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


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

Forum rules

XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22, 11 - FEB 20, 12

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 24 of 24 [ 5798 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Author Message

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
ResIpsa wrote:
As some of you know, I got banned at PMF.org for questioning why capealadin had been banned, and Peggy lied through her teeth on that (stolen) board and deleted posts to her heart's content to try to make it appear to those too stupid to know better that no such thing had ever happened.

Since then, Peggy Ganong sent me a couple of emails after she banned me from PFM.org for questioning why capealadin (and others) had been banned for no apparent reason, and she commented specifically about why she banned capealadin (totally bogus in my opinion). I don't think that Peggy has the right to slag off capealadin as she has so I'd like to post Peggy's BS emails here for others to see and evaluate.

Would that be acceptable?


Maybe I was only one not aware of your banning.

In any event, my suggestion would be to either:
1) PM ergon/Michael and ask *them* about posting what you say you have rather than asking members
OR
2) just post it and allow Ergon/Michael to do whatever they desire.

I am only a grateful member, not Admin, or Mod
BUT, AFAIK, this Board is not on permanently moderated status so your posts need not be pre-approved.
(as is status of 'elsewhere')

Michael just made a long post about the subject of posting private message/emails on the previous page. I forgot how to link to a post but it is on the previous page...lol.. There is also a separate thread on the split now which you can find in the Rabbit Hole :)

ETA: Of course, just when I say 'previous page' there is a new one. So Michael's post is now 2 pages back (page 22) ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
--- snip ---

ETA:
Thanks again to cape for initially questioning the money trail, and prompting Ch-Ah-Lie/Jim to make such a 'brucie-like' fool of himself with his 'whopper' version of events concerning money deposited, etc.

--- snap ---


I'll second that. "They" don't like to talk about the deposit at all, which is always a red flag. The Melloxes know about everything that is discussed online and they would have immediately reacted.

Do we have a source for the $8,000 that Amanda supposedly had when she went to Perugia? To spend $4,000 in just 6 weeks seems crazy.


stint7 wrote:
--- snip ---

Ch-Ah-Lie/Jim's backpedal excuse is now..."Well that is what I was told by someone who should know about the deposits".

Uhhhhh, Ch-Ah-Lie/Jim.....errrr...are you referring to Mell-Ass ??
Mel-Ass is your source for everything else, as everyone knows.

--- snap ---


In Charlie Wilkes' original message from March 28th, 2011 he confirms that his source is Chris Mellas:
hazymoon wrote:
What was the deposit of $562 to do with, made that very weekend? Was it a paycheck? Did she meet up with Lumumba that same weekend and get paid?


Charlie Wilkes wrote:
I don't know. I asked Chris M. about this a long time ago and he's not sure.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

ResIpsa wrote:
As some of you know, I got banned at PMF.org for questioning why capealadin had been banned, and Peggy lied through her teeth on that (stolen) board and deleted posts to her heart's content to try to make it appear to those too stupid to know better that no such thing had ever happened.

Since then, Peggy Ganong sent me a couple of emails after she banned me from PFM.org for questioning why capealadin (and others) had been banned for no apparent reason, and she commented specifically about why she banned capealadin (totally bogus in my opinion). I don't think that Peggy has the right to slag off capealadin as she has so I'd like to post Peggy's BS emails here for others to see and evaluate.

Would that be acceptable?


Hi ResIpsa,

No, I don't want you posting up anyone's emails. However, you are free to outline the reason/s Peggy gave you for Cape's banning. I am rather tired of Peggy doing things 'to' people behind their backs and never giving them a reason why. It is about time she started to come at people with her knife from the front, rather then embedding it in their back and then walking away without saying a word.

When we used to Mod the board together, Peggy used to love the silent banning method (just ban, without telling the membership or telling the person in question why), they were just 'disappeared'. I didn't really like it much, but I never kicked off a fuss because almost always, it was just FOAKer trolls she was banning that way. That's not cool when you start extending that practice to REAL members, as was done multiple times recently. There's a word for that...'cowardly' comes to mind.

ETA: I also find it interesting, that she banned you. THEN, after having banned you, still felt you 'worthy' enough to email you several times to try and explain why she had done something to somebody ELSE. That is ...bizarre.

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


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max wrote:
Michael just made a long post about the subject of posting private message/emails on the previous page. I forgot how to link to a post but it is on the previous page...lol.. There is also a separate thread on the split now which you can find in the Rabbit Hole :)

ETA: Of course, just when I say 'previous page' there is a new one. So Michael's post is now 2 pages back (page 22) ;)


Max, you are absolutely correct.
I did read Michael's well spoken response to all that was alledged against him in the E-Mails.
He indeed did mention as you state.
In that post, Michael said that he would have preferred the E-Mails were run by him first.

So I stand corrected in what I said about just posting it as my #2 above, and suggest complying with my #1 suggestion to ResIpsa.

I have editedthat post of mine.
Again apologies to Michael, ResIpsa and fellow members for my not seeing that sentence from Michael.
sh-))

If anyone else wants to re-read, easy find is as max said, page 22 or just scan to
Fri, 10feb2012 @ 0910
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:
In Charlie Wilkes' original message from March 28th, 2011 he confirms that his source is Chris Mellas


Yeah. Chris Mellas was also the source of the infamous story, made to the WSH, about Amanda doing cartwheels in the police station because some unknown policeman told her to. Not long after, Knox took the stand in court and made him a liar.

The man will say any lie he thinks may float. The rule of thumb is, if Chris Mellas declares something and says it is true and he is the only source for the claim, then you can be certain it isn't true.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I also remember way back on Haloscan, when Chris Mellas arrived and started promising to throw us pearls. One of these pearls turned out to be that Meredith wasn't murdered with a straight edged blade, but with a serated knife (and so ergo, it couldn't have been Amanda with the kitchen knife, or Raffaele with his pocket knife). Of course, that turned out to be completely false as well. He also threw in a lot of false leads about the flat downstairs.

Most interestingly of all, he stated Amanda first phoned him and Edda when she had just gotten out of the shower and found the crapola in the loo had 'vanished'. She was in a panic, in tears, she thought someone may have been in the apartment with her and described the crime scene. She told them she was was going to get Raffaele from his place. That's right, you read right...Chris Mellas told us that Amanda phoned them BEFORE she went back to Raffaele's that morning.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:
Do we have a source for the $8,000 that Amanda supposedly had when she went to Perugia? To spend $4,000 in just 6 weeks seems crazy.


Just a few facts. It must be remembered, Amanda's money was not meant to cover only her trip to Perugia, but also her trip to Germany, where she blew off her internship. After she'd finished in Germany (two weeks I think it was), she went straight from there to Perugia.

And as I recall it, her planned stay in Perugia was for a semester, not the entire year. Although of course, at the end of the semester she'd have had if she'd wanted it, the option to stay for another semester, or even just another term. But, I think the original plan was to spend a semester in Italy and then return to Seattle to work a job through the rest of the year in preperation for her restarting full-time studies back at the UW.

Any back-up money the parents had would have been for emergencies ONLY. Amanda was expected to earn and pay her own way. Any request for money from Amanda would have gotten a lot of questions from back home. After Perugia, that money then would probably have been used as an emergency fund to cover her studies at UW. That money was not there for Amanda to dip into whenever she felt like it and she would have had to have gone to them for it first.

I don't believe the BS that the parents wired her any money. Why the hell would they be wiring her money when she had over 4000 in her account already? Even if it was only one or two thousand she had, whilst that may not have been enough to cover her full stay in Perugia, it was plenty enough to keep her going in the near term and didn't warrant her being wired money from her parents' EMERGENCY fund at that time. There was no 'emergency'. Wilkes likes to claim that Amanda wouldn't have stolen any money because she didn't 'need' any money. Well, we can turn that around...if Amanda didn't 'need' money, then why were her parents supposedly wiring her money? You can't have it both ways. In any case, I think we can take the claim that Amanda was wired money as being a myth.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell quoting Charlie Wilkes wrote:
I don't know. I asked Chris M. about this a long time ago and he's not sure.


If he wasn't sure, then it didn't happen. Sending someone money in a foreign country, especially someone one is responsible for and out of an emergency fund to boot, is an event that one remembers. That isn't something one forgets or becomes unsure about.

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

HenryWilcox wrote:
Hi Guys, first post. I am trying to track the cash. Lovering screwed up big time if this pans out. How was it that the 20 + judges never said a word about the money? How could they miss Knox depositing Meredith's cash? We can't speculate here. We need proof that Knox took the money. This would be a breakthrough.

It looks like Knox had plenty of money in the account to pay the rent so what was the motive for taking it? Just to aggravate Meredith?


Consider the Meredith/Amanda argument Rudy overheard, this is my opinion.

No banks open due to the holiday. ATMs have daily limits. Amanda wanted to 'borrow' the money to be replaced before the rent was paid. The way I understand it, Filomena was the unofficial banker for the roomies. Laura was out of town for a few more days, so the entire rent could not have been collected to pay the landlord.

The overheard admonishment from Meredith to Amanda was that she was rude, untidy and immature about paying her obligations without being asked. Since Amanda paid rent for the month of Sept before moving in, October and Nov would have been the only references for the argument.

Unless he has some untapped gift for prose, there is no way in H*LL Rudy would have been able make up those details. The night of the crime is the ONLY time it would have happened.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
Ava wrote:
Amanda Knox's trial by autobiography
By Iain Hollingshead
7:30AM GMT 18 Feb 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... raphy.html

This article is not so bad, even though John Kercher is called Peter Kercher. I don't think I've read that poem by Amanda yet, or maybe I forgot... ;)
...

"...Not only is the book scheduled for publication early next year, they will also have to tread the fine line of polishing Knox’s prose without losing her voice. Although Knox is said to have harboured long-standing dreams of becoming a writer, extracts from her prison diaries – some of which were given to investigators in an attempt to clear her name and were later leaked to newspapers – suggest that she has a little way to go. One poem read: “Do you know me? Open your eyes and see that when it is said I am an angel, or I am a devil, or I am a lost girl, recognise that what is really lost is: the truth!” "


Thanks Ava, interesting article. Here is another one of Knox's poems published in December 2009 in Corriere dell'Umbria. I'm quoting from one of Jools' old posts.

Quote:
"I have only one life": New verses from Amanda.

The title recalls the words spoken by her before the judges of the court. Knox other than the winning story has also written a poem.

If the short story and the transposition narrative is of what perhaps Amanda Knox saw that night (though obviously hard to take as a confession), there is also this one poem signed by Marie Pace which yet from the title it transpires a deep pain of who is perhaps already conscious of having lost her life in a penitentiary cell. "I have only one life," is the title, which seems to be paired with the "Give me back my life" at the end of closing arguments in court.

Here is the full text, this time also unpublished:

"This is the only life I have and I follow like tracks of scraps from the dawn. This life admired by the various ambitions of my mind, like a register that holds between the arms the psychology the anthropology and history of art. This life that I feel like a knot around the shoulders, like a valley between the breasts, filled by tea fruit-gardens, public libraries, football (soccer) grounds, covered by granite blocks. This life that remembers vaguely and forgets easily, thus in a way categorizing the time as out moments, naked moments, smiling moments, asleep moments, letting them slide between them. This life in which I float in the center, like a zero in the infinite series of positive and negative experiences. This is the only life I have, and not even I can disentangle the blinking moments, with a ball of twenty one strands of Christmas light which shines, like a star, when you insert the plug.”


[You can read the full post HERE]

So, who likes Knox’s incoherent, ragged, jumbled, confused prose passed as poetry? It reveals an ill-educated mind incapable of clear understanding and unambiguous communication, IMO.



Thanks for digging that up, Guermantes! Still a little way to go, I suppose...I know this could be funny, but it leaves me rather speechless.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

How about a new thread guys?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell quoting Charlie Wilkes wrote:
I don't know. I asked Chris M. about this a long time ago and he's not sure.


If he wasn't sure, then it didn't happen. Sending someone money in a foreign country, especially someone one is responsible for and out of an emergency fund to boot, is an event that one remembers. That isn't something one forgets or becomes unsure about.


My personal opinion is that we went down a false trail laid by Charlie Wilkes/Chris Mellas a long time ago.

We have incomplete information provided by a not neutral party. As someone who went away to military school at the age of 11 I can tell you, the number of times, I got money from my mom and my dad didn't know about it :) Stepdads are less likely to know about their grown children's finances, and Curt Knox, grandma, and aunt in Germany are also other sources of funds.

I am going by Rudy's DNA on the outside of Meredith's purse. That is all we know, and if we have anything else in one of the case files, that's great.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I do not agree. He tried to cut off the trail of AK taking the money... by posting her acct transactions.

And also: RG's dna was on the outside of that purse... like it was only picked up by him.
I also believe Meredith's stuff was in her other bag that night, not that one. So I am still quite curious following the 'money trail'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
How about a new thread guys?



Yes, I was just earlier today thinking about doing so. I'll create a new thread tonight...c. midnight GMT.

_________________
"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 Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:27 pm   Post subject: Bunnies   

I lost track a long time ago of all the things one was not supposed to talk about or use: astrology, homoeopathy, Conspiracy Theory, mumbo-jumbo ;) bunnies, kitties, and emoticons.

But my daughter got this birthday card recently with her favourite, and so I say this in solidarity with our friends, that one can never have enough bunnies

Image
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
I am going by Rudy's DNA on the outside of Meredith's purse. That is all we know, and if we have anything else in one of the case files, that's great.


It was precisely that DNA in his fingerprints (the placement of those fingerprints), that actually acquitted him of the theft charge in his trial.

If money had been wired to Knox, even if Chris Mellas didn't know about it at the time it was sent (if, as you're suggesting, it was sent by the mother or some other relative), he certainly would have known about it afterwards when the whole subject of money became relevant to the case. So, with respect to your story of being sent money by your mother whilst at military school...you weren't later facing trial for murder. So, in Amanda's case, little secrets like that would quickly have no longer remained secrets...Chris Mellas would have been told.

It also doesn't change the fact that Amanda did not need to be sent any money. Neither does it change the fact, that in order to explain the money, Amanda herself has never claimed that she was sent money.

Therefore, a lot of explaining is still required.

_________________
"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 Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
I do not agree. He tried to cut off the trail of AK taking the money... by posting her acct transactions.

And also: RG's dna was on the outside of that purse... like it was only picked up by him.
I also believe Meredith's stuff was in her other bag that night, not that one. So I am still quite curious following the 'money trail'.


I am not belittling anyone's theory, and understand why it can be so interesting as to possibilities. Unless those questions were asked by the investigators though, what evidence do we have?

Fingerprints, DNA on Meredith's other purse? On her desk drawer?

A good question though? Who stole the money? Rudy or Amanda? I'm open to either.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

There were things that Rudy said, that I believe. Not everything, but the argument about the money. The towels, that when he ran away, Meredith was dressed.

Chahlie said he had the bank records. Where did that extra money come from? If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

It's common sense. How was Rudy in the cottage alone, to steal the money? How would he have known where to look? How would he even have known the rent HADN'T been paid? It was already the 1st of the month.

Kox didn't want extra money on her, that couldn't be explained. She wasn't paid by Patrick, and the amount of $562.00 is a strange amount to be sent. Knox's family were not helping her financially. She had to work three jobs to go to Italy.

And, she had been there for 6 weeks only. With $4,450 still in her bank account, there was no need for EMERGENCY funds.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And, dg is correct. Chahlie posted about the transactins to show Knox DIDN'T need to steal. That she had a healthy balance.

Which is a conundrum. Because that belies the fact that Knox was sent money.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
Fingerprints, DNA on Meredith's other purse? On her desk drawer?



'Other' purse?

The fingerprints and DNA that were found were in the victim's blood. For example, the fingerprints (Rudy's) on the handbag were in Meredith's blood. In that mixture, Rudy also left his DNA. This is the time DNA is most likely to mix...when the subject comes into contact with a fluid, in this case blood. It's much more difficult to leave DNA in a dry environment and in those cases friction is required. In the same way, if someone has blood on their hands, they are more likely to leave fingerprints, since the blood acts like an ink. In short, Rudy left the fingerprints and DNA he did because he had blood on his hands and then touched items with those hands (the pillow, the handbag). If the others touched similar items without blood on their hands, then they could easily have done so and left neither fingerprints nor DNA.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
I also remember way back on Haloscan, when Chris Mellas arrived and started promising to throw us pearls. One of these pearls turned out to be that Meredith wasn't murdered with a straight edged blade, but with a serated knife (and so ergo, it couldn't have been Amanda with the kitchen knife, or Raffaele with his pocket knife). Of course, that turned out to be completely false as well. He also threw in a lot of false leads about the flat downstairs.

Most interestingly of all, he stated Amanda first phoned him and Edda when she had just gotten out of the shower and found the crapola in the loo had 'vanished'. She was in a panic, in tears, she thought someone may have been in the apartment with her and described the crime scene. She told them she was was going to get Raffaele from his place. That's right, you read right...Chris Mellas told us that Amanda phoned them BEFORE she went back to Raffaele's that morning.


Knox was in SUCH a panic, before going to Raf? Not in such a panic that she remembered to take a mop. Not in such a panic, that she *cleaned * up the spill, which actually didn't need mopping, because it had dried. In such a panic, that she had brekkie before mentioning the odd, and SCARY happenings.

Did Knox call Meredith at that time? How much time elapsed before calling anyone else?

Does it make sense that Knox calls The U.S., long distance, rather than some local calls, like to the police, for instance?

Mellas is a liar. He and Raf were lost in translations, trying to keep a story straight.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Btw, I wouldn't be surprised at ANYTHING Skeptical Bystander says or does.

She showed her true colours, when sending me vicious, rude emails, when the split occurred, and I told her I would post on both boards.

Shrug. I wasn't afforded the courtesy of a reason for my banning. THAT would have been , at least honest and upfront.

Doing the dirty BEHIND someone's back is itwo faced and cowardly. It does make me wonder, what OTHER emails were about, sent to other members, about other people.

The people spoken about, like vicious whispering, have no way to defend themselves.

I call it shameful, and underhand. From someone, who's so quick to play victim. wtf)

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

At this point, I don't believe anything could change my mind about the evidence that's been presented. The only thing that could do that would be if someone, so far unknown, came forward to confess with coherent knowledge of the crime scene with a cohesive time line.

There was no foreign, so far unidentified DNA. It was not possible for the crimes committed unassisted against Meredith.

Rudy has not told all he knows about the crimes, neither has Amanda. Does a re-trial start from square one with Rudy having the option to testify? What percentage of cases are sent by the SC to be retried?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Cape wrote:
Knox was in SUCH a panic, before going to Raf? Not in such a panic that she remembered to take a mop. Not in such a panic, that she *cleaned * up the spill, which actually didn't need mopping, because it had dried. In such a panic, that she had brekkie before mentioning the odd, and SCARY happenings.


Not only in a panic, but claiming she was going to get Raffaele. BUT, at the time that call was made, Raffaele was already there and Amanda's shower, if it had ever happened, had happened long before, along with crapolagate.

Mellas realised his mistake and backtracked, claiming he must have 'misremembered' what Amanda had told them on the phone (which just so happened to match what she later told the police and others). This after, when he first related the story, his saying that due to the time of the call combined and Amanda's panic, he'd never forget what she said on the phone.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
There was no foreign, so far unidentified DNA.


No foreign 'profiles', no.

Except for on a butt in the ashtray in the kitchen. Female. It's never been identified.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Right. Was Chris smoking as well? Knox also misremembered making the call to Edda. Which Edda recalled, and that made Knox a liar.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Btw, I wouldn't be surprised at ANYTHING Skeptical Bystander says or does.

She showed her true colours, when sending me vicious, rude emails, when the split occurred, and I told her I would post on both boards.

Shrug. I wasn't afforded the courtesy of a reason for my banning. THAT would have been , at least honest and upfront.

Doing the dirty BEHIND someone's back is itwo faced and cowardly. It does make me wonder, what OTHER emails were about, sent to other members, about other people.

The people spoken about, like vicious whispering, have no way to defend themselves.

I call it shameful, and underhand. From someone, who's so quick to play victim. wtf)



I remember, back when Peggy and I were Moderating the TCWMB together. Peter Quennell and I had just had a rather big row, where Pete had been Pete at his worst (but on steroids) and I wanted to kick his arse (he was out of line, to say the least). Peggy gave me a little lecture telling me that I should always remember that as a Mod I have a 'button', a delete and a ban button, and the other person has no such button. In the future, I would often remember that little lecture with no little irony, many times noting, especially recently, that it wasn't me that needed the lecture and the one that served it has long forgotten her own wisdom.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander must have * misremembered*. But then, you know Michael, for some, it's different strokes for different folks.

I'M not on a power trip. I have stood up for Skeptical Bystander on other threads, including this one. Because she wasn't there to defend herself.

It says a LOT more about Skeptical Bystander than it does about me. Colour me Skeptical as to HER motives.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And, I'm done discussing her. She's simply not worth it. I take it from whence it comes. And it comes from a person who plays dirty. rul-)

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I used to avoid reading the JREF and IIP threads altogether. Who knows, or cares, what people say about you? Of course, people who say they don't care, usually do, but there you have it. I don't, but have a serious aversion to lies being spread, and an greater one to letting them stand.

There has been some speculation about my role here by people on IIP. Some idiot is saying that I'm on 'retainer' by Peter Quennell, and part of a plot to take over the board after being appointed moderator.

For the record:

- Never met PQ.
- Not on 'retainer' by anyone, let alone in receipt of money from anyone concerning this case.
- Michael asked me to be the moderator, and I refused that at first.
- I'm only on a month's probation, and can be fired at any time :)

Some people have all the time in the world, or, are big frogs in a little pond.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I'm very annoyed with having to go back and forth between the sites (PMF) to look up stuff that was discussed.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

That's okay Ergon. You'll know when you've hit the big time with the FOAKers when they start accusing you of planning to write a book on the case :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
I'm very annoyed with having to go back and forth between the sites (PMF) to look up stuff that was discussed.


Whilst I don't have that problem (I never go 'there', so no back and forth for me), I can understand how it must be annoying for those who do.

_________________
"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 Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
I used to avoid reading the JREF and IIP threads altogether. Who knows, or cares, what people say about you? Of course, people who say they don't care, usually do, but there you have it. I don't, but have a serious aversion to lies being spread, and an greater one to letting them stand.

There has been some speculation about my role here by people on IIP. Some idiot is saying that I'm on 'retainer' by Peter Quennell, and part of a plot to take over the board after being appointed moderator.

For the record:

- Never met PQ.
- Not on 'retainer' by anyone, let alone in receipt of money from anyone concerning this case.
- Michael asked me to be the moderator, and I refused that at first.
- I'm only on a month's probation, and can be fired at any time :)

Some people have all the time in the world, or, are big frogs in a little pond.



When you were announced as a moderator (I first missed it), I was busy reading about the appeal and the PMF split, so I forgot to say thank you for doing the job and a big thank you to Michael for taking such good care of the board.

I think it is a good idea to have more than one moderator, given the Tuesday rule and the latest invasion of trolls. Thanks to both of you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Honestly, what are the chances the SC will mandate a retrial? the only panel that found Amanda ng was the appeal. Rudy's SC ruling indicated others were participants in the crimes. Stopping on the verge of actually naming Amanda and Raff.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
--- snip ---

The overheard admonishment from Meredith to Amanda was that she was rude, untidy and immature about paying her obligations without being asked. Since Amanda paid rent for the month of Sept before moving in, October and Nov would have been the only references for the argument.

--- snap ---


What exactly did Rudy Guede say? I only remember he overheard Meredith calling Amanda a "drugged-up tart" or something like that. Is there more information available? I have to revisit the topics posted in the In my own words category again. It's always enlightening.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
There were things that Rudy said, that I believe. Not everything, but the argument about the money.

I agree. In any case he knew the money was gone even though he apparently took nothing from the flat. Amanda and Raffaele stated to police nothing had been stolen and Amanda makes a suspicious deposit that slightly exceeds the rent money. Nobody knows where this money comes from. It suggests she took it.



capealadin wrote:
Chahlie said he had the bank records. Where did that extra money come from?

I believe his exact words were that he had been shown or had seen the bank statements, not that he had them.



capealadin wrote:
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

Love it!



capealadin wrote:
It's common sense. How was Rudy in the cottage alone, to steal the money? How would he have known where to look? How would he even have known the rent HADN'T been paid? It was already the 1st of the month.

I absolutely agree. If he was there looking for money, why would he leave Laura's and Amanda's room untouched and why wouldn't he take anything from Filomena's room? It doesn't add up.



capealadin wrote:
Kox didn't want extra money on her, that couldn't be explained.

My thoughts exactly! It also makes me wonder if Raffaele knew she had taken the money? Amanda could have taken the rent money any day between the withdrawal of the money from Meredith's bank and the murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
That's okay Ergon. You'll know when you've hit the big time with the FOAKers when they start accusing you of planning to write a book on the case :)


That's funny, Michael.. considering there are some people who truly believe they can tell people they shouldn't write about this case. I, all innocent like, said once on another site that it would make a great novel and movie, and was told we should keep ourselves pure or some such nonsense.

If I planned on writing such a book, (which I am noT) it would be a psychological thriller on the interaction between two young women on a cusp of their lives. What fate drew them together? Why are we so drawn into their story? It would make a great novel, and an even greater movie. Instead of which all we have now are hacks and gatekeepers. Pish!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
--- snip ---

One of these pearls turned out to be that Meredith wasn't murdered with a straight edged blade, but with a serated knife (and so ergo, it couldn't have been Amanda with the kitchen knife, or Raffaele with his pocket knife).

--- snap ---

So that's the reason why many people still comment that Amanda wouldn't use a "bread knife" to kill anyone. What an absurd thought, she must be innocent. I always wondered about where the "bread knife"-theory came from.



Michael wrote:
--- snip ---

Most interestingly of all, he stated Amanda first phoned him and Edda when she had just gotten out of the shower and found the crapola in the loo had 'vanished'. She was in a panic, in tears, she thought someone may have been in the apartment with her and described the crime scene. She told them she was was going to get Raffaele from his place. That's right, you read right...Chris Mellas told us that Amanda phoned them BEFORE she went back to Raffaele's that morning.

--- snap ---


Would that still be available online? When did he say that? I've first read about the phone call she conveniently forgot to her mother on TJMK, but I've never heard this one before. How unfortunate that many interviews are not available anymore on youtube. I should have saved them. Kate Mansey's two articles have been taken offline as well, the ones where she writes about Raffale Sollecito telling her that they were at a party together with a friend.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Do we have a source for the $8,000 that Amanda supposedly had when she went to Perugia? To spend $4,000 in just 6 weeks seems crazy.


Just a few facts. It must be remembered, Amanda's money was not meant to cover only her trip to Perugia, but also her trip to Germany, where she blew off her internship. After she'd finished in Germany (two weeks I think it was), she went straight from there to Perugia.

And as I recall it, her planned stay in Perugia was for a semester, not the entire year. Although of course, at the end of the semester she'd have had if she'd wanted it, the option to stay for another semester, or even just another term. But, I think the original plan was to spend a semester in Italy and then return to Seattle to work a job through the rest of the year in preperation for her restarting full-time studies back at the UW.

Any back-up money the parents had would have been for emergencies ONLY. Amanda was expected to earn and pay her own way. Any request for money from Amanda would have gotten a lot of questions from back home. After Perugia, that money then would probably have been used as an emergency fund to cover her studies at UW. That money was not there for Amanda to dip into whenever she felt like it and she would have had to have gone to them for it first.

I don't believe the BS that the parents wired her any money. Why the hell would they be wiring her money when she had over 4000 in her account already? Even if it was only one or two thousand she had, whilst that may not have been enough to cover her full stay in Perugia, it was plenty enough to keep her going in the near term and didn't warrant her being wired money from her parents' EMERGENCY fund at that time. There was no 'emergency'. Wilkes likes to claim that Amanda wouldn't have stolen any money because she didn't 'need' any money. Well, we can turn that around...if Amanda didn't 'need' money, then why were her parents supposedly wiring her money? You can't have it both ways. In any case, I think we can take the claim that Amanda was wired money as being a myth.

Neither do I. I am just surprised that they feel the need to say something. If he would have kept quiet, there still would be the doubt, but now he convinced me they would like us to drop the issue. Why? Because they have something to hide.



Michael wrote:
Nell quoting Charlie Wilkes wrote:
I don't know. I asked Chris M. about this a long time ago and he's not sure.


If he wasn't sure, then it didn't happen. Sending someone money in a foreign country, especially someone one is responsible for and out of an emergency fund to boot, is an event that one remembers. That isn't something one forgets or becomes unsure about.

My thoughts exactly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Honestly, what are the chances the SC will mandate a retrial? the only panel that found Amanda ng was the appeal. Rudy's SC ruling indicated others were participants in the crimes. Stopping on the verge of actually naming Amanda and Raff.


I have no idea what the chances are, but I am concerned their decision will not be solely based on the legality of Hellmann's acquittal. After Conti and Vecchiotti and the Hellmann's motivations report, I fear forces behind the scenes, working hard to make sure the love birds don't have to go back to prison and pay for their crime. Dr. Sollecito is probably more motivated than Amanda's family, because his son resides in Italy. We don't hear much about the Sollecitos anymore, but the latest news about a book deal for Raffaele makes me think they are not too concerned about the Supreme Court. Everybody moved on as if nothing happened.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:


When you were announced as a moderator (I first missed it), I was busy reading about the appeal and the PMF split, so I forgot to say thank you for doing the job and a big thank you to Michael for taking such good care of the board.

I think it is a good idea to have more than one moderator, given the Tuesday rule and the latest invasion of trolls. Thanks to both of you.


Thanks, Nell. That there is a split is sad, and it's a pity because I think both sites have something different to offer, including of course, for .net, that anyone can visit and say what they like without being banned (trolls excepted, the ones who disregard the Tuesday rule or come only to disrupt the board)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

According to the Groupies, it's an absolute CINCH to have clambered up the wall of the cottage. YES, because someone saw the Cirque du Soleil show in New York :)

And YET, we have a pic of a tall man, looking fit, trying (not able) to hoist himself up, hanging on with what one can only describe as a death grip. With a helping ( rescuing) hand held out.

In fact, many groupies asserting that they could EASILY gain access. nw)

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:

What exactly did Rudy Guede say? I only remember he overheard Meredith calling Amanda a "drugged-up tart" or something like that. Is there more information available? I have to revisit the topics posted in the In my own words category again. It's always enlightening.


Today, my grand daughter ask how old I was. I couldn't remember; had to do the calculator real quick.

My point..... Sometime my memory is fuzzy about certain things; yet some of the oddest things stick there.

At one point, Rudy mentioned Meredith verbally attacking Amanda's immaturity about not paying her share of rent and sundry expenses without being asked and not doing her share of basic chores in the flat. There were several points Rudy could only have heard that night.

There is also the statements Amanda made of what she heard while sitting at the dining table.

Too many specific details from Rudy and Amanda which could not have been fed by the interrogators.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:


When you were announced as a moderator (I first missed it), I was busy reading about the appeal and the PMF split, so I forgot to say thank you for doing the job and a big thank you to Michael for taking such good care of the board.

I think it is a good idea to have more than one moderator, given the Tuesday rule and the latest invasion of trolls. Thanks to both of you.


Thanks, Nell. That there is a split is sad, and it's a pity because I think both sites have something different to offer, including of course, for .net, that anyone can visit and say what they like without being banned (trolls excepted, the ones who disregard the Tuesday rule or come only to disrupt the board)


Hi Ergon,

Everyone probably already noticed that I've tried to stay out of it, even though I was very very tempted to write a response to Peter Quennell's post regarding the split on .org. I refrained, because I don't regularly post on .org anymore since a very long time, even long before the split, so I felt if I would join the discussion on such a hot topic I would only stir things up, which wasn't my intention. I hope for everyone to move on.

But I will say that Peter Quennell's opinion about Michael left me speechless, not least because he described him as some kind of weirdo and spiced his posts up with privileged information I don't think should have been published. Despite him cautioning us about who to trust, at this point I would be more concerned to trust him with private information than Michael. So his post had the opposite effect on me and I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels that way. For this same reason I wasn't thrilled to find Peggy's private messages being posted on this board. I don't think it is right and I think they should be deleted. Just my two cents.


Last edited by Nell on Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
According to the Groupies, it's an absolute CINCH to have clambered up the wall of the cottage. YES, because someone saw the Cirque du Soleil show in New York :)

And YET, we have a pic of a tall man, looking fit, trying (not able) to hoist himself up, hanging on with what one can only describe as a death grip. With a helping ( rescuing) hand held out.

In fact, many groupies asserting that they could EASILY gain access. nw)



Cape, you made my day. What a great and truthful description of the photo we all saw. I am laughing tears over your description.

Image

Image
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Nell wrote:

What exactly did Rudy Guede say? I only remember he overheard Meredith calling Amanda a "drugged-up tart" or something like that. Is there more information available? I have to revisit the topics posted in the In my own words category again. It's always enlightening.


Today, my grand daughter ask how old I was. I couldn't remember; had to do the calculator real quick.

My point..... Sometime my memory is fuzzy about certain things; yet some of the oddest things stick there.

At one point, Rudy mentioned Meredith verbally attacking Amanda's immaturity about not paying her share of rent and sundry expenses without being asked and not doing her share of basic chores in the flat. There were several points Rudy could only have heard that night.

There is also the statements Amanda made of what she heard while sitting at the dining table.

Too many specific details from Rudy and Amanda which could not have been fed by the interrogators.



I forget as well, I am just not sure it was Rudy who said something about her chores. I believe it was Meredith's mother who testified during the first trial, that her daughter had complained about Amanda because of it. Meredith had also told her English friends, I believe. Maybe Rudy did as well and I missed it.

What statements do you refer to from Amanda about what she heard while sitting at the dining table?

As cape already noted in one of her posts, I too believe parts of Rudy's story are true. The verbal argument between the two women over the missing rent money being probably one of them.
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 Feb 21, 2012 12:06 am   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD!   

picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: I am now locking this thread. Please continue the discussion in the brand new Main Discussion thread: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 24 of 24 [ 5798 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,448,290 Views