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 12:55 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:55 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
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


Doug Preston is really frothing at the mouth with his wild-eyed claims that Knox was framed by powerful Italian authorities and the evidence was fraudulent, manipulated and concocted. As with all conspiracy theorists, he hasn't produced any actual evidence to support his hysterical claims.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789
Top Profile 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

OT OT

For Fiona! :)

http://www.e-flux.com/shows/view/9064
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 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.monsterofperugia.com/

Posted by Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D.


Is that the house from the Blair Witch Project he used as the background image for his blog?
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 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


It's a pretty decent technical manual on how a computer translates your actions into its actions. Its main problem is that it's as much an argument for the prosecution as for the defence. Churchy thinks that, being a computer programming student, Biff is also adept at manipulating the various files and caches on his machine. First of all, this is not necessarily the case. Some hobbyists know a lot more about files, logs and caches than your average computer science student does. Second, the ability to manipulate his own machine to make it appear to be in use when in fact it was idle is not an argument the defence counsel wants to raise in a courtroom. Finally, Churchy doesn't have all the primary documentation but instead Massei's summary. His approach is similar to Komposto or Dr Library Card:

Churchy wrote:
Massei is an arrogant buffoon...


Here's the rebuttal you need, in a format that the groupies might understand:

Neutral Observer wrote:
Churchy is an arrogant buffoon...


See how it works?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:55 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?


Of course. Really depressing.
Top Profile 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
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.


Hello Catnip,

Alas it is not just here that I am behind in current topics. Due to the present workload I appear to have lost all contact with the outside/real world.

I seem to vaguely recall reading somewhere recently that Lehman Brothers may be in a spot of bother. Surely not. If this is true though it would be disastrous for the international banking community. I must check it out after I finish here and will let you know if there is any truth to this; we may have to shift our deposits to a more secure finance house while there is still time. I hear that there is a particularly bright chappie in NY who is giving a decent return on investment at the moment , the right honorable Mr. Bernard Madoff I believe. Now that is the place for any sane person to stash the life savings.
Remember when you are raking in the loot in the coming years it is Hammerite that you have to thank for your good fortune. tt-)

H

ps. what year is this?


Last edited by Hammerite on Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


Here's another key point and you have to go into his comments section to figure out what his real claim is:

Churchy wrote:
4) In a murder investigation involving a programmer's laptop most American semi-skilled forensic people would have recommended a fully skilled person also do the investigation. My comment that you treat a programmer's desktop like you would a server which means you do a standardized forensic analysis and then a custom forensic analysis.


Note the weasel words. Who are "most...forensic people"? Why is it that American law would disregard standards in favour of "being right"? Where is there another case in which this was the routine?

This is why you cannot engage people like this. He's thrown up a smokescreen in the guise of erudition. He literally claims that Massei is an arrogant buffoon by not following a procedure that he--Churchy--thinks would be more appropriate. Then he puffs at his own smokescreen only in his comments section, explaining vaguely that standards are required when employing forensic techniques but that they may be safely ignored whenever Churchy figures it might work in the favour of the criminal.

Who is the arrogant buffoon?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
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. "




He certainly seems that he's in the habit of casting aside a project when another comes his way! The vertical gardener is nothing but one big charlatan looking for his 15 minutes of glory, where do they find all this middle aged hungry for fame loonies? h-))

http://www.patents.com/mark-c-waterbury ... inventors/

http://patent.ipexl.com/inventor/Mark_C ... ury_1.html

http://www.lunatek.info/2009_10_01_archive.html

http://www.aerofalls.info/

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 8:37 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?

I have been increasingly dispirited about the press over the last several decades.
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 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
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. "




He certainly seems that he's in the habit of casting aside a project when another comes his way! The vertical gardener is nothing but one big charlatan looking for his 15 minutes of glory, where do they find all this middle aged hungry for fame loonies? h-))



Did you notice that one of his blogs is a screed against Facebook for disabling his account?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

He's an expert in forensics?
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 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
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?


Of course. Really depressing.



It seems a little obvious to me that that it was one of the defence lawyers that fed the media the story, deliberately. It was a cynical move to publicly attempt to discredit the witness before the resumption of the appeal as they know they won't be able to raise the matter directly in the court.

Most of the media standards in the coverage of this case have been appalling. Many have been politically motivated and slanted. Fact checking amongst the media seems to be a thing of the past. I don't know whether it's because of budget cutting, laziness, not giving a damn or all three.

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


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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
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. "




He certainly seems that he's in the habit of casting aside a project when another comes his way! The vertical gardener is nothing but one big charlatan looking for his 15 minutes of glory, where do they find all this middle aged hungry for fame loonies? h-))



Did you notice that one of his blogs is a screed against Facebook for disabling his account?

Yes, he was going apoplectic when that happened together with his mate crazy Wilkens. A pair of conspiraloons exchanging madness:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


Here's another key point and you have to go into his comments section to figure out what his real claim is:

Churchy wrote:
4) In a murder investigation involving a programmer's laptop most American semi-skilled forensic people would have recommended a fully skilled person also do the investigation. My comment that you treat a programmer's desktop like you would a server which means you do a standardized forensic analysis and then a custom forensic analysis.


Note the weasel words. Who are "most...forensic people"? Why is it that American law would disregard standards in favour of "being right"? Where is there another case in which this was the routine?

This is why you cannot engage people like this. He's thrown up a smokescreen in the guise of erudition. He literally claims that Massei is an arrogant buffoon by not following a procedure that he--Churchy--thinks would be more appropriate. Then he puffs at his own smokescreen only in his comments section, explaining vaguely that standards are required when employing forensic techniques but that they may be safely ignored whenever Churchy figures it might work in the favour of the criminal.

Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:



picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Picture replaced


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
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. "




He certainly seems that he's in the habit of casting aside a project when another comes his way! The vertical gardener is nothing but one big charlatan looking for his 15 minutes of glory, where do they find all this middle aged hungry for fame loonies? h-))



Did you notice that one of his blogs is a screed against Facebook for disabling his account?

Yes, he was going apoplectic when that happened together with his mate crazy Wilkens. A pair of conspiraloons exchanging madness:lol:


Hey, I just did Churchy's self-quiz on Christianity from his blog page here:

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... -quiz.html

I just placed a dot in the middle if I didn't either agree or disagree. Considering that I am not at all a Christian, I wondered what kind I'd make:

You Scored as Emergent/Postmodern
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern 68%
Modern Liberal 61%
Classical Liberal 54%
Neo orthodox 50%
Reformed Evangelical 43%
Roman Catholic 36%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 36%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 32%
Fundamentalist 7%

Darn! I wanted to be a Tondrakian or an Old Believer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:18 pm   Post subject: insane people   

please delete


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:


Yikes!

Well, I have spent more time reading all about this "church discipline" stuff and it appears there's an awful lot I don't know about organised religion. They still excommunicate people? wtf)

What a stupid way to grow your community. "Hey, I know, let's kick folks out! Just like Jesus always did!"

Here's a link for a form letter you can use in your neighbourhood Nazi Party church:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/09/form-f ... mm.html#tp

That's what Churchy addresses here and elsewhere in his blog. Here's how you're supposed to talk to someone who was excommunicated:

Quote:
If you have an opportunity to speak with John personally, please reaffirm your love for him and urge him to settle this matter in a way that will please and honor the Lord. Until he repents, however, you should not associate with him as though nothing were the matter (see 2 Thess. 3:14-15). For example, if he asks to go golfing with you, you might say:

Quote:
John, I’d love to go golfing with you. But there is this matter of your rebellion against the Lord’s authority delegated to the officers of His Church, a rebellion you have demonstrated by refusing to listen to the counsel of the elders. I just can’t pretend that everything is all right when it’s not. But I would be happy to spend time with you if you want to talk about how to settle this matter, or if you want me to come with you to talk with the elders to try to find a solution.


Am I the only one who finds this stuff odd to the point of being creepy? I seriously doubt that God or Jesus or the Invisible-12-Foot-Tall-Shape-Shifting-Lizard-Disguised-As-Prince-Harry is going to give two hoots if you go golfing with the 'rebel', no matter how churchy you are.

Someone please tell me that this stuff is all a put-on--joke blogs run by PJ O'Rourke or something.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


Here's another key point and you have to go into his comments section to figure out what his real claim is:

Churchy wrote:
4) In a murder investigation involving a programmer's laptop most American semi-skilled forensic people would have recommended a fully skilled person also do the investigation. My comment that you treat a programmer's desktop like you would a server which means you do a standardized forensic analysis and then a custom forensic analysis.


Note the weasel words. Who are "most...forensic people"? Why is it that American law would disregard standards in favour of "being right"? Where is there another case in which this was the routine?

This is why you cannot engage people like this. He's thrown up a smokescreen in the guise of erudition. He literally claims that Massei is an arrogant buffoon by not following a procedure that he--Churchy--thinks would be more appropriate. Then he puffs at his own smokescreen only in his comments section, explaining vaguely that standards are required when employing forensic techniques but that they may be safely ignored whenever Churchy figures it might work in the favour of the criminal.

Who is the arrogant buffoon?



All this is currently big fat nowhere. Let me show you how this goes:

Young keen sort turns up in office. "Good news, we've got the basis of an appeal that Raffaele's computer was in use at 11pm and other key times!"
Me: "What?"
YKS: "Awesome isn't it?"
Me: "It's a possible acquittal-in-one. How did we miss this before?"
YKS: "It's terribly woo, boss, terribly hard to understand..."
Me: "Try me, I have an almost limitless fascination for having important things explained to me."
YKS: "Can we do it later, it's a bit tricky.. still... it's awesome isn't it?"
Me: "Mmm.... so what was he doing with the computer at that time? Hang on, let me write this down to send to counsel - 'fantastic news - we can show that at 11pm, Raffaele was..."
YKS: "Raffaele's computer was showing signs of human activity.."
Me: "fantastic news - we can show that at 11pm, Raffaele's computer was showing signs of human activity caused by his use of..."
YKS: "Ummm"
Me: "Yes?"
YKS: "Errrr"
Me: "Caused by his use of..."
YKS: "Showing signs of use?"
Me: (putting down pen) "We can't show what he was doing?"
YKS: "Ummm"
Me: "Internet?"
YKS: "No, that's ruled out by the ISP"
Me: "iTunes?"
YKS: "Don't think so - that turns up event logs on the morning of the 2nd, there's nothing here"
Me: "So none of those. VLC?"
YKS: "Ditto"
Me: "Games?"
YKS: "No"
Me: "Film watching?"
YKS: "No, same as VLC / iTunes"
Me: "Saved files, auto or manual, from working on his thesis?"
YKS: "No"
Me: "Excel, Powerpoint, Word, anything?"
YKS "Umm... no..."
Me: "Anything you can show causality with.. at all...?"
YKS: "Umm... no..."
Me: "And Raffaele never said he was on the computer at that time in interview and in fact Amanda's testimony is completely against it, positively attesting to them being in another room eating dinner and then making love and then falling asleep together?"
YKS: "Yes?"
Me: (stares at ceiling) "You think this is going to work, or is it possible to posit that the jury is going to think we are blowing smoke out of our chuffs?"
YKS: "I'll go and look into it some more"
Me: (picks up pen) "What a terribly good idea"
YKS: "Sorry boss... I errr.. "
Me: "... you were diligently pursuing looking-some-more I believe?"
YKS: "Yes"
Me: "Good idea"

The only difference with Raffaele's case, is that it also has a second session somewhere in middle Italy. (Some weeks have passed)

Senior Defence: "So you've looked some more and we can't prove anything. No causality, no applications, nothing? Big fact Zero. Just an uncaused set of alleged interactions, according to us, with no link to Raffaele or another human being's interaction?"
YKS: "No"
SD: "This is hopeless"
YKS: "So's his case"
SD: (picking up a biscotti from an airmail package) "Mamma Mia, you could splint broken bones with this stuff.... sigh... you're right. Stick it in the appeal and lets hope to god we think of something good by the time we get to the hearings."
YKS: "Si."


If they had killer stuff, it would be all over the news-wires. My strongest hunch is they are desperate. You have to be terribly careful with this stuff. One impression of attempted hood-winking or inability to substantiate claims going to the heart of someone's potential acquittal and the jury is going to turn on you. They don't like having this moral responsibility over their heads - it's incredibly stressful. You try to hoodwink them into making the wrong decision and they'll hate you for it.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: insane people   

please delete


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:05 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
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?


Of course. Really depressing.



It seems a little obvious to me that that it was one of the defence lawyers that fed the media the story, deliberately. It was a cynical move to publicly attempt to discredit the witness before the resumption of the appeal as they know they won't be able to raise the matter directly in the court.

Most of the media standards in the coverage of this case have been appalling. Many have been politically motivated and slanted. Fact checking amongst the media seems to be a thing of the past. I don't know whether it's because of budget cutting, laziness, not giving a damn or all three.


Magazines and TV news networks used to have a "Law" reporter. With recent cutbacks in all mass media, one of the first casualties was law reporting.

Most stories having to do with the law are now "Human Interest" or "Crime" stories. Accuracy is no longer necessary, splashy headlines and tearful interviews are now the main offer on law-related topics.

You have talking heads like Nancy Grace at CNN, who is a trained lawyer and a former prosecutor. You can see by the salacious slant in her broadcasts that emotion and human interest angles are her stock in trade and what keeps advertisers happy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

please delete


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:04 am, edited 2 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: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

ttrroon -

I think that's enough off topic videos for this burst.

_________________
"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 thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Quote:
They still excommunicate people?


You didn't read about the mother and the nine-year-old daughter in Brazil who were excommunicated from the Catholic church last year together with the doctor who gave the child an abortion when it was discovered that her stepfather had managed to get her pregnant with twins?

Excellent example of church discipline
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I want to thank equinox for posting the links to the posts on TJMK analyzing Micheli’s motivations report written after Rudy’s trial and the suggestion that it would be of value to re-read them. (Eqinox’s post is the last one on page 11, sorry didn’t have a chance to post this weekend) The report explains the reasons he found Rudy guilty and also why he believed there to be enough evidence against Raffaele and Amanda to send them to trial.
There are a number of areas that have been commented upon here and on TJMK where the details have been somewhat forgotten/altered by the passage of time and it would seem helpful to quote from the summaries posted on TJMK with reference to a couple of them.

RE: THE BOMB HOAX:
It has been suggested by a poster on TJMK (with additional comments here) that the “bomb hoax” at Signora Lana’s and the dumping of Meredith’s phones in her garden was too much of a coincidence to have happened randomly and that Raffaele could have listened to a police scanner (a scanner which to my knowledge has never been mentioned as being found in his possession after the murder) and concluded that the police having been called to that address once and not having found a bomb, would be unlikely to pay any attention to any other calls from that household, thus making the garden a “safe” place to dump the phones.

FROM: UNDERSTANDING MICHELI #2 (underlining mine)

Early on the morning of November 2nd, Signora Lana Biscarini received a bomb threat call made to her home at 5A Via Sperandio. (This later transpired to be a hoax.)

Some time later Signora Biscarini found a mobile phone in her garden. She “had heard” that bombs could be concealed in mobile phones and so she took it to the police station arriving at 10:58am as recorded by ISP. Bartolozzi

The postal police examined the phone and following removal of the SIM card, discovered at 11:38am that it belonged to a Filomena Romanelli who lived at the cottage at 7 Via della Pergola. Following a call by Signora Biscarini to check with her daughter who was still at home, it is in the record at 11:50am that neither say they know the Filomena in question. At around noon Signora Biscarini’s daughter rings her mother at the police station to say she has found a second phone.

The second phone (Meredith’s) is collected from Via Sperandio and taken to the police station. Its receipt there is logged by ISP. Bartolozzi at 12:46pm. During its examination Meredith’s phone is also logged as connecting to the cell of Strada Borghetto di Prepo, which covers the police station, at 13:00pm. At 13:50pm both phones, which have never left the police station following their finding, are officially seized. This seizure is entered in the log at 14:00pm.

Separately, as part of the bomb hoax investigation, agents of the postal police are dispatched to make enquiries at Filomena’s address in Via della Pergola.

They are recorded in the log and filmed on the car park camera as arriving at 12:35pm. They were not in possession of Filomena’s phone, which remained at the police station, nor of Meredith’s which at this time was being taken from Via Sperandio to the police station for examination as part of the bomb hoax enquiry.

On their arrival at the cottage, the agents of the postal police found Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox standing outside the front door.

The two seemed surprised to see them (the postal police had come to talk to Filomena about a bomb hoax which potentially involved her phone, plus they had recently been informed of the discovery of second phone in the same garden), but then they explained they had discovered suspicious circumstances inside the cottage.”

The comments on the ongoing bomb hoax inquiry, especially as regards Filomena’s phone, would imply, to me, that the police had not yet determined the identity of the perpetrator of the bomb hoax—the ragazzo from Rome. They weren’t just investigating phones, presumably stolen, that had been dumped, but also their possible connection to a call about a bomb. Since this was an ongoing investigation, it seems unlikely that Raffaele could have head something on a police scanner in the wee hours of November 1-2 to lead him to the conclusion that Signora Lana’s garden would be a “safe” place to dump the phones. Just my opinion, of course.

RE: RUDY’S HARRASMENT OF YOUNG WOMEN
FROM: UNDERSTANDING MICHELI #1

"Earlier in his report Micheli considered character evidence on Rudy given by witnesses for both prosecution and defense. Although he had been seen with a knife on two occasions, and was considered a bit of a liar who sometimes got drunk, the judge didn’t consider that Rudy had previously shown a propensity for violence, nor behaviour towards girls which differed markedly from that displayed by many other young men of his age."

It is indeed valuable to reread this set of posts and I want to add my recommendation to equinox’s that everyone reread them. With the passage of time and the continual onslaught of misinformation, it has become difficult to remember what some of the earlier official statements actually indicated about the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. There are other areas in addition to the two I mentioned above where a “refreshment” of information from this report is very useful.

I want to add a HUGE THANK YOU to all of the people who have translated material or analyzed or vetted it, so that those of us who can’t read Italian or understand spoken Italian have the opportunity to know the truth of what has actually been said and done in this case. I won’t name you (I’d be too afraid of leaving someone out) but you all have my heartfelt appreciation. hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


Here's another key point and you have to go into his comments section to figure out what his real claim is:

Churchy wrote:
4) In a murder investigation involving a programmer's laptop most American semi-skilled forensic people would have recommended a fully skilled person also do the investigation. My comment that you treat a programmer's desktop like you would a server which means you do a standardized forensic analysis and then a custom forensic analysis.


Note the weasel words. Who are "most...forensic people"? Why is it that American law would disregard standards in favour of "being right"? Where is there another case in which this was the routine?

This is why you cannot engage people like this. He's thrown up a smokescreen in the guise of erudition. He literally claims that Massei is an arrogant buffoon by not following a procedure that he--Churchy--thinks would be more appropriate. Then he puffs at his own smokescreen only in his comments section, explaining vaguely that standards are required when employing forensic techniques but that they may be safely ignored whenever Churchy figures it might work in the favour of the criminal.

Who is the arrogant buffoon?



All this is currently big fat nowhere. Let me show you how this goes:

....

Me: (stares at ceiling) "You think this is going to work, or is it possible to posit that the jury is going to think we are blowing smoke out of our chuffs?"
YKS: "I'll go and look into it some more"

....
....

If they had killer stuff, it would be all over the news-wires. My strongest hunch is they are desperate. You have to be terribly careful with this stuff. One impression of attempted hood-winking or inability to substantiate claims going to the heart of someone's potential acquittal and the jury is going to turn on you. They don't like having this moral responsibility over their heads - it's incredibly stressful. You try to hoodwink them into making the wrong decision and they'll hate you for it.


Aw, cool. I'm doing a few presentations this week and let me see if I can fit "blowing smoke out of our chuffs" into one or two of them. But you're right. Jurors (or lay judges or whatever) are people. Just like you and me. They really don't like to feel hoodwinked. Foolish. Having their time wasted.
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 10:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

thoughtful wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Quote:
They still excommunicate people?


You didn't read about the mother and the nine-year-old daughter in Brazil who were excommunicated from the Catholic church last year together with the doctor who gave the child an abortion when it was discovered that her stepfather had managed to get her pregnant with twins?

Excellent example of church discipline


Did the townspeople get guidance on how to avoid golfing with them too? I actually thought it was still OK for Roman Catholics to excommunicate one another but the blog I saw was supposed to have been Presbyterian. It certainly wouldn't seem right to have a "catholic" (eg "universal") church that was stripped of its obligations to excommunicate or launch crusades. I guess I thought that Protestants wanting more discipline would join the Byzantine Orthodox and that those wanting abortions would become Methodists. Too simple?

Maybe I haven't thought this all the way through.
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 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


Here's another key point and you have to go into his comments section to figure out what his real claim is:

Churchy wrote:
4) In a murder investigation involving a programmer's laptop most American semi-skilled forensic people would have recommended a fully skilled person also do the investigation. My comment that you treat a programmer's desktop like you would a server which means you do a standardized forensic analysis and then a custom forensic analysis.


Note the weasel words. Who are "most...forensic people"? Why is it that American law would disregard standards in favour of "being right"? Where is there another case in which this was the routine?

This is why you cannot engage people like this. He's thrown up a smokescreen in the guise of erudition. He literally claims that Massei is an arrogant buffoon by not following a procedure that he--Churchy--thinks would be more appropriate. Then he puffs at his own smokescreen only in his comments section, explaining vaguely that standards are required when employing forensic techniques but that they may be safely ignored whenever Churchy figures it might work in the favour of the criminal.

Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:


Hang on, hang on. Is this CDHost??? From Church Discipline fame? Calling himself Churchy and Meredith...(I don't even want to repeat it)?

I am afraid I am with SA and Fast Pete on this one. Techies can't help helping out with techie stuff. It's in their bloodstream. It's not necessarily kindness, it's sometimes just habit/knee-jerk: remember Raffaele in court fixing the computer for the prosecution? Was that kindness? Or total stupidity? They can't help themselves. It's one of the nicest characteristics of the nice ones; but Churchy isn't nice.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Regarding the story about Curatolo allegedly selling drugs...call me cynic, but what a coincidence that this came up at about the same time as the story about AK and the drug dealer. There is a well-known PR tactic that, if you have a negative story that you can't suppress, you find a contrary positive story which includes some of the same key words and you push it for all you're worth. The theory (among PR people) is that the average member of the public is so stupid that they only remember 2 or 3 key words from any news story. So, for example, (hypothetically) if there is a story involving Amanda Knox and her connection with a drug dealer, all that people (supposedly) remember is "Amanda Knox" and "drug dealer". If you (as PR expert) can find another story that also includes the key words "Amanda Knox" and "drug dealer" and can be presented as being "very positive" for the Knox appeal, a lot of people who have read both stories will think they are the same thing! Even better, of course, is if even media "professionals" are so stupid/lazy that they start to mix up the two stories.
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 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:


Yikes!

Well, I have spent more time reading all about this "church discipline" stuff and it appears there's an awful lot I don't know about organised religion. They still excommunicate people? wtf)

What a stupid way to grow your community. "Hey, I know, let's kick folks out! Just like Jesus always did!"

Here's a link for a form letter you can use in your neighbourhood Nazi Party church:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/09/form-f ... mm.html#tp

That's what Churchy addresses here and elsewhere in his blog. Here's how you're supposed to talk to someone who was excommunicated:

Quote:
If you have an opportunity to speak with John personally, please reaffirm your love for him and urge him to settle this matter in a way that will please and honor the Lord. Until he repents, however, you should not associate with him as though nothing were the matter (see 2 Thess. 3:14-15). For example, if he asks to go golfing with you, you might say:

Quote:
John, I’d love to go golfing with you. But there is this matter of your rebellion against the Lord’s authority delegated to the officers of His Church, a rebellion you have demonstrated by refusing to listen to the counsel of the elders. I just can’t pretend that everything is all right when it’s not. But I would be happy to spend time with you if you want to talk about how to settle this matter, or if you want me to come with you to talk with the elders to try to find a solution.


Am I the only one who finds this stuff odd to the point of being creepy? I seriously doubt that God or Jesus or the Invisible-12-Foot-Tall-Shape-Shifting-Lizard-Disguised-As-Prince-Harry is going to give two hoots if you go golfing with the 'rebel', no matter how churchy you are.

Someone please tell me that this stuff is all a put-on--joke blogs run by PJ O'Rourke or something.


No. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Poor John! During that game of golf he might have seen the Light, and now he won't get the chance, so he will burn in hell forever. The sinner is the one who refused the opportunity to save his soul. Shurely shome mishtake...

_________________
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 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
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?


Of course. Really depressing.



It seems a little obvious to me that that it was one of the defence lawyers that fed the media the story, deliberately. It was a cynical move to publicly attempt to discredit the witness before the resumption of the appeal as they know they won't be able to raise the matter directly in the court.

Most of the media standards in the coverage of this case have been appalling. Many have been politically motivated and slanted. Fact checking amongst the media seems to be a thing of the past. I don't know whether it's because of budget cutting, laziness, not giving a damn or all three.

Being a profit center takes precedence over good journalism.
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 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Beans quoting the summary of Micheli wrote:
Some time later Signora Biscarini found a mobile phone in her garden. She “had heard” that bombs could be concealed in mobile phones and so she took it to the police station arriving at 10:58am as recorded by ISP. Bartolozzi



This made me smile. She thinks there might be a bomb in the phone and so drives it to the police station. Drives to the police station...with a bomb...which may go off at any second for any reason. What a star!!!

_________________
"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 beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Well, maybe the signora, like Raffaele (according to some), thought that once the police had been somewhere investigating a bomb threat, they would not return. :D
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 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
Michael wrote:
Most of the media standards in the coverage of this case have been appalling. Many have been politically motivated and slanted. Fact checking amongst the media seems to be a thing of the past. I don't know whether it's because of budget cutting, laziness, not giving a damn or all three.

Being a profit center takes precedence over good journalism.


Interesting comment. Exactly as many editors and managers see it. The Rupert Murdoch effect.

But I can tell you that a lot of journalists and reporters here in NYC feel that "lowest common denominator" is a bad move. So do the journalism schools at Columbia U and NYU.

The Times still strives for higher though true crime reporting for them has been a disaster - wrong on the Duke faux rape case and just phoning it in on Meredith's.

The networks actually have strong codes of ethics and if they were called on their misreporting it WOULD be looked into.

Pete
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 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


Here's another key point and you have to go into his comments section to figure out what his real claim is:

Churchy wrote:
4) In a murder investigation involving a programmer's laptop most American semi-skilled forensic people would have recommended a fully skilled person also do the investigation. My comment that you treat a programmer's desktop like you would a server which means you do a standardized forensic analysis and then a custom forensic analysis.


Note the weasel words. Who are "most...forensic people"? Why is it that American law would disregard standards in favour of "being right"? Where is there another case in which this was the routine?

This is why you cannot engage people like this. He's thrown up a smokescreen in the guise of erudition. He literally claims that Massei is an arrogant buffoon by not following a procedure that he--Churchy--thinks would be more appropriate. Then he puffs at his own smokescreen only in his comments section, explaining vaguely that standards are required when employing forensic techniques but that they may be safely ignored whenever Churchy figures it might work in the favour of the criminal.

Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:


Hang on, hang on. Is this CDHost??? From Church Discipline fame? Calling himself Churchy and Meredith...(I don't even want to repeat it)?

I am afraid I am with SA and Fast Pete on this one. Techies can't help helping out with techie stuff. It's in their bloodstream. It's not necessarily kindness, it's sometimes just habit/knee-jerk: remember Raffaele in court fixing the computer for the prosecution? Was that kindness? Or total stupidity? They can't help themselves. It's one of the nicest characteristics of the nice ones; but Churchy isn't nice.

I confess that I wince every time I read the name, "Churchy." As a devoted fan of Walt Kelly's Pogo comic strip, I immediately think of Churchy LaFemme from that strip. These two don't have much in common except being out to lunch. Here's a summary from Wikipedia:

"Churchill "Churchy" LaFemme: a mud turtle by trade; he enjoys composing songs and poems, often with ridiculous and abrasive lyrics and nonsense rhymes. His name is a play on the French phrase Cherchez la femme ("Look for the woman"). Perhaps the least sensible of the major players, Churchy is superstitious to a fault (for example, panicking when he discovers that Friday the 13th falls on a Wednesday that month). Churchy is usually an active partner in Howland's outlandish schemes, and prone to (sometimes physical) confrontation with him when they (inevitably) run afoul. Churchy may have once been a buccaneer, because for a time in the early strips he wore a pirate's hat and was sometimes referred to as "Cap'n LaFemme." This seems incongruous for the guileless Churchy, however, who is far more likely to play-act with Owl at being a pantomime pirate than the genuine article."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Welshy


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:27 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Is there any dispute regarding the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage? Massei and Micheli both refer to around 12:35, is this corroborated at all? If so, why doesn't Massei point out the fact that RS's call to his sister and subsequently the carabinieri didn't happen until 12:50, when the Postal Police were already there?

Also, the incoming call to Sollecito from his father lasting 67 seconds at 12:40, 10 minutes prior to the call RS makes to his sister, registers with a mast that suggests he's in the vicinity of the cottage (as does his earlier top up at 12:35). Does RS make any disclosures to his father during this conversation regarding the odd situation at the cottage?
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 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
Being a profit center takes precedence over good journalism.


This is true. The media exists to make money, that's their primary purpose, not to inform people. In just the same way, the drug companies exist to make money, not to cure people. That's the cold reality of capitalism. The bottom line is the balance sheet.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Welshy wrote:
Is there any dispute regarding the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage? Massei and Micheli both refer to around 12:35, is this corroborated at all? If so, why doesn't Massei point out the fact that RS's call to his sister and subsequently the carabinieri didn't happen until 12:50, when the Postal Police were already there?

Also, the incoming call to Sollecito from his father lasting 67 seconds at 12:40, 10 minutes prior to the call RS makes to his sister, registers with a mast that suggests he's in the vicinity of the cottage (as does his earlier top up at 12:35). Does RS make any disclosures to his father during this conversation regarding the odd situation at the cottage?



Oh, there's a LOT of dispute about that.

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


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

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

So the RS computer issue brought up by the defence is just a distraction?
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 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:


Hang on, hang on. Is this CDHost??? From Church Discipline fame? Calling himself Churchy and Meredith...(I don't even want to repeat it)?

I am afraid I am with SA and Fast Pete on this one. Techies can't help helping out with techie stuff. It's in their bloodstream. It's not necessarily kindness, it's sometimes just habit/knee-jerk: remember Raffaele in court fixing the computer for the prosecution? Was that kindness? Or total stupidity? They can't help themselves. It's one of the nicest characteristics of the nice ones; but Churchy isn't nice.


I call him Churchy. I think it's a good nickname, don't you?

By the way, in the courtroom, Biff wasn't exactly doing "techie stuff". Present company possibly excepted, lawyers are not especially well-known for their familiarity with things like plugging in the peripherals. Biff wasn't figuring out the launch codes for the Pentagon's ICBM system, you know.
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 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
I call him Churchy. I think it's a good nickname, don't you?


Jools found him though... does he have a day job?
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 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Hang on, hang on. Is this CDHost??? From Church Discipline fame? Calling himself Churchy and Meredith...(I don't even want to repeat it)?

I am afraid I am with SA and Fast Pete on this one. Techies can't help helping out with techie stuff. It's in their bloodstream. It's not necessarily kindness, it's sometimes just habit/knee-jerk: remember Raffaele in court fixing the computer for the prosecution? Was that kindness? Or total stupidity? They can't help themselves. It's one of the nicest characteristics of the nice ones; but Churchy isn't nice.

I confess that I wince every time I read the name, "Churchy." As a devoted fan of Walt Kelly's Pogo comic strip, I immediately think of Churchy LaFemme from that strip. These two don't have much in common except being out to lunch. Here's a summary from Wikipedia:

"Churchill "Churchy" LaFemme: a mud turtle by trade; he enjoys composing songs and poems, often with ridiculous and abrasive lyrics and nonsense rhymes. His name is a play on the French phrase Cherchez la femme ("Look for the woman"). Perhaps the least sensible of the major players, Churchy is superstitious to a fault (for example, panicking when he discovers that Friday the 13th falls on a Wednesday that month). Churchy is usually an active partner in Howland's outlandish schemes, and prone to (sometimes physical) confrontation with him when they (inevitably) run afoul. Churchy may have once been a buccaneer, because for a time in the early strips he wore a pirate's hat and was sometimes referred to as "Cap'n LaFemme." This seems incongruous for the guileless Churchy, however, who is far more likely to play-act with Owl at being a pantomime pirate than the genuine article."


I'm not old enough to remember it from its first run but I am a huge fan of Pogo and that line about Friday the 13th falling on a Wednesday this month is one of my favourites. When people ask me why I am referencing some obscure old comic strip like that, I try to place it into perspective by telling them it was a satirical version of Doonesbury.
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 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So the RS computer issue brought up by the defence is just a distraction?


Not a distraction as such, rather a tool to try and cast doubt on the previous certainty.

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Welshy wrote:
Is there any dispute regarding the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage? Massei and Micheli both refer to around 12:35, is this corroborated at all? If so, why doesn't Massei point out the fact that RS's call to his sister and subsequently the carabinieri didn't happen until 12:50, when the Postal Police were already there?

Also, the incoming call to Sollecito from his father lasting 67 seconds at 12:40, 10 minutes prior to the call RS makes to his sister, registers with a mast that suggests he's in the vicinity of the cottage (as does his earlier top up at 12:35). Does RS make any disclosures to his father during this conversation regarding the odd situation at the cottage?


That entire time period is disputed. It's noteworthy that both RS and AK make or receive phone calls they later have either no recollection of or no explanation for. Something was happening then and Meredith's body had not yet been discovered by the Postal Police.

I think they noticed the plainsclothes officers looking for the address around the time of those calls. If the CCTV evidence really does show the Postals, they were mucking around near the top of the driveway for several minutes before they entered the property.
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 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I call him Churchy. I think it's a good nickname, don't you?


Jools found him though... does he have a day job?



Jools will find anybody :)

i can't even vocalise how lucky we are to have her. There's only one Jools. Someone who can regularly out sniff out stuff, weekly, that people don't even suspect exists? That's rare...and any community or cause that has her among them is fortunate indeed. Meredith matters. She and her family have some very good people in their corner. People like Jools.

_________________
"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: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

zinnia wrote:



:D Thank you for that Zinnia. Helped make my day

The other thing that did was I went to see Moishe's Bagel and Yasmin Levy this evening: such wonderful music!

Yasmin Levy sang this, for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ySaJroZ ... re=related

and I may have posted this before but it can stand being up twice

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

Offline Welshy


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:27 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Welshy wrote:
Is there any dispute regarding the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage? Massei and Micheli both refer to around 12:35, is this corroborated at all? If so, why doesn't Massei point out the fact that RS's call to his sister and subsequently the carabinieri didn't happen until 12:50, when the Postal Police were already there?

Also, the incoming call to Sollecito from his father lasting 67 seconds at 12:40, 10 minutes prior to the call RS makes to his sister, registers with a mast that suggests he's in the vicinity of the cottage (as does his earlier top up at 12:35). Does RS make any disclosures to his father during this conversation regarding the odd situation at the cottage?



Oh, there's a LOT of dispute about that.


Ah, I guess that's why Massei places no significance on the time the calls to his sister and the carabinieri were made then, because there was no satisfactory resolution to the dispute concerning the time the postal police arrived.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bobc


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So the RS computer issue brought up by the defence is just a distraction?

It seems to be the defence going over anything that could possibly help them, they are suggesting that some files that might have some evidence of human activity. The windowserver.log that is mentioned seems to be mainly for major events and errors, I don't think screensaver activity would be recorded in there.

The defence seem to be doing a diligent job, this can only make the conviction safer if upheld. It is quite a contrast to cases of wrongful conviction where the defence lawyer does a terrible job.

I think the current spate of activity by the innocenti is based on a rather false idea that there is mileage in the appeal at this stage, many really seem to think the conviction is about to be overturned.
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 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
stilicho wrote:
I call him Churchy. I think it's a good nickname, don't you?


Jools found him though... does he have a day job?


Mad props to Jools for that. I meant that it seemed TB thought Churchy called himself "Churchy". Maybe he does. Wouldn't that be cool?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bobc


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I really don't want to repeat CDHost's recent statements regarding Meredith, I find them sickening. If there was a vote, I wouldn't object to him being permanently banned.
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:52 pm   Post subject: Unanswered questions   

Hi all. I haven’t posted in a while but have been following the case from a distance and reading all of your posts and enjoying your pictures over Christmas!

I think cdhost brought up an interesting point about motive. Although I don’t profess to know all of the details of how motive effects criminal trials in Italy, from a personal point of view, I think that when the appeals are over (and I believe that the original sentence will be upheld), alongside relief I will feel disappointment about not understanding the actual reason that events took the course that they did. However, I can’t see any Amanda, Raffaele or Rudy ‘coming clean’ and telling the court what actually happened.

It sounds terribly selfish because surely we should just be happy that justice had be done. However, am I alone in wanting to understand how these events could come about too? sur-)
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 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Welshy wrote:
Michael wrote:
Welshy wrote:
Is there any dispute regarding the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage? Massei and Micheli both refer to around 12:35, is this corroborated at all? If so, why doesn't Massei point out the fact that RS's call to his sister and subsequently the carabinieri didn't happen until 12:50, when the Postal Police were already there?

Also, the incoming call to Sollecito from his father lasting 67 seconds at 12:40, 10 minutes prior to the call RS makes to his sister, registers with a mast that suggests he's in the vicinity of the cottage (as does his earlier top up at 12:35). Does RS make any disclosures to his father during this conversation regarding the odd situation at the cottage?



Oh, there's a LOT of dispute about that.


Ah, I guess that's why Massei places no significance on the time the calls to his sister and the carabinieri were made then, because there was no satisfactory resolution to the dispute concerning the time the postal police arrived.



Exactly...it couldn't be resolved. As such, both sides were awarded the benefit of the doubt and it wasn't used in the reasoning for the final reckoning.

_________________
"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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: Unanswered questions   

BellaDonna wrote:
Hi all. I haven’t posted in a while but have been following the case from a distance and reading all of your posts and enjoying your pictures over Christmas!

I think cdhost brought up an interesting point about motive. Although I don’t profess to know all of the details of how motive effects criminal trials in Italy, from a personal point of view, I think that when the appeals are over (and I believe that the original sentence will be upheld), alongside relief I will feel disappointment about not understanding the actual reason that events took the course that they did. However, I can’t see any Amanda, Raffaele or Rudy ‘coming clean’ and telling the court what actually happened.

It sounds terribly selfish because surely we should just be happy that justice had be done. However, am I alone in wanting to understand how these events could come about too? sur-)


I think it is very natural to want to understand why these things happen. However, in a case I followed closely, after all the facts were laid out the husband who apparently killed his wife in cold blood was convicted. Many marriages end in divorce, it was quite senseless that it ended in murder. I don't think even the killer could really explain why it had happened.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hi BellaDonna,

Wanting to understand and have an explanation is natural.

Sometimes there is no reason (=motive) why someone did something; sometimes, like the other day in Perth, the explanations the murderer gives make no sense.

I think where there is a mature mind, there will probably be a reason (even if it is just "don't care"). Where the reasoning part of the brain is switched off (drugs, extreme exhaustion, automaton shock, sleep walking, temporary physical injury, very young children) or has never developed, then the search for a "reason" will literally reveal nothing that "makes sense".
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Italian Google bots trawled this from the ocean of data:

@ Rotary Club of West Seattle, Mike Heavey defends Amanda Knox
West Seattle Blog (blog) - ‎1 ora fa‎
The topic: The much-discussed case of Amanda Knox – “a 20-year-old kid, from the University of Washington, from West Seattle” at the time of her arrest in ...

I don't have time to investigate it.
Here is the link for reference:
[WSB]

Edited to add:
Harry Rag has been there overnight (my time), and a brave fellow called Dave.

I think Michael Heavey (strictly private citizen) is suffering from "first-bite-of-the-cherry" syndrome since he is repeating the PR, e.g. "He said Knox was subjected to all-night interrogation he termed “very abusive,” including sleep deprivation – an interrogation he says lasted more than 40 hours. He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore,..."

And there is a bit of "rescue-the-princess" as well.


Last edited by Catnip on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bobc wrote:
I really don't want to repeat CDHost's recent statements regarding Meredith, I find them sickening. If there was a vote, I wouldn't object to him being permanently banned.



Well, PMF isn't moderated by vote. Democracy is for countries, not internet forums, a forum can't be run that way. But rest assured...CD-Host and those carrying the same virus will not be disrupting PMF. PMF is defended. We always described it as an island, a refuge from the chaos where people could relax and discuss the case in an intelligent way without fear. That's an old idea, one that started way back on Haloscan and has endured and will continue.

Don't worry :)

_________________
"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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Italian Google bots trawled this from the ocean of data:

@ Rotary Club of West Seattle, Mike Heavey defends Amanda Knox
West Seattle Blog (blog) - ‎1 ora fa‎
The topic: The much-discussed case of Amanda Knox – “a 20-year-old kid, from the University of Washington, from West Seattle” at the time of her arrest in ...

I don't have time to investigate it.
Here is the link for reference:
[WSB]



It looks like no one showed up!


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

He sounds really thick.

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours.

Does anyone take this clown seriously?

He then claims that it's impossible that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because he has looked at their photographs:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:

He sounds really thick.


The test would be defendants in his own court using those same arguments: will he accept them there?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: Unanswered questions   

BellaDonna wrote:
Hi all. I haven’t posted in a while but have been following the case from a distance and reading all of your posts and enjoying your pictures over Christmas!

I think cdhost brought up an interesting point about motive. Although I don’t profess to know all of the details of how motive effects criminal trials in Italy, from a personal point of view, I think that when the appeals are over (and I believe that the original sentence will be upheld), alongside relief I will feel disappointment about not understanding the actual reason that events took the course that they did. However, I can’t see any Amanda, Raffaele or Rudy ‘coming clean’ and telling the court what actually happened.

It sounds terribly selfish because surely we should just be happy that justice had be done. However, am I alone in wanting to understand how these events could come about too? sur-)



BellaDonna, welcome back :)

Justice hasn't arrived yet...that won't happen until the closing of the third degree.

As for the reason...the why? It's natural to want to know this...in fact essential for the individual to gain closure. The sad fact is that in a large majority of cases the 'why' is never discovered. This is down to the fact the convicted continue to deny their involvement and so never disclose why they did it. That leaves a court offering a 'best guess' which may or may not be correct. It is what it has to be, a compromise. It's a very rare day indeed that a trial achieves a fully satisfactory conclusion.

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


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

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


I really don't know what the reason was for being so techy in that article.
So, he's saying that Encase does not record every possible log. Big deal.
Had Sollecito been at his PC all night long, Encase would have recorded human activity.

When one uses a PC that is connected to the Internet, there is so much activity going on behind the scenes (traces that Encase would have picked up).
And since he was not watching a movie all night long, what else did he do in front of his PC all night long?
There is not a single email, MSN message, MIRC log, forum post, internet navigation, server access, WHATEVER, that proves that Sollecito was at his PC (apart from those 4 seconds to Apple's website at 1 AM).
All Sollecito would have to do is say what he did at his PC all night long in order to prove he was really there.

Also, I don't know if Sollecito is a "programmer" (not all computer engineers are programmers).
But I do not know a single computer engineer that is up all night at his PC and does not access the Internet a single time. Not once.
Any even if he was blocking all Port 80 activity with his firewall (for whatever reason), that activity would have been logged by his firewall.

I simply find the story of him being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I've been looking at pictures of Andru Pulu, here and here and here.

I concur with Heavey: “When you look at the pictures of this kid on these websites, you say, this is impossible.” The Huskies off-campus party fistfight story he was allegedly involved in must have been (Heavey would say "was") the result of 40-hours of interrogation by the police trying not to look like fools.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
....

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours

....



Still, this always reminds me of the scenes in The Manchurian Candidate where they can't agree on the number of Communists in the US State Department. The camera finally dollies in on the dimwitted congressman as he taps deliberately on a bottle of Heinz ketchup ("57 Varieties").

How many hours was the interview? 3? 12? All night? 40 hours? 53? A bazillion? The number apparently doesn't matter as long as it sounds high enough.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

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

stilicho wrote:
The Machine wrote:
....

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours

....



Still, this always reminds me of the scenes in The Manchurian Candidate where they can't agree on the number of Communists in the US State Department. The camera finally dollies in on the dimwitted congressman as he taps deliberately on a bottle of Heinz ketchup ("57 Varieties").

How many hours was the interview? 3? 12? All night? 40 hours? 53? A bazillion? The number apparently doesn't matter as long as it sounds high enough.


The picture posted with the article seems to be telling a different story: content problems (blank screen, highly suggestive of a significant lack of preparation) and paparazzi problems (overly zealous photographer standing disrespectfully in the line of sight of hundreds thousands of onlookers while blocking access to the only open seats in the house).


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

FBN wrote:
The picture posted with the article seems to be telling a different story: content problems (blank screen, highly suggestive of a significant lack of preparation) and paparazzi problems (overly zealous photographer standing disrespectfully in the line of sight of hundreds thousands of onlookers while blocking access to the only open seats in the house).



Not to mention 'blank' chairs. Where are all the people? Where's the audience? It looks like this was shot before the audience even arrived...during 'rehearsals'.

Yet another thing Heavey and Amanda Knox have in common...they both like to stage things.

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


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

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:

I simply find the story of him [=RS] being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".



Perhaps he was in front of the computer, for the two minutes that he can remember, "luding out" on "mandies", which was a popular college pastime in the early 1970s. "This is the similar effect of a alcoholic blackout with no recollection of events," says Wikipedia. "Effects can include euphoria, drowsiness, reduced heart rate, reduced respiration, increased sexual arousal (aphrodisia), etc etc".

Perhaps it really was an alcoholic blackout after all, and he's trying to remember. But the party has to stay unmentioned, otherwise the computer defence shields are weakened by 70%, and bra-removing events start entering the picture.

Perhaps he doesn't care, and thinks the police are fools who will settle for the first guy* they find, Rudy (who was actually the last guy they found) and not bother looking any further.



* Perhaps I should say, "first (black) guy", but this would make Raffaele sound too much like Michael Heavey (private citizen).


-------
I mention "mandies" because Anissa Jones, the little girl who played Buffy on Family Affair and who overdosed at 18 back in 1976, had taken them at a party, together with Angel Dust, cocaine and seconal: "The coroner's report listed her death as an accidental drug overdose. ...The coroner who examined Jones reported she had died from one of the most severe drug overdoses he had ever seen."
-- [Wikipedia].

That is expanding the semantic field somewhat of the word "accidental", I find. But coroners tended to do that in those days. Stronger words, or words tending towards indicating a lack of volition, like "reckless", would reflect back on the family in those days; and, besides, where was the "evidence"? In 1976, there was already enough stigma attached to the mere act of being at a party where drugs had been involved, let alone taking them, that anything else would have been unbearable for the family (not to mention negatively impacting on producers' TV syndication negotiation rights, I presume).
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

He sounds really thick.

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours.

Does anyone take this clown seriously?

He then claims that it's impossible that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because he has looked at their photographs:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.

I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


I really don't know what the reason was for being so techy in that article.
So, he's saying that Encase does not record every possible log. Big deal.
Had Sollecito been at his PC all night long, Encase would have recorded human activity.

When one uses a PC that is connected to the Internet, there is so much activity going on behind the scenes (traces that Encase would have picked up).
And since he was not watching a movie all night long, what else did he do in front of his PC all night long?
There is not a single email, MSN message, MIRC log, forum post, internet navigation, server access, WHATEVER, that proves that Sollecito was at his PC (apart from those 4 seconds to Apple's website at 1 AM).
All Sollecito would have to do is say what he did at his PC all night long in order to prove he was really there.

Also, I don't know if Sollecito is a "programmer" (not all computer engineers are programmers).
But I do not know a single computer engineer that is up all night at his PC and does not access the Internet a single time. Not once.
Any even if he was blocking all Port 80 activity with his firewall (for whatever reason), that activity would have been logged by his firewall.

I simply find the story of him being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".

And, what difference does it make if he actually was at his computer after AK was killed?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline history11


Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:55 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

Do people agree? If so, does the prosecution's very clear picture of the events doom them? That is, I have reasonable doubt that AK and RS participated in the murder the way the prosecution says, especially if the appeal ultimately questions the clasp and knife.

I hope this does not happen but it is a likely result, IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


:)

If Steve Moore is telling the truth, then potential grounds for prosecution open up, or at least the re-opening of every single case he ever "worked" on (if any).

If Steve Moore is not telling the truth, then what is the point of Steve Moore? Or the point of quoting him?

Either way, Michael Heavey seems not to understand what "painting himself into a corner" means.

And Steve Moore looking for the quick solution and handy culprit, in any case, seems to be, whether he is telling the truth or not, the exact opposite of what Michael Heavey's line of reasoning wants. I think Michael Heavey is confused: he thinks he is Mignini, and is subsconsciously self-flagellating himself because of his own court's jurisdiction and his local knowledge (it certainly isn't Italian knowledge).

On a serious note: would that "reasoning" of his ever get anything but an "F" for fail if a student presented it in high school, let alone Law 101?
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:37 am   Post subject: He ain't heavy, he's Judge HEAVEY...   

The Machine wrote:
There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

He sounds really thick.

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours.

Does anyone take this clown seriously?

He then claims that it's impossible that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because he has looked at their photographs:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.


Machine:

If these thoughts are any evidence of his intellect, the man is not exactly whatcha call a mental heavyweight.

He ain't heavy, he's Judge Heavey.

"Heavey suggested that he thinks the sun-) nin-) p-)) U.S. State Department is “doing a lot” behind the scenes."

hbc)

How's that for a meaningless phrase..."Heavey suggested that he thinks..."
Does "suggesting that he thinks" something....have any bearing on reality? (Discuss amongst yourselves...) :)

Here's Cclarue's comment after the WS blog that sums up virtually all the "Don't-Confuse-Me-With-Any-Case-Facts-or-Evidence" opinions about Amanda being innocent of the murder charges.

"None of us here know what really happened or who did it. I can not see any motive for Amanda to kill her roomate.What would she gain ? Picture yourself a semi privleged college student studying abroad….. It doesn’t even make any sense for her to do something like that. If she was convicted of gossiping okay I can buy that drunk driving ok that too but outright gruesome murder with her bare hands ? I don’t buy it. With any angle or spin you can put on it .

Comment by Cclarue — January 18, 11 5:04 pm #

If Cclarue can't (or simply doesn't want to) envision Amanda involved in a gruesome murder, then, AMANDA COULD NOT BE INVOLVED. No matter what "angle or spin" ya got, Cclarue ain't buyin' it!

But, hey, even Cclarue seems to think....errm, I mean "SUGGESTED THAT SHE THOUGHT" that we should charge Amanda with something...Let's see...how many years could she get in Italy for "one count of gossiping?" tou-) <-------that's the perfect smiley for tongue-wagging/ gossiping!

By the way, is it just me (cuz I do suffer from a bad case of melodymania from my brain's overdeveloped auditory cortex :lol: )... or does anyone else hear this song in their head every time Judge Heavey's name is mentioned. "The road is long...with many a winding turn that leads us to who knows where..."

I think this would make good background music for his light-weight lectures.



THE HOLLIES
"He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"

Revised title? "He Ain't Heavy, He's our Lawyer (Friend)" or something like that.... ss-)
(B. Scott and B. Russell)

The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows when
But I'm strong
Strong enough to carry him
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

So on we go
His welfare is of my concern
No burden is he to bear
We'll get there
For I know
He would not encumber me
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

If I'm laden at all
I'm laden with sadness
That everyone's heart
Isn't filled with the gladness
Of love for one another

It's a long, long road
From which there is no return
While we're on the way to there
Why not share
And the load
Doesn't weigh me down at all
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

He's my brother
He ain't heavy, he's my brother...
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:

‘I mention "mandies" because Anissa Jones, the little girl who played Buffy on Family Affair and who overdosed at 18 back in 1976, had taken them at a party, together with Angel Dust, cocaine and seconal: "The coroner's report listed her death as an accidental drug overdose. ...The coroner who examined Jones reported she had died from one of the most severe drug overdoses he had ever seen."

Egad‘s, all those drugs. Can’t imagine what she was trying to accomplish. The Angel Dust will show you all the pretty colors. The cocaine will provide a very intense euphoric high. And the seconal (Judy Garland), is a very serious low. Maybe to contradict the comedown from the cocaine.
It doesn’t sound like Amanda needed Rudy or Raffaele for drugs. It may have just been recreational at that point. But cocaine can’t stay recreational for long.

history11 wrote:

‘I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.
Do people agree? If so, does the prosecution's very clear picture of the events doom them? That is, I have reasonable doubt that AK and RS participated in the murder the way the prosecution says, especially if the appeal ultimately questions the clasp and knife.

Welcome history11 to the debate. Sounds like you have some ideas. I see the evidence holding up to close scrutiny. But these forums are great for debating these ideas.
Top Profile 

Offline John


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:27 am

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


They must have better interrogators in Perugia; it only took them less than 2 and half hours.

One more thing, if anyone knows, I read earlier that RS’s dad called him around 12:40 on Nov 2, this is the first I’ve heard of this, is this correct?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)


Hi History11,

Welcome to PMF!

I find that including a "based on..." section after each % always helps others follow my reasoning. That way they can step through each part and reach the same answer I did.

I'm not sure what your numbers mean, or how you would go from 75% to 76%, say, or to 74%. And putting Rudy into the mix makes 15 combinations, doesn't it, not 3?

The mathematicians can help you on that one, I expect.

How would you rank these statements of mine when the vase falls off the table in your living room, and I gave only one of these answers to you:
-- "I wasn't there"
-- "I can't remember"
-- "The cat did it"
-- {silence}

compared to when I give you all those answers in sequence?

Are you starting from my inconsistent/uncorroborated alibis, or ending with them?

If starting with them, then that makes it 100%, doesn't it? (Or 99.99% if I am making things up for some reason, e.g. like a short story competition entry, and I dont care about you or your vase.)

If ending with them, then they are not relevant to any up-front calculations, are they?

Or am I getting confused?

Perhaps another way to phrase it is like this:

What are the odds Amanda was not involved in anything at the minute when she told everyone that Meredith always locked her door, and Filomena flat out immediately contradicted her, saying that Meredith never did that except when she went home to visit her family?

Is that a lie? Is it hiding something? If yes, why? If not, why not? 0% or 100% seem the only possible results available at that minute.

Sounds quantum, doesn't it? :)


As to what the prosecution said about what might have happened, Micheli did not agree with the prosecution scenario in Rudy's trial; and the Assizes Court did not agree with the prosecution scenario in Amanda and Raffaele's trial. Both courts looked at the evidence and where it led them.

You must remember: in an inquest, the inquirer is assisted by counsel in trying to ascertain what occurred, and is not bound to automatically accept what one "side" (the prosecution) proposes. There are no "sides". Likewise, the civil party lawyers have their own views on what might have happened, according to the evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline lisareik


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:42 pm

Posts: 62

Location: Israel

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Who is the arrogant buffoon?


Here, meet Churchy: :lol:


Yikes!

Well, I have spent more time reading all about this "church discipline" stuff and it appears there's an awful lot I don't know about organised religion. They still excommunicate people? wtf)

What a stupid way to grow your community. "Hey, I know, let's kick folks out! Just like Jesus always did!"

Here's a link for a form letter you can use in your neighbourhood Nazi Party church:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/09/form-f ... mm.html#tp

That's what Churchy addresses here and elsewhere in his blog. Here's how you're supposed to talk to someone who was excommunicated:

Quote:
If you have an opportunity to speak with John personally, please reaffirm your love for him and urge him to settle this matter in a way that will please and honor the Lord. Until he repents, however, you should not associate with him as though nothing were the matter (see 2 Thess. 3:14-15). For example, if he asks to go golfing with you, you might say:

Quote:
John, I’d love to go golfing with you. But there is this matter of your rebellion against the Lord’s authority delegated to the officers of His Church, a rebellion you have demonstrated by refusing to listen to the counsel of the elders. I just can’t pretend that everything is all right when it’s not. But I would be happy to spend time with you if you want to talk about how to settle this matter, or if you want me to come with you to talk with the elders to try to find a solution.


Am I the only one who finds this stuff odd to the point of being creepy? I seriously doubt that God or Jesus or the Invisible-12-Foot-Tall-Shape-Shifting-Lizard-Disguised-As-Prince-Harry is going to give two hoots if you go golfing with the 'rebel', no matter how churchy you are.

Someone please tell me that this stuff is all a put-on--joke blogs run by PJ O'Rourke or something.


Excommunication? Counsel of "elders"?
Who exactly is minding the store and calling these shots?

And how about those of us who are not Christians? Are we presumed doomed and damned.
Where do we fit in to his beyond- creepy world view?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

John wrote:


One more thing, if anyone knows, I read earlier that RS’s dad called him around 12:40 on Nov 2, this is the first I’ve heard of this, is this correct?


Page 319 of the English translation of the Massei report (p342 in the Italian):
Quote:
− 12:38: Vodafone sent a message of confirmation of phone [credit] recharge (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, good for Via della Pergola 7)

− 12:40: incoming call from the father’s mobile phone (lasting 67 seconds; connection through Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, compatible with the Sollecito’s presence near the little house)

− 12:50:34 outgoing call directed at mobile phone xxxxxxxxx belonging to Vanessa Sollecito, sister of the defendant; duration 39 seconds. Connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell


I blanked out the number.

Raffaele's dad was expecting them to have gone on a trip to Gubbio that day.
Top Profile 

Offline John


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:27 am

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

Do people agree? If so, does the prosecution's very clear picture of the events doom them? That is, I have reasonable doubt that AK and RS participated in the murder the way the prosecution says, especially if the appeal ultimately questions the clasp and knife.

I hope this does not happen but it is a likely result, IMO.



AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 35%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 5%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 25%
AK at murder scene not in room during struggle, assault, murder, RS comes later during staging 35%

I had to do a lot of think here, but I had to add one more possibility
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline history11


Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:55 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Well, these are just my rough estimates. That's the best we can do.

I think the bottom line is that they are 95% likely to be guilty of murder. I believe they let RG into the house with bad intentions - whether or not this includes murder doesn't really matter. I personally don't think they planned on killing Meredith that night

The way that Amanda talks now "I would never hurt Meredith", "I didn't kill Meredith" makes me believe it is very easy for her to say these things because they are a distorted truth. Yes, she may not have fatally wounded her or even planned on a murder - but it is unreasonable to believe that she is guilty. The false confession was crafted in a way that would allow her wiggle room even if she was proven by witnesses to be 10 feet away from Meredith when she died. She simply didn't finger the man who could implicate her

Given the quality of the evidence, it is most likely in my opinion that AK and RS were in another room during the struggle -and then all over the apartment during the cover up. Now, if RG had just killed MK and that was that, AK and RS could have easily just turned him in. However, they were almost certainly involved in the cover up, suggesting they felt responsibility/guilt.

Thank you for the point that you don't have to believe every word of the prosecution's story. The prosecution has to paint a picture for the jury (and unfortunately, all of Italy and the world). I'm just wondering whether a restricted appeal based on the only pieces of evidence that put AK and RS in the room makes it easy for a jury to reverse the conviction. How much will they hear of:

- cell phones off/on contradicting alibis
- bathmat
- RS backdown on alibi
- AK alibi changes
- fake break-in
- lying about door locking (and yet panic)
- RS computer contradiction of alibi
- "surprise" at police showing up (and subsequent ridiculous call patterns)
- AK lying on call to FR about not having called MK
- RS MK knife pricking during cooking absurdity
- RS worrying about RG "inventing strange things"
- AK suspicion of sexual assault despite "not seeing the body"
- dislike between amanda and meredith, possibility that potential le chic AK/MK swap brought things to a boiling point
- Curatola (sp?)
- phone tapping
- AK morning shopping
- screams, running
- all of the other circumstantial evidence I am forgetting right now (not a fan of the luminol)?

The circumstantial evidence alone is so incredibly damning. I just hope that the concentration on small pieces of questionable direct evidence doesn't allow a pressured jury to take the easy exit. Praying RG testifies - he got off so easily that he almost owes it to MK's family and the world to tell the true story. Having AK come home later this year to fanfare, interviews and book deals would be too much to stomach.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

Do people agree? If so, does the prosecution's very clear picture of the events doom them? That is, I have reasonable doubt that AK and RS participated in the murder the way the prosecution says, especially if the appeal ultimately questions the clasp and knife.

I hope this does not happen but it is a likely result, IMO.


Welcome to the forum, History11. I suggest that your percentages may need to be re-evaluated. The physical and behavioral evidence strongly links AK to the murder. One problem with your analysis is that there were three culprits involved (AK, RS, RG) and you only addressed AK and RS probabilities together, so you should have used a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by a rigorous post-hoc test such as the Scheffe method to derive your p-values and resulting percentages for each participant. I suggest that upon re-calculation you will find that the percentage probability of AK being in the room during the murder will be far higher than the 20% you suggested and will meet the criteria of being statistically significant (P<0.05 = Guilty as Hell = 26 years in prison).
Top Profile 

Offline history11


Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:55 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

John wrote:
AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 35%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 5%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 25%
AK at murder scene not in room during struggle, assault, murder, RS comes later during staging 35%

I had to do a lot of think here, but I had to add one more possibility


Interesting additional possibility. My only problem with that is I feel like RS would have sold AK out 3 years ago if that were the case. Plus, it just seemed like they were joined at the hip... and that he would have been watching movies or doing whatever on his computer for the rest of the night. If I were RS and I showed up at a botched robbery and harassment of MK I would have been on that stand burying AK for hours during the trial.

I'm surprised you put 25% on their lack of involvement. That's almost getting to where I would have reasonable doubt...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline history11


Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:55 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Greggy wrote:

Welcome to the forum, History11. I suggest that your percentages may need to be re-evaluated. The physical and behavioral evidence strongly links AK to the murder. One problem with your analysis is that there were three culprits involved (AK, RS, RG) and you only addressed AK and RS probabilities together, so you should have used a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by a rigorous post-hoc test such as the Scheffe method to derive your p-values and resulting percentages for each participant. I suggest that upon re-calculation you will find that the percentage probability of AK being in the room during the murder will be far higher than the 20% you suggested and will meet the criteria of being statistically significant (P<0.05 = Guilty as Hell = 26 years in prison).


Haha, well, I'm just trying to give my point of view and find out that of other posters.

My underlying point is that AK and RS can be guilty as hell and deserve 25-26,000 years without even being in the room due to the circumstantial evidence/coverup. Under what circumstance would AK and RS tell RG to "have a go" at MK and then say, "oh, she died? instead of turning this scumbag in, let's incriminate the hell out of ourselves by staging this to look like we weren't in the apartment that
Amanda is renting."

I am just very tired of hearing viewpoints of people who have taken advantage of the time passing since the incident to dismiss incredibly incriminating evidence while focusing on the "holy grail" of crimesolving, DNA evidence. If the knife had Mignini's DNA on the blade they are still so incredibly guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

Do people agree? If so, does the prosecution's very clear picture of the events doom them? That is, I have reasonable doubt that AK and RS participated in the murder the way the prosecution says, especially if the appeal ultimately questions the clasp and knife.

I hope this does not happen but it is a likely result, IMO.


All three lied over and over again to the police. This is a clear indication of involvement. The crimescene includes the entire upper floor of the cottage. As Greggy suggested once, and it cannot be entirely ruled out, the mixed DNA of Knox and Meredith in Knox's room could as easily have been the result of a struggle beginning there and moving to the victim's room. That's entirely consistent with the escalation of violence even if it is not the scenario to which I subscribe.

It is not uncommon for a murderer to leave little or no forensic evidence (eg DNA, hair, prints) within arm's length of the victim. On television, of course, they always do but this is real life and not an episode of Law & Order.

The court determined [Massei p 90, 330, 331, 381] that Meredith's mobile phones had been near her person at the time of the assault and that logically (the attempted call the next day, the fact that the killer must have known she had two mobile phones, the location where they were discovered) Knox must have been involved directly with the murder. It is a complex line of reasoning but if Meredith's mobile phones were nearby when she was attacked, and Knox was proved to be logically involved with their removal, then Knox is connected with the room in which the body was discovered.

As for the questionable nature of the bra clasp and the knife, there is no question that it is Sollecito's DNA on the former and the victim's DNA on the latter. The only question is whether they are of sufficient quality to be deemed acceptable by the court.

The most logical reason to reject the possibility that AK and RS were in the cottage (either of them) witnessing the murder but not participating in it is that neither of them phoned the police at the time or told anyone the next day that Meredith had been slain while they looked on helplessly (including RS's sister, AK's mother, RS's father, Filomena, the Carabinieri, any of Filomena's friends, or the Postal Police). That's a lot of opportunity they had to tell someone what they had seen as they would have absolutely known that the body would eventually be discovered. For that reason alone, you have to reject the possibility that they were there but did not participate in the murder.

That's just a cursory reply to some of the points you raised and is in no way comprehensive.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

History11
To begin with, your percentages are basically nonsense.
As Catnip says, why 75%, and not 74% or 76%.
That is, these are merely random numbers trying to look "scientific" and meaning something like "I think this is most likely," "I think this is less likely but possible," and "I think this is possible, but unlikely."
I don't mean to sound harsh, but garbage statistics are just that, garbage.
Don't mess about with meaningless numbers that just come out of your own head.
For one thing, there are actual hard facts to consider, and that would be a better place to begin.


For starters, if AK and RS weren't in the room, why would they have done any clean up at all?
What would the point of it be?
All they needed to do was call the cops.

Next, there is ample forensic evidence that more than one person assaulted Meredith.
If it wasn't AK and RS, but they were there, are you suggesting that AK and RS (despite his DNA on the bra strap?) were in house while some other persons attacked Meredith together with Rudy?
And, if so, where is the evidence of these people, and why did AK and RS clean up after them?

"Large amounts of defensive wounds?"
Could you please cite where you find this information.
I was not aware of any great number of defensive wounds.
If there were any, you should be able to find the information in the translation of the court's motivations - it's linked at the top of the page.
I'd recommend a readthrough.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

And again:
History11 says:

"I think the bottom line is that they are 95% likely to be guilty of murder. I believe they let RG into the house with bad intentions - whether or not this includes murder doesn't really matter. I personally don't think they planned on killing Meredith that night
The way that Amanda talks now "I would never hurt Meredith", "I didn't kill Meredith" makes me believe it is very easy for her to say these things because they are a distorted truth. Yes, she may not have fatally wounded her or even planned on a murder - but it is unreasonable to believe that she is guilty. The false confession was crafted in a way that would allow her wiggle room even if she was proven by witnesses to be 10 feet away from Meredith when she died. She simply didn't finger the man who could implicate her
Given the quality of the evidence, it is most likely in my opinion that AK and RS were in another room during the struggle -and then all over the apartment during the cover up. Now, if RG had just killed MK and that was that, AK and RS could have easily just turned him in. However, they were almost certainly involved in the cover up, suggesting they felt responsibility/guilt."

Well, they don't need to have planned ahead of time to kill Meredith to be guilty of murder.
And you do not at all explain why you believe "it is unreasonable to believe that she is guilty."
You just state that as a fact, which rather begs the question, you know.

You state: "The false confession was crafted in a way that would allow her wiggle room even if she was proven by witnesses to be 10 feet away from Meredith when she died."
Um, gee. Lovely use of the passive voice there.
Crafted by whom?
By Amanda? She says she's in the kitchen.
Or are you suggesting the whole police conspiracy thing here, and do you mean that the police put "wiggle room" in, in case later evidence would put her in the house but not in Meredith's room?
Frankly, if the police were doing such a great job of mind control in the 40 or 50 hours of waterboarding they somehow squeezed into between the end of her late pizza dinner with RS and the end of questioning at like 2am that same night, wouldn't they have just made her confess to the whole thing while they were at it?

And RS and AK weren't just "involved" in the cover up; they performed the cover-up all by themselves.
There is no evidence of RG having any hand in it at all.
His bloody footprints, that is, the prints of Rudy's shoes made with still liquid blood, go right out the door, and there are many witnesses to his presence elsewhere later that night.

I know I keep repeating myself, but I think you need to read the motivations before you keep posting on the case.
There's a lot of solid evidence that needs to be accounted for if you want to theorize about what happened that night.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
I'm just wondering whether a restricted appeal based on the only pieces of evidence that put AK and RS in the room makes it easy for a jury to reverse the conviction.


The appeal is not "restricted". It is a Court of Appeal for the Court of Assizes decision.

Everything from the lower is visible to the Court of Appeal, including the lower court's reasoning. Also included now are Rudy's court's decisions and reasons.

If the Court of Appeal wants two items of evidence re-examined (if possible), and an opinion on the possibility of contamination, that is not a "restriction".

"Putting" someone in a particular location at a particular time can be done in multiple ways. DNA would do it in a single step (sometimes). What about the line of reasoning that can do it in three steps, without relying on any DNA? And the other line of reasoning that reaches the same conclusion in five steps, again without any DNA? What's going on with the probabilities when convergence is happening?

If you want to find out what people think about something, just ask.

Example:

You say: "I am just very tired of hearing viewpoints of people who have taken advantage of the time passing..."

I ask: Which people are you talking about? I'm interested in reading their viewpoints.

You answer: ...
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

He sounds really thick.

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours.

Does anyone take this clown seriously?

He then claims that it's impossible that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because he has looked at their photographs:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.

I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


That "someone" being himself, presumably
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:58 am   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...


"Mary_H" was given a sliver of information straight from the lips of "treehorn's" Yale Law-educated Crim Prof: When a court "finds" that a citizen has "committed" a quasi-criminal/ regulatory offense/ civil infraction in respect of a statute, that citizen has, in point of fact, been "convicted" and they are, subsequent to this finding, "penalized" by the court (in accord with the terms of the statutory provision in question).

Like many Knox-supporters, "Mary_H" labors under the mistaken belief that the word "conviction" may only be used in respect of violations of a criminal code, as opposed to some other piece of duly enacted legislation - one that concerns motor vehicles, for example.

Ergo, "treehorn" was attacked at the JREF for pointing out that, when the Municipal Court of Seattle made a "finding" that Knox had "committed" ("finding code C" = "committed") a violation/ infraction of the "Residential Disturbance" provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code, Knox had, in fact, been "convicted" by the Court.

In the result, the Knox defenders at the JREF not only missed out on a free lesson, they ignored Treehorn's larger point, viz., that there was, in fact, a "public court record" indicating that Knox had engaged in unlawful/ antisocial behavior prior to leaving for Perugia.

See: Municpal Court of Seattle's website, public information page, Case # 202557635
http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/

(just click on "defendant" and enter Knox's name)

"treehorn" cited this finding by the Seattle court to support the argument that, even prior to leaving for Perugia, Knox was exhibiting behavior that could reasonably be said to be consistent with any one of a number of serious mental disorders (including, but not limited to, Antisocial PD).

That a free lesson would be ignored is one thing, but to construe it as a "lie"?!

It's a perfect example of the willful ignorance (if not outright stupidity) that has come to dominate the JREF thread.


Last edited by Jackie on Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

This is what now passes for sophistication in Trolldom. I could be wrong, of course, just as H.L. Menken used to say.


Last edited by TomM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:17 am, 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

He sounds really thick.

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours.

Does anyone take this clown seriously?

He then claims that it's impossible that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because he has looked at their photographs:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.

I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


That "someone" being himself, presumably

Yes, he is a legend in his own head, as he selflessly reminds us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
Here, meet Churchy: :lol:



I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jackie wrote:
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...


"Mary_H" was given a sliver of information straight from the lips of "treehorn's" Yale Law-educated Crim Prof: When a court "finds" that a citizen has "committed" a quasi-criminal/ regulatory offense/ civil infraction in respect of a statute, that citizen has, in point of fact, been "convicted" and they are, subsequent to this finding, "penalized" by the court (in accord with the terms of the statutory provision in question).

Like many Knox-supporters, "Mary_H" labors under the mistaken belief that the word "conviction" may only be used in respect of violations of a criminal code, as opposed to some other piece of duly enacted legislation - one that concerns motor vehicles, for example.

Ergo, "treehorn" was attacked at the JREF for pointing out that, when the Municipal Court of Seattle made a "finding" that Knox had "committed" ("finding code C" = "committed") a violation/ infraction of the "Residential Disturbance" provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code, Knox had, in fact, been "convicted" by the Court.

In the result, the Knox defenders at the JREF not only missed out on a free lesson, they ignored Treehorn's larger point, viz., that there was, in fact, a "public court record" indicating that Knox had engaged in unlawful/ antisocial behavior prior to leaving for Perugia.

See: Municpal Court of Seattle's website, public information page, Case # 202557635
http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/

"treehorn" cited this finding by the Seattle court to support the argument that, even prior to leaving for Perugia, Knox was exhibiting behavior that could reasonably be said to be consistent with any one of a number of mental disorders.

That a free lesson would be ignored is one thing, but to construe it as a "lie"?!

It's a perfect example of the willful ignorance (if not outright stupidity) that has come to dominate the JREF thread.

The thread continues? Why?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I think the description "medieval Perugia" comes from Googling tourist travel sites and such:

Quote:
PERUGIA - Cooking Course in Perugia
Authentic Italian and Umbrian Cooking: officially recognized and honored by the Province of Perugia as instrumental in promoting the culinary culture of Umbria. Our school is based in a beautiful 16th century estate just outside of medieval Perugia.

- [Umbria Online]


That one, by the way, links to the University of Flavours in Via Tornetta, which is the place to go to become a top chef:


There are lots of courses of offer. Many I've never heard of. Being a gelatiere (professional ice-cream guy) sounds yummy, and drinkable ice-cream even yummier. But it really is for professionals, at 3,900 euro for the course:
here.





There are lots of other courses there as well, of course. Food is an art and a science.

But I'm distracting myself here.

The real estate agents also refer to medieval Perugia.

E.g.:
Quote:
Apartments for rent in Villa, Perugia

These luxurious apartments for rent are furnished with every modern comfort, including a salt-water pool, a parking lot and a garden on the Villa grounds.

This magnificent yet easily-reached location is in Perugia: at the top of a grassy hill, high among other Umbrian mountains, just 5 minutes from the historical center of medieval Perugia.

For those who yearn for a stay in Perugia and to enjoy all the city has to offer, but at the same time desire the peace and quiet of rural Umbria, Villa Nuba is the ideal solution.
Whether a romantic couple, a family in search of a little relaxation, a group of friends out to discover the marvels of Umbria or a student at the University for Foreigners or at the Italian University in Perugia, you will surely fall in love with our deluxe apartments for rent in Perugia.

- [Perugia rentals]


I think the newspaper "journalists" who refer to "medieval Perugia" as if it were a cheap and nasty brutish place, the sort of place where you get horribly murdered for no apparent reason as soon as you step inside the city and where all the peasants have pitchforks and strange marks of their hands and go around chanting colpevole! colpevole!, are not reading past the results screen when they key in the word "Perugia" into Google.

Some nice medievally tourist photos collected here, by the way.

Ah, gelato! By the pool. On a summer evening. Sooo medieval!

I'm almost tempted to go out and shake some random guy for 3 or 4 hours, or plant some evidence that will help my film pitch sell.

But I won't, because I'm not anti-social (much Mua-) ).
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

He sounds really thick.

He repeats the myth that Knox was questioned all night and that her interrogation was "abusive". He claims that her interrogation lasted 40 hours.

Does anyone take this clown seriously?

He then claims that it's impossible that Knox and Sollecito are guilty because he has looked at their photographs:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.



From the article quoted:

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

He says 99 percent of the people he sees as a judge are high-school dropouts, often with drugs issues. Not applicable to Amanda Knox, an honor-roll student at UW, he said.

He closed his PowerPoint with a photo of Amanda Knox playing a guitar, with a toddler looking at the camera: “You would be proud to call her your daughter.



HONESTTACHRIST!!!

WHERE did Heavey go to law school?!!!

Look at their warm, fuzzy family photos and draw an inference?!!!

Good grades as a propensity argument?!!!

Knox has no "drugs issues"?!!!

The man is a DISGRACE.


Last edited by Jackie on Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

100%...what did I win?

ETA: I thought I add a recent link about OJ to this useful post. I guess the innocent stuff sells or something sh-))

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110111/ap_ ... ey_simpson


Last edited by max on Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Stilicho - yes, I assumed CD was referring to himself as Churchy on comment sections! Excellent nickname !!! And as for Raff in court, it reminded me of the daily 'help the technically useless teacher set up the OHP/computer/video/DVD player at the beginning of class', which was a daily occurrence where I worked. School technology has an infuriating habit of playing up in my experience, but it forges a rather nice link between teacher and kids who enjoy the role reversal. I wonder if it is a built in feature..

Churchy La Femme sounds wonderful Tom. I will have a look for a picture for you!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
This is what now passes for sophistication in Trolldom. I could be wrong, of course, just as H.L. Menken used to say.


I could be wrong, too.

I'm still waiting after the young-fella-me-lad seems to have gone off ironing his pants somewhere, after I put my three dots ... down on the table back upstream. Perhaps he will continue the conversation later on.

I could be wrong, though.

Edited to add:
After fixing typos, happy to stand corrected (in all senses)!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

411!! Lovely to see you back!!! You have been sorely missed. Loved the vid!!!

hugz-)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Fiona


User avatar


Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am

Posts: 1080

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

If this is a flavour of his "reasoning" then I do think, in all seriousness, that he is unfit to be a judge. I do not know how judges are appointed where he is: and in keeping with what I think is important principle, I presume it is extremely hard to get rid of a judge once he is appointed. Nevertheless there must be some mechanism for doing so and it seems to me that this man has shown himself to be impervious to evidence.

Just because the poor and ill educated are more likely to be arrested and charged it is the more important that judges are able to resist confirmation bias and related distortions of our thinking. No-one can, of course, and that is why due process is so important. Yet no matter how good the safeguards and how careful the process it cannot possibly deal fairly with defendants when the people who implement it are so dead to their role and to their class prejudice.

I was told recently that class is not an issue in the USA and this was put forward as a stark contrast to the situaiton in the UK. My conclusion when discussing the issue is that class is indeed an issue in the US, but that the word "class" is not much used. That is not an answer to a problem: it is a denial of it. When we don't have a vocabulary for a phenomenon we don't have the ability to think about it easily. Words are what we think with and newspeak is not a natural language.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The point about Raffaele's alibi is absolutely spot on, whoever made it. If he was on his computer 'all night', with nary a break why the hell didn't he mention it at the first trial????!!!! He had the perfect alibi (*hem*) right there. Changing his story from 'surfed the Internet at bit' to 'was on computer all night' at this stage looks very weak to me.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline lauowolf


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am

Posts: 525

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Oh Fiona,
The issue of class in the US is fraught with utter denial and ignorance.
It's a gigantic problem, underlies many of the cultural fault lines, but is utterly unspoken and unspeakable.
And ends you up with something like the Judge Heavey stupidity above.
it isn't about guilt or innocence; it's about entitlement.
People like him and his daughter don't know criminals, because criminals are lowclass.
He and his daughter are not lowclass.
His daughter knows Amanda, so the syllogism demands that Amanda be innocent.
That's logic - don't be interrupting him with facts.
(And remind me not to look poor in Washington state!)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
Jackie wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
...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...


"Mary_H" was given a sliver of information straight from the lips of "treehorn's" Yale Law-educated Crim Prof: When a court "finds" that a citizen has "committed" a quasi-criminal/ regulatory offense/ civil infraction in respect of a statute, that citizen has, in point of fact, been "convicted" and they are, subsequent to this finding, "penalized" by the court (in accord with the terms of the statutory provision in question).

Like many Knox-supporters, "Mary_H" labors under the mistaken belief that the word "conviction" may only be used in respect of violations of a criminal code, as opposed to some other piece of duly enacted legislation - one that concerns motor vehicles, for example.
...

That a free lesson would be ignored is one thing, but to construe it as a "lie"?!

It's a perfect example of the willful ignorance (if not outright stupidity) that has come to dominate the JREF thread.

The thread continues? Why?


It just keeps getting better and better, Tom.

The 'less gifted' among them have been reduced to compiling and posting links to pro-Knox websites.

Better still, the man without so much as a hint of a credential, "Bruce Fisher", has returned to mention that his "book" (read: Marriott-approved PR tool) is now available.

The Usual Suspects are offering (stilted, over-the-top) praise for his efforts.

I've never seen a thread on the JREF to match it.

It's more akin to an 'infomercial' for Team Knox than an exercise in 'rational thinking' or 'skepticism'.

I wonder what the 'old timers' like "lionking" et al. think of it...


Last edited by Jackie on Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

This is what now passes for sophistication in Trolldom. I could be wrong, of course, just as H.L. Menken used to say.


I'm with you, Tom.
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Machine wrote:
There's a blog article on the West Seattle Blog about Judge Michael Heavey making a speech about why he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent at the Rotary Club of West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2011/01/rota ... manda-knox

“When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

I don't think the defence teams will be presenting photographs of Knox and Sollecito as proof of their innocence at the appeals.


It seems unbelievable that when Judge Heavey has already been charged with misconduct regarding this case that he would make such a stupid and sweeping comment. Judging a person's guilt based on their appearance is about as helpful as judging it based on astrology or numerology. I find his reasoning in someone with such authority in a judicial position utterly terrifying. hbc)

Does that mean that if he had someone in front of him who didn't have much evidence against them but 'looked like a guilty person', that he would assume they were guilty?! I agree that someone should take a serious look at his previous cases for any further misconduct.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

John wrote:
history11 wrote:
First time poster

I see three possibilities for the events, with the following probabilities:

AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 75%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 20%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 5% (not reasonable doubt IMO)

I place 75% on their not being in the room due to lack of evidence in the room, semiquestionable evidence of bra clasp and knife, extensive coverup RG clearly wouldn't have done, AK and RS lies, similarities to AK "confession", large amount of defensive wounds, etc.

Do people agree? If so, does the prosecution's very clear picture of the events doom them? That is, I have reasonable doubt that AK and RS participated in the murder the way the prosecution says, especially if the appeal ultimately questions the clasp and knife.

I hope this does not happen but it is a likely result, IMO.


AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 35%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 5%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 25%
AK at murder scene not in room during struggle, assault, murder, RS comes later during staging 35%

I had to do a lot of think here, but I had to add one more possibility


Based on the totality of the available evidence, here's the results of my statistical analysis of the various scenarios. All I did was feed the collected evidence into my Cray supercomputer, run a few Monte Carlo simulations, and ... voila!

Space aliens responsible for murder plus the staging of evidence - 1%
AK, RS at murder scene but not in room during struggle, assault, murder - 0%
AK, RS at murder scene, in room during struggle, assault, murder - 99%
AK, RS at home all night, not involved - 0%
AK at murder scene not in room during struggle, assault, murder, RS comes later during staging - 0%



N.


Last edited by norbertc on Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I'd say:
Space aliens responsible for murder plus the staging of evidence - 0.999%
Aviello's brother responsible for murder etc - 0.001%
As for the other 99%, I dunno.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Norbert
:)

---

And the probability of satanist-plot worshipping novel writers getting themselves involved in the case?

Who'd a thunk it?
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I just remembered something that creeped me out about AK and RS. Somewhere she talks about a philosophical discussion they had during which they agreed that there's no such thing as right and wrong. Can anyone remember where she said that? I don't seem to have any doubts left that they carried the knife to the cottage to hurt Meredith, if only to scare the living daylights out of her.

It's also really stuck in my mind from one of the statement analysis posts that where Amanda says about the afternoon of Nov 1st when she maintains was the last time she saw Meredith that there was "nothing out of the ordinary", it raises a sensitivity flag. I know it's not necessarily so, but Amanda may have felt humiliated by Meredith asking for/about AK's rent money in front of Raff. Remember that when the girls together discussed the rent money, and Amanda was asked, she didn't say "I'll go withdraw it today or tommorrow" or similar, she merely complained that Lumumba hadn't paid her yet/owed her money. What I'm saying is that there could very well have been something like that on Nov 1st....we only have the little darlings' version.
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

PS....I smell troll, too.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:29 am   Post subject: Gaining the Favor of the Appeal's Court   

Dr. Mark C. Waterbury (Ph.D.) is taking the right approach with his new book:



Me, I never believed Dale Carnegie's nonsense articulated in his famous book "How to Win Friends and Influence People". No, I prefer to insult the intelligence and integrity of those whom I wish to influence. Mr. Mark C. Waterbury (Ph.D.) has got it right.

Insult the intelligence of the Perugia court!

I recommend that Dr. Waterbury (Ph.D.) mail a copy of his fine work to each of the trial participants, starting with the judges. Then Anita and Biff are sure to get off ... Hell, they'll probably just stop the trial immediately.

Meanwhile, perhaps Anita and Biff would enjoy a copy of this book?



.


Last edited by norbertc on Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:48 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
It's also really stuck in my mind from one of the statement analysis posts that where Amanda says about the afternoon of Nov 1st when she maintains was the last time she saw Meredith that there was "nothing out of the ordinary", it raises a sensitivity flag. I know it's not necessarily so, but Amanda may have felt humiliated by Meredith asking for/about AK's rent money in front of Raff. Remember that when the girls together discussed the rent money, and Amanda was asked, she didn't say "I'll go withdraw it today or tommorrow" or similar, she merely complained that Lumumba hadn't paid her yet/owed her money. What I'm saying is that there could very well have been something like that on Nov 1st....we only have the little darlings' version.


Money was like pouring water for her, is my impression.
Shopping. Giggling in court when explaining, if I remember, as if she knew she wasn't supposed to be doing that (spending like Niagara Falls, I mean), yet she did.

The more time that goes by, the more I'm seeing something like Scream being re-enacted.

(Seeing pictures of Neve Campbell being attacked with a knife, in scenes that could almost be a forensic recreation of the cottage was a bit too much. But then, probably all horror movies would be like that, I suppose: lonely cottage in the countryside, it's dark, maybe rainy-ish, you're alone, there's a phone call to the babysitter, knife at the throat, no one can hear you, you're not supposed to bleed to death, ...)

Amanda thought of herself as the baby of the group, so the babysitter idea fits.

Anyway, money: easy come, easy go.

The credit cards vanished as well, which suggests the money went for the same reasons the cards did. And the cards weren't used afterwards. Maybe it really was a robbery gone wrong, only a robbery trick-or-treat truth-or-dare. It would be great fun to take worthless money off of someone who valued it so much. If it was a robbery prank, Rudy would have to be pretty inventive about the how-and-why of what led up up to the murder, in order to minimise his part in the whole thing.
Oh, wait...
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Does Waterbury get to be crowned Vulture of the Month?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

He has put a frame around Amanda, matching his title.

So Cover Analysis (to coin a phrase) reveals who he thinks is doing the framing.

He needs a different book cover designer.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Actually, calling her the Monster of Perugia was not a good sales idea, either.
Top Profile 

Offline norbertc


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am

Posts: 307

Location: France

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Actually, calling her the Monster of Perugia was not a good sales idea, either.


Your comments about the book's title and cover lead me to consider that the book might actually be a clever spoof ... a bit like this Onion article about the release of the Tucson mass killer:



Perhaps we are wrong to criticize Dr. Mark A. Waterbury (Ph.D.)'s book if we have not actually read from cover to cover?

Then there's the possibility that Dr. Waterbury (Ph.D.) himself is the real killer. A kind of Professor Moriarty who committed both the crime and then framed Biff and Anita? Who is now teasing us with this spoof? The mind boggles ...



.


Last edited by norbertc on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The picture is the same one that hangs in the disputed hall of infamy at the police station, right? So I guess that is part of the (lame) framing pun.

on Neve Campbell, Catnip, it's also worth checking a more recent entry in that genre, Sorority Row, which has a group of sorority girls setting up a male friend to make it look like he's killed one of them with an accidental rohypnol overdose while they're making out. The joke goes too far when, keeping up the charade, they convince him they will cover it up and drive out to an abandoned mine. Just before they are about to give up the game, the guy plunges a tyre iron into the "dead" girl's chest to empty her lungs of air to make sure she sinks. Not surprisingly, she dies, they cover up the murder for real ... and within months someone or something starts to kill them off one by one in typical slasher mode.

It is in essence about a hazing that goes spectacularly wrong. There's also lots of verbal and physical aggression between the women (including at least one head being slammed up against a wall). There's the cover-up, and varying degrees of guilt amongst the participants. The film also takes for granted these young people's various ways of misbehaving - drink, drug, sex - and there's a sense of moral vacuity about the whole thing that's troubling... at least, depressing...

There's no direct connection between Meredith's murder and the film, of course, but it's interesting how sad reality and what one could loosely call culture sometimes run on parallel lines.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:07 pm   Post subject: Trollius simplex   

bucketoftea wrote:
PS....I smell troll, too.


Statement Analysis will take care of him.

What I find intriguing is elsewhere, and on a linguistic level: a smattering of guaranteed certifiably typical English vocabulary inside can't-quite-get-rid-of American English clause structures, as if he were trying from a distance to pull off a John Steed, with bowler and brolly, but is getting the twirl all wrong.

And the constant, incredibly noticeable incredibly exaggerated whine of "incredibly incriminating evidence while focusing on the "holy grail" of crimesolving, DNA evidence. If the knife had Mignini's DNA on the blade they are still so incredibly guilty."

As if. He doesn't believe in the Most Worshipful Order of Chipmongers that is modern forensics any more than the nearest incredible seagull does.

He needs to press the thesaurus-button on his document preparation application device, if he wants to pass something off (such as, incredibly, an idea).

I could be wrong, though.

He may think a thesaurus is one of those museum thingies, you, know, with the comet and everything.

Anyway, here's to mojitos. drin-)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Actually, calling her the Monster of Perugia was not a good sales idea, either.



Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
and there's a sense of moral vacuity about the whole thing that's troubling... at least, depressing...


When Men in Black first came out, a kindergarten teacher brought her little charges to the movie theatre (presumably because science fiction = children's film).

When the chihuahua aliens appeared on screen and made their funny Mexican noises, the little toddlers knew that they were supposed to laugh, which they dutifully did, but without knowing the reason why, so it was somewhat uncertain laughter. As the film progressed, and got darker and more adult, they got quieter and quieter, in an uncomfortable sort of way.

They're all probably all grown up now, some of them making slasher films as mental comfort food, no doubt.
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

http://www.graduatetimes.com/columns/ma ... wikileaks/

Whistle-blowing on big bad government is never easy, particularly when you have been charged with murder.

Italy’s criminal justice system was brought to the fore in this weekend’s Independent on Sunday where David Anderson commented that the charges brought against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher in 2007 were largely unfounded. The retired professor of medicine and expert witness in the case said that “their conviction is a monstrous injustice, and one from which a number of people in the Italian justice system will not emerge well”. The blame for which seems to fall largely in the hands of the Italian police who some feel should be held to account for their poor handling of evidence in the Kercher case.

Chillingly, talk of her potential exoneration would only have come about through leaked information from witnesses and investigators who believed that the Italian police got it wrong


Last edited by H9 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Actually, calling her the Monster of Perugia was not a good sales idea, either.





It would have helped if he'd """scare-quoted""" the word monster, or the whole phrase, and perhaps added the subtitle "(yeah, right)" beneath.

On American discourse bleeding into British and vice versa, I know I use too many American expressions than is strictly healthy for a correct interpretation of the nationality lurking behind the Windfall tag. I blame the internet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

apologies if already linked

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/01/06/gro ... ce-system/


Foxy Noxy Might Outfox the Italian Justice System

Ms. Knox’s appeal to emotion seems to have paid off: Judge Hellmann ruled, on December 18, that she will grant the defense’s request for independent forensic examinations of the two most damning pieces of trial evidence: the knife allegedly used in the attack, and Ms. Kercher’s bra clasp.


Last edited by H9 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 pm, 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

We get all ours off the TV (American slang, that is ).

And some from pop songs.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
We get all ours off the TV (American slang, that is ).

And some from pop songs.


Yeah. Those too. I mean, yes.


Last edited by windfall on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:33 pm, 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
On American discourse bleeding into British and vice versa, I know I use too many American expressions than is strictly healthy for a correct interpretation of the nationality lurking behind the Windfall tag. I blame the internet.


Blame would never even enter the front gate of the picket-fence residence, let alone ring the front door bell.

See discussion re class entitlement, supra.
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
windfall wrote:
On American discourse bleeding into British and vice versa, I know I use too many American expressions than is strictly healthy for a correct interpretation of the nationality lurking behind the Windfall tag. I blame the internet.


Blame would never even enter the front gate of the picket-fence residence, let alone ring the front door bell.

See discussion re class entitlement, supra.


:)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

This link:
Windfall


Catching an all-night station somewhere in Louisiana
It sounds like 1963, but for now it sounds like heaven
Top Profile 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
This link:
Windfall


Catching an all-night station somewhere in Louisiana
It sounds like 1963, but for now it sounds like heaven


That's the one, Catnip. You got it. Nothing escapes the big cat's attention when he's on duty. Thanks!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Other than Hayden's transparent dress at the Globes, no news in the Italian news so far.

TGCOM

GossipBlog, with bigger pictures, and more of them.

She certainly does look rescuable.

No digest forthcoming tonight.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

  • On Monday afternoon, a detainee at Capanne prison, an African man, punched an officer and tried to injure him with a small blade he had hidden away in his mouth. [link].


  • And Perugia has a new courthouse:

    [Umbria24] (photo Troccoli)
Top Profile 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The story that Curatolo had been convicted of a drug offence seems to have originated from Luciano Ghirga. So a defence lawyer has falsely spread a story to the media, to discredit a prosecution witness who is due to appear in court. Isn't this contempt of court or at least a serious breach of professional conduct? I've no idea how the Italian judiciary would view this but, in England this would be very serious. And of course, it's totally prejudicial to Curatolo's own trial, if and when that takes place.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
The story that Curatolo had been convicted ...


AP put out a correction. There was no actual conviction. It was misunderstanding.

My guess is that a reporter did not hear the word "if" (or a non-speaker misinterpreted the subjunctive).

All legal representation are allowed to talk to the press, issue press releases, and otherwise act on behalf of their clients. No false spreading was done by any lawyers, as far as I can see so far.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Other than Hayden's transparent dress at the Globes, no news in the Italian news so far.

TGCOM

GossipBlog, with bigger pictures, and more of them.

She certainly does look rescuable.

No digest forthcoming tonight.



Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.

_________________
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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
The story that Curatolo had been convicted of a drug offence seems to have originated from Luciano Ghirga. So a defence lawyer has falsely spread a story to the media, to discredit a prosecution witness who is due to appear in court. Isn't this contempt of court or at least a serious breach of professional conduct? I've no idea how the Italian judiciary would view this but, in England this would be very serious. And of course, it's totally prejudicial to Curatolo's own trial, if and when that takes place.



The original posts said charged, then it morphed to convicted iirc. AP have said that the source was a lawyer but they haven't said which one have they? Ghirga is a reasonable supposition but has AP actually said this? If not, I think we ought to be a bit careful.

_________________
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 Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Underhill wrote:
The story that Curatolo had been convicted ...


AP put out a correction. There was no actual conviction. It was misunderstanding.

My guess is that a reporter did not hear the word "if" (or a non-speaker misinterpreted the subjunctive).

All legal representation are allowed to talk to the press, issue press releases, and otherwise act on behalf of their clients. No false spreading was done by any lawyers, as far as I can see so far.


OK. Maybe the reporter made a mistake. I read the correction and noted the part that said "The Associated Press, relying on information from a lawyer, erroneously reported that....". This certainly makes it sound like it was the lawyer who misled them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Other than Hayden's transparent dress at the Globes, no news in the Italian news so far.

TGCOM

GossipBlog, with bigger pictures, and more of them.

She certainly does look rescuable.

No digest forthcoming tonight.



Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.


Having sat through/fast forwarded through the Golden Globes the other day, this picture and that TV spectacle makes me think that the latest thing is to coat female stars in a thin layer of plastic. That's what it looks like to me, anyway. I'm not sure if that's a good look, either, but perhaps it's an ironic comment on celebrity culture.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline windfall


Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm

Posts: 608

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Anyway, SA, you're right. I just looked at the close up. It looks like she's in recovery from breast surgery.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Underhill wrote:
The story that Curatolo had been convicted ...


AP put out a correction. There was no actual conviction. It was misunderstanding.

My guess is that a reporter did not hear the word "if" (or a non-speaker misinterpreted the subjunctive).

All legal representation are allowed to talk to the press, issue press releases, and otherwise act on behalf of their clients. No false spreading was done by any lawyers, as far as I can see so far.


OK. Maybe the reporter made a mistake. I read the correction and noted the part that said "The Associated Press, relying on information from a lawyer, erroneously reported that....". This certainly makes it sound like it was the lawyer who misled them.


I would be very surprisedif LG misrepresented the facts of Curatolo’s position deliberately. My knowledge of Italian is zero so I could not speculate on mispronunciations, misinterpretations or omissions.

I have no doubt however that he would have been trying to put the optimum spin on the actual charge in terms of discrediting a witness that has testified adversely against his client. Spin, supposition and innuendo are all accepted tools of the trade; fraudulent misrepresentation on the other hand is a serious no-no.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
Anyway, SA, you're right. I just looked at the close up. It looks like she's in recovery from breast surgery.



It's a funny look. Why not indeed take advantage of modern materials by sporting your Nippits(TM) for a number of good reasons, not least to avoid embarrassing your frugal host by indicating they need to turn the heating up... but to wear them under see-through tops seems to defeat the point doesn't it? On the other hand, if they were reaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly good and you couldn't see them at all, we might have concluded that Hayden was nippleless and then potentially not-of-this-earth, which could have put up the odds that the space aliens did it to 1.5% or so. And in that erroneous conclusion, justice would not be served. So all round I think we have to thank Ms P for this, no?

_________________
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 Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

windfall wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Other than Hayden's transparent dress at the Globes, no news in the Italian news so far.

TGCOM

GossipBlog, with bigger pictures, and more of them.

She certainly does look rescuable.

No digest forthcoming tonight.



Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.


Having sat through/fast forwarded through the Golden Globes the other day, this picture and that TV spectacle makes me think that the latest thing is to coat female stars in a thin layer of plastic. That's what it looks like to me, anyway. I'm not sure if that's a good look, either, but perhaps it's an ironic comment on celebrity culture.


What makes you think that plastic is limited to the exterior only of these stars? :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Ghirga is a reasonable supposition but has AP actually said this? If not, I think we ought to be a bit careful.


Certainly some of the news outlets have named Ghirga as the source. eg http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110115/ap_ ... aly_knox_2
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Ghirga is a reasonable supposition but has AP actually said this? If not, I think we ought to be a bit careful.


Certainly some of the news outlets have named Ghirga as the source. eg http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110115/ap_ ... aly_knox_2


Not a source of the words "drug charge conviction" - notice how they are not part of the quoted words over the phone, and are only a potentiality in the opening paragraph.

Definitely an eager misunderstanding by a too-quick reporter - that explains the speed and swiftness of the correction by AP: they are covered by case reporting rules, too. :)
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Beans quoting the summary of Micheli wrote:
Some time later Signora Biscarini found a mobile phone in her garden. She “had heard” that bombs could be concealed in mobile phones and so she took it to the police station arriving at 10:58am as recorded by ISP. Bartolozzi



This made me smile. She thinks there might be a bomb in the phone and so drives it to the police station. Drives to the police station...with a bomb...which may go off at any second for any reason. What a star!!!


priceless; hadn't thought of that. I was still wrestling with the notion that it was possible to fit a bomb in a phone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Michael wrote:
Beans quoting the summary of Micheli wrote:
Some time later Signora Biscarini found a mobile phone in her garden. She “had heard” that bombs could be concealed in mobile phones and so she took it to the police station arriving at 10:58am as recorded by ISP. Bartolozzi



This made me smile. She thinks there might be a bomb in the phone and so drives it to the police station. Drives to the police station...with a bomb...which may go off at any second for any reason. What a star!!!


priceless; hadn't thought of that. I was still wrestling with the notion that it was possible to fit a bomb in a phone.



Actually, the Israeli secret services managed to kill a Hamas bomb maker, Yahya Ayyash, in 1996 with a cell phone bomb. A little c4 goes a long way when you answer a phone...

But in fact, this is helping and the mists are clearing... Rudy, who is palestinian, managed to plant c4 in the phones and had been instructed by his Illuminati handlers to use his basketball skills to lob in a three pointer through an open bathroom window into Ms Elisabetta's lavatory for the purposes of blowing it up in order to ... hang on we'll fill that bit in later... however this proves without doubt it was he that did it and not AK or RS and they therefore should go free. Free the Perugia 2!

_________________
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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
windfall wrote:
Anyway, SA, you're right. I just looked at the close up. It looks like she's in recovery from breast surgery.



It's a funny look. Why not indeed take advantage of modern materials by sporting your Nippits(TM) for a number of good reasons, not least to avoid embarrassing your frugal host by indicating they need to turn the heating up... but to wear them under see-through tops seems to defeat the point doesn't it? On the other hand, if they were reaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly good and you couldn't see them at all, we might have concluded that Hayden was nippleless and then potentially not-of-this-earth, which could have put up the odds that the space aliens did it to 1.5% or so. And in that erroneous conclusion, justice would not be served. So all round I think we have to thank Ms P for this, no?



Well the body paint is an alternative. Why don't you try it? post a photo, SA??



Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

FOA J Beverly's contribution


Image
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

What's this?


Image
Top Profile 

Offline fine


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am

Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What's this?


(PHOTO)


____________________

Dan O thinks it's a screw from the lock of Meredith's door, detached when the door was busted in. Makes sense to me.
The damaged lock.............



///
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Did someone say LOCK (sitting up and becoming alert).

Looks like it could be the bottom screw that fixes the face plate to the side of the door. The top (upper) screw looks to be still in situ.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

That seems right. It almost looked like an air-needle at first to me... for blowing up footballs and such.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

About the use of the word medieval for Perugia - well, Italy has been settled and civilised for a very long time - just about every town or city in Italy could be described as ancient, medieval, historic, whatever - many of them dating from the Roman, or even the Etruscan period, like Perugia. So what?

Deciding on the innocence of the pair based on photos - I presume the good Judge was referring to the photo of Sollecito dressed as a mummy with a cleaver and that of Knox laughing her head off while posing with a Gatling gun?
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Please remind me - perhaps I was dreaming this - but was the lead of Amanda's lamp (placed on the floor in Meredith's room) coming out from under Meredith's closed door?
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
windfall wrote:
Anyway, SA, you're right. I just looked at the close up. It looks like she's in recovery from breast surgery.



It's a funny look. Why not indeed take advantage of modern materials by sporting your Nippits(TM) for a number of good reasons, not least to avoid embarrassing your frugal host by indicating they need to turn the heating up... but to wear them under see-through tops seems to defeat the point doesn't it? On the other hand, if they were reaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly good and you couldn't see them at all, we might have concluded that Hayden was nippleless and then potentially not-of-this-earth, which could have put up the odds that the space aliens did it to 1.5% or so. And in that erroneous conclusion, justice would not be served. So all round I think we have to thank Ms P for this, no?



Well the body paint is an alternative. Why don't you try it? post a photo, SA??






I think nipple plasters on top of body paint would look extremely silly and wouldn't work because the sticky bit would fail and the plasters would fall off.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
apologies if already linked

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/01/06/gro ... ce-system/


Foxy Noxy Might Outfox the Italian Justice System

Ms. Knox’s appeal to emotion seems to have paid off: Judge Hellmann ruled, on December 18, that she will grant the defense’s request for independent forensic examinations of the two most damning pieces of trial evidence: the knife allegedly used in the attack, and Ms. Kercher’s bra clasp.


I pulled up the article hyperlinked above and must hide my American face in anguish. Read the first line proclaimed by Ms. Deva Roberts in the New York Law School article:

"We Americans know we are spoiled in many ways, but most of us don’t realize how far advanced our legal system is compared to those of other nations."

What a terrible example of so-called modern journalism. With a thesis sentence like that to start an article, you make the whole monkey world despise Americans. How can you convince anyone, but smug Americans, to listen to your arguments with an open mind after that opening statement?

To save you the torture of reading the article, she states that there are major problems with two key pieces of evidence. For the knife blade evidence, she uses scientific expert sources to dispute the evidence because it is a one-shot unvalidated PCR analysis and not reproducible (an opinion also held by this commentator, although I do informally think it is actually MK's DNA on the blade). Her reasoning, however, falls flat on disputing the bra clasp evidence. Her contention is that RS's DNA arrived on it by contamination because it was handled many times. The problem with this reasoning is that a significantly large amount of RS's DNA is on the clasp, far more than can be arrived at through contamination. There is no report that RS ever was handed the bra clasp and told to press firmly down on it so the police could obtain a good DNA sample. How did a large sample of DNA from RS get on the bra clasp? Perhaps like the convenient MK knife-pricking story, RS may have an entertaining story for us now at his appeal of the time MK asked him to unclasp her bra because she was no good at it, and he thinks perhaps trying to make a move on him because of her love of Harry Potter stories. No, the bra clasp DNA evidence is too strong to dispute, and is his Voldemort.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
If this is a flavour of his "reasoning" then I do think, in all seriousness, that he is unfit to be a judge. I do not know how judges are appointed where he is: and in keeping with what I think is important principle, I presume it is extremely hard to get rid of a judge once he is appointed. Nevertheless there must be some mechanism for doing so and it seems to me that this man has shown himself to be impervious to evidence.

Just because the poor and ill educated are more likely to be arrested and charged it is the more important that judges are able to resist confirmation bias and related distortions of our thinking. No-one can, of course, and that is why due process is so important. Yet no matter how good the safeguards and how careful the process it cannot possibly deal fairly with defendants when the people who implement it are so dead to their role and to their class prejudice.

I was told recently that class is not an issue in the USA and this was put forward as a stark contrast to the situaiton in the UK. My conclusion when discussing the issue is that class is indeed an issue in the US, but that the word "class" is not much used. That is not an answer to a problem: it is a denial of it. When we don't have a vocabulary for a phenomenon we don't have the ability to think about it easily. Words are what we think with and newspeak is not a natural language.


"Class" is of course an issue in the US, Canada, and everywhere else in the world. Ever heard of the Kennedy family? They are endlessly parodied by the Mayor Quimby character on The Simpsons.

In Alberta, one of our former premier's sons was caught with cocaine. He got off with a fairly light sentence. Nothing to squawk about. But the premier wanted to "raise awareness" and created a provincial statutory holiday called "Family Day" in the middle of February. Ostensibly, this was to allow people to focus on their own family problems (I don't remember getting a stat for any of my friends getting in trouble with the law), and there was little public outrage at the legislation because it's cold in February and everyone wanted a holiday regardless. I wrote a few letters to editors suggesting it be renamed "Snow Day", for obvious reasons, but it never caught on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Welshy


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:27 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
John wrote:


One more thing, if anyone knows, I read earlier that RS’s dad called him around 12:40 on Nov 2, this is the first I’ve heard of this, is this correct?


Page 319 of the English translation of the Massei report (p342 in the Italian):
Quote:
− 12:38: Vodafone sent a message of confirmation of phone [credit] recharge (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, good for Via della Pergola 7)

− 12:40: incoming call from the father’s mobile phone (lasting 67 seconds; connection through Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, compatible with the Sollecito’s presence near the little house)

− 12:50:34 outgoing call directed at mobile phone xxxxxxxxx belonging to Vanessa Sollecito, sister of the defendant; duration 39 seconds. Connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell


I blanked out the number.

Raffaele's dad was expecting them to have gone on a trip to Gubbio that day.


Has RS or indeed his father ever accounted for this call though? The incoming call at 12:40 is registering with the mast that serves the cottage, as did his earlier top up at 12:35, also Amanda at 12:34 is registering with a mast that serves the cottage, she's already made the phone calls to Meredith's English phone and Romanelli at 12:07 and 12:08 respectively so at 12:40 when RS receives the call from his father he will be well aware of the odd situation at the cottage and Knox's apparent concerns - so he must have mentioned it to his father at this point surely?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hammerite wrote:
Did someone say LOCK (sitting up and becoming alert).

Looks like it could be the bottom screw that fixes the face plate to the side of the door. The top (upper) screw looks to be still in situ.


Steady Hammmer.... :D

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
The point about Raffaele's alibi is absolutely spot on, whoever made it. If he was on his computer 'all night', with nary a break why the hell didn't he mention it at the first trial????!!!! He had the perfect alibi (*hem*) right there. Changing his story from 'surfed the Internet at bit' to 'was on computer all night' at this stage looks very weak to me.


It's a complete non-starter and always was. You don't get to go into the police station, invent story after story (late call from Dad, too smoked up to remember, dabbling on unknown applications on the internet, maybe noticing Knox leaving, sleeping straight through from 23:00 to 10:30 the next day, yada yada) and then change it to a brand new version after the police prove you were lying the first two or three or dozen times. No wonder Biff sat there mute throughout his trial. At least he didn't show himself up as a complete fraud on the stand as his co-accused did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Follow up on the origin of the mystery screw.

On checking the picture on the left below shows that both attaching screws for the handle plate on the inside (room side) were still in place after Meredith's bedroom door was kicked in, although they are missing in the photo on the right. It appears that they were removed manually at a later time during the dusting/fingerprinting process. This would rule out either of these two screws as being the one in h9’s photo above.

The bottom screw of the face plate looks a likely candidate so far.


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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Actually, calling her the Monster of Perugia was not a good sales idea, either.


The whole concept made me LOL. OK, you put Knox in a frame and featured it in a blog with a background image of an empty Blair Witch house. The title? Snap! "The Monster of Perugia". OK, so Knox is the monster; she's in Perugia. Then, I know, make the subtitle mention the framing. But wait, the subtitle looks too small. Everyone's going to look at the picture first and think Knox is the monster. So let's make the subtitle of the book almost as big as the title. And...add some text to state that she is innocent.

OK, got it. Now the title appears to be a forethought that was corrected as an afterthought. Sort of. It's cluttered. Too much imagery that people have to "get". So add a semi-coherent blurb by Doug Preston. Unless the reader is aware of any of the principals, the book cover and title is going to make no sense whatsoever. It looks like a bargain bin selection along with other self-published nonsense such as you often see from 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Here's an example from Kevin Barrett, a disgraced University of Wisconsin - Madison professor who was fired for promoting conspiracy theories in a class he taught on Islamic Studies:



Note the similar clutter, self-promotion, ambiguous message, and horrible creative design?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Re: ‘Foxy Noxy Might Outfox the Italian Justice System’ artcle linked by H9

Greggy wrote:

‘To save you the torture of reading the article, she states that there are major problems with two key pieces of evidence.’

She really doesn’t state anything. She copies and paste’s from other articles. One from Andrea Vogt for DNA analysis, and also Science Spheres from Mark Waterbury. Even Huffington Post. All of which are great bastions of scientific knowledge.

The author Deva Roberts says she’s creative and opinionated.
Top Profile 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
The Bard wrote:
The point about Raffaele's alibi is absolutely spot on, whoever made it. If he was on his computer 'all night', with nary a break why the hell didn't he mention it at the first trial????!!!! He had the perfect alibi (*hem*) right there. Changing his story from 'surfed the Internet at bit' to 'was on computer all night' at this stage looks very weak to me.


It's a complete non-starter and always was. You don't get to go into the police station, invent story after story (late call from Dad, too smoked up to remember, dabbling on unknown applications on the internet, maybe noticing Knox leaving, sleeping straight through from 23:00 to 10:30 the next day, yada yada) and then change it to a brand new version after the police prove you were lying the first two or three or dozen times. No wonder Biff sat there mute throughout his trial. At least he didn't show himself up as a complete fraud on the stand as his co-accused did.



Sollecito, by now staying he was on his computer all night(as his defence are trying to prove) is once again exposing Knox. There was some debate about the upcoming trials in which many people thought that the Sollecito defence would try and cut itself loose from Knox`s. Thats what they`re doing here, just like in the questura when he threw Knox under the bus. If and a big `IF` the jury accepts his alibi it leaves Knox on her own due to key points in her alibi which conradict his. Both alibi`s cant be right. Knox wont go down alone thats for sure and might start talking as she did when told of Sollecito not supporting her alibi, so I cant see how this `I was on the computer all night` defence helps Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

DLW wrote:
Re: ‘Foxy Noxy Might Outfox the Italian Justice System’ artcle linked by H9

Greggy wrote:

‘To save you the torture of reading the article, she states that there are major problems with two key pieces of evidence.’

She really doesn’t state anything. She copies and paste’s from other articles. One from Andrea Vogt for DNA analysis, and also Science Spheres from Mark Waterbury. Even Huffington Post. All of which are great bastions of scientific knowledge.

The author Deva Roberts says she’s creative and opinionated.


Knox really is turning into a money spinner for all kinds of folks. Is the idea that you have a blog/website, and get sponsored by Google for the number of clicks onto your site? Easy - then just cut and paste some old crap of someone elses (above) or write an angled opinion piece (Churchy), and wait for the $$$ to roll in? It seems to be working rather well as a business model for these people.

Or is it?

Who really goes and looks at this stuff do you think?

Michael, there was an astonishing readership figure quoted randomly for this site a while back. I didn't believe it, and frankly never think outside a readership of the old timers here. Do we have any idea how many people read here? I am interested to think how much Vulture Revenue we might unwittingly be creating.

(p.s I know for a FACT some people only tune in for Hammer's lock talk...)

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Any lawyers here know if the `Lemon(sp) law` still exists and if its used in criminal cases?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
  • And Perugia has a new courthouse:

    [Umbria24] (photo Troccoli)


Hi Catnip. Not sure if you are kidding.... You never kid, right?!

This is the courthouse where Guede was sentenced and where AK and RS were sent off for trial. It was also used late last year for the slander case hearings.

It is a short walk from the central police station and for that, matter, from the railway station if you want to make a quick exit from Perugia.

When Guede was on trial, the Kercher family was in the courthouse, and Knox's parents, apparently too scared to face them, skulked up the hill.

These shots were all taken there. http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... t_arrives/

No shot of the interior that I have ever seen. The perps entered by way of a van down to the basement and then up.

A converted power station I think I read somewhere. Kermit may know more (as usual!).

Pete


Last edited by Fast Pete on Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:10 pm, edited 1 time 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fiona wrote:
If this is a flavour of his "reasoning" then I do think, in all seriousness, that he is unfit to be a judge. I do not know how judges are appointed where he is: and in keeping with what I think is important principle, I presume it is extremely hard to get rid of a judge once he is appointed. Nevertheless there must be some mechanism for doing so and it seems to me that this man has shown himself to be impervious to evidence.

Just because the poor and ill educated are more likely to be arrested and charged it is the more important that judges are able to resist confirmation bias and related distortions of our thinking. No-one can, of course, and that is why due process is so important. Yet no matter how good the safeguards and how careful the process it cannot possibly deal fairly with defendants when the people who implement it are so dead to their role and to their class prejudice.

I was told recently that class is not an issue in the USA and this was put forward as a stark contrast to the situaiton in the UK. My conclusion when discussing the issue is that class is indeed an issue in the US, but that the word "class" is not much used. That is not an answer to a problem: it is a denial of it. When we don't have a vocabulary for a phenomenon we don't have the ability to think about it easily. Words are what we think with and newspeak is not a natural language.

I looked this up yesterday because it said that Heavey had been a state legislator. I figured that political pull got him appointed. But it turns out that in Washington judges have to be elected. So I suppose name recognition gave him an edge when he first stood for election. Neither route is exactly a ringing endorsement of his legal abilities.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
I looked this up yesterday because it said that Heavey had been a state legislator. I figured that political pull got him appointed. But it turns out that in Washington judges have to be elected. So I suppose name recognition gave him an edge when he first stood for election. Neither route is exactly a ringing endorsement of his legal abilities.


Yeah he was elected. Apparently he is not running again (said to be for health reasons) so to him public opinion probably does not matter a damn.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hammerite


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Posts: 517

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Did someone say LOCK (sitting up and becoming alert).

Looks like it could be the bottom screw that fixes the face plate to the side of the door. The top (upper) screw looks to be still in situ.


Steady Hammmer.... :D


Hi Bard,

Just to show you that not all men are interested in naked painted ladies and there are some normal men about who are interested in nothing lovelier than,

Yes you have guessed it, taa...daa..drum roll please... LOCKS

Took this picture of a selection of some of the more photogenic (and might I add quiet attractive) brands of euro cylinder and rim cylinder locks on the market. And as it is before 9.00 pm in these parts you can give Mungo a special treat and let him have a quick look before you tuck him in.

H


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

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Stilicho - yes, I assumed CD was referring to himself as Churchy on comment sections! Excellent nickname !!! And as for Raff in court, it reminded me of the daily 'help the technically useless teacher set up the OHP/computer/video/DVD player at the beginning of class', which was a daily occurrence where I worked. School technology has an infuriating habit of playing up in my experience, but it forges a rather nice link between teacher and kids who enjoy the role reversal. I wonder if it is a built in feature..

Churchy La Femme sounds wonderful Tom. I will have a look for a picture for you!

Got your Churchy LaFemme right here:


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hammerite wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Did someone say LOCK (sitting up and becoming alert).

Looks like it could be the bottom screw that fixes the face plate to the side of the door. The top (upper) screw looks to be still in situ.


Steady Hammmer.... :D


Hi Bard,

Just to show you that not all men are interested in naked painted ladies and there are some normal men about who are interested in nothing lovelier than,

Yes you have guessed it, taa...daa..drum roll please... LOCKS

Took this picture of a selection of some of the more photogenic (and might I add quiet attractive) brands of euro cylinder and rim cylinder locks on the market. And as it is before 9.00 pm in these parts you can give Mungo a special treat and let him have a quick look before you tuck him in.

H


Oh. My. God

It's worse than I thought. Hammer. Siddown. It's called Lock Addiction and there IS treatment out there.


p.s I would never expose Mungers to that kind of hard core lockery, whatever the hour. What are you thinking Sir!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Tom - "First rule of cookery - don't let the meat escape". I like it! Interesting to see some very early street talk from the Owl too "You is PREDJUDICED!" In the 1950s????!!!!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline TomM


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm

Posts: 582

Location: California

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Tom - "First rule of cookery - don't let the meat escape". I like it! Interesting to see some very early street talk from the Owl too "You is PREDJUDICED!" In the 1950s????!!!!

Walt Kelly, Pogo's creator, was quite advanced. J. Edgar Hoover, the anti-communist crusading director of the F.B.I., was very suspicious of Pogo, and he assigned to a couple of agents the task of analyzing the strip to see if secret, subversive messages were encoded in it, a suspecion that was heightened by the fact that a few of the characters "spoke" using different fonts. Showman/politician P.T. Bridgeport spoke occasionally as a newspaper front page headline and otherwise in a variety of poster fonts with assorted dingbats, usually stars, arrows, and pointing finger. Deacon Mushrat spoke in Olde English script, and his colleague,, Sarcophagus MacAbre, spoke in black bordered funeral-type scripts. I would love to have a job where I got paid to read Pogo.


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


Last edited by TomM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Earthling


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm

Posts: 504

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
And, what difference does it make if he actually was at his computer after AK was killed?

eee-)
Top Profile 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Judge Michael Heavey, Fauntleroy resident who once served in the 34th District House of Representatives and State Senate, was guest speaker at today's Rotary Club luncheon at Salty's on Alki. He gave a PowerPoint-aided presentation about his take on West Seattle-raised Amanda Knox and the court case that led her to prison in Italy. He announced that he was a guest in an unofficial capacity. Amanda's father, Curt Knox, an Arbor Heights resident, also attended.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/0 ... heon-amand


Heavey's interest in the Knox case has been controversial. He was charged June 8 by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct for using court time, materials and employees to send three letters to prosecutors and a judge in Italy on the Knox case on County letterhead in 2008 while Knox was in prison awaiting trial.

Heavey told the West Seattle Herald last June, "A judge should not advance his private interest. I was not. I was advancing the interest of justice."

Curt Knox:
"I was invited to come listen to Mike Heavey speak about Amanda's case," Knox told the West Seattle Herald. "It was a very impressive presentation. I was thankful for it. He has a clear understanding of the case and it is very nice for him to spend the time he does given everything he has going.

"It is emotional every time you hear about it and to have it be your own daughter is very tough,: he added. "I think as people become more educated about the case, their opinions change, if they had an opinion to start with. Then they can make their own conclusion, which is obviously that Amanda is innocent."


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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Mark Waterbury :

Comments on his book flooding in... (NOT) ... well, the usual suspects Churchy and the actor from New Hampshire

http://www.monsterofperugia.com/2011/01 ... l#comments

Mark's latest :

"I've worked in the brand integrity field, what is commonly called, "anti-counterfeiting" for several years. I've recently started my own firm, Perception Development Co., (www.percdev.com) and am now providing consulting services and developing a variety of new products and technologies."
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Judge Michael Heavey, Fauntleroy resident who once served in the 34th District House of Representatives and State Senate, was guest speaker at today's Rotary Club luncheon at Salty's on Alki...


Nice that they updated the photo to include an image of the 3 attendees, but without that American flag in the background I find it lacking true emotional impact.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Mark Waterbury :

Comments on his book flooding in... (NOT) ... well, the usual suspects Churchy and the actor from New Hampshire

http://www.monsterofperugia.com/2011/01 ... l#comments

Mark's latest :

"I've worked in the brand integrity field, what is commonly called, "anti-counterfeiting" for several years. I've recently started my own firm, Perception Development Co., (http://www.percdev.com) and am now providing consulting services and developing a variety of new products and technologies."


Yeah please publish this highly libelous tome in Italy DOCTOR Waterbury why dont you - and get sued right off the planet. Looking forward.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
What's this?


Image


I think the P is for the blood on the wall in the upper left corner of the picture.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:09 pm   Post subject: Medieval Justice   

I love this H9!! It's beautiful and hysterical!

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
FOA J Beverly's contribution


Image
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

@bedelia,
I believe the question was about the 'screw' on the bed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
Greggy wrote:

Welcome to the forum, History11. I suggest that your percentages may need to be re-evaluated. The physical and behavioral evidence strongly links AK to the murder. One problem with your analysis is that there were three culprits involved (AK, RS, RG) and you only addressed AK and RS probabilities together, so you should have used a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by a rigorous post-hoc test such as the Scheffe method to derive your p-values and resulting percentages for each participant. I suggest that upon re-calculation you will find that the percentage probability of AK being in the room during the murder will be far higher than the 20% you suggested and will meet the criteria of being statistically significant (P<0.05 = Guilty as Hell = 26 years in prison).


Haha, well, I'm just trying to give my point of view and find out that of other posters.

My underlying point is that AK and RS can be guilty as hell and deserve 25-26,000 years without even being in the room due to the circumstantial evidence/coverup. Under what circumstance would AK and RS tell RG to "have a go" at MK and then say, "oh, she died? instead of turning this scumbag in, let's incriminate the hell out of ourselves by staging this to look like we weren't in the apartment that
Amanda is renting."

I am just very tired of hearing viewpoints of people who have taken advantage of the time passing since the incident to dismiss incredibly incriminating evidence while focusing on the "holy grail" of crimesolving, DNA evidence. If the knife had Mignini's DNA on the blade they are still so incredibly guilty.


Welcome History11. I'm assuming you are tired of hearing the same talking points of the FOA over and over. If that's the case, then I think you will enjoy reading here. For my part, it doesn't really matter to me how, when or why the murder was done. I only care that it was done and those who did it should be held accountable. The numbers are meaningless to me. The world is a multi-dimensional space and the numbers flatten everything into 2 dimension with a beginning, middle, and end. Time does that too. However, time is not the only element involved here. There is the space of the cottage, the space of Perugia. The multiple languages and cultures. The levels of inebriation and sobriety. The mental states of all involved. I find these interesting to talk about.
Top Profile 

Offline bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

dgfred wrote:
@bedelia,
I believe the question was about the 'screw' on the bed.


I wasn't quite sure. :)
Top Profile 

Offline Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

This is on West Seattle's Rotary Club home page, and I was just wondering why they dont' apply the same Rotary 4-Way Test to guest speakers !!!! huh-)
I would have thought they would try to promote all the good things they do rather than provide a platform for people of dubious intent.


Quote:
Rotary of West Seattle Student of the Month Program

Tuesday, September 21, Rotary of West Seattle honored its first
Students of the Month for 2010-2011. The Students of the Month are selected by their high schools for their dedication to their studies, their school and the community at large. In their lives today and as they plan for the future, they demonstrate a commitment to Rotary’s 4-Way Test:

1. Is it the TRUTH?

2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?

3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Tom - "First rule of cookery - don't let the meat escape". I like it! Interesting to see some very early street talk from the Owl too "You is PREDJUDICED!" In the 1950s????!!!!

Walt Kelly, Pogo's creator, was quite advanced. J. Edgar Hoover, the anti-communist crusading director of the F.B.I., was very suspicious of Pogo, and he assigned to a couple of agents the task of analyzing the strip to see if secret, subversive messages were encoded in it, a suspecion that was heightened by the fact that a few of the characters "spoke" using different fonts. Showman/politician P.T. Bridgeport spoke occasionally as a newspaper front page headline and otherwise in a variety of poster fonts with assorted dingbats, usually stars, arrows, and pointing finger. Deacon Mushrat spoke in Olde English script, and his colleague,, Sarcophagus MacAbre, spoke in black bordered funeral-type scripts. I would love to have a job where I got paid to read Pogo.


Count me in!

I was "taught" Pogo by my dad, who enjoyed the provocative satire of Walt Kelly. Al Capp, creator of Li'l Abner, was another cartoonist who sometimes caught the attention of the authorities for his "subversive" comics. John Steinbeck counted Al Capp among the best American writers of his day.

The eternal golden braid connects both Kelly and Capp to Harvey Kurtzman, Wally Wood, William Gaines, etc, who were making horror comics in the early Fifties before the HUAC decided that kids were getting all crazy (possibly communist!) after reading them. So they turned to making the precursors of MAD and other underground comics such as what Terry Gilliam did at his college before joining the Monty Python troupe. Kurtzman had given Gilliam his first job as a professional artist.

There hasn't been a good Okefenokee Swamp or Dogpatch in the Sunday papers now for over fifty years and I consider both Doonesbury and Bloom County to have been crass knock-offs of the technique.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Judge Michael Heavey, Fauntleroy resident who once served in the 34th District House of Representatives and State Senate, was guest speaker at today's Rotary Club luncheon at Salty's on Alki. He gave a PowerPoint-aided presentation about his take on West Seattle-raised Amanda Knox and the court case that led her to prison in Italy. He announced that he was a guest in an unofficial capacity. Amanda's father, Curt Knox, an Arbor Heights resident, also attended.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/0 ... heon-amand


He managed to quote MLK and the Bible in that short piece. All that he needs now is a Founding Fathers quote and he'll have the trifecta.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline H9


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

Posts: 1716

Highscores: 161

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michelle More tells the Kerchers to read Brucie's book.. bleh


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bedelia wrote:
history11 wrote:
Greggy wrote:

Welcome to the forum, History11. I suggest that your percentages may need to be re-evaluated. The physical and behavioral evidence strongly links AK to the murder. One problem with your analysis is that there were three culprits involved (AK, RS, RG) and you only addressed AK and RS probabilities together, so you should have used a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by a rigorous post-hoc test such as the Scheffe method to derive your p-values and resulting percentages for each participant. I suggest that upon re-calculation you will find that the percentage probability of AK being in the room during the murder will be far higher than the 20% you suggested and will meet the criteria of being statistically significant (P<0.05 = Guilty as Hell = 26 years in prison).


Haha, well, I'm just trying to give my point of view and find out that of other posters.

My underlying point is that AK and RS can be guilty as hell and deserve 25-26,000 years without even being in the room due to the circumstantial evidence/coverup. Under what circumstance would AK and RS tell RG to "have a go" at MK and then say, "oh, she died? instead of turning this scumbag in, let's incriminate the hell out of ourselves by staging this to look like we weren't in the apartment that
Amanda is renting."

I am just very tired of hearing viewpoints of people who have taken advantage of the time passing since the incident to dismiss incredibly incriminating evidence while focusing on the "holy grail" of crimesolving, DNA evidence. If the knife had Mignini's DNA on the blade they are still so incredibly guilty.


Welcome History11. I'm assuming you are tired of hearing the same talking points of the FOA over and over. If that's the case, then I think you will enjoy reading here. For my part, it doesn't really matter to me how, when or why the murder was done. I only care that it was done and those who did it should be held accountable. The numbers are meaningless to me. The world is a multi-dimensional space and the numbers flatten everything into 2 dimension with a beginning, middle, and end. Time does that too. However, time is not the only element involved here. There is the space of the cottage, the space of Perugia. The multiple languages and cultures. The levels of inebriation and sobriety. The mental states of all involved. I find these interesting to talk about.


bedelia, are you on drugs tonight?!!! I love that paragraph! Far OUT!!! Just don't try any of that reaaaaallly bad Perugian weed, that like, makes you forget everything after like ONE JOINT....Maaaaaaan that was a good night....Oh? Really? It wasn't? Shit! (Exit left followed by a mop)

I do actually like this paragraph. I think it is very other extreme of many posters here. Some are brilliant at minute detail and facts and getting the facts absolutely spot on; and other people are collectors, who amass images and links like treasure; some just stand back and make all sorts of tangential comments and links between what's happening and the outside world, and you badelia are in the world of the Cat. Kind of looking down on it all, and seeing the big pictures and how it all interconnects. I think part of both of them actually WANTS to be found guilty.

Oh dear. I really actually AM on drugs right now which are making me type slower and less spelly by the moment. They help me sleep (Oh Sleep! It is a gentle thing/Beloved from pole to pole) but I took them a bit early and now the world's just slllloooooooowwwwwwd downnnnnn. I like it. And Pogo. And locks.

Ok. I'll get my coat (British reference)

Night all

Hammer! Mungo has his furry nose in a bowl of parsnip carrot and fresh thyme. Rabbit bliss out. I asked him about locks and he gave me a withering look...

Has anyone seen Skep? I miss her. And she owes us a Munchie picture!

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Clander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:26 am

Posts: 855

Location: Rome

Highscores: 77

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

TomM wrote:
Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


I really don't know what the reason was for being so techy in that article.
So, he's saying that Encase does not record every possible log. Big deal.
Had Sollecito been at his PC all night long, Encase would have recorded human activity.

When one uses a PC that is connected to the Internet, there is so much activity going on behind the scenes (traces that Encase would have picked up).
And since he was not watching a movie all night long, what else did he do in front of his PC all night long?
There is not a single email, MSN message, MIRC log, forum post, internet navigation, server access, WHATEVER, that proves that Sollecito was at his PC (apart from those 4 seconds to Apple's website at 1 AM).
All Sollecito would have to do is say what he did at his PC all night long in order to prove he was really there.

Also, I don't know if Sollecito is a "programmer" (not all computer engineers are programmers).
But I do not know a single computer engineer that is up all night at his PC and does not access the Internet a single time. Not once.
Any even if he was blocking all Port 80 activity with his firewall (for whatever reason), that activity would have been logged by his firewall.

I simply find the story of him being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".

And, what difference does it make if he actually was at his computer after AK [edit by Clander: Meredith] was killed?


Sollecito's lawyers are now arguing that he was at his PC all night. Even during the time of the murder. From 18:26 on November 1 to 6:22 on November 2 (apart from 6 minutes):
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogaller ... 14.shtml?6

Does anyone have ALL the pages of that addendum filed by Bongiorno in November?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline piktor


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Posts: 1081

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The Bard wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Did someone say LOCK (sitting up and becoming alert).

Looks like it could be the bottom screw that fixes the face plate to the side of the door. The top (upper) screw looks to be still in situ.


Steady Hammmer.... :D

Concierge?!
You promised a debonair
man-about-town
and
all I see is a
jaunty
Lady Preston
splashing about...!


bu-)
Attachment:
the importance of the locks expert.jpg


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


Last edited by piktor on Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 pm   Post subject: Rx Drugs and Violence   

Catnip wrote:

-------
I mention "mandies" because Anissa Jones, the little girl who played Buffy on Family Affair and who overdosed at 18 back in 1976, had taken them at a party, together with Angel Dust, cocaine and seconal: "The coroner's report listed her death as an accidental drug overdose. ...The coroner who examined Jones reported she had died from one of the most severe drug overdoses he had ever seen."
-- [Wikipedia].



Catnip:
Your post reminded me about something I had read earlier this month, and had intended to post here. I don't think this has been posted in our discussions about violence and drug use.

A study was recently published about the link between certain prescription drugs ( a small number of drugs --31 to be precise made the list ) and episodes of violence. Episodes of violence can be a side effect of different prescription drugs, but the ones that made the list had a "disproportionate association" with violence (assaults, homicide, etc.)

Which makes me wonder mostly about Raffaele. His father knew he suffered from depression. Was he taking an antidepressant? Knowing his son was troubled, wouldn't he encourage Raffaele to take medication for that?

To be honest, maybe this is my bias, but the physicians I know personally would be quicker to prescribe medication than psychotherapy for depression. Papa Doc's family strike me as the type that doesn't encourage sharing of "negative" feelings, like grief. The matter of Raffaele's mother's premature death is one that is STILL shrouded in mystery.

Do I remember correctly that RS was taking antidepressant medication of some sort, or is that my imagination? Or perhaps...a hallucination from my own cocktail of meds? :lol:

The study doesn't mention other possibilities: drug interactions like cocaine WITH antidepressant medication. Or another problem to consider might be poor drug compliance by the patient -- i.e., when someone fails to take the prescription drug appropriately. Or...takes it, then, say, the patient abruptly stops taking it. THAT's a big no-no with psychotropic medicine, and it can create additional adverse effects.

Again, I'm not sure about what RS was taking, or had taken.

Could be my experience with friends who are physicians, but I can see Papa Doc prescribing an antidepressant just as easily as he prescribes Viagra, hoping "the problem" would just go away.

By the way, physicians (at least in those in the U.S.)are NOT the best source of information about drug interactions. Sorry, DriveByDoc, but I think you'd agree with that.

Studies have shown that medical doctors receive 80% of their information about pharamaceutical drugs from drug reps! eee-)

FYI.....

Here's a selection from the article "Top Ten Legal Drugs Linked to Violence" about this study. Glad to know that COFFEE did not make the list! drin-)

"When people consider the connections between drugs and violence, what typically comes to mind are illegal drugs like crack cocaine. However, certain medications — most notably, some antidepressants like Prozac — have also been linked to increase risk for violent, even homicidal behavior.

A new study from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices published in the journal PloS One and based on data from the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System has identified 31 drugs that are disproportionately linked with reports of violent behavior towards others. (More on Time.com: New Hope For An Anti-Cocaine Vaccine)

Please note that this does not necessarily mean that these drugs cause violent behavior. For example, in the case of opioid pain medications like Oxycontin, people with a prior history of violent behavior may seek drugs in order to sustain an addiction, which they support via predatory crime. In the case of antipsychotics, the drugs may be given in an attempt to reduce violence by people suffering from schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders — so the drugs here might not be causing violence, but could be linked with it because they're used to try to stop it.

Nonetheless, when one particular drug in a class of nonaddictive drugs used to treat the same problem stands out, that suggests caution: unless the drug is being used to treat radically different groups of people, that drug may actually be the problem. Researchers calculated a ratio of risk for each drug compared to the others in the database, adjusting for various relevant factors that could create misleading comparisons..."

Read more--including the list of the top ten offenders:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/t ... z1BWUA4iVA
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
TomM wrote:
Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


I really don't know what the reason was for being so techy in that article.
So, he's saying that Encase does not record every possible log. Big deal.
Had Sollecito been at his PC all night long, Encase would have recorded human activity.

When one uses a PC that is connected to the Internet, there is so much activity going on behind the scenes (traces that Encase would have picked up).
And since he was not watching a movie all night long, what else did he do in front of his PC all night long?
There is not a single email, MSN message, MIRC log, forum post, internet navigation, server access, WHATEVER, that proves that Sollecito was at his PC (apart from those 4 seconds to Apple's website at 1 AM).
All Sollecito would have to do is say what he did at his PC all night long in order to prove he was really there.

Also, I don't know if Sollecito is a "programmer" (not all computer engineers are programmers).
But I do not know a single computer engineer that is up all night at his PC and does not access the Internet a single time. Not once.
Any even if he was blocking all Port 80 activity with his firewall (for whatever reason), that activity would have been logged by his firewall.

I simply find the story of him being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".

And, what difference does it make if he actually was at his computer after AK [edit by Clander: Meredith] was killed?


Sollecito's lawyers are now arguing that he was at his PC all night. Even during the time of the murder. From 18:26 on November 1 to 6:22 on November 2 (apart from 6 minutes):
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogaller ... 14.shtml?6

Does anyone have ALL the pages of that addendum filed by Bongiorno in November?


Why did the defence not mention this the first time around ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Clander wrote:
TomM wrote:
Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


I really don't know what the reason was for being so techy in that article.
So, he's saying that Encase does not record every possible log. Big deal.
Had Sollecito been at his PC all night long, Encase would have recorded human activity.

When one uses a PC that is connected to the Internet, there is so much activity going on behind the scenes (traces that Encase would have picked up).
And since he was not watching a movie all night long, what else did he do in front of his PC all night long?
There is not a single email, MSN message, MIRC log, forum post, internet navigation, server access, WHATEVER, that proves that Sollecito was at his PC (apart from those 4 seconds to Apple's website at 1 AM).
All Sollecito would have to do is say what he did at his PC all night long in order to prove he was really there.

Also, I don't know if Sollecito is a "programmer" (not all computer engineers are programmers).
But I do not know a single computer engineer that is up all night at his PC and does not access the Internet a single time. Not once.
Any even if he was blocking all Port 80 activity with his firewall (for whatever reason), that activity would have been logged by his firewall.

I simply find the story of him being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".

And, what difference does it make if he actually was at his computer after AK [edit by Clander: Meredith] was killed?


Sollecito's lawyers are now arguing that he was at his PC all night. Even during the time of the murder. From 18:26 on November 1 to 6:22 on November 2 (apart from 6 minutes):
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogaller ... 14.shtml?6

Does anyone have ALL the pages of that addendum filed by Bongiorno in November?

Clander,
Only the 9 pages on your linked TGcom article were published. Here is page 1 and you can click up to 9: http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogaller ... 14.shtml?1
Top Profile 

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Curt says it's emotional every time you hear about it. Yah, it makes my eyes water every time I hear the same old bullshit.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Curt says it's emotional every time you hear about it. Yah, it makes my eyes water every time I hear the same old bullshit.


He's so emotional he forgot to pay child maintenance.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

So Windowserver.log, saviour of Raffaele? As I've said before, I very much doubt it. In fact I think it could be a death knell for the argument for his freedom. There's an argument running in the pro-innocence camp that the events could only be achieved by a human interaction with the computer but that sadly the records are missing.

Well ten minutes active googling shows that windowserver.log on the Mac has entries written to it by events from the hardware and software of a Mac when there are software crash issues, failing hardware issues, usb-issues, system *sleep* issues, window resizing / resolution change issues (remembering that Raffaele and Amanda had been watching a *movie*) and disconnecting an external display suitable for, say, watching a movie....

All without anyone doing anything. The disingenuousness on the pro-freedom side continues unabated.

In particular I found several issues connected to window resizing and when the computer goes to sleep and crashes. You recall that the last thing Raffaele's computer does by any existing accepted record is terminate Amelie.avi at 9.10pm in the VLC media player app which it is unclear whether it's done by a human hand or just reaching the end of the file. What's the next thing that happens? Well at 5.32am Raffaele tries to play a file twice with that very same VLC and it crashes both times. Now the question is, was this a crash that occured then? Or was it a continuation of a pre-existing problem that was getting written to the windowserver.log file from the origin of it either in a problematic termination or something to do with changing resolutions or something to do with attempts to go into sleep mode while VLC is still open? All of which could cause writes to windowserver.log. And this doesn't even go into some of the other possible causes.

The bottom line is, until anyone sees what those entries are, this is nonsense. It could be non-human-hardware, non-human-software or human interaction writing to the log file. And there isn't a single piece of internet or application data that supports it. This is whistling in the wind, and quite probably spitting into it at this point by the defence...

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Ah bless these two. Atheist CD-Host (a.k.a. jbolden1517 otherwise Jeffrey Bolden) and Bible basher Michelle Moore are now following each other on Twitter. Will they exchange Bible stories? ar-)) http://twitter.com/jbolden1517


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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
Catnip wrote:



Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.


Well, here's what one Italian commenter wrote about that particular "look"

"ma che schifo… quei cosi la fanno sembrare una baldracca che non doveva mostrare tutta la mercanzia ai non paganti..
ma i reggiseni non li fanno più?"

TRANSLATION:
"Oh, that's disgusting...Those thingies make her look like a whore who wouldn't show her merchandise to those who don't pay!...
And... don't they make bras anymore?" :lol:

cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline tsit


Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

Posts: 62

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

John wrote:
TomM wrote:
I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


They must have better interrogators in Perugia; it only took them less than 2 and half hours.

One more thing, if anyone knows, I read earlier that RS’s dad called him around 12:40 on Nov 2, this is the first I’ve heard of this, is this correct?



But there were 12 police interrogating Amanda!!

This seems to have become revealed wisdom in other places. Why 12 would break someone down in 2 hours faster that 2 cops I don't know but the more cops the more evil I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Clander wrote:
TomM wrote:
Clander wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
With regards to RS's computer... is there anything of value in this post? (clander? anyone?)

I am ignoring the obvious rubbish and Rose sucking up.. but what what about the computer tech stuff?

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2 ... 3566830789


I really don't know what the reason was for being so techy in that article.
So, he's saying that Encase does not record every possible log. Big deal.
Had Sollecito been at his PC all night long, Encase would have recorded human activity.

When one uses a PC that is connected to the Internet, there is so much activity going on behind the scenes (traces that Encase would have picked up).
And since he was not watching a movie all night long, what else did he do in front of his PC all night long?
There is not a single email, MSN message, MIRC log, forum post, internet navigation, server access, WHATEVER, that proves that Sollecito was at his PC (apart from those 4 seconds to Apple's website at 1 AM).
All Sollecito would have to do is say what he did at his PC all night long in order to prove he was really there.

Also, I don't know if Sollecito is a "programmer" (not all computer engineers are programmers).
But I do not know a single computer engineer that is up all night at his PC and does not access the Internet a single time. Not once.
Any even if he was blocking all Port 80 activity with his firewall (for whatever reason), that activity would have been logged by his firewall.

I simply find the story of him being at his PC all night long desperate and not credible.
The "RS computer issue" will backfire because it is clear that Sollecito is changing his story yet again.
Why not say from the very beginning that he was at his PC all night long?
Instead, in his diary, he wrote that he "surfed the Internet for a while" that evening and that he is "sure that Amanda slept with him that night".

And, what difference does it make if he actually was at his computer after AK [edit by Clander: Meredith] was killed?


Sollecito's lawyers are now arguing that he was at his PC all night. Even during the time of the murder. From 18:26 on November 1 to 6:22 on November 2 (apart from 6 minutes):
http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogaller ... 14.shtml?6

Does anyone have ALL the pages of that addendum filed by Bongiorno in November?


Why did the defence not mention this the first time around ?



Because it's Plan B as Plan A 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 stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tsit wrote:
John wrote:
TomM wrote:
I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


They must have better interrogators in Perugia; it only took them less than 2 and half hours.

....


But there were 12 police interrogating Amanda!!

This seems to have become revealed wisdom in other places. Why 12 would break someone down in 2 hours faster that 2 cops I don't know but the more cops the more evil I guess.


I think they counted up the number of cops who were at the Questura and simply decided they must have all been working Knox over. It doesn't appear to matter to them that she accused Patrick of murder multiple times and never retracted her accusation even after her mind had cleared from the hypnosis.

@SomeAlibi: You also can't vaguely insist you were on your computer all night without explaining exactly what you were doing on it. If, as Clander has suggested, Sollecito is gambling on the log files then he is truly separating himself from Knox as the appeal process progresses. Frankly, this whole gambit spells disaster for the Knox defence since she now has no alibi whatsoever.

It reeks of desperation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

tsit wrote:
John wrote:
TomM wrote:
I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


They must have better interrogators in Perugia; it only took them less than 2 and half hours.

One more thing, if anyone knows, I read earlier that RS’s dad called him around 12:40 on Nov 2, this is the first I’ve heard of this, is this correct?



But there were 12 police interrogating Amanda!!

This seems to have become revealed wisdom in other places. Why 12 would break someone down in 2 hours faster that 2 cops I don't know but the more cops the more evil I guess.



Well Steve Moore says if he's given someone for 3 or 4 hours he can get them to say anything he wants them to. Now the only way to quantify that is if he's done it, clearly, or else it's fat cavolata, innit? And Steve don't talk no cavolata so lets take him at his word. So one Moore can get a complete falsified confession in say 4 hours to be kind, whereas to get Manders to spill takes twelve eye-talians 2.5 hours, yessir. So one eye-talian would take 2.5x12 to get the same confession = 30 hours which means that Steve Moore is 30/4 = 7.5 times more evil for any given false confession than an eye-talian.

Of course, Steve might reconsider he wasn't exactly putting himself in the best light but then consideration doesn't much occur in the initial puffy chest-swelling. Braggadocio much?

sp-))

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
Curt says it's emotional every time you hear about it. Yah, it makes my eyes water every time I hear the same old bullshit.



PMF issues safety kit to its members to help protect against this. Draw yours from the PMF quartermaster. Please wear your safety equipment at all times:


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

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


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

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Jools wrote:
Ah bless these two. Atheist CD-Host (a.k.a. jbolden1517 otherwise Jeffrey Bolden) and Bible basher Michelle Moore are now following each other on Twitter. Will they exchange Bible stories? ar-)) http://twitter.com/jbolden1517


How's he going to fit his interminable nonsense into just 140 characters?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
Ah bless these two. Atheist CD-Host (a.k.a. jbolden1517 otherwise Jeffrey Bolden) and Bible basher Michelle Moore are now following each other on Twitter. Will they exchange Bible stories? ar-)) http://twitter.com/jbolden1517


How's he going to fit his interminable nonsense into just 140 characters?



Yeah...that's why you'll never catch peeps like Kevin Lowe or London John using Twitter!!! :D :D :lol:

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


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

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The 411 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Catnip wrote:



Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.


Well, here's what one Italian commenter wrote about that particular "look"

"ma che schifo… quei cosi la fanno sembrare una baldracca che non doveva mostrare tutta la mercanzia ai non paganti..
ma i reggiseni non li fanno più?"

TRANSLATION:
"Oh, that's disgusting...Those thingies make her look like a whore who wouldn't show her merchandise to those who don't pay!...
And... don't they make bras anymore?" :lol:

cl-)



Hayden is very upset by this comment and asking for a reappraisal.


Image

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

Offline 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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Catnip wrote:
  • And Perugia has a new courthouse:
    [Umbria24] (photo Troccoli)


Hi Catnip. Not sure if you are kidding.... You never kid, right?!

This is the courthouse where Guede was sentenced and where AK and RS were sent off for trial. It was also used late last year for the slander case hearings.


Pete,

The captions, I just translates 'em!
The readers, just reads 'em!

Honestly! :) (Statement Analysis 101)


I think it may be that, in a city that's more than 3,000 years old, the word "new" might have a slightly different "depth-of-field" than when used in, say, my city, which is only coming up to its 223rd birthday next week.

Sort of like the "turn left where the sign used to be" instructions we give here to the tourists. Or the word "new" in "Newcastle".

Remember: Piazza Fortebraccio (official name) is still called Piazza Grimana by the locals, after that archbishop who got the little gully filled up so people could walk across instead of around.

Or it might just be a coat of fresh paint. :)

Art Deco is a nice style, though. There are some buildings in that style here.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
Catnip wrote:
  • And Perugia has a new courthouse:
    [Umbria24] (photo Troccoli)


Hi Catnip. Not sure if you are kidding.... You never kid, right?!

This is the courthouse where Guede was sentenced and where AK and RS were sent off for trial. It was also used late last year for the slander case hearings.


Pete,

The captions, I just translates 'em!
The readers, just reads 'em!

Honestly! :) (Statement Analysis 101)


I think it may be that, in a city that's more than 3,000 years old, the word "new" might have a slightly different "depth-of-field" than when used in, say, my city, which is only coming up to its 223rd birthday next week.

Sort of like the "turn left where the sign used to be" instructions we give here to the tourists. Or the word "new" in "Newcastle".

Remember: Piazza Fortebraccio (official name) is still called Piazza Grimana by the locals, after that archbishop who got the little gully filled up so people could walk across instead of around.

Or it might just be a coat of fresh paint. :)

Art Deco is a nice style, though. There are some buildings in that style here.



It's all relative. One of my favourite lines of last year in a very amicable conversation between a Brit and an American who are very good friends but like to tweak each other's taiils: "yes, but then you have to remember my son's school is four times as old as your country" :)

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
Ah bless these two. Atheist CD-Host (a.k.a. jbolden1517 otherwise Jeffrey Bolden) and Bible basher Michelle Moore are now following each other on Twitter. Will they exchange Bible stories? ar-)) http://twitter.com/jbolden1517


How's he going to fit his interminable nonsense into just 140 characters?

I know, impossible, mind you his Twetters friends can always read his nonsense here:jbolden1517/churchy
Top Profile 

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Jools wrote:
Ah bless these two. Atheist CD-Host (a.k.a. jbolden1517 otherwise Jeffrey Bolden) and Bible basher Michelle Moore are now following each other on Twitter. Will they exchange Bible stories? ar-)) http://twitter.com/jbolden1517


How's he going to fit his interminable nonsense into just 140 characters?



Yeah...that's why you'll never catch peeps like Kevin Lowe or London John using Twitter!!! :D :D :lol:


They could open whole new social networking opportunities like
“Two Facebook”, “Me Me Me Space” and Twater.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:
The 411 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Catnip wrote:



Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.


Well, here's what one Italian commenter wrote about that particular "look"

"ma che schifo… quei cosi la fanno sembrare una baldracca che non doveva mostrare tutta la mercanzia ai non paganti..
ma i reggiseni non li fanno più?"

TRANSLATION:
"Oh, that's disgusting...Those thingies make her look like a whore who wouldn't show her merchandise to those who don't pay!...
And... don't they make bras anymore?" :lol:

cl-)



Hayden is very upset by this comment and asking for a reappraisal.


(PHOTO)


:shock:
Evidently, Ms. Panettiere doesn't always keep her assets "Hayden" from public view. b-((
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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The "highly visible" radar beacons, apparently intended as an afterparty wardrobe malfunction prevention mechanism, were themselves a "wardrobe malfunction" (here) or a "fashion faux pas" (here).

That's all right, then.

One can learn for next time from one's faux pas.
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

stilicho wrote:
tsit wrote:
John wrote:
TomM wrote:
I found this curious.

"He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, 'give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.'”

I presume that time estimate is based on an adequate number of instances where he did exactly that. No wonder he says he never lost a prosecution.


They must have better interrogators in Perugia; it only took them less than 2 and half hours.

....


But there were 12 police interrogating Amanda!!

This seems to have become revealed wisdom in other places. Why 12 would break someone down in 2 hours faster that 2 cops I don't know but the more cops the more evil I guess.


I think they counted up the number of cops who were at the Questura and simply decided they must have all been working Knox over. It doesn't appear to matter to them that she accused Patrick of murder multiple times and never retracted her accusation even after her mind had cleared from the hypnosis.

@SomeAlibi: You also can't vaguely insist you were on your computer all night without explaining exactly what you were doing on it. If, as Clander has suggested, Sollecito is gambling on the log files then he is truly separating himself from Knox as the appeal process progresses. Frankly, this whole gambit spells disaster for the Knox defence since she now has no alibi whatsoever.

It reeks of desperation.


Stilicho,

She had no alibi from the point at which Boff said she went missing between 9pm and 1 am. Have I missed something or has he just hardened his stance ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:18 am   Post subject: Amanda-- Academically Adrift?   

At last, a new book that may explain why Amanda is the way she is.

I mean, the way she is--academically.

According to the two sociologist authors of this book, nowadays a substantial number of U.S. college students ...haven't learned much, yet have continued to maintain good grades! nw)

"In the book, and in an accompanying study being released Tuesday, the authors followed more than 2,300 undergraduates at two dozen universities, and concluded that 45 percent “demonstrated no significant gains in critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and written communications during the first two years of college.”

The universities are not identified — the authors only say they represent “a wide range” of the nation’s approximately 2,000 four-year institutions — but the yardstick against which such judgments are made is the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that is essay-based and open-ended. (It is worth noting that in measuring broad analytic and problem-solving skills, the exam does not assess how much students concentrating in particular majors — physics or psychology, for example — have learned in their respective fields of study.)

The authors of “Academically Adrift” — Richard Arum, a professor of sociology and education at New York University, and Josipa Roksa, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia — also question the degree of rigor of many students’ college course schedules.

For example, they found that 32 percent of the students whom they followed did not, in a typical semester, take “any courses with more than 40 pages of reading per week” and that 50 percent “did not take a single course in which they wrote more than 20 pages over the course of the semester.”

“What if sending students to college did not necessarily ensure that much was learned once there?” the authors ask in the introduction to their accompanying study, which is being released by the Social Science Research Council. “What if at the beginning of the 21st century many colleges and universities were not focused primarily on undergraduate learning, but instead had become distracted by other institutional functions and goals?”

In this respect, the authors’ research is consistent with the findings of the National Survey of Student Engagement, which has polled more than 2 million students at more than 1,000 colleges and universities over more than a decade — and reported that many spend little time studying or writing.

In addition to seeking to establish the statistical contours of what they contend is a national problem, Professors Arum and Roksa provide something of a corrective blueprint for colleges and universities. They note, for example, that students “who spent more hours studying alone” had greater gains on the standardized exam being used as a benchmark, as did students who took courses requiring “significant” reading and writing."

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 ... ly-adrift/

OK...The bad news is that this kinda confirms what we thought all along-- that AK wasn't a real "honor student."
The good news for Amanda is, now being a student who spends "more hours studying alone" she may FINALLY start to make some gains, "educationallywise." ss-)
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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
Stilicho,

She had no alibi from the point at which Boff said she went missing between 9pm and 1 am. Have I missed something or has he just hardened his stance ?



Just to poke in here, the "between 9pm and 1 am" is one of that long list of would haves.

On a normal Thursday night, she "would have been" out working at the pub at those hours; his father "would have" called him in the evening like he always did; he was on the computer all night like he "would have been"; if/when they went out for a walk, they "would have" gone the usual way; etc.

It's a tangled web. "It's not my shoeprint in her room" is about the only statement that doesn't have any "woulds" in it at all.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
The "highly visible" radar beacons, apparently intended as an afterparty wardrobe malfunction prevention mechanism, were themselves a "wardrobe malfunction" (here) or a "fashion faux pas" (here).

That's all right, then.

One can learn for next time from one's faux pas.


I believe that when a LION writes about them...
they're called ...Faux PAWS. I'm also pretty certain that "faux PAWS" is the plural form of "faux pas".

Anyway, Catnip...

Thanks so much... for keeping us... abreast of that. da-))
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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:47 am   Post subject: Re: Amanda-- Academically Adrift?   

The 411 wrote:
question the degree of rigor of many students’ college course schedules.



If I said it was obvious, would that be obvious?

Also, it must have been happening for some time, if Washington judges elected unopposed, and book-assemblers and chat-show guests with PhD, ex-FBI, DiplCertPronouncementsOnHigh, BA Exaggerattions* (Hons) after their names, are anything to go by.

What do they get out of the education system? Bragging rights?


* Speling is a gnone issew, especially in copy-pastie situations, but confusingly counter-endorsed by copyrite trademarks. Better to go with the endorsements, rather than risk some faux PAWS.
Top Profile 

Offline history11


Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:55 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

lauowolf wrote:

Well, they don't need to have planned ahead of time to kill Meredith to be guilty of murder.
And you do not at all explain why you believe "it is unreasonable to believe that she is guilty."
You just state that as a fact, which rather begs the question, you know.

You state: "The false confession was crafted in a way that would allow her wiggle room even if she was proven by witnesses to be 10 feet away from Meredith when she died."
Um, gee. Lovely use of the passive voice there.
Crafted by whom?
By Amanda? She says she's in the kitchen.
Or are you suggesting the whole police conspiracy thing here, and do you mean that the police put "wiggle room" in, in case later evidence would put her in the house but not in Meredith's room?
Frankly, if the police were doing such a great job of mind control in the 40 or 50 hours of waterboarding they somehow squeezed into between the end of her late pizza dinner with RS and the end of questioning at like 2am that same night, wouldn't they have just made her confess to the whole thing while they were at it?

And RS and AK weren't just "involved" in the cover up; they performed the cover-up all by themselves.
There is no evidence of RG having any hand in it at all.
His bloody footprints, that is, the prints of Rudy's shoes made with still liquid blood, go right out the door, and there are many witnesses to his presence elsewhere later that night.

I know I keep repeating myself, but I think you need to read the motivations before you keep posting on the case.
There's a lot of solid evidence that needs to be accounted for if you want to theorize about what happened that night.


Mistyped: it is unreasonable to believe that she is NOT guilty

I am not a "troll". I have read this board for a while and have read the motivations report. I simply can't recall all of several hundred pages. Hmm - maybe there's something to be said for the fact that I can't even recall all of the evidence against AK and RS.

My goals in writing my first post were to 1) understand the opinion of those on this board of the true events of the night; 2) note that the reevaluation of two pieces of questionable evidence will only fuel the camp that believes they are not guilty

1) a sex game gone wrong is not an option (I don't consider a sex game to include rape by three people...). robbery, humiliation and intimidation of meredith seems more likely to me. however, this more likely scenario doesn't mean that AK and RS ever entered the room. Given the lack of defensive wounds and lack of dna evidence in the room (other than that being reevaluated), I wanted to know whether the posters question the three-on-one story. If they don't, that's fine - there is poorly collected dna against RS and LCN dna against AK

2) i simply hope that the reporting done following the appeal (regardless of the outcome) mentions the gigantic amount of circumstantial evidence. It is easy to imagine the appeal reports saying "despite the court determining that dna evidence was unreliable, the convinction stands and AK and RS will serve ~15 years". It is frustrating to me - as I am sure it is to you - that the pieces of evidence that are most damning (the lies and inconsistencies) have faded into the background in how the press reports this story. A simple story reporting that RS said "we went out that night" and later "AK left my place at 9" and later didn't deny that she was there the whole night alone is so damning. Where are these facts every time there is a blog or news report? Some percentage of people are looking for the truth and some are looking for what will happen to AK. The press does a good job of appeasing the latter
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:

‘It is easy to imagine the appeal reports saying "despite the court determining that dna evidence was unreliable, the convinction stands and AK and RS will serve ~15 years‘.

I don’t see it shaping up exactly that way. It’s over a million to one odds that Raff’s DNA is on Meredith’s bra, and the same of Meredith’s DNA is on that knife. And everything that goes along with what that evidence means. So I don’t know that the Appeals court is going to simply write that off as unreliable. I agree with you on some of the other evidence. See what the experts say and the judgment of the court is.
The Supreme Court may have already decided that Rudy didn’t act alone. So that would mean direct involvement by others. That means that they did much more then open the door for Rudy, panicked after Rudy killed Meredith, and cleaned up and lied afterwards.
They are currently at 26/ 25 years. Rudy got 16 years, but he opted for the fast trial.
Top Profile 

Offline hikergirl99


Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am

Posts: 127

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I haven't been able to post on TJMK for quite awhile now. Not sure why. So here is my post regarding Peter Hyatt's new Statement Analysis:

Hilarious! and brilliant! What a great read. Once again, we see that the way we speak and write and what we actually say, is very telling about ourselves.

(While reading the first half of the article, I kept thinking, there's no way Mr. Hyatt could have written that with a straight face. No way).

Lots of food for thought: the absolute wisdom/infallibility/perfectionism/human being/Creator angle was fascinating.
Top Profile 

Offline stilicho


User avatar


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am

Posts: 2492

Location: Western Canada

Highscores: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:
2) i simply hope that the reporting done following the appeal (regardless of the outcome) mentions the gigantic amount of circumstantial evidence.


Don't get your hopes up. The only thing keeping the story going in the media is the rather mistaken idea that there isn't much evidence against Knox and Sollecito. About the only thing missing is a photograph of them assaulting Meredith.

When you think about the obligation of the media, it really doesn't extend much beyond reporting that Knox and Sollecito are still safely separated from civilised society by prison bars. They've done that. Anything beyond that, such as relaying rumours about witnesses dealing heroin seven years ago, isn't changing the reality of their guilt or their continued incarceration.

I expect the sentences to be confirmed by the current court. What do you think?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Hard day's night & I've been working like a dawg.

Therefore can just about see.
Know I must go back to respond to posts, if are any, been too cream crackered to look, about music.

Very aware of Joanna's case, extremely upsetting, nasty people, saying things, like with Meredith's murder.

Anyway, had no sleep in about 3 days. Need to go bout must do a thing today, before too late.

Crashed an hour on sofa woke up having a nightmare, it was Madam Preston, out walking a 1952 model big ol pram, the Chevrolets of the day, with those big wheels the two at front.. biggest, many spokes, they may have had blow-up tyres,

oh no, now I just had a flash, and see that they were solid wheels.

The accommodation was 5 star, though the amount of house privacy intrusion was beyond all call, heads popping in, hellooooo oochy coochie coooo, ahhhhhhhh, tucked up nice n warm, a hotel bed on wheels, I would love to have that now, and this is the analogous nature of my cry, for it is this that overcame me, in the nightmare.

There I was minding my business and hunting for food, along the long banks of shelving in the supery mercato, when I was almost run over by the 52 type, 4-nut suspension vehicle, or make it 5 nuts, including the pusher thereof.

At first, what appeared to be an oiled-up Ukrainian wrestler woman, with stubbled legs and no stockings, wehizzed by causing people to fan out either side

I, falling backwards almost toppling into 230-odd cans of baked beans on display, stacking pile, arms revolving forwards in synch, as though skipping, trying to stop myself from falling, the strange woman had almost disappeared out of view around into another highway lane of the store.

Forgetting what it was I'd gone here for, I thought, what the hell was that.

Yet before I could say another word to myself or the people who had fanned out univocally on either side to make way for the baby chariot, madam came twirling, tyres screeching, around the bend, engines steaming, and then I saw, what.. is it a bird, it it a plane, is it a raving lunatic that just stoled da bebby,

I thought as a good citizen I'd better take a look, at my own peril, when, suddenly it appeared the baby might be on fire, smoke was coming out, billows of it, even rings!!! from under the clotth hood with tassles

Trying to appear inconspicuous, I waited till she came racing down the aisle on the next run, taking the opportunity to get in line behind the others who were now trailing her.

This was some wild kind of mother, curlers still in under a headscarf, but, walking duck-like and rugby playerish.

Suddenly she stopped in her tracks and her head revolved around twice, glared ar me without saying a word, except three,... Buy ma book

I spied that the face had a beard growth of at least 6 days going on a week

You looking at me pal, said IT,
for it was androgynous in form,
at the same moment I notices it was a very big baby with a full head of hair, a Hawaii shirt on and smoking a Havana, chomping on spare ribs that were, I guess, left over from a jolly murderer supporters' night out doing the benefit jive, what the...

It was Moore and his aunt, Dolly Preston.
chased me with no mercy.

With this, I took off with the paws of a cheetah, Buy my book buy my book, burning the leather of my shoe soles as I ran for dear life,
I turned a corner and there, 21 prams, the pram pushers convention, Dempsey pushing Heavey, Brucie boy pushing Wilkes, all cornering old grannies and trying to shove their books down their necks

Old Lady: No, I don't want a free copy of your book, I've bad eyes
Pusher man: But it's free, take it
Granny: No, thanks, can you let me out now, your pram is digging into my varicose vein

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According 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 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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



On the "According to her" front, I find that it always comes back to this:

Quote:
A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007] that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."

He also said he had warned Knox against making unfounded accusations. "We told her that it would be worse than assassination to accuse an innocent person. We explained to her what slander means in Italy and we'll see," Ghirga said.

-- "UW student implicates boss", [Seattle Times], 10 November 2007
Top Profile 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

SomeAlibi wrote:

Are nipple plasters a good look these days? I mean, clearly they are there to prevent the alternative, but is this a good look? I ask only for information.


Oh gross, I didnt even notice them at first lol. Ick
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.


What was Amanda going to do with the clothes she collected? I thought they were going to a festival in another town (Gubio?)

I don't believe that relationship had much more steam. It would have been over very soon. Amanda would have run through her boudoir repertoire very quickly, leaving to seek new chapters. She was loud, slovenly, obnoxious, ill-bred and bossy. Papa Sollecito was probably glad his son took an interest in the 'delights', but a suitable life long mate Amanda would not be.
Top Profile 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.



`Thankfully` she also managed to get her passport and purse before the door to Merediths room had been knocked down, before Merediths body had been discovered and before the house was sealed off as it was now a crime scene..Thankfully.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



On the "According to her" front, I find that it always comes back to this:

Quote:
A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007] that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."

He also said he had warned Knox against making unfounded accusations. "We told her that it would be worse than assassination to accuse an innocent person. We explained to her what slander means in Italy and we'll see," Ghirga said.

-- "UW student implicates boss", [Seattle Times], 10 November 2007



Catnip, you're a star!!! I remember about a year and a half ago or so I spent ages trying to find that quote from Ghirga and I just couldn't find it :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

yuppi du wrote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.



`Thankfully` she also managed to get her passport and purse before the door to Merediths room had been knocked down, before Merediths body had been discovered and before the house was sealed off as it was now a crime scene..Thankfully.



Yes strange that...before Meredith has even been discovered Amanda grabs her passport. Clearly she knew she'd need it, even though there hadn't been a murder 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.


What was Amanda going to do with the clothes she collected? I thought they were going to a festival in another town (Gubio?)

I don't believe that relationship had much more steam. It would have been over very soon. Amanda would have run through her boudoir repertoire very quickly, leaving to seek new chapters. She was loud, slovenly, obnoxious, ill-bred and bossy. Papa Sollecito was probably glad his son took an interest in the 'delights', but a suitable life long mate Amanda would not be.




Your guess is as good as mine. When asked about her laundry arrangements she claimed she didn't use the cottage washing machine as it didn't work. This was false since Meredith's and some of Amanda's clothes were found in the washing machine. Amanda instead claimed that she would use the laundrette. Yet this makes no sense...was Amanda planning to go to the laundrette instead of going to Gubbio? She also made zero mention of using or ever planning to use Raffaele's washing machine. Finally, even though one of her specific stated reasons for returning to the cottage was to deal with her laundry...yet, she did not. Why is this?

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


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

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Regarding the laundry, wasn't there a load of washing in the machine at the cottage when the police arrived; just finished washing and still hot? Has anyone ever explained that? [If this has all been covered previously in the forum and I've just missed it, please ignore me!]
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Kind of validates Amanda assuming she could 'borrow' room mates clothes on demand.

I haven't read that Amanda studied very much. Did she always attend class?
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

yuppi du wrote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.



`Thankfully` she also managed to get her passport and purse before the door to Merediths room had been knocked down, before Merediths body had been discovered and before the house was sealed off as it was now a crime scene..Thankfully.


How did it become known that AK had managed to grab her passport prior to MK's body being discovered ?
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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
The "highly visible" radar beacons, apparently intended as an afterparty wardrobe malfunction prevention mechanism, were themselves a "wardrobe malfunction" (here) or a "fashion faux pas" (here).

That's all right, then.

One can learn for next time from one's faux pas.


Is Hayden Panatierre a midget ?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine. When asked about her laundry arrangements she claimed she didn't use the cottage washing machine as it didn't work. This was false since Meredith's and some of Amanda's clothes were found in the washing machine. Amanda instead claimed that she would use the laundrette. Yet this makes no sense...was Amanda planning to go to the laundrette instead of going to Gubbio? She also made zero mention of using or ever planning to use Raffaele's washing machine. Finally, even though one of her specific stated reasons for returning to the cottage was to deal with her laundry...yet, she did not. Why is this?


I like to revisit the simplest facts.

Amanda shirks her personal responsibilities (laundry, house chores, paying rent without being asked) to party instead. She also does not respect privacy boundaries of the room mates.

Edda verified phone calls of which Amanda has not recollection. How many more and to whom did Amanda make/receive?
Top Profile 

Offline smacker


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm

Posts: 399

Location: The King's Head, SW17

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
Kind of validates Amanda assuming she could 'borrow' room mates clothes on demand.

I haven't read that Amanda studied very much. Did she always attend class?


Emerald,

I think I'm right in saying that AK was not part of any specific programme and she made it up as she went along. I therefore believe that her attendance at class was at her own discretion and probably indiscreet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

I like Hayden Panatierre. She has not succumbed (so far) to the curse of young Hollywood. Plus, HP lends her name, notoriety and time to very good causes. Ecological.

This is a role she is playing. A job. Promotion is part of it.
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

OT

For the Brits ...

32 year-old Vincent Tabak arrested for the murder of architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... d-man.html
Top Profile 

Offline yuppi du


Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:57 pm

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

smacker wrote:
yuppi du wrote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.



`Thankfully` she also managed to get her passport and purse before the door to Merediths room had been knocked down, before Merediths body had been discovered and before the house was sealed off as it was now a crime scene..Thankfully.


How did it become known that AK had managed to grab her passport prior to MK's body being discovered ?



Amanda said so herself in her email. She said she managed to get her coat and bag which `Thankfully` contained her passport and purse. Its not possible to get these items after the body was discovered as everybody was ordered out the cottage and she couldn`t have done it as the door was being knocked down as she was at the entrance to the cottage when the door was knocked down. She picked up these items just after her 12:40 call to her mother (and call to her aunt if i remember correctly).

Not just the washing machine she didn`t like. She didn`t like RS`s shower which is why she used the one in the cottage in the morning...even though he cleaned her ears in his shower the night before.


One minute she likes something..then does`s not. Knox becomes bored of things very quickly.

i like germany..no i like italy. i like the guy on the train..no i like daniele. i like daniele..no i like raffy. i like raffy..no i like the drug pusher. i like studying..no i like to party. i like the washing machine..no i like the launderette. i like raffy`s shower..no i like the cottage one. i like my drugs..no i like raffy`s. i like my money..no i like yours. i like Meredith......


Amanda is an orchid. Attaches herself to others because she has no roots of her own and moves from one root to another.

Duran Duran wrote a song called `of crime and passion`.

Bride of wires
how disguise so easily cracked
saw your heart turn spade
this orchids turned to black.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Underhill wrote:
Regarding the laundry, wasn't there a load of washing in the machine at the cottage when the police arrived; just finished washing and still hot? Has anyone ever explained that? [If this has all been covered previously in the forum and I've just missed it, please ignore me!]


Yes, there was a load of Meredith's clothes and some of Amanda's in the machine. Filomena reported the clothes were still damp and the machine warm.

_________________
"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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Emerald wrote:
Kind of validates Amanda assuming she could 'borrow' room mates clothes on demand.

I haven't read that Amanda studied very much. Did she always attend class?



By all accounts Amanda was always on time or even early to all her classes and would always sit right at the front. She was described as an eager student.

_________________
"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 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:08 pm   Post subject: Teacher's Pet?   

Emerald wrote:
I haven't read that Amanda studied very much. Did she always attend class?


Emerald:

Actually...

One former prof. of Knox's in Perugia, Antonella Negri, described described Miss Knox as "diligent" and "attentive".

I think it's fair to say that whatever class or classes she attended, AK was intent on doing whatever it took to capture the attention of her instructors. I seem to remember reading that she was ALWAYS on time, if not early, for classes. I seem to remember reading AK always sat in the front row, in her classes.

Craving the attention of, and trying to flatter her instructors would be consistent with the narcissist that is Amanda Knox. As a student, she appeared to play the part of the "passionate learner", but, we as we've come to know, with Knox, it's all shadow, and no substance. Because AK charmed for her own narcissistic needs.

Remember this?:

Mrs. Negri "told the court that four days after the murder she told her class to practise their Italian by writing a letter home.

Miss Knox penned a letter to her mother in Seattle in which she said she was "confused and worried" and that as a way of distracting herself :roll: she wanted to going shopping. n-((

[Mrs. Negri] said that at the beginning of the lesson she had made reference to Miss Kercher's murder. "I saw in Amanda a reaction of discomfort*," Mrs Negri told the court. "She leant forward onto the desk and lay her head in her arms."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... alibi.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*By the way, I'm wondering if if the actual word expressed by Mrs. Negri to describe Amanda was "sconforto" and just inadequately translated here.

If so, "sconforto" does NOT mean "discomfort." "Sconforto" means "discouraged" or "disheartened."

That would be consistent with Amanda, who when writing to her friend Madison said-- NOT that she was heartbroken about Meredith's murder-- but rather that she was "down" (discouraged) about the fact that "she f'd up." In other words, DAMN IT! The MK murder didn't work out as planned!

I think she WAS disheartened (NOT SAD) because she was really NOT expecting to get caught.

la_) wasn't used to facing consequences for her actions!
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Quote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Kind of validates Amanda assuming she could 'borrow' room mates clothes on demand.

I haven't read that Amanda studied very much. Did she always attend class?

By all accounts Amanda was always on time or even early to all her classes and would always sit right at the front. She was described as an eager student.


Agreed Michael.

However I believe her only course was at the language school. A very light load and very hard to justify a whole year of one's life for, if she was staying that long.

Meredith had a way heavier workload, studying politics and economics at the main university (in Italian) the main campus of which is about 200 meters behind the language school.

Peter Quennell

Added: I think you captured the real AK above 411. Mimicking what she sees as best behavior as she is not hard-wired for that. Pete.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:58 pm   Post subject: "Special?"   

Fast Pete wrote:

Peter Quennell

Added: I think you captured the real AK above 411. Mimicking what she sees as best behavior as she is not hard-wired for that. Pete.


Pete:

From a study that was published in 2007, just a few months before Meredith's murder. Almost eerily predictive of AK...n-((

Note the description below...of a narcissistic college student who would be "likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors." KNOW ANY COLLEGE STUDENTS LIKE THAT?
It describes AK's behavior-- to a tee. eee-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College students think they're so special
Study finds alarming rise in narcissism, self-centeredness in ‘Generation Me’


NEW YORK (AP) -- Today's college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.

"We need to stop endlessly repeating 'You're special' and having children repeat that back," said the study's lead author, Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University. "Kids are self-centered enough already."

Twenge and her colleagues, in findings to be presented at a workshop Tuesday in San Diego on the generation gap, examined the responses of 16,475 college students nationwide who completed an evaluation called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006.

The standardized inventory, known as the NPI, asks for responses to such statements as "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place," "I think I am a special person" and "I can live my life any way I want to."

The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students' NPI scores have risen steadily since the current test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30 percent more than in 1982.

Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people "or auditioning on 'American Idol."'

"Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said.

The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."


Twenge, the author of "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled -- and More Miserable Than Ever Before," said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

The researchers traced the phenomenon back to what they called the "self-esteem movement" that emerged in the 1980s, asserting that the effort to build self-confidence had gone too far.

As an example, Twenge cited a song commonly sung to the tune of "Frere Jacques" in preschool: "I am special, I am special. Look at me."

"Current technology fuels the increase in narcissism," Twenge said. "By its very name, MySpace encourages attention-seeking, as does YouTube."

Some analysts have commended today's young people for increased commitment to volunteer work. But Twenge viewed even this phenomenon skeptically, noting that many high schools require community service and many youths feel pressure to list such endeavors on college applications.

Campbell said the narcissism upsurge seemed so pronounced that he was unsure if there were obvious remedies.

"Permissiveness seems to be a component," he said. "A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for."

The new report follows a study released by UCLA last month which found that nearly three-quarters of the freshmen it surveyed thought it was important to be "very well-off financially." That compared with 62.5 percent who said the same in 1980 and 42 percent in 1966.

Yet students, while acknowledging some legitimacy to such findings, don't necessarily accept negative generalizations about their generation.

Hanady Kader, a University of Washington senior, said she worked unpaid last summer helping resettle refugees and considers many of her peers to be civic-minded. But she is dismayed by the competitiveness of some students who seem prematurely focused on career status.

"We're encouraged a lot to be individuals and go out there and do what you want, and nobody should stand in your way," Kader said. "I can see goals and ambitions getting in the way of other things like relationships."

Kari Dalane, a University of Vermont sophomore, says most of her contemporaries are politically active and not overly self-centered.

"People are worried about themselves -- but in the sense of where are they're going to find a place in the world," she said. "People want to look their best, have a good time, but it doesn't mean they're not concerned about the rest of the world."

Besides, some of the responses on the narcissism test might not be worrisome, Dalane said. "It would be more depressing if people answered, 'No, I'm not special."'
is) :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17349066/ns ... al_health/
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Quote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Kind of validates Amanda assuming she could 'borrow' room mates clothes on demand.

I haven't read that Amanda studied very much. Did she always attend class?

By all accounts Amanda was always on time or even early to all her classes and would always sit right at the front. She was described as an eager student.


Agreed Michael.

However I believe her only course was at the language school. A very light load and very hard to justify a whole year of one's life for, if she was staying that long.

Meredith had a way heavier workload, studying politics and economics at the main university (in Italian) the main campus of which is about 200 meters behind the language school.

Peter Quennell

Added: I think you captured the real AK above 411. Mimicking what she sees as best behavior as she is not hard-wired for that. Pete.


I think Amanda's course in Perugia was intended to be only for one semester.

_________________
"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 beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

The University for Foreigners website (www.unistrapg.it) describes various courses of study: first level beginner, second level beginner, first level intermediate, etc. They first level beginner course lasts for a period of one month, the higher level courses last for three months. The beginning and intermediate language and culture courses cover various topics (writing, speaking, pronunciation, etc.) dependent on the course. There are 20 hours of class time per week for the lower level courses or 27 hours per week if one takes an intensive course.

So the likelihood was that Amanda had at least 20 hours of class per week and presumably, if she planned to stay in Perugia for a year, she would have taken succeedingly higher level courses as the year progressed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Solange305


Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am

Posts: 604

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

BellaDonna wrote:
OT

For the Brits ...

32 year-old Vincent Tabak arrested for the murder of architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... d-man.html


WOW. So it wasnt the creepy landlord??? Who is this guy they arrested?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.


What was Amanda going to do with the clothes she collected? I thought they were going to a festival in another town (Gubio?)

I don't believe that relationship had much more steam. It would have been over very soon. Amanda would have run through her boudoir repertoire very quickly, leaving to seek new chapters. She was loud, slovenly, obnoxious, ill-bred and bossy. Papa Sollecito was probably glad his son took an interest in the 'delights', but a suitable life long mate Amanda would not be.




Your guess is as good as mine. When asked about her laundry arrangements she claimed she didn't use the cottage washing machine as it didn't work. This was false since Meredith's and some of Amanda's clothes were found in the washing machine. Amanda instead claimed that she would use the laundrette. Yet this makes no sense...was Amanda planning to go to the laundrette instead of going to Gubbio? She also made zero mention of using or ever planning to use Raffaele's washing machine. Finally, even though one of her specific stated reasons for returning to the cottage was to deal with her laundry...yet, she did not. Why is this?


Was it ever told what exactly of AK's was in the washer? wm)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeAlibi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Posts: 1932

Highscores: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Michael wrote:
yuppi du wrote:
Michael wrote:
Emerald wrote:
According to Amanda, she awoke at Raffaele's @ 10 am. Got a plastic bag to transport dirty clothes back to her own apartment.

Question: If she had excess clothes at Raffaele's, how did they get there? Why would she need another bag to transport them back home?

Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



Emerald, no...the bag was to collect her dirty clothes 'from' the cottage. She took an empty bag to the cottage.

Yet, she left the cottage with no dirty clothes, only a mop. According to her.



`Thankfully` she also managed to get her passport and purse before the door to Merediths room had been knocked down, before Merediths body had been discovered and before the house was sealed off as it was now a crime scene..Thankfully.



Yes strange that...before Meredith has even been discovered Amanda grabs her passport. Clearly she knew she'd need it, even though there hadn't been a murder yet.



That's a new one on me. Pretty damn interesting point.

_________________
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: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

Catnip wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Did LE find the plastic bag with the dirty clothes? Nowhere have I found that Amanda described the 'dirty clothes'.



On the "According to her" front, I find that it always comes back to this:

Quote:
A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007] that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."

He also said he had warned Knox against making unfounded accusations. "We told her that it would be worse than assassination to accuse an innocent person. We explained to her what slander means in Italy and we'll see," Ghirga said.

-- "UW student implicates boss", [Seattle Times], 10 November 2007



Oh so one the masks of the assassin put upon herself was the one her own lawyer told her not to "reach for". But Manders knows best!

_________________
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 bedelia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am

Posts: 167

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -   

history11 wrote:

Mistyped: it is unreasonable to believe that she is NOT guilty

I am not a "troll". I have read this board for a while and have read the motivations report. I simply can't recall all of several hundred pages. Hmm - maybe there's something to be said for the fact that I can't even recall all of the evidence against AK and RS.

My goals in writing my first post were to

1) understand the opinion of those on this board of the true events of the night

a) a sex game gone wrong is not an option (I don't consider a sex game to include rape by three people...). robbery, humiliation and intimidation of meredith seems more likely to me. however, this more likely scenario doesn't mean that AK and RS ever entered the room. Given the lack of defensive wounds and lack of dna evidence in the room (other than that being reevaluated), I wanted to know whether the posters question the three-on-one story. If they don't, that's fine - there is poorly collected dna against RS and LCN dna against AK

2) note that the reevaluation of two pieces of questionable evidence will only fuel the camp that believes they are not guilty

a) i simply hope that the reporting done following the appeal (regardless of the outcome) mentions the gigantic amount of circumstantial evidence. It is easy to imagine the appeal reports saying "despite the court determining that dna evidence was unreliable, the convinction stands and AK and RS will serve ~15 years". It is frustrating to me - as I am sure it is to you - that the pieces of evidence that are most damning (the lies and inconsistencies) have faded into the background in how the press reports this story. A simple story reporting that RS said "we went out that night" and later "AK left my place at 9" and later didn't deny that she was there the whole night alone is so damning. Where are these facts every time there is a blog or news report? Some percentage of people are looking for the truth and some are looking for what will happen to AK. The press does a good job of appeasing the latter


1. I think everyone is curious about what happened that night and why; especially the Kerchers. We may never know. We can only speculate. The fact that Meredith has so few defensive wounds reflects the fact that one person was holding her (Rudy Guede). The other two were holding the knives. It's very easy to stab someone if that person is being held and leave no trace. Also refer here to the CSI effect on jurors and criminals. http://www.economist.com/node/15949089

2. The innocent groupies are only having their tether let out a few feet. They will be reigned back in by the appeal confirmation if not by the reevaluation results. But this time they will be reigned in a little bit tighter than before having gotten the reevaluation they asked for and it not doing them any good. I don't think they will have their sentence reduced (at least I hope not). The only reason Guede had his sentence reduced was because he chose the "fast track" trial which automatically gives a discount.

As far as the real American press are concerned, the story is over. Morning shows are using "the story of the innocent abroad" as a puff piece to fill the airwaves. These are largely paid for by the PR company and are easy to spot because of their repeated talking points: "No evidence in the room", "drifter confessed", "railroad job from hell", "No motive" etc. etc. Best to ignore the drivel and just read here. It gets pretty boring hearing the same old thing with no details like, "I've reviewed the entire case and if it was America this case would never have been brought to trial." "The lead prosecutor was under indictment and convicted of abuse of office." Blah, blah, blah…
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 13 of 14 [ 3425 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 


28,891,637 Views