusion of one of those people in AK's contact list on her phone. Presumably that is the same one who is described as a "presumptive lover". We do not know if her contact with him was drug related at all. If they had a relationship it is perfectly possible that it was separate from this person's alleged drug dealing. Or it may be that AK did indeed buy cocaine from this person and that her drug use was much heavier than we have known. What we do know is that, as with Curatolo, details are being witheld in a way that seems to be unusual in Italy: in contrast with the murder case, this drugs case is being reported under what appear to be restrictions so that the accused are not named: indeed even the person convicted is not named.

It seems to me that there is a great deal more to find out about both of these developments and that it is likely the unknowns will make a very big difference to our perceptions.

Meantime we can note the information we do have and we can dig for more as we have always done.

But to use these very sketchy outlines as a means of drawing conclusions about any of the people involved is speculative at best.

It will be interesting if there is evidence that AK was a heavy user of cocaine: or even just bought a quantity of cocaine as a "treat" from time to time. It will be interesting if there is evidence that she bought shortly before the murder. It will be intereresting if these dealers are called to testify at the appeal ( though I have seen no suggestion of that and I wonder why not. If the defence can bring child killers why would the prosecution not bring dope dealers, if they have any information about drug misuse by any of the three convicted? )

For me I take it for what it is and I hope we will find out more soon. But we should be cautious, surely. Press reports are not always accurate and it looks to me as if these are particularly open to distortion for reasons Skep gave much earlier.


From one sketchy report of Knox’s connection with an accused drug dealer, we have an Amanda Knox here that is “one step away from becoming … a druggie prostitute”, possibly bisexual (“bonked by a Daniel and a Daniele”), “anybody’s” (if a guy sleeps around, is he defined in these terms - “one drink and he’s anybody’s”?), and I’m not sure what else besides. I am finding it hard to keep up. Can anyone say, “the accelerated velocity of terminological inexactitude”? That’s an Easy A reference.

I’m with Fiona on this one. I think it’s wise to be cautious about how much is read into the reports.


Windfall,

AK listed a Daniele as a partner she'd been with who might have made her HIV positive. I asumed the Daniele referred to was a bloke ? Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship ?


It's interesting to note that no-one EVER makes any reference to the feelings of the men included on Amanda's list of sexual partners. No-one ever says 'Imagine having your name associated with the convicted murderess Amanda Knox. Imagine people knowing you'd slept with her...' etc. I think it would be awful to have your sex life written about like this, your name on a 'list', andspeculation about whether you 'might have Aids' like happened to these men. Where is the voice of sympathy and protest about the violation of their privacy by the press? No-where!!!! It is rank hypocrisy and blatant sexism, that's what it is!!!

p.s IMAGINE your soon to be girlfriend finding out you came fourth on the list of AK's sexual partners. Who'd admit to sleeping with a murderer??? No chance of anonymity now...!


I suppose you could just consider yourself lucky you woke up in the morning...........
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I've tried searching and looking at the youtube channel for injusticeinperugia, but I can't find that video where it shows the bathmat being collected by the forensic team. Can anyone help me pleeeeeeeeeeeeease?

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
I've tried searching and looking at the youtube channel for injusticeinperugia, but I can't find that video where it shows the bathmat being collected by the forensic team. Can anyone help me pleeeeeeeeeeeeease?



I will look though I don't remember the bathmat being collected. Bruce's channel is here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/InjusticeinPerugia#p/u

his claims of contamination:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination3.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/videos.html



Footprint analysis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqnEQFNQKg

bath mat appears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfygAsW9IwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dpZheBI ... re=related


Last edited by H9 on Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:50 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Damn, I’m really upset that it upsets so many fellow forumites when my feminist sensibilities get upset.

Thanks for setting me straight on the accused/conviction thing.

TB, I’m light, really. If only you could have seen the ironic smile on my face when I dropped in that Easy A reference. (Great movie, btw, really highly recommend it).

I don’t agree that not being so bothered about commentary on RS’s sexuality is in itself sexist. It’s the same argument that has come up in debates about racism and so-called reverse-racism: it might be pertinent if white people had been oppressed, abused and stereotyped for hundreds of years on account of the colour of their skin. They haven’t been. Neither have men been conditioned, controlled, stereotyped and punished for expressing their sexuality in ways deemed inappropriate by those in power for hundreds of years.

Daniel/a is almost certainly a joke, sure, but it’s again symptomatic of the same attitude about women “let off the leash”.

Fairly modest readership? 5,662,418 views and counting. :-)

And Lord forbid I should stop anyone speculating anything. I’m just expressing an opinion. And even though, as usual, it’s antithetical to Michael’s, I guess I’m still allowed to express it, and for that I should be, and am, grateful.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Windfall wrote:
I don’t agree that not being so bothered about commentary on RS’s sexuality is in itself sexist. It’s the same argument that has come up in debates about racism and so-called reverse-racism: it might be pertinent if white people had been oppressed, abused and stereotyped for hundreds of years on account of the colour of their skin. They haven’t been. Neither have men been conditioned, controlled, stereotyped and punished for expressing their sexuality in ways deemed inappropriate by those in power for hundreds of years.


So, you're essentially saying sexism, racism and other 'isms' are only bad and unjust if they are against someone who's racial or gender forbears were oppressed some time back in history? Have I got that right?

I think if you look back in history you'll find many men have been oppressed too...for example, just consider being a male serf back in feudal England, or press ganged into the Royal Navy again and again during the Napoleonic Wars...the list could go on.

And I just want to ask, when before her arrest for murder, was Amanda Knox ever personally oppressed in her life because of her gender or race? In which case, why is there such a desperate need for her to be defended on feminist matters?

It seems to me that you approach Amanda Knox on the basis of ideological dogma rather then logic, fairness or because of issues that pertain directly to her.

_________________
"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 zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Smacker wrote:
: Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship?



Aye, that they (you/one) can, obviously, or.. maybe not so obviously if you didn't know that.

Exchange of fluids, et cetera.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

There was a video of the forensic team bagging the bathmat. Did anyone cap it? Bruce appears to have removed it from his channel. I wonder why?

_________________
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 Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I assume, but don't actually know, that the appeal court also has to set out written reasons for their verdict. Does anyone know how Micheli's reasoning fared in the court of appeal in Guede's case?

I have been thinking about Micheli's report. He believed that the evidence showed that Meredith's body had remained in one position for a long period of time, and that the bra was not cut and removed until much later. He believed that circumstance pointed to AK, as being the only person on the planet who would have a reason to return to the house and stage things. It fits time-wise with RS and AK early morning activities at his flat. They would have a good four to five hours to clean up and stage the burglary.

Massei doesn't address this. Although he notes the opinion that the bra was removed after Meredith was injured, he appears to posit a scenario in which the bra is cut off while the attack is underway and before she dies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
Could someone please explain to me, how do I read Raff's diary, and also statements made by the three? I watched the vid posted on TJMK, of Amanda in Court, Re: Patrick's case, and it was, in a word, illuminating. I had forgotten how contrived she sounded. Without even hearing the words ( which I did) it was so false. Out of everything, she was so SENSITIVE to being called STUPID LIAR. Ego gone wrong.



You can download and read the diary here Cape: TRANSLATION OF RAFFAELE'S PRISON DIARY: DEFINITIVE VERSION

_________________
"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 zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
Btw, does anyone else find her eyes truly evil? I do, in almost every picture. They give me the willies.


I do tharrrrt aye. Was going to say it earlier but thought I'd allow the storm to pass. Knox didn't have those eyes before the murder but she sure has them now, in my opinion. I had exactly these thoughts about Knox that Cape describes.

I think the idea that people can get nothing by looking, ie, with their eyes is way off.

Of course people can pick up stuff, we aren't dogs but we'd be better to tune in to what our eyes tell us and what is interpreted instinctively through and as a result of thousands of years of learning or personal one-life (this one) experiences by our little inner voice.
Here we are not arresting anyone, or trying them, if one couldn't work out body language and especially signs sent through the eyes we'd all be PDD NOS sufferers.

(Children with PDD-NOS have difficulty reading facial expressions and relating to feelings of others. They do not know how to respond when someone is laughing or crying. Literal thinking is also characteristic of PDD-NOS. They are unable to understand figurative speech and sarcasm.)



Here's the new babysitter

Knock knock, hello I'm answering your ad for caring after school help.



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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:38 pm, edited 4 times 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: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
I assume, but don't actually know, that the appeal court also has to set out written reasons for their verdict. Does anyone know how Micheli's reasoning fared in the court of appeal in Guede's case?

I have been thinking about Micheli's report. He believed that the evidence showed that Meredith's body had remained in one position for a long period of time, and that the bra was not cut and removed until much later. He believed that circumstance pointed to AK, as being the only person on the planet who would have a reason to return to the house and stage things. It fits time-wise with RS and AK early morning activities at his flat. They would have a good four to five hours to clean up and stage the burglary.

Massei doesn't address this. Although he notes the opinion that the bra was removed after Meredith was injured, he appears to posit a scenario in which the bra is cut off while the attack is underway and before she dies.



Here Tom: RUDY GUEDE'S FAILED APPEAL MOTIVATIONS REPORT (ITALIAN)

That's for his first appeal. The motivations for his third degree hasn't been published yet.

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Ah it's been made unlisted. I could have sworn I found it in the channel menu before (I did).





Now I meant to post this before but didn't get round to it.

1. Remember all those times that we were told that the footprint on the mat had been artificially darkened in the still photographs and would have been easily missible? Yes, well another internet meme bites the dust - just watch the video

Image

funny how easy it is to make stuff up until the real facts come to light (per the drubbing some of the (not terribly good) pro-guilters have been taking on the Independent website today. Poof - there's another made up thing gone.

2. Very interesting:

Image

Image


Doesn't it look clean, the underside of that mat? This reinforces to me the likelihood that the mat went nowhere. Of course, another precious pro-innocence meme is that there are no swirly mop-marks shown by luminol in the corridor. Before we get started, we know the mop wasn't used. Then after that, that's not what luminol does in a crimescene that has been cleaned and dried. It's perfectly possible to clean the main marks up - the whole point of what luminol does time and again is show up blood in the cracks in walls and insecure grouting precisely when the main area has been effectively cleaned and no evidence is left. Boy they like to make a hash of that.

I had wondered if the underside of the mat was used for drying, but evidently not I would say. Seems to me she said it just in case there was evidence of drag marks / drying marks and then threw in that wonderful comment about how it didn't quite work "heh" and she sometimes put her foot down as well, just in case her footprint showed up in traces of cleaned up blood. Mignini's "I'm sorry signorina" type response is nearly audible to this date. His face must have been a picture. You dragged across the route from the murder room, on the bathmat with the footprint and blood on it AND you put your foot down as well as you traversed the two and half-metres to your room where your own rug stopped your entry into the room almost immediately?

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

And here's one without the shadow on the bathmat just in case someone bleets even thoough you can see for yourself in the video, repeatedly, that it's crystal clear.

Image

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
I don’t agree that not being so bothered about commentary on RS’s sexuality is in itself sexist. It’s the same argument that has come up in debates about racism and so-called reverse-racism: it might be pertinent if white people had been oppressed, abused and stereotyped for hundreds of years on account of the colour of their skin. They haven’t been. Neither have men been conditioned, controlled, stereotyped and punished for expressing their sexuality in ways deemed inappropriate by those in power for hundreds of years.


So, you're essentially saying sexism, racism and other 'isms' are only bad and unjust if they are against someone who's racial or gender forbears were oppressed some time back in history? Have I got that right?

I think if you look back in history you'll find many men have been oppressed too...for example, just consider being a male serf back in feudal England, or press ganged into the Royal Navy again and again during the Napoleonic Wars...the list could go on.


This is a good point Michael. If it's wrong it's wrong. Think about the issue of domestic violence windfall. It happens to men as well as women, but it is under-reported (due to stereotyping). Just because the majority of oppressors/spouse beaters are men perpetrating violence against women it doesn't mean that violence committed against men by women is not 'pertinent'. I agree also that men have been oppressed, abused and stereotyped throughout history! Violence is wrong, no matter if it is men or women who are using it. Racism is wrong, whether it is white racism towards black people, or black people against white people. That is a moral absolute, surely, not dependent upon the relative hard time each party has had throughout the centuries. What about the oppression of the (largely male) workers of the world? The social pressure on men to 'perform' and provide, based upon their sexuality? Huge pressure to behave in certain ways! You should read the report I have right here on men's mental health!!! It's quite an eye-opener. What about the number of men who die prematurely because they don't report symptoms to the doctor, because of sexual stereotyping about admitting weakness/asking for help????

Men's issues are just not as sexy, politically, and no-one wants to focus on them or fund studies on them. Incidence of male anorexia/bulimia? Increasing massively. Suicides: overwhelmingly male.

I don't get cross with you like Michael does, in fact I enjoy discussing things with you. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, and I for one love to hear it. You sound like me twenty years ago. :D I never thought I would find myself challenging a male feminist. It is very funny. Maybe I am a post-feminist!!!! Or maybe I just don't see things quite so black and white any more.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Do we know if the defence are criticising specific evidence collection besides the bra clasp and handling of the computer hard drive? There was significant criticism of the police in the first trial and I am guessing most was thrown out? Do we know which of the experts have to be called in for the appeal or if any police persons are being questioned again?
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
Smacker wrote:
: Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship?



Aye, that they (you/one) can, obviously, or.. maybe not so obviously if you didn't know that.

Exchange of fluids, et cetera.


Had my head (pardon the expression) in male fluids and had ahem, well, overlooked the bleeding obvious...........
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

CD-Host has made a complete fool of himself on the Independent comments. Latest of multiple wrong points: Amanda Knox received "rabbit punches" to the head from the police and it "literally put her life in danger". My reply should be up in a few minutes.

This leaves us two alternatives - either he's making this all up himself which makes him a lunatic. Or this is the sort of stuff that passes for pro-innocence "fact" sharing. Quite unbelievable.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Isnt the money in the accounts fairly well documented?
The maximum ATM withdrawl for the accounts of AK and RS would be interesting. Was this maximum met on Nov 1 for their accounts? Would there be a need to return to the cottage and get cash, or Merediths money for dope?

I'm curious as Rudy always mentioned money as the "seed" for the argument. I could imagine dope deals and specifically cash being the focus, probably more believable than sex orgys and some out of control drunk drugged sex party. jmo.
Money..... there's a better motive. There was talk early on about banking withdrawls and related money issues.

Rudy could have been the dope peddlar that night, maybe Meredith did let him in if he said he was there to meet AK. Meredith had met Rudy at least once, maybe more times. There's no reason she would be afraid of him.As Masseis report mentions Rudy approach to women was noted.

Rudy had made a particular friendship with Marco Marzan and with him, ‚because playing basketball together every day we had developed this friendship, and then he was present also sometimes at the guys’ house".
Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there;>>> Rudy was talking to both of them>> and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.


If I understand Massei, he puts AK and RS in front of Curatolo 9:30-10 until around 11 or midnight, "STEPS AWAY", Tow truck driver, Nara and other hearing the scream they claim is associated 1 or 2hrs after her sleep, we have the cell phone in the garden/bushes at 00:13, and the 00:58 pc activity on RS pc, etc.etc.

in short......there doesn't seem time to have a sex orgy and party that leads up to anything. The murder would be more like Rudy said, very fleeting and fast, within in a couple minutes or half his Ipod song.

Will Rudy ever be drilled for questions again?


Interesting post, and one of my initial theories of the money argument.

ATMs have a daily limit. Amanda knew Meredith had cash for rent. Perhaps it was 'let me borrow the cash. I will replace it when the bank opens for business.' Like post dating a check. I think there is a lot of truth to what Rudy said about Meredith s-(( at Amanda's lack of maturity regarding money.

It has been stated (by Filomena?) other roomies had their rent for 01Nov, but Amanda's would not be available until AFTER the holiday. She had to be reminded each time rent was due on the 1st.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

the rabbit punches is new is it not? I thought it was waterboarding....well like waterboarding...or something

*is confused now*
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
the rabbit punches is new is it not? I thought it was waterboarding....well like waterboarding...or something

*is confused now*




Ladbrokes are shortening odds on The Rack and a full Iron Maiden having been in use by the time we get to the end of the year...



Image


No Bruce... not like that... h-)) h-)) h-)) h-)) h-)) h-))

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


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
There was a video of the forensic team bagging the bathmat. Did anyone cap it? Bruce appears to have removed it from his channel. I wonder why?


You seem to have got it SA. The bagging is at c. 2.30 in this link.

Damn, I always seem to be behind here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APLa0lBf ... r_embedded
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hammerite wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
There was a video of the forensic team bagging the bathmat. Did anyone cap it? Bruce appears to have removed it from his channel. I wonder why?


You seem to have got it SA. The bagging is at c. 2.30 in this link.

Damn, I always seem to be behind here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APLa0lBf ... r_embedded



Cheers anyway H. I'm recovering from the news that Amanda had her arms tied behind her with Slipknots


Image


sor-) is)

Right, stop confusing heck out of cultured people and go to sleep lawyer-with-flu-on-the-way. You're getting deliriums.... gnnnggh... /wrestles arms away from keyboard...

_________________
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 Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
There's enough slabs there to build a chalet.

Sollecito would have been better off in the Carabinieri with his sister.



BEST line of the week goes to Zorba.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
TomM wrote:
I assume, but don't actually know, that the appeal court also has to set out written reasons for their verdict. Does anyone know how Micheli's reasoning fared in the court of appeal in Guede's case?

I have been thinking about Micheli's report. He believed that the evidence showed that Meredith's body had remained in one position for a long period of time, and that the bra was not cut and removed until much later. He believed that circumstance pointed to AK, as being the only person on the planet who would have a reason to return to the house and stage things. It fits time-wise with RS and AK early morning activities at his flat. They would have a good four to five hours to clean up and stage the burglary.

Massei doesn't address this. Although he notes the opinion that the bra was removed after Meredith was injured, he appears to posit a scenario in which the bra is cut off while the attack is underway and before she dies.



Here Tom: RUDY GUEDE'S FAILED APPEAL MOTIVATIONS REPORT (ITALIAN)

That's for his first appeal. The motivations for his third degree hasn't been published yet.

Thanks Michael. It is a mere 58 pages.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
CD-Host has made a complete fool of himself on the Independent comments. Latest of multiple wrong points: Amanda Knox received "rabbit punches" to the head from the police and it "literally put her life in danger". My reply should be up in a few minutes.

This leaves us two alternatives - either he's making this all up himself which makes him a lunatic. Or this is the sort of stuff that passes for pro-innocence "fact" sharing. Quite unbelievable.


Churchy is really new to all this and showing his complete ignorance of the basic facts of the case. Not even Knox argued that she was in any danger or that the "cuffs" were in any way life threatening, damaging, painful, or even uncomfortable. In fact, even though she explained to the court that she turned to see who was "cuffing" her, she could not identify her assailant.

She also told the police that she felt safe with them because she was frightened of Patrick, her employer, since he was still on the loose at the time she told them he'd already murdered once.

So, to summarise for Churchy's benefit, no "cuffs", nobody identified as the woman who "cuffed" her, and safe with the police but frightened of Patrick. Got it?

rt-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

interesting... following up on the glass/break-in.. the motivations says that on Nov 2nd, when amanda was being questioned, she found the broken glass in F's room -before- she went back to raf's after the shower; not when both of them came back....

"On the day of November 2, 2007 at police headquarters, Amanda was also there and she said that that night she had been with her boyfriend Raffaele and that the next morning at around 11:00 am she had gone back home to get changed. (...) Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside. She told these things to her and the other girls present. Then she related that she had gone back to Raffaele’s house and had rung Filomena." p38.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thanks Michael. You're always there for help.

Zorba, a spoiler alert is needed, when posting a pic of Phil. :)

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
zorba wrote:
Smacker wrote:
: Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship?



Aye, that they (you/one) can, obviously, or.. maybe not so obviously if you didn't know that.

Exchange of fluids, et cetera.


Had my head (pardon the expression) in male fluids and had ahem, well, overlooked the bleeding obvious...........


If that's beer, aye, it's time for one here too.

An old black n white movie on, belly dancing the lot, funny thing that, to find out from a documentary, years ago, that belly dancing was never actually meant for men, but for the women themselves in the first place, hard to imagine, but maybe, again, not so hard, I won't go into it.
Except, the dancing is not intended to arouse men.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jackie wrote:
zorba wrote:
There's enough slabs there to build a chalet.

Sollecito would have been better off in the Carabinieri with his sister.



BEST line of the week goes to Zorba.



Thanks Jackie, I thought it was funny too, but the one in the Indian photo about the crocodiles and 'survivors will be prosecuted' I thought was hilarious.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
Thanks Michael. You're always there for help.

Zorba, a spoiler alert is needed, when posting a pic of Phil. :)


Aye, he was stood at the back of the queue when they were handing out faces.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

MICHAEL. It's in ITALIAN........I only understand swear and love words sor-)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
MICHAEL. It's in ITALIAN........I only understand swear and love words sor-)



??? Cape, the link I gave you was to the translation pdf file of his diary...it's in English. Here: viewtopic.php?p=59966#p59966

Direct download link, click on this: download/file.php?id=2333

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zorba wrote:
smacker wrote:
zorba wrote:
Smacker wrote:
: Can you get AIDs in a same sex female relationship?



Aye, that they (you/one) can, obviously, or.. maybe not so obviously if you didn't know that.

Exchange of fluids, et cetera.


Had my head (pardon the expression) in male fluids and had ahem, well, overlooked the bleeding obvious...........


If that's beer, aye, it's time for one here too.

An old black n white movie on, belly dancing the lot, funny thing that, to find out from a documentary, years ago, that belly dancing was never actually meant for men, but for the women themselves in the first place, hard to imagine, but maybe, again, not so hard, I won't go into it.
Except, the dancing is not intended to arouse men.


I can't see a dancing belly doing too much for me; anyone else ?

ps, just had a beer on top of 3 tons of very spicy chilli; gulp, there's no room for anything else !

Once again, to quote Mr. Creosote, I couldn't eat another f@#king thing...............
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

pataz1 wrote:
interesting... following up on the glass/break-in.. the motivations says that on Nov 2nd, when amanda was being questioned, she found the broken glass in F's room -before- she went back to raf's after the shower; not when both of them came back....

"On the day of November 2, 2007 at police headquarters, Amanda was also there and she said that that night she had been with her boyfriend Raffaele and that the next morning at around 11:00 am she had gone back home to get changed. (...) Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside. She told these things to her and the other girls present. Then she related that she had gone back to Raffaele’s house and had rung Filomena." p38.

Pat


There are stacks of versions in her account of what happened, and with them the inevitable discrepancies, because the versions do not line-up with each other, let alone with physical evidence or what Raffaele has said. One or two (or three or four) of these "errors" might be attributed to memory lapse or witness recall effects, if a parent is feeling generous, but wholesale re-engineering and back-tracking begins to look counter-productive if the intention was to create a viable alibi. (If the intention is something else, for example, to remain the centre of attention, the cynosure, then that goal has been quite admirably achieved.)

The confabulation is infinite (one question leads to another, and so on, without anything ever being answered or becoming explicit), and is practised with such adeptness and experience (leading one to the inference that it is a deep-seated, long-term character trait), that Raffele's description of her as a "simpleton" probably begins to explain his choice of film, Amelie, as his perception of her: that Amelie lived in a world of her own, and so does his.

Bongiorno's description of Amanda as "the Amelie of Seattle" is near the mark, in this regard.

Amanda's self-styled supporters may not understand the meaning of the remark, or may think it might be a compliment of some sort, or perhaps a positive, exonerating their princess, since it comes from Raffaele's defence team, the best in the land. That is very Amelie of them.
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
bobc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Are we seriously suggesting you can tell anything about anybody from their looks? How very medieval :)


I may have a low EQ, but I can never see the "evil looks" others claim, I doubt there is any such thing. I have the same problem with people who claim body language or other behaviour can be analysed to determine whether people are lying or not. Even apparently objective tests like polygraph need careful subjective assessment. AFAIK there really is no foolproof method of identifying deception, let alone truth or malice.

I have seen reports which have studied professionals who should be familiar with deceptive behaviour, police, laywers, judges, but none of them actually show the ability to identify deception reliably. I know some people like the Statement Analysis, but it sounds to me, on first hearing, very much like psuedo-science, and I would take it with a large pinch of salt.

I would test very badly by SA I think. I have a terrible memory, and would have to frequently say "I don't remember". When I don't know, I say "I don't know", rather than attempt a plausible guess. I also put things in neutral terms. All of which indicate deception apparently. I think that for SA to be credible it would at least need to calibrate the style of the author/speaker with statements that are known to be true, before attempting to analyse other statements.


Although I agree with Cape and Stint that sometimes her eyes do seem evil, it could just be our minds playing tricks on us based on what we know about her.

You want to know how I know what you say is true, about how police (in particular) should be familiar with deceptive behavior, but don't always get it right?

My ex husband became abusive and controlling after our son was born, so I left him and moved my son and I back in with my parents. One time he parked outside of my job, and after I got in my car and got on the freeway, he followed me and swerved in front of me and slammed on the brakes to get me to stop. I got scared of what he would do so I pulled over at a busy gas station to talk to him. He was so mad I had left him and kept slamming his hand on my hood saying he would kill me. I didnt take him seriously.

I was staying in this room attached to my parents house, that had an entrance that led to the backyard, and to get in the main house you have to cross a patio. I rarely locked the door to my room, since we had two dogs and our neighborhood is pretty safe. Anyway, Im really making this a long story, so Ill cut to the chase, I went out with a guy friend, and while I was gone my ex snuck into my backyard, into my room, and hid in my shower waiting for me.

After I got home and went to bed, he popped out and attacked me, and choked me. After a lot of crying and pleading, I convinced him I loved him and that I would get back together with him, and he left. Right after he left, I woke up my parents and we called the cops.

It later turns out that cop who came and interviewed me, told everyone that he thought I was lying about my ex breaking in, he says that he thought that I made that up, and had actually let my ex in, but was afraid my mom would be mad at me for doing so. The reason he thought this, supposedly, is that I looked over at my mom when I said that he had been hiding in my room. That was somehow proof to him that I was lying about it. I was super pissed when I found that out, how are you going to disbelieve what a victim is telling you based on something stupid like me turning to look at my mom when I said something???? Anyway, it went to trial and my ex got convicted of attacking me, but not of breaking and entering, the jury claimed that they believed me but they couldnt prove it. Whatever, I know it's true, but in reality, what Ive learned is, cops, lawyers, etc. think they can tell when people are lying, but they really have no idea....


Dear Solange,
That is a harrowing story! My heart goes out to you. I am glad you were cool enough to quickly decide on the best approach. Your survival acting must have been superb that night. You are skilled and lucky.

I agree with your reticence about the activities of some cops. I have found many USA cops to be highly trained observers with untrained minds. They often seem to get completely stuck on an idea following a subjective observation. That is probably what happened to you. This trait, however, makes these cops successful at solving crimes because they won't give up and are focused. Unfortunately, if they have targeted the wrong person as the perpetrator of a crime, that person has a much bigger problem.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:
...They often seem to get completely stuck on an idea following a subjective observation. That is probably what happened to you. This trait, however, makes these cops successful at solving crimes because they won't give up and are focused. Unfortunately, if they have targeted the wrong person as the perpetrator of a crime, that person has a much bigger problem.


Ah, yes, but then that's what lawyers, open courts, and constitutional laws are for!
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thanks everyone for the kind comments, honestly, I think it was for the best that that happened. It got him out of my life for good (he went to prison for 8 years for that, he just got out a year ago and doesn't really bother me much).

Also, I have to point out, aside from that one cop and his comment that ticked me off, there was a detective that was in charge of the case, his name was Detective Kimball, he was awesome. He would pick me up and drive me to court, he was very supportive and kind, a great guy. And the cop that made the comment that pissed me off wasn't bad either, he was mostly nice and helpful, just quite a bit mislead I think when it comes to reading people.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Oh, sorry Michael. I, um, pressed the link you gave to Zorba :oops:

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Cheers anyway H. I'm recovering from the news that Amanda had her arms tied behind her with Slipknot

sor-) is)

Right, stop confusing heck out of cultured people and go to sleep lawyer-with-flu-on-the-way. You're getting deliriums.... gnnnggh... /wrestles arms away from keyboard...


Flu again?? Does that mean you are online more the next few days analysing videos, testimony and photographs? You are quite witty and cute when you are ill.

No, seriously.. get well, rest in bed and drink plenty of fluids...
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange, it's great to hear the follow up to the story, and that you came across some good professional cops too. I suspect most cops are ok on the whole, but it's the bad ones everybody talks about. It's inevitable, and of course a terrible breach of trust when it happens to be you mistreated. But my sister works for the police, and they seem a totally normal decent bunch of people to me, really professional and extremely caring for victims.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Windfall wrote:
I don’t agree that not being so bothered about commentary on RS’s sexuality is in itself sexist. It’s the same argument that has come up in debates about racism and so-called reverse-racism: it might be pertinent if white people had been oppressed, abused and stereotyped for hundreds of years on account of the colour of their skin. They haven’t been. Neither have men been conditioned, controlled, stereotyped and punished for expressing their sexuality in ways deemed inappropriate by those in power for hundreds of years.


So, you're essentially saying sexism, racism and other 'isms' are only bad and unjust if they are against someone who's racial or gender forbears were oppressed some time back in history? Have I got that right?

I think if you look back in history you'll find many men have been oppressed too...for example, just consider being a male serf back in feudal England, or press ganged into the Royal Navy again and again during the Napoleonic Wars...the list could go on.


This is a good point Michael. If it's wrong it's wrong. Think about the issue of domestic violence windfall. It happens to men as well as women, but it is under-reported (due to stereotyping). Just because the majority of oppressors/spouse beaters are men perpetrating violence against women it doesn't mean that violence committed against men by women is not 'pertinent'. I agree also that men have been oppressed, abused and stereotyped throughout history! Violence is wrong, no matter if it is men or women who are using it. Racism is wrong, whether it is white racism towards black people, or black people against white people. That is a moral absolute, surely, not dependent upon the relative hard time each party has had throughout the centuries. What about the oppression of the (largely male) workers of the world? The social pressure on men to 'perform' and provide, based upon their sexuality? Huge pressure to behave in certain ways! You should read the report I have right here on men's mental health!!! It's quite an eye-opener. What about the number of men who die prematurely because they don't report symptoms to the doctor, because of sexual stereotyping about admitting weakness/asking for help????

Men's issues are just not as sexy, politically, and no-one wants to focus on them or fund studies on them. Incidence of male anorexia/bulimia? Increasing massively. Suicides: overwhelmingly male.

I don't get cross with you like Michael does, in fact I enjoy discussing things with you. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, and I for one love to hear it. You sound like me twenty years ago. :D I never thought I would find myself challenging a male feminist. It is very funny. Maybe I am a post-feminist!!!! Or maybe I just don't see things quite so black and white any more.



The feeling is mutual, TB. Although I often end feeling like I’m fifteen .. or as if you think I am, rather. ;)

Briefly, in response to both you and Michael, I am, you will be relieved to hear, not unaware of all kinds of injustices heaped on all types of people of both genders, all races, all classes, all sexualities, whatever, now and in different places and at different points in history. But there’s a reason why there is not such a thing as press-gangism, or serfism (not to be confused with Sufism), while there are such –isms as feminism, racism and... ermm... homophobia. That is the difference between discriminating against someone because they’re a serf, a stressed office worker, or an easily targeted husband on the one hand, and discriminating against someone purely on account of their gender (or race, or sexuality). Just to keep it as uncomplicated as possible, I will focus on feminism.

All kinds of terrible things happen to people who are unfairly treated for any number of reasons or ‘justifications’, but this is qualitatively, categorically different from sexism, which discriminates against women purely on the grounds of their sex, or misogyny, which hates women purely because they are women. And that’s rooted in thousands of years of society and culture, from Pandora and Eve onwards, and is still deeply embedded in social structures, in our assumptions, in our language, in our emotional and imaginative lives. Our. I don’t see myself as immune from the same processes. We are all inevitable victims of our cultural heritage in that sense.

I think the mistake that is often made is the assumption that because someone is committed to social change to achieve a more just society where women are perceived, spoken about, valued, rewarded on equal terms with men, this means that that someone is unconcerned by, or blind to, other kinds of injustice. The fact that the issue of men as victims of domestic violence has been under-reported and largely ignored is a terrible injustice. And it may be that the efforts of all kinds of people, feminist or not, to bring to light the much greater problem of women as victims of domestic violence, and to do something about it, has had an impact on the sweeping of women abusing men under the carpet. Or it may be that the latter has only come to attention *because* of campaigns against domestic violence in general. Whichever the case may be, it does not invalidate the priorities and efforts of feminism.

By the way, I agree entirely about damaging stereotypes of masculinity. Absolutely. I am not sure, again, whether there would have been such an awareness of those issues today if feminism had not raised them in the first place, as feminism has over the past couple of decades morphed into feminismS, post-feminism and gender studies rather than just “feminism” (which is, as you imply, seen by many as a rather outdated term these days). Incidentally, I’m not sure I am entirely comfortable with the idea that I read here and there that a man is not entitled to call himself a feminist – only a pro-feminist. Damn that reverse-sexism. I'll keep calling myself a feminist until I get hit over the head with a copy of The Female Eunuch by a butch lesbian with hairy legs. Ooops. What am I saying?

Anyway, I don’t think the point about Knox has to do with whether or not she was oppressed. From what I can tell, she led a comfortable, privileged, middle class existence and a relatively carefree life until the day she took part in Meredith’s murder.

At the same time, I am bothered by, and academically interested in, some representations of her in media and internet discourses, which I think are rooted in certain assumptions about women, and specifically women and sexuality and women and crime. I am even more bothered by the FOA/Mellox/Marriott attempts to distort and derail the process of justice. But I have more to learn from much wiser heads here on how those processes are uncoiling, and am happy to read and learn. Where my academic interests impinge more directly, I will more often stick out an oar, or a finger to the wind, and see who snaps them off.

Maybe I don’t need one big white horse. Maybe I need a whole field of white horses (sorry, that’s a very specific joke the for the benefit of those who watched the recent series of The Apprentice on UK TV).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

OT.

I was reading the exchange which led to the above and thinking also about the mention of my ava. I thought I would repost part of a pm I sent because I think it interesting for both discussions

" My ava annoys people largely because of that archetype. It is one of the reasons I use it. I find several things interesting about it. First, the way yoko ono is portrayed is indeed very negative because she "broke up the beatles". It seems obvious to me that JL was very happy with her and that he grew and learned because of the association. But that fact makes him in no way responsible for that break up: cherche la femme!!. Second, she is a brave and interesting woman who really did fight for many of the rights we now take for granted. To some extent she informs my approach to feminism: she could have been subsumed, but no matter how easy that looked on the surface it never happened: there is a strength of character in that and a profound analysis as well. Her approach to sexual freedom, to take one example, recognised the limtations that stereotypes set on both genders: and the actions were undertaken by a man and a woman together. How different from what is now proposed as freedom, and which really entails the freedom to conform to male stereotypes and take your clothes off for corporate profit: as your own free choice of course :) Third it is interesting that several people have actually seen fit to ask me to remove it. I do not know if that is something which happens a lot: I have seen such requests made of gory avas: and of course explicit porn is usually not allowed. But this is a picture of a woman's face. I wonder if those who feel strongly enough to ask for it to be removed ever reflect on the implications of that, in terms of entitlement and the strength of their feelings. I sometimes idly speculate about that. No real conclusions, but for no effort it gives me food for thought, from time to time. People get used to it, of course, and that stops happening regularly: but still newcomers sometimes mention it. Now I am in search of a new home and if ava's are allowed where I settle it may have to be done all over again: JREF was my second home board and it happened at my previous home as well.There is something at work there, I believe."

I am not sure if others can see the relevance, but it makes connections for me :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Windfall,

I do understand your points especially the one where like for example if a black guy were to call a white guy; Hey Whitey! It has absolutely no power. As you said, white people were not enslaved and brutalised through colonialization like black people were.

I'm too exhausted right now to write as I have been up all weekend working.
In fact I do understand everyone's take on it, I am a feminist, at least my ex told me I was or should be when I ran away from her when she gave chase with a rusty can opener trying to castrate me.
We did live happily ever after, she in Arizona and me in the European meadows.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Winfall wrote:
But there’s a reason why there is not such a thing as press-gangism, or serfism (not to be confused with Sufism), while there are such –isms as feminism, racism and... ermm... homophobia. That is the difference between discriminating against someone because they’re a serf, a stressed office worker, or an easily targeted husband on the one hand, and discriminating against someone purely on account of their gender (or race, or sexuality). Just to keep it as uncomplicated as possible, I will focus on feminism.

All kinds of terrible things happen to people who are unfairly treated for any number of reasons or ‘justifications’, but this is qualitatively, categorically different from sexism, which discriminates against women purely on the grounds of their sex, or misogyny, which hates women purely because they are women.


So historically, sexism only applies to women? What about that nice long standing tradition of on a sinking ship 'women and children into the lifeboats first' and if there's not enough for the men they can all just drown? Or for racism, just look at the treatment of white farmers in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. In terms of class it has traditionally been the poor that have been downtrodden, yet one wouldn't have wanted to be an aristocrat in revolutionary France or Russia.

Look, I get what you're saying and accept that in regards to sexism or racism, some exceptions aside, it has overwhelmingly been applied to women or 'non-white' racial groups.

However, if one is to win the war against discrimination one has to pick their battles. And I would say in this case, in regard to Amanda Knox, it is the wrong battle or at least the battle is being fought in the wrong way. Nobody in this case has used Amanda's being a female to argue that she's guilty. However, many people (or some people very loudly) HAVE argued that she's innocent because she's female (what woman commits brutal murders? What woman commits sexual crimes?). Moreover, these same people have also made the argument that Rudy Guede is clearly guilty because he's male (that's what lone men do, they break into women's houses and rape and murder them...case closed!). That kind of simplistic discrimination in THIS case is dangerous, whether you want to call it positive or negative discrimination or anything else, because it is completely contradicted by the actual 'evidence'.

I am against the blanket application of stereo-types. However, there are some cases where people live up to the stereo-types...amongst women for example there really have been Lady MacBeth figures, or femme fatales or black widows. They are the exception, not the rule, but they exist nevertheless. So, each individual case must be treated on its own merits if one is to achieve truth and the merits in THIS case (as in all crimes) is the evidence. That has to be both the starting and ending point. Agendas, including feminist ones, fog that up.

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


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
OT.

I was reading the exchange which led to the above and thinking also about the mention of my ava. I thought I would repost part of a pm I sent because I think it interesting for both discussions

" My ava annoys people largely because of that archetype.
Third it is interesting that several people have actually seen fit to ask me to remove it.



Very interesting post, Fiona. I am wondering if the case is that some people have an idea in their own minds as to how they wish to perceive you and this avatar bugs them. Here at PMF you are loved and adored and I expect some would wish to see a fluffy puppy or kitten perhaps?

I think the variety of avatars is great... and those that blow categories out the water even better!


Last edited by H9 on Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
OT.
I was reading the exchange which led to the above and thinking also about the mention of my ava. I thought I would repost part of a pm I sent because I think it interesting for both discussions

" My ava annoys people largely because of that archetype.
Third it is interesting that several people have actually seen fit to ask me to remove it.

You're not yoko ono -- why do you use yoko onos picture as your avatar. It is irritating. Why have you done it?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Well ttroon, Bard has a rabbit for her avatar. She's not a bunny either. Do people have to 'be' their avatar?

One good purpose for an avatar is to provoke thought, some consideration of things that may lie beneath. I think Fiona's avatar does that quite well.

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Omg!!! Jokin' I was! I find the picture of Yoko reminds me of da horror movie! The Ring (see earlier post) Also as I know Fiona off the board now I don't associate her with horror movies but more with her beautiful artistic sensibilities, and love of nature. I suggested an owl for a good reason!!! Owls intelligent/beautiful horror movies - nasty. Nuffin to do with da Beatles (don't get me started on John 'wife-beater' Lennon, God rest his beautiful soul). He was a right misoginist pig! Er, genius...sorry, God. I did object to the picture of Amanda on the electric chair which I found a bit much. H9, yours is purrrfect if I may say...and Fiona's is just Fiona's. It just jars with me cos of the film, not Yoko.

Fiona, you and SA should join together and share flu bugs. Glad u resting up today. Two sufferers on one board...It's an epidemic!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:

Cheers anyway H. I'm recovering from the news that Amanda had her arms tied behind her with Slipknot

sor-) is)

Right, stop confusing heck out of cultured people and go to sleep lawyer-with-flu-on-the-way. You're getting deliriums.... gnnnggh... /wrestles arms away from keyboard...


Flu again?? Does that mean you are online more the next few days analysing videos, testimony and photographs? You are quite witty and cute when you are ill.

No, seriously.. get well, rest in bed and drink plenty of fluids...




Well thank you. In that case, I shall endeavour to get the lurgy more often!

In the meantime, in honour of CD-Host, escapee of churches, logic and fact, and his belief that Amanda Knox was rabbit-punched by the police putting her life in danger (nearly murderised before she gets suicided geez, eh? Poor Manders) huh-) I have changed my avatar for the foreseeable future until someone comes up with something even more ludicrous. It probably won't be all that long.


SA

p.s. I spotted that edit on Slipknot H9. I was trying to do Slipknot(s) I think but flu brain got there first. Anyway, I've seen them live. What a mad gig that was (but an entirely 'nother story).

_________________
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 ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Re: Reported trail of blood betwixt upstairs and downstairs apartments.

Catnip wrote:
Probably the cat. With the sore ear. Or maybe Rudy on his first trip, before anything had happened, checking out the downstairs flat for a free night, when he says he knocked and there was no-one home, tracked stuff up and down the stairs and pathway.

In one of the news videos, the police are checking out the shed. And the door to the downstairs was kicked in by the police to gain quick entry for some reason. I think they thought there might have been someone injured. And there were stains when they got inside. Some news photos taken from the road and looking through the door show them checking out a sofa cover or something. But the blood turned out to be the cat's.


But why was the cat injured? How many times have you seen a cat injured/bleeding profusely -- the cat had a cut ear - reportedly - how did that happen? Cat blood forming a blood trail from the upstairs apartment to downstairs? If the cat got injured why on that night? Recently I highlighted here that it was too extreme a co-incidence that a bomb threat would be phoned through, on that night to the residence the mobile phones were dumped at. The impossibility of this "co-incidence" was recently addressed within a TJMK article. I think it was Solleceto who got an acquaintance to phone through the bomb threat or did it himself (reports the caller sounded very young). The reason? Guede toook the phones. Kokomani stated he was offered 250 euros the same amount that was stolen from Meredith Kercher by Guede. Guedes fingerprints were found on Meredith Kerchers handbag. Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control. Solleceto after the murder was completely out of control -- still drunk - crazy - drugged.

At some stage during the night there may have been an argument in the downstairs apartment (possibly over the dope plants) .. Meredith Kercher may have encountered Guede/AK/Soll. trying to get all or some of the plants. The argument may have started downstairs (hence the blood trail from downstairs to upstairs). Out of control AK injured the cat with the knife as a demonstration of power (if the cat was injured). But more strongly - initial confrontation between Meredith Kercher and her killers AK and Soll. may have occured in the downstairs apartment. AK may have retrieved the keys to the downstairs apartment when she stole Meredith Kercher's money from her room. Initial argument/wounding -- possibly, yes of the cat may have occurred in the downstairs aparment - then Meredith Kercher may have ran upstairs to find her money was gone. Guede reported that there was an argument over missing money. The culmination of the argument was in Meredith Kercher's room right after she found it was missing -- AK/RS had followed her up there. Crazy/drunk with knives on hard drugs.

Again - How often in its life will a cat get injured, be bleeding profusely. If a cat got injured (which is extremely uncommon) -- why on that evening?


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

People have asked you to remove Yoko? That's just weird to me. Weird.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

http://hpronline.org/hprgument/amanda-k ... be-guilty/

Amanda Knox Might Be Guilty

"In 2008, 16,277 people were murdered in the United States. 1,176 of these murders were committed by women, of which about a third were confirmed to be white. That means that in one year there were around 400 white female murderers on US soil— the majority of whom were convicted to no public outcry. What America needs to ask itself is: does the fact that Amanda Knox is a white sorority sister exonerate her from the murder she is alleged to have committed on foreign soil?

The fact of the matter is, those that immediately claim that Knox was wrongly accused and jailed by a corrupt justice system make two extremely arrogant assumptions that reveal perverse American exceptionalism. 1) It is assumed that, as an American – an American woman no less – Knox is incapable of murder. This case differs, of course, from the 1,176 domestic murders committed by women because, well, who knows? 2) It is assumed that not only is the Italian justice system incapable of fulfilling its legal duties, but that the intentions of the court were swayed by anti-Americanism. This is not merely an abstract sentiment, but was actually articulated by Senator Maria Cantwell (D) of my home state of Washington.

... I want to remind us all of one thing: Italy’s murder rate is 1/3 that of America. Perhaps, without the actions of one American there’d be one less death in Italy’s tally. I’ll leave that judgment up to the only court that really matters in such a case, the court of law."



Alex Koenig is a columnist with the World section of the Harvard Political Review. As a freshman at Harvard College, he is studying Government and Sociology. He speaks Greek, French and German and enjoys ice cream and a nice pair of slacks.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:18 pm   Post subject: What's On   

Yoko who? The young ones wouldn't know Adam from Adamant. :)
The power of an avatar is in what it evokes.
Likewise, a vague answer to a parent's question is filled in by their evoked generous assumptions.
The mask of recognition has never been worn by the little girl; it has been worn by the grown-ups around her looking at her. Since infinity.


Thursday night, 20 January 2011

  • There's a Beatles 60s Tribute concert on at the San Domenico Auditorium in Foligno starting at 9pm [here]: Gabriella Rivelli and Corrado Peronelli are the piano duo.

I've always found the 70s Beatles to be too much the same chord over and over and over - the inspiration of marijuana, I presume, as Sir Paul freely admitted ('It was only one spliff, honestly" - see: Statement Analysis, about the 'honestly', and 'only' and 'one'; and maybe even the 'was' :) ).

More to my tastes is
  • the High Voltage concert at Millenovecento Pub in Piegaro, a tribute to AC/DC (whoo hoo!), starting at 22:00 [here].


"It's a long way to the top (if you want a sausage roll)" - possible theme song for hungry students in hilly Perugia.

Get dancing!

dance-)

(chorus)
i said high,
high volt-age, rock and roll
high volt-age, rock and roll
high volt-age,
high volt-age,
high volt-age, rock and roll



Meet you by the disco buses in Piazza Grimana.
See you later!
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control.



The timings don't work for that scenario because the bomb threat precedes the rest of the events. Alessandra Formica and Luke Minciotti stated that they were nearly knocked over by a running black man at around 22.30 - 22.40 by their recollection who was running on the stairs next to the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Then you need to add at least ten minutes (full blown running by a fit young man) to get to the garden where the phones were found opposite the end of Parco Sant'Angelo, so call it 22.45. The bomb threat was phoned in at 22.00 on the night of the 1st according to the Massei report (p.25) "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call." That doesn't even include how Guede was supposed to communicate where the phones had been thrown (or why he was doing so) given the lack of any cell phone traffic.

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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SA, re bathmat post: verrry interesting. I haven't watched that video for a long time, and it certainly does show a much clearer footprint than I recall. I have always wondered why there there was no reference made to testing of the underside of that bathmat for evidence of...er...horseradish or turnip juice. But have never been able to find any note of it. I'd love to have seen the jury members' faces when AK put forth the bathmat shuffle theory. The breath-taking audacity of it. Like anyone was going to believe that. She has clearly got away with some pretty poor lies in her time if she thought anyone other than her parents were going to fall for that. The underside of the mat is indeed extremely clean...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything.



A couple of minutes (15-20?) later and someone would have been conked on the head by a pair of flying phones.

That would have been a coincidence!
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Fiona wrote:
OT.
I was reading the exchange which led to the above and thinking also about the mention of my ava. I thought I would repost part of a pm I sent because I think it interesting for both discussions

" My ava annoys people largely because of that archetype.
Third it is interesting that several people have actually seen fit to ask me to remove it.

You're not yoko ono -- why do you use yoko onos picture as your avatar. It is irritating. Why have you done it?


Why purely to irritate you, Ttrrooonnniicc. Thought that would have been obvious :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://hpronline.org/hprgument/amanda-knox-might-be-guilty/

Amanda Knox Might Be Guilty

"In 2008, 16,277 people were murdered in the United States. 1,176 of these murders were committed by women, of which about a third were confirmed to be white. That means that in one year there were around 400 white female murderers on US soil— the majority of whom were convicted to no public outcry. What America needs to ask itself is: does the fact that Amanda Knox is a white sorority sister exonerate her from the murder she is alleged to have committed on foreign soil?

The fact of the matter is, those that immediately claim that Knox was wrongly accused and jailed by a corrupt justice system make two extremely arrogant assumptions that reveal perverse American exceptionalism. 1) It is assumed that, as an American – an American woman no less – Knox is incapable of murder. This case differs, of course, from the 1,176 domestic murders committed by women because, well, who knows? 2) It is assumed that not only is the Italian justice system incapable of fulfilling its legal duties, but that the intentions of the court were swayed by anti-Americanism. This is not merely an abstract sentiment, but was actually articulated by Senator Maria Cantwell (D) of my home state of Washington.

... I want to remind us all of one thing: Italy’s murder rate is 1/3 that of America. Perhaps, without the actions of one American there’d be one less death in Italy’s tally. I’ll leave that judgment up to the only court that really matters in such a case, the court of law."



Alex Koenig is a columnist with the World section of the Harvard Political Review. As a freshman at Harvard College, he is studying Government and Sociology. He speaks Greek, French and German and enjoys ice cream and a nice pair of slacks.



I see the groupies have flooded the comments section of his article already. Alex is trying to defend his position in the comments, but he's being smothered by sheer numbers...making all the usual assertions. Even CDHost is there.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
SA, re bathmat post: verrry interesting. I haven't watched that video for a long time, and it certainly does show a much clearer footprint than I recall. I have always wondered why there there was no reference made to testing of the underside of that bathmat for evidence of...er...horseradish or turnip juice. But have never been able to find any note of it. I'd love to have seen the jury members' faces when AK put forth the bathmat shuffle theory. The breath-taking audacity of it. Like anyone was going to believe that. She has clearly got away with some pretty poor lies in her time if she thought anyone other than her parents were going to fall for that. The underside of the mat is indeed extremely clean...



It does spoil my theory, that the mat was used to mop the floor :(

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


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:

I see the groupies have flooded the comments section of his article already. Alex is trying to defend his position in the comments, but he's being smothered by sheer numbers...making all the usual assertions. Even CDHost is there.


Somehow that reminds me of a plague of locusts.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control.



The timings don't work for that scenario because the bomb threat precedes the rest of the events. Alessandra Formica and Luke Minciotti stated that they were nearly knocked over by a running black man at around 22.30 - 22.40 by their recollection who was running on the stairs next to the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Then you need to add at least ten minutes (full blown running by a fit young man) to get to the garden where the phones were found opposite the end of Parco Sant'Angelo, so call it 22.45. The bomb threat was phoned in at 22.00 on the night of the 1st according to the Massei report (p.25) "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call." That doesn't even include how Guede was supposed to communicate where the phones had been thrown (or why he was doing so) given the lack of any cell phone traffic.


You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
It does spoil my theory, that the mat was used to mop the floor :(


The mat in the alibi was used to mop the floor.

Remember we're talking Film Script Adaptations 101 here, by a creative writing student.
If something doesn't "work", then something else will. What is reality? Especially when you have a page.

Talking about films, I wonder if Hayden did the bathmat shuffle? Or maybe that is in the alternative ending version.

Hmmm, front door open, traces here and there, camera tracking along the floor, shower scene, la-di-dah singing maybe, no towels (?!), hair-drying, camera guy filming Hayden ... This is definitely a film script: structure, sequence, blocking.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control.



The timings don't work for that scenario because the bomb threat precedes the rest of the events. Alessandra Formica and Luke Minciotti stated that they were nearly knocked over by a running black man at around 22.30 - 22.40 by their recollection who was running on the stairs next to the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Then you need to add at least ten minutes (full blown running by a fit young man) to get to the garden where the phones were found opposite the end of Parco Sant'Angelo, so call it 22.45. The bomb threat was phoned in at 22.00 on the night of the 1st according to the Massei report (p.25) "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call." That doesn't even include how Guede was supposed to communicate where the phones had been thrown (or why he was doing so) given the lack of any cell phone traffic.





You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.



I don't think there is a relevant statistical improbability. The bomb hoax only has relevance to the phones if you assume a priori a connection between the two things. If instead, for bomb threat, we substitute that Elisabetta Lana, as the owner of the house, received a phone call from a long lost relative whom she had not spoken to for thirty years, we can say for the sake of argument that a tiny tiny fraction of 1 percent of people in Italy received such a phonecall that night. Perhaps the only household (whether for the bomb hoax or the long-lost relative of 30 years). Yet, because we assume there's no link between the two things - a call from a long lost relative and the throwing of the phones - there's no statistical improbability assumed. Similarly, the bomb hoax has no relevance unless you already assume it does, which the timings of the calls / events helps to put in context as extremely unlikely indeed / impossible.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:

You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.


Alternatively, as Signora Carlizzi (may she rest in peace) might have said: Something is right.

I think the downstairs is relevant somehow, since Rudy mentioned it specifically to rattle Amanda. Maybe the plants; maybe the cat.

The statistics, as I see it, are the other way round: what are the odds of a chance event entering into a murder investigation in a significant way?

Fairly high, according to the criminologists. They happen often enough that chance is one of the major ways crimes get solved, besides evidence, confessions, and deductions by investigators. Mistakes by the crims/perps/suspects is another major component, and we've seen that in this case, as well.

The improbability is the little boy in Rome picking Mrs Lana's number (if he was a stranger to her).
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control.



The timings don't work for that scenario because the bomb threat precedes the rest of the events. Alessandra Formica and Luke Minciotti stated that they were nearly knocked over by a running black man at around 22.30 - 22.40 by their recollection who was running on the stairs next to the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Then you need to add at least ten minutes (full blown running by a fit young man) to get to the garden where the phones were found opposite the end of Parco Sant'Angelo, so call it 22.45. The bomb threat was phoned in at 22.00 on the night of the 1st according to the Massei report (p.25) "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call." That doesn't even include how Guede was supposed to communicate where the phones had been thrown (or why he was doing so) given the lack of any cell phone traffic.


You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.



You realise they traced the individual who made the call? Sometimes bizarre coincidences happen. Life can sometimes be stranger then fiction. It's when the coincidences start stacking up around a certain individual/s alarm bells should start to ring.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
The mat in the alibi was used to mop the floor.


Well, implicitly only.

But, I'm thinking...if the bottom of the mat is clean, could that have been the purpose of the 'bath mat boogie' story? Amanda would have known the underneath of the mat was clean since she hadn't used it for that purpose, but something 'else', to clean. Her story therefore would have led the police up the garden path, to assume there had been no clean-up and so would not have looked for one and focused only on the visible traces. Only, if that was the case, it didn't work.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control.



The timings don't work for that scenario because the bomb threat precedes the rest of the events. Alessandra Formica and Luke Minciotti stated that they were nearly knocked over by a running black man at around 22.30 - 22.40 by their recollection who was running on the stairs next to the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Then you need to add at least ten minutes (full blown running by a fit young man) to get to the garden where the phones were found opposite the end of Parco Sant'Angelo, so call it 22.45. The bomb threat was phoned in at 22.00 on the night of the 1st according to the Massei report (p.25) "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call." That doesn't even include how Guede was supposed to communicate where the phones had been thrown (or why he was doing so) given the lack of any cell phone traffic.


You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.



You realise they traced the individual who made the call? Sometimes bizarre coincidences happen. Life can sometimes be stranger then fiction. It's when the coincidences start stacking up around a certain individual/s alarm bells should start to ring.



Probability is much abused in the online commentary on this case imho. The idea that all the events of the case can be put together in a baysian calculator - as proposed elsewhere - and say something meaningful about it is purest internet-hogwash. As you say, what matters is when you have specific events happening in connection with the direct actions of persons of interest in a case.

Thoughtful is the expert on this -and I do mean expert- I've tried to coax her out of the shadows on this. Thoughtful - consider yourself coaxed some more.

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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:39 pm   Post subject: On the Buses   

I'm expecting the Norman Club, [here], to be on the Disco Bus Defence list, since they organise a shuttlebus service:

[buses]:
"per la serata sono previste NAVETTE GRATUITE in partenza da Piazza Grimana a partire dalle 23.45."
(for the evening, there will free shuttle buses leaving from Piazza Grimana from 23:45)

Same with the Urban Club [here].

Shuttle buses are organised on big nights.

The Domus Delirii ("House of Delirirum") disco-pub is open every night, as befits students, and doesn't need transportation since all they need to do is just roll out of lectures.

Interestingly, I found the Merlin pub does Halloweens especially for ERASMUS students.

Le Chic was where La Zoologique used to be, apparently.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Probability is much abused in the online commentary on this case imho. The idea that all the events of the case can be put together in a baysian calculator - as proposed elsewhere - and say something meaningful about it is purest internet-hogwash. As you say, what matters is when you have specific events happening in connection with the direct actions of persons of interest in a case.


What are the odds of a horse winning the Melbourne Cup? 100%
What are the odds of Sir Knight-of-the-Paunch claiming his little princess didn't do it, ever? 100%
What are the odds of David Anderson and Amy Johnstone unthinkingly copy-pasting slabs of PR into op-ed pieces?

The probability (self-)abuse arises from a semantic confusion from watching too much TV: "What are your chances with the jury?" (meaning, "How lenient are they going to be, do you expect?"; but the self-abusers don't realise it means that) is replaced with: "I've studied the House; I know how to beat the odds; I have a system; give me some money."

Rational discussion won't budge that idea.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:

You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.


Alternatively, as Signora Carlizzi (may she rest in peace) might have said: Something is right.

I think the downstairs is relevant somehow, since Rudy mentioned it specifically to rattle Amanda. Maybe the plants; maybe the cat.

The statistics, as I see it, are the other way round: what are the odds of a chance event entering into a murder investigation in a significant way?

Fairly high, according to the criminologists. They happen often enough that chance is one of the major ways crimes get solved, besides evidence, confessions, and deductions by investigators. Mistakes by the crims/perps/suspects is another major component, and we've seen that in this case, as well.

The improbability is the little boy in Rome picking Mrs Lana's number (if he was a stranger to her).


What are the chances of this? 14th Jan news story here in the UK:

Husband 'who hacked brother-in-law to pieces caught when bird dropped severed thumb from the sky'

A husband who hacked his brother-in-law to pieces was caught when a severed thumb 'fell from the sky' after being dropped by a bird, a court heard today.

Mohammed Riaz, 33, allegedly kidnapped Mahmood Ahmad, 41, and tortured him to death in an attempt to track down his estranged ex-wife Nahid Ahmad.

He enlisted the help of five accomplices to kidnap, imprison and murder father-of-two Mahmood with a mechanical butcher's saw, St Albans Crown Court heard.

His remains have never been found and the gang was only arrested after a member of the public found Mahmood's severed left thumb in a car park.

A prosecutor told the jury that CCTV footage captured the digit falling mysteriously from the sky and police believe it might have been dropped by a bird which had picked it up."

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Reading some of the probability arguments, I'm reminded of N F Simpson's play "One Way Pendulum"...I was once involved in a stage production of it many years ago. There is a scene where the main character has to give evidence in court (I think it was a court that he built in his own living room) and is cross-examined along the lines of: "So, Mr Groomkirby, do you really expect the court to believe that you were at that particular place at that time? Do you realise how many millions of places in the world you could have been? The probability of you being in that one exact place is absolutely negligible. Not only that: out of all the possible millions of instants during your life, you expect us to believe that you were there at this one specific instant. The coincidence of both these improbable events is so unlikely that the court cannot possibly accept it." I don't remember the exact dialogue, but this is the gist of it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Interesting discussion on use/misuse of statistics and probability in the case.

The most blatant misuse IMHO has been the never ending groupie talking point about how the relatively high percentage of Italian lower verdicts being overturned on Appeals bodes so well for the probability of AK and RS being freed.
Edda literally beat this to death on her 'Dog and Pony Marriott managed morning TV' circuit

The mis use is that the overall percentage of successful appeals makes no distinction between a 427 page explained unanimously convicted murderess appeal and the run of the mill appeal of a split decision (judge tie breaker) conviction of a minor 'victimless' crime.

Seems to me the 'probability' of successful appeal is much much higher for the minor victimless split decision incident.
Therefore using one overall appeal statistical probability number dramatically skews and reduces significance of the 'statistic' as a valid indicator of any particular future outcome.


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Catnip wrote:
The mat in the alibi was used to mop the floor.


...if the bottom of the mat is clean, ... 'bath mat boogie' story? A.


It's beginning to sound like a Dr Seuss story... The mat that sat .... a mop that hopped....a known phone in the zone...


411... Dr Seuss is your specialty....
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hello all,
the board needs to upgraded to its latest version.
It's not something that has to be done immediately but it has to be done.

Upgrading the board means that the board will have to be down for a day (hopefully, only a few hours) and then, without doubt, more work will have to be done after the upgrade is completed because not everything will be working right after the upgrade (many other things need to be upgraded as well once the forum is upgraded).

I am trying to figure out when the best time for the upgrade could be in the near future (let's say in the next two months).
I guess the best time to upgrade is when there are no court hearings.

The next hearing is scheduled for this Saturday.
Can anyone tell me what the schedule is after the 22nd?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
I guess the best time to upgrade is when there are no court hearings.

The next hearing is scheduled for this Saturday.
Can anyone tell me what the schedule is after the 22nd?


Thanks again for your efforts to help all of us.

I believe the only 'schedule' that has been announced so far is the intent to resume 'once a week' (saturday) hearings after 22jan

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/72922,peo ... nal-appeal
(last sentence of last paragraph)
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
OT.

....

I am not sure if others can see the relevance, but it makes connections for me :)


I've only ever seen your avatar as an afterthought. I don't know how anyone could have read a "Fiona" post here or anywhere and thought to themselves: "Good post, too bad about the avatar." Amazing what people can infer from a little blob of 200 x 200 pixels!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Michael wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Guede took the cash, her credit cards and the phones. In his last conversation with Solleceto within the apartment he agreed to take them. Later he disposed of them improperly. Solleceto found out where he'd disposed of them. Someone here quoted italian tabloid reports of a "mob" outside that residence. Solleceto had allied with associates - drunk, out of control to retrieve the phones. They couldn't find them -- then they phoned through a bomb threat because they were wild and out of control.



The timings don't work for that scenario because the bomb threat precedes the rest of the events. Alessandra Formica and Luke Minciotti stated that they were nearly knocked over by a running black man at around 22.30 - 22.40 by their recollection who was running on the stairs next to the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. Then you need to add at least ten minutes (full blown running by a fit young man) to get to the garden where the phones were found opposite the end of Parco Sant'Angelo, so call it 22.45. The bomb threat was phoned in at 22.00 on the night of the 1st according to the Massei report (p.25) "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call." That doesn't even include how Guede was supposed to communicate where the phones had been thrown (or why he was doing so) given the lack of any cell phone traffic.


You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.



You realise they traced the individual who made the call? Sometimes bizarre coincidences happen. Life can sometimes be stranger then fiction. It's when the coincidences start stacking up around a certain individual/s alarm bells should start to ring.



Probability is much abused in the online commentary on this case imho. The idea that all the events of the case can be put together in a baysian calculator - as proposed elsewhere - and say something meaningful about it is purest internet-hogwash. As you say, what matters is when you have specific events happening in connection with the direct actions of persons of interest in a case.

Thoughtful is the expert on this -and I do mean expert- I've tried to coax her out of the shadows on this. Thoughtful - consider yourself coaxed some more.


Probability is indeed abused. But the issue with the so-called Bayesians is that they omit or ignore data that cannot be assigned probability (eg unlike 30 downstrokes in a signature) instead of placing a value on it and including it in the prior probability part of the equation. The best example of this in the current case is the discarding of the contrasting and changing stories told to the police. Because there is such a strong correlation between lying to the police and guilt (there's even a separate crime for it called obstruction of justice in Canada) the prior probability nears 90% or higher.

There were also a lot of coincidences involved in this case. The one that jumps out is the early arrival of the police and the decision made by Filomena to send over friends who could reach the cottage before her. The convergence of the authorities and others upon the cottage frustrated the plan Knox and Sollecito had cooked up to use Filomena as an unwitting dupe.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
Hello all,
the board needs to upgraded to its latest version.
It's not something that has to be done immediately but it has to be done.

Upgrading the board means that the board will have to be down for a day (hopefully, only a few hours) and then, without doubt, more work will have to be done after the upgrade is completed because not everything will be working right after the upgrade (many other things need to be upgraded as well once the forum is upgraded).

I am trying to figure out when the best time for the upgrade could be in the near future (let's say in the next two months).
I guess the best time to upgrade is when there are no court hearings.

The next hearing is scheduled for this Saturday.
Can anyone tell me what the schedule is after the 22nd?



Someone may want to PM JREF the date, so they can find something else to talk about that day.....sorry, couldn't resist Mua-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:
Interesting discussion on use/misuse of statistics and probability in the case.

The most blatant misuse IMHO has been the never ending groupie talking point about how the relatively high percentage of Italian lower verdicts being overturned on Appeals bodes so well for the probability of AK and RS being freed.
Edda literally beat this to death on her 'Dog and Pony Marriott managed morning TV' circuit

The mis use is that the overall percentage of successful appeals makes no distinction between a 427 page explained unanimously convicted murderess appeal and the run of the mill appeal of a split decision (judge tie breaker) conviction of a minor 'victimless' crime.

Seems to me the 'probability' of successful appeal is much much higher for the minor victimless split decision incident.
Therefore using one overall appeal statistical probability number dramatically skews and reduces significance of the 'statistic' as a valid indicator of any particular future outcome.


According to Edda, the Italian system does not make allowances for evidence presented in court or whether or not someone may actually be guilty. In Italy, guilt and time-in-jail are determined solely upon chance, averages, probability, and how quickly you can push through the first appeal process where 50% of all defendants are always found innocent regardless of evidence or any other extenuating circumstances.

It’s an interesting concept that legal scholars must debate and evaluate. This innovative cosmic crap shoot approach to justice may well be worthy of serious consideration the world over as an alternative to current human-based justice systems that are expensive, awkward, hard to understand, and just plain stupid!


Last edited by Fly by Night on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:43 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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: What's On   

Catnip wrote:
Yoko who? The young ones wouldn't know Adam from Adamant. :)
The power of an avatar is in what it evokes.
Likewise, a vague answer to a parent's question is filled in by their evoked generous assumptions.
The mask of recognition has never been worn by the little girl; it has been worn by the grown-ups around her looking at her. Since infinity.


Thursday night, 20 January 2011

  • There's a Beatles 60s Tribute concert on at the San Domenico Auditorium in Foligno starting at 9pm [here]: Gabriella Rivelli and Corrado Peronelli are the piano duo.

I've always found the 70s Beatles to be too much the same chord over and over and over - the inspiration of marijuana, I presume, as Sir Paul freely admitted ('It was only one spliff, honestly" - see: Statement Analysis, about the 'honestly', and 'only' and 'one'; and maybe even the 'was' :) ).

More to my tastes is
  • the High Voltage concert at Millenovecento Pub in Piegaro, a tribute to AC/DC (whoo hoo!), starting at 22:00 [here].


"It's a long way to the top (if you want a sausage roll)" - possible theme song for hungry students in hilly Perugia.

Get dancing!

dance-)

(chorus)
i said high,
high volt-age, rock and roll
high volt-age, rock and roll
high volt-age,
high volt-age,
high volt-age, rock and roll



Meet you by the disco buses in Piazza Grimana.
See you later!



I say old bean,

Catnip you do not know what you are talking about on the Beatles, get this, they ceased to exist at the end of 60's so the 70's Beatles, whatever do you mean?

They were never a one chord band at all, this tells me you are not a musician yourself, each Beatles song was vastly different (vastly interesting too for musicians or ones trying to be), Mccartney loving melodies and Lennon writing brilliant songs, with lovely ever-changing chord sequences.
You may know 'stuff' but this is something you sound very ignorant in.

I've seen a music professor expressing how astounded he was by Beatles music, they having written certain musical lines withoyt even knowing they'd done so (perfect models of) models that the biggest classically trained composers/musicians try for their entire lives but never manage to achieve.

Love Yoko, anyone wants to know, read Lennon Remembers, wash your ears with cotton wool and soap beforehand if you are offended by swearing.

Zorba woz ere.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fly by Night wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Interesting discussion on use/misuse of statistics and probability in the case.

The most blatant misuse IMHO has been the never ending groupie talking point about how the relatively high percentage of Italian lower verdicts being overturned on Appeals bodes so well for the probability of AK and RS being freed.
Edda literally beat this to death on her 'Dog and Pony Marriott managed morning TV' circuit

The mis use is that the overall percentage of successful appeals makes no distinction between a 427 page explained unanimously convicted murderess appeal and the run of the mill appeal of a split decision (judge tie breaker) conviction of a minor 'victimless' crime.

Seems to me the 'probability' of successful appeal is much much higher for the minor victimless split decision incident.
Therefore using one overall appeal statistical probability number dramatically skews and reduces significance of the 'statistic' as a valid indicator of any particular future outcome.


According to Edda, the Italian system does not make allowances for evidence presented in court or whether or not someone may actually be guilty. In Italy, guilt and time-in-jail are determined solely upon chance, averages, probability, and how quickly you can push through the first appeal process where 50% of all defendants will always found innocent regardless of evidence or any other extenuating circumstances.

It’s an interesting concept that legal scholars must debate and evaluate. This innovative cosmic crap shoot approach to justice may well be worthy of serious consideration the world over as an alternative to current human-based justice systems that are expensive, awkward, hard to understand, and just plain stupid!


Which 50% will the murderous lovers be in, do you think ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Interesting discussion on use/misuse of statistics and probability in the case.

The most blatant misuse IMHO has been the never ending groupie talking point about how the relatively high percentage of Italian lower verdicts being overturned on Appeals bodes so well for the probability of AK and RS being freed.
Edda literally beat this to death on her 'Dog and Pony Marriott managed morning TV' circuit

The mis use is that the overall percentage of successful appeals makes no distinction between a 427 page explained unanimously convicted murderess appeal and the run of the mill appeal of a split decision (judge tie breaker) conviction of a minor 'victimless' crime.

Seems to me the 'probability' of successful appeal is much much higher for the minor victimless split decision incident.
Therefore using one overall appeal statistical probability number dramatically skews and reduces significance of the 'statistic' as a valid indicator of any particular future outcome.


According to Edda, the Italian system does not make allowances for evidence presented in court or whether or not someone may actually be guilty. In Italy, guilt and time-in-jail are determined solely upon chance, averages, probability, and how quickly you can push through the first appeal process where 50% of all defendants will always found innocent regardless of evidence or any other extenuating circumstances.

It’s an interesting concept that legal scholars must debate and evaluate. This innovative cosmic crap shoot approach to justice may well be worthy of serious consideration the world over as an alternative to current human-based justice systems that are expensive, awkward, hard to understand, and just plain stupid!


Which 50% will the murderous lovers be in, do you think ?


Since there is a 100% probability that 50% of all defendants will be found innocent then one of them has got to go down.

Because the Italian system is inherently corrupt, odds are in favor of it being the foreigner.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
Clander wrote:
Hello all,
the board needs to upgraded to its latest version.
It's not something that has to be done immediately but it has to be done.

Upgrading the board means that the board will have to be down for a day (hopefully, only a few hours) and then, without doubt, more work will have to be done after the upgrade is completed because not everything will be working right after the upgrade (many other things need to be upgraded as well once the forum is upgraded).

I am trying to figure out when the best time for the upgrade could be in the near future (let's say in the next two months).
I guess the best time to upgrade is when there are no court hearings.

The next hearing is scheduled for this Saturday.
Can anyone tell me what the schedule is after the 22nd?



Someone may want to PM JREF the date, so they can find something else to talk about that day.....sorry, couldn't resist Mua-)


me either


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

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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thanks stint.

Solange, :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


That don't look legal to me, chief.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you, Clander. :D
Top Profile 

Offline CDHost


Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:54 pm

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


That don't look legal to me, chief.



It's not legal. If you hover over the link you can see it re-directs to graboid.com which simply is a front end for torrents available on the web. You can argue the toss about legality and breach of copyright and the difference of the legality of the proprietary software is uses as not in itself breaking the law, but its purpose is to redirect you to torrented content which include movies still in cinema shot with shakycams. They make money of people who don't care about the fact they are ripping off the copyright holder but are not technically clued up enough to simply get it themselves. And you also run the unknown risk of spyware being in their front end software.

_________________
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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: What's On   

zorba wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Yoko who? The young ones wouldn't know Adam from Adamant. :)
The power of an avatar is in what it evokes.

....

Meet you by the disco buses in Piazza Grimana.
See you later!


....

I've seen a music professor expressing how astounded he was by Beatles music, they having written certain musical lines withoyt even knowing they'd done so (perfect models of) models that the biggest classically trained composers/musicians try for their entire lives but never manage to achieve.

....



If you strip out the engineering and production, though, they all really are pretty simple tunes.

Here's a listing I wrote on another forum in response to a structured Beatles' Greatest Hits album:

Quote:
17th October 2010, 10:50 PM #148
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard

Quote:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,566 Originally Posted by Piggy
Here's a question, then:

What would be your perfect 16-song Beatles "fantasy album"? Assume there must be a side-A and side-B, with a numbered track list.


Not sure I've organised them properly but I'll go with this:

SIDE A

Helter Skelter
Nowhere Man
A Hard Day's Night
Savoy Truffle
Day Tripper
I Am The Walrus
Dear Prudence
While My Guitar Gently Weeps

SIDE B

Revolution (fast version)
Eleanor Rigby
The Ballad Of John And Yoko
Sexy Sadie
With A Little Help From My Friends
The Long And Winding Road
Lady Madonna
A Day In The Life


I still prefer two or three songs from The Damned, Jonathan Richman, or The Pixies as much as or more than any of those but they'll do for now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

CDHost wrote:
DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.



See my avatar? That's in honour of your ludicrous claim on the Independent website that Amanda Knox was rabbit-punched in interview which put her life in danger. Amazing levels of horseshit that no-one has ever claimed in this case (not least Amanda who in her video testimony clearly mimics an open handed cuff over the head from the assailant she cannot identify from either of two alleged cuffs). Nor did you even know the basics about the length of interviews or when the statements were taken (you can see them here in the gallery with the times underlined in the original with Amanda's signature) which you then base elaborate theories on, all of which are shown to be based on a foundation of sand.

But more than that, as to you, who referred to Meredith Kercher as "worm-food" on IMDB, once again, on behalf of myself and others: fuck off you loathsome inadequate. No wonder you were thrown out of your church. You lack the moral standing or intelligence to recognise that you have been expounding loudly on a case in which you are unversed in even the basics, just propaganda. You demean your own intelligence by spouting untruths as a lacky to those who can't argue this case on the basis of the actual evidence but have to make things up to try to infuence public opinion. If you had a shred of decency, you would recognise you ought to have a very long look at yourself because you are a propaganda mouthpiece - a drone who is churning out the party line, based on the BS they told you, not the objective facts which you can verify yourself. What does that tell you about them or you?

Your permanent ban based on your callous comment about the victim of this murder is no doubt minutes away.

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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: What's On   

stilicho wrote:
Not sure I've organised them properly but I'll go with this:

SIDE A

Helter Skelter
Nowhere Man
A Hard Day's Night
Savoy Truffle
Day Tripper
I Am The Walrus
Dear Prudence
While My Guitar Gently Weeps

SIDE B

Revolution (fast version)
Eleanor Rigby
The Ballad Of John And Yoko
Sexy Sadie
With A Little Help From My Friends
The Long And Winding Road
Lady Madonna
A Day In The Life

I still prefer two or three songs from The Damned, Jonathan Richman, or The Pixies as much as or more than any of those but they'll do for now.



Wot? No "Let it Be" played with one chord?????? ser-)

_________________
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 capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I was struck by Fiona's likeness to Yoko. is)

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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

If the site is nasty then I would like to thank CDHOst for letting us know. That was kind
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

CDHost wrote:
Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


Thanks for the head's up CDHost
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: What's On   

stilicho wrote:
zorba wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Yoko who? The young ones wouldn't know Adam from Adamant. :)
The power of an avatar is in what it evokes.

....

Meet you by the disco buses in Piazza Grimana.
See you later!


....

I've seen a music professor expressing how astounded he was by Beatles music, they having written certain musical lines without even knowing they'd done so (perfect models of) models that the biggest classically trained composers/musicians try for their entire lives but never manage to achieve.

....



If you strip out the engineering and production, though, they all really are pretty simple tunes.

Here's a listing I wrote on another forum in response to a structured Beatles' Greatest Hits album:

Quote:
17th October 2010, 10:50 PM #148
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard

Quote:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,566 Originally Posted by Piggy
Here's a question, then:

What would be your perfect 16-song Beatles "fantasy album"? Assume there must be a side-A and side-B, with a numbered track list.


Not sure I've organised them properly but I'll go with this:

SIDE A

Helter Skelter
Nowhere Man
A Hard Day's Night
Savoy Truffle
Day Tripper
I Am The Walrus
Dear Prudence
While My Guitar Gently Weeps

SIDE B

Revolution (fast version)
Eleanor Rigby
The Ballad Of John And Yoko
Sexy Sadie
With A Little Help From My Friends
The Long And Winding Road
Lady Madonna
A Day In The Life


I still prefer two or three songs from The Damned, Jonathan Richman, or The Pixies as much as or more than any of those but they'll do for now.



Define what a complicated song is, I hope you know what you are talking about if you do so, I play classic, jazz, pop, rock, Baroque, Django Reinhardt numbers, children's complicated numbers.


It's not about what one's preferences are, come on, anyone can name whole lists of songs. The Beatles remain number one in the world because nobody has gotten close to their level.
This is whether one likes their songs or not.

There's nobody that has reached into as many homes, in as many countries, with songs that are instantly recognisable and more complicated than you think, they are because nobody manages to make songs like that. Elton John made a few, I don't like him but it's true, he has a few of those properly popular songs, yet he is nowhere near what the Beatles mean within music.
Bowie is nowhere near the Beatles and neither are thew Strolling Bones.
Queen are nowhere near the Beatles.

The Eagles, CSNY, the Mamas & the Papas, nobody is the Beatles except the Beatles, yeah, they is no good because I prefer Tommy and the Tank Engine.

Anyway, I must, to work, go, again, I see a storm is threatening, my very lunch today, be back after me calm down pills take effect and a few thousand words done be.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
If the site is nasty then I would like to thank CDHOst for letting us know. That was kind


Thank you for the warning. I, for one, wouldn't know what to watch out for.

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

Offline Agatha


Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:38 pm

Posts: 33

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I think CDHost's action in warning this board of the likelihood of the link being dangerous was a kind and generous thing to do.

I do not endorse his reference to Meredith Kercher as "wormfood"; I have seen his defence of his use of the word on JREF and think he is being remarkably disingenuous. It was a cruel and uncharitable way to describe any dead person, let alone a murder victim, and I am disappointed that he seems not to understand the offence it has caused. It's possible he does not care about causing offence, but as he took the time to warn this board of a dangerous link he clearly does have a conscience and so I am a little confused that he continues to defend his word.

But I do think, as he clearly has a lot of misconceptions about the case, that it would be kinder of PMF to return the favour he did to us by allowing him to continue to be a member so that he can learn more about the case from the source documents and videos, rather than have them filtered through FOA.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

CDHost wrote:
DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


The EXE file Graboid makes you download is not "spyware".
Their executable file is fine.
It's just another website that has its servers in the Barbados and that makes you pay (illegally) for something that you can get off any Torrent or P2P website (always illegally, of course).


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:17 pm   Post subject: Re: What's On   

zorba wrote:
Define what a complicated song is, I hope you know what you are talking about if you do so, I play classic, jazz, pop, rock, Baroque, Django Reinhardt numbers, children's complicated numbers.


I'll go with style hongrois for $200, Alex.

Anyhow, I wasn't about to embark on a musical exposition. I think you missed Catnip's sharp wit previously because The Beatles are also a certain vicious murderer's favourite band. Stripped down, without any engineering or production, on a bathmat hopping, with a one chord strumming.

band-)
or
wm)

Music to mop by? mop-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

'Hey Bulldog'... filmed playing in the studio is one of my favorites of all time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
CDHost wrote:
DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


The EXE file Graboid makes you download is not "spyware".
Their executable file is fine.
It's just another website that has its servers in the Barbados and that makes you pay (illegally) for something that you can get off any Torrent or P2P website (always illegally, of course).


That said, it's probably best to advise everyone to avoid sites that say "free download". Makes it simpler for those not as well versed.

As to CD-Host breaking the ban, it would be preferable if those under suspension would PM moderators about incidents such as this rather than posting them on the main board. Technical stuff should probably be adjudicated by admins/mods anyhow.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Italy is a very cultured nation

unlike some others which are becoming barbaric

Fernando de Lucia, "Quando le sere al placido", Verdi, Luisa Miller (rec. 1908)

Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

dgfred wrote:
'Hey Bulldog'... filmed playing in the studio is one of my favorites of all time.


That's one that was frequently cited. I only included my "Best Of..." but your selection made it onto quite a few of the compilations.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

So far as I know he is not banned. I think people are sometimes asked not to post specfically so that they can still use the resources here. I like that policy. Having said that, I repeat it was kind to warn us. I got something nasty on this computer by downloading something and I expect it is going to be expensive to fix. meanwhile it is slow and stuttery and hard to use. Some of us are caught out by stuff and the quicker we are warned the better.


Last edited by Fiona on Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:37 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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

That's a very helpful tip, Stillicho. Thanks.

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
So far as I know he is not banned. I think people are sometimes asked not to post specfically so that they can still use the resources here. I like that policy. Having said that, I repeat it was kind to warn us. I got something nasty on this computer by downloading something and I expect it is going to be expensive to fix. meanwhile it is slow and stuttery and hard to use. Some of us are caught out by stuff and the quicker we are warned the better.


My daughter's lap top is the same. Every search on Internet Explorer gets 'redirected' ta-)) .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Italy is a very cultured nation

unlike some others which are becoming barbaric

Fernando de Lucia, "Quando le sere al placido", Verdi, Luisa Miller (rec. 1908)


Here is something I could listen to day after day:



Fiona and dgfred,
please send me a PM.
I will get rid of your viruses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

OT:
The whole CDhost story inspired my to write this as follows:
I am not semi banned, but almost out, I believe...
I really don't know if it's a good thing to say. I know it's too little too late and nothing's gonna change the fact that I messed up, big time. However, I wanted to apologize. All of you, I sincerely apologize for being two faced, for lying, for not thinking through all of my actions. In fact, some people here, were more than friendly to me, they trusted me and showed me sympathy and never hesitated to chat and so on, but I failed.


First of all. I apologize to Skep and Michael, beacuse they allowed me (when I first joined), to post, to enjoy the experience of PMF, to meet great people. Thank you both for giving me this chance to be a part of this boards.

I also apologize to all the people that I offended in any way, I never wanted this to happen, it was never ever my intention to hurt anyone's feelings or act in such a disrespectful way. I'm truly sorry for what happend and I wish, some day, you could say, that's in the past and "life is about second chances, right? "

Even though some of you think of me as scum or pest or whatever, I still feel like a member of PMF and everything that there was to learn about this case, I learned here. Thank you.

Special thanks goes to Stint, The Bard, Capealadin, Bucketoftea, Windfall, Earthling, undecided, Corrina, thoughtful, Woodrina, jodyodyo, John and bilko.

Those people showed me throughout the past year how to become a better person and PMF should be greatful for having such wonderful members.

Donnie


Last edited by donnie on Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Agatha wrote:
I think CDHost's action in warning this board of the likelihood of the link being dangerous was a kind and generous thing to do.

I do not endorse his reference to Meredith Kercher as "wormfood"; I have seen his defence of his use of the word on JREF and think he is being remarkably disingenuous. It was a cruel and uncharitable way to describe any dead person, let alone a murder victim, and I am disappointed that he seems not to understand the offence it has caused. It's possible he does not care about causing offence, but as he took the time to warn this board of a dangerous link he clearly does have a conscience and so I am a little confused that he continues to defend his word.

But I do think, as he clearly has a lot of misconceptions about the case, that it would be kinder of PMF to return the favour he did to us by allowing him to continue to be a member so that he can learn more about the case from the source documents and videos, rather than have them filtered through FOA.



Are you taking the piss?. CDHost is a degenerate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Italy is a very cultured nation

unlike some others which are becoming barbaric

Fernando de Lucia, "Quando le sere al placido", Verdi, Luisa Miller (rec. 1908)


Here is something I could listen to day after day:

(VIDEO)



agreed - just on the music -- more reasons I suppose to learn italian


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
CDHost wrote:
Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


Thanks for the head's up CDHost


May I also thank CDHost

However, before I forget his incredibly tasteless 'wormfood' words and join in the love fest too fervently beyond the thank you, may I remind others that CDHost had this to say about us here on PMF as recently as last night:
ff)
But it is a hate blog so they like to reassure themselves they are all in group by saying horrible things about a child. I really wish that some of them would take a look at a Christian Identity blog or America Forever to just get some idea of how ugly what they are doing is. Substitute Amanda for blacks or gays or....

CDHost
Student
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 41

PS:
Yes, I remember..never say never... ;)


Last edited by stint7 on Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Let us face it people: we are a hate group. You can tell just from the number of folk who spew hate like that on us. Oh ...wait ....subject/object confusion!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Agatha


Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:38 pm

Posts: 33

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

No, I'm not taking the piss; I'm trying to be a decent person, even in the face of people who haven't earned my respect. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Many people would have expected CDHost to let that link stay unchallenged and for non-techy people to end up with computer problems; he didn't ignore it and he did try to help. From the little I have seen of his writings I disagree with him profoundly on the case, and he seems to have many misunderstandings about it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Donnie, you have aplogized, and I believe you are sincere. You have taken responsibility, and I for one, have let bygones be bygones, as you know. I've certainly made mistakes..atoning for them is such a good thing.

You have contributed to PMF, and I think it says a lot about this site, that you want so badly to be re-instated. It's a New Year, a new beginning.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

capealadin wrote:
Donnie, you have aplogized, and I believe you are sincere. You have taken responsibility, and I for one, have let bygones be bygones, as you know. I've certainly made mistakes..atoning for them is such a good thing.

You have contributed to PMF, and I think it says a lot about this site, that you want so badly to be re-instated. It's a New Year, a new beginning.


cl-) tt-) cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
CDHost wrote:
Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


Thanks for the head's up CDHost


May I also thank CDHost

However, before I forget his incredibly tasteless 'wormfood' words and join in the love fest too fervently beyond the thank you, may I remind others that CDHost had this to say about us here on PMF as recently as last night:
ff)
But it is a hate blog so they like to reassure themselves they are all in group by saying horrible things about a child. I really wish that some of them would take a look at a Christian Identity blog or America Forever to just get some idea of how ugly what they are doing is. Substitute Amanda for blacks or gays or....

CDHost
Student
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 41

PS:
Yes, I remember..never say never... ;)


What child is he referring to?? Is he referring to AMANDA??

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

Offline donnie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am

Posts: 627

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you guys.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
CDHost wrote:
Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


Thanks for the head's up CDHost


May I also thank CDHost

However, before I forget his incredibly tasteless 'wormfood' words and join in the love fest too fervently beyond the thank you, may I remind others that CDHost had this to say about us here on PMF as recently as last night:
ff)
But it is a hate blog so they like to reassure themselves they are all in group by saying horrible things about a child. I really wish that some of them would take a look at a Christian Identity blog or America Forever to just get some idea of how ugly what they are doing is. Substitute Amanda for blacks or gays or....

CDHost
Student
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 41

PS:
Yes, I remember..never say never... ;)


I don't think I'm alone in wanting readers at the PMF to never forget that Meredith Kercher had her life ended one night by a group of three irresponsible and remorseless young adults. I don't think 25 years in prison is too long or too short for any of the three to properly be served with any hope of learning that they are being punished for what they did.

I am also on record as stating that, even if she did so in jest or due to rabbit punches, Knox deserves 25 years imprisonment just for blaming the whole thing on a black man whose misfortune arose only from the fact that he briefly gave her a job and an opportunity to defray her expenses while studying in Perugia.

Some might call that hatred but I seriously question whether they have ever been in a situation where they were unjustly accused of a crime. And if, at that time, they were a member of a visible minority with everything to lose from such a callous and cavalier accusation. To top it off, imagine seeing the woman who told the police that you sexually assaulted and murdered someone galloping and grinning throughout the court proceedings like a princess on parade.

I frankly don't know where the adjectives and invective would begin but I can guarantee you that I would not have been as restrained and dignified as Patrick has been.

So, in summary, blow it out your ass, CD-Host. gang-) pp-(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
So far as I know he is not banned. I think people are sometimes asked not to post specfically so that they can still use the resources here. I like that policy. Having said that, I repeat it was kind to warn us. I got something nasty on this computer by downloading something and I expect it is going to be expensive to fix. meanwhile it is slow and stuttery and hard to use. Some of us are caught out by stuff and the quicker we are warned the better.



I agree with Fiona. I don't like alot of what CDHost has said, but I appreciate the kind gesture to warn us, I'm not going to complain. Everyone has the right to their opinion though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

This is slightly OT. Yoko Ono is an extremely intelligent person and artist. She also has a great sense of humor. She made a film called, "Bums" and it is quite literally that. She asked friends of hers to walk on a treadmill naked and framed the camera on their bums. It's interesting to know that Yoko had many friends who were famous themselves or unknown artists or professors. Some of the bums are quite famous. I saw the film and it is quite amusing. One of my professors was one of the bums.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
I got something nasty on this computer by downloading something and I expect it is going to be expensive to fix. meanwhile it is slow and stuttery and hard to use. Some of us are caught out by stuff and the quicker we are warned the better.



We can't have that Fiona!

Fiona (dgfred, same for you), download and install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.50.1. Then here, download and install CCleaner 3.02.1343

Once installed, left click on the shortcuts to these programs on your desktop and drag them to the top left hand corner off your desktop. Open MalwareBytes and select check for updates and update it. Now, reboot your computer in 'Safe Mode'. To do this select 'restart' and on booting, at sight of the first black screen loading your bios, repeatedly tap the 'F8' key. It may boot into Safe Mode automatically, but most likely you'll get a screen asking if you want to boot normally or in Safe Mode. Use the arrow keys on your keyboard to select 'Safe Mode' and hit 'enter'. You computer will then boot into Safe Mode. A window will pop-up asking if you want to continue or restart...continue. You will now boot into Windows in safe mode. The screen will look really weird (black) and the icons will be rather large, don't worry, that's how it should look. Now, open MalwareBytes which you'll be able to find rather easily as you've put it in the top left hand corner of your desktop. Now run a 'full scan'. Once complete select all items in the list of the the things it's found and click the button to remove them. MB will do this, confirm that it's done so. It will also post up a log file in notepad. MB will (usually) now tell you that you need to reboot in order for it to finish the removal. We need to reboot anyway, so 'restart'. This time boot into Windows normally. Don't open any programs or connect to the Internet, instead run CCleaner that we downloaded earlier. Let it clean out all your temporary files and folders (all the junk). Now, perform some basic tasks, exploring things on your PC...see how things are running. Connect to the Internet (still keeping an eye on how things are running), open MalwareBytes once again and locate that logfile for me. Log onto PM and copy and paste the content of the log file into a post in 'The range' subforum on PMF, along with a verdict of how your PC is now running. It may be useful to print these instructions out before starting (if you've no printer, copy and past them to a text file and save it to your desktop, dragging it to the top left corner of your desktop). Let me know if you have any problems :)

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Donnie :D
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.


SomeAlibi also asked me about this by PM. It's an interesting question. How unlikely is it that such a coincidence could really happen, purely by chance?

What actually happened that night that was so very coincidental? One building was the place where two different events took place, both connected to phones, both connected to criminal/illegal activity. So what's the probability of two totally unrelated events of this kind happening at the same building?

It's x squared, where x is the probability that any given residence is involved in one such activity. I don't know the statistics, I'm just guessing that there are about 6 million buildings in Italy, and maybe 1000 criminal/illegal events per day involving phones in some building or other. I don't know if 1000 is too many or too few; remember I'm counting such minor things as hoax calls, and just think of all the phone calls involving drug dealing, mafia, terrorism, arms dealing...I should think 1000 is actually too few. But let's stay with it. That makes the probability that any given building in Italy on any given day be involved in an illegal phone activity about 1 in 6000.

The probability that a building would be hit on the same day with two unconnected illegal phone events would then be about 1 in 36 million. Given the 6 million buildings in Italy, that means it probably happens about once a week somewhere in Italy. Of course, almost every time it will involve two minor unconnected phone events, but even in the cases where one of the phone events is connected with a major crime, the other one is likely to be minor. Which it was.

Coincidences do happen. I have never met anyone with the name Philemon before in my life. Yesterday, I met a boy called Philemon. Two hours later, I was chatting with a friend of a friend, and he mentioned his son's name: Philemon. It wasn't the same kid, it was just pure coincidence. I looked up the name on a name statistics site, and there are only about 750 Philemons in France. What do you know?

I don't think the phone coincidence is astonishing enough to try to find a planned cause for it.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Agatha wrote:
I think CDHost's action in warning this board of the likelihood of the link being dangerous was a kind and generous thing to do.

I do not endorse his reference to Meredith Kercher as "wormfood"; I have seen his defence of his use of the word on JREF and think he is being remarkably disingenuous. It was a cruel and uncharitable way to describe any dead person, let alone a murder victim, and I am disappointed that he seems not to understand the offence it has caused. It's possible he does not care about causing offence, but as he took the time to warn this board of a dangerous link he clearly does have a conscience and so I am a little confused that he continues to defend his word.

But I do think, as he clearly has a lot of misconceptions about the case, that it would be kinder of PMF to return the favour he did to us by allowing him to continue to be a member so that he can learn more about the case from the source documents and videos, rather than have them filtered through FOA.



As a PMF Admin, I'm in full agreement with this post.

That said, CD-Hosts presence here is on sufferance. He has not been banned as we wish to allow him access to the data...as much to remove his excuse for ignorance if nothing else.

A note on the 'stop posting' thing. Normally, that's what we tell posters whose presence is likely to cause trouble when there's only one of us (Mods) here and we are about to go to bed, or off to do 'real life stuff' and leave the board unattended for a while, or because we've pulled a long shift and are tired. Or, simply because people need some time to cool down as a result of their presence (in other words, it's caused a large degree of disruption, dominated the topic of the thread etc,). It doesn't mean don't post again ever, it means take a break. Now, I'm not saying CD-Host is welcome here, but he's not banned from posting either. That said, should he post he must respect the forum rules and ethos. That includes posting in good faith. Sophistry, straw men and the like may be acceptable on the JREF, Frank's or elsewhere but not here...that's enshrined in the PMF rules. And it's precisely because they are able to do that elsewhere we have the luxury of being able to say...well, not here. Honestly, I don't really like banning people so I'm not quick to do so...I prefer to give them a chance to fuck up first.

_________________
"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 Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I got something nasty on this computer by downloading something and I expect it is going to be expensive to fix. meanwhile it is slow and stuttery and hard to use. Some of us are caught out by stuff and the quicker we are warned the better.



We can't have that Fiona!

Fiona (dgfred, same for you), download and install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.50.1. Then here, download and install CCleaner 3.02.1343

Once installed, left click on the shortcuts to these programs on your desktop and drag them to the top left hand corner off your desktop. Open MalwareBytes and select check for updates and update it. Now, reboot your computer in 'Safe Mode'. To do this select 'restart' and on booting, at sight of the first black screen loading your bios, repeatedly tap the 'F8' key. It may boot into Safe Mode automatically, but most likely you'll get a screen asking if you want to boot normally or in Safe Mode. Use the arrow keys on your keyboard to select 'Safe Mode' and hit 'enter'. You computer will then boot into Safe Mode. A window will pop-up asking if you want to continue or restart...continue. You will now boot into Windows in safe mode. The screen will look really weird (black) and the icons will be rather large, don't worry, that's how it should look. Now, open MalwareBytes which you'll be able to find rather easily as you've put it in the top left hand corner of your desktop. Now run a 'full scan'. Once complete select all items in the list of the the things it's found and click the button to remove them. MB will do this, confirm that it's done so. It will also post up a log file in notepad. MB will (usually) now tell you that you need to reboot in order for it to finish the removal. We need to reboot anyway, so 'restart'. This time boot into Windows normally. Don't open any programs or connect to the Internet, instead run CCleaner that we downloaded earlier. Let it clean out all your temporary files and folders (all the junk). Now, perform some basic tasks, exploring things on your PC...see how things are running. Connect to the Internet (still keeping an eye on how things are running), open MalwareBytes once again and locate that logfile for me. Log onto PM and copy and paste the content of the log file into a post in 'The range' subforum on PMF, along with a verdict of how your PC is now running. It may be useful to print these instructions out before starting (if you've no printer, copy and past them to a text file and save it to your desktop, dragging it to the top left corner of your desktop). Let me know if you have any problems :)


Nicking these instructions too co-) th-) I spent ages trying to get rid of that 'epoclick' virus and clean up my registry, finally bought Webroot Spy Sweeper which did the trick, but I like the look of this option.....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bedelia wrote:
This is slightly OT. Yoko Ono is an extremely intelligent person and artist. She also has a great sense of humor. She made a film called, "Bums" and it is quite literally that. She asked friends of hers to walk on a treadmill naked and framed the camera on their bums. It's interesting to know that Yoko had many friends who were famous themselves or unknown artists or professors. Some of the bums are quite famous. I saw the film and it is quite amusing. One of my professors was one of the bums.



Oh don't! You'll give the FOAKers ideas. They might make one of those calender things where they strip off and have a 'bum a month' each emblazoned with 'Free Amanda Knox'. One can only take so much.

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


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thanks to both Clander and Michael for your help. I was seriously thinking I might even have to save up for a new computer but you assistance has made such a difference: the words even appear as I type instead of with a long delay. Feels like a new machine.

Not sure if it right back to where it was but it is sooooo much better

You guys are great !! :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
You're not addressing the statistical improbability of the bomb threat being made to the same residence the phones were disposed at, on that night. Something is wrong.


SomeAlibi also asked me about this by PM. It's an interesting question. How unlikely is it that such a coincidence could really happen, purely by chance?

What actually happened that night that was so very coincidental? One building was the place where two different events took place, both connected to phones, both connected to criminal/illegal activity. So what's the probability of two totally unrelated events of this kind happening at the same building?

....


You have to be careful when calculating probability of events. What kind of events are these? Are they mutually exclusive or not? Are they independent or not?

The bomb threat was taken seriously enough that it was investigated for a possible link to the murder. None was found. That diminishes considerably the possibility of anything other than a coincidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Stan wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fiona wrote:
I got something nasty on this computer by downloading something and I expect it is going to be expensive to fix. meanwhile it is slow and stuttery and hard to use. Some of us are caught out by stuff and the quicker we are warned the better.



We can't have that Fiona!

Fiona (dgfred, same for you), download and install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.50.1. Then here, download and install CCleaner 3.02.1343

Once installed, left click on the shortcuts to these programs on your desktop and drag them to the top left hand corner off your desktop. Open MalwareBytes and select check for updates and update it. Now, reboot your computer in 'Safe Mode'. To do this select 'restart' and on booting, at sight of the first black screen loading your bios, repeatedly tap the 'F8' key. It may boot into Safe Mode automatically, but most likely you'll get a screen asking if you want to boot normally or in Safe Mode. Use the arrow keys on your keyboard to select 'Safe Mode' and hit 'enter'. You computer will then boot into Safe Mode. A window will pop-up asking if you want to continue or restart...continue. You will now boot into Windows in safe mode. The screen will look really weird (black) and the icons will be rather large, don't worry, that's how it should look. Now, open MalwareBytes which you'll be able to find rather easily as you've put it in the top left hand corner of your desktop. Now run a 'full scan'. Once complete select all items in the list of the the things it's found and click the button to remove them. MB will do this, confirm that it's done so. It will also post up a log file in notepad. MB will (usually) now tell you that you need to reboot in order for it to finish the removal. We need to reboot anyway, so 'restart'. This time boot into Windows normally. Don't open any programs or connect to the Internet, instead run CCleaner that we downloaded earlier. Let it clean out all your temporary files and folders (all the junk). Now, perform some basic tasks, exploring things on your PC...see how things are running. Connect to the Internet (still keeping an eye on how things are running), open MalwareBytes once again and locate that logfile for me. Log onto PM and copy and paste the content of the log file into a post in 'The range' subforum on PMF, along with a verdict of how your PC is now running. It may be useful to print these instructions out before starting (if you've no printer, copy and past them to a text file and save it to your desktop, dragging it to the top left corner of your desktop). Let me know if you have any problems :)


Nicking these instructions too co-) th-) I spent ages trying to get rid of that 'epoclick' virus and clean up my registry, finally bought Webroot Spy Sweeper which did the trick, but I like the look of this option.....


Yeah, while not free, Spy sweeper is good. BUT...rule of thumb, when infected with something nasty like that, always scan with more then one scanner. So, for example, do a run with MalwareBytes, then do a run with Spy Sweeper, then do a run with a good anti-virus scanner (if you have money, the best one is Kaspersky...Nod32 is also pretty good...if you are short on cash, the best free AV is Antivir: http://www.avira.com/en/avira-free-antivirus). The best way to scan is while in safe mode (if you are actually infected). The reason for this is that one anti-malware app alone may not recognise and remove all components of the infection (any infection will install multiple files and they are designed to be as difficult as possible to remove and to elude AM software)...so the principle is a combination approach. You don't just send in the army, you also send in the navy and the air force...in simple terms.

*A note on the anti-malware programs. Over the last couple of years rogue anti-malware programs have become one of the biggest threats on the Internet. The least worst is the fakes...they take your money, you download and install it and it looks really cool...you run it and it looks even cooler. But it's all a con, it's not doing jack. Worse still, some of those apps will find stuff and then demand you pay them to remove an infection that may or may not actually exist. The worst will actually install malware on your system. Therefore, don't be going on Google and install some random anti-malware app you might find because it says cool things, install reputable ones only. If one doesn't know what those are, feel free to post here and ask for advice first. The Web is one one of the places in the world where paranoia is completely justified.

_________________
"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 bobc


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Probability is indeed abused. But the issue with the so-called Bayesians is that they omit or ignore data that cannot be assigned probability (eg unlike 30 downstrokes in a signature) instead of placing a value on it and including it in the prior probability part of the equation. The best example of this in the current case is the discarding of the contrasting and changing stories told to the police. Because there is such a strong correlation between lying to the police and guilt (there's even a separate crime for it called obstruction of justice in Canada) the prior probability nears 90% or higher.

There were also a lot of coincidences involved in this case. The one that jumps out is the early arrival of the police and the decision made by Filomena to send over friends who could reach the cottage before her. The convergence of the authorities and others upon the cottage frustrated the plan Knox and Sollecito had cooked up to use Filomena as an unwitting dupe.


I agree with what you are saying, there process is highly selective. It reminds me of the "number you first of" game. I'm fairly convinced the Bayesian guy doesn't really understand probability theory, and is just trying to bamboozle himself and others with numerology. It's case of "garbage in-garbage out". However he processes his guesses, they are still only his guesses.

The ironically named "Less Wrong" site appears to be inhabited by a lot of slightly smart people who think they are a lot smarter than they are : "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". e.g. the 1 hour internet test, "how are your opinions on the Knox case changed by what's written on the internet?". He doesn't take account of e.g, that pro-Knox sites might be better at propaganda, or more prone to lying to make their case. It's a fact that the defendants have funded and conducted a PR campaign, sites like PMF pretty much stick to evidence produced in court. You don't need to be a Bayesian to see where the bias is.

One thing that strikes me is the frequent comment that "a competent criminal would do X", "if she was guilty she would not do Y". The fact is it's the incompetent criminals that are the ones that get caught, so it is no surprise that the commission of the crime and cover-up seems bungled and stupid.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I had a look at that site months ago. I am not numerate and so I may be wrong. But it seemed to me to be using numbers to make something look good. If you translated what they were doing into words it was obviously GIGO. This is pseudo maths I think. It is a curious thing that things presented in numbers somehow take on a veneer of persuasiveness: if in doubt translate to english: if you can't then get whoever is presenting the stuff to do it. They can do it: they spoke english first and maths second: while there may be some difficulties in translation, they are no more than we find from Italian to english: it is just that, unlike the folk here, some mathematicians are not willing to put in the work: no doubt the mystique plays a part; and perhaps they do not realise they are able to do it, either. Fact remains: if it is dodgy in plain engish it is dodgy and no amount of X, Y, Z will make a difference to that
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
Thanks to both Clander and Michael for your help. I was seriously thinking I might even have to save up for a new computer but you assistance has made such a difference: the words even appear as I type instead of with a long delay. Feels like a new machine.

Not sure if it right back to where it was but it is sooooo much better

You guys are great !! :)



Fiona...worrying about having to save up and buy a new computer? I live in your world! But don't worry, you don't need to do that, especially not because of any malware infection. They can be defeated and without having to pay any money. Working in a vocation in public service, I understand money isn't something you have to throw around. Don't panic! :)

Let's see if we got rid of all the nasties. Go to the free online scanner by Panda here: http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/ ... ctivescan/ and select the 'scan your PC now' button on the left on the page. Follow the instructions and allow it to remove anything it finds. Take a note of what it does find. It does take a long time for the scan...but that's all good, for a clean machine...for free.

_________________
"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: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Sigh, such nice people some of you. Could see the golden lining in a colostomy bag. And more power to your elbows for being like that. If I were ever to be hit by a tidal wave, I'd choose to be with certain PMFers. As we were about to be swept past treetops and over the top of buildings to our certain death, the last words I'd hear would probably be "still... should be nicely hydrated after this... my skin *was* looking a little drrrrryyyyyyyyyyy..."

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The thing is that a number is just a number, it's only in perspective that it speaks.

A chance of 1 in 36 million, you could say "oh, that's so unlikely that it's practically impossible that it could occur by chance, it has to have been done on purpose".

But in context, what does 1 in 36 million mean, when you're looking at a sample of 6 million or 10 million or 60 million or 300 million? It means that the so-unlikely event could occur once a week or once a day or ten times a day...

The numbers are often wrong, the interpretations are usually wronger.

Personally I feel that the greatest numerical abuse in the Knox case is the "one percent chance that the DNA on the knife is actually Meredith's" much touted by the family on tv channels across the country. From the mouth of a math teacher, no less.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thoughtful - excellent - how is that book coming on? I think even I could understand it if you write it like that. I also had the wierd name thing today too!!!!! (how unlikely is it that two people joined only by tea and a huge glass of Rose should have a wierd name thing on the same day? I came across the second Luna I have ever heard of. The day before I remarked that it must be a made up name as I had never come across it. Lo and behold, the next day - today - I come across another baby girl called Luna)

TF there was a TF sized documentary on here tonight called 'What is Reality' - you'da loved it! All about Quantum physics and whether we are all really just a hologram projected from the earth's event horizon...or are we just an ever unfolding set of numerical codes...Just what you need on vodka and valium in an effort to switch off and get some sleep! I think my head's exploding...!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Well that only took a year to catch up from last week. And not even caught up, but must comment.

I wonder if Edda's china cabinet has depleted substantially and if it correlates to reports such as the latest with Amanda The Chosen One and The Convicted Cocaine Dealer? That must have been awkward for everyone around.

I've always thought a little powdery fun was included in the mix. I also wouldn't be surprised if she slept with a fellow who was doing a bit of dealing, and not that she was a coke whore, but that perhaps she met him and then later figured he was the go to guy. Additionally, I'm not saying that this guy had anything to do with the night Meredith was murdered. Hence the Rudy factor. I've never believed her confession list of lovers - that could go any way. Why in the world she made it in the first place is beyond me. Maybe that's just *Amanda being Amanda* - cue Chris Mellas and a muddy puddle.

Well, I'm not worried about any of it. The dna is so significant, as well as the alibis and behavior, phone calls, you name it. Defense is grasping at straws because that is what pays their bills. Wish my bills were paid, that dearies is another story.

The 3 are exactly where they belong and I think we are all safer because of it. I always laugh out loud when Greggy talks about how he promises that he's so not afraid of AK47. Every single time.

It's 3:30 on the west coast. David Marriott? Do you know what your client is doing?
Top Profile 

Offline Popper


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am

Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:

Probability is indeed abused. But the issue with the so-called Bayesians is that they omit or ignore data that cannot be assigned probability (eg unlike 30 downstrokes in a signature) instead of placing a value on it and including it in the prior probability part of the equation. The best example of this in the current case is the discarding of the contrasting and changing stories told to the police. Because there is such a strong correlation between lying to the police and guilt (there's even a separate crime for it called obstruction of justice in Canada) the prior probability nears 90% or higher.

There were also a lot of coincidences involved in this case. The one that jumps out is the early arrival of the police and the decision made by Filomena to send over friends who could reach the cottage before her. The convergence of the authorities and others upon the cottage frustrated the plan Knox and Sollecito had cooked up to use Filomena as an unwitting dupe.


If a serious probability model of this case was attempted it would result in probability of AK's guilt higher than 99%, even if we destroy one important piece of evidence (eg we can leave to AK this choice). Magistrates know much more on probability (even the mathematical modelling of it) than we may think.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

OT OT OT OT

I know this is way off-topic, but I could sure use some advice & consent / wisdom etc on "in-law" issues; if anyone could PM me, I would really, really appreciate it. (I'm going out now for a couple hours, will respond when I get back.) Thanks so much. Again, sorry for OT, and if this is not appropriate, apologize in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
TF there was a TF sized documentary on here tonight called 'What is Reality' - you'da loved it! All about Quantum physics and whether we are all really just a hologram projected from the earth's event horizon...or are we just an ever unfolding set of numerical codes...


ooo, Bard, what was this? I just see this site....
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

In calculating the odds on the two phone events, keep in mind that only the phone call was really completely at random.
That is, the kid dialing the prank call could have hit any numbers, so that "x" probability is actually quite large.
The phones landing in the yard, though, is a different matter.
i live on the first quiet (and dark) street near a busy student/business area.
Three or four times a year someone will toss an emptied purse, backpack, or wallet into my bushes.
Not my neighbor's place - she practices search and destroy gardening, while my yard is shrubby.
Not the cement yarded apartment block across the street.
And not my buddy living up in the hills with no nearby street scene and no foot traffic.
Not all locations are equally likely for certain events.
If you start at the Perugia cottage and consider how many suitable places there were to dispose of the mobiles, there are probably only a few dozen real choices.
The ravine probably looked ideal, bushy, dark, secluded: the rest of it is too paved, or too busy, or too manicured to make it seem possible the phones could sit undisturbed for long.
There can't have been any great number of other suitable choices nearby.
In the actual event that second "x" isn't a large number at all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Agatha


Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:38 pm

Posts: 33

Highscores: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sigh, such nice people some of you. Could see the golden lining in a colostomy bag. And more power to your elbows for being like that. If I were ever to be hit by a tidal wave, I'd choose to be with certain PMFers. As we were about to be swept past treetops and over the top of buildings to our certain death, the last words I'd hear would probably be "still... should be nicely hydrated after this... my skin *was* looking a little drrrrryyyyyyyyyyy..."
:D Before I had my stoma reversed, I had a colostomy bag! Not sure I ever found a golden lining in it, though... tou-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I think the location of where the phones were tossed have a rather simple explanation. I don't see any reason to setup RG at that point right after the murder. I think they rather not had RG get caught so he would not tell on them. They also could have simply smashed the phones and throw them behind the cottage or in a garbage bin or throw them in water or bury them..or..or..

As it was speculated earlier on this board it is possible they took the outside road back to RS apartment, I think they simply tossed the phones when they were on the way and one started ringing. Seems like an ideal moment to me to panic and quickly find a good place to toss them.

Just a theory of course :)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Something to be dealt with and has to be done here, since the author has put multiple restraints on who can respond:


A Rare American Voice Proclaims Amanda Knox's Guilt

Perhaps 'Alecia' needs to perform some actual journalism, writing for a paper and all. Journalism for dummies, tour level one...be at least sllghtly informed about what you are writing about. That's the dummies out of the way. Good journalists...are...well good. This is because they actually research a case and are dynamic...they get in peoples' faces and ask questions, they research. Anyone can copy and paste.

_________________
"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 equinox


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 pm

Posts: 140

Location: WA, USA

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
CDHost wrote:
DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.



See my avatar? That's in honour of your ludicrous claim on the Independent website that Amanda Knox was rabbit-punched in interview which put her life in danger. Amazing levels of horseshit that no-one has ever claimed in this case (not least Amanda who in her video testimony clearly mimics an open handed cuff over the head from the assailant she cannot identify from either of two alleged cuffs). Nor did you even know the basics about the length of interviews or when the statements were taken (you can see them here in the gallery with the times underlined in the original with Amanda's signature) which you then base elaborate theories on, all of which are shown to be based on a foundation of sand.

But more than that, as to you, who referred to Meredith Kercher as "worm-food" on IMDB, once again, on behalf of myself and others: fuck off you loathsome inadequate. No wonder you were thrown out of your church. You lack the moral standing or intelligence to recognise that you have been expounding loudly on a case in which you are unversed in even the basics, just propaganda. You demean your own intelligence by spouting untruths as a lacky to those who can't argue this case on the basis of the actual evidence but have to make things up to try to infuence public opinion. If you had a shred of decency, you would recognise you ought to have a very long look at yourself because you are a propaganda mouthpiece - a drone who is churning out the party line, based on the BS they told you, not the objective facts which you can verify yourself. What does that tell you about them or you?

Your permanent ban based on your callous comment about the victim of this murder is no doubt minutes away.
'


Amen and halleluah! Thank you SA!!

I have to scroll past this troll everywhere intelligent people try and discuss the case in good faith. I wish he would shut up. He's come out of the woodwork, guns blazing, self-professed expert in all things related to this case with his ears and his logic shut tight. Rehashing the same old troll-bait that has been thoroughly dismissed here with good solid evidence and reason. And its the same old JREF methodology - toss in a scathing rant, wait for the dismayed responses, ignore the logic, pick some trivial statement out of it, spin it up into still more false evidence and add a dash of scorn and derision. And on it goes. And the "worm bait" comment has had me filled with such venom that I have refused to even be one of the ones putting this filthy blogger in his place. I would rather download spyware than see him post here again.
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 Jan 18, 2011 2:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Good journalists...are...well good. This is because they actually research a case and are dynamic...they get in peoples' faces and ask questions, they research. Anyone can copy and paste.


I'm going to make a list of these copy-pasters, as preparation for nominations for an awards prize.

Students and professionals who copy-paste, without attribution, are plagiarising, and are out of a job. Those who copy-paste with atttribution are showing the lack of their own reasoning skills, fatal for an academic or other information professional, and doing themselves out of a job. The only option left after that is to puff oneself up and hope some gullible media boss has some spare cash and an empty slot (having had a "career" at the FBI might be a selling point, e.g.).

Op-ed writers can, and may, opine about anything, even what colour Alice's dress was when she was talking to the caterpillar. If their piece is about something factual, or purports to be, then standards apply (especially so if the paper's reputation/income is affected).

So, films have the Raspberries and Rotten Tomatoes. What is the equivalent for Soapbox rhetoric contributions?

Besides, the overworn use of PR cliches and sloppy style is a particular bugbear (literary mode), and failed Law 101 "reasoning" is an attempt to intefere in, and actively obstruct, the provision of a competent legal defence for the accused.
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: What's On   

zorba wrote:
stilicho wrote:
zorba wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Yoko who? The young ones wouldn't know Adam from Adamant. :)
The power of an avatar is in what it evokes.

....

Meet you by the disco buses in Piazza Grimana.
See you later!


....

I've seen a music professor expressing how astounded he was by Beatles music, they having written certain musical lines without even knowing they'd done so (perfect models of) models that the biggest classically trained composers/musicians try for their entire lives but never manage to achieve.

....



If you strip out the engineering and production, though, they all really are pretty simple tunes.

Here's a listing I wrote on another forum in response to a structured Beatles' Greatest Hits album:

Quote:
17th October 2010, 10:50 PM #148
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard

Quote:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,566 Originally Posted by Piggy
Here's a question, then:

What would be your perfect 16-song Beatles "fantasy album"? Assume there must be a side-A and side-B, with a numbered track list.


Not sure I've organised them properly but I'll go with this:

SIDE A

Helter Skelter
Nowhere Man
A Hard Day's Night
Savoy Truffle
Day Tripper
I Am The Walrus
Dear Prudence
While My Guitar Gently Weeps

SIDE B

Revolution (fast version)
Eleanor Rigby
The Ballad Of John And Yoko
Sexy Sadie
With A Little Help From My Friends
The Long And Winding Road
Lady Madonna
A Day In The Life


I still prefer two or three songs from The Damned, Jonathan Richman, or The Pixies as much as or more than any of those but they'll do for now.



Define what a complicated song is, I hope you know what you are talking about if you do so, I play classic, jazz, pop, rock, Baroque, Django Reinhardt numbers, children's complicated numbers.


It's not about what one's preferences are, come on, anyone can name whole lists of songs. The Beatles remain number one in the world because nobody has gotten close to their level.
This is whether one likes their songs or not.

There's nobody that has reached into as many homes, in as many countries, with songs that are instantly recognisable and more complicated than you think, they are because nobody manages to make songs like that. Elton John made a few, I don't like him but it's true, he has a few of those properly popular songs, yet he is nowhere near what the Beatles mean within music.
Bowie is nowhere near the Beatles and neither are thew Strolling Bones.
Queen are nowhere near the Beatles.

The Eagles, CSNY, the Mamas & the Papas, nobody is the Beatles except the Beatles, yeah, they is no good because I prefer Tommy and the Tank Engine.

Anyway, I must, to work, go, again, I see a storm is threatening, my very lunch today, be back after me calm down pills take effect and a few thousand words done be.


I have to go with Zorba on this one I live a short walking distance of some of the destinations on the Beatles tour I can be at any of these four in less than twenty minutes.

Strawberry fields
Penny Lane
John Lennon’s house
George Harrison’s house

I regularly see the Magical Mystery tour busses packed with tourists from around the world doing the route and often help out the odd ones who have gotten lost doing the tour on foot.

I saw the documentary that Zorba mentioned when a music professor compared the construction of “She’s leaving home” to a classical piece, he wasn’t speaking as a Beatles fan rather just providing a comparison. That being said I have to confess that I’m not much of a Beatles fan, I was a punk in the 70’s and still prefer something more edgy. I will say one thing though although the Beatles split over forty years ago they are one of the very few bands that most people will have an opinion on. Ask the question which is your favourite Beatles song and you will get an answer which is unlikely to be “who are they” my favourite is “In my life” it’s one of the few songs that gets me all emotional.

Yoko is a regular visitor to Liverpool and although I’ve not met her I do know people who have and they have only had nice things to say about her.

As for CD host I refer my colleagues to Some Alibis response which I fully endorse, the term fuckwit seems to have got stuck in my head.

Michael, thanks for the PC tips I've managed to clear a ton of crap off my system.
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 Jan 18, 2011 3:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Zorba,

Agreed.
And what Stilicho said. :)

Actually, I probably need a different avatar-mask for each of these "overheard while on a park bench at midnight" snippets of adolescent gossip, to avoid tripping people up.

To be fair, I think, from memory, you joined after I said that "the more I learn, the less I know" (and I'm reaching such infinitesimally small amounts now that I might start entering the negative zone soon!), and so I apologise for giving you two cuffs on the back of the expectations.

Anyway, input, corrections, updates and extra information always welcome! I'm always learning: I'm a bit like the Borg that way.

I also have to be careful not to block or influence the thought-formation process and discussion on this board, especially for the shy posters, where my style or footnotes can be initmidating, it seems: also like the Borg. :)

The multiple unique insights and contributions are allowing a "rounded" picture to emerge, which is extremely useful and beneficial, and which can come into being through no other way. So this board (and TJMK) are a literal treasure, for Meredith, from that point of view.


Brogan,
Same kind of thing with AC/DC here (and the other bands, too) - though the effect is much smaller, almost like being in a cosy pub.


OT:
I was taken by Stilicho's adventitious phrase, "on a bathmat hopping" - it sounds like it could become a song title. Any takers?
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 Jan 18, 2011 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sigh, such nice people some of you. Could see the golden lining in a colostomy bag. And more power to your elbows for being like that. If I were ever to be hit by a tidal wave, I'd choose to be with certain PMFers. As we were about to be swept past treetops and over the top of buildings to our certain death, the last words I'd hear would probably be "still... should be nicely hydrated after this... my skin *was* looking a little drrrrryyyyyyyyyyy..."


In one of those serendipity coincidences, yesterday I was thinking, "What happens to ants during floods?" Somehow they are able to tell the weather, and when showers are on the way they build up little protective rings of soil grains, grain by grain, around the entrance to their nest in the days prior to the storm's arrival, but what do they do when there's going to be an inundation?

Anyway, I was going to post that question yesterday, but then I read Hammerite's post about having so much reading to catch up on, and didn't, to give him a chance.


H,
Skip over this one. :)
I'm caught in an infinite loop about posting about not posting.
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 Jan 18, 2011 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

CDHost's reasoning style reveals two things:

-- The "first bite of the cherry" technique, whereby the one who removes the poster's informational virginity first (in this case, it is the PR campaign) is the one to whom the poster becomes forever wedded to, in sickness and in health, high water or low.

This is a false marriage because a true friend will reveal a friend's flaws to them and help them to heal and improve, not defend those flaws to the hilt, against all odds, come what may, by fair means or foul, ra-ra-boom-de-aay.

-- Secondly, if CDHost spelled out the rules of the game, by what reason, rule, or fiat a "fact" is defined as factual, robust and reliable, and an "inference" can or cannot be made, and on what basis, then CDHost's own "argument" would fall down flat. From this, it becomes obvious to an outsider that "facing the rules" is a highly sensitive issue to CDHost (because so much energy and effort is invested in denying and hiding their existence and applicability) such that it can be taken almost as a given ( >99% ;) ) that CDHost has no faith in what they are posting, or the robustness of the posts at all, that they cannot be allowed to stand up under scrutiny on their own.

A honeymoon fantasy, in other words.

It is useful though - in the same way that a sandcastle or castle in the air is, compared to things that aren't.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Something to be dealt with and has to be done here, since the author has put multiple restraints on who can respond:

A Rare American Voice Proclaims Amanda Knox's Guilt

Perhaps 'Alecia' needs to perform some actual journalism, writing for a paper and all. Journalism for dummies, tour level one...be at least sllghtly informed about what you are writing about. That's the dummies out of the way. Good journalists...are...well good. This is because they actually research a case and are dynamic...they get in peoples' faces and ask questions, they research. Anyone can copy and paste.


I'm not sure what we're supposed to respond to or how, Michael. The "journalist" appears to be a blogger who writes about taco places, Starbucks, and solar-powered merry-go-rounds.

As for Alex Koenig, his simple article has a comments section simply overrun with nonsense. I can't see how it helps to engage on comments sections such as that. The poor guy who wrote it must be wondering to himself what all the excitement is about.

I like the part where a commenter explains helpfully that Filomena was a "hostile witness" for the prosecution. What does that even mean? I think Filomena counts herself fortunate only to have her window broken and having to find a new place to live. She could have been slain at the hands of Knox and Sollecito too if she had arrived alone, as they had plotted, and confronted them about what they had done. Or they could have tried to frame her as they eventually did to Patrick.

What's she supposed to have acted like towards the woman she'd invited in to her home yet who wound up ruining several peoples' lives?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
CDHost wrote:
DLW wrote:
Here’s a site that says you’ll be able to watch this Lifetime Amanda Knox movie ‘Via Della Rosa‘ online when it becomes available. Seems like they are in a real hurry to get this movie out, in as many avenues, so it will have maximum impact on the Italian Judges in the Court of Appeals American Public. Can’t imagine this movie having much of a shelf life after the Appeals.


Hi I'm going to break my semi-ban and then jump right off, because this is a safety thing. Please don't use that site. The download is spyware.


The EXE file Graboid makes you download is not "spyware".
Their executable file is fine.
It's just another website that has its servers in the Barbados and that makes you pay (illegally) for something that you can get off any Torrent or P2P website (always illegally, of course).


Thanks for checking that site out Clander. I had downloaded the exe file and had no problem. Previously to linking I had checked it out with Norton’s spyware and antivirus, which came up clean. I guess these sites make money by selling movies, not spyware. I’m also careful around free downloads, and understand the skepticism. But if these site’s skirt legalities, then that certainly isn’t cool.
As for the (C)Discipline chap. If he yelled out in the middle of the night that the house was on fire, I’d check it out first. And keep my wallet with me at all times.


Last edited by DLW on Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:59 am   Post subject: Italian reporting on Anderson's piece in the Independent   

Quote:


Criticism from London about the work of the public prosecutors: “The trial will end up acquitting Amanda and Raffaele"


The first-instance sentencing of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher in November 2007 in Perugia was “a monstrous injustice”, and the appeal now under way could lead to the acquittal of both. That is what David Anderson, a retired medico-legale who resides in Umbria, maintains in a long article in the Independent newspaper of London.

After having studied the case, Anderson accuses the police and the Italian magistracy of having wanted to find a rapid solution, despite the many incongruencies emerging during the investigations. “The most clamorous,” affirmed the British expert, “is the missing examination of the DNA on the traces of sperm found on the pillow on which the victim rested”.

Another one is having considered it believable that Amanda would implicate Patrick Lumumba in the murder, after an interview of 12 hours’ duration, in which she had been deprived of sleep and conducted in a foreign language, that is, in conditions that, according to Anderson, would have raised doubts about her declarations in a judicial system like the English or American one.



– [ DirettaNews ], 17 January 2011
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 Jan 18, 2011 5:14 am   Post subject: Another one? (Perth, Jan 2010)   

A young man, 27, who listened to his iPod while murdering another man, 21, has just been sentenced to 24 years.

He had “suited up” (overalls, gloves, diver’s knife) in preparation.

There was no remorse, and no clear motive. His casual attitude, and the iPod, was "simply unbelievable".

Amongst other things, he had stabbed the victim in the throat and voice box to prevent him from calling out for help.

The murderer later set about cleaning the victim’s home “with bleach to remove any trace of his DNA”.

He laughed and gloated about the murder.

“none of the explanations [he provided] gave any clear indication what motivated him”.


Quote:


A psychiatric assessment found that while he had a personality disorder with paranoid narcissistic traits, he did not suffer from a mental illness or psychosis that could explain the crime.

– Aja Styles, “Perth 'iPod assassin' locked away for life”, [ WA Today ], 18 January 2011


One difference here is that the fellow turned himself in.
Top Profile 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:

I don't think I'm alone in wanting readers at the PMF to never forget that Meredith Kercher had her life ended one night by a group of three irresponsible and remorseless young adults. I don't think 25 years in prison is too long or too short for any of the three to properly be served with any hope of learning that they are being punished for what they did.

I am also on record as stating that, even if she did so in jest or due to rabbit punches, Knox deserves 25 years imprisonment just for blaming the whole thing on a black man whose misfortune arose only from the fact that he briefly gave her a job and an opportunity to defray her expenses while studying in Perugia.

Some might call that hatred but I seriously question whether they have ever been in a situation where they were unjustly accused of a crime. And if, at that time, they were a member of a visible minority with everything to lose from such a callous and cavalier accusation. To top it off, imagine seeing the woman who told the police that you sexually assaulted and murdered someone galloping and grinning throughout the court proceedings like a princess on parade.

I frankly don't know where the adjectives and invective would begin but I can guarantee you that I would not have been as restrained and dignified as Patrick has been.

So, in summary, blow it out your ass, CD-Host. gang-) pp-(


I share similar sentiments here as Stilicho as well as others like Some Alibi and Equinox .

The level of intelligent debate is why I read PMF.

The other reason I read TJMK and PMF is because it is absolutely amazing how these websites elevate the level of awareness of the person, Meredith Kercher. These sites have successfully portrayed this young woman, not just as a victim of a senseless crime, but as so much more. Like most of you on this site I imagine, I have never met Meredith. And yet, because of these sites, I see this young woman and her aspirations, her smile, her kindness, her family loyalty, and on and on - the beauty of the human being she was, - I see this as clearly as I see the evidence against her murderers.

That is an accomplishment for any site: to honour Meredith so that we (strangers) "know" her, not just for the way she died, but for the person she was.

The banned poster does not elevate the level of awareness of Meredith Kercher: not the human being she was, nor the discussions that surround her heartbreaking demise.

I thought that when people were banned, someone on the administrative end pulls the computer techy plug on them.

If not, let me know so I can skip past all of this person's posts in the future.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

What's supposed to happen in court on Saturday (22Jan)? Will evidence be presented?
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 Jan 18, 2011 6:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

hikergirl99 wrote:
I thought that when people were banned, someone on the administrative end pulls the computer techy plug on them.

If not, let me know so I can skip past all of this person's posts in the future.


Hikergirl99,

You can put someone on Ignore.

In the User Control Panel, under Options, choose "Friends & Foes", then "Manage Foes", and add names to the list.

What this should do, according to the instructions, is hide things so that "Posts by these users will not be fully visible."
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:

Here Tom: RUDY GUEDE'S FAILED APPEAL MOTIVATIONS REPORT (ITALIAN)

That's for his first appeal. The motivations for his third degree hasn't been published yet.

I downloaded this, and it is an interesting document for a variety of reasons. It is not an electronic document, but appears to be scanned papers. Occasionally a hand-written page number appears and a printed page number is crossed out, and the document is sprinkled with typos and maybe even misspellings, as well as random numbers appended to words.

But, I found two features of this worth setting out, things that I would not expect to find in an appellate report in the US: the court does not confine its comment to things showing the guilt or innocence of RG, and attention is paid to victim beyond that necessary to set forth the minimum details of the crime. Here follows a loose rendition of the "Reasons for Decision" and the first italicized subsection.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REASONS FOR DECISION

What really happened in the apartment on the first floor of Via della Pergola 7, in the time between 21.00 and 24.00 hours of 1 November 2007-- the time, the event, the circumstances of the brutal murder-- the defendants could have cleared up, at least out a sense of human compassion for the poor victim, but they instead chose, on several occasions, to lard their statements with lies, hesitation, contradictions, half-truths, allusions, improbable suggestions, more or less veiled mutual accusations; that failing, we must fall back on the elements that emerge from the papers, proceedings.

Credit should be given to the court of first instance for the care and rigor of the logical and legal review given all possible scenarios, the emphasis is more in line with the evidence emerging from surveys, from the evidence, the findings from the statements and experts of the protagonists, providing - in the opinion of the Court a correct, well- reasoned reading of the facts that came to light, as well as dealing with the criticisms raised by the defense of Guede, which is also acknowledged; defense of the accused has not missed any possible different interpretation of those facts; defense counsel participated with passion and thoroughness, and thereby has honored his professional assignment.

Remember that the decision appealed from was written by a person of considerable experience and respected as a person who is balanced and thoroughly professional and, therefore, not influenced by the enormous media pressure around the case, mentioned ("furious") by the defense.

Before beginning the examination of the grounds for appeal and arguments in the dispute, it seems appropriate to reflect briefly on the profile of the protagonists of these proceedings, as emerges from the trial papers.


Who Meredith was:

Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher would have turned 22 years on December 28 of the year when she was killed. She was born in London, and lived in a neighborhood of Couldson, attended a graduate program in European Studies, had arrived in Perugia in September 2007, having joined the program "Erasmus" to complete the degree course and having already studied Italian and Latin. The photos published on the Internet show her as a young woman full of life, at home in a provincial town which allowed more freedom of movement than the big city she came from, and where she was experiencing the beginning of a romance with an Italian boy, Giacomo Silenzi, the only male person who, according to the Romanelli and Mozzetti, had access to her room.
People who got to know her (the English friends, the girls who shared the apartment, the boys from downstairs), describe her as a discreet young woman, serious, reserved, very attached to her family (Romanelli said she was never separated from her cell phone - one of those recovered from Alessandro Bìscaririi in the garden of his home and handed over to the postal police by his mother - because she worried about the health of her mother, with whom she was in constant contact); all without being puritanical, indulging sometimes some minor non-conformity (a few drinks, a pull from a "joint" passed around in the group, a sexual relationship with Giacomo Silenzi, as reported by him); totally different, her roommate Amanda Knox, more shameless and extroverted, less respectful of rules, sexually uninhibited (Meredith told her friends Robin Butterworth and Amy Frost of her embarrassment in after having seen the beauty of the view from the room of her neighbor, found that she had left condoms and a vibrator in the bathroom ), the same two friends above have also reported the embarrassment of the girl, who apparently had not been able to say “no” when the boys downstairs (including Silencio) had left her the keys and the task to water, from time to time, cannabis plants; in short, a girl full of desire to live, to experience, but measured and sensible, certainly not looking for easy adventures and also quite rigid about romantic relationships (see the discussion on fidelity with Romanelli and Mezzetti).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It seems to me that by comparison, the US has a much more "paint by numbers system of justice". By contras,t the Italian justice system seems to want to know who these people are, both victims and perpetrators. In other words, the Italians seem to want to know what happened.


Last edited by TomM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
What's supposed to happen in court on Saturday (22Jan)? Will evidence be presented?


Officially, the experts will be "tasked" with the duty of carrying out the examinations.

Quote:
"Quesiti che saranno assegnati ai periti il 22 gennaio."
– [ UmbriaLeft ], 23 December 2010
– [ La Nazione ], 23 December 2010


Whether they will lodge their reports immediately thereafter or later, is not mentioned.

The Court of Appeal’s Official Portal web site, in the News section, says:
Quote:
Title: Knox-Sollecito trial

Description: It is hereby notified that the hearing before the Court of Appeal of the Court of Assizes, relating to the criminal proceedings in the matter of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, has been postponed to the 22 January 2011, at 9 AM.

Dated: 14 January 2011

– [ Giustizia Umbria ]
Top Profile 

Offline equinox


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 pm

Posts: 140

Location: WA, USA

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:

May I also thank CDHost

However, before I forget his incredibly tasteless 'wormfood' words and join in the love fest too fervently beyond the thank you, may I remind others that CDHost had this to say about us here on PMF as recently as last night:
ff)
But it is a hate blog so they like to reassure themselves they are all in group by saying horrible things about a child. I really wish that some of them would take a look at a Christian Identity blog or America Forever to just get some idea of how ugly what they are doing is. Substitute Amanda for blacks or gays or....


I have some very bad news. Unspeakable actually. So unspeakable I cannot even speak of it. We may never know how ugly, hateful, bigoted and horrific we are because.. Well.. its unspeakable...


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

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

:D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

OTOTOT
Thanks Michael for the anti-malware links. It is a minefield trying to get something off the internet that actually works. Our own IT guys had my PC for a couple of days, it came back OK..ish (I think they just ran all their free stuff on it !!!), then a week later it started being stupid again. We run NOD32, but the 'epoclick' got in somehow, I think the first thing it did was corrupt SpyBot (yeah..another freebie) so it wouldn't run and then installed a load of stuff in various places. My registry was the real pain...but I think its all sorted now. I'm going to run the anti-malware you suggest as well... belt and braces.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Quote:
The day before I remarked that it must be a made up name as I had never come across it. Lo and behold, the next day - today - I come across another baby girl called Luna.


Bard, Bard, that's no coincidence - that's called the Harry Potter phenomenon! How many little girls have received the names Hermione and Luna in the last 10 years, not to mention Rosmerta, Rowena or Minerva...

Here's a popularity graph for Luna...I don't know what happened in 1880, but it was probably some now-forgotten bestseller of the time!


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Quote:
The day before I remarked that it must be a made up name as I had never come across it. Lo and behold, the next day - today - I come across another baby girl called Luna.


Bard, Bard, that's no coincidence - that's called the Harry Potter phenomenon! How many little girls have received the names Hermione and Luna in the last 10 years, not to mention Rosmerta, Rowena or Minerva...

Here's a popularity graph for Luna...I don't know what happened in 1880, but it was probably some now-forgotten bestseller of the time!



Same with Kylie and Jason, because of Home and Away.

The generation before that, Margaret and Elizabeth were really popular (for obvious reasons).

Oh, there's a bunch of Williams and Henrys just starting to crop: they'll all be known as Will and Harry. So that means Kate will get a run. :)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

copy paste job

http://www.direttanews.it/2011/01/17/om ... -raffaele/

Omicidio Meredith Kercher, da Londra critiche al lavoro dei pm: “Processo finirà con assoluzione di Amanda e Raffaele”


http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... -raffaele/
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
What's supposed to happen in court on Saturday (22Jan)? Will evidence be presented?


That is a good question, Em :?:

One that I have seen answered so far in totally different ways.

Some sources say little of significance will happen this Saturday other than swearing in of witnesses. These sources say examination results from contested dna could be as far off as June

Other sources say the Rome Forensic experts in the capacity they serve the Court do not even require swearing in and some evidence and other significant information may well be presented

Again....great question :!:
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
The Bard wrote:
TF there was a TF sized documentary on here tonight called 'What is Reality' - you'da loved it! All about Quantum physics and whether we are all really just a hologram projected from the earth's event horizon...or are we just an ever unfolding set of numerical codes...


ooo, Bard, what was this? I just see this site....
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/


Good site H. The programme was Horizon. It was brilliant. Enjoy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... s_Reality/

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Quote:
The day before I remarked that it must be a made up name as I had never come across it. Lo and behold, the next day - today - I come across another baby girl called Luna.


Bard, Bard, that's no coincidence - that's called the Harry Potter phenomenon! How many little girls have received the names Hermione and Luna in the last 10 years, not to mention Rosmerta, Rowena or Minerva...

Here's a popularity graph for Luna...I don't know what happened in 1880, but it was probably some now-forgotten bestseller of the time!


Well I'll be darned TF. There's a chart for everything! I had never heard of the name before. I will pass this on to her parents. Nice one!

ETA I could not get past the first Harry Potter book, so apart from Hermione The Harry Potter effect is lost on me! I think it was quite funny when my friend's daughter started primary school and found that there was another Darcy in the same class though. What are the chances... perhaps it was the Colin Firth effect...

Point of order : something I rather like about the US is that they have absolutely no qualms about making up names, to the point it seems to be the norm. I like watching film credits for this very reason. Some brilliant American first names released into the wild...I will try and find an example of what I mean.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

yuppi du wrote:
Agatha wrote:
I think CDHost's action in warning this board of the likelihood of the link being dangerous was a kind and generous thing to do.

I do not endorse his reference to Meredith Kercher as "wormfood"; I have seen his defence of his use of the word on JREF and think he is being remarkably disingenuous. It was a cruel and uncharitable way to describe any dead person, let alone a murder victim, and I am disappointed that he seems not to understand the offence it has caused. It's possible he does not care about causing offence, but as he took the time to warn this board of a dangerous link he clearly does have a conscience and so I am a little confused that he continues to defend his word.

But I do think, as he clearly has a lot of misconceptions about the case, that it would be kinder of PMF to return the favour he did to us by allowing him to continue to be a member so that he can learn more about the case from the source documents and videos, rather than have them filtered through FOA.



Are you taking the piss?. CDHost is a degenerate.



I'm exhausted but, that's what I thought, from all of the posts I read here about him and the others, sounds like a super harris kisser, it might be better to have the unmentionables bitten off by a crocodile than accept help

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

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Agatha wrote:
No, I'm not taking the piss; I'm trying to be a decent person, even in the face of people who haven't earned my respect. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Many people would have expected CDHost to let that link stay unchallenged and for non-techy people to end up with computer problems; he didn't ignore it and he did try to help. From the little I have seen of his writings I disagree with him profoundly on the case, and he seems to have many misunderstandings about it.


This is really absurd. Agatha needs to read page 4 here. CD host is publishing vicious and misleading claims all over the web and PMF certainly doesnt need more of his surreal and strident wrong claims here.

CD Host has posted a number of claims about Mignini which are quite clearly libelous if he uses his real name. PMF should keep well away from any libelers.

His dismissal of Meredith as "wormfood" in exchanges with me on the Panettiere IMDB forum should have been enough in itself for a total ban. I am astonished he still can post.

Don't be taken in by him.

Peter Quennell

Added: memo to self. Perhaps catch up on the comments here from the bottom up! I see Stilicho etc etc have already waded in, more forcefully. :-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
The Bard wrote:
TF there was a TF sized documentary on here tonight called 'What is Reality' - you'da loved it! All about Quantum physics and whether we are all really just a hologram projected from the earth's event horizon...or are we just an ever unfolding set of numerical codes...


ooo, Bard, what was this? I just see this site....
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/


Good site H. The programme was Horizon. It was brilliant. Enjoy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... s_Reality/


Grrr. Not available in "our area". As BBC UK dont carry ads, I dont see the point of that. I sure would like to see that. I guess it is to do with future global marketing.

The BBC cable channel here does carry ads - a lot - but apart from Dr Who and the amazing one-hour global news broadcasts, it is very lightweight and for sure wont ever offer this.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Quote:
The day before I remarked that it must be a made up name as I had never come across it. Lo and behold, the next day - today - I come across another baby girl called Luna.


Bard, Bard, that's no coincidence - that's called the Harry Potter phenomenon! How many little girls have received the names Hermione and Luna in the last 10 years, not to mention Rosmerta, Rowena or Minerva...

Here's a popularity graph for Luna...I don't know what happened in 1880, but it was probably some now-forgotten bestseller of the time!


Well I'll be darned TF. There's a chart for everything! I had never heard of the name before. I will pass this on to her parents. Nice one!

ETA I could not get past the first Harry Potter book, so apart from Hermione The Harry Potter effect is lost on me! I think it was quite funny when my friend's daughter started primary school and found that there was another Darcy in the same class though. What are the chances... perhaps it was the Colin Firth effect...

Point of order : something I rather like about the US is that they have absolutely no qualms about making up names, to the point it seems to be the norm. I like watching film credits for this very reason. Some brilliant American first names released into the wild...I will try and find an example of what I mean.


I remember observing this effect testing newborns and seeing their names...Kayleigh was very big following Marillion's song in the charts




...and there are a bazillion Amelies now, and counting....

I have mixed feelings about made-up names, but that's probably just creeping senility. A friend of mine once had a workmate (in L.A.) called Aquanetta. (Aquanet was/is? the brand name of a hairspray). Thought it sounded pretty, I guess.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

oops tried to youtube marillion
Top Profile 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Thank you Catnip.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
The Bard wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
The Bard wrote:
TF there was a TF sized documentary on here tonight called 'What is Reality' - you'da loved it! All about Quantum physics and whether we are all really just a hologram projected from the earth's event horizon...or are we just an ever unfolding set of numerical codes...


ooo, Bard, what was this? I just see this site....
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/


Good site H. The programme was Horizon. It was brilliant. Enjoy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... s_Reality/


Grrr. Not available in "our area". As BBC UK dont carry ads, I dont see the point of that. I sure would like to see that. I guess it is to do with future global marketing.

The BBC cable channel here does carry ads - a lot - but apart from Dr Who and the amazing one-hour global news broadcasts, it is very lightweight and for sure wont ever offer this.

Pete



Pete, I think you will be able to see it as the US titled Nova. Nova is Horizon, just different titles. Brilliant series. Was it Horizon last week about all those naughty anthropologists?
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Pete, I just tried to download it so I could send it to you, but no luck! It's such a good documentary I am sure it will be over in the US before too long. Or they might prove that we are holograms and then the show will be redundant - they're working on an experiment as we speak to find out for sure, apparently. The site H9 posted seems to have a lot of the content, but there's nothing like seeing the experiments in front of you. I now know what a Top Quark is!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Pete, I think you will be able to see it as the US titled Nova. Nova is Horizon, just different titles. Brilliant series. Was it Horizon last week about all those naughty anthropologists?


Yeah of course. Great. Nova is on three PBS channels in our cable area and new and old "episodes" are shown many times weekly.

Tron II is on here in Imax 3-D. What a blast. At the micro micro micro level. Seriously silly but still fun.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

"As for Amanda Knox, one of the key witnesses does NOT have a prior drug conviction that can be used against him. Wire sources had indicated that the witness was indeed charged with a drug offense, but not actually convicted of a crime. In Italy, as in the United States, the Defense cannot use a charge against a witness to discredit them, it has to be an actual conviction."


http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-legal ... manda-knox

well done, examiner guy.
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

No sources for that either? And once again very vague. Be nice to get some detail about this soon :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

An interesting plea for information from the parents of poor Jo Yeates today. We know that a criminal profiler has been brought in, and I find the questions in their plea interesting in this light. Clearly the following characteristics in behaviour would raise suspicions in the UK police too...

Just sayin'...

"Mr and Mrs Yeates asked the public to report friends or relatives whose behaviour had been unusual - or inexplicable - since Miss Yeates disappeared.

They said: "Do you know anyone that hasn't been shocked or disturbed (by the case)? Has anyone you know had an unusual or inexplicable reaction?

"Do you know someone who has been, somehow, justifying her being killed?"

"Was their behaviour unusual on the weekend of 17/18/19 December, or throughout the past three weeks?

"Do you know someone who has been behaving out of character either by actions, or what is said - or not said? Do you know someone who has inexplicably become reclusive, quiet or vocal?"


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

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stint7 wrote:
However, before I forget his incredibly tasteless 'wormfood' words and join in the love fest too fervently beyond the thank you, may I remind others that CDHost had this to say about us here on PMF as recently as last night:
ff)
But it is a hate blog so they like to reassure themselves they are all in group by saying horrible things about a child. I really wish that some of them would take a look at a Christian Identity blog or America Forever to just get some idea of how ugly what they are doing is. Substitute Amanda for blacks or gays or....


That made me laugh.

The point that CD Host started out from on an IMDB forum and his own weird low-traffic blog is a bitter hatred of a nightmare Mignini that he has dreamed up in his own mind.

It would be helpful if someone could assemble all of his anti-Mignini rants here. The IMDB forum is for Hayden Panettiere and his many comments are below my own post there.

I think at least a few of the forces of darkness have had police tangles and legal tangles and even incarceration themselves (we know of one for sure) and their posts resemble jailhouse lawyer talk.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
"As for Amanda Knox, one of the key witnesses does NOT have a prior drug conviction that can be used against him. Wire sources had indicated that the witness was indeed charged with a drug offense, but not actually convicted of a crime. In Italy, as in the United States, the Defense cannot use a charge against a witness to discredit them, it has to be an actual conviction."

http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-legal ... manda-knox

well done, examiner guy.


This is seriously important and useful. It was mis-reported late last week that Curatolo had already been convicted.

The Perugia prosecutors are firm and hard line and incredibly smart, and a whole book could be written just about them and some of the very smart games they have played.

They absolutely ran rings around the defenses in the second half of 2009, especially in their brilliant summations. And their prepping for new defense witnesses jailbirds Alessi and Aviello has been quite formidable - now taking bets for whether they will testify!

Now why would Curatolo be charged right now? Here's a guess.

He is to be re-examined in the appeal. He has a firm backbone, by all accounts, but no harm in making sure he stays on the reservation in face of immense pressures including quite possibly financial...?!

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:45 pm   Post subject: Black Cat Found...   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Re: Reported trail of blood betwixt upstairs and downstairs apartments.

Catnip wrote:
Probably the cat. With the sore ear...

...But the blood turned out to be the cat's.


But why was the cat injured? How many times have you seen a cat injured/bleeding profusely -- the cat had a cut ear - reportedly - how did that happen? Cat blood forming a blood trail from the upstairs apartment to downstairs? If the cat got injured why on that night?


Again - How often in its life will a cat get injured, be bleeding profusely. If a cat got injured (which is extremely uncommon) -- why on that evening?


TTrroon:
I apologize if this question already been addressed. I'm (obviously) behind in my reading.

I think "how often in its life a cat gets injured" would depend on many factors.

First and foremost, I'd think has to do with whether the cat is an "indoor" or "outdoor" cat. Cats that are allowed to freely roam outdoors are a gazillion times more likely to sustain injuries and engage in territorial "cat fights," than your average "indoor" cat.

Another consideration is whether or not the cat's own front paws were declawed.

During my childhood, one of my favorite cats was a Ghenghis Khan-type-warrior indoor & outdoor cat, with claws intact. He used to return home with all sorts of nocturnal battle injuries (especially bleeding ears!) with who-knows- what sort of forest animalia.

Sometimes, simply non-violent playing with other cats in our household would cause unintentional cuts and bleeds on those delicate ears.

Other problems that may cause ear bleeding: overzealous self-scratching, ear infections, and even mites.

By the way, does this Perugian kittycat have a name? mike
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Several emailers have pointed out a bizarre discussion going on on the Knox Facebook page for conspiracy theorists here:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 8268784389

The frenetic and perpetually lathered up “Patrick King” is not known for ever getting any facts right. I’ve been dead since 1993?! That sure is news to me. Feel free to read my bio any time. Its online here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=446021012651

Many of the PMF/TJMK team are similarly publicly named and known and have very high qualifications. Some have appeared on TV. Meredith’s family and all of those involved in the whole huge structure of Italian justice are all named and known..

Two of "Patrick King's" comments from that Facebook thread on "Bruce Fishers" book that should provide us with a heads-up:

Quote:
Chapter 6 is an all-out truthful attack on the Internet Guilters and their websites. A very direct assault that exposes them for the demented individuals that they have become. Some of our Guilters should be able to recognize themselves in Bruce's words.


Quote:
I was going to ask him if Barbie's lawyer had contacted him yet. He really lays into her. I guess she won't be having dinner at the Fisher residence any time soon. The distinction about the book cover hadn't struck my consciousness until Bruce drew my attention to it. Very interesting. I think Barbie and Nick deserve everything he says. Both, of course, are back pedaling now. Curiouser and curiouser.


Does anyone yet have this book? Various faux rave reviews here: http://tinyurl.com/4pnw7y4

Added: Apparently this "book" is only an Amazon Kindle vanity "book" and will not be published on paper or appear in any bookstores. So how will he follow Candace Dempsey on the endless self-love circuits?!


Last edited by Fast Pete on Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:45 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

CDHost, since you may read here, I just wanted to point out that you challenged someone to point out how the guilters lied, and the best they could point you to was Treehorn calling Amanda's Seattle ticket a conviction, which was just a matter of disagreement on the word being used. Treehorn never said she went to trial for it, and admitted that he/she considered it a conviction because she paid the fine. The fact that this exchange is the best that certain innocentisti can come up with as proof that we "lie" should tell you that they are being disingenuous with their criticism.

I despise that, it's a pet peeve of mine. The constant exaggerations by calling us liars, evil, cults, stupid untrained "thinkers" (I guess I mustn't have learned how to think in school or something?), etc shows just how insecure they feel in their position. Although there are a couple Knox supporters who I really dislike, and with good reason, you will notice that I mostly categorize the rest as simply people I disagree with. I absolutely abhor PMF being demonized the way it is (from the same people who make good use of the translations and documents that many here worked hard to provide). You will notice even Amanda herself doesn't talk as badly about those who think she is guilty, you would think her supporters would follow suit. At the end of day, we don't have the power to keep Amanda in jail, and I dont want that power. To treat us as if we personally took her life from her is cruel and rather ridiculous.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Sigh, such nice people some of you. Could see the golden lining in a colostomy bag. And more power to your elbows for being like that. If I were ever to be hit by a tidal wave, I'd choose to be with certain PMFers. As we were about to be swept past treetops and over the top of buildings to our certain death, the last words I'd hear would probably be "still... should be nicely hydrated after this... my skin *was* looking a little drrrrryyyyyyyyyyy..."



Lol harsh SA, harsh! is)
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 Jan 18, 2011 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Correction: Italy-Knox story
By The Associated Press (CP) –


ROME — In a Jan. 15 story about a prosecution witness in the Perugia murder trial of U.S. college student Amanda Knox, The Associated Press, relying on information from a lawyer, erroneously reported that the witness, Antonio Curatolo, had been convicted on a drug charge. Curatolo has been ordered to stand trial on a drug charge, but has not been convicted.



THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

_________________
"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 Welshy


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:27 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Several emailers have pointed out a bizarre discussion going on on the Knox Facebook page for conspiracy theorists here:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 8268784389

The frenetic and perpetually lathered up “Patrick King” is not known for ever getting any facts right. I’ve been dead since 1993?! That sure is news to me. Feel free to read my bio any time. Its online here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=446021012651


Please attach your birth certificate, an album of childhood pictures and copy of your credit history immediately so we independently verify your identity. Failure to do so will render your position on this forum, actually the internet, untenable.

Patrick King is now suggesting that RS's cousin may have broken into the cottage and run his finger over the bra clasp. I'm not making this up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Solange305 wrote:
CDHost, since you may read here, I just wanted to point out that you challenged someone to point out how the guilters lied, and the best they could point you to was Treehorn calling Amanda's Seattle ticket a conviction, which was just a matter of disagreement on the word being used. Treehorn never said she went to trial for it, and admitted that he/she considered it a conviction because she paid the fine. The fact that this exchange is the best that certain innocentisti can come up with as proof that we "lie" should tell you that they are being disingenuous with their criticism.

I despise that, it's a pet peeve of mine. The constant exaggerations by calling us liars, evil, cults, stupid untrained "thinkers" (I guess I mustn't have learned how to think in school or something?), etc shows just how insecure they feel in their position. Although there are a couple Knox supporters who I really dislike, and with good reason, you will notice that I mostly categorize the rest as simply people I disagree with. I absolutely abhor PMF being demonized the way it is (from the same people who make good use of the translations and documents that many here worked hard to provide). You will notice even Amanda herself doesn't talk as badly about those who think she is guilty, you would think her supporters would follow suit. At the end of day, we don't have the power to keep Amanda in jail, and I dont want that power. To treat us as if we personally took her life from her is cruel and rather ridiculous.


It is merely part of a strategy, Solange. It is interesting how these things become talking points at several sources all at the same time, apparently. It is certainly true that they wish to portray anyone who disagrees with them as lunatic at best: it may be that the constant repetition will even persuade some people because that is how advertising works. What it won't do is influence the court. So it matters not one whit. They are disgusting: but they are not important
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 Jan 18, 2011 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Correction: Italy-Knox story
By The Associated Press (CP) –


ROME — In a Jan. 15 story about a prosecution witness in the Perugia murder trial of U.S. college student Amanda Knox, The Associated Press, relying on information from a lawyer, erroneously reported that the witness, Antonio Curatolo, had been convicted on a drug charge. Curatolo has been ordered to stand trial on a drug charge, but has not been convicted.



THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


I see. Make up story. Issue partial retraction. What's next? All I've ever been able to independently confirm is that the prosecutor does indeed exist. It wouldn't be the first time that an unnamed source called in a "scoop" that wasn't properly researched and turned out to be entirely fictitious. How hard is it, really, to cobble together a few factoids and give a story legs?

Let's get those Bayesians to work on the probability that this story will ebb quietly into the distance after the Knox appeal is finished.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tripod


Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:40 pm

Posts: 26

Highscores: 9

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
The frenetic and perpetually lathered up “Patrick King” is not known for ever getting any facts right. I’ve been dead since 1993?! That sure is news to me.


Hi Pete,

That gave me a chuckle. I think he is getting you confused with the Peter Quennell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Quennell) whose work "Byron - The Years of Fame" I'm coincidentally currently enjoying. I've often wondered if he was related to you but never before thought you might be one and the same person!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Several emailers have pointed out a bizarre discussion going on on the Knox Facebook page for conspiracy theorists here:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 8268784389

The frenetic and perpetually lathered up “Patrick King” is not known for ever getting any facts right. I’ve been dead since 1993?! That sure is news to me. Feel free to read my bio any time. Its online here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=446021012651

Well, there was a Peter Quennell who died in 1993. He was an author/historian who would turn 106 this March if he were still alive then. I am pretty sure you are not him. But I guess Patrick King figures it's good enough for who it's for.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Does anyone else find it dispiriting that a report which struck many of us as distinctly odd was accepted without apparent question by new outlets who are paid to know about that sort of thing?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
Several emailers have pointed out a bizarre discussion going on on the Knox Facebook page for conspiracy theorists here:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 8268784389

The frenetic and perpetually lathered up “Patrick King” is not known for ever getting any facts right. I’ve been dead since 1993?! That sure is news to me. Feel free to read my bio any time. Its online here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=446021012651

Well, there was a Peter Quennell who died in 1993. He was an author/historian who would turn 106 this March if he were still alive then. I am pretty sure you are not him. But I guess Patrick King figures it's good enough for who it's for.


Hi Tom. Yeah I dont think I am him either.

The Patrick King who is so exercised over this issue is an actor in the small New Hampshire village of Exeter.

Problem apparently distinguishing reality from the scripts - and has HE been given a script.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

http://www.monsterofperugia.com/

Posted by Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D.

Unless her sentence is reduced or overturned on appeal, Amanda will not return home until the year 2033. She will be 46 years old and will have spent the prime of her life in Italian prisons.

The Monster of Perugia has only been shown to very few readers, but strong reactions are already beginning to come in. The following are two of the first:

From Douglas Preston, bestselling author with Mario Spezi of The Monster of Florence, which described the investigations of a series of murders in the region of Florence, Italy, and which involved the same prosecutor as this case:

"The Monster of Perugia is a fascinating book, essential for anyone interested in the horrific case of Amanda Knox. Waterbury, an expert in forensics and the scientific evaluation of evidence, shows how virtually all the evidence used to convict Knox of murder was fraudulent, manipulated, and concocted. He makes the clearest case yet that she was framed by powerful Italian authorities intent on covering up their own mistakes. I highly recommend this well-written, clear, gripping, and ultimately infuriating book." – Douglas Preston

Tom Wright, author and founder, FriendsofAmanda.org (FOA) had the following reaction:

"When a passionate man of science casts aside all other work in his life to explain the truth of what he knows about a human event, that man is worth listening to. "

Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
Does anyone else find it dispiriting that a report which struck many of us as distinctly odd was accepted without apparent question by new outlets who are paid to know about that sort of thing?


H Fiona.

Yeah as Michael linked this was the Associated Press. We have seen up to 500 of their client media sites carrying same-day Knox stories in the past but the number had been very sharply decreasing.

Now this according to Google was carried by 1400 outlets.

Quote:
A defense lawyer for Amanda Knox, the U.S. college student serving a 26-year prison sentence for the murder of her British roommate, expressed optimism Saturday that a drug charge conviction of a prosecution witness might help the American in her appeal in Italy.The defense always maintained that Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man in the university town of Perugia, wasn't a credible witness, Luciano Ghirga told The Associated Press in Rome.


Always tedious to have wrong reports out there and the conspiracy theorists and Knox Seattle team leaped on this one, but at least (for once) there was a correction. Associated Press are just about first here with a correction.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 12 of 14 [ 3425 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,891,565 Views